{"id": "20917__0_000", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1873, Guy Adams v. Charlie Frank Robertson.\nMr. Waldrop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [0.0, 20.667], "stop_times": [20.667, 35.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_001", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere were 206,255 class members like petitioners who had fraud claims for substantial money damages as a result of Liberty National exchanging their cancer policies in August of 1986, beginning in August of 1986.\nThe money damage claims of these plaintiff class members were for fraudulently inflated premiums both as a result of the new policy being more expensive and the shifting of policyholders without their knowledge into higher, more expensive age bands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [35.934, 44.202, 62.731], "stop_times": [44.202, 62.731, 81.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 35.934}, "reply_to": "20917__0_000", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_002", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Mr. Waldrop, you are here before the Court asking this Court to decide a Federal due process issue, and whether the Federal Constitution requires an opt-out provision for plaintiffs in the class, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [81.765], "stop_times": [105.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.765}, "reply_to": "20917__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_003", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [105.67], "stop_times": [106.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.67}, "reply_to": "20917__0_002", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_004", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And can you show us today or point to a place in the record in this case where that issue was raised by you before the Alabama supreme court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [106.221], "stop_times": [120.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.221}, "reply_to": "20917__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_005", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes.\nIn our brief on page 21--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [120.541, 120.911], "stop_times": [120.911, 124.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.541}, "reply_to": "20917__0_004", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_006", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "The blue brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [124.144], "stop_times": [126.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 124.144}, "reply_to": "20917__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_007", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--The blue brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [126.166], "stop_times": [127.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 126.166}, "reply_to": "20917__0_006", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_008", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "At page 21.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [127.366], "stop_times": [128.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 127.366}, "reply_to": "20917__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_009", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Twenty-one, we start our discussion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [128.978], "stop_times": [130.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 128.978}, "reply_to": "20917__0_008", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_010", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Are you talking about the blue brief in this Court or in the other court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [130.937], "stop_times": [133.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.937}, "reply_to": "20917__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_011", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Oh, I'm sorry.\nThe Court... I thought Justice O'Connor was asking about the court... the Alabama--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [133.64, 133.891], "stop_times": [133.891, 138.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.64}, "reply_to": "20917__0_010", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_012", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I'm just asking you what document you're referring to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [138.004], "stop_times": [140.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.004}, "reply_to": "20917__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_013", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [140.175], "stop_times": [140.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.175}, "reply_to": "20917__0_012", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_014", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Is there some document we can look at in the record here before us, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [140.345], "stop_times": [144.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.345}, "reply_to": "20917__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_015", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [144.997], "stop_times": [145.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.997}, "reply_to": "20917__0_014", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_016", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--are you referring to something--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [145.207], "stop_times": [147.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.207}, "reply_to": "20917__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_017", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [147.14], "stop_times": [147.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 147.14}, "reply_to": "20917__0_016", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_018", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--that isn't in the briefs but would be in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [147.32], "stop_times": [150.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.32}, "reply_to": "20917__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_019", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, I'm referring to the briefs to the Alabama supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [150.132], "stop_times": [153.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.132}, "reply_to": "20917__0_018", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_020", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And would they now be in the record before this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [153.194], "stop_times": [155.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.194}, "reply_to": "20917__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_021", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [155.906], "stop_times": [156.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.906}, "reply_to": "20917__0_020", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_022", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Okay, and can you tell us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [156.306], "stop_times": [158.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.306}, "reply_to": "20917__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_023", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "If you start on page 21, and then on page 23 of our brief we state that the minimum due process requires that class members be given the right to opt out, to exclude themselves from the class, and there we begin talking about the decision of Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [158.097], "stop_times": [175.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.097}, "reply_to": "20917__0_022", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_024", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, what were the questions that you raised, the legal issues and the claims in the Alabama supreme court?\nI thought there were three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [175.678, 181.673], "stop_times": [181.673, 182.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.678}, "reply_to": "20917__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_025", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [182.694], "stop_times": [183.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.694}, "reply_to": "20917__0_024", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_026", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "You raised three issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [183.832], "stop_times": [185.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 183.832}, "reply_to": "20917__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_027", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes, we did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [185.304], "stop_times": [185.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.304}, "reply_to": "20917__0_026", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_028", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And one of those issues was that because there was no opt-out provision for the class it violated the Alabama constitutional right to a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [185.885], "stop_times": [197.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.885}, "reply_to": "20917__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_029", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "We did argue that before the Alabama supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [197.592], "stop_times": [199.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.592}, "reply_to": "20917__0_028", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_030", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Okay.\nThat was one issue that you raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [199.765, 199.995], "stop_times": [199.995, 201.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.765}, "reply_to": "20917__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_031", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "That was one issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [201.606], "stop_times": [202.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.606}, "reply_to": "20917__0_030", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_032", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And there were two others, but neither of them appeared to me on reading them to raise a Federal due process violation like the failure to have an opt-out provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [202.687], "stop_times": [214.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.687}, "reply_to": "20917__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_033", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, we felt like we raised it with sufficient clarity, because, for example, the respondents' brief, both class counsel in their very first... the class counsel raised it as one of their statement of issues, and then, when you would look at their brief, for example, in their summary of argument, their very first page starts out by saying the mandatory class and class action settlement on a no-opt-out basis was proper and does not violate constitutional guarantees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [214.685], "stop_times": [248.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.685}, "reply_to": "20917__0_032", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_034", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "All right, but we do know, I guess, or will you concede that the Alabama supreme court did not address this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [248.406], "stop_times": [254.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.406}, "reply_to": "20917__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_035", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [254.42], "stop_times": [254.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.42}, "reply_to": "20917__0_034", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_036", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Do you, yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [254.811], "stop_times": [257.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.811}, "reply_to": "20917__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_037", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [257.052], "stop_times": [258.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.052}, "reply_to": "20917__0_036", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_038", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Did it or did it not?\nYou can answer that yes or no and then explain.\nYou can say that and then explain what you would like to explain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [258.344, 259.415, 261.045], "stop_times": [259.415, 261.045, 263.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.344}, "reply_to": "20917__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_039", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--No, the Alabama supreme court did not directly address the no-out, opt-out issue in regard to due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [263.396], "stop_times": [272.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.396}, "reply_to": "20917__0_038", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_040", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [272.541], "stop_times": [272.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.541}, "reply_to": "20917__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_041", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "They did cite the Shutts opinion, but they cited it merely for the fact that a class action was a type of joinder.\nWe felt like it was raised with compelling clarity because class counsel responded to it for some 20 pages in their brief.\nThe Liberty National responded to it for some 29 pages in their brief.\nSo we felt like the issue was in fact thoroughly briefed to the Alabama supreme court, and they chose not to address it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [272.892, 282.359, 292.185, 297.01], "stop_times": [282.359, 292.185, 297.01, 305.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 272.892}, "reply_to": "20917__0_040", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_042", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And you did not raise it in any of your claimed issues before that court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [305.084], "stop_times": [310.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.084}, "reply_to": "20917__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_043", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, we felt that we did because of our subheading on page 23 of our brief, when we stated that minimum due process required the right to opt out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [310.008], "stop_times": [319.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.008}, "reply_to": "20917__0_042", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_044", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "So you refer us now to pages 21 and 23 of your brief to the Alabama supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [319.946], "stop_times": [325.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.946}, "reply_to": "20917__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_045", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes.\nTwenty-one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [325.72, 326.18], "stop_times": [326.18, 327.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 325.72}, "reply_to": "20917__0_044", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_046", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Was your brief that specific?\nWhen you recharacterized what was in it a moment ago I thought you said that you had claimed in there that the lack of opt-out did not violate any constitutional provision, and now you refer specifically to due process.\nDid you say in the brief that it does not violate Fourteenth Amendment due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [327.172, 328.844, 340.863], "stop_times": [328.844, 340.863, 345.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 327.172}, "reply_to": "20917__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_047", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, what we said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [345.107], "stop_times": [347.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.107}, "reply_to": "20917__0_046", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_048", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, were you that explicit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [347.147], "stop_times": [348.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.147}, "reply_to": "20917__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_049", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, we were explicit in saying it violated due process in citing the Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [348.649], "stop_times": [355.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 348.649}, "reply_to": "20917__0_048", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_050", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "No, did you expressly say, the lack of the opt-out does not violate Fourteenth Amendment due process?\nI mean, was that statement contained--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [355.664, 362.027], "stop_times": [362.027, 363.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.664}, "reply_to": "20917__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_051", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [363.749], "stop_times": [363.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.749}, "reply_to": "20917__0_050", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_052", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--in page 23?\nI guess your position was that it would violate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [363.97, 364.508], "stop_times": [364.508, 366.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.97}, "reply_to": "20917__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_053", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [366.981], "stop_times": [368.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.981}, "reply_to": "20917__0_052", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_054", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Or vice versa.\nDid you state that explicitly in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [368.011, 369.003], "stop_times": [369.003, 370.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.011}, "reply_to": "20917__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_055", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, we stated it in our head note, Justice Souter, when we said minimum due process requires an opt-out, and then we were discussing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [370.765], "stop_times": [378.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.765}, "reply_to": "20917__0_054", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_056", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But I mean, that... all I want to know is that statement, minimum due process requires an opt-out, was in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [378.97], "stop_times": [383.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 378.97}, "reply_to": "20917__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_057", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [383.585], "stop_times": [383.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.585}, "reply_to": "20917__0_056", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_058", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Okay.\nBut it was in the brief consistently on pages 23 and 24, referring to the jurisdictional right of a plaintiff who is absent from the State.\nIs that the argument you're making here?\nI thought you were making quite a different argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [383.944, 384.204, 393.399, 394.892], "stop_times": [384.204, 393.399, 394.892, 396.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.944}, "reply_to": "20917__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_059", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, we're making the argument here that Shutts requires an opt-out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [396.555], "stop_times": [401.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.555}, "reply_to": "20917__0_058", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_060", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes, but you never raised that point.\nThat is to say, as I read every single sentence on pages 23 and 24 and 25, which I have in front of me, every time that you refer to it you talk about the rights.\nYou say, in Shutts the trial court asserted jurisdiction over nonresident class members in a class suit.\nThen you quote it.\nThen you go on to talk about, this action does not provide absent class members the opportunity to remove themselves.\nThe U.S. Supreme Court similarly held that the State wishes to bind an absent plaintiff, et cetera.\nAnd I can't find anywhere here the quite different argument that you are now making, which I take it is an interesting question, about whether people who are within a State have a right to be opted out.\nIf you're making the argument about absent plaintiffs, I guess it was decided in Shutts, and you're certainly right about that one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [401.947, 403.758, 415.458, 421.525, 422.704, 429.199, 433.473, 446.452], "stop_times": [403.758, 415.458, 421.525, 422.704, 429.199, 433.473, 446.452, 452.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.947}, "reply_to": "20917__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20917__0_061", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, two things, Justice Breyer.\nFirst, the very last sentence we made on page 25, where we state that the United States Supreme Court clearly held that if a State wishes to bind an absent plaintiff, and our term, absent plaintiff, we believe in Shutts means residents and nonresidents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [452.365, 456.349], "stop_times": [456.349, 473.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.365}, "reply_to": "20917__0_060", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_062", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But it certainly didn't in Shutts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [473.532], "stop_times": [474.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.532}, "reply_to": "20917__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_063", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice, we believe that Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum does, in fact, say that absent plaintiff in fact refers to residents and nonresidents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [474.732], "stop_times": [491.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 474.732}, "reply_to": "20917__0_062", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_064", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But it doesn't say that in the brief, and moreover, the clause you didn't quote says it's our view that it has to provide minimal procedural due process protection.\nIt requires absent class members be given the right to opt out, which is the point that you're making in this section of the brief, so where in the brief do you make the claim which you're now making that resident class members have to be given the right to opt out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [491.004, 498.849], "stop_times": [498.849, 513.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.004}, "reply_to": "20917__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20917__0_065", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, our view is that on page 23, when we said in our head note about minimum due process, we were referring across the board.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [513.52, 523.216], "stop_times": [523.216, 523.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.52}, "reply_to": "20917__0_064", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_066", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Is there a word in the brief anywhere that says it's across the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [523.967], "stop_times": [526.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.967}, "reply_to": "20917__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20917__0_067", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, only the head note, Justice Breyer, on page 23.\nWe have... of course, in our petitioners we have residents and nonresidents in our group.\nWe believe that Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum in fact states that it applies to residents and nonresidents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [526.208, 530.642, 537.484], "stop_times": [530.642, 537.484, 549.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.208}, "reply_to": "20917__0_066", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_068", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, let's just suppose that we don't agree with you that it dealt with non-State residents and furthermore that we conclude that the question you want this Court to address on the Due Process Clause and an opt-out requirement for residents of the State was not cleanly presented by you below, and that the Alabama supreme court did not address it.\nNow, let's say we get that far in our analysis.\nIs that failure jurisdictional or is it simply a prudential concern we might have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [549.973, 575.86, 579.452], "stop_times": [575.86, 579.452, 588.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.973}, "reply_to": "20917__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_069", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, we, of course, believe it would be a prudential concern, because we believe that the Alabama supreme court did not want to look at Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum because in our situation we had objectors who were nonresidents.\nIf you look at Shutts, and if you... the most narrow reading in Shutts would have declared at the very least there would have been opt-out rights granted to nonresidents.\nFor example, if I could refer you to the joint appendix in volume 1, on page 238 and 239 you would see, for example, at the trial court level there were notice of opt-outs filed, for example, at the... in the Barbour County Circuit Court and citing Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts.\nThere were also pleadings filed, for example on behalf of Mississippi residents saying that the fraud had occurred in Mississippi, and they were... and the policies were delivered in Mississippi.\nSo we believe that the reason that the Alabama supreme court did not, in fact, want to look at Shutts even in the most narrow sense is because opt-out rights would have surely had to be granted in that type of situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [588.027, 608.323, 618.569, 648.719, 660.557], "stop_times": [608.323, 618.569, 648.719, 660.557, 675.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.027}, "reply_to": "20917__0_068", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_070", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "How many members of this class were from out of Alabama?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [675.486], "stop_times": [681.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.486}, "reply_to": "20917__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_071", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, we have... the objectors, the petitioners are 543 people, and we have 30 petitioners who are nonresidents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [681.34], "stop_times": [690.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.34}, "reply_to": "20917__0_070", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_072", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But you have 400,000 in the class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [690.977], "stop_times": [692.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 690.977}, "reply_to": "20917__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_073", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "That's correct, and... well, as far as being nonresidents, that particular number was not available to us, although we know that these policies were sold in seven or eight States, so we know that the number has to be in the ten of thousands of nonresidents, because when the class was certified in Barbour County it was... it covered all the States, and the problem was, that was one of the problems in the Barbour County Circuit Court.\nThere was no discovery that was ever conducted in any of the other States.\nNow, in regard to the type of money damages that the absent plaintiffs have, in addition to the fraudulently inflated premiums there were money damage claims in this case for the denial of certain medical benefits, for chemotherapy, radiation, and drugs outside the hospital.\nThere were money damage claims for mental anguish, and there were money damage claims for punitive damages.\nThe class--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [692.84, 718.155, 722.369, 743.353, 749.286], "stop_times": [718.155, 722.369, 743.353, 749.286, 750.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.84}, "reply_to": "20917__0_072", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_074", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "How many claims for money damages of this type have gone to judgment in Alabama?\nIs there any case other than the McAllister one, where there was a thousand dollars compensatory, a million punitive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [750.177, 756.63], "stop_times": [756.63, 763.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.177}, "reply_to": "20917__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_075", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--There were... there have been two cases that have gone to judgment.\nThere was the McAllisters case which we tried.\nThere... which was a thousand dollar... there was a thousand dollars in compensatory damages and a million dollars in punitive damages.\nThere was one other case that was tried that was a verdict for the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [763.295, 767.579, 771.061, 778.528], "stop_times": [767.579, 771.061, 778.528, 781.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.295}, "reply_to": "20917__0_074", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_076", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But that was upset, wasn't it?\nOh, there was... it was actually tried.\nThere was one that was, pretrial, thrown out and then sent back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [781.52, 783.323, 784.732], "stop_times": [783.323, 784.732, 788.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.52}, "reply_to": "20917__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_077", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, there were two cases that actually went to a jury verdict.\nThe McAllister case was then appealed to the Alabama supreme court, and it was affirmed on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [788.244, 791.837], "stop_times": [791.837, 796.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.244}, "reply_to": "20917__0_076", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_078", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And in any of the individual cases that have been brought so far, have any of those sought anything other than monetary relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [796.652], "stop_times": [803.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.652}, "reply_to": "20917__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_079", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "There were 32 cases outside the class when the class was certified on March 10, 1993.\nTo my knowledge, all of those cases that had been filed sought money damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [803.736, 812.063], "stop_times": [812.063, 818.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.736}, "reply_to": "20917__0_078", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_080", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "How about the two that were... there were two brought by class counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [818.217], "stop_times": [821.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.217}, "reply_to": "20917__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_081", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Class counsel filed on behalf of five individual clients, and in each one of those there was a claim for money damages.\nWhat we believe is... in regard to Shutts, where Shutts says that... and when it establishes that an absent plaintiff who has a claim for money damages is entitled to the due process right of opt out, what we believe is this.\nIn trying to determine when there is a claim for predominantly money damages, we believe that the test should be three things.\nFirst is, we believe that the Court should look at the cause of action that is constitutionally protected.\nIn this case, it's a fraud cause of action.\nWhat is the traditional remedy for a fraud cause of action?\nThe Alabama--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [821.587, 831.363, 850.157, 856.952, 865.678, 868.57, 872.402], "stop_times": [831.363, 850.157, 856.952, 865.678, 868.57, 872.402, 873.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.587}, "reply_to": "20917__0_080", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_082", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "When we look at that, as we do after the fact in a case like this, should we bear in mind which of the fraud damages can be satisfied out of these special funds which have been set up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [873.283], "stop_times": [886.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.283}, "reply_to": "20917__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_083", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, Justice Souter, these special funds were declared to be punitive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [886.853], "stop_times": [893.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.853}, "reply_to": "20917__0_082", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_084", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, regardless of how they might otherwise be characterized, and I want to hear what you say, but is it at least a subject that we ought to look to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [893.288], "stop_times": [902.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.288}, "reply_to": "20917__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_085", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "We think the most unreliable thing to look to is what was settled.\nWhat did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [902.124, 908.499], "stop_times": [908.499, 909.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.124}, "reply_to": "20917__0_084", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_086", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Okay, but how about the answer to my question?\nJust yes or no.\nDo we look to whether the fraud damages, or some of them, can be satisfied out of the funds that have been set up?\nDo we consider that at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [909.098, 910.58, 911.552, 918.157], "stop_times": [910.58, 911.552, 918.157, 919.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.098}, "reply_to": "20917__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_087", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [919.529], "stop_times": [920.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.529}, "reply_to": "20917__0_086", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_088", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Okay.\nYou say that we look to the complaint as it was going in and not... that the settlement, it's the claims that were stated and given up and not the terms of the settlement.\nIs that what your position is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [920.408, 920.838, 931.647], "stop_times": [920.838, 931.647, 932.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 920.408}, "reply_to": "20917__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_089", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "No, Justice Ginsburg.\nWhat I was saying is, first we think you should look at what is the traditional remedy for the cause of action that's being asserted?\nThe traditional remedy... not looking at the complaint.\nWhat is the traditional remedy for a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [932.866, 933.887, 941.171, 944.285], "stop_times": [933.887, 941.171, 944.285, 946.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.866}, "reply_to": "20917__0_088", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_090", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But how... I think that's up to what the individual wants.\nOne individual might say, I've been defrauded by this insurance company.\nI want nothing more to do with this insurance company.\nI want money in my pocket and I'll find another insurer.\nAnother plaintiff might say, well, I'd like to have my insurance contract reformed so it will get rid of the form... fraud, and so the claim for fraud, it can be regarded as neuter in that respect.\nOne individual might say, I've got a good common law claim for money for fraud, and another one could say, I like this contract, some things about it, so I just want it to be reformed to get rid of the fraud.\nSo how can you say that just the fraud inevitably is money?\nIt could be whatever the individual wants, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [946.457, 950.878, 955.192, 958.064, 960.835, 974.715, 987.354, 992.619], "stop_times": [950.878, 955.192, 958.064, 960.835, 974.715, 987.354, 992.619, 996.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.457}, "reply_to": "20917__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_091", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, no in this sense, that the remedy... the Alabama courts have held in regard to fraud in regard to an insurance policy, they have held numerous times that you can affirm the contract and sue for money damages, or rescind the contract and sue for money damages.\nThat is what has been traditionally held is the remedy.\nThe second thing we think that the Court should look at is, what is the absent plaintiff being asked to give up?\nWhat is the predominant thing the absent plaintiff... in this case, the predominant thing is money damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [996.28, 1017.444, 1020.697, 1028.282], "stop_times": [1017.444, 1020.697, 1028.282, 1034.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.28}, "reply_to": "20917__0_090", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_092", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, in particular, punitive damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1034.698], "stop_times": [1037.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.698}, "reply_to": "20917__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_093", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "In particular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1037.132], "stop_times": [1037.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1037.132}, "reply_to": "20917__0_092", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_094", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Now, what is your response to the argument from the other side that punitive damages are not substantively anybody's entitlement, and it's really up to the State to decide the conditions in which they may be available, and if the State class action rules don't make them available, that's certainly within the power of the State to decide?\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1037.9, 1055.683], "stop_times": [1055.683, 1056.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.9}, "reply_to": "20917__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_095", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, Alabama law appears to us to be in conflict.\nHenderson v. Alabama Power Company, that struck down a $250,000 legislative cap on punitive damages because it violated the right to trial by jury under the Alabama constitution, so they in fact said that the cause of action was constitutionally protected.\nHowever, in another case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1056.834, 1061.278, 1078.502], "stop_times": [1061.278, 1078.502, 1080.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.834}, "reply_to": "20917__0_094", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_096", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But that's a question of State law, it's not a question of Federal due process, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1080.212], "stop_times": [1083.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.212}, "reply_to": "20917__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_097", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1083.895], "stop_times": [1084.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.895}, "reply_to": "20917__0_096", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_098", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Even on your own argument.\nIsn't that what you just said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1084.366, 1086.058], "stop_times": [1086.058, 1087.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.366}, "reply_to": "20917__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_099", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1087.918], "stop_times": [1088.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.918}, "reply_to": "20917__0_098", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_100", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "It's just a question of State law whether it be constitutional or statutory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1088.149], "stop_times": [1091.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.149}, "reply_to": "20917__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_101", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, no, sir, Justice Souter.\nI believe that once you're given the cause of action and it's vested, as in this case, then you are entitled to due process in the manner--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1091.201, 1094.286], "stop_times": [1094.286, 1105.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.201}, "reply_to": "20917__0_100", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_102", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Who is it vested in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1105.005], "stop_times": [1106.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.005}, "reply_to": "20917__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_103", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--It may be taken away from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1106.094], "stop_times": [1106.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.094}, "reply_to": "20917__0_102", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_104", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "You were just talking about the punitive side of it.\nI understand the compensatory side, that every member of the class relinquished that, but the punitive, you were about to say, I think, that there's something else going on in Alabama, that there's some... from the courts coming... that not all 400,000 people are going to get a million dollars punitive damages.\nYou were telling us about some change in Alabama--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1106.284, 1108.417, 1128.109], "stop_times": [1108.417, 1128.109, 1131.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.284}, "reply_to": "20917__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_105", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, all... what I was saying is, in Johnson v. Life of Georgia, in response to Justice Souter, was in that case they said that once you got the award they could take half of it away and give it to the State, and so I really think Alabama law there is saying that constitutionally you have the cause of action, and it's discretionary with the jury as to whether or not you can... whether or not you get punitive damages.\nBut once you get the award, it can be taken away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1131.332, 1156.497], "stop_times": [1156.497, 1160.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.332}, "reply_to": "20917__0_104", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_106", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, I wish I knew more about Alabama law, and one reason I don't is because the Alabama court never addressed any of this stuff.\nAny... I mean, you know, I'm coming back to the jurisdictional point.\nEven if it is, as you say, prudential, and I guess that depends on the terms of the 1257(a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1160.821, 1168.036, 1172.591], "stop_times": [1168.036, 1172.591, 1177.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.821}, "reply_to": "20917__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_107", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1177.086], "stop_times": [1178.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1177.086}, "reply_to": "20917__0_106", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_108", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--which requires that the issue... final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant, and I guess that... the issue is whether that means is drawn in question here in the petition for cert, or was drawn in question in the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1178.367], "stop_times": [1200.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.367}, "reply_to": "20917__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_109", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1200.63], "stop_times": [1201.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.63}, "reply_to": "20917__0_108", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_110", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Is that the distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1201.04], "stop_times": [1202.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.04}, "reply_to": "20917__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_111", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, yes.\nJustice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1202.831, 1204.443], "stop_times": [1204.443, 1205.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.831}, "reply_to": "20917__0_110", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_112", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Let's assume it means in the State court, and therefore let's assume that our cases that have dismissed some of these cases are all based on discretionary judgments.\nWhy isn't a valid basis for answering that discretion that I have no idea what the State courts think of these issues that you're raising, and they might have interpreted their State statute differently had they seen these issues, had they addressed them, and had they seen Federal constitutional problems?\nIsn't that a good prudential reason for us not to jump into the mess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1205.182, 1212.528, 1226.106], "stop_times": [1212.528, 1226.106, 1229.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.182}, "reply_to": "20917__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_113", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--No, sir, because we felt that this issue was, in fact... we had been raising the opt-out from the very beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1229.769], "stop_times": [1239.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.769}, "reply_to": "20917__0_112", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_114", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I think Justice Scalia's question is, assuming that we were to decide that you did not properly raise it, and the question then is, is it jurisdictional so we must dismiss this petition, or is it prudential, and he says is it a good prudential reason that you did fail to raise the question before the supreme court of Alabama?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1239.675], "stop_times": [1258.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.675}, "reply_to": "20917__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_115", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, we believe certainly that it is... it is not jurisdictional.\nWe believe that it was, in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1258.218, 1261.739], "stop_times": [1261.739, 1263.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.218}, "reply_to": "20917__0_114", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_116", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Mr. Waldrop, it's an important question.\nWould it not be better... since you admit that you've just got snippets in your brief.\nYou don't have it in the questions presented... to have the Alabama court face this important constitutional question squarely so that we could then be a court of review, instead of saying the Alabama courts didn't touch this.\nMaybe you raised it, but hardly in the clearest way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1263.232, 1265.883, 1269.957, 1285.107], "stop_times": [1265.883, 1269.957, 1285.107, 1288.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1263.232}, "reply_to": "20917__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_117", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, in the class counsel's brief they in fact stated it as an issue presented, and so we believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1288.679], "stop_times": [1298.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.679}, "reply_to": "20917__0_116", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_118", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Which brief are we talking about now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1298.597], "stop_times": [1300.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.597}, "reply_to": "20917__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_119", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, we're talking about the brief, Appellee Charlie Frank Robinson.\nIf you will look on page 11 of their brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1300.749, 1306.522], "stop_times": [1306.522, 1309.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1300.749}, "reply_to": "20917__0_118", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_120", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "A brief in the Alabama supreme court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1309.584], "stop_times": [1311.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.584}, "reply_to": "20917__0_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_121", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes.\nIf you will look at the brief of class counsel on page 11, issues presented for review, issue 4, whether an opt-out provision is required by the due process and our trial-by-a-jury guarantees of the U.S. and Alabama Constitution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1311.267, 1311.607], "stop_times": [1311.607, 1327.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.267}, "reply_to": "20917__0_120", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_122", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Isn't that referring... I've already asked this--\n--To the--\n--I don't know what your answer is, though.\nIt's referring to... there seem to be two claims you're making.\nOne is, Alabama court, if you characterize this as anything other than a money claim you're going to run afoul of the United States Constitution in respect to absent plaintiffs.\nCite, Shutts.\nI read that as what you were talking about on pages 23 and 24.\nThen I found another claim on 21 On 21 you say, look, given these absent plaintiffs out there who have a claim under Shutts for due process, don't, please, characterize this as if it were nonmoney.\nNow, maybe that's the same argument, or maybe it's two, but I don't see anything at all, not a word, that seeks to generalize the Shutts claim to the problem of the resident non... plaintiff, which is a totally different problem, or quite a different problem.\nNow, what is your response to that?\nI'm not... I'm... you'd say maybe I'm wrong, or you'd say it doesn't matter.\nIt has to be one of those two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1327.265, 1329.028, 1329.548, 1331.081, 1334.955, 1348.833, 1349.933, 1354.547, 1370.816, 1388.119, 1390.431, 1394.702], "stop_times": [1329.028, 1329.548, 1331.081, 1334.955, 1348.833, 1349.933, 1354.547, 1370.816, 1388.119, 1390.431, 1394.702, 1396.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.265}, "reply_to": "20917__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20917__0_123", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, all I can say is that we felt like, starting on page 21, that we had raised it, and we felt like we had made that argument, particularly by our head note.\nIt is absolutely true that we argued the right to trial by jury to the Alabama supreme court very strongly, because that is something that they look at.\nWe felt that the Alabama supreme court would be much more interested in that issue, but we did, in fact, raise the no-opt-out, and we felt that we had raised that issue.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1396.234, 1407.51, 1416.737, 1426.775], "stop_times": [1407.51, 1416.737, 1426.775, 1427.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.234}, "reply_to": "20917__0_122", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_124", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "May I ask you one question on the merits, which I... which I... how we get to this.\nIt just... is this your view... I'm trying to understand how this works, but suppose that we have a defendant who is being asked by different groups of plaintiffs to do inconsistent things, the classic case where you don't get an opt-out, and each of those plaintiffs adds a clause to his complaint saying, in addition I'd like punitive damages.\nWhat's supposed to happen then?\nIn your view, is the addition of the words punitive damages... if you go to each of the plaintiffs, by the way, and say is it important to you, they say, sure is.\nIt might be a lot of money.\nSo is the simple addition of the word, punitive damages to a class action that plainly is not an opt-out class suddenly converted, making it an opt-out class, or making it a no-opt-out class?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1427.095, 1430.798, 1454.245, 1456.886, 1464.03, 1465.553], "stop_times": [1430.798, 1454.245, 1456.886, 1464.03, 1465.553, 1480.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.095}, "reply_to": "20917__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20917__0_125", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, yes, and for this reason in Alabama it would be an unliquidated claim, and it would... that would be the case everywhere, but secondly in Alabama if the settlement fund in the class was sufficient to punish the defendant, then opting out would serve you no good under Green Oil v. Hornsby, because if you opted out, if there was already a sufficient fund, the Green Oil curtain would come down in Alabama.\nSo we believe that under Alabama law that punitive damages in a class action, you should have the opt-out right.\nI mean, I'm aware from other jurisdictions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1480.553, 1510.633, 1519.99], "stop_times": [1510.633, 1519.99, 1522.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.553}, "reply_to": "20917__0_124", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_126", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, isn't it true that it doesn't have to be all one thing or another?\nYou want to have a class for punitive damages, but then you're... doesn't Alabama, in addition to having part of the award go to the State, have some sense that you don't punish the same defendant 5,000 times?\nIs there none of that in Alabama case law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1522.462, 1524.952, 1540.202], "stop_times": [1524.952, 1540.202, 1543.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.462}, "reply_to": "20917__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_127", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--There is in Green Oil, v. Hornsby.\nOne of the things that you look at is successive punitive damage awards.\nIn this particular case, for example, in the settlement 99.9 percent of the absent plaintiffs don't share in the funds for punitive damages.\nThe respondents make the argument about punitive damages, but in this case 99 percent of them are not going to share at all in anything to do with punitive damages.\nThey traded their punitive damages claims for nothing.\nSo in this case opting out in regard to punitive damages would clearly be the thing to do, because they were traded for nothing, and so that is the reason in this particular case that, as we say, they all had money damages, compensatory, they had money damages, punitive damages.\nIf I might reserve the remaining time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1543.094, 1546.376, 1550.159, 1562.457, 1571.673, 1575.955, 1595.76], "stop_times": [1546.376, 1550.159, 1562.457, 1571.673, 1575.955, 1595.76, 1598.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.094}, "reply_to": "20917__0_126", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_128", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Very well, Mr. Waldrop.\nMr. Roberts, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1598.11, 1599.402], "stop_times": [1599.402, 1601.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.11}, "reply_to": "20917__0_127", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_129", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI would like to begin with the jurisdictional issue.\nEven in the section of the brief that the petitioners cited that was under the heading claiming a right to a jury trial under the Alabama constitution, Alabama law requires a statement of issues that are to be presented to the supreme court and limits the issues to those that are stated.\nThe Federal Due Process Clause issue is not in those statement of issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1601.455, 1606.628, 1609.75, 1625.611], "stop_times": [1606.628, 1609.75, 1625.611, 1629.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.455}, "reply_to": "20917__0_128", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_130", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "You mean a statement of issue at the beginning of the brief, Mr. Roberts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1629.194], "stop_times": [1632.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.194}, "reply_to": "20917__0_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_131", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and there was also a subheading to make it clear what the constitutional issue was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1632.917], "stop_times": [1638.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.917}, "reply_to": "20917__0_130", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_132", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Do you know, Mr. Roberts, what happens if the Alabama supreme court sees a Federal constitutional issue when the briefs have been presented to them in the fashion you describe, and the Federal constitutional issue is not... what does the Alabama supreme court do then, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1638.67], "stop_times": [1655.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.67}, "reply_to": "20917__0_131", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20917__0_133", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I don't know as a matter of practice.\nIf it went on to address it, of course, then it would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1655.841, 1657.243], "stop_times": [1657.243, 1659.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.841}, "reply_to": "20917__0_132", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_134", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1659.995], "stop_times": [1660.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.995}, "reply_to": "20917__0_133", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20917__0_135", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Could be presented here, but it quite clearly did not do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1660.185], "stop_times": [1663.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.185}, "reply_to": "20917__0_134", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_136", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I take it under their rules they're free to go ahead and address it if they see a Federal constitutional issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1663.247], "stop_times": [1667.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.247}, "reply_to": "20917__0_135", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20917__0_137", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, which I think partly explains the reason it was in the respondent's briefs before the Alabama supreme court, because it was decided by the trial court in Alabama, and since we went ahead and addressed it because it certainly couid have been addressed by the Alabama supreme court, but that doesn't cure the appellant's failure to raise it properly before the Alabama supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1667.791], "stop_times": [1687.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.791}, "reply_to": "20917__0_136", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_138", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Did... you did bring up Ticor Title I think, didn't you, in your... in a long footnote in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1687.493], "stop_times": [1694.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.493}, "reply_to": "20917__0_137", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_139", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes.\nI'm not disputing that we addressed the Federal due process issues in our brief.\nI'm explaining that we did so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1694.967, 1695.327, 1699.261], "stop_times": [1695.327, 1699.261, 1701.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.967}, "reply_to": "20917__0_138", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_140", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1701.451], "stop_times": [1701.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.451}, "reply_to": "20917__0_139", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_141", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--because the trial court did, because that doesn't cure... and the Alabama supreme court is certainly free to say, under our rules we're not addressing any such question because we don't see it presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1701.842], "stop_times": [1710.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.842}, "reply_to": "20917__0_140", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_142", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Mr. Roberts, I think the respond... neither... one respondent made no response to the petition of certiorari.\nAn individual respondent did and did not make any jurisdictional point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1710.029, 1718.524], "stop_times": [1718.524, 1724.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.029}, "reply_to": "20917__0_141", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_143", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes.\nThat was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1724.648, 1724.999], "stop_times": [1724.999, 1725.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.648}, "reply_to": "20917__0_142", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_144", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And so what do we do about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1725.68], "stop_times": [1727.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.68}, "reply_to": "20917__0_143", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_145", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--That was a mistake, certainly, not to file the opposition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1727.991], "stop_times": [1731.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.991}, "reply_to": "20917__0_144", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_146", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Oh, indeed.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1731.264, 1731.434], "stop_times": [1731.434, 1731.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.264}, "reply_to": "20917__0_145", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_147", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--and not to mention it in the one that was filed.\nWe think, however, that that doesn't waive the objection because it's jurisdictional under Rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1731.674, 1733.818], "stop_times": [1733.818, 1738.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.674}, "reply_to": "20917__0_146", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_148", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Could you address that question, whether it is jurisdictional or prudential?\nThis Court has not quite solved that, has it, as yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1738.59, 1742.473], "stop_times": [1742.473, 1746.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.59}, "reply_to": "20917__0_147", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20917__0_149", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, it... it did, and then it sort of stepped back away from it.\nI thought it was decided in 1836 in Justice Story's opinion in Crowell v. Randell.\nMore recent opinions have said that it's unsettled, it may be prudential, and the Court's been careful not to decide that question, usually saying the prudential reasons are sufficient for us not to find a waiver, and we think that's the case here as well.\nThe most obvious one is the federalism concerns.\nIf this Court were to address the Federal due process issue without the Alabama supreme court having been afforded an opportunity to do so, it will be reversing a State judgment when, for example, the Alabama supreme court may have adopted a different construction of the rule that might have avoided the Federal issue, or it may have... or at least it should be given the opportunity to address it in the first instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1746.795, 1749.386, 1754.572, 1767.07, 1770.142], "stop_times": [1749.386, 1754.572, 1767.07, 1770.142, 1790.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.795}, "reply_to": "20917__0_148", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_150", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "A prudential reason on the other side, on the other hand, Mr. Roberts, is that our own processes make it important that counse do raise these problems at the outset, and the fact that it wasn't raised in the brief in opposition frankly induces me to say that as a prudential matter, if we're going to be serious about our demands that these issues be presented in the BIO and prevent the waste of our time, we should say whatever prudential considerations there are on the other side has been washed out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1790.058], "stop_times": [1819.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.058}, "reply_to": "20917__0_149", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_151", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1819.954], "stop_times": [1820.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.954}, "reply_to": "20917__0_150", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_152", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--by the failure to raise it in a timely fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1820.325], "stop_times": [1823.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.325}, "reply_to": "20917__0_151", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_153", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--I don't think the federalism concerns and the Alabama supreme court's opportunity to address the validity of its rules in the first instance under the Federal Constitution should suffer simply because of a mistake by counsel in not filing an opposition to certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1823.017], "stop_times": [1836.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.017}, "reply_to": "20917__0_152", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_154", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, Arizona can, you know, after our opinion on the merits, should we find--\n--Alabama.\nI'm sorry, Alabama.\nShould--\n[Laughter]\nArizona has enough troubles.\nShould we find that it is not jurisdictional the State can proceed to patch up its law to meet any objections that our opinion might have.\nI mean, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1836.537, 1840.419, 1841.129, 1842.2, 1845.202, 1843.97, 1846.143, 1859.253], "stop_times": [1840.419, 1841.129, 1842.2, 1845.202, 1843.97, 1846.143, 1859.253, 1859.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.537}, "reply_to": "20917__0_153", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_155", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "It's... well, it's also a concern for this Court in its decisional processes just to make sure another reason, prudential, for having a requirement that the issue be raised is that a full record be developed on that.\nWe don't have that here.\nThere are a lot of issues in which there's disagreement about the record, a lot of things we don't know about with respect to some of these particular issues because it wasn't raised below.\nI think that's a concern that the Court ought to weigh at least as heavily as incentives to encourage the filings of proper briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1859.614, 1872.032, 1873.852, 1881.959], "stop_times": [1872.032, 1873.852, 1881.959, 1890.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.614}, "reply_to": "20917__0_154", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_156", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, it was raised at the trial level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1890.964], "stop_times": [1893.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.964}, "reply_to": "20917__0_155", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_157", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "It was raised at the trial level, but we don't know precisely... and again, the Alabama supreme court could have a different construction of its rule, and the claim has evolved or changed as it's developed.\nTo the extent it now focuses on nonresidents, we don't know who the nonresidents are from the record.\nWe don't know what their contacts with the State of Alabama are.\nFor example, we don't know that... whether they moved after getting the insurance policy or not, so a fuller record would have been ensured, I think, if the issue had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1893.335, 1906.914, 1912.41, 1915.121], "stop_times": [1906.914, 1912.41, 1915.121, 1923.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.335}, "reply_to": "20917__0_156", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_158", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Mr. Roberts, at least as the question was presented to this Court, and I think as Mr. Waldrop stated it in Court this morning, they are not raising opt out just for nonresidents.\nI thought the statement of their question presented in their cert petition was that opt out is the right of any class member where the relief relinquished is money damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1923.438, 1935.175], "stop_times": [1935.175, 1953.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.438}, "reply_to": "20917__0_157", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_159", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes.\nI agree that that is the question before this Court.\nHowever, in their reply brief and in their main brief as well they seem to also be arguing rights of nonresidents, questions I don't think are before the Court, again issues that could have been clarified if the issue had been raised before the Alabama supreme court and decided by that court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1953.158, 1953.428, 1956.02], "stop_times": [1953.428, 1956.02, 1969.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.158}, "reply_to": "20917__0_158", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_160", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "What is the argument that it would be jurisdictional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1969.847], "stop_times": [1973.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.847}, "reply_to": "20917__0_159", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20917__0_161", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I think it's based primarily on... well, a number of things.\nFirst of all, Crowell v. Randell and then the recodification of that statute after that opinion is on the books, a federalism concern that this Court should not... that the authority that this Court has to review a State court judgment rests on the assumption that it contains within it a decision on an issue of Federal law that may be erroneous.\nNow, if it does not because the highest court in the State has not been afforded the opportunity to address that question, then that authority is not present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [1973.209, 1976.603, 1996.198], "stop_times": [1976.603, 1996.198, 2003.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.209}, "reply_to": "20917__0_160", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_162", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Mr. Roberts, do you think Michigan v. Long cuts either way on this issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2003.802], "stop_times": [2008.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.802}, "reply_to": "20917__0_161", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_163", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "No, I don't.\nThat's in terms of how you analyze what may be an ambiguous state decision, but here we don't have that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2008.366, 2010.016], "stop_times": [2010.016, 2016.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.366}, "reply_to": "20917__0_162", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_164", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Because they clearly refer to the Alabama constitution here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2016.53], "stop_times": [2019.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.53}, "reply_to": "20917__0_163", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_165", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "They relied only on the Alabama--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2019.091], "stop_times": [2020.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.091}, "reply_to": "20917__0_164", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_166", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "So you'd say if Michigan v. Long is implicated it was complied with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2020.513], "stop_times": [2023.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.513}, "reply_to": "20917__0_165", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_167", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes.\nIf there were some confusion about what the Alabama supreme court decided Michigan v. Long would cut the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2023.854, 2024.455], "stop_times": [2024.455, 2029.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.854}, "reply_to": "20917__0_166", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_168", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "We sometimes grant, vacate, and remand in light of new congressional statutes, in light of the decisions of this Court.\nI'm not sure, if we say that this is jurisdictional, that that wouldn't confine our authority in those cases, if we say it's jurisdictional if the State hasn't even raised it because there's good reason for it not to have done so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2029.239, 2036.834], "stop_times": [2036.834, 2051.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.239}, "reply_to": "20917__0_167", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20917__0_169", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, the State courts, of course, can always address the question in another case, the next case that comes along.\nI don't think this is quite... I think there's more flexibility in the Federal system.\nThe Alabama supreme court is not an inferior court with respect to this Court, so that you could say, take a look at this a little more closely or something, as you may with respect to one of the Federal circuit courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2051.862, 2056.507, 2060.12], "stop_times": [2056.507, 2060.12, 2071.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.862}, "reply_to": "20917__0_168", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_170", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I don't think you understood Justice Kennedy's point.\nI think he's saying that our GVR practice assumes that we have jurisdiction when we remand for the State court to consider a Federal question that it didn't consider, but if this is a jurisdictional statute, the fact that the State court didn't consider it means that we don't have the case in front of us.\nWe have no power to vacate the judgment of the State--\n--We can't even GVR.\n--because it's not in front of us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2071.53, 2073.089, 2090.981, 2093.353, 2094.534], "stop_times": [2073.089, 2090.981, 2093.353, 2094.534, 2094.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2071.53}, "reply_to": "20917__0_169", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_171", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I'm not familiar precisely with the practice in the cases you're thinking of and whether they apply in the State court system as well as with respect to Federal courts, but I would agree that if there's no... if it's not a question of, there's some confusion, you don't know if you addressed it or not, then yes, if it's jurisdictional there would not be authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2094.915], "stop_times": [2111.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.915}, "reply_to": "20917__0_170", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_172", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that's consistent with the Court's practice prior to Michigan v. Long.\nIt frequently GVR'd when it was uncertain whether it had jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2111.446, 2115.007], "stop_times": [2115.007, 2118.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.446}, "reply_to": "20917__0_171", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_173", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2118.499], "stop_times": [2118.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.499}, "reply_to": "20917__0_172", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_174", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--and I think it would have the power to do that even if the ultimate decision is there's no jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2118.9], "stop_times": [2123.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.9}, "reply_to": "20917__0_173", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_175", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--I... yes, if the basis for action is that the Court is uncertain whether it had jurisdiction, but if it is clear that it does not because there... it's not a question of an ambiguous--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2123.405], "stop_times": [2133.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.405}, "reply_to": "20917__0_174", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_176", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But on the other side of the coin there, Mr. Roberts, at least in Newsom v. Smyth which you cite, and other cases, I think the practice of the Court has been to DIG, to D-I... dismiss as improvidently granted rather than to dismiss for want of jurisdiction when this problem arises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2133.981], "stop_times": [2148.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.981}, "reply_to": "20917__0_175", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_177", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes.\nI don't think the Court precisely distinguishes, for example, when it denies certiorari whether it's doing so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2148.45, 2149.011], "stop_times": [2149.011, 2153.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.45}, "reply_to": "20917__0_176", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_178", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Correct.\nIt could do it on jurisdictional or other grounds, but at least they have... that practice has left open the possibility that we might have jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2153.916, 2154.146], "stop_times": [2154.146, 2162.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.916}, "reply_to": "20917__0_177", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_179", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--And it is... and it was expressly recognized as an open issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2162.062], "stop_times": [2164.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.062}, "reply_to": "20917__0_178", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_180", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2164.935], "stop_times": [2165.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.935}, "reply_to": "20917__0_179", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_181", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--whether it was jurisdictional or prudential.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2165.225], "stop_times": [2166.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.225}, "reply_to": "20917__0_180", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_182", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2166.565], "stop_times": [2166.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.565}, "reply_to": "20917__0_181", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20917__0_183", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "My point is simply that one, we think it's jurisdictional for the... at least for the reasons given by Justice Story, and if not, the prudential reasons cut strongly against deciding a Federal Constitution, particularly concerning the validity of State court rules, when the State supreme court has not had an opportunity to address that question.\nTurning to the merits, petitioners' property interest, their choses in action, typically may be resolved in an individual lawsuit brought at a time and place of the plaintiff's own choosing, but nothing in the Federal Constitution prevents a State for good and sufficient reasons from providing that in certain circumstances they must be resolved in a different manner through another remedial mechanism.\nAnd when the State does that, the question is whether the procedural protections provided in that different mechanism comport with due process, not whether the petitioners, the prospective plaintiffs, have some overriding right to avoid the chosen procedure and opt for an individual lawsuit instead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2166.725, 2186.189, 2208.893], "stop_times": [2186.189, 2208.893, 2224.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.725}, "reply_to": "20917__0_182", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_184", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Mr. Roberts, if that's what Alabama had done... and it sounds to me like things States do all the time.\nThey take away tort remedies and give you Workers Compensation instead.\nBut that's not what Alabama did.\nAlabama said, Edith McAllister, you get a thousand dollars in your pocket and a million in compensatory, and there are 30 other suits like that.\nIndeed, this class counsel brought two such suits.\nSo that seems to me very odd that Alabama should say, we need to have everybody treated alike in this pot, but not those 30 suits, including two that class counsel filed for straight money.\nThat's what mixes me up about this.\nHow can Alabama say it must be a unitary thing, and yet the Alabama supreme court very shortly before it decided this case affirmed that award?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2224.443, 2230.678, 2233.69, 2236.334, 2247.14, 2251.663, 2264.501, 2268.734], "stop_times": [2230.678, 2233.69, 2236.334, 2247.14, 2251.663, 2264.501, 2268.734, 2281.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2224.443}, "reply_to": "20917__0_183", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_185", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "The procedure, the mandatory class action, depends upon a representative plaintiff coming in and invoking it.\nIn Mrs. McAllister's case, that was prior to the institution of this class action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2281.122, 2286.526], "stop_times": [2286.526, 2291.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.122}, "reply_to": "20917__0_184", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_186", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, at least the two that were begun the day before this complaint was filed, shouldn't they have... shouldn't Alabama have said, okay, now we have... we have a representative action going.\nWe ought to dismiss all those individual actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2291.101, 2301.207], "stop_times": [2301.207, 2303.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.101}, "reply_to": "20917__0_185", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_187", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, that's in fact what happened with those suits.\nThey were dismissed so that the plaintiffs in those suits became members of the class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2303.579, 2305.782], "stop_times": [2305.782, 2310.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.579}, "reply_to": "20917__0_186", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_188", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "So there are no individual suits going forward now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2310.134], "stop_times": [2312.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.134}, "reply_to": "20917__0_187", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_189", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "There... none going forward now.\nThere was one, the Peel suit, where the plaintiff refused to have the suit dismissed and the counsel disassociated himself from carrying that forward.\nThe class action mechanism, once it's invoked it doesn't go back and say, now, last year one of these claims was raised, and start at the beginning, but it says from now on we're going to resolve... the claims that have not already started, haven't already left the gate, we're going to resolve them in one proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2312.826, 2315.299, 2323.706], "stop_times": [2315.299, 2323.706, 2338.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.826}, "reply_to": "20917__0_188", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_190", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Now, I can understand saying that, but it does seem to me that class counsel would be taking inconsistent positions if at the same time that he's putting people, even people who don't want to be in this pot, there and saying, but I have my private clients and I'm taking care of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2338.696], "stop_times": [2356.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.696}, "reply_to": "20917__0_189", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_191", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "The concern in each of those cases was that... the particular members in the two suits that you're referring to were former officers of Liberty National.\nThere was a concern that they may not fit the definition of the class, and the individual suits were filed.\nWhen it became clear that they would be covered by the class as certified, the cases were dismissed and they recovered as members of the class and no more.\nNow, once Alabama says that from now on, prior cases... the issue hadn't come up, but now it's come up we're going to resolve your claims in the procedural device of a mandatory class action, the question is are the procedural protections in that mandatory class action sufficient to satisfy due process, not whether there's an overriding right to file an individual lawsuit, and here there plainly were in two complementary and overlapping respects.\nIndividual class members received written notice and an opportunity to be heard before their choses in action were resolved.\nThat was individual written notice.\nThe opportunity to be heard was in court before a judge, with counsel, including the right to examine witnesses, present expert witnesses, and other evidence.\nIt was a right that the petitioners fully availed themselves of in this case.\nThey had their own day in court.\nIt was January 20, 21, and 24, 1994.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2356.628, 2364.184, 2369.559, 2376.434, 2403.762, 2410.298, 2411.907, 2419.523, 2423.427, 2424.997], "stop_times": [2364.184, 2369.559, 2376.434, 2403.762, 2410.298, 2411.907, 2419.523, 2423.427, 2424.997, 2429.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.628}, "reply_to": "20917__0_190", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_192", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Mr. Roberts, I don't think anybody is questioning that there was notice and there was an opportunity to come in, but what does seem strange is a person who says, I've got this insurance policy that I acquired because the company was fraudulent.\nI don't want to have anything to do with that company.\nI want to take my money and buy another policy.\nAnd then in this class suit this person is being told, you're going to get a better policy from the same company and you must stay with them.\nThere's something unseemly about that, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2429.121, 2448.171, 2450.892, 2454.045, 2464.454], "stop_times": [2448.171, 2450.892, 2454.045, 2464.454, 2468.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.121}, "reply_to": "20917__0_191", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_193", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, I can certainly understand that reaction, but the question is not whether any individual class member had that reaction, but what was appropriate relief for the class as a whole.\nThe district court, the trial court found that the policy that was given in the settlement was not available anywhere else in the market.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2468.454, 2477.82], "stop_times": [2477.82, 2484.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.454}, "reply_to": "20917__0_192", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_194", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "So we have a new rule now of Federal... well, this is State procedure... the greatest good for the greatest number, and the fact that some people who would have had perfectly good individual money claims, that's too bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2484.806], "stop_times": [2497.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.806}, "reply_to": "20917__0_193", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_195", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "No.\nTo deal with the last part of your question first, they did not have perfectly good money claims.\nThe trial court found that these claims for higher premiums were largely speculative because the policies that they received by and large with rare exceptions provided more total benefits.\nThey looked at the McAllister case.\nThe evidence developed in this case demonstrated that for the vast majority of insureds the new policies were better.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2497.515, 2497.886, 2503.309, 2514.268, 2515.967], "stop_times": [2497.886, 2503.309, 2514.268, 2515.967, 2523.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.515}, "reply_to": "20917__0_194", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_196", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But Mr. Roberts, the trial court did not have the Alabama supreme court's affirmance in the McAllister case, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2523.702], "stop_times": [2533.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.702}, "reply_to": "20917__0_195", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_197", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "It did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2533.499], "stop_times": [2534.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.499}, "reply_to": "20917__0_196", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_198", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Now, at that point, Liberty National has been found fraudulent.\nThat issue was raised, litigated, and decided in the McAllister case.\nWouldn't that be preclusive against Liberty Mutual?\nLet's forget about this class action going on.\nFraud in a classic action at law, raised, litigated, and decided, the insurance company loses.\nIsn't policyholder number 2 and number 3 entitled to use issue preclusion offensively so that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2534.29, 2540.754, 2545.039, 2549.21, 2552.303, 2562.159], "stop_times": [2540.754, 2545.039, 2549.21, 2552.303, 2562.159, 2571.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.29}, "reply_to": "20917__0_197", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_199", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "No, not in this instance, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2571.216], "stop_times": [2573.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.216}, "reply_to": "20917__0_198", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_200", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2573.857], "stop_times": [2574.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.857}, "reply_to": "20917__0_199", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_201", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--The evidentiary record that was developed in the subsequent case was quite different, and the allegations were broader in the second case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2574.167], "stop_times": [2581.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.167}, "reply_to": "20917__0_200", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_202", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I'm not talking about your case.\nI'm talking about, just look at what Edith McAllister won, a thousand dollars compensatory, a million punitive.\nThat was based on the litigated determination of fraud.\nNow, couldn't person number 2 say, I like that.\nIn fact, I don't even need the punitives.\nJust give me the thousand dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2581.862, 2584.403, 2592.551, 2597.131, 2601.583, 2605.396], "stop_times": [2584.403, 2592.551, 2597.131, 2601.583, 2605.396, 2606.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.862}, "reply_to": "20917__0_201", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_203", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "No.\nThe evidence of record on which Mrs. McAllister relied involved specific interactions with the agent, and the evidentiary record that came in a later case was the broader question of the policy program that the agents were operating under, and it was a different evidentiary record.\nIt demonstrated... the trial court was aware of the McAllister verdict.\nIt... and the supreme court of Alabama was aware of its affirmance in McAllister when it decided this case, and the evidence demonstrated that in the vast majority of cases the higher premiums were justified because there were more benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2606.988, 2607.467, 2625.8, 2629.142], "stop_times": [2607.467, 2625.8, 2629.142, 2641.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.988}, "reply_to": "20917__0_202", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_204", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But each individual in this $400,000 class didn't have the opportunity that Edith McAllister had to show what their situation was, what the agent said to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2641.09], "stop_times": [2651.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.09}, "reply_to": "20917__0_203", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_205", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "No, and they never would.\nThere's no way that the 400,00 of them are all going to get a million dollars in punitive damages.\nThat's the justification, one of the justifications--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2651.418, 2652.467, 2656.801], "stop_times": [2652.467, 2656.801, 2659.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.418}, "reply_to": "20917__0_204", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_206", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "My hypothetical was, they're modest people.\nThey just want a thousand dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2659.265, 2662.508], "stop_times": [2662.508, 2664.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.265}, "reply_to": "20917__0_205", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_207", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--The question, when you're trying to decide whether the relief under the class that the class is given is equitable and monetary is, what is the appropriate relief for the class as a whole?\nThe reason these people took out cancer insurance policies was not to get a thousand dollars, it was to get coverage, and the way you get coverage is to reform the policies to give them what they say they should have, the benefits under the old policy, and to compensate further, give them also the new benefits under the new policies.\nThey got, as it was said, the best of both worlds, something they couldn't get anywhere else.\nThat's the most appropriate relief, because the complaint is, you took away our coverage.\nThe answer is, give it back.\nNot, here's a thousand dollars.\nThat doesn't give them the coverage they wanted.\nThat's why I think it was appropriate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2664.04, 2673.597, 2689.688, 2694.933, 2698.874, 2700.065, 2701.437, 2703.749], "stop_times": [2673.597, 2689.688, 2694.933, 2698.874, 2700.065, 2701.437, 2703.749, 2705.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.04}, "reply_to": "20917__0_206", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_208", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "So it is the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number.\nNow, I understand when there's a finite sum and that's all that there is, and you have to find some way of equitably distributing it.\nI also understand when somebody has to conduct themselves in a certain way, and it's got to be one way and it can't be two ways.\nBut this one can be... it could be everybody just sues for damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2705.099, 2708.0, 2714.486, 2721.702], "stop_times": [2708.0, 2714.486, 2721.702, 2727.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.099}, "reply_to": "20917__0_207", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_209", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Oh, well, with respect, the circuit court decided that it couldn't be.\nIf everybody just sued for damages the court found that what you would have is a race to the courthouse among 400,000 people with essentially similar claims, a lucky few would get the punitive damages windfalls, the vast majority would be left with nothing.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2727.665, 2731.318, 2744.618], "stop_times": [2731.318, 2744.618, 2744.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.665}, "reply_to": "20917__0_208", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_210", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "So what else is new?\nThat often happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2744.889, 2745.47], "stop_times": [2745.47, 2746.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.889}, "reply_to": "20917__0_209", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_211", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Well, that doesn't mean it's the most--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2746.552], "stop_times": [2747.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.552}, "reply_to": "20917__0_210", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_212", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "That most often happened under common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2747.964], "stop_times": [2749.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.964}, "reply_to": "20917__0_211", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_213", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--And the State of Alabama can decide that we think it would be better to bring everybody together in one proceeding and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2749.103], "stop_times": [2755.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.103}, "reply_to": "20917__0_212", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_214", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, that's exactly the issue, whether it can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2755.037], "stop_times": [2758.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.037}, "reply_to": "20917__0_213", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_215", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--and the question... this is a due process claim, not whether the settlement was fair, although we think it was fair, but the question is, were petitioners afforded due process before their claims were resolved in this manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2758.39], "stop_times": [2768.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.39}, "reply_to": "20917__0_214", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_216", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, may I ask in that connection, going back to Justice Ginsburg's conclusion that it's the greatest good for greatest number analysis, what would have happened if Edith McAllister had not sued first and had in fact objected to a class certification covering her?\nWhat would the result have been?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2768.046, 2785.818], "stop_times": [2785.818, 2786.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.046}, "reply_to": "20917__0_215", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_217", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Her objection that she had received individual notice of the proposed settlement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2786.76], "stop_times": [2791.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.76}, "reply_to": "20917__0_216", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_218", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Could she have gotten out of the class?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2791.123], "stop_times": [2792.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.123}, "reply_to": "20917__0_217", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_219", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--No.\nThere... it's a mandatory class and no opt-out.\nThe court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2792.002, 2792.553, 2795.095], "stop_times": [2792.553, 2795.095, 2795.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.002}, "reply_to": "20917__0_218", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_220", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "So that despite the peculiarity of her facts, which I thought you were telling us justified the special or the separate treatment, if her timing had been different she would have been in the same boat with everybody else and those special facts, in fact, would not have justified anything but the greatest good for the greatest number.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2795.636], "stop_times": [2814.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.636}, "reply_to": "20917__0_219", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_221", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--They were covered by the release in the settlement.\nI don't think that necessarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2814.348, 2816.569], "stop_times": [2816.569, 2818.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.348}, "reply_to": "20917__0_220", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_222", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "No, but if she didn't... that's the... yes, but--\n--She gave away something that other people didn't have to give away.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2818.329, 2821.313, 2823.585], "stop_times": [2821.313, 2823.585, 2823.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.329}, "reply_to": "20917__0_221", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_223", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2823.815], "stop_times": [2824.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.815}, "reply_to": "20917__0_222", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_224", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And doesn't this go to the accuracy of the definition of the class?\nIf there are people like McAllister who have peculiar claims, can you chuck them in with everybody else and say, you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2824.657, 2828.67], "stop_times": [2828.67, 2836.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.657}, "reply_to": "20917__0_223", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_225", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--I didn't mean to suggest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2836.407], "stop_times": [2837.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.407}, "reply_to": "20917__0_224", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_226", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--we're treating you all alike?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2837.118], "stop_times": [2837.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.118}, "reply_to": "20917__0_225", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_227", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--I didn't mean to suggest that they were peculiar claims.\nThey were the claims of the class, but the evidentiary record focused on her particular interaction and therefore would not, I think, be a basis for preclusive effects--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2837.508, 2839.581], "stop_times": [2839.581, 2847.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.508}, "reply_to": "20917__0_226", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_228", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2847.368], "stop_times": [2847.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.368}, "reply_to": "20917__0_227", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_229", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--on the class claims.\nThe point is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2847.719, 2848.928], "stop_times": [2848.928, 2850.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.719}, "reply_to": "20917__0_228", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_230", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "But the ultimate fraud and the ultimate damages, those were common.\nMcAllister in those respects were in the... was in the same boat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2850.14, 2852.483], "stop_times": [2852.483, 2855.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.14}, "reply_to": "20917__0_229", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_231", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Absolutely.\nI wanted... I didn't mean to seem to agree that it's a question of the greatest good for the greatest number.\nIt's not.\nIt's a much more multifaceted inquiry into the fairness of the settlement.\nHere, what the settlement did, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2855.225, 2855.886, 2861.189, 2861.72, 2866.372], "stop_times": [2855.886, 2861.189, 2861.72, 2866.372, 2868.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.225}, "reply_to": "20917__0_230", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_232", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "The fairness of the settlement really hasn't been raised by these petitioners, has it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2868.362], "stop_times": [2872.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.362}, "reply_to": "20917__0_231", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_233", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--No, but it is... their attack on its fairness seems to be the main basis on which their claiming a due process violation, and again, I agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2872.996], "stop_times": [2881.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2872.996}, "reply_to": "20917__0_232", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_234", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I thought that the main basis, and Mr. Waldrop confirmed this, was that they can't be made to relinquish a claim for money damages without an opportunity to opt out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2881.953], "stop_times": [2892.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.953}, "reply_to": "20917__0_233", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_235", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--If... that is their claim, and it has no basis.\nClaims for money damages are frequently resolved in some fashion other than an individual lawsuit.\nYour Honor mentioned Worker's Compensation, a good example.\nBankruptcy.\nYou may have a chose in action against someone.\nIf they declare bankruptcy you don't get an individual lawsuit, and what Alabama has done here, along with 39 other States and the Federal system, is say one situation in which your chose in action, normally resolvable in an individual lawsuit, may be resolved in some other manner is when the prerequisites for a mandatory class--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2892.541, 2897.746, 2902.719, 2905.611, 2905.962, 2907.745], "stop_times": [2897.746, 2902.719, 2905.611, 2905.962, 2907.745, 2924.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.541}, "reply_to": "20917__0_234", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_236", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "That may be different in Alabama, because this is all rules, and the Worker's Compensation and the other things we've been talking about, bankruptcy, these are highly statutory.\nAlabama does copy to considerable extent Federal Rule 23, and one thing we know about the Federal rules is that the Federal courts are not authorized to write statutes.\nThey can write rules of procedure.\nSo when I brought up the Worker's Compensation model I had that in mind, that that's a substantive legislative judgment, and I think there would be a serious question if you would interpret a Federal rule to take away from somebody a good damage action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2924.037, 2934.304, 2947.101, 2948.693], "stop_times": [2934.304, 2947.101, 2948.693, 2966.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.037}, "reply_to": "20917__0_235", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_237", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--The issue is whether the procedure that they've been provided under these rules comports with due process.\nThere's no overriding right to assert under the Federal Constitution that your chose in action must be resolved in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2966.914, 2973.93], "stop_times": [2973.93, 2982.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.914}, "reply_to": "20917__0_236", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_238", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Would your answer be different if we were talking just about the Rules Enabling Act?\nLet's just switch for a moment, because Alabama does seem to think it's instructive, to the Federal rule, and the Federal rule says that... the Rules Enabling Act says that such rules, rules of procedure, shall not abridge and... or modify any substantive right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [2982.074, 2985.537], "stop_times": [2985.537, 3004.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.074}, "reply_to": "20917__0_237", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_239", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "I don't think this is abridging or modifying a substantive right.\nIt's setting forth another procedural mechanism to resolve the chose in action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3004.93, 3008.753], "stop_times": [3008.753, 3013.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3004.93}, "reply_to": "20917__0_238", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_240", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "What if the State of Alabama had simply removed... had eliminated the action for fraud against insurance companies?\nCould it have done that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3013.517, 3021.042], "stop_times": [3021.042, 3022.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.517}, "reply_to": "20917__0_239", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_241", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Yes.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3022.824, 3023.295], "stop_times": [3023.295, 3023.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.824}, "reply_to": "20917__0_240", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_242", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "So if it can do that, a fortiori it can do this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3023.594], "stop_times": [3026.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.594}, "reply_to": "20917__0_241", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_243", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--I don't want to make a bitter-with-the-sweet argument because that doesn't work in procedural due process, so I don't think that that lesser--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3026.057], "stop_times": [3033.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.057}, "reply_to": "20917__0_242", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_244", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, it would really convert this into something other than a procedural due process case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3033.631], "stop_times": [3037.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.631}, "reply_to": "20917__0_243", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20917__0_245", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes, and the point I want to emphasize is that here, as far as procedural due process goes they had notice and opportunity to be heard, and the complementary protections of the class action rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3037.875], "stop_times": [3047.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.875}, "reply_to": "20917__0_244", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_246", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "And you would say, Mr. Roberts, that the State could abolish that cause of action for fraud not only by legislation but by judicial decision if it chooses to operate that way, and that that wouldn't violate due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3047.398], "stop_times": [3059.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.398}, "reply_to": "20917__0_245", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20917__0_247", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Certainly it would not violate due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3059.777], "stop_times": [3061.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.777}, "reply_to": "20917__0_246", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_248", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, certainly there's nothing in the Federal Constitution that requires Alabama to distribute the powers of government the same way that the Federal Government does.\nThe, you know, judiciary, legislative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3061.95, 3070.015], "stop_times": [3070.015, 3072.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.95}, "reply_to": "20917__0_247", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_249", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Separation of powers rules don't apply to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3072.346], "stop_times": [3074.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.346}, "reply_to": "20917__0_248", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_250", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Yes.\nThe only point was that Alabama, since it seems to try to follow Federal Rule 23, might be influenced by how the Federal development went.\nThere would be a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3074.657, 3074.877, 3083.483], "stop_times": [3074.877, 3083.483, 3084.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.657}, "reply_to": "20917__0_249", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20917__0_251", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--I think your question highlights again a reason that... a prudential reason the Court shouldn't reach out and decide the issue, because we don't know how they would have addressed it in this instance because it wasn't presented to them.\nThere were two different regimes at issue here.\nPetitioner's view, even though its choses in action were shared by 400,000 other people, that each one has a right to an individual lawsuit even though the courts found it would lead to a race of the courthouse, windfalls for a few, and nothing for the vast majority, or the rule that Alabama has adopted, which is when the two requisites for mandatory treatment are met we're going to bring everybody together, we're going to resolve all the claims in this one instance, and give the people who... the class members individual notice and opportunity to object, and only have this issue come up after we've determined that they're adequately represented in a class action.\nI think it's the former system that is subject to a serious due process challenge, not the latter one that Alabama adopted and that the Alabama supreme court affirmed in this case.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3084.905, 3095.77, 3098.923, 3134.346, 3142.644], "stop_times": [3095.77, 3098.923, 3134.346, 3142.644, 3143.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3084.905}, "reply_to": "20917__0_250", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_252", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Roberts.\nMr. Waldrop, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3143.803, 3145.715], "stop_times": [3145.715, 3148.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.803}, "reply_to": "20917__0_251", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_253", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Well, we believe that a cause of action, a fraud cause of action, this Court had already said in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank back in 1950 that a cause of action is a constitutionally protected right.\nIn... so in this case, once... and under Alabama law once you have... a cause of action for fraud is vested, it cannot be taken away.\nSecondly, this settlement perpetuated the fraud, because the various class members had to continue to pay premiums if they were to get any benefit out of the settlement at all.\nLastly, in regard to Shutts, we believe that if Shutts in fact was only a territorial jurisdictional case, which we believe that it was not, we believe that fundamentally it should apply across the board for two reasons.\nOne, there's no fundamental difference between a nonresident and a resident.\nIf you're going to put them together for money damages on the front end for certification... that is, they have the same unity, cohesiveness, typicality, and commonality on the front end... then on the back end you can't make a difference as to whether they should have a right to opt out or not, because that would be arbitrary if you're going to put them together on the front end in regard to money damages.\nSecondly, in regard to Rule (c)(2) of the Federal rules as well as the Alabama rules, in regard to (b)(3) actions, which are normal money damages, it is a mandatory notice that the... that you have notice and opportunity to be heard and the right to opt out.\nThe advisory comments to the Federal rule says that that has constitutional underpinnings.\nIn its cites... Mullane, and it cites Hansberry v. Lee.\nIn fact, this Court in 1974, in the Eisen case, cited those advisory comments with approval, so we think that if Shutts was only a territorial jurisdictional case, which we don't believe that it was, because when the court in footnote number 3 in Shutts said that we're going to limit our holding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3148.329, 3161.997, 3172.752, 3184.632, 3201.432, 3205.515, 3227.121, 3248.745, 3253.977, 3259.051], "stop_times": [3161.997, 3172.752, 3184.632, 3201.432, 3205.515, 3227.121, 3248.745, 3253.977, 3259.051, 3277.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3148.329}, "reply_to": "20917__0_252", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_254", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Waldrop.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3277.533, 3277.543], "stop_times": [3277.543, 3278.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.533}, "reply_to": "20917__0_253", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20917__0_255", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3278.814], "stop_times": [3279.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3278.814}, "reply_to": "20917__0_254", "speaker": "norman_e_waldrop_jr"}
{"id": "20917__0_256", "conversation_id": "20917", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1873", "start_times": [3279.966], "stop_times": [3284.889], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3279.966}, "reply_to": "20917__0_255", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20094__0_000", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-552, Rachel Agostini v. Betty-Louise Felton, and a consolidated case.\nGeneral Dellinger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [0.0, 9.122], "stop_times": [9.122, 10.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__0_001", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nWe ask you today to overrule Aguilar because it is inconsistent with this Court's Establishment Clause decisions and because it continues to impose burdens that seriously impair the Federal Government's critical title I program.\nI would like to discuss both the reasons why we believe that this is an appropriate procedural posture for the reconsideration of Aguilar, and why we believe that a decision to overrule Aguilar need not require any major doctrinal revisions of this Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence.\nIn brief, the critical features that support the constitutionality of on-premises services under title I and the lifting of the outstanding injunction are these.\nUnlike all of this Court's other primary and secondary parochial school aid cases, this case involves an act of Congress that provides new and additional resources to both public and private school students.\nNinety-seven percent of the funding under title I goes to children who are in public schools.\nThese services are completely secular.\nThey are required by law only to supplement and not to supplant any necessary educational--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [10.322, 12.474, 27.083, 44.362, 54.551, 68.644, 74.714, 76.464], "stop_times": [12.474, 27.083, 44.362, 54.551, 68.644, 74.714, 76.464, 81.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.322}, "reply_to": "20094__0_000", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_002", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "General Dellinger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [81.868], "stop_times": [82.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.868}, "reply_to": "20094__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__0_003", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [82.534], "stop_times": [82.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 82.534}, "reply_to": "20094__0_002", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_004", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--you're not suggesting that an act of Congress should be treated any differently than an act of a State legislature, are you, for purposes of Establishment Clause jurisprudence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [82.7], "stop_times": [90.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 82.7}, "reply_to": "20094__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__0_005", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "No, I am not, Mr. Chief Justice.\nWhat I intend to suggest by that is that many of the State acts that this Court has struggled over provided funds... since there was a background of public education provided funds just for nonpublic schools.\nThe Ohio act in Wolman v. Walters was an $88 million appropriations for the nonpublic schools.\nThis is a national act, where Congress is for the first time in 1965 trying to deal with the problem of low income, learning-disabled and learning-handicapped children Nation-wide in providing funds to so broad a group.\nOf the 6.4 million, for example, 6.2 million went to public schools.\nIt's so broad a group.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [90.538, 91.806, 106.149, 111.101, 126.694, 130.979], "stop_times": [91.806, 106.149, 111.101, 126.694, 130.979, 131.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 90.538}, "reply_to": "20094__0_004", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_006", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Do you take the position that Congress, or for that matter a State, could simply appropriate money generally for the teaching of secular subjects and that money could go into the parochial schools without a First Amendment problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [131.93], "stop_times": [143.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.93}, "reply_to": "20094__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_007", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "We do not, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [143.572], "stop_times": [145.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.572}, "reply_to": "20094__0_006", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_008", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, how do you draw the line?\nYou have spoken of this as being a supplementation of what is regularly done, but as I understand it, the money is spent on what are called remedial programs.\nIn other words, if a group of children or a child cannot read at whatever the grade level, this money is used to provide special training, but it seems to me that what that boils down to is teaching a child to read, or teaching a child who can't add how to do math, and I don't see what the distinction is between the supplementation and simply the school's normal mission to teach reading or to teach math, or whatever the secular subject is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [145.438, 146.857, 156.213], "stop_times": [146.857, 156.213, 180.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.438}, "reply_to": "20094__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_009", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Justice Souter, I think it is well-established that... though I do agree that there's no bright line between remedial mathematics and other math, but what is critical is that the Federal title I money was so clearly intended to be, and the statute and the regulations require it to be, a supplementation that goes to the benefit of these low-income needy children that I do not think this case raises the question that would be raised when taxpayer funding takes over a significant portion of the regular educational curriculum.\nThat is, the... it is not unfamiliar throughout Federal law for Congress to have requirements, as title I does, that the funds should be used to supplement and in no case supplant the level of services that would in the absence of this funding have been available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [180.911, 215.167], "stop_times": [215.167, 229.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.911}, "reply_to": "20094__0_008", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_010", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, what if Congress comes along and says every school district in the United States that spends less than X dollars per pupil will be subject to supplementation by Federal grant for the teaching of secular subjects, and this money can go to parochial as well as private schools.\nWould that fall under the rubric of legitimacy that you urge this morning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [229.225, 245.854], "stop_times": [245.854, 251.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.225}, "reply_to": "20094__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_011", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "As you describe it, I believe that that would cause a more far-reaching revision of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence than anything we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [251.257], "stop_times": [258.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.257}, "reply_to": "20094__0_010", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_012", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "How would we draw the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [258.577], "stop_times": [259.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.577}, "reply_to": "20094__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_013", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--seek here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [259.243], "stop_times": [260.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.243}, "reply_to": "20094__0_012", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_014", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Congress would say this is a supplement for poor school districts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [260.36], "stop_times": [262.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.36}, "reply_to": "20094__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_015", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "You draw the line here because this appropriation has none of the indicia of Congress providing the support that then enables the institution to engage in its religious function more fully.\nFor example, in the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [262.295, 276.703], "stop_times": [276.703, 278.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 262.295}, "reply_to": "20094__0_014", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_016", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, it allows parochial schools to teach reading better than they could teach it otherwise just as public schools can teach reading better than they could teach it or are teaching it otherwise, so I don't see how we draw the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [278.971], "stop_times": [290.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.971}, "reply_to": "20094__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_017", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, first of all, that is, of course, as true under the program as it has existed from 1965 to 1997 as it is under the issue that is before is here.\nThere's still the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [290.045, 303.786], "stop_times": [303.786, 304.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.045}, "reply_to": "20094__0_016", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_018", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Except--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [304.286], "stop_times": [304.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.286}, "reply_to": "20094__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_019", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--There's the same supplementation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [304.569], "stop_times": [305.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.569}, "reply_to": "20094__0_018", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_020", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Except that at least an attempt is made to draw a visual line, if you will, between what the school is ultimately accomplishing and the secular source by which it is accomplishing this extra objective.\nThere's an attempt made to avoid an appearance endorsement kind of problem, and on your scheme there wouldn't be an attempt made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [305.836, 322.181], "stop_times": [322.181, 331.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.836}, "reply_to": "20094__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_021", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Here, I believe the attempt is not only made but it is fully successful to differentiate this program from a program like Grand Rapids v. Ball, which we are not challenging, which we... in this submission at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [331.203], "stop_times": [346.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.203}, "reply_to": "20094__0_020", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_022", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "General Dellinger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [346.212], "stop_times": [347.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.212}, "reply_to": "20094__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__0_023", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [347.029], "stop_times": [347.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.029}, "reply_to": "20094__0_022", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_024", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I assume that it enables a parochial school to teach better if you allow a person who knows sign language to enable its deaf students to understand what is being taught in a class better.\nThat enables a parochial school to do a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [347.412, 364.674], "stop_times": [364.674, 366.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.412}, "reply_to": "20094__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__0_025", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Of course it does, Justice Scalia, as does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [366.46], "stop_times": [368.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.46}, "reply_to": "20094__0_024", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_026", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--And we've approved that.\nWe've approved that, haven't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [368.56, 368.81], "stop_times": [368.81, 369.912], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 368.56}, "reply_to": "20094__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20094__0_027", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Right, and... in Zobrest you approved that.\nIt is accepted.\nYou can have school lunch programs.\nYou can have health programs.\nWe have a wide range of programs.\nZobrest and Witters I think are decisions by this Court that have clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [369.912, 372.864, 373.68, 374.764, 375.816, 379.434], "stop_times": [372.864, 373.68, 374.764, 375.816, 379.434, 385.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.912}, "reply_to": "20094__0_026", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_028", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "We've crossed that line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [385.672], "stop_times": [387.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.672}, "reply_to": "20094__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__0_029", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--You have crossed the line--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [387.54], "stop_times": [389.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.54}, "reply_to": "20094__0_028", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_030", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, have we crossed the line, then, to the point of saying that any aid for the teaching of a secular subject in a parochial school is therefore constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [389.373], "stop_times": [400.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.373}, "reply_to": "20094__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_031", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I don't think you have crossed that line for this reason.\nIf you take a case like Grand Rapids that has a very different profile, where 40 of the 41 schools that were benefited were sectarian schools, unlike the 3 percent here, and where the courses that were provided were courses provided that were a part of the school curriculum... in fact, they were ordered up by the school.\nThey were much more woven into the normal school day.\nThis is a title I service which is provided to kids, low-income educationally deprived children who need this service, and what this Court's decisions I believe in Zobrest and Witters and Bowen v. Kendrick reject is an arbitrary, rigid, formalistic notion that you cannot have those services provided by a public employee who is hired, fired, supervised, and paid by other public employees inside the school building, but instead you must make children... and in this case, 70... a majority of these kids are in grades 1 to 3.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [400.181, 402.531, 421.993, 424.443], "stop_times": [402.531, 421.993, 424.443, 460.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.181}, "reply_to": "20094__0_030", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_032", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "General... General--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [460.951], "stop_times": [461.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.951}, "reply_to": "20094__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_033", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Seventy percent are nonhigh school.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [461.617, 462.617], "stop_times": [462.617, 463.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.617}, "reply_to": "20094__0_032", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_034", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--General Dellinger, may I deflect you for a moment, because you're launching right into the merits as you did in your briefs, and you have to get your foot in the door properly.\nI do not know of any use, ever, of 60(b) such as we see here, essentially to gain rehearing by this Court, so if you could spend just a couple of moments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [463.101, 473.873], "stop_times": [473.873, 492.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.101}, "reply_to": "20094__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_035", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I would be glad to, Justice Ginsburg.\nYou are correct that this... we do not know of another instance in which Rule 60(b) has been used in this way, but maybe for very good reasons.\nThat is, the understandable reasons may be that they are in a... in a messy and complicated country like ours, there are usually lots of other cases that bubble up, other jurisdictions that simply don't comply with this Court's holdings, but here the Secretary of Education will not permit any school district in the United States to provide these services on premises, so that there is for that reason unlikely to be an issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [492.418, 494.334, 503.357], "stop_times": [494.334, 503.357, 526.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.418}, "reply_to": "20094__0_034", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_036", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--What about the two cases that are... are there not cases involving State law similar to title I, one in Louisiana and the other, is it in Minnesota?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [526.52], "stop_times": [535.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.52}, "reply_to": "20094__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_037", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Two responses.\nFirst of all, as I said, I think those may well be different than a program of the breadth of title I, but secondly there is no suggestion... there have been a series of cases where the provision of these title I services off-premises has been challenged.\nThe courts have upheld against Establishment Clause challenge those cases, and those who brought the case have not sought certiorari in this Court.\nI think that there must be some way for a court to modify one of its own prior judgments that has continuing prospective effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [535.994, 537.66, 551.837, 560.442], "stop_times": [537.66, 551.837, 560.442, 573.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.994}, "reply_to": "20094__0_036", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_038", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I'm just curious, why can't the Secretary of Education create a test case, if... I mean, why couldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [573.417], "stop_times": [579.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.417}, "reply_to": "20094__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__0_039", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Because he believes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [579.987], "stop_times": [581.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.987}, "reply_to": "20094__0_038", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_040", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--exactly what you said, the laws change in our opinion and therefore we think in this partic... you know, deliberately do it in order to raise the issue in a different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [581.106], "stop_times": [588.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.106}, "reply_to": "20094__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__0_041", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That is a fair enough question, Justice Breyer.\nI believe that the Office of Legal Counsel's proper response would be, though we read the law to have changed since Aguilar, we do not believe that the Secretary of Education any more than a district court judge should go directly in the teeth of a decision of this Court which this Court has not itself overturned.\nIn fact, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [588.26, 591.145, 608.338], "stop_times": [591.145, 608.338, 608.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.26}, "reply_to": "20094__0_040", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_042", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, that's part of the problem, General Dellinger, really, because we're reviewing, are we, an action by the district court judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [608.805], "stop_times": [618.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.805}, "reply_to": "20094__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__0_043", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Yes, you are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [618.128], "stop_times": [618.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.128}, "reply_to": "20094__0_042", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_044", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Under 60(b)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [618.878], "stop_times": [619.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.878}, "reply_to": "20094__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__0_045", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [619.661], "stop_times": [620.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.661}, "reply_to": "20094__0_044", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_046", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "And we have to find that that judge abused discretion in refusing the 60(b) reopening, and yet that judge could look at Aguilar and say, I just don't have room to do that.\nThat's the Supreme Court's holding.\nHow am I supposed to reopen this case?\nHow do we deal with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [620.161, 633.969, 635.937, 638.873], "stop_times": [633.969, 635.937, 638.873, 639.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.161}, "reply_to": "20094__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__0_047", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Justice Ginsburg--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [639.889], "stop_times": [640.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.889}, "reply_to": "20094__0_046", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_048", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I wean, it isn't as though it's coming directly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [640.824], "stop_times": [642.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.824}, "reply_to": "20094__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__0_049", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Yes... no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [642.44], "stop_times": [642.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.44}, "reply_to": "20094__0_048", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_050", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--to this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [642.856], "stop_times": [643.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.856}, "reply_to": "20094__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__0_051", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--No.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [643.14, 643.806], "stop_times": [643.806, 644.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.14}, "reply_to": "20094__0_050", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_052", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--We're reviewing the action of the district court, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [644.156], "stop_times": [646.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.156}, "reply_to": "20094__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__0_053", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [646.392], "stop_times": [646.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.392}, "reply_to": "20094__0_052", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_054", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--So what standard do we apply there?\nHow did the district court abuse its discretion in saying, boy, it isn't up to me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [646.825, 648.677], "stop_times": [648.677, 653.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.825}, "reply_to": "20094__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__0_055", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "You approach that exactly as you do a case in which you're up on a preliminary injunction but the question is a rule of law, and this Court has held that the abuse of power general standard, which is a discretionary standard for the orderly administration of justice, cannot force this Court into making an erroneous decision of law just because a district court on a preliminary injunction or in this context or in any other got it wrong as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [653.546], "stop_times": [681.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.546}, "reply_to": "20094__0_054", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_056", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "General Dellinger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [681.148], "stop_times": [681.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.148}, "reply_to": "20094__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_057", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, but the focus... the focus, it seems to me, of Justice O'Connor's question is, what do you tell the district judge... if you're the law clerk for the district judge, or the counselor to the district judge, one of the attorneys, what do you tell him he should do in this case?\nIt seems a little strange to say he abused his discretion by following the law.\nOn the other hand, we know that abuse of discretion is sometimes a too-onerous word to describe what the... phrase to describe what the judge has done.\nHe's made a mistake of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [681.731, 693.289, 697.241, 712.0], "stop_times": [693.289, 697.241, 712.0, 713.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.731}, "reply_to": "20094__0_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__0_058", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Justice Souter, you... I'm sorry, Justice Kennedy, you inform the district judge as he anticipated in this case, that the rule of law he was required to apply is not what this Court believes is currently the rule of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [713.383], "stop_times": [728.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.383}, "reply_to": "20094__0_057", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_059", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "General Dellinger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [728.809], "stop_times": [729.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.809}, "reply_to": "20094__0_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_060", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "This is not... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [729.376], "stop_times": [729.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.376}, "reply_to": "20094__0_059", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_061", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Isn't it so that under our precedent a district judge is locked in?\nHe has no authority to overturn a decision of this Court and, indeed, the district judge would have abused his discretion if he said, I predict that the Supreme Court is going to overrule Aguilar?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [729.876, 734.078], "stop_times": [734.078, 746.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.876}, "reply_to": "20094__0_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_062", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "If he followed that by ruling and not applying Aguilar you're exactly correct, and we told the district judge that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [746.902], "stop_times": [754.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.902}, "reply_to": "20094__0_061", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_063", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The district judge and the court of appeals both said, I think quite correctly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [754.341], "stop_times": [756.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.341}, "reply_to": "20094__0_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_064", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [756.341], "stop_times": [756.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 756.341}, "reply_to": "20094__0_063", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_065", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--that they... there was nothing that they could do, so if we're going to be candid about what's involved here, isn't it really a request for rehearing by this Court, and the 60(b) is just a pass-through, because stage 1 and stage 2 cannot do anything but reject the application?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [756.757], "stop_times": [777.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.757}, "reply_to": "20094__0_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_066", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Your premises are correct, but the conclusion is wrong, and it's wrong for this reason.\nThis would be no different if a new case were brought, if there were a new school system that started providing these services in school and there were a lawsuit the district court in that case in Chicago or Milwaukee or wherever would be just as bound by Aguilar v. Felton as the district judge in the Southern District of New York, and would come up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [777.17, 782.039], "stop_times": [782.039, 802.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 777.17}, "reply_to": "20094__0_065", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_067", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "And the school district could appeal the denial of the order that it wanted, and this Court could rule on it without, in effect, granting a rehearing on a prior case in which the judgment was final.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [802.553], "stop_times": [813.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.553}, "reply_to": "20094__0_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_068", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [813.761], "stop_times": [815.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 813.761}, "reply_to": "20094__0_067", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_069", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "That's the way the law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [815.211], "stop_times": [816.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.211}, "reply_to": "20094__0_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_070", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I would not say that this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [816.794], "stop_times": [817.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.794}, "reply_to": "20094__0_069", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_071", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That's the way the law gets changed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [817.21], "stop_times": [817.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.21}, "reply_to": "20094__0_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_072", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I would not say that this is in effect a rehearing, because it is quite useful to have the screening mechanism of district courts.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [817.56, 824.864], "stop_times": [824.864, 825.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.56}, "reply_to": "20094__0_071", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_073", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, it may be useful, but I don't see on your principle why any losing litigant subject to a continuing order cannot come in at any subsequent time so long as that order remains pending and say, perhaps for very good reason, I would like another shot at arguing the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [825.431], "stop_times": [844.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.431}, "reply_to": "20094__0_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_074", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--The reason is, Rule 11 sanctions, if there's no predicate for it.\nThe reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [844.027, 850.098], "stop_times": [850.098, 850.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.027}, "reply_to": "20094__0_073", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_075", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Why should there be a Rule 11 sanction if this is allowed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [850.431], "stop_times": [852.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 850.431}, "reply_to": "20094__0_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_076", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Because, Justice Souter, what this permits is a party who has got a basis for believing that an injunction which has continuing effect no longer reflects the law or the Constitution to seek to have that injunction lifted.\nI think it would raise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [852.847, 867.374], "stop_times": [867.374, 868.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.847}, "reply_to": "20094__0_075", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_077", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Do you rely on the fact that this is a continuing injunction?\nDoes that somehow enter into the calculus and make your response different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [868.54, 871.992], "stop_times": [871.992, 876.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.54}, "reply_to": "20094__0_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__0_078", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, it is critical to the calculus.\nIt is critical to the calculus because it would raise a very serious question about the role of courts and judges in a constitutional democracy if a party did not have a way to be relieved from a court order.\nIt is of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [876.128, 879.348, 893.905], "stop_times": [879.348, 893.905, 894.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.128}, "reply_to": "20094__0_077", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_079", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Why is that so?\nWhy shouldn't a party have one opportunity to litigate the case and if then through some other means the law changes, whether it be a statutory change or whether through other litigation this Court takes a different turn, then the party can come in and say, you have changed the law and therefore it's inequitable to leave me subject to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [894.791, 895.791], "stop_times": [895.791, 917.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.791}, "reply_to": "20094__0_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_080", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--The question I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [917.204], "stop_times": [918.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.204}, "reply_to": "20094__0_079", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_081", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "But that's a very different thing from saying it's inequitable to leave me with only one opportunity to litigate the law in my case.\nExcuse me.\nI thought that the claim here was that the law has changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [918.406, 925.643, 926.893], "stop_times": [925.643, 926.893, 929.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.406}, "reply_to": "20094__0_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__0_082", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That is indeed the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [929.945], "stop_times": [931.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 929.945}, "reply_to": "20094__0_081", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_083", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The decision in this case hasn't changed, but I thought the assertion is that the law has changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [931.547], "stop_times": [935.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.547}, "reply_to": "20094__0_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__0_084", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Our point would be for how many years or decades would you expect a party to be under an order which would be tolerable if it reflects the Constitution, but if it just rests upon a judge's determination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [935.332], "stop_times": [947.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.332}, "reply_to": "20094__0_083", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_085", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "But General, your premise, the premise of your argument was that the law had not changed and that's why it was not error for the district court to rule as it did.\nYou're saying that the law has to change in this case before this Court.\nAm I wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [947.14, 957.031, 962.083], "stop_times": [957.031, 962.083, 963.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.14}, "reply_to": "20094__0_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__0_086", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "May I just add to that that this Court did tell district judges in quite clear terms, it's not your job to predict that the Supreme Court's going to over--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [963.185], "stop_times": [972.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 963.185}, "reply_to": "20094__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_087", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That is correct.\nThat is correct.\nThat is why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [972.707, 972.957, 973.29], "stop_times": [972.957, 973.29, 973.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.707}, "reply_to": "20094__0_086", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_088", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--You can't do that.\nOnly we can do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [973.54, 973.807], "stop_times": [973.807, 974.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.54}, "reply_to": "20094__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_089", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That is why we told the district court to do precisely what it did in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [974.09], "stop_times": [978.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 974.09}, "reply_to": "20094__0_088", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_090", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "But did the district court follow the law or not?\nDid the district court follow the law or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [978.325, 980.325], "stop_times": [980.325, 982.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.325}, "reply_to": "20094__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__0_091", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Justice Stevens, the precise answer is that the district court followed the binding effect of this Court's decision in Aguilar, which we believe no longer reflects the law or the Constitution as it has been articulated by this Court in Zobrest, in Witters, in Mergens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [982.96], "stop_times": [1000.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 982.96}, "reply_to": "20094__0_090", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_092", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "May I do what the Chief Justice often does and ask you yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1000.654], "stop_times": [1003.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.654}, "reply_to": "20094__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__0_093", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nThe question is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1003.873, 1005.392], "stop_times": [1005.392, 1006.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.873}, "reply_to": "20094__0_092", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_094", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "May I do what the Chief Justice often does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1006.275], "stop_times": [1007.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.275}, "reply_to": "20094__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__0_095", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--and answer yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1007.927], "stop_times": [1009.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.927}, "reply_to": "20094__0_094", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_096", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--and suggest to you that the answer is either yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1009.227], "stop_times": [1010.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.227}, "reply_to": "20094__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__0_097", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Did the district court follow the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1010.51], "stop_times": [1012.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.51}, "reply_to": "20094__0_096", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_098", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1012.546], "stop_times": [1012.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.546}, "reply_to": "20094__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__0_099", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes, but the law he followed was by the binding force of the Court's decision in Aguilar v. Felton, a decision which we believe these litigants, who are spending... who have spent $100 million complying with Aguilar, a decision that cost the Secretary $300 million a year in deadweight social loss, that they were entitled to come before you and to tell you that they... while that is tolerable if it reflects the Constitution, since there are decisions that are out there that indicates that it does not, the question is whether the popularly elected officials at the local, State, and national level should be bound merely because judges won't say so where they have a good faith claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1012.796], "stop_times": [1056.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.796}, "reply_to": "20094__0_098", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_100", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well then perhaps, General Dellinger, we should have, or Congress should authorize some proceeding for rehearing out of time by this Court, but we're talking about stages below this Court where they... there is nothing that they can do except pass the question up to this Court and then this Court will rehear a case that was decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1056.056], "stop_times": [1081.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.056}, "reply_to": "20094__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_101", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that is precisely what would happen in any suit brought to challenge Aguilar in any case by any litigant in this country.\nIt would be passed up because Aguilar is binding on every district, and Congress... and this Court has passed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1081.373, 1090.312], "stop_times": [1090.312, 1095.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.373}, "reply_to": "20094__0_100", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_102", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, that's not quite so, is it?\nEven in the title... the cases like title I that are in district courts there's a record being developed.\nIt's a different case, and... isn't that so, in those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1095.43, 1096.382, 1102.453], "stop_times": [1096.382, 1102.453, 1106.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.43}, "reply_to": "20094__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_103", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That is correct, and there is a record here which could be supplemented on remand, but when Rule 60(b) says that you can get relief where it is no longer equitable, that such a judgment should have prospective application?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1106.988], "stop_times": [1119.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.988}, "reply_to": "20094__0_102", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_104", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--But 60(b) is a Rule of Civil Procedure addressed to the district court and here the district court can't do anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1119.479], "stop_times": [1126.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.479}, "reply_to": "20094__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__0_105", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Because of this Court's holding, but this Court, however, can, as it could from any district court, revise that ruling.\nI'll reserve the remainder of my time.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1126.235, 1133.305, 1134.757], "stop_times": [1133.305, 1134.757, 1135.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.235}, "reply_to": "20094__0_104", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__0_106", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Very well, General Dellinger.\nMr. Crotty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1135.424, 1136.557], "stop_times": [1136.557, 1137.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.424}, "reply_to": "20094__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__1_000", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nNew York City schoolchildren who are poor and educationally disadvantaged are not getting the Title 1 educational help they need because of Aguilar.\nMany are receiving remedial education that is less effective than it could be, and the expensive alternatives mandated by Aguilar are taking money that could be used on educating poor, educationally disadvantaged children and spending it on buses and leased sites.\nIn the 1993-'94 school year there were 260,000 students who received title I instruction in New York City.\nThis is from a larger pool of 350 to 400,000 who were eligible but couldn't get it because funds weren't available.\nApproximately 8 percent, or 22,000 of those Title 1 students, attend parochial school.\nThose children received instruction either on buses or with computer-assisted instruction.\nEleven thousand were educated on a bus.\nSeventy-five hundred received computer-assisted instruction.\nEach of these, according to the Secretary of Education, is not an effective method and it makes it difficult to give a quality education.\nIf you look at the buses, and there's a picture of the bus in the record, it's noisy because it needs its own generating capacity, so you have generator noises.\nIt's parked on the city street in New York City.\nIt's very noisy.\nIt's cramped.\nThere are 10 students and a teacher cramped into the back of the bus.\nThere are small windows.\nThe windows themselves are caged.\nThere's no bathrooms, and there's no storage room in these buses, so that the teacher does not have access to books and instructional materials which would be very helpful with discharging the title I teacher's responsibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1137.307, 1144.697, 1153.218, 1167.812, 1176.001, 1182.322, 1188.976, 1196.581, 1198.964, 1202.818, 1211.222, 1219.511, 1221.463, 1222.563, 1223.582, 1227.101, 1228.517, 1230.553], "stop_times": [1144.697, 1153.218, 1167.812, 1176.001, 1182.322, 1188.976, 1196.581, 1198.964, 1202.818, 1211.222, 1219.511, 1221.463, 1222.563, 1223.582, 1227.101, 1228.517, 1230.553, 1242.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.307}, "reply_to": "20094__0_106", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_001", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "It's these children's fault for going to parochial school, I assume.\nThey could have gone to public school, couldn't they have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1242.876, 1246.478], "stop_times": [1246.478, 1248.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.876}, "reply_to": "20094__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__1_002", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, no.\nIn New York City public schools, Your Honor, are terribly overcrowded right now, and I think they would receive... it would be very difficult for them to receive an education in public schools simply because the public schools are so crowded.\nOn the other hand, it's their parents' absolute choice under this Court's teaching that they should have an opportunity to educate their children in a parochial school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1248.43, 1249.497, 1262.774], "stop_times": [1249.497, 1262.774, 1270.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1248.43}, "reply_to": "20094__1_001", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_003", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, let me ask... suppose that it is very expensive and impractical for the program involved to comply with the Establishment Clause.\nThat doesn't mean that there's no Establishment violation does there, or does there?\nIs Establishment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1270.796, 1278.616, 1282.501], "stop_times": [1278.616, 1282.501, 1283.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.796}, "reply_to": "20094__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__1_004", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1283.968], "stop_times": [1284.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1283.968}, "reply_to": "20094__1_003", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_005", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--a question of practicality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1284.853], "stop_times": [1286.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.853}, "reply_to": "20094__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__1_006", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, no, of course not.\nThe Establishment Clause, if it did require these expenses, well then, we'd have to pay these expenses.\nThere's no doubt about that.\nThe issue here really is, in light of the Court's change in, changing jurisprudence with regard to Establishment Clause in Zobrest, in Witters--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1286.753, 1288.472, 1293.876, 1294.859], "stop_times": [1288.472, 1293.876, 1294.859, 1304.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1286.753}, "reply_to": "20094__1_005", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_007", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Is it a change?\nI mean, what is your response basically to Judge Friendly's opinion in Fenton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1304.814, 1305.933], "stop_times": [1305.933, 1310.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1304.814}, "reply_to": "20094__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_008", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, my answer, Justice Breyer, is that there has been a substantial change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1310.818], "stop_times": [1315.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.818}, "reply_to": "20094__1_007", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_009", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "What on the merits?\nI mean, this hasn't been... the... I found that a rather powerful argument on the other side, Judge Friendly's opinion, purely on the merits, leaving precedent and so forth out of it, so if that's right in the front of your mind... if it's not, I'll ask more specifically, or... but is that opinion... are you pretty familiar with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1315.955, 1318.007], "stop_times": [1318.007, 1335.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.955}, "reply_to": "20094__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_010", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes, I am, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1335.453], "stop_times": [1336.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1335.453}, "reply_to": "20094__1_009", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_011", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "All right.\nSo what would your response be to Judge Friendly in... on the merits of the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1336.286, 1336.536], "stop_times": [1336.536, 1341.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.286}, "reply_to": "20094__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_012", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, on the merits, Your Honor, I would say that that is no longer the applicable law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1341.238], "stop_times": [1345.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.238}, "reply_to": "20094__1_011", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_013", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "He has a number, four or five reasons why, in terms of the basic purposes of the Establishment Clause, it makes sense, though of course you'll get bizarre cases.\nOf course it will mean added expense.\nOf course it's not bad for a child to be in parochial school.\nIt's good.\nBut in terms of the basic purposes of the Establishment Clause, he points out why that line is a helpful though sometimes irrational line, so I'm interested in what your response to that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1345.559, 1355.598, 1357.866, 1361.751, 1362.27], "stop_times": [1355.598, 1357.866, 1361.751, 1362.27, 1375.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.559}, "reply_to": "20094__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_014", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The answer, very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1375.994], "stop_times": [1377.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.994}, "reply_to": "20094__1_013", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_015", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Basically it was along the lines that Justice Souter was saying earlier, but I don't want to characterize it if you're familiar with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1377.446], "stop_times": [1382.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.446}, "reply_to": "20094__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_016", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--The answer, Your Honor, I believe is that under the teaching not reflected in Judge Friendly's decision, because it occurred subsequently and in this Court, in Zobrest, where you had a child who was handicapped, what the Court said was, when you have a broad program of benefits that are available to everyone, regardless of their religion, it can't be denied to that particular child because he happens to be going to a parochial school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1382.582], "stop_times": [1406.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.582}, "reply_to": "20094__1_015", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_017", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "All right, so it's quite clear that a handicapped child, one who is a particularly strong case for breaching the line about sending the public school teachers into the schools, but then once that line is breached, is it then logical that you could have science taught for the lower third in the class, math, et cetera?\nWhat Judge Friendly was worried about was breaching a line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1406.815, 1428.546], "stop_times": [1428.546, 1432.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1406.815}, "reply_to": "20094__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_018", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, the line here, Your Honor, is, unlike in paroch... excuse me... in public schools under title I, where they have area-wide schools, where enough of the population is in poverty they make the entire school title I eligible and all kinds of things happen, that's not available in the parochial schools.\nParochial schools only get a very thin slice.\nThey don't get science courses.\nThey don't get enhanced reading courses.\nThey get remedial courses, and it's remedial English, and remedial math, and English as a second language, and they're not taught... unlike the Grand Rapids situation or the Meek situation, they are not taught by parochial teachers being funded by public funds.\nThey are taught by public school teachers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1432.331, 1451.428, 1454.113, 1455.596, 1457.648, 1474.777], "stop_times": [1451.428, 1454.113, 1455.596, 1457.648, 1474.777, 1478.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.331}, "reply_to": "20094__1_017", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_019", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Crotty, Justice Breyer suggests that there is a line between a physical handicap and a mental handicap, which is what these children are laboring under.\nDo you agree that you can draw a line between those two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1478.061, 1486.667], "stop_times": [1486.667, 1489.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.061}, "reply_to": "20094__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__1_020", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, I don't agree with that at all, Your Honor, and I don't think that's a constitutionally significant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1489.536], "stop_times": [1493.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1489.536}, "reply_to": "20094__1_019", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_021", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, the reason would be, I suppose that the basic line is as to whether or not large numbers of public school teachers are going to be physically in the parochial school, and we have a whole list in the opinion of problems that grow out of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1493.571], "stop_times": [1509.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.571}, "reply_to": "20094__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_022", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1509.098], "stop_times": [1510.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1509.098}, "reply_to": "20094__1_021", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_023", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "And now this Court's created an exception to that, and the exception, I take it, is in the situation where it's hardest for a child physically to leave the school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1510.117], "stop_times": [1518.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.117}, "reply_to": "20094__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_024", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, it's hard for these children to physically leave the school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1518.555], "stop_times": [1521.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.555}, "reply_to": "20094__1_023", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_025", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1521.59], "stop_times": [1521.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.59}, "reply_to": "20094__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_026", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "It's terribly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1521.774], "stop_times": [1522.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1521.774}, "reply_to": "20094__1_025", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_027", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "So what in your opinion, then, is the line?\nIs the line that it is okay under the Establishment Clause to send large numbers of public school teachers into the parochial schools in order to teach what?\nA third of the class, the lower third, any secular subject, all secular subjects?\nWhat in your opinion, is the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1522.474, 1524.709, 1536.85, 1543.254], "stop_times": [1524.709, 1536.85, 1543.254, 1545.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.474}, "reply_to": "20094__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__1_028", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, what I ask only, Your Honor, in reversing Aguilar is that the title I program go forward.\nWithin the parochial schools it's not all parochial children that receive this instruction, and even within the parochial schools that get the instruction, it's not all the children within that particular parochial school which is receiving the title I instruction.\nWhat I'm suggesting is that when you have a narrow, well-defined program which can be monitored to make sure that the concerns that Justice Friendly had, Judge Friendly had are not really applicable... we've had 30 years' experience on the record of this case.\nThere hasn't been a single case, and Mr. Geller has been litigating now for 30 years on this case.\nThere is not a single case where he can demonstrate that a public school teacher has had his mind or her mind so overwhelmed that they began to teach secular... excuse me, sectarian topics.\nSo what I would say, Your Honor, is there has been a change in the jurisprudence, and there's no facts that would support the hypothesized concerns that Judge Friendly had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1545.373, 1550.742, 1565.417, 1578.844, 1584.831, 1595.806], "stop_times": [1550.742, 1565.417, 1578.844, 1584.831, 1595.806, 1604.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.373}, "reply_to": "20094__1_027", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_029", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "What does the record tell us about the amount of monitoring that goes on in the buses to find out what the teachers do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1604.578], "stop_times": [1609.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.578}, "reply_to": "20094__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__1_030", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The same amount of monitoring, Your Honor, goes on in the buses that would go on in the public schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1609.363], "stop_times": [1614.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1609.363}, "reply_to": "20094__1_029", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_031", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "What is that amount of monitoring?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1614.017], "stop_times": [1615.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.017}, "reply_to": "20094__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__1_032", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The... I think the teachers are visited once a month by their supervisors, and once or twice a year, depending on the teacher's tenure status under the collective bargaining rules they get an evaluative study.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1615.6], "stop_times": [1628.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1615.6}, "reply_to": "20094__1_031", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_033", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "They're visited in the bus, so somebody comes into the bus once a month?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1628.36], "stop_times": [1632.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1628.36}, "reply_to": "20094__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__1_034", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "They're visited once a month in the bus, and then there's an evaluation study either once or twice a year, depending upon the union, the teacher's status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1632.062], "stop_times": [1640.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1632.062}, "reply_to": "20094__1_033", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_035", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Have there been any fact-finding hearings on what's happened during the last 30 years, because I guess this case was dismissed right on the pleadings, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1640.251], "stop_times": [1646.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.251}, "reply_to": "20094__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__1_036", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1646.321], "stop_times": [1646.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1646.321}, "reply_to": "20094__1_035", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_037", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I mean, on the Rule for a 60(b) motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1646.938], "stop_times": [1649.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.938}, "reply_to": "20094__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20094__1_038", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--after a full record was made in a preceding case, called the Pearl I case, which was a three-judge court case, and then appeal was taken here to the Supreme Court, and it was out of time and so it was dismissed.\nThat record was then incorporated into the Aguilar record.\nThere's since been a hearing, Your Honor, on related attack to our compliance with the title I program as constituted after Aguilar as to whether that violates the Establishment Clause, so there's been two hearings on this, one in 1978, and one just recently, concluded in 1996.\nThere has been more than an adequate opportunity to make this case on the facts.\nIt hasn't been made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1649.273, 1659.963, 1662.748, 1679.71, 1683.946], "stop_times": [1659.963, 1662.748, 1679.71, 1683.946, 1684.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1649.273}, "reply_to": "20094__1_037", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_039", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Crotty, we're still looking for a limiting principle.\nYou referred to the Zobrest situation.\nYou could say in Zobrest that the particular child either had to get the services in the parochial school or the child simply could not go and learn in a parochial school because there was no... there could be no communication.\nSo that at least is a possible limiting principle between, as Judge... Justice Breyer was saying, the concerns that Judge Friendly raised, and the claim that was being made in Zobrest, and in effect that was the only way to allow the child to have the education.\nIs there any limiting principle here between what you are asking and a broader support for secular education in the schools, in the parochial schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1684.98, 1688.148, 1690.6, 1703.825, 1721.72], "stop_times": [1688.148, 1690.6, 1703.825, 1721.72, 1732.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.98}, "reply_to": "20094__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__1_040", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The limitations, Your Honor, are contained in the regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1732.926], "stop_times": [1735.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1732.926}, "reply_to": "20094__1_039", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_041", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "No, but that's not a constitutional limitation.\nIs there any constitutional principle that this Court could look to to support the position that you are making?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1735.961, 1738.913], "stop_times": [1738.913, 1746.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.961}, "reply_to": "20094__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__1_042", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I would say that a program that is limited and made available only to those who objectively need it, without regard to their religion, would be a program that is constitutionally permitted and consistent with the Court's teaching in Zobrest.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1746.001, 1760.511], "stop_times": [1760.511, 1761.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1746.001}, "reply_to": "20094__1_041", "speaker": "paul_a_crotty"}
{"id": "20094__1_043", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Crotty.\nMr. Geller, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1761.761, 1762.411], "stop_times": [1762.411, 1765.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.761}, "reply_to": "20094__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__2_000", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe respondents in this case have tried very hard to adhere to the facts of this case, and we have pointed out repeatedly that this case deals with not the statute... and I hear questions all about the statute.\nWhen we brought this case first, many years ago, we brought it to challenge the New York City plan for title I in religious schools.\nAnd I point this out to you at the outset, because something has been said about 97 percent of the aid in title I going to public schools.\nThat, of course, raises no question.\nThere is no question about using public funds for public school students.\nNow, hear this fact about... and it is a fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1765.713, 1771.367, 1793.732, 1806.29, 1817.015, 1819.8, 1825.418], "stop_times": [1771.367, 1793.732, 1806.29, 1817.015, 1819.8, 1825.418, 1829.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.713}, "reply_to": "20094__1_043", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_001", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Or private school students.\nI suppose you have no problem with using those public funds for private school students as well, so long as they're not religiously affiliated private schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1829.239, 1830.206], "stop_times": [1830.206, 1838.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.239}, "reply_to": "20094__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_002", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Let me... yes.\nI have this problem, Your Honor, and a very serious problem.\nThe statute may speak of nonpublic students.\nHere's what happens, or happened within the title I program in New York City.\nNinety-nine point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1838.428, 1839.262, 1842.046, 1845.415, 1851.752], "stop_times": [1839.262, 1842.046, 1845.415, 1851.752, 1853.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.428}, "reply_to": "20094__2_001", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_003", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Can't you answer Justice Scalia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1853.771], "stop_times": [1855.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.771}, "reply_to": "20094__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__2_004", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Oh, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1855.889], "stop_times": [1856.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.889}, "reply_to": "20094__2_003", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_005", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I didn't think you answered Justice Scalia's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1856.406], "stop_times": [1858.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.406}, "reply_to": "20094__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__2_006", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1858.675], "stop_times": [1859.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.675}, "reply_to": "20094__2_005", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_007", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "You have no problem in principle with making public funds available to public schools and to private schools.\nIt's only those private schools that are religiously affiliated that you have an objection to, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1859.291, 1866.412], "stop_times": [1866.412, 1871.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.291}, "reply_to": "20094__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_008", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Oh, right, I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1871.947], "stop_times": [1872.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.947}, "reply_to": "20094__2_007", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_009", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1872.566], "stop_times": [1873.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.566}, "reply_to": "20094__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_010", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes.\nMy problem is with... constitutionally with the religious schools because of the Establishment Clause, but by way of answering your question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1873.182, 1873.649], "stop_times": [1873.649, 1883.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.182}, "reply_to": "20094__2_009", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_011", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "You have no problem with the Free Exercise Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1883.838], "stop_times": [1885.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.838}, "reply_to": "20094__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_012", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I have no problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1885.89], "stop_times": [1887.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.89}, "reply_to": "20094__2_011", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_013", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Those parents must forego that, that subsidy, even for remedial purposes if they happen to select a private school that is a religious school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1887.491], "stop_times": [1896.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.491}, "reply_to": "20094__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_014", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1896.431], "stop_times": [1897.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.431}, "reply_to": "20094__2_013", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_015", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "You see no Free Exercise problems with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1897.781], "stop_times": [1900.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.781}, "reply_to": "20094__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_016", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I... to the extent that I see a Free Exercise problem, I see it as being seriously overcome because of the Establishment Clause problems.\nI have never agreed that the Free Exercise Clause enters into this picture at all.\nI do not believe that religious school... religious schools, or religious school students have a Free Exercise right to receive public funds.\nI'm of the belief, and I think... and it happens all the time, that a public... a Government, Federal, State or local can provide funds for public schools and public school students without providing them for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1900.799, 1910.489, 1917.595, 1928.034], "stop_times": [1910.489, 1917.595, 1928.034, 1945.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.799}, "reply_to": "20094__2_015", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_017", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Geller, it's not a matter of their having a right.\nIt's a matter of how rigidly one is able to apply the Establishment Clause without overriding very important values that are contained in the Free Exercise Clause, and when you say to people that you must forego the entirety of the educational subsidy that the State provides in all forms if you make a religious decision to send a child to a religious school, that certainly calls into play the values that are embodied in the Free Exercise Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1945.912, 1948.464], "stop_times": [1948.464, 1980.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.912}, "reply_to": "20094__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_018", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1980.501], "stop_times": [1980.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.501}, "reply_to": "20094__2_017", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_019", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "And to adopt the absolutist view of the Establishment Clause that you're proposing simply ignores that aspect of the matter, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1980.917], "stop_times": [1988.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.917}, "reply_to": "20094__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_020", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Oh, I don't have to adopt that view, because I can see where, if you had the religious school students obtaining their remedial instruction in public schools like the public school students do, then they would be able to get that instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [1988.071], "stop_times": [2007.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.071}, "reply_to": "20094__2_019", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_021", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "They'd go to public school--\n--Suppose there were a showing that that alternative did not work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2007.318, 2008.334], "stop_times": [2008.334, 2011.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.318}, "reply_to": "20094__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_022", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "That that alternative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2011.203], "stop_times": [2013.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.203}, "reply_to": "20094__2_021", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_023", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Suppose there were a showing that that alternative did not work?\nThe students have to go there late, in which case they are not efficient at absorbing their lessons, or they have to go there during the midday, which disrupts the regular instruction, and it's very costly.\nSuppose it was shown that this was simply impractical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2013.969, 2015.719, 2026.627], "stop_times": [2015.719, 2026.627, 2028.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.969}, "reply_to": "20094__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_024", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That question, Your Honor, contains the assumption that it is so.\nThe respondents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2028.979, 2036.548], "stop_times": [2036.548, 2038.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.979}, "reply_to": "20094__2_023", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_025", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes, of course it's an assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2038.464], "stop_times": [2039.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.464}, "reply_to": "20094__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_026", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--The respondents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2039.5], "stop_times": [2040.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.5}, "reply_to": "20094__2_025", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_027", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The assumption is that it's impractical, and my question is, what if that assumption is true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2040.283], "stop_times": [2044.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.283}, "reply_to": "20094__2_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_028", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--If the assumption was true, it would bear some weight, but the fact, the actual fact is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2044.618], "stop_times": [2051.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.618}, "reply_to": "20094__2_027", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_029", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "So that practicality does enter into our determination of whether there's an establishment violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2051.308], "stop_times": [2057.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.308}, "reply_to": "20094__2_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_030", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--It would, if it were factually warranted.\nMay I suggest that it is not factually warranted, that in the school year '86-'87 the Chancellor and the Board of Education offered a program to the religious schools in New York City whereby 80 percent... 80 percent of those schools and their students who are entitled to participate in title I could go to public schools to receive their remedial instructions that were within 10 minutes by walking or by bus to the matching public schools, and they refused that out of hand... out of hand.\nWhich brings up another question that I would point out to the Court.\nNot only does the New York City program, as it was in effect in 1985, not only are 99.56 percent of the so-called nonstudent, nonpublic students in the program go to parochial schools, but the fact is that this is not... this is not a program that flows to the students, and I'll tell you why, because the program cannot even get to the parochial school students unless their parochial school authorities decide to enter into the program.\nIt doesn't begin to flow directly to the students.\nAnd when the religious schools, the parochial schools have opted out of the program, as they did in '86-'87, then 50 percent of the students that had been in the program were no longer in the program.\nThe New York City... as a matter of fact, there's one other factual point that I wish to make, because it was made for me by the petitioners.\nThey stated that 11,000 of the 22,000 religious school students who receive this aid... that's 50 percent of them, 50 percent of the participating students, 50 percent of the entire religious school body receive title I instruction.\nThat's an enormous amount of instruction.\nIt is not the situation that has been brought up of a single deaf-mute student in Zobrest who has the benefit of a sign language interpreter.\nHow does that affect the... impose on the religious school?\nIt doesn't affect them at all.\nBut when you have a huge body of religious school students in a program like New York City receiving this aid, then it is no longer the attenuated aid that is readily distinguishable in Zobrest.\nI did want to cover a point that Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2057.21, 2061.663, 2101.823, 2105.275, 2147.519, 2151.387, 2169.033, 2182.958, 2217.699, 2220.733, 2234.993, 2243.683, 2246.468, 2262.144], "stop_times": [2061.663, 2101.823, 2105.275, 2147.519, 2151.387, 2169.033, 2182.958, 2217.699, 2220.733, 2234.993, 2243.683, 2246.468, 2262.144, 2267.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.21}, "reply_to": "20094__2_029", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_031", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I assume that the State can provide buses to these parochial school students, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2267.548], "stop_times": [2272.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.548}, "reply_to": "20094__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_032", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--They can provide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2272.266], "stop_times": [2273.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.266}, "reply_to": "20094__2_031", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_033", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Public services such as fire, fire protection and so forth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2273.932], "stop_times": [2277.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.932}, "reply_to": "20094__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_034", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2277.817], "stop_times": [2278.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.817}, "reply_to": "20094__2_033", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_035", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "And is that true even if that advances the mission of the parochial school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2278.367], "stop_times": [2282.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.367}, "reply_to": "20094__2_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_036", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I don't see how it advances the mission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2282.954], "stop_times": [2287.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2282.954}, "reply_to": "20094__2_035", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_037", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "You don't think busing students to go to the school advances the mission of the school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2287.323], "stop_times": [2291.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.323}, "reply_to": "20094__2_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_038", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "It does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2291.442], "stop_times": [2292.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.442}, "reply_to": "20094__2_037", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_039", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2292.394], "stop_times": [2292.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.394}, "reply_to": "20094__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_040", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I don't see how that does at all, and as a matter of fact, we point out in our brief that when in Everson v. Board of Education that was permitted, the Court noted that this was the very verge of the aid, if it could be called aid, that would go to a public school, religious schools or religious school students.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2292.86], "stop_times": [2316.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2292.86}, "reply_to": "20094__2_039", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_041", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "How about books?\nCan you provide books to parochial school students?\nYou can do that too, can't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2316.891, 2318.525, 2320.843], "stop_times": [2318.525, 2320.843, 2322.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.891}, "reply_to": "20094__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_042", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "They... they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2322.879], "stop_times": [2323.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.879}, "reply_to": "20094__2_041", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_043", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "And that doesn't help the mission either, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2323.545], "stop_times": [2324.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.545}, "reply_to": "20094__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_044", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--They can do that under Allen, yes.\nI can't go back on Allen any more than I think the Court can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2324.979, 2326.997], "stop_times": [2326.997, 2330.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2324.979}, "reply_to": "20094__2_043", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_045", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Can on Zobrest, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2330.466], "stop_times": [2331.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.466}, "reply_to": "20094__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_046", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2331.485], "stop_times": [2331.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.485}, "reply_to": "20094__2_045", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_047", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "No more than you can on Zobrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2331.985], "stop_times": [2333.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.985}, "reply_to": "20094__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_048", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I don't go back on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2333.718], "stop_times": [2335.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.718}, "reply_to": "20094__2_047", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_049", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I mean, it seems to me that there's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2335.437], "stop_times": [2336.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.437}, "reply_to": "20094__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_050", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I don't go back on Zobrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2336.92], "stop_times": [2337.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.92}, "reply_to": "20094__2_049", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_051", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--It seems to me there's not this clear line you're trying to draw between any assistance that the Federal Government provides to the accomplishment of the mission of parochial schools.\nIt seems to me the line we've tried to draw is between assisting them in the accomplishment of their distinctively religious mission.\nYou just simply cannot maintain the point that the State cannot or the Federal Government cannot at all assist the parochial schools in the accomplishment of their purely sectarian... or secular educational mission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2337.889, 2348.995, 2355.499], "stop_times": [2348.995, 2355.499, 2368.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.889}, "reply_to": "20094__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_052", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The line that respondents draw, Your Honor, is as far as I'm concerned as clear as clear can be.\nI can't go back on Allen, although I never agreed with it, yes.\nYou can lend books to religious schools and religious school students.\nBut the distinction was made in Lemon by then Chief Justice Burger, who said, teachers are different from books, and our line is, don't send teachers in.\nYou can't change what books do because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2368.908, 2377.264, 2382.584, 2389.072, 2403.747], "stop_times": [2377.264, 2382.584, 2389.072, 2403.747, 2407.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.908}, "reply_to": "20094__2_051", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_053", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Why are teachers different from books?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2407.216], "stop_times": [2408.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.216}, "reply_to": "20094__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_054", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Because teachers are uncontrollable, and I point this out--\n[Laughter]\nYes.\nYes, and... uncontrollable and sometimes very unprofessional.\nI hear arguments made that we should rely on the professionality--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2408.449, 2413.353, 2413.603, 2414.869, 2420.007], "stop_times": [2413.353, 2413.603, 2414.869, 2420.007, 2425.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.449}, "reply_to": "20094__2_053", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_055", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "That's an argument... Mr. Geller, you can't seriously expect this Court to accept that argument, that teachers are unprofessional and uncontrollable.\nI mean, that just flies in the face of experience and reality.\nI think we have to assume that a public school teacher who is employed by the State and is told not to inculcate religion when teaching remedial reading will follow that instruction.\nI think that assumption is a fair one for us to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2425.494, 2432.648, 2439.384, 2453.661], "stop_times": [2432.648, 2439.384, 2453.661, 2457.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2425.494}, "reply_to": "20094__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__2_056", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--When I said teachers are uncontrollable, I may have used a strong word, but not much stronger than Chief Justice Burger did in Lemon, and when he pointed out that books are controllable because once they're printed and they contain nothing that offends the Establishment Clause, that's the end of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2457.965], "stop_times": [2482.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.965}, "reply_to": "20094__2_055", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_057", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, we had... New York had 19 years of title I education programs without a single identifiable incident of a public school teacher inculcating religion, and it worked fine, until this Court got the notion that that program somehow failed the Establishment Clause test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2482.663], "stop_times": [2501.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.663}, "reply_to": "20094__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__2_058", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Those many years of nonreported violations are very easily explained, and Justice Breyer asked questions about... to Mr. Crotty about Judge Friendly's opinion on that point, and I believe that's the... that speaks much better than I could ever speak.\nThe reason that there are no reported violations is because the only people that could report a violation would be the violators themselves.\nWhat system of surveillance can prevail in a small classroom, whether it's inside a religious school or in a bus?\nWhat system will disclose violations of the Establishment Clause or conduct on the part of a teacher that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2501.042, 2524.174, 2535.048, 2545.821], "stop_times": [2524.174, 2535.048, 2545.821, 2553.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.042}, "reply_to": "20094__2_057", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_059", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "What is there in our civic tradition that says that surveillance is necessary to ensure that citizens obey the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2553.844], "stop_times": [2560.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.844}, "reply_to": "20094__2_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_060", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2560.663], "stop_times": [2562.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.663}, "reply_to": "20094__2_059", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_061", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "What is there in our civic tradition that says surveillance is necessary to ensure that citizens obey the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2562.115], "stop_times": [2568.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.115}, "reply_to": "20094__2_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_062", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--In this particular case, I would assume it's necessary.\nThis isn't merely Aguilar.\nThis goes back to Lemon v. Kurtzman, Marburger, Meek... it was felt by this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2568.269, 2577.125, 2579.244], "stop_times": [2577.125, 2579.244, 2589.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2568.269}, "reply_to": "20094__2_061", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_063", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Is it any easier to bug the buses than it is to bug the classrooms?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2589.45, 2592.402], "stop_times": [2592.402, 2593.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.45}, "reply_to": "20094__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_064", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Is it any easier to bug the buses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2593.369], "stop_times": [2595.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.369}, "reply_to": "20094__2_063", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_065", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "To bug the buses than it is to bug the classrooms?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2595.621], "stop_times": [2597.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.621}, "reply_to": "20094__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_066", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2597.288], "stop_times": [2597.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.288}, "reply_to": "20094__2_065", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_067", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I mean, if you have this problem about teachers inculcating religious values, why couldn't it happen on the bus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2597.704], "stop_times": [2602.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.704}, "reply_to": "20094__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_068", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2602.59], "stop_times": [2604.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.59}, "reply_to": "20094__2_067", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_069", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I mean, somehow the teacher magically, when she walks into the public... into the parochial school classroom is transformed from an impartial employee of the State, without any secular interest in mind, to somebody who's going to teach religion.\nWhy does that happen when she goes from the bus to the classroom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2604.125, 2617.833], "stop_times": [2617.833, 2620.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.125}, "reply_to": "20094__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_070", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--My answer to that has to be, Your Honor, one case at a time.\nWe are opposing the buses as mere adjuncts of the religious schools in a case now before the Second Circuit, and as a matter of fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2620.317, 2624.438], "stop_times": [2624.438, 2633.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2620.317}, "reply_to": "20094__2_069", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_071", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The buses are not even any good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2633.627], "stop_times": [2635.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.627}, "reply_to": "20094__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_072", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--If you want an honest answer from these respondents, yes, the buses are a violation, because we see little difference between the buses right outside the door of the religious school and a title I classroom inside the door.\nThe students tramp out the door, they go into class a few steps away, and then they go back, all fitted within the religious school schedule, but as I say, that's another case.\nBut what we're saying is simply that the mandate of this Court in several precedents was yes, when you have public school teachers inside a parochial school, then you have to take some steps to see that they don't offend the Establishment Clause, and as a matter of fact, this isn't original with us.\nThe Board of Education in Aguilar in the original case vaunted the system of surveillance that they had.\nOf course, it was a paper system that didn't work, because you cannot send an inspector into a classroom of one teacher and 10 students and expect the teacher not to be aware that he's being inspected for all kinds of things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2635.244, 2651.923, 2666.765, 2692.0, 2702.105], "stop_times": [2651.923, 2666.765, 2692.0, 2702.105, 2719.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.244}, "reply_to": "20094__2_071", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_073", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Before you finish, could you spend a couple of minutes addressing the 60(b) question?\nThat is, the Solicitor General said, and he certainly seems to me to have a point, he says there must be a way procedurally to bring people outside an injunction that requires them to spend $10 million a year if the law has undergone a sea change, or is about to.\nThey should have some method of testing it out.\nAnd he then said there is no other way that the Secretary of Education can't just give money to this, and I don't know, I think of declaratory judgment suits.\nI think of the Secretary possibly saying, I would give you money if.\nI think of some school board who wanted to do it, but is it right that there is no other way to test out this issue than the 60(b) motion here, in your opinion?\nIf not, what is the other way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2719.317, 2725.221, 2744.884, 2747.4, 2758.608, 2762.762, 2773.117], "stop_times": [2725.221, 2744.884, 2747.4, 2758.608, 2762.762, 2773.117, 2774.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2719.317}, "reply_to": "20094__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20094__2_074", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "My answer to that, Justice Breyer, is twofold.\nFirst of all, I do not agree that there is no other way.\nI think that there are cases coming up now in which this Court could address the merits of the determination in Aguilar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2774.736, 2778.188, 2781.973], "stop_times": [2778.188, 2781.973, 2791.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.736}, "reply_to": "20094__2_073", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_075", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Geller--\n--But it's an odd calculus, isn't it, Mr. Crotty, that only the person who's most... Mr. Geller, excuse me.\nIt's an odd calculus, isn't it, that only the party most affected cannot get relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2791.996, 2792.715, 2800.971], "stop_times": [2792.715, 2800.971, 2806.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.996}, "reply_to": "20094__2_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20094__2_076", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "That is odd, but I was going to answer Justice Breyer by saying, Justice Kennedy, that that is the precise situation in which many, many parties before this Court have found themselves, and they have had to wait, some of them many, many years, to have a case come before this Court... very few cases... in which the determination in their case is overruled.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2806.106, 2833.442], "stop_times": [2833.442, 2834.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2806.106}, "reply_to": "20094__2_075", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_077", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Geller, on the question of cases... you mentioned there were cases.\nI am aware of only two.\nYou are au courant in this field.\nOther than the case in Louisiana, and the one in Minnesota, both in district courts, is there any other case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2834.075, 2836.894, 2838.894, 2842.112], "stop_times": [2836.894, 2838.894, 2842.112, 2850.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.075}, "reply_to": "20094__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__2_078", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Yes, the case that respondents have now... it's suspended pending this case... in the Second Circuit Court, in which we are challenging the present, what we call the alternative plan in New York City which relies largely on busing.\nWe are challenging that, and we are challenging it on the theory that it is no different from the situation in Aguilar in substance.\nIf we prevail in that case, that case could come to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2850.634, 2868.096, 2877.452], "stop_times": [2868.096, 2877.452, 2882.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.634}, "reply_to": "20094__2_077", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_079", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Have your opponents in that case urged that Aguilar be overruled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2882.606], "stop_times": [2886.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.606}, "reply_to": "20094__2_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__2_080", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Oh, the opponents take precisely the same position that they're... that the petitioners are taking in this case, yes, that Aguilar is no longer the law, and we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2886.66], "stop_times": [2897.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.66}, "reply_to": "20094__2_079", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_081", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Would the district court be able to grant them that wish that Aguilar no longer be the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2897.098], "stop_times": [2901.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.098}, "reply_to": "20094__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_082", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--The district court already--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2901.733], "stop_times": [2903.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.733}, "reply_to": "20094__2_081", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_083", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "No, I mean in that case could the district court pronounce Aguilar to be dead?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2903.168], "stop_times": [2908.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.168}, "reply_to": "20094__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_084", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--The district court distinguished the buses from the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2908.537], "stop_times": [2914.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.537}, "reply_to": "20094__2_083", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_085", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes, but assume it couldn't distinguish.\nI mean, do you think that district court... I mean, one of the arguments here is that look, this district court under 60(b) has no authority to say Aguilar is dead.\nCan you conceive of any case in which a district court would have the authority to pronounce Aguilar dead?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2914.041, 2914.976, 2923.396], "stop_times": [2914.976, 2923.396, 2931.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.041}, "reply_to": "20094__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_086", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Depending on the facts of the case that are developed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2931.085], "stop_times": [2935.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.085}, "reply_to": "20094__2_085", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_087", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I don't understand that answer.\nI though this Court had said that's not the job of lower courts.\nIt's for the Supreme Court to overrule its own precedents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2935.354, 2937.839, 2941.091], "stop_times": [2937.839, 2941.091, 2943.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.354}, "reply_to": "20094__2_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__2_088", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, it's not the job of lower courts, but what has happened in the case... the Walker case in California is, that went past the court of appeals out there, was that the court of appeals... that was a Chapter II case, a title II case on books and equipment rather than a title I case, but there the court of appeals did hold on the basis of the change in the law that the petitioners here argue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2943.841], "stop_times": [2979.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.841}, "reply_to": "20094__2_087", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_089", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, it shouldn't, Mr. Geller.\nWe have said very clearly that we overrule our own cases.\nIt's... and if that is so, then no matter how it comes up, if Aguilar is ever going to be overruled, we are going to have to say that a district court was wrong for doing the right thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [2979.632, 2981.299, 2984.434], "stop_times": [2981.299, 2984.434, 3002.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.632}, "reply_to": "20094__2_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_090", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3002.13], "stop_times": [3003.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3002.13}, "reply_to": "20094__2_089", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_091", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "That is, it was wrong in obeying our instructions that it should follow Aguilar.\nNo matter how it comes up, we're going to have to say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3003.164, 3008.616], "stop_times": [3008.616, 3011.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.164}, "reply_to": "20094__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_092", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3011.234], "stop_times": [3011.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.234}, "reply_to": "20094__2_091", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_093", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--the court that did the right thing was wrong, aren't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3011.884], "stop_times": [3013.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.884}, "reply_to": "20094__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_094", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--All right, Justice Scalia... I never got to the second point of my answer to Justice Breyer, and that is, it was suggested by Justice Ginsburg.\nIf it cannot be done under present rules, you don't break these rules.\nYou don't bend them.\nInstead, you promulgate a new rule.\nAnd as Justice Ginsburg suggested, if there's such a hardship problem in this type of case, then the Court should recommend a rule to Congress, and Congress should promulgate it as part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that you can have a rehearing out of date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3013.436, 3023.642, 3030.497, 3031.331, 3034.366], "stop_times": [3023.642, 3030.497, 3031.331, 3034.366, 3053.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.436}, "reply_to": "20094__2_093", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_095", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Geller, even assuming that were not done, I have assumed that there would be no difficulty for any school district, for example, to protest the Secretary's position and litigate that.\nThere's... it seems to me that there are myriad cases that could come up here by which Aguilar could be reexamined without implicating the 60(b) problem if anybody wanted to take the trouble to bring it up.\nAm I missing something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3053.763, 3066.237, 3080.014], "stop_times": [3066.237, 3080.014, 3080.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.763}, "reply_to": "20094__2_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__2_096", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Oh, well, that was the third part of my answer to Justice Breyer's question.\nThe citizens of this great country have devised a myriad of ways to develop cases in order to test prior determinations of this Court.\nI do not... I think it's just a fiction that there cannot be a case developed within a State, within a locality, where the principle cannot be tested that public school teachers or guidance counselors cannot go into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3080.947, 3085.532, 3099.459], "stop_times": [3085.532, 3099.459, 3119.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3080.947}, "reply_to": "20094__2_095", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_097", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, Mr. Geller, you're not suggesting that this Court has never granted a rehearing out of time, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3119.539], "stop_times": [3126.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.539}, "reply_to": "20094__2_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__2_098", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I thought it never had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3126.709], "stop_times": [3129.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.709}, "reply_to": "20094__2_097", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_099", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Have you... are you familiar with the Gondack case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3129.161], "stop_times": [3131.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.161}, "reply_to": "20094__2_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__2_100", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I must not be, because I thought that... I thought that this case was unprecedented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3131.28], "stop_times": [3138.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.28}, "reply_to": "20094__2_099", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_101", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "How could you not be familiar with the Gondack case?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3138.267, 3139.786], "stop_times": [3139.786, 3140.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.267}, "reply_to": "20094__2_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_102", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I am not... I said that... yes, I must admit.\nI think we all are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3140.453, 3145.773], "stop_times": [3145.773, 3146.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.453}, "reply_to": "20094__2_101", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_103", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Geller, I believe that was a question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3146.989], "stop_times": [3148.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.989}, "reply_to": "20094__2_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__2_104", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I think he's answering my question, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3148.391], "stop_times": [3151.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.391}, "reply_to": "20094__2_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__2_105", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Yes, I did answer that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3151.176], "stop_times": [3152.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3151.176}, "reply_to": "20094__2_104", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_106", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Gondack may have been an error on our part, but there was a case 20, 25 years ago where we did grant a rehearing out of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3152.109], "stop_times": [3159.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.109}, "reply_to": "20094__2_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__2_107", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Out of time, and before a bench that was so different from the bench that sat on Aguilar, with not even... not even a single Justice here that indicates that he would change his vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3159.246], "stop_times": [3174.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.246}, "reply_to": "20094__2_106", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_108", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, this was perhaps 2 years out of time, not as far out as... now it's very much out of time by our rule.\nWas it a question... I don't recall... of action on a cert petition rather than a decision on the merits?\nI may... I don't know... I don't recall that Gondack was a decision on the merits as this was, with a sharply divided Court.\nI thought that that was a case involving a denial of a petition for review, and then a rehearing on that denial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3174.522, 3181.259, 3189.096, 3202.005], "stop_times": [3181.259, 3189.096, 3202.005, 3212.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.522}, "reply_to": "20094__2_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20094__2_109", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Well, having had to admit that I'm not familiar with Gondack--\n[Laughter]\n--I accept your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3212.195, 3217.015, 3215.932], "stop_times": [3217.015, 3215.932, 3217.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3212.195}, "reply_to": "20094__2_108", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_110", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Mr. Geller, can you give me... I mean, it's fine that you say some other district may be able to raise this issue.\nThat's not very comforting to New York, that's spending $10 million a year.\nIs there any way that you think that this particular entity, that New York City, which is under, now, an injunction that it thinks does not comport with what this Court has said the Constitution requires, is there any way that New York could raise it, other than 60(b)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3217.865, 3229.74, 3234.108], "stop_times": [3229.74, 3234.108, 3250.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.865}, "reply_to": "20094__2_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_111", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "I do not see it at this late date.\nOne of the... and this would be an answer to something that Justice O'Connor suggested.\nThis is an ongoing injunction, but... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3250.82, 3253.938, 3259.842], "stop_times": [3253.938, 3259.842, 3264.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3250.82}, "reply_to": "20094__2_110", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_112", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "We're not imaginative enough to find some way to provide relief to somebody who is laboring under an injunction that is assumedly unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3264.211], "stop_times": [3276.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.211}, "reply_to": "20094__2_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_113", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--That I obtained?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3276.269], "stop_times": [3277.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3276.269}, "reply_to": "20094__2_112", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_114", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "That you obtained, but assume, just posit--\n[Laughter]\nJust posit for present purposes... and the 60(b) issue assumes that.\nAssume that the law has changed, that Zobrest now makes it clear that the injunction was wrongly granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3277.054, 3281.606, 3282.123, 3288.16], "stop_times": [3281.606, 3282.123, 3288.16, 3296.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.054}, "reply_to": "20094__2_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_115", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes... yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3296.365], "stop_times": [3297.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3296.365}, "reply_to": "20094__2_114", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_116", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Is there no way that we can give relief to New York, or to just tell them, well, wait for somebody else to bring a lawsuit, maybe you'll get lucky?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3297.232], "stop_times": [3303.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3297.232}, "reply_to": "20094__2_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_117", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--I was about to answer Justice O'Connor's suggestion, and it will answer yours.\nSure there was a way.\nIf... if the law had really changed here, and there was a change either in the law or the factual circumstances, yes, under rules of equity you might modify an injunction, perhaps even an injunction that's a mandate on a constitutional point.\nBut look what happened here.\nFor 12 years after this injunction issued, the Board of Education was faced with the same cost and the same inefficiency, and they did nothing about it until Kiryas Joel and the comments that were made in Kiryas Joel about Aguilar, which don't have the binding effect of law.\nBut if the law had really changed, and if the factual circumstances had changed, yes, under rules of equity that rule 60(b) subsumes these parties could have... the petitioners could have brought a case, but they didn't do that, and the law didn't change.\nAs a matter of fact, we have pointed out that the very comments in Kiryas Joel showed very clearly that the law hadn't changed, and the comments were that Aguilar perhaps should be overruled in a proper case, and we say this is not a proper case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3303.169, 3308.59, 3309.858, 3328.32, 3329.654, 3353.619, 3372.765], "stop_times": [3308.59, 3309.858, 3328.32, 3329.654, 3353.619, 3372.765, 3389.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3303.169}, "reply_to": "20094__2_116", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_118", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "If we took the position that Zobrest had in fact undermined Aguilar to the point that there was nothing left of it, that it had in fact overruled it, even though we did not say that in express terms, then I suppose it would be proper for us to employ or to sanction the employment of Rule 60(b) to grant the relief that they want.\nDo you agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3389.144, 3408.856], "stop_times": [3408.856, 3409.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.144}, "reply_to": "20094__2_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20094__2_119", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Yes.\nYes, if you had done that, if the Court had done it in Zobrest, but I have to emphasize how much respondents believe that Zobrest is distinguishable from Aguilar and Grand Rapids and Meek, and the extent of the aid that goes... that flows to the public school.\nOf course, it ultimately flows--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3409.439, 3410.058, 3431.387], "stop_times": [3410.058, 3431.387, 3433.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3409.439}, "reply_to": "20094__2_118", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_120", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "And yet the type of aid that's given actually enables the sign language interpreter to inculcate religion, if that's what's being taught.\nIn a sense, it goes beyond what the parties are asking for here, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3433.321, 3442.862], "stop_times": [3442.862, 3448.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3433.321}, "reply_to": "20094__2_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20094__2_121", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--In a way it does, yes, Your Honor, but with a single student.\nLook at the difference.\nIn this case, as has been pointed out, 50 percent of the students, 11,000 out of 22,000, are being given aid, and what is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3448.064, 3450.599, 3451.718], "stop_times": [3450.599, 3451.718, 3462.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3448.064}, "reply_to": "20094__2_120", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_122", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Zobrest applies to only one individual?\nHe has this special privilege?\nThere's nobody else in the country that can get the same kind of remedial assistance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3462.156, 3464.406, 3465.774], "stop_times": [3464.406, 3465.774, 3469.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3462.156}, "reply_to": "20094__2_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_123", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--But it would still be much more attenuated than the aid... that's the word that this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3469.643], "stop_times": [3475.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3469.643}, "reply_to": "20094__2_122", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_124", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Don't say one individual.\nWe adopted a principle that would apply to a lot of people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3475.261, 3475.63], "stop_times": [3475.63, 3478.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3475.261}, "reply_to": "20094__2_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20094__2_125", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "--Well, the question, Your Honor, is, did you apply... did you adopt a principle that overrules the cases in which the Court has held that... it's sometimes called massive aid, or funding of religious schools, is unconstitutional as in Grand Rapids, as in Meek v. Pittenger?\nI don't think so, and the word that was used in the Court's opinion in Zobrest was that the aid that was given to that student was only attenuated aid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3478.999, 3499.412], "stop_times": [3499.412, 3513.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3478.999}, "reply_to": "20094__2_124", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_126", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Geller.\nI think you've answered the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3513.82, 3515.236], "stop_times": [3515.236, 3516.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3513.82}, "reply_to": "20094__2_125", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__2_127", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3516.42], "stop_times": [3516.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3516.42}, "reply_to": "20094__2_126", "speaker": "stanley_geller"}
{"id": "20094__2_128", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "General Dellinger, you have less than a minute left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3516.938], "stop_times": [3520.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3516.938}, "reply_to": "20094__2_127", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20094__3_000", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "The line that this Court has itself drawn in Ball and in Zobrest is that a State may not in effect subsidize the religious functions of the parochial schools by taking over a substantial portion of their responsibility for teaching secular subjects.\nJustice Breyer, Justice Friendly was concerned about cases like Lemon and Grand Rapids.\nHere, there's no realistic danger of advancing religion.\nThat was entangled as a solution in search of a problem.\nJustice O'Connor, your decision in Cooter in 1990 deals with abuse of discretion.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3520.474, 3536.316, 3540.887, 3543.422, 3547.791, 3551.576], "stop_times": [3536.316, 3540.887, 3543.422, 3547.791, 3551.576, 3552.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3520.474}, "reply_to": "20094__2_128", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20094__3_001", "conversation_id": "20094", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-552", "start_times": [3552.209, 3553.143], "stop_times": [3553.143, 3572.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3552.209}, "reply_to": "20094__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_000", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-270, Amchem Products, Inc. v. George Windsor.\nMr. Shapiro.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [0.0, 8.568], "stop_times": [8.568, 39.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_001", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe're here today to contend that the Third Circuit was in error when it held that Rule 23 must be applied with a blind eye toward the settlement reached in this case.\nIn colorful language, the Third Circuit accused the district court and the proponents of the settlement of crafting a legislative solution to the asbestos crisis.\nIn fact, it was the Third Circuit that fashioned a new restriction on class actions that has no basis in the text of Rule 23.\nThe court declared broadly that Rule 23 must be applied without reference to settlement, and that settlement is an impermissible consideration, but the Third Circuit cited nothing in Rule 23 that says that the court lacks authority to consider settlement, and even some of the respondents now concede that the settlement should not be ignored.\nWe are not, of course, asking for any relaxation of the protections or the standards of Rule 23.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [39.577, 42.459, 51.645, 60.731, 67.796, 86.167], "stop_times": [42.459, 51.645, 60.731, 67.796, 86.167, 92.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 39.577}, "reply_to": "20099__0_000", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_002", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, how about the limitations that are imposed by the Rules Enabling Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [92.071], "stop_times": [95.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.071}, "reply_to": "20099__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_003", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "That no substantive changes should be made in the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [95.974], "stop_times": [99.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.974}, "reply_to": "20099__0_002", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_004", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Yes, and that basically the rules have to be rules of procedure in a contemplated lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [99.537], "stop_times": [104.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.537}, "reply_to": "20099__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_005", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Your Honor, this, of course, was a lawsuit, but there is no requirement in Rule 23 that the lawsuit has to be determined to be triable.\nThe rule uses generic language about issues being in common, about claims, but it doesn't say that the action has to be determined to be triable before the case can be certified for settlement and, indeed, we've had 30 years of practice now in the various courts of appeals where class actions settled... cases certified for settlement have been accepted by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [104.649, 113.165], "stop_times": [113.165, 133.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 104.649}, "reply_to": "20099__0_004", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_006", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, has there been anything like this... I'm not aware that there has been, and particularly this case comes up because of an antisuit injunction that stops every court in the country, State and Federal, I take it, from dealing with any of these claims.\nWe have one group I think from California saying we could do much better on our own.\nHow can you say that it doesn't affect substantive rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [133.898, 149.749, 155.202], "stop_times": [149.749, 155.202, 158.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.898}, "reply_to": "20099__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_007", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--These people, of course, have the opportunity to opt out of the class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [158.635], "stop_times": [162.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.635}, "reply_to": "20099__0_006", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_008", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, that's a question.\nDid they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [162.597, 163.728], "stop_times": [163.728, 164.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.597}, "reply_to": "20099__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_009", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Yes, we believe they did.\nThe court found that they had been given notification that satisfied due process standards and, indeed, it was one of the most massive notifications in history.\nSeven hundred thousand people received personal notifications through the mail, some 6 million people received notifications through union publications, there was television programming that included this warning, there was targeted newspaper coverage--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [164.219, 165.798, 174.254], "stop_times": [165.798, 174.254, 187.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.219}, "reply_to": "20099__0_008", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_010", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Now that, what you're describing, may fit a common fraud where each person is affected to a small degree, but here you have a personal injury suit where the normal rule is, I can go it alone, and when a restriction is made on that and says no, you have to travel with all these other people, I really don't understand how that doesn't involve substantive rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [187.774], "stop_times": [217.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.774}, "reply_to": "20099__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_011", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, there have been many cases, class action settlements, where injunctions have been entered after the case was settled to prevent splintering off, challenges to the class action settlement, provided that due process is satisfied in giving notification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [217.443], "stop_times": [231.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.443}, "reply_to": "20099__0_010", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_012", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Can you give me an example of a personal injury lawsuit where 20 defendants are saved from every court in the country continuing litigation?\nI've seen that in the bankruptcy context, but I don't know of it outside that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [231.251, 244.241], "stop_times": [244.241, 247.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.251}, "reply_to": "20099__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_013", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "The Agent Orange case is an example like that, from the Second Circuit, where the manufacturers settled with a nationwide class of veterans from the Vietnam War, all of whom had been exposed.\nSome had diseases, some did not, and the court protected that settlement with injunctive orders that prohibited relitigation of the issues settled in the class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [247.794, 257.079], "stop_times": [257.079, 265.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.794}, "reply_to": "20099__0_012", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_014", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--It enjoined every court in the country, as this antisuit injunction did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [265.425], "stop_times": [270.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.425}, "reply_to": "20099__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_015", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, it entered ancillary injunctions against those that attempted to splinter off and relitigate.\nEver since this Court's decision in Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cobble it's been clear that if there's a class action settlement that satisfies due process the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [270.868, 275.83], "stop_times": [275.83, 285.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.868}, "reply_to": "20099__0_014", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_016", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, that's a big question.\nThe question is whether this notice... and other categories, it seems to me, are not quite as sprawling, and you don't have the problem of people who don't even know they're in the class, or if the impossibility for you, in fact, to identify someone who worked around asbestos, then went off to some other occupation, is no longer a member of a union that might give notice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [285.218, 285.889], "stop_times": [285.889, 309.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.218}, "reply_to": "20099__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_017", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, this, Your Honor, was what the witnesses described as the most massive notification campaign ever undertaken until this time, and it specifically identified the people who were in the class... occupational exposure to asbestos... and it was carried on for 3 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [309.103], "stop_times": [325.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.103}, "reply_to": "20099__0_016", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_018", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Does the class include people who do not now know that they were exposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [325.253], "stop_times": [330.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.253}, "reply_to": "20099__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_019", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "It includes everybody who has occupational exposure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [330.138], "stop_times": [333.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 330.138}, "reply_to": "20099__0_018", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_020", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Whether they know about it now or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [333.56], "stop_times": [335.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.56}, "reply_to": "20099__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_021", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "That's correct.\nThe court found--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [335.31, 335.911], "stop_times": [335.911, 336.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.31}, "reply_to": "20099__0_020", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_022", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Now, how could any notice be adequate to those people?\nI don't know I've been exposed, so you know, I... let's say I see a full page ad in the New York Times that says those who have been exposed to... you know, have to join this lawsuit, or pull out now, or forever hold your peace.\nI don't even know that I've been exposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [336.93, 339.033, 349.248], "stop_times": [339.033, 349.248, 350.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.93}, "reply_to": "20099__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_023", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--The district court found that substantially everybody who has had occupational exposure knows it, because since 1972 OSHA's been requiring--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [350.971], "stop_times": [358.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 350.971}, "reply_to": "20099__0_022", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_024", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Substantially is what, 80 percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [358.806], "stop_times": [360.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.806}, "reply_to": "20099__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_025", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--We think it's virtually everybody who's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [360.235], "stop_times": [362.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.235}, "reply_to": "20099__0_024", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_026", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Virtually everybody who's had occupational exposure knows it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [362.148], "stop_times": [364.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.148}, "reply_to": "20099__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_027", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--There are, of course, exceptions, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [364.709], "stop_times": [366.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.709}, "reply_to": "20099__0_026", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_028", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And what about those exceptions?\nHave they had due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [366.45, 367.581], "stop_times": [367.581, 368.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.45}, "reply_to": "20099__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_029", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Those persons do have due process, because the rule requires the best notice practicable.\nThose persons are protected by adequate representation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [368.653, 374.406], "stop_times": [374.406, 377.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.653}, "reply_to": "20099__0_028", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_030", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "That's assuming... that's assuming that you can... maybe the problem of notice reflects on the impropriety of proceeding in this case at all, as this massive class action.\nMaybe you see that there can't be such a class, because one... reflecting back from how can you possibly give notice to some of the widows who have brought suits and have been told, you can't maintain your suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [377.138, 389.165], "stop_times": [389.165, 406.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.138}, "reply_to": "20099__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_031", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Your Honor, we submit that the exceptional case shouldn't determine whether the notification for the class itself meets constitutional standards.\nThere are protections such as Rule 60(b) that Your Honor referred to in the Epstein case.\nIf there's some individual who has a truly exceptional situation, explaining we didn't really know that we had been exposed to asbestos and we couldn't be expected to know that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [406.547, 414.432, 418.416], "stop_times": [414.432, 418.416, 426.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 406.547}, "reply_to": "20099__0_030", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_032", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, let's start from the very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [426.24], "stop_times": [427.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 426.24}, "reply_to": "20099__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_033", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--there could be an exception for such a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [427.111], "stop_times": [428.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.111}, "reply_to": "20099__0_032", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_034", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Let's start from the very basic premise, and you tell me if I'm wrong about this, but it was my understanding that there is a right for one to litigate one's own claim, and that's the basic rule, and if that's going to be displaced, there has to be a good reason for it, and that good reason, I assume, is not for the courts to make up in the guise of procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [428.073], "stop_times": [452.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.073}, "reply_to": "20099__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_035", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, there is a superiority requirement which supplies the good reason.\nJudge Reed made elaborate findings of fact that this was superior to relegating people to a tort system where two-thirds of the dollars are spent on lawyer's fees where the capricious results, many years of delay, AFL-CIO endorsed this settlement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [452.589, 456.069], "stop_times": [456.069, 469.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.589}, "reply_to": "20099__0_034", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_036", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I am... counsel, I am willing to accept that that is true, that it's superior.\nIt would seem to me also a superior way to proceed for New York City to say, you know, we know we're going to have 500 slip-and-fall claims.\nWhy give all the money to the attorneys?\nWe'll just have a class action for everybody that might have a slip-and-fall claim, and we'll adopt a Workman's Comp schedule of injuries, so much for an arm, so much for a leg, so much for a broken hip, and we'll just have a class action.\nThat's far superior.\nBut I don't see the substantive source of law that the court can and ought to look to in order to determine what is fair, and on page 14 of your brief you say, the questions that remain in the case were common to class members, whether it's fair and reasonable to compromise tort claims for asbestos-related injuries with high transaction costs, et cetera, in exchange for the specific compensation system established by the settlement.\nIf I were the district judge I'd say, this is marvelously superior, but that is a substantive determination that you are going to displace existing law with a new, different, substantive regime, and I don't think the rules allow you to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [469.89, 474.102, 481.778, 484.169, 494.685, 495.977, 522.534], "stop_times": [474.102, 481.778, 484.169, 494.685, 495.977, 522.534, 536.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.89}, "reply_to": "20099__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__0_037", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, Justice Kennedy, this body of litigation is unique in the sense that this is the most mature body of mass tort litigation in the country.\nThere's 30 years of experience here in settling these cases.\nThe disease categories are very well-known, and one can assign values to these categories with a great deal of confidence.\nMany other cases don't fit that description, and so the court would have a great deal of difficulty in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [536.363, 543.848, 547.319, 553.173], "stop_times": [543.848, 547.319, 553.173, 557.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 536.363}, "reply_to": "20099__0_036", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_038", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I think slip-and-fall is much more well-established.\nDo you--\n[Laughter]\nCould New York City do what I supposed?\nThis is a much more intelligent way to proceed than having... spending a lot money on legal fees, from many policy perspectives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [557.917, 560.439, 561.36, 562.379, 564.882], "stop_times": [560.439, 561.36, 562.379, 564.882, 574.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.917}, "reply_to": "20099__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__0_039", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--There would be real difficulties in doing that, because in slip-and-fall accidents the variety of injuries and the variety of claims for harm are not just three or four, as there are in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [574.109], "stop_times": [584.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.109}, "reply_to": "20099__0_038", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_040", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Suppose it was comparable?\nSuppose that in fact you did have... the water mains overflowed through negligence, and you had 500,000 people who over the course of a week due to New York City's negligence slipped and fell.\nI guess you would say there are 500,000 people in that category.\nThey were exposed to the ice.\nThey fell, and we want to have a class action.\nWe'll settle the cases.\nWould there be a problem with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [584.224, 585.105, 593.531, 597.294, 599.615, 601.115, 602.277], "stop_times": [585.105, 593.531, 597.294, 599.615, 601.115, 602.277, 603.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.224}, "reply_to": "20099__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__0_041", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, I think if you're talking about people who haven't had their exposures, haven't had any slip and fall--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [603.288], "stop_times": [609.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.288}, "reply_to": "20099__0_040", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_042", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "They've all fallen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [609.292], "stop_times": [610.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.292}, "reply_to": "20099__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__0_043", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--They've all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [610.522], "stop_times": [611.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 610.522}, "reply_to": "20099__0_042", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_044", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Some people are going to... 3 years from now are going to develop whip lashes, and others won't--\n[Laughter]\n--and various things will happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [611.172, 615.246, 615.447], "stop_times": [615.246, 615.447, 616.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 611.172}, "reply_to": "20099__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__0_045", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--If there was an attempt to settle in one proceeding all the past injury cases and you could really find typical and adequate class representatives for that huge array of injuries, it's not inconceivable, but not many cases really are manageable in the sense that this one is.\nThis one is truly unique because of the maturity of the litigation.\nThere are only four disease categories here, and people know with a great deal of certainty about what value attaches to them.\nWe're talking about people who have been injured in the past through exposure but who haven't filed suit, or people who are actually sick at the moment.\nWe're not talking about injuries that will occur in the future.\nNow, we don't generalize and say that this settlement regime would work in all situations.\nYou do have to apply the Rule 23 criteria.\nYou don't just look to the fairness of the settlement, or some abstract--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [616.795, 631.765, 635.608, 642.231, 649.016, 652.028, 656.823, 659.745], "stop_times": [631.765, 635.608, 642.231, 649.016, 652.028, 656.823, 659.745, 662.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.795}, "reply_to": "20099__0_044", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_046", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But isn't the fairness of the settlement swallowing... isn't this sort of the point of what the Third Circuit was saying, and that is that the fairness inquiry in effect is swallowing all the preceding steps that are normally assumed when the moment comes to look at fairness?\nTake this as an example.\nIf I understand what the district court did, and if I understand what you're arguing, you're saying there is no disparity of interest.\nThere is no conflict as within the various subclasses here which should present... which should prevent a certification, and the reason for that is, here they all are.\nThey've got the settlement, and they like it, and yet... and you say there really couldn't be any unfairness... or, I'm sorry, there really couldn't be any true disparity of interest unless we were dealing with a limited fund in which whatever A gets, B doesn't get.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [662.668, 678.426, 680.018, 689.463, 699.971], "stop_times": [678.426, 680.018, 689.463, 699.971, 717.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.668}, "reply_to": "20099__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20099__0_047", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [717.892], "stop_times": [718.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.892}, "reply_to": "20099__0_046", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_048", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And yet it seems to me the reality is that there is, in a way, a kind of limited fund unless you assume that the defendants in these cases are simply standing in court saying, we'll pay anything they want.\nThe sky is the limit.\nIf the sky is not the limit, then there really is a conflict among these subclasses, and the only way it seems to get around that conflict is to say, well, there isn't one any more, because here they all are, and they like what they're getting.\nAnd isn't that the vise that the Third Circuit was getting at, that your fairness inquiry after the fact of settlement is displacing all of the criteria that normally have to be applied in order to satisfy just judicial standards before you even get to looking at fairness?\nIsn't that what the Third Circuit was concerned--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [718.583, 733.052, 735.243, 750.473, 769.545], "stop_times": [733.052, 735.243, 750.473, 769.545, 771.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.583}, "reply_to": "20099__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__0_049", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--That's the critical issue, and Professor Tribe has caricatured our position as amounting to that, but it certainly is not our submission.\nWe don't think that the fairness inquiry wipes out the other inquiries under Rule 23.\nThe adequacy inquiry is still central.\nThe typicality inquiry is central.\nThe superiority inquiry is central.\nBut we say that these standards need to be focused on the negotiation history and the actual results--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [771.638, 778.732, 782.945, 785.817, 787.266, 789.129], "stop_times": [778.732, 782.945, 785.817, 787.266, 789.129, 795.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.638}, "reply_to": "20099__0_048", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_050", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--But the predominance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [795.262], "stop_times": [795.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.262}, "reply_to": "20099__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_051", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--as well as the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [795.681], "stop_times": [796.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.681}, "reply_to": "20099__0_050", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_052", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--The predominance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [796.031], "stop_times": [796.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.031}, "reply_to": "20099__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_053", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--of the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [796.682], "stop_times": [797.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.682}, "reply_to": "20099__0_052", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_054", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--The predominance inquiry, which is central, I think, in (b)(3), certainly changes, and if you look at this going in you'd say, my goodness, these are people who are suffering from any number of diseases accrued at different times involving different manufacturers.\nThere's no way that, looking at these as discrete claims, one could say that a common question predominates.\nYou have different State laws involved, California very generous, Maine less generous.\nYou look at it and say, my goodness, this is just a hodge-podge, I think was the word Judge Becker used.\nSo going in with a case, looking at the complaint, one would conclude no, there's no... common questions don't predominate, and then you look to the rules, and I guess that's what is bothering me most about this.\nYou go back to 1966, when we first got (b)(3) class actions, and you've got the Rules Advisory Committee telling this Court and also Congress that you couldn't even have mass accident cases under (b)(3).\nThat's not what it was meant for.\nAnd then it suddenly gets changed to be something so much vaster than was ever intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [797.433, 813.643, 822.79, 826.363, 834.316, 848.598, 864.136, 865.387], "stop_times": [813.643, 822.79, 826.363, 834.316, 848.598, 864.136, 865.387, 872.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.433}, "reply_to": "20099__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_055", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I was struck by the comment of the Rules Committee current draft of the change in Rule 23 that said that our position is law everywhere in the United States except in the Third Circuit.\nThirty-nine percent of all the cases that are certified today are certified for settlement purposes only.\nThis is really no change.\nThis is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [872.872, 882.449, 887.762, 889.184], "stop_times": [882.449, 887.762, 889.184, 889.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.872}, "reply_to": "20099__0_054", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_056", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well--\n--Well, but the... I'm sorry.\nAs I think most of the parties agree, the Third Circuit spoke too extremely when it said you can't take... nobody says you can't take settlement into account, you can't have a settlement class.\nBut what's key in this opinion, as I read it, is that... just what Justice Souter said, that 23(e) does not swallow up everything that went before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [889.464, 889.975, 892.016, 904.954], "stop_times": [889.975, 892.016, 904.954, 915.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.464}, "reply_to": "20099__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_057", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--We completely agree with that, Justice Ginsburg, and when you look to these other factors and you consider the settlement, it makes them so much more meaningful and... as opposed to speculating in the abstract, as this Court said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [915.209], "stop_times": [926.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.209}, "reply_to": "20099__0_056", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_058", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, but let me suggest one change in Judge Becker's opinion that I think would leave us right where we are, but perhaps I'm wrong.\nWhat if Judge Becker had said, look, the vise here is that the settlement is being used as a sufficient basis in and of itself to answer these various preceding inquiries, to satisfy these various preceding conditions for class certification.\nIf he had put in that word sufficiency, wouldn't everything else in the Third Circuit's opinion basically be just as appropriate, or inappropriate, as the case may be, as it is the way the Third Circuit actually phrased it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [926.547, 934.742, 952.405], "stop_times": [934.742, 952.405, 967.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 926.547}, "reply_to": "20099__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__0_059", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--I don't think the Third Circuit could have modified the opinion that way, because Judge Reed looked at a host of other things in addition to the settlement.\nHe didn't look just to the settlement.\nHe looked to the alignment of the representatives; he looked at their incentives; he looked at the negotiation history to see if these conflicts were reality or just fiction, and in that sense the inquiry is really a much-improved inquiry.\nIf you just look at the complaint, you can't begin to tell if you're going to get adequate representation, or if you're going to get typicality, if you're going to get superiority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [967.416, 974.139, 976.009, 988.597], "stop_times": [974.139, 976.009, 988.597, 995.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.416}, "reply_to": "20099__0_058", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_060", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But you would in fact have a very different inquiry, as you yourself argue, if there were not already a settlement on the table and, in fact, there is a good argument, as Justice Ginsburg just suggested, for coming out quite differently depending on whether you were looking at it before the settlement and after the settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [995.733], "stop_times": [1014.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.733}, "reply_to": "20099__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__0_061", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Oh, absolutely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1014.524], "stop_times": [1015.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.524}, "reply_to": "20099__0_060", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_062", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And the question is one of degree, and it seems to me the suggestion in her question and the suggestion in mine is that the degree is so great that the only way to make sense, I think, of the certification which the district court made was by saying, the district court was treating the settlement as sufficient as opposed merely to one source of information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1015.115], "stop_times": [1040.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.115}, "reply_to": "20099__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__0_063", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--I think that would be a mischaracterization of what Judge Reed did, because he looked at a host of factors pertaining to the alignment and the incentives and the vigor of the negotiation, the changes that were made in this deal, whether or not the AFL-CIO endorsed it... he was looking to an entire array of relevant facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1040.343], "stop_times": [1058.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.343}, "reply_to": "20099__0_062", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_064", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, I'll take that on, Mr. Shapiro.\nLet's just talk about using the settlement as a significant factor in deciding how broad the class can be.\nI am concerned about the incentives that that creates for the class action counsel.\nWe all know that these class actions don't come out of the woods.\nThe plaintiffs don't suddenly collect together.\nThey are put together by counsel, who has something to earn by putting them together.\nNow, if he knows that by achieving a settlement he can expand the size of the class on behalf of which he's suing, will he not have an incentive to settle at substantially less than he might otherwise settle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1058.943, 1060.445, 1066.059, 1071.12, 1074.533, 1077.505, 1082.498], "stop_times": [1060.445, 1066.059, 1071.12, 1074.533, 1077.505, 1082.498, 1095.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.943}, "reply_to": "20099__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_065", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "There--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1095.959], "stop_times": [1096.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1095.959}, "reply_to": "20099__0_064", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_066", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Doesn't it place him in a real conflict with regard to his clients in the class that could get in without a settlement, in the class that would be a certifiable class without the settlement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1096.65], "stop_times": [1106.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.65}, "reply_to": "20099__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_067", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, there are conflicts in cases that have been certified for settlement and in cases that are certified for trial, and the district courts have to use the tools that are given them to examine, to see if what was achieved was a vigorous, adversarial attempt to maximize the amount of money from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1106.544], "stop_times": [1123.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.544}, "reply_to": "20099__0_066", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_068", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "This is a massive incentive to bring in other people who really wouldn't be in there if you didn't have a settlement, but then you strike a settlement that gives everybody less than they might get had he just gone in without a settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1123.605], "stop_times": [1136.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.605}, "reply_to": "20099__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_069", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--We have lots of indications here, factual indications that that isn't true, and I suggest this is a factual question where deferential review is appropriate.\nRecall that it was the Federal judiciary, Judge Weiner, the MDL panel, the Federal Judicial Center that urged these global negotiations for a global resolution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1136.765, 1144.699], "stop_times": [1144.699, 1153.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.765}, "reply_to": "20099__0_068", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_070", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "They have some self-interest, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1153.485], "stop_times": [1154.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.485}, "reply_to": "20099__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_071", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, and the--\n[Laughter]\nThe lawyers that were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1154.817, 1155.798, 1156.307], "stop_times": [1155.798, 1156.307, 1158.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1154.817}, "reply_to": "20099__0_070", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_072", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mr. Shapiro--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1158.33], "stop_times": [1158.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.33}, "reply_to": "20099__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_073", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--picked to do this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1158.961], "stop_times": [1159.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.961}, "reply_to": "20099__0_072", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_074", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Mr. Shapiro... Mr. Shapiro... Mr. Shapiro, you mentioned the MDL, and so I'd like you to straighten me out on one thing.\nI thought when the multidistrict panel sent all of these cases to Judge Weiner to be consolidated he was talking about settling those cases.\nThe multidistrict panel was talking about settling those cases, not creating this vast exposure-only litigation that never existed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1159.508, 1164.413, 1174.539], "stop_times": [1164.413, 1174.539, 1183.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.508}, "reply_to": "20099__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_075", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Your Honor, the transcript from Mr. Fitzpatrick demonstrates that Judge Weiner asked for a global resolution, wanted the parties to attend to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1183.174], "stop_times": [1191.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.174}, "reply_to": "20099__0_074", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_076", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Judge Weiner.\nBut did the multidistrict panel say, when we're sending all these cases to be consolidated for pretrial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that the court was to settle not only those cases but cases that hadn't been instituted yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1191.382, 1192.56], "stop_times": [1192.56, 1208.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.382}, "reply_to": "20099__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_077", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "They asked specifically that after the transfer that the prospects for global negotiation be considered, and that's just what the Federal Judicial Center had said in two major conferences.\nThis was done at the instance of the judges who are on the firing line in this litigation, and Judge Reed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1208.812, 1218.997], "stop_times": [1218.997, 1224.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.812}, "reply_to": "20099__0_076", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_078", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Do you have a reference to where the multidistrict panel said settle other cases than these that were consolidated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1224.951], "stop_times": [1230.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.951}, "reply_to": "20099__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_079", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--The 1991 opinion itself does refer to that as one of the possible outcomes of the transfers, that perhaps a global settlement could be achieved in this litigation, which is what the other judges had been suggesting, too.\nThey told the lawyers, you've got to do better.\nYou cannot simply rely on this system where transaction costs eat up $2 out of $3, where years and years go by and the courts are clogged and flooded, and that's what the lawyers did here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1230.695, 1243.484, 1244.937], "stop_times": [1243.484, 1244.937, 1254.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.695}, "reply_to": "20099__0_078", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_080", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "We have many cases, and it's sometimes a question of the degree of the difference between substance and procedure, but it seems to me that by using the term fairness the district court here imported and made choices between substantive chances of recovery, of liability, of measure of damages, and it seems to me that that's not the intent of the rule, and that it exceeds the authority of the courts under the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1254.391], "stop_times": [1285.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.391}, "reply_to": "20099__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__0_081", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, if this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1285.542], "stop_times": [1286.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.542}, "reply_to": "20099__0_080", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_082", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Fairness becomes... fairness, which is an infinitely acceptable concept, is the basis for legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1286.393], "stop_times": [1295.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.393}, "reply_to": "20099__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__0_083", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--If this were a litigated matter I would agree with that, that you couldn't override State law differences, but the parties can settle, and often do settle in a way that varies from a particular body of State law, and here the settlement does incorporate reference to State law, but the amount of money is geared in part to State law standards, but it's the settlement that's critical.\nIf an adjudication attempted to override State law standards, then we'd have the substantive law problem that you mentioned, but the parties can settle on any terms that the judge determines to be reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1295.001, 1316.244], "stop_times": [1316.244, 1326.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.001}, "reply_to": "20099__0_082", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_084", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "The parties are then conferring a new regime, a new substantive regime of law upon the court that the court adopts.\nIt's like asking the court to be an arbitrator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1326.661, 1333.105], "stop_times": [1333.105, 1335.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.661}, "reply_to": "20099__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__0_085", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Many settlements have such features.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1335.307], "stop_times": [1337.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1335.307}, "reply_to": "20099__0_084", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_086", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "It's like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1337.277], "stop_times": [1338.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.277}, "reply_to": "20099__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_087", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Many settlements have such features, where the parties will resolve an array of disputes under an ADR system, and there's nothing wrong with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1338.178], "stop_times": [1343.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1338.178}, "reply_to": "20099__0_086", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_088", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--I can understand what you're saying, Mr. Shapiro, with respect to one plaintiff and one defendant settling contrary to some principle of State law, but here I get the impression it's the tail wagging the dog, almost.\nNone of these individuals have much to say about what... the settlements made.\nIt's the attorneys, and their incentives may be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1343.902, 1356.37, 1359.873], "stop_times": [1356.37, 1359.873, 1363.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.902}, "reply_to": "20099__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_089", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, I think Judge Reed found that there was a very important safeguard here from the AFL-CIO's participation.\nThey negotiated changes in this agreement to make it satisfactory to them, substantive and procedural.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1363.444, 1369.318], "stop_times": [1369.318, 1375.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.444}, "reply_to": "20099__0_088", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_090", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "How did the AFL-CIO... was it a party to this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1375.262], "stop_times": [1378.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.262}, "reply_to": "20099__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_091", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, the named plaintiff, Mr. Carlo, and then Mr. Georgine, were both officers in the AFL-CIO.\nOne was a union president, the other was head of the building trades department of the AFL-CIO, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1378.634, 1383.83], "stop_times": [1383.83, 1388.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.634}, "reply_to": "20099__0_090", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_092", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, what if the Benevolent Protective Order of Elks had participated--\n[Laughter]\n--because they were both Elks?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1388.74, 1393.473, 1393.723], "stop_times": [1393.473, 1393.723, 1395.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.74}, "reply_to": "20099__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_093", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, when we talk about adequate representation, this is a group that, of course, has members in every disease category.\nMost of the people that fall into this class are labor union members, AFL-CIO members, so if there's a problem, this is a group that's in a position to say so.\nWe also had 14 class representatives--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1395.894, 1401.848, 1409.955], "stop_times": [1401.848, 1409.955, 1412.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1395.894}, "reply_to": "20099__0_092", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_094", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "This seems to me even more of a legislative cast to what the court does.\nThe court said, I've looked at what the National Association of Manufacturers have said, the AFL-CIO, is it, and this is what is fair and good and reasonable.\nThat is not a standard that has been delegated to the courts by the legislature.\nIt actually exceeds the bounds of the case or controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1412.827, 1416.02, 1424.345, 1430.018], "stop_times": [1416.02, 1424.345, 1430.018, 1433.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.827}, "reply_to": "20099__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__0_095", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, many settlements, of course, differ from what would happen if the matter were litigated under State law principles, and the settlement here, of course, did that.\nIt departed from what would happen in a piece of litigation, and this is not, of course, unprecedented.\nThe Agent Orange case is quite similar to this.\nThere have been many cases like this where you have people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1433.2, 1441.545, 1448.501, 1450.642], "stop_times": [1441.545, 1448.501, 1450.642, 1453.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1433.2}, "reply_to": "20099__0_094", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_096", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Is the Agent Orange the closest one that you can imagine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1453.494], "stop_times": [1456.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.494}, "reply_to": "20099__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__0_097", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--The Second Circuit's Agent Orange, the Ivy case, and then the Agent Orange case that preceded that, and obviously--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1456.616], "stop_times": [1461.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1456.616}, "reply_to": "20099__0_096", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_098", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Mr. Shapiro, turning... I have some problem with the prospect of two parties who are not in disagreement as to what one should pay and what the other should accept coming to a court and saying that there is a case or controversy between them.\nI mean, I gather that can happen afterwards, after there's a case or controversy brought before the court, but here are two parties coming before the court, and one says, you know, I think I owe you $200, and I'm willing to pay that, and the other one says, you know, I think you owe me $200, and I'm willing to accept that, and they bring this to a court, and this is a case or controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1461.559, 1475.906], "stop_times": [1475.906, 1492.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.559}, "reply_to": "20099__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_099", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1492.74], "stop_times": [1494.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.74}, "reply_to": "20099__0_098", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_100", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I mean, I'm simplifying it, but that... isn't that what you have here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1494.42], "stop_times": [1496.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.42}, "reply_to": "20099__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_101", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--The 14 class representatives all allege personal injury, and they demanded valuable relief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1496.921], "stop_times": [1501.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1496.921}, "reply_to": "20099__0_100", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_102", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1501.455], "stop_times": [1502.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.455}, "reply_to": "20099__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_103", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--and they included in their class people who were in the same situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1502.135], "stop_times": [1504.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1502.135}, "reply_to": "20099__0_102", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_104", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And the defendants say, you're right, you deserve relief, and I'm willing to pay $2 million, and the plaintiffs say, I'm willing to take $2 million.\nWhere's the case or controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1504.996, 1511.59], "stop_times": [1511.59, 1512.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.996}, "reply_to": "20099__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_105", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "It's a case or controversy because the court has to approve the settlement and issue an injunction.\nThis case depended on the issuance of an injunction.\nIt's just like an SEC case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1512.662, 1516.415, 1518.776], "stop_times": [1516.415, 1518.776, 1520.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.662}, "reply_to": "20099__0_104", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_106", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, the court has to approve the settlement if it's a justiciable controversy.\nI mean, you're... that's circular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1520.396, 1523.358], "stop_times": [1523.358, 1525.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.396}, "reply_to": "20099__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__0_107", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, this case is indistinguishable from the SEC and antitrust division cases where the parties come before the court with a complaint, and an answer, and a settlement, and the answer has always been in these cases that because a judicial act is needed and an injunction is needed there still is a live case or controversy.\nWe rely on that body of cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1525.121, 1540.061], "stop_times": [1540.061, 1541.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1525.121}, "reply_to": "20099__0_106", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_108", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Has that body of cases been here?\nHas it been in our Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1541.12, 1543.652], "stop_times": [1543.652, 1544.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.12}, "reply_to": "20099__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_109", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Oh, yes.\nIn United States v. Swift the Court reached that same conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1544.673, 1544.944], "stop_times": [1544.944, 1548.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1544.673}, "reply_to": "20099__0_108", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_110", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "They all involve Federal agencies though, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1548.006], "stop_times": [1550.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.006}, "reply_to": "20099__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__0_111", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, there are private cases where the same concept has been raised.\nOne is In Re Asbestos Litigation from the Fifth Circuit.\nThey're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1550.437, 1552.848, 1555.78], "stop_times": [1552.848, 1555.78, 1556.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1550.437}, "reply_to": "20099__0_110", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_112", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Not here, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1556.16], "stop_times": [1557.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.16}, "reply_to": "20099__0_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__0_113", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Not here.\nIf I may reserve a moment for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1557.001, 1558.401], "stop_times": [1558.401, 1560.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1557.001}, "reply_to": "20099__0_112", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__0_114", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Very well, Mr. Shapiro.\nMr. Tribe, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1560.394, 1561.793], "stop_times": [1561.793, 1563.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.394}, "reply_to": "20099__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_000", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think I might begin with the question of whether the judicial power was being exercised at all in this case before perhaps turning to Rule 23, because, like Justice Kennedy, I do think that what the district court did, though judicial in form, yes, it was an injunction, yes, it had all the trappings, was legislative in substance, very clearly in violation, I think, of Article III as well as the Rules Enabling Act.\nAnd let me say why this is wholly unlike Swift and the other decree cases.\nOf course it is permissible under Article III for people who are actually at one another's throats, including an agency that says you better do the following.\nUnless you agree, I'm going to get an injunction.\nWell, then one can get an agreement.\nBut here, what is very clear is that the only reason for going to court was not for one party to force the other to submit.\nIt was for the two parties to take what would otherwise have been a private deal involving, as Justice Scalia suggests, a much smaller class, not all of the exposure-onlys, and transform it into a nationwide revision of tort law binding throughout the country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1563.396, 1572.121, 1600.138, 1606.052, 1616.551, 1620.091, 1621.563, 1630.73], "stop_times": [1572.121, 1600.138, 1606.052, 1616.551, 1620.091, 1621.563, 1630.73, 1648.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.396}, "reply_to": "20099__0_114", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_001", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mr.... how--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1648.762], "stop_times": [1649.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.762}, "reply_to": "20099__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_002", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--on anyone who might sue the CCR defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1649.102], "stop_times": [1650.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.102}, "reply_to": "20099__1_001", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_003", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--How does it... I mean, we used to have in Boston very complicated settlements in civil rights cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1650.391], "stop_times": [1657.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.391}, "reply_to": "20099__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_004", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1657.196], "stop_times": [1657.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1657.196}, "reply_to": "20099__1_003", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_005", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Running... the whole fire-fighters, I mean, all kinds of things--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1657.396], "stop_times": [1660.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.396}, "reply_to": "20099__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_006", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1660.859], "stop_times": [1661.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.859}, "reply_to": "20099__1_005", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_007", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Enormously complicated provisions, entered through settlement of thousands of people, and those decrees would be there.\nWe would normally administer the settlement, and they appealed, frequently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1661.05, 1666.423], "stop_times": [1666.423, 1670.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.05}, "reply_to": "20099__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_008", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1670.584], "stop_times": [1670.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.584}, "reply_to": "20099__1_007", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_009", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And the way this differs from that, you're saying, is that the parties here who are members of the class don't really have a fight with the defendants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1670.795], "stop_times": [1678.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.795}, "reply_to": "20099__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_010", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, the named representatives here have all testified beyond dispute that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1678.731], "stop_times": [1684.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1678.731}, "reply_to": "20099__1_009", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_011", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Right, but I mean, is... I know the testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1684.284], "stop_times": [1686.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.284}, "reply_to": "20099__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_012", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1686.235], "stop_times": [1686.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.235}, "reply_to": "20099__1_011", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_013", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Is that the distinction, or are there other distinctions?\nIn other words, unlike others, perhaps, on... I'm not concerned particularly with the fact that it's complicated, that it differs from State tort law, because I've just seen so many consent decrees where that is so growing out of settlements, particularly in the civil rights area, so if that isn't the problem, the complexity, or the fact that a lot of State laws rights they're giving up, what exactly is the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1686.445, 1690.198], "stop_times": [1690.198, 1713.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.445}, "reply_to": "20099__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_014", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, there are, Justice Breyer, many different problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1713.033], "stop_times": [1715.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.033}, "reply_to": "20099__1_013", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_015", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1715.664], "stop_times": [1715.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.664}, "reply_to": "20099__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_016", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Under the Rules Enabling Act the problem is that there are substantive changes being made in State law in a way that, of course, two private parties agreeing together could do, but that this makes binding on millions of people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1715.974], "stop_times": [1730.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1715.974}, "reply_to": "20099__1_015", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_017", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "What is one such change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1730.344], "stop_times": [1731.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.344}, "reply_to": "20099__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_018", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Oh, in California, for example, an asbestos company cannot make any reference to whether or not the plaintiff smoked.\nIn some other States there can be some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1731.075, 1741.41], "stop_times": [1741.41, 1743.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.075}, "reply_to": "20099__1_017", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_019", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I know that they are giving up... each member of the class is giving up a legal right to sue that he might have under the laws of many different States.\nThat's so in any settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1743.483, 1754.1], "stop_times": [1754.1, 1756.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.483}, "reply_to": "20099__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_020", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1756.44], "stop_times": [1756.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.44}, "reply_to": "20099__1_019", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_021", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "So what's different about this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1756.75], "stop_times": [1759.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.75}, "reply_to": "20099__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_022", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--What's different, Justice Breyer, just for example, is that in many States people are not allowed to give up in advance of the illness occurring through a general release the right to sue, like the woman in this morning's decision who didn't know until her husband died various of the relevant facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1759.071], "stop_times": [1776.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.071}, "reply_to": "20099__1_021", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_023", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But I thought they were bringing Metro-North kinds of actions.\nA Metro-North kind of action, if it exists--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1776.804, 1779.896], "stop_times": [1779.896, 1783.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.804}, "reply_to": "20099__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_024", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "No, but what's being extinguished--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1783.389], "stop_times": [1784.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.389}, "reply_to": "20099__1_023", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_025", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--and can win... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1784.45], "stop_times": [1784.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.45}, "reply_to": "20099__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_026", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--What's being extinguished is not just the Metro North actions.\nThat is, the kinds of actions, for example, that the widow in this morning's case involving Ingallls Shipbuilding brought.\nHer claims, since probably some CCR defendants made some of the stuff that killed her husband in that shipyard, her claim not just for exposure, but she's the widow of someone who got cancer, is extinguished by this settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1784.741, 1788.662, 1796.219], "stop_times": [1788.662, 1796.219, 1811.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.741}, "reply_to": "20099__1_025", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_027", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I've seen many such actions in civil rights cases again where a person says, I will give up and compromise my present claim for $50,000 and, in addition, I promise never to bring another action growing out of the same incident.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1811.368], "stop_times": [1826.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.368}, "reply_to": "20099__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_028", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Yes.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1826.789, 1827.567], "stop_times": [1827.567, 1827.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.789}, "reply_to": "20099__1_027", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_029", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "That is fairly common.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1827.808], "stop_times": [1829.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.808}, "reply_to": "20099__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_030", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--First, some States do not allow people who have not yet experienced something to bind themselves that far into the future.\nSecond, the most important point is, many members of this class haven't been born yet.\nOthers haven't married into the class yet.\nMany, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out, have no clue that they were exposed.\nIt's not as though you're having a tete-a-tete with particular individuals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1829.13, 1838.116, 1843.76, 1845.64, 1851.073], "stop_times": [1838.116, 1843.76, 1845.64, 1851.073, 1855.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.13}, "reply_to": "20099__1_029", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_031", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "How do those factors help answer the question put by Justice Breyer as to why this is different from the fire-fighters?\nIs the difference... and I'm not sure of how to best articulate it, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1855.757, 1861.611], "stop_times": [1861.611, 1865.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1855.757}, "reply_to": "20099__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__1_032", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1865.713], "stop_times": [1865.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.713}, "reply_to": "20099__1_031", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_033", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--but is the difference that in the fire-fighters case, civil rights case, there was an imminent litigable dispute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1865.923], "stop_times": [1872.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.923}, "reply_to": "20099__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__1_034", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "No question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1872.959], "stop_times": [1874.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.959}, "reply_to": "20099__1_033", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_035", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--and here there is not, or does that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1874.408], "stop_times": [1876.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.408}, "reply_to": "20099__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__1_036", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1876.291], "stop_times": [1876.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.291}, "reply_to": "20099__1_035", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_037", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Is that sufficient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1876.712], "stop_times": [1878.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.712}, "reply_to": "20099__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__1_038", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--There was an argument about future alleged misconduct.\nIt was not only imminently litigable, it was, as the Chief Justice referred to it, a contemplated lawsuit.\nIt would have been a lawsuit had there not been this settlement.\nIn this case there would have been, and this is undisputed, no suit on behalf of millions of merely exposed individuals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1878.191, 1882.185, 1889.521, 1893.983], "stop_times": [1882.185, 1889.521, 1893.983, 1903.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.191}, "reply_to": "20099__1_037", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_039", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Yes, but there would have been suits on behalf of some of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1903.768], "stop_times": [1906.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.768}, "reply_to": "20099__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_040", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, there had never been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1906.079], "stop_times": [1907.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.079}, "reply_to": "20099__1_039", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_041", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "There's a case or controversy as to some people, wouldn't you agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1907.451], "stop_times": [1909.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.451}, "reply_to": "20099__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_042", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Oh, in some States, as to some of them there might have been a case, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1909.994], "stop_times": [1912.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.994}, "reply_to": "20099__1_041", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_043", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Might have been a case?\nYou don't think any of these plaintiffs would be litigating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1912.885, 1913.994], "stop_times": [1913.994, 1915.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.885}, "reply_to": "20099__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_044", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1915.837], "stop_times": [1916.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1915.837}, "reply_to": "20099__1_043", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_045", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--if there weren't this settlement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1916.057], "stop_times": [1916.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.057}, "reply_to": "20099__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_046", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, I do know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1916.768], "stop_times": [1917.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.768}, "reply_to": "20099__1_045", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_047", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I think probably hundreds would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1917.528], "stop_times": [1918.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.528}, "reply_to": "20099__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_048", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, I do know that class counsel had never brought, and this is undisputed, a claim on behalf of someone merely exposed.\nCCR--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1918.669, 1925.033], "stop_times": [1925.033, 1925.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.669}, "reply_to": "20099__1_047", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_049", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "You're talking about the fringes of the class.\nMaybe the class is too big.\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1925.873, 1928.367, 1929.525], "stop_times": [1928.367, 1929.525, 1929.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.873}, "reply_to": "20099__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_050", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--It's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1929.806], "stop_times": [1930.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1929.806}, "reply_to": "20099__1_049", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_051", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--but you're saying there's no case or controversy here, not even as to those who have cancer and wanted to sue for millions of dollars, if I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1930.477], "stop_times": [1937.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.477}, "reply_to": "20099__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_052", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Justice Stevens, I'm sorry.\nI certainly believe that as to those who are dying of cancer and many of the others there's a case or controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1937.44, 1937.68], "stop_times": [1937.68, 1944.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.44}, "reply_to": "20099__1_051", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_053", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1944.235], "stop_times": [1944.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.235}, "reply_to": "20099__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_054", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But this Court's jurisprudence requires in a class action that there be an injury in fact by everyone, and the absence of a case or controversy here arises from the fact that the entire--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1944.565], "stop_times": [1955.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.565}, "reply_to": "20099__1_053", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_055", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "It's the absence of a case or controversy as to some members of the class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1955.993], "stop_times": [1958.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.993}, "reply_to": "20099__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_056", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1958.614], "stop_times": [1958.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.614}, "reply_to": "20099__1_055", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_057", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Is that what you're claiming--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1958.835], "stop_times": [1959.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.835}, "reply_to": "20099__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_058", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1959.926], "stop_times": [1960.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.926}, "reply_to": "20099__1_057", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_059", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--or entirely no case or controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1960.166], "stop_times": [1962.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.166}, "reply_to": "20099__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_060", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I'm saying no injury in fact as to some members, but (b), more important, no case or controversy as to the entire phony complaint which was filed, admittedly, solely for the purpose of getting the court to put in place this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1962.237], "stop_times": [1975.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.237}, "reply_to": "20099__1_059", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_061", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, you're saying the class is too big, yes.\nHow do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1975.756, 1977.268], "stop_times": [1977.268, 1977.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.756}, "reply_to": "20099__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_062", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Could I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1977.719], "stop_times": [1978.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.719}, "reply_to": "20099__1_061", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_063", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Go ahead.\nDo you want to finish your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1978.59, 1979.54], "stop_times": [1979.54, 1980.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.59}, "reply_to": "20099__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_064", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--I just want to answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1980.531], "stop_times": [1980.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.531}, "reply_to": "20099__1_063", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_065", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1980.962], "stop_times": [1981.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.962}, "reply_to": "20099__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_066", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--The fact that it's too big, too diverse can't possibly be certified without, as Justice Souter suggested, making the mere settlement somehow the sufficient answer to all of the questions under Rule 23 is a different matter.\nThe absence of a genuine controversy arises from the fact that the entire case... and this has never really been denied... was brought not to obtain the relief the complaint requested, money for monitoring, money for mere exposure, money for increased risk, it was brought solely for the purpose of enabling the court, giving it supposedly jurisdiction to issue a nationwide injunction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [1981.212, 1994.56], "stop_times": [1994.56, 2020.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.212}, "reply_to": "20099__1_065", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_067", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "How do you distinguish, then, the cases that Mr. Shapiro cites which we read about in the papers, and probably some are participating, where it is announced that the Justice Department is bringing an action and that X pleads nolo contendere, and that a consent decree has been entered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2020.508], "stop_times": [2038.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.508}, "reply_to": "20099__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_068", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, the rights of third parties are not sacrificed in those cases, Mr. Chief Justice.\nWhat's happening is that the agency, the Department of Justice, is saying that instead of taking you to court and, if you insist, we will take you to court, we will agree to desist from that if you will agree to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2038.737, 2043.111], "stop_times": [2043.111, 2057.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.737}, "reply_to": "20099__1_067", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_069", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But the plaintiffs in the class action are saying if you disagree we'll take you to court just as much, aren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2057.65], "stop_times": [2063.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.65}, "reply_to": "20099__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_070", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--There is this difference.\nThey can only take the defendants to court with the defendants' consent here, because in this case it is recognized that this class could not be certified for litigation so that, unlike litigable matters of the sort to which you referred in which the plaintiff has some leverage, this is in the unusual circumstance where, since absent the defendant's agreement there's no settlement, and since absent a settlement there could be no conceivable finding, even a pretense of a finding that the Rule 23 factors are satisfied, it means that the defendant really holds all the cards.\nIt is not a case where the plaintiff has some meaningful leverage and then they compromise and the court in enforcing the compromise issues an injunction.\nHere, the injunction has the effect of replacing a system of tort law that one might find fault with with an administrative scheme.\nThe court would have had no power whatsoever to do that ordinarily, and what Mr. Shapiro says is, the reason it has power to do that here is because this is not an adjudication.\nWell, of course, the only power that a Federal Article III court has is the power to adjudicate, and when... I'm sorry, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2063.835, 2064.456, 2098.367, 2107.553, 2117.97, 2129.526], "stop_times": [2064.456, 2098.367, 2107.553, 2117.97, 2129.526, 2137.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.835}, "reply_to": "20099__1_069", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_071", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I didn't want to interrupt you, but maybe I'll... the... what's obviously... what's actually motivating my question partly is the analogy to what I've seen is a lot of settled cases in the civil rights area where it seems to me the power to accept settlement is fairly broad, and to extinguish State law claims, and I grant you you're right that this is in the far... pushing that.\nThere's no question about that.\nBut the reason the district judge says that they've gotten into this thing is that they're trying to settle millions of claims, and the reason that they're trying to do that, he says the victims are not receiving speedy and reasonably inexpensive resolution of their claims.\nThese are millions of people who actually do have cancer.\nNow, I take it that this is an effort to use Rule 23 in order to get that problem solved.\nNow, that's what's moving me in part, and that's why I'm interested in whether there isn't the power here to bring about what the district court says he's aiming at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2137.734, 2157.417, 2158.876, 2174.677, 2176.668, 2185.024], "stop_times": [2157.417, 2158.876, 2174.677, 2176.668, 2185.024, 2193.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.734}, "reply_to": "20099__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_072", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "With subclasses, Justice Breyer, perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2193.52], "stop_times": [2196.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.52}, "reply_to": "20099__1_071", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_073", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And how does that work, subclasses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2196.101], "stop_times": [2197.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.101}, "reply_to": "20099__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_074", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, the way... under the rule, one can identify a subgroup that is more homo... relatively homogeneous, so that one could get a set of typical representatives who could adequately advance the interests of those, for example, with advanced mesothelioma, or those with pleural thickening.\nThose subgroups... and this was going on before this case happened.\nNinety-nine point eight percent of the cases against CCR were being settled by CCR.\nVarious subgroups can be managed.\nWhat causes the problem here is the fact that the understandable desire by these 20 companies to get what they might have gotten from the Congress of the United States, namely protection into the indefinite future... they don't in fact say the sky's the limit.\nThey don't want to spend an infinite amount.\nThey want to limit their exposure.\nThat's what creates the inherent tradeoffs within the class.\nCongress is where those tradeoffs could be resolved.\nIf they went to Congress, one could then imagine a legislative solution.\nOr if, instead, subgroups formed classes... that is, there might be a class of people with cancer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2197.711, 2215.583, 2219.206, 2224.93, 2228.022, 2244.564, 2246.424, 2247.373, 2250.446, 2252.909, 2257.231], "stop_times": [2215.583, 2219.206, 2224.93, 2228.022, 2244.564, 2246.424, 2247.373, 2250.446, 2252.909, 2257.231, 2263.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.711}, "reply_to": "20099__1_073", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_075", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mr. Tribe, this discussion has been certainly quite wide-ranging, and I certainly have contributed.\nIf you look at the question presented in the petition for certiorari, it's whether the district court has to ignore the existence of the settlement in determining whether class certification is appropriate under Rule 23.\nNow, that's really quite a different question than the ones we've been arguing... hearing and discussing, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2263.175, 2269.359, 2282.418], "stop_times": [2269.359, 2282.418, 2287.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.175}, "reply_to": "20099__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_076", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Yes, it is, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe Third Circuit, of course, did not ignore the existence of the settlement.\nIt went on at some length to show how the settlement shed light on the conflicts involved here.\nThere was no inflation adjustment, which wouldn't have mattered much to people who had a life expectancy of 5 years from cancer, but would have mattered a great deal to people who might get sick, if at all, only in 25 years.\nAll of the consortium claims were resolved at zero.\nThat would matter a lot more to the widows than it would to people who lived alone.\nSo he looked at the settlement, and though perhaps, as Justice Souter and others may have suggested, there's some rhetoric in Judge Becker's opinion that suggests that the settlement doesn't matter, his own holding makes clear that he looked at it, he paid attention to it.\nBut what he did say was this, and I think this is clearly right, and very important.\nThe settlement can't in itself suffice because there is no objective test for what the right tradeoff is unless the groups with different interests are adequately represented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2287.58, 2289.0, 2294.266, 2300.658, 2312.967, 2316.039, 2321.381, 2338.275, 2341.868], "stop_times": [2289.0, 2294.266, 2300.658, 2312.967, 2316.039, 2321.381, 2338.275, 2341.868, 2353.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2287.58}, "reply_to": "20099__1_075", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_077", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Let me ask you, Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2353.375], "stop_times": [2356.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.375}, "reply_to": "20099__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_078", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "It doesn't matter whether the settlement looks reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2356.197], "stop_times": [2356.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.197}, "reply_to": "20099__1_077", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_079", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Mr. Tribe, may I just ask you, do you agree with this sentence out of Judge Becker's opinion:\nWe held in GM Trucks that, although class actions may be certified for settlement purposes only, Rule 23(a)'s requirements must be satisfied as if the case were going to be litigated.\nDo you think that's a correct statement of law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2356.875, 2361.329, 2371.524], "stop_times": [2361.329, 2371.524, 2373.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.875}, "reply_to": "20099__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_080", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, I think when he says, as if it were going to be litigated, if I interpreted that to mean what Mr. Shapiro does, namely, we must be blind to the settlement in figuring out whether the criteria of Rule 23 are met, I think it would be wrong, because things like management of a complex case might shed a lot of light on that by looking at the settlement, but you don't have to read it that way.\nI would interpret that to mean that we must avoid a search... we must avoid looking at this as though the questions were no longer those of typicality, predominance, superiority, and adequate representation, but merely the fairness of the settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2373.166, 2395.971], "stop_times": [2395.971, 2412.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.166}, "reply_to": "20099__1_079", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_081", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, does that mean that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2412.721], "stop_times": [2414.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.721}, "reply_to": "20099__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_082", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And I think in that respect he's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2414.584], "stop_times": [2415.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.584}, "reply_to": "20099__1_081", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_083", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Is it conceivable that there are class actions that have come to the court in a settlement posture which the trial court could say, well, if this were going to be tried, I really couldn't prove the class certification but, given the settlement, I think I will approve it?\nis that ever possible, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2415.914, 2429.064], "stop_times": [2429.064, 2430.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.914}, "reply_to": "20099__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_084", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, I wanted to be able to say yes to that because I thought I could come up with managerial examples in which that would be possible, but I think there are three reasons why the answer really ought to be no, and they're very fundamental.\nThey relate to the text of Rule 23 and whether it can possibly be stretched to confer judicial power to impose a binding order on an entire class where the class representatives could not be deputized to litigate it, and with Article III and due process problems.\nLet me just say a word about each.\nAs far as the text of the rule is concerned, it talks constantly about circumstances in which people may \"sue as representative parties\" and, most importantly, there's no language in the rule that confers affirmative power to impose a binding settlement on the class.\nIt's a negative thing.\nRule 23(e) limits.\nIt says that you cannot dismiss or compromise a class action without judicial approval.\nI think you have to twist those words out of shape to infer from them a power to judicially impose a settlement where you concede that there could not have been a class action.\nI also think that there's an intrinsic Article III problem, just apart from the facts of this case, in construing any rule of procedure to create circumstances where an Article III court may bind nonparties, but only so long as the parties who seek such an order have settled all of the disputes between them and have therefore put no controversy before the court.\nI mean, that's what it would come down to.\nIt would basically say the one precondition of getting the court to exercise its judicial power is that you guys don't disagree.\nI think that stands Article III on its head.\nI think there is a third problem, and it goes to Justice Scalia's question about incentive structures.\nI mean, apart from the incentive to load up the class with additional people, which may be bad for a number of reasons, I think there's a fundamental point, and that is that representative parties, as the rule calls them, who concededly cannot carry on adversary class litigation against a defendant... which is your hypothetical, Justice Stevens, right +/?\nare necessarily hobbled inherently in negotiating with that defendant and thereby playing the role that due process and rule 23(a)(4) demands, namely, fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the class, because by definition... by definition, representative parties in that situation need the defendant's cooperation to get the class off the ground at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2430.664, 2442.712, 2463.385, 2464.446, 2482.469, 2483.851, 2486.292, 2492.874, 2504.632, 2532.901, 2534.253, 2540.475, 2542.618, 2549.103, 2571.287], "stop_times": [2442.712, 2463.385, 2464.446, 2482.469, 2483.851, 2486.292, 2492.874, 2504.632, 2532.901, 2534.253, 2540.475, 2542.618, 2549.103, 2571.287, 2596.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.664}, "reply_to": "20099__1_083", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_085", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, what about... are you then... is the implication of what you're saying that imagine a big company, or several of them, that have a history of employment discrimination, and they work out a settlement that is going to cover millions of people into the future, or toxic torts of all kinds... you know, there are thousands of them, and now it would be impermissible to put anybody in the settlement class, anybody... anybody who might work for this company in the future, unless in the absence of that settlement his position is similar enough to the others in the class that he'd be in it anyway.\nThat proposition of law seems to have, to me, a lot of implications as to all kinds of decrees all over the place in ways that would inhibit settlements that might be highly desirable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2596.424, 2628.275], "stop_times": [2628.275, 2639.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.424}, "reply_to": "20099__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_086", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Justice Breyer, I don't think it's an implication of my position that one apple of the wrong flavor spoils the barrel.\nThe question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2639.721, 2647.268], "stop_times": [2647.268, 2647.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.721}, "reply_to": "20099__1_085", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_087", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, no, but that apple would be out of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2647.709], "stop_times": [2648.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.709}, "reply_to": "20099__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_088", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, maybe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2648.988], "stop_times": [2649.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.988}, "reply_to": "20099__1_087", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_089", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "You see, that apple would be out of the class, and that apple being out of the class would mean that the company wouldn't know what was going to happen, and therefore, who knows?\nOr, when you get to the point of enforcing the decree, the company claims, oh, that's one of the apples, or the apple says it's the apple.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2649.699, 2657.093], "stop_times": [2657.093, 2665.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.699}, "reply_to": "20099__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_090", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2665.1], "stop_times": [2665.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2665.1}, "reply_to": "20099__1_089", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_091", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "You see... do you see the problem?\nI mean, that... and I don't see anything in the rule that requires that result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2665.391, 2666.24], "stop_times": [2666.24, 2672.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.391}, "reply_to": "20099__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__1_092", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, I guess I don't see anything in the rule that makes it possible for a nonlitigable case to give rise to a binding decree.\nMaybe you're saying that the rule should be changed to make that possible.\nI'm talking about the rule as it is.\nBut I'm also suggesting that any change in the rule that makes the power of an Article III court to bind millions of people dependent on the complete agreement of those before it is troublesome at a minimum under Article III--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2672.204, 2679.65, 2682.843, 2684.943], "stop_times": [2679.65, 2682.843, 2684.943, 2698.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.204}, "reply_to": "20099__1_091", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_093", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mr. Tribe, are you saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2698.711], "stop_times": [2699.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.711}, "reply_to": "20099__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__1_094", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--and under Rule 82 you wouldn't read the rules that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2699.682], "stop_times": [2701.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2699.682}, "reply_to": "20099__1_093", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_095", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Are you saying, then, that even a back end opt-out would not save this class?\nI take it that's what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2701.713, 2707.77], "stop_times": [2707.77, 2709.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.713}, "reply_to": "20099__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__1_096", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I think because a back end opt-out, Justice Ginsburg, would have to have preconditions that the court would set.\nThat is that in the heart valve and other cases a back end opt-out helps a great deal on the issue of notice, on the issue of meaningful choice, so that, for example, the widow in this morning's case might have been in a position to make certain decisions after her husband died that she wasn't before.\nBut a back end opt-out does not prevent this from being a binding exercise of Federal judicial power, otherwise... I mean, if they didn't need that they would include it in their inventory settlements that they settled on the side at quite a premium, and therefore I think that although the superiority determination under 23(b)(3) might come out differently with a back end opt out, I don't think the Article III problem or the textual problem would be solved, nor would the leverage problem.\nThat is, the fundamental problem of any deal, even if it looks good or better because people don't have to make the kinds of impossible choices that this settlement imposes on them 30 years before they come down with a terrible disease, even though it would be improved, if it turns out to be the case that the heterogeneity of class, or the inability of the representative plaintiffs adequately to represent the whole class or anything else brings the situation to the posture Justice Stevens put, namely, but for the settlement I simply could not certify this class, that gives such leverage to the defendant that in effect you are handing to the adversary power over the State law claims of absent members of this class in a way that changes their substance, the substance of those State law rights in violation of the Rules Enabling Act, and also in a way that violates I think both Hansberry v. Lee and Richards v. Jefferson County.\nThat is, the point about both your opinion, I think, in Richards v. Jefferson County, Justice Stevens, and Hansberry v. Lee many years earlier, was that the people who speak, even in the negotiation process, as you stressed in Matsushita, the people who speak for others have to be in a position in terms of an alignment of interest to fairly represent them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2709.099, 2714.663, 2729.922, 2758.721, 2819.573], "stop_times": [2714.663, 2729.922, 2758.721, 2819.573, 2841.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.099}, "reply_to": "20099__1_095", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_097", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "We've got district court findings that they were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2841.787], "stop_times": [2843.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.787}, "reply_to": "20099__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_098", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, the findings--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2843.368], "stop_times": [2844.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.368}, "reply_to": "20099__1_097", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_099", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "You think... you don't agree with them, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2844.647], "stop_times": [2846.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.647}, "reply_to": "20099__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_100", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--No, that's... not quite, Justice Stevens.\nI think that the court was extremely careful... at page 49a of the appendix to the cert petition you see how careful Judge Becker was to avoid disturbing findings of historical or empirical fact, so that there were no findings--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2846.37, 2848.1], "stop_times": [2848.1, 2862.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.37}, "reply_to": "20099__1_099", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_101", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well then, do we take the case as though the representation was adequate or inadequate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2862.629], "stop_times": [2865.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.629}, "reply_to": "20099__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_102", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--There are two different concepts of representation.\nThe word representation in 23(a) talks about the ability of the representative plaintiffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2865.961, 2868.533], "stop_times": [2868.533, 2875.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2865.961}, "reply_to": "20099__1_101", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_103", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2875.989], "stop_times": [2876.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.989}, "reply_to": "20099__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_104", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And he... as to that, what did he find as to their ability?\nIt was in his conclusions of law section to begin with, and what he said as to adequate representation was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2876.33, 2880.411], "stop_times": [2880.411, 2886.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.33}, "reply_to": "20099__1_103", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_105", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "This was Judge Weiner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2886.265], "stop_times": [2887.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.265}, "reply_to": "20099__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_106", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Yes.\nThis is... No, Judge Reed, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2887.377, 2888.118], "stop_times": [2888.118, 2890.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.377}, "reply_to": "20099__1_105", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_107", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Judge Reed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2890.258], "stop_times": [2890.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.258}, "reply_to": "20099__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_108", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Judge Reed said, and it's at pages 229a to 230a of the certiorari appendix, that so long as all class members are united in asserting a common right, such as achieving the maximum possible recovery, there's adequate representation.\nNow, that's a conclusion of law.\nIt's an obviously incorrect conclusion of law.\nAs to predominance he said the only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2890.558, 2906.327, 2908.38, 2911.703], "stop_times": [2906.327, 2908.38, 2911.703, 2914.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.558}, "reply_to": "20099__1_107", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_109", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "He was quoting from a Third Circuit case there... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2914.204], "stop_times": [2916.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.204}, "reply_to": "20099__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_110", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well--\n[Laughter]\nBut not from a decision of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2916.535, 2920.088, 2917.066], "stop_times": [2920.088, 2917.066, 2920.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2916.535}, "reply_to": "20099__1_109", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_111", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Which would be right if we had said that, right?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2920.509, 2923.53], "stop_times": [2923.53, 2923.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.509}, "reply_to": "20099__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__1_112", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "If you'd said it recently enough.\n[Laughter]\nTake predominance at 226a of the certiorari appendix.\nThe predominant question he identifies is whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class, and far from caricaturing petitioner's position, as Mr. Shapiro says I'm doing, let me simply just turn to his brief.\nHe says at, I guess page 42 of the blue brief, says, right in the middle, the legal and factual questions that remain now that we have a proposed settlement therefore relate solely... solely... to the fairness of the settlement as the district court concluded, and in their reply brief at page 14 he says, the questions that remain were common to class members.\nIs the deal fair and reasonable?\nThis kind of reverse engineering, you know, trying to figure out if the incommensurable and conflicting interests of people who are perfectly well, who won't get sick until perhaps, if ever, the year 2030, and others, an effort to figure out if the incommensurable tradeoffs among them was made in a way that fairly represented their interests, as though you could apply some objective scale backwards, won't work.\nThat's why giving the kind of weight to this fairness inquiry, which is really just a way of looking when the dust has settled at whether the thing looks really gross, giving so much weight to the fairness inquiry and essentially displacing the inquiry that is indispensable if due process is to be protected and the integrity of class action law is to be preserved, is wholly indefensible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [2923.78, 2927.031, 2927.291, 2933.275, 2945.733, 2969.6, 2971.26, 3001.09], "stop_times": [2927.031, 2927.291, 2933.275, 2945.733, 2969.6, 2971.26, 3001.09, 3028.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.78}, "reply_to": "20099__1_111", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_113", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But you do not go so far as to say that a requisite premise is that the case must be capable of being litigated.\nYou do not go that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3028.357, 3037.303], "stop_times": [3037.303, 3038.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.357}, "reply_to": "20099__1_112", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__1_114", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3038.435], "stop_times": [3039.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.435}, "reply_to": "20099__1_113", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_115", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Because the Chief Justice... we talked about the question that was presented, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3039.426], "stop_times": [3045.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.426}, "reply_to": "20099__1_114", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20099__1_116", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--I think whichever way the question that was presented is answered, the judgment here would be, I think, affirmed because the basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3045.63], "stop_times": [3054.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.63}, "reply_to": "20099__1_115", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_117", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--What is your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3054.897], "stop_times": [3055.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.897}, "reply_to": "20099__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_118", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--My position is that it would be wrong... that under Rule 23, the existence of a settlement should not be ignored when it is relevant to answering the questions put in Rule 23.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3055.858], "stop_times": [3067.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.858}, "reply_to": "20099__1_117", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_119", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3067.515], "stop_times": [3067.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3067.515}, "reply_to": "20099__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_120", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And it often is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3067.776], "stop_times": [3068.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.776}, "reply_to": "20099__1_119", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_121", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Can a district court certify a case that clearly could not be certified for litigation for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3068.727], "stop_times": [3075.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.727}, "reply_to": "20099__1_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_122", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I think not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3075.17], "stop_times": [3075.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.17}, "reply_to": "20099__1_121", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_123", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Oh?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3075.38], "stop_times": [3076.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.38}, "reply_to": "20099__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_124", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I think the answer to that ought to be no, but that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3076.391], "stop_times": [3078.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3076.391}, "reply_to": "20099__1_123", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_125", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Don't ignore it, but it doesn't make any difference, right?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3078.462, 3080.863], "stop_times": [3080.863, 3081.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.462}, "reply_to": "20099__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__1_126", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--No, no--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3081.114, 3081.805], "stop_times": [3081.805, 3082.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3081.114}, "reply_to": "20099__1_125", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_127", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I think that's what you're saying.\nIt can't make any difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3082.105, 3084.076], "stop_times": [3084.076, 3085.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.105}, "reply_to": "20099__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__1_128", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "No.\nIt can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3085.027, 3085.257], "stop_times": [3085.257, 3085.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3085.027}, "reply_to": "20099__1_127", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_129", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--but don't ignore it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3085.798], "stop_times": [3086.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.798}, "reply_to": "20099__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__1_130", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--It can inform you of a lot of things.\nThat is, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3086.289, 3088.63], "stop_times": [3088.63, 3089.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3086.289}, "reply_to": "20099__1_129", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_131", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But if were smart enough you'd figure them out anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3089.401], "stop_times": [3091.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3089.401}, "reply_to": "20099__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__1_132", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--No, because--\n[Laughter]\n--no one has a crystal ball.\nThe settlement in this case... for example, I do think that in this case the degree to which Judge Becker looked at the settlement to reveal how the tradeoffs worked might have been unnecessary.\nThat might have been obvious in the... to begin with, no settlement could have cured the intractable problems of the heterogeneity of this class, but it might be the case when you looked at the settlement, no matter how smart you were, that it pointed something out to you that you hadn't realized about the situation that would enable you to see that what appeared to be a divergence in the class really wasn't.\nThat didn't happen here, but it sure can't be said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3091.943, 3092.183, 3092.473, 3093.622, 3105.119, 3125.552], "stop_times": [3092.183, 3092.473, 3093.622, 3105.119, 3125.552, 3128.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3091.943}, "reply_to": "20099__1_131", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_133", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Can I give you a little different... supposing the trial judge made a finding that really there ought to be 18 subclasses because there's heterogeneity, but if I look at this settlement I think that each one of those 18 subclasses got the best deal it could have gotten if they had 18 separate representatives.\nWould it be permissible on those facts to certify the class?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3128.384, 3143.814], "stop_times": [3143.814, 3147.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.384}, "reply_to": "20099__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_134", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--If other... if the other requirements of the rule were met or were not met?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3147.538], "stop_times": [3153.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3147.538}, "reply_to": "20099__1_133", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_135", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "If they would be met as to each 18 subclass, clearly, but the problem is you've got 18 subclasses, but yet you look through it all and you say, well, I think each of those 18 subclasses got at least as good if not a better deal in the total settlement as if they'd had 18 subclasses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3153.011], "stop_times": [3165.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.011}, "reply_to": "20099__1_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_136", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I think if they were all separately represented in putting the deal together, I think that sounds like a perfectly reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3165.791], "stop_times": [3171.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.791}, "reply_to": "20099__1_135", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_137", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "And if he finds that they got the same benefit that they would have gotten that way... because the main difficulty that he foresaw was there wasn't enough money to go around, and that's what creates the major controversy, but here he found there was enough money to go around.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3171.214], "stop_times": [3182.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.214}, "reply_to": "20099__1_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20099__1_138", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, enough money to go around suggests that there's some pie in the sky whose size--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3182.45], "stop_times": [3186.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3182.45}, "reply_to": "20099__1_137", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_139", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3186.954], "stop_times": [3187.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3186.954}, "reply_to": "20099__1_138", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_140", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--we know.\nThe fact is, if in your hypothetical these 18 subclasses were all represented by the same two guys, and not separately represented, I think no one is smart enough to look at that and say, oh, I can tell that even though their interests are in conflict, they got as good a deal as they would have gotten otherwise, because there isn't any as good a deal out there.\nThe question is, there are a lot of different ways of carving up this pie.\nMaybe, as was suggested in the earlier argument, the right thing is to reserve most of the money for the people who get very, very sick, and not to worry so much about medical monitoring, but that's not an inevitable view.\nSomebody might say, if they really were into preventive medicine, no, you really ought to reserve more money for the medical monitoring so that less of them will get sick in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3187.155, 3187.565, 3206.075, 3209.919, 3221.847], "stop_times": [3187.565, 3206.075, 3209.919, 3221.847, 3230.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3187.155}, "reply_to": "20099__1_139", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_141", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "So you're really saying you can't make an intelligent fairness determination after the fact without knowing the process by which the determination was made, and that's... I mean, that's your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3230.782], "stop_times": [3239.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.782}, "reply_to": "20099__1_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20099__1_142", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "That's exactly right, Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3239.608], "stop_times": [3240.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.608}, "reply_to": "20099__1_141", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_143", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3240.64], "stop_times": [3241.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.64}, "reply_to": "20099__1_142", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_144", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--and that no determination about the result will quite do.\nI mean, you know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.\nWell, in this case proof is unavailable.\nThere is no QED.\nThere's no objective test, and you know, what might please me might poison someone else.\nThere are inherent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3241.08, 3244.061, 3247.634, 3249.776, 3250.774, 3256.488], "stop_times": [3244.061, 3247.634, 3249.776, 3250.774, 3256.488, 3257.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3241.08}, "reply_to": "20099__1_143", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_145", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I think your time has expired--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3257.249], "stop_times": [3258.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.249}, "reply_to": "20099__1_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_146", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Oh, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3258.601], "stop_times": [3258.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.601}, "reply_to": "20099__1_145", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_147", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Mr. Tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3258.801], "stop_times": [3259.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.801}, "reply_to": "20099__1_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__1_148", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3259.252], "stop_times": [3260.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3259.252}, "reply_to": "20099__1_147", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20099__1_149", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3260.162], "stop_times": [3261.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3260.162}, "reply_to": "20099__1_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__2_000", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI'd like to begin with the point Professor Tribe left, that there's no proof of adequacy here.\nIn fact, there was voluminous evidence on adequacy of representation.\nThe district court looked in great detail at what these lawyers and what these class representatives had done for each medical category.\nThis is a factual issue, and the district court's determination on these factual points is subject to deferential review.\nNow, Professor Tribe's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3261.854, 3263.394, 3267.788, 3271.439, 3277.954, 3284.418], "stop_times": [3263.394, 3267.788, 3271.439, 3277.954, 3284.418, 3285.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3261.854}, "reply_to": "20099__1_149", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_001", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "I thought he was talking not about adequacy of representation, but rather about the question whether the settlement achieved gave each class the maximum that it could have gotten.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3285.589], "stop_times": [3294.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3285.589}, "reply_to": "20099__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__2_002", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--And I think his point was you can't just look at the end result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3294.924], "stop_times": [3298.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3294.924}, "reply_to": "20099__2_001", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_003", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3298.236], "stop_times": [3298.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.236}, "reply_to": "20099__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__2_004", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "You have to look at other things.\nWe agree with that.\nYou don't just look at the end result.\nYou have to look at the alignment of interests of the representatives and the vigor of negotiation, the changes that were made, and that's what the district court did.\nThis is a factual issue which the district court was best positioned to consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3298.467, 3299.318, 3299.969, 3300.678, 3307.974], "stop_times": [3299.318, 3299.969, 3300.678, 3307.974, 3312.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3298.467}, "reply_to": "20099__2_003", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_005", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Do you think there would be any difference if we were to hold hypothetically that there had to be four lawyers, one for the people who brought suit before, one for the people who have the disease already, one for the people who have the thickening, and one for the people who have nothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3312.117], "stop_times": [3324.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.117}, "reply_to": "20099__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__2_006", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "There--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3324.562], "stop_times": [3325.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3324.562}, "reply_to": "20099__2_005", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_007", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Would that lead to a practical difference in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3325.073], "stop_times": [3326.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3325.073}, "reply_to": "20099__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__2_008", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--There's be no difference.\nThat's what Judge Reed found, that there would be no... there's no practical need for these subclasses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3326.815, 3327.234], "stop_times": [3327.234, 3331.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3326.815}, "reply_to": "20099__2_007", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_009", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "So in other words, if this Court were to say the thing that was wrong with this is that there wasn't those four separate lawyers, and it went back, it would reach the same result, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3331.698], "stop_times": [3340.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.698}, "reply_to": "20099__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20099__2_010", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well, the same result would be reached at greater expense, because the district court found here that there were no conflicts among these subclasses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3340.624], "stop_times": [3347.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3340.624}, "reply_to": "20099__2_009", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_011", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "You're willing to leave it to one district judge to decide nationwide what is fairness as to all of these different plaintiffs, some who haven't gotten the disease, some who know that they have it, some... I mean, I can understand how a legislature might feel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3347.359], "stop_times": [3359.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.359}, "reply_to": "20099__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20099__2_012", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "This is merely an option, Justice Scalia, for people who want the option, and it is found to be a preferable option.\nThose that don't want it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3359.866, 3365.81], "stop_times": [3365.81, 3366.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3359.866}, "reply_to": "20099__2_011", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_013", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Yes, but so many of them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3366.911], "stop_times": [3367.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.911}, "reply_to": "20099__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__2_014", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--can opt out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3367.873], "stop_times": [3368.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3367.873}, "reply_to": "20099__2_013", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_015", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--So many of them will never see this notice.\nMany who do won't understand it.\nLet me ask you a question similar to the one I asked Ms. Birnbaum in the preceding argument.\nIf her position is right, and it applies not only to FELA but the common law generally, then the huge bulk of these people don't have any current claim at all.\nThey don't have any injury.\nAnd so you're taking people who don't even have any claim now and saying they're giving up nothing because they have no claim to settle some claim that they might have in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3368.083, 3371.383, 3373.917, 3378.359, 3388.357, 3391.218], "stop_times": [3371.383, 3373.917, 3378.359, 3388.357, 3391.218, 3402.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3368.083}, "reply_to": "20099__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__2_016", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3402.436], "stop_times": [3403.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3402.436}, "reply_to": "20099__2_015", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_017", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "If they have no claim, then doesn't... isn't that another reason why this has to fall apart?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3403.097], "stop_times": [3408.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.097}, "reply_to": "20099__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__2_018", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--They do have a claim.\nThey have Article III standing under this Court's precedents.\nOur research shows that there are 15 States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3408.448, 3409.429, 3412.211], "stop_times": [3409.429, 3412.211, 3414.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3408.448}, "reply_to": "20099__2_017", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_019", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But if they have no 12(b)... they couldn't survive a 12(b)(6).\nThey do not have a claim for relief because they haven't been injured yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3414.092, 3418.704], "stop_times": [3418.704, 3422.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.092}, "reply_to": "20099__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__2_020", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Under the legal certainty test, Your Honor, there are 15 States that recognize this cause of action.\nNo State supreme court has rejected it.\nThere are also claims here for intentional misconduct which we heard counsel say would present a different circumstance.\nThere can be no legal certainty--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3422.497, 3427.973, 3429.433, 3435.307], "stop_times": [3427.973, 3429.433, 3435.307, 3436.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.497}, "reply_to": "20099__2_019", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_021", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "But then in most States, since we're dealing with a global thing, most of these people wouldn't have any claim if Ms. Birnbaum is right, and if... you said the number's only 15.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3436.857], "stop_times": [3445.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.857}, "reply_to": "20099__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20099__2_022", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "--Well, there's no State that has rejected this cause of action.\nThere are 15 that have by our count, and so the Court, looking at jurisdiction, could not say with a legal certainty that anyone in this class does not have a valid cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3445.192, 3448.634], "stop_times": [3448.634, 3456.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3445.192}, "reply_to": "20099__2_021", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "20099__2_023", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3456.979, 3458.411], "stop_times": [3458.411, 3459.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3456.979}, "reply_to": "20099__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20099__2_024", "conversation_id": "20099", "text": "The Honorable Court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-270", "start_times": [3459.612], "stop_times": [3464.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.612}, "reply_to": "20099__2_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__0_000", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-974, Arizonans for Official English and Robert D. Park v. Arizona.\nMr. Zall, and let me request of you, Mr. Zall, and also of your colleague that the Court is very interested in hearing a full discussion of the issues relating to standing, mootness, and jurisdiction, so we hope you'll devote a substantial part of your arguments to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [0.0, 11.998], "stop_times": [11.998, 33.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__0_001", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis First Amendment facial overbreadth case involves a Government employee who wanted to write her official documents in a language her supervisor did not understand.\nEven if her choice of language on the job was speech, which is was not, it was the Government's speech, not hers.\nUnder Capital Square, Government runs no risk of a First Amendment violation when it restrains its own speech.\nOfficial English statutes, which are simply restraints on the Government's own speech, do not violate the First Amendment.\nIt's a political choice.\nOne point was not treated sufficiently in the briefs.\nLast term in County Commissioners v. Umbehr, a Government contractors case, the Court said that the Government's interest in speech depends on the speaker's proximity to Government.\nThe closer to Government, the greater the Government's interest.\nUmbehr described a speech spectrum ranging from private citizens, in whose speech the Government has little interest, to Government employees, whose closeness to Government means that the Government is very interested in their speech.\nGovernment contractors fell somewhere in between Government employees, who had the closest relationship to Government, and other speakers with less close relationships, and though not said in Umbehr, since Government is actually closest to itself, Government speech, the Government speech cases would be... would place very high on the Umbehr speech spectrum, beyond--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [33.232, 34.093, 36.305, 45.921, 52.776, 59.291, 66.194, 67.837, 70.958, 81.064, 84.477, 97.596], "stop_times": [34.093, 36.305, 45.921, 52.776, 59.291, 66.194, 67.837, 70.958, 81.064, 84.477, 97.596, 117.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 33.232}, "reply_to": "19955__0_000", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_002", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mr. Zall, this particular Government, at least the Attorney General, long before this case was decided by the district court said that the constitutional provision in Arizona did not prohibit the use of a language other than English where necessary to assure the fairness and effectiveness of the delivery or services to members of the public.\nWhy didn't that end this controversy?\nThe then plaintiff, the sole plaintiff in effect got all the relief that she sought, which was the assurance that she wouldn't be fired if she used a language other than English where necessary to assure the fair delivery of her service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [117.308, 141.533, 143.835], "stop_times": [141.533, 143.835, 159.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.308}, "reply_to": "19955__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_003", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Your Honor, we agree with the Attorney General's opinion as to its construction of Article XXVIII on the First Amendment grounds.\nWe also agree that the Attorney General appropriately considered equal protection matters.\nOur concern is that the Attorney General's opinion relied on a case which, subsequent to the opinion, this court vacated on mootness, and that was an equal protection issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [159.276, 165.58, 170.323], "stop_times": [165.58, 170.323, 179.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 159.276}, "reply_to": "19955__0_002", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_004", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Did the Attorney General withdraw that opinion as the official interpretation of the State's executive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [179.879], "stop_times": [187.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.879}, "reply_to": "19955__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_005", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It did not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [187.353], "stop_times": [188.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.353}, "reply_to": "19955__0_004", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_006", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So that's the law as far as the executive's... as far as official Government in Arizona is concerned, so my question is, why didn't this case end?\nWasn't it moot at that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [188.114, 202.023], "stop_times": [202.023, 204.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.114}, "reply_to": "19955__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_007", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, I believe the plaintiffs in the case said that the next Attorney General could issue another opinion and the Attorney General's opinion was not binding on the courts, therefore they felt that they still had a viable case, and the district court disagreed with the Attorney General's interpretation and decided not to abide by it, as did the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [204.735], "stop_times": [225.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.735}, "reply_to": "19955__0_006", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_008", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, is... it's not a question of what the district court independently might think the law was.\nThe question was, was the plaintiff at any risk of losing her job when the official interpretation, the State's interpretation, was that what she was doing was all right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [225.107, 231.992], "stop_times": [231.992, 243.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.107}, "reply_to": "19955__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_009", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I think the answer to that question is she was at no risk of losing her job, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [243.861], "stop_times": [246.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.861}, "reply_to": "19955__0_008", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_010", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, didn't... what controversy was left, then, if she was at no risk of losing her job?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [246.833], "stop_times": [252.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.833}, "reply_to": "19955__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_011", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I believe, Your Honor, that although that was... that's the correct interpretation, she did not agree with that and asked the court on a slightly different ground, which is that she was not... excuse me.\nThe district court handed down a decision on a slightly different ground, which is that although she was not at risk from losing her job, it decided this was a facial overbreadth case and felt somehow there were some risk to other Government employees who were not before the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [252.887, 266.674], "stop_times": [266.674, 282.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.887}, "reply_to": "19955__0_010", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_012", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "What basis would there have been for that?\nI mean, the Attorney General's statement of State law was not a statement which was peculiar to her.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [282.636, 286.079], "stop_times": [286.079, 292.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.636}, "reply_to": "19955__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__0_013", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I think that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [292.674], "stop_times": [294.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.674}, "reply_to": "19955__0_012", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_014", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So the district court was wrong, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [294.885], "stop_times": [296.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.885}, "reply_to": "19955__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__0_015", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I believe the district court was wrong, Your Honor.\nThis never should have been a facial overbreadth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [296.915, 298.417], "stop_times": [298.417, 299.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 296.915}, "reply_to": "19955__0_014", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_016", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So at that point the case was certainly moot, even if we make the assumption that there was a case or controversy at some point.\nAnd it probably became moot when Ms. Yniguez left her State employment, I would have thought, at the very least.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [299.927, 306.872], "stop_times": [306.872, 319.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.927}, "reply_to": "19955__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__0_017", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Your Honor, the central point of mootness is whether this Court's decision can affect the legal rights of the parties before it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [319.569], "stop_times": [328.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.569}, "reply_to": "19955__0_016", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_018", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, who do you represent, exactly, here?\nIs it that organization that helped put it on the ballot--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [328.796, 331.289], "stop_times": [331.289, 331.289], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 328.796}, "reply_to": "19955__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19955__0_019", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [331.289], "stop_times": [334.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.289}, "reply_to": "19955__0_018", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_020", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--and a Mr. Park?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [334.69], "stop_times": [335.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.69}, "reply_to": "19955__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_021", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [335.591], "stop_times": [336.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.591}, "reply_to": "19955__0_020", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_022", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And how is it that they have standing in this case at this juncture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [336.112], "stop_times": [341.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.112}, "reply_to": "19955__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_023", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Petitioners have standing because the lower court decisions affected their legal rights.\nThey have legal rights created by the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [341.964, 346.547], "stop_times": [346.547, 348.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.964}, "reply_to": "19955__0_022", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_024", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "What kind of rights does your organization have, AOC, or whatever it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [348.71], "stop_times": [352.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.71}, "reply_to": "19955__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_025", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "AOE--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [352.61], "stop_times": [353.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.61}, "reply_to": "19955__0_024", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_026", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "You assume that it's some kind of legislative standing for them?\nWhat is it you're arguing for that would give them standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [353.241, 359.326], "stop_times": [359.326, 362.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.241}, "reply_to": "19955__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_027", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--In footnote 17 of Diamond v. Charles the Court noted that a State may create interest the invasion of which would give standing in Federal court.\nThat's exactly what we have here.\nThe State created an interest in petition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [362.969, 371.655, 373.185], "stop_times": [371.655, 373.185, 377.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.969}, "reply_to": "19955__0_026", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_028", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I would have thought Diamond v. Charles would require us to say that the organization does not have legislative standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [377.138], "stop_times": [383.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.138}, "reply_to": "19955__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_029", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Your Honor, Diamond v. Charles as I read it is predicated on the ability to create and enact a legally enforceable code, citing Snapp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [383.272], "stop_times": [391.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.272}, "reply_to": "19955__0_028", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_030", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But how does that give the organization here standing, Arizonans for Official English?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [391.726], "stop_times": [398.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.726}, "reply_to": "19955__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_031", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, that goes back to the standing question for organizations, Your Honor.\nThere are two ways that we have standing.\nOne is the invasion of our ability to go into State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [398.462, 402.615, 403.994], "stop_times": [402.615, 403.994, 407.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 398.462}, "reply_to": "19955__0_030", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_032", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, once the thing is adopted by the voters, I don't see what standing that organization has to litigate in Federal court.\nAlong that same line, how is your organization any different from any citizen in the State of Arizona?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [407.097, 416.983], "stop_times": [416.983, 423.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.097}, "reply_to": "19955__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_033", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, the statute... the citizens' suit provision in Article XXVIII, section 4 permits any person or organization doing business in Arizona to enforce Article XXVIII in State court.\nThat would not, in and of itself, give standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [423.128, 438.799], "stop_times": [438.799, 440.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.128}, "reply_to": "19955__0_032", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_034", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, why wouldn't that just be a State law cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [440.96], "stop_times": [444.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.96}, "reply_to": "19955__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_035", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It is a State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [444.603], "stop_times": [445.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.603}, "reply_to": "19955__0_034", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_036", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I mean, how do you get to Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [445.642], "stop_times": [447.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 445.642}, "reply_to": "19955__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_037", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Because the Federal court decision eliminated that State court right.\nIt would be the equivalent of our having any other State interest, State granted interest which the Federal court's action then eviscerated.\nWe would have the right to come to Federal court and say, we fought hard for that right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [447.264, 450.387, 457.459], "stop_times": [450.387, 457.459, 462.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.264}, "reply_to": "19955__0_036", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_038", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, that part of your answer then seems to me that you're agreeing that you're no different than any other citizen of the State of Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [462.892], "stop_times": [470.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.892}, "reply_to": "19955__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_039", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I think that's not correct, Your Honor.\nI think because we are the proponents and we expect... it was our court purpose to get that right under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [470.108, 471.41], "stop_times": [471.41, 477.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.108}, "reply_to": "19955__0_038", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_040", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, but you were just the mechanism for putting something on the ballot.\nUnlike a legislature, the voters didn't give any authority to you.\nThey voted for a measure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [477.352, 480.485, 486.341], "stop_times": [480.485, 486.341, 487.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.352}, "reply_to": "19955__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_041", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--That's true, Your Honor, but the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [487.63], "stop_times": [489.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.63}, "reply_to": "19955__0_040", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_042", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Would a Senator who sponsors a bill have standing to challenge a court's evisceration of the bill after it's been adopted as a statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [489.831], "stop_times": [497.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.831}, "reply_to": "19955__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_043", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--The Senator--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [497.995], "stop_times": [498.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.995}, "reply_to": "19955__0_042", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_044", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--on the ground that he's... you know, it's my bill.\nIt was my idea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [498.896, 501.098], "stop_times": [501.098, 502.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.896}, "reply_to": "19955__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_045", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--No, Your Honor, the Senator alone probably not, but the legislative body itself would under Chadha, and I think that that's a situation where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [502.239], "stop_times": [509.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.239}, "reply_to": "19955__0_044", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_046", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Is that clear that where the courts misinterpret a statute the Congress that passed the statute has standing to challenge the court's interpretation of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [509.234], "stop_times": [519.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 509.234}, "reply_to": "19955__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_047", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Not quite at that point, Your Honor.\nWhat Chadha says is, where the executive branch and the challenger both agree that the provision is unconstitutional, Congress was the appropriate body to defend the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [519.22, 520.392], "stop_times": [520.392, 529.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.22}, "reply_to": "19955__0_046", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_048", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, but Congress is a standing branch of the Government with ongoing duties and responsibilities, and it was vitally interested in the one-House veto from the standpoint of its institutional capacity.\nAll your organization did was put something on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [529.949, 545.987], "stop_times": [545.987, 548.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.949}, "reply_to": "19955__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_049", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, the same situation applies in Arizona, where the Arizona constitution, Article IV, provides that the voters themselves have the right to an initiative, and this is a matter in which this would affect the voters' right of initiative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [548.95], "stop_times": [563.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.95}, "reply_to": "19955__0_048", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_050", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mr.--\n--Is your claim... I'm sorry.\nGo ahead.\nI had one.\nAre you claiming that the Arizona provision therefore creates Article III standing for any Arizona citizen in a Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [563.168, 563.519, 564.41, 564.891, 565.341], "stop_times": [563.519, 564.41, 564.891, 565.341, 572.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.168}, "reply_to": "19955__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__0_051", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI'm suggesting that in certain limited circumstances the invasion of the right would give someone standing to complain about it, and the difference is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [572.465, 572.995], "stop_times": [572.995, 582.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.465}, "reply_to": "19955__0_050", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_052", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But what is the invasion of the right which would be in any way different from an invasion which any citizen simply as a citizen could claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [582.762], "stop_times": [591.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.762}, "reply_to": "19955__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__0_053", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Your Honor, the invasion of the right is the elimination of the right.\nThat goes to the injury question, the prudential question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [591.708, 596.511], "stop_times": [596.511, 598.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.708}, "reply_to": "19955__0_052", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_054", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, in... then I think what you're saying is that any citizen could have Article... would have Article III standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [598.651], "stop_times": [605.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 598.651}, "reply_to": "19955__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__0_055", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I don't believe so, Your Honor, because the individual interest... t he individual injury to each citizen is so small relative to everyone else that there is no differentiation, but to the initiative proponent, just as in this Court's decision in the Term Limits case, where the State was present, just as the State is present here, the initiative proponents were able to come forward and make their best case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [605.657], "stop_times": [627.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 605.657}, "reply_to": "19955__0_054", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_056", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Because the State was present making the argument on the merits, but here we don't have that.\nI think the State is telling us this case is moot, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [627.271, 634.585], "stop_times": [634.585, 638.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.271}, "reply_to": "19955__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_057", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, that's the State's position, but lower... in the lower courts they were quite clear on their position on the merits.\nIt's only when they came to this Court that they brought up once again this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [638.288, 644.513], "stop_times": [644.513, 648.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.288}, "reply_to": "19955__0_056", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_058", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, but this Court is bound by a case or controversy requirement, and the State is acknowledging that that no longer exists.\nYou did say one thing, Mr. Zall, that puzzled me, and perhaps I misunderstood you.\nYou said that you were now disabled because the Federal court had eliminated your right, but it was not my understanding that a district court or a court of appeals is a higher authority on a question of Federal constitutional law than, say, the supreme court of Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [648.276, 657.032, 661.162], "stop_times": [657.032, 661.162, 681.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.276}, "reply_to": "19955__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_059", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, I'm sure that's true as to the interpretation of State law, but not necessarily the application of Federal law to State law, but leaving that aside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [681.616], "stop_times": [691.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.616}, "reply_to": "19955__0_058", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_060", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Do you think... is the... are the Arizona State courts bound by what the Ninth Circuit thinks Federal constitutional law is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [691.023], "stop_times": [698.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.023}, "reply_to": "19955__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_061", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I think the courts are split on that, Your Honor.\nI know the Arizona position is that they are not bound, but there are cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [698.579, 701.63], "stop_times": [701.63, 706.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.579}, "reply_to": "19955__0_060", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_062", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So that's... since that is the position of the State courts in your State, then nothing has been eliminated by anything that a district court or the court of appeals said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [706.062], "stop_times": [714.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 706.062}, "reply_to": "19955__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_063", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, as to us, and this goes to our own unique situation and why we're different from everyone else--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [714.757], "stop_times": [718.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.757}, "reply_to": "19955__0_062", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_064", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Unless the plaintiffs can sue in Federal court.\nI mean, I assume what you're worried about is that any State employee who doesn't want to abide by this provision would simply bring a 1983 action in State court... in Federal court, and the Federal district court at least would be bound by the determination of the court of appeals here and would apply the opinion that you don't agree with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [718.521, 720.682], "stop_times": [720.682, 738.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.521}, "reply_to": "19955__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_065", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--That's our concern, Your Honor under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [738.343], "stop_times": [739.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.343}, "reply_to": "19955__0_064", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_066", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "If we were to find that your organization does not have standing here, I guess... and for that reason dismiss the case, I guess the consequence would be that the court of appeals judgment would stand, because you just came in at this last stage, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [739.985], "stop_times": [756.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.985}, "reply_to": "19955__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_067", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWe attempted to intervene.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [756.876, 757.377], "stop_times": [757.377, 759.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 756.876}, "reply_to": "19955__0_066", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_068", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "You attempted to intervene, but you were not a party in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [759.037], "stop_times": [761.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.037}, "reply_to": "19955__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_069", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "We were a party in the court of appeals Your Honor.\nIn the 939 Fed. 2d opinion, Yniguez won.\nWe were permitted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [761.669, 763.592, 766.593], "stop_times": [763.592, 766.593, 767.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.669}, "reply_to": "19955__0_068", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_070", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But there were other parties on your side of the case in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [767.943], "stop_times": [770.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.943}, "reply_to": "19955__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_071", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Well, because of a fairly bizarre application of 2403(b), we were the only group that the court designated as a party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [770.565], "stop_times": [777.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.565}, "reply_to": "19955__0_070", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_072", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "You were not a party in the district court.\nThe district court denied your motion to... your post judgment motion to intervene, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [777.54, 780.09], "stop_times": [780.09, 784.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.54}, "reply_to": "19955__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_073", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [784.612], "stop_times": [785.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.612}, "reply_to": "19955__0_072", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_074", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And you didn't seek to enter the litigation before the judgment in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [785.103], "stop_times": [788.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.103}, "reply_to": "19955__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_075", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [788.866], "stop_times": [789.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.866}, "reply_to": "19955__0_074", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_076", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And was the reason that you didn't because you thought that the State was going to defend the provisions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [789.617], "stop_times": [795.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.617}, "reply_to": "19955__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__0_077", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat's what the Ninth Circuit found also, and we did receive those assurances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [795.131, 796.323], "stop_times": [796.323, 801.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.131}, "reply_to": "19955__0_076", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_078", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "What about after the Attorney General took a position with which I gather you disagreed about the narrowness of the provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [801.085], "stop_times": [812.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.085}, "reply_to": "19955__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_079", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, in the district court the State's position was completely... was the same as ours.\nThey argued the constitutionality.\nThey argued one additional factor, which was the Eleventh Amendment, and ultimately the court, the district court accepted their Eleventh Amendment argument but rejected their constitutional argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [812.893, 820.707, 822.479], "stop_times": [820.707, 822.479, 832.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.893}, "reply_to": "19955__0_078", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_080", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Get back to the point I'm concerned about.\nIf you don't have standing here, the decision, at least of the district court, remains in effect, isn't that right, because you... your standing has nothing to do with the district court judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [832.915, 834.575], "stop_times": [834.575, 846.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.915}, "reply_to": "19955__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_081", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Unless this Court vacates it, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [846.744], "stop_times": [849.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.744}, "reply_to": "19955__0_080", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_082", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Why would we vacate?\nThey were proper parties.\nIf we take the ground that you're not a proper party here, nor were in the court of appeals, the district court judgment would still stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [849.866, 850.677, 852.547], "stop_times": [850.677, 852.547, 859.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.866}, "reply_to": "19955__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_083", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Your Honor, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [859.814], "stop_times": [862.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.814}, "reply_to": "19955__0_082", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_084", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [862.263], "stop_times": [862.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.263}, "reply_to": "19955__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_085", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nIf... since the State attempted to intervene in the district court level under 2403(b) and was reversed, I believe that the appeal, at least of that order, is still properly before this Court, and I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [862.804, 863.455], "stop_times": [863.455, 881.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.804}, "reply_to": "19955__0_084", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_086", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I thought the Governor was a party in the district court, wasn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [881.778], "stop_times": [884.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.778}, "reply_to": "19955__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_087", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--The Governor was, Your Honor.\nShe... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [884.801, 886.39], "stop_times": [886.39, 887.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.801}, "reply_to": "19955__0_086", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_088", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And the Governor thought the constitutional provision was invalid, I understand, Governor Mofford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [887.251], "stop_times": [895.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.251}, "reply_to": "19955__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__0_089", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--She did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [895.227], "stop_times": [895.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.227}, "reply_to": "19955__0_088", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_090", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And the Attorney General said it's not enforceable in the circumstances that Yniguez said it was, so it seems to me that there's no controversy before the Court if you have no standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [895.908], "stop_times": [907.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.908}, "reply_to": "19955__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_091", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, if we have no standing, and the argument is that the district court's opinion stands, then you will have in essence private constitutional review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [907.464], "stop_times": [917.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.464}, "reply_to": "19955__0_090", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_092", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, under our Bankcorp decision it seems to me that even though we were to conclude you have no standing, that does not mean we would simply dismiss the petition for certiorari if we find that there was a defect further below, that there was... either controversy either had become moot, or there was no case or controversy in the first place.\nThis Court would then have the authority to vacate the opinions below, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [917.429, 939.616], "stop_times": [939.616, 943.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.429}, "reply_to": "19955__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__0_093", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I believe that's also the position of the States in its briefs, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [943.648], "stop_times": [946.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.648}, "reply_to": "19955__0_092", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_094", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Why would we vacate the opinion below?\nThat is to say, I can see if you were the only party before the Ninth Circuit and you don't have standing, then we'd vacate that, I guess.\nThere was no controversy because they weren't parties.\nBut in the district court, prior to Ms. Yniguez leaving her job, the district court reached its decision and then the other party to the case, the Governor, decided not to appeal, so there was no appeal, and therefore the district court decision stays in place.\nI suppose--\n--So why--\n--Yes.\nI suppose there is a question, though, which I had already asked you, about whether there was even--\n--That's right.\nThat's right.\n--a controversy at the district court.\nThat--\n--because the Governor took the same position as Ms. Yniguez.\nExactly.\nWhether there was ever a controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [946.778, 949.351, 956.525, 959.498, 977.771, 978.512, 978.852, 979.531, 985.083, 989.507, 985.914, 987.256, 987.706, 991.13, 991.548], "stop_times": [949.351, 956.525, 959.498, 977.771, 978.512, 978.852, 979.531, 985.083, 989.507, 985.914, 987.256, 987.706, 991.13, 991.548, 992.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.778}, "reply_to": "19955__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19955__0_095", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, I think there's also a question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [992.479], "stop_times": [995.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.479}, "reply_to": "19955__0_094", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_096", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So could you go back... I mean, I'm quite interested in your response to Justice O'Connor's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [995.952], "stop_times": [1000.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.952}, "reply_to": "19955__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19955__0_097", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--As to whether there was ever a controversy in the district court, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1000.874], "stop_times": [1003.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.874}, "reply_to": "19955__0_096", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_098", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, because that would seem to be determinative, wouldn't it, about whether or not we vacated, assuming you lose all the other points, the district court decision or just vacated the court of appeals decision, so I think your response would be important on that.\nAnd of course if you left that in place you could review the matter in some other case.\nI mean, you're not deprived of constitutional review.\nWas there ever a point when the Governor was adverse to the plaintiff in this case, and there was one statement that the Governor said that she would comply with the constitutional amendment, and she expected every other State official to do the same.\nNow, was there ever any adversary contest in the district court, or did we have a friendly lawsuit throughout?\nWas there ever any point where the Governor took the position before the district court, I am defending the constitutionality of this State constitutional provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1003.566, 1015.044, 1018.486, 1022.079, 1044.483, 1053.569], "stop_times": [1015.044, 1018.486, 1022.079, 1044.483, 1053.569, 1067.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.566}, "reply_to": "19955__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19955__0_099", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I believe that was the position of the State throughout the district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1067.018], "stop_times": [1070.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.018}, "reply_to": "19955__0_098", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_100", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "State meaning government, because it's hard to tell who is the State in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1070.779], "stop_times": [1076.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.779}, "reply_to": "19955__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_101", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nThe State was a party until December 21, 1988, when it was dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds, and then the complaint was refiled without the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1076.475, 1076.894], "stop_times": [1076.894, 1085.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.475}, "reply_to": "19955__0_100", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_102", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But would... and then the Governor, as the chief executive officer of the State, did she ever take a position in opposition to the plaintiff--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1085.529], "stop_times": [1094.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.529}, "reply_to": "19955__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_103", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1094.595], "stop_times": [1095.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.595}, "reply_to": "19955__0_102", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_104", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--in the litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1095.396], "stop_times": [1096.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.396}, "reply_to": "19955__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_105", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Yes.\nI believe the answer is yes.\nIn the litigation the Governor's position, as articulated by the Attorney General, who was representing all the parties in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1096.368, 1096.708, 1098.029], "stop_times": [1096.708, 1098.029, 1104.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.368}, "reply_to": "19955__0_104", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_106", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Including the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1104.663], "stop_times": [1105.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.663}, "reply_to": "19955__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__0_107", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Including the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1105.694], "stop_times": [1106.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.694}, "reply_to": "19955__0_106", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_108", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1106.372], "stop_times": [1106.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.372}, "reply_to": "19955__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_109", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1106.863], "stop_times": [1107.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.863}, "reply_to": "19955__0_108", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_110", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I had thought that they had conflicting positions.\nI had thought that the Governor indicated that she agreed with the district court that it's unconstitutional, but that the Attorney General said that it would not be enforced against Yniguez, but even if we take those two combined, it seems to me that there's no controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1107.293, 1109.655], "stop_times": [1109.655, 1126.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.293}, "reply_to": "19955__0_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_111", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1126.208], "stop_times": [1126.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.208}, "reply_to": "19955__0_110", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_112", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "There's no... at least there's no threat.\nThere's no threat to the employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1126.927, 1128.679], "stop_times": [1128.679, 1131.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.927}, "reply_to": "19955__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_113", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--The Attorney General's position was, both prior to the opinion in the litigation, that there was no threat to the employee, and at the point of the opinion said, in essence, there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1131.69], "stop_times": [1144.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.69}, "reply_to": "19955__0_112", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_114", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So at that point where was the controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1144.29], "stop_times": [1146.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.29}, "reply_to": "19955__0_113", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_115", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Since this is a First Amendment case, Your Honor, what's concerning me is that the Court is very solicitous towards concerns of chilling First Amendment speech, and because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1146.279], "stop_times": [1158.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1146.279}, "reply_to": "19955__0_114", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_116", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "You're chilled if there's a threat.\nYou're not chilled if there's no threat.\nI mean, that's... don't you need a threat to be chilled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1158.728, 1160.208, 1161.6], "stop_times": [1160.208, 1161.6, 1164.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.728}, "reply_to": "19955__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_117", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I think Your Honor's question is whether you would need a realistic threat to be chilled.\nI think a perceived threat which chills speech might be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1164.853, 1171.165], "stop_times": [1171.165, 1174.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.853}, "reply_to": "19955__0_116", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_118", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "You have an unrealistic threat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1174.268], "stop_times": [1175.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.268}, "reply_to": "19955__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_119", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1175.84], "stop_times": [1176.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.84}, "reply_to": "19955__0_118", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_120", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--that chills you?\nWouldn't an unrealistic threat produce an unrealistic chill?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1176.11, 1176.501, 1180.051], "stop_times": [1176.501, 1180.051, 1180.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.11}, "reply_to": "19955__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_121", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I think it would, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1180.311], "stop_times": [1185.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1180.311}, "reply_to": "19955__0_120", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_122", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "May I ask another question about the status of the case?\nI take it the defendants never filed an answer, or did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1185.256, 1188.598], "stop_times": [1188.598, 1191.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.256}, "reply_to": "19955__0_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__0_123", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Defendants did file an answer, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1191.279], "stop_times": [1192.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.279}, "reply_to": "19955__0_122", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_124", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Including the defendant Catherine Eden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1192.859], "stop_times": [1195.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.859}, "reply_to": "19955__0_123", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__0_125", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor, I think I misspoke.\nI believe the defendants did not file an answer in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1195.411, 1196.352], "stop_times": [1196.352, 1199.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1195.411}, "reply_to": "19955__0_124", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_126", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1199.054], "stop_times": [1199.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.054}, "reply_to": "19955__0_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__0_127", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--They filed a motion to dismiss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1199.615], "stop_times": [1201.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.615}, "reply_to": "19955__0_126", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_128", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--One of the defendants was Catherine Eden, the director of the Department and so forth and so on.\nWas her position ever made known formally of record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1201.035, 1204.928], "stop_times": [1204.928, 1208.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.035}, "reply_to": "19955__0_127", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__0_129", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Other than the Attorney General's representation, her own personal position, Your Honor?\nI don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1208.791, 1214.495], "stop_times": [1214.495, 1215.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.791}, "reply_to": "19955__0_128", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_130", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Can you tell me, is the director of this employee's Department bound by the Attorney General's interpretation of the act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1215.126], "stop_times": [1222.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.126}, "reply_to": "19955__0_129", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_131", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Although the Attorney General's opinion is not binding on the courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1222.82], "stop_times": [1225.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.82}, "reply_to": "19955__0_130", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_132", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Is it binding on this agency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1225.822], "stop_times": [1231.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.822}, "reply_to": "19955__0_131", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__0_133", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--The director of the Department of Administration?\nI don't know the answer to that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1231.265, 1233.085], "stop_times": [1233.085, 1236.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1231.265}, "reply_to": "19955__0_132", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_134", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Not much use being an Attorney General, I would guess, if your opinions on the law are not binding on the other executive officers.\nYou might as well not have one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1236.318, 1243.393], "stop_times": [1243.393, 1244.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.318}, "reply_to": "19955__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_135", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I believe the Attorney General's opinion power as under ARS 41-193 (A) is in the statute, but the courts have decided that they're not binding on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1244.304], "stop_times": [1254.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1244.304}, "reply_to": "19955__0_134", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_136", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Oh, they're not binding on the courts, I've no doubt about... let me ask about damages.\nDid the district court award nominal damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1254.75, 1258.404], "stop_times": [1258.404, 1261.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.75}, "reply_to": "19955__0_135", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_137", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, following the Ninth Circuit en banc opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1261.496], "stop_times": [1264.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.496}, "reply_to": "19955__0_136", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_138", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Following the Ninth Circuit en banc opinion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1264.908], "stop_times": [1266.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.908}, "reply_to": "19955__0_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_139", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1266.959], "stop_times": [1267.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.959}, "reply_to": "19955__0_138", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_140", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--but not originally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1267.239], "stop_times": [1267.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.239}, "reply_to": "19955__0_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_141", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1267.889], "stop_times": [1268.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.889}, "reply_to": "19955__0_140", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_142", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And the Ninth Circuit used as the basis for its jurisdiction once Yniguez was no longer employed and the case would otherwise be moot the fact that... what?\nAlthough the district court had not... although she... had she asked for nominal damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1268.558, 1281.117], "stop_times": [1281.117, 1285.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.558}, "reply_to": "19955__0_141", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_143", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Not specifically, but she had asked for all other relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1285.001], "stop_times": [1288.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.001}, "reply_to": "19955__0_142", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_144", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "All other relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1288.042], "stop_times": [1288.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.042}, "reply_to": "19955__0_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_145", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Which is what the Ninth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1288.463], "stop_times": [1289.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.463}, "reply_to": "19955__0_144", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_146", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And the Ninth Circuit en banc sent it back saying that you could have awarded nominal damages, even though the court had not awarded nominal damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1289.723], "stop_times": [1297.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.723}, "reply_to": "19955__0_145", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_147", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nIt also said that Ms. Yniguez--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1297.31, 1298.038], "stop_times": [1298.038, 1299.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.31}, "reply_to": "19955__0_146", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_148", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But since it hadn't awarded nominal damages, why wasn't the case moot once she left employment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1299.71], "stop_times": [1306.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.71}, "reply_to": "19955__0_147", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_149", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--The Ninth Circuit felt that she had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1306.356], "stop_times": [1308.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.356}, "reply_to": "19955__0_148", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_150", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1308.676], "stop_times": [1309.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.676}, "reply_to": "19955__0_149", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_151", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--the right to ask for nominal damages, and that was enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1309.677], "stop_times": [1311.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.677}, "reply_to": "19955__0_150", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_152", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Well, that's... so retroactively the Ninth Circuit said go back and get nominal damages and that will retroactively keep the case alive.\nIs that what the Ninth Circuit did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1311.657, 1319.192], "stop_times": [1319.192, 1320.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.657}, "reply_to": "19955__0_151", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_153", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I think what they're asking is that she could ask for it.\nIt was the request and the expectation rather than the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1320.394, 1323.686], "stop_times": [1323.686, 1326.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.394}, "reply_to": "19955__0_152", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_154", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But the case was over below.\nShe had gotten her relief.\nThe relief did not include nominal damages.\nThe only relief it got was injunction against enforcing this against her in the future.\nThen she leaves the State employ.\nThere's nothing left to the case, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1326.227, 1327.038, 1328.098, 1330.281, 1336.015, 1337.945], "stop_times": [1327.038, 1328.098, 1330.281, 1336.015, 1337.945, 1340.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.227}, "reply_to": "19955__0_153", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_155", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Actually, there was no injunction issued, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1340.587], "stop_times": [1342.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.587}, "reply_to": "19955__0_154", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_156", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well... just a declaratory judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1342.397], "stop_times": [1343.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.397}, "reply_to": "19955__0_155", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_157", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Just a declaratory judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1343.94], "stop_times": [1344.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1343.94}, "reply_to": "19955__0_156", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_158", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So that she would know that she wouldn't be threatened, or chilled, unrealistically or realistically, whatever.\n[Laughter]\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1344.941, 1351.112, 1351.362], "stop_times": [1351.112, 1351.362, 1351.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.941}, "reply_to": "19955__0_157", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_159", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "The court felt that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1351.963], "stop_times": [1353.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1351.963}, "reply_to": "19955__0_158", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_160", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And the Ninth Circuit said, however, although there's nothing here that... once you've left employment there's really nothing at issue any more, there could be something at issue if the district court had granted you nominal damages, and we will remand to the district court to have the district court, if it wishes, grant you nominal damages, whereupon, retroactively, our jurisdiction on the appeal will be valid.\nIs that what the district court of appeals did?\nYou can object to the question as leading.\n[Laughter]\nChief Justice, I'm leading him where he doesn't want to go.\nI think--\n--he wants to have the case here, but I don't see how it's here.\nThat's characteristic of all leading questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1353.515, 1377.512, 1379.443, 1400.496, 1384.385, 1393.271, 1394.272, 1398.553], "stop_times": [1377.512, 1379.443, 1400.496, 1384.385, 1393.271, 1394.272, 1398.553, 1400.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.515}, "reply_to": "19955__0_159", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__0_161", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I think, given the context, my proper answer should be yes, but I think my answer's actually no, Your Honor, because I think what it was suggesting was that in the peculiar circumstances before the court at the time there were still legal rights between the parties before the court, which it had made parties, which could be determined by the court on the facts in front of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1400.897], "stop_times": [1426.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1400.897}, "reply_to": "19955__0_160", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_162", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, but there was no legal right to damages, was there?\nI mean, the Ninth Circuit... apart from everything else that Justice Scalia recited, the Ninth Circuit was also wrong in suggesting that she would have a right to nominal damages, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1426.884, 1429.244], "stop_times": [1429.244, 1438.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.884}, "reply_to": "19955__0_161", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__0_163", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I think under the Eleventh Amendment that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1438.491], "stop_times": [1440.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.491}, "reply_to": "19955__0_162", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_164", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "May I ask you what... in your judgment what we should do with the case?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1440.652, 1445.146], "stop_times": [1445.146, 1445.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.652}, "reply_to": "19955__0_163", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__0_165", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1445.447], "stop_times": [1449.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1445.447}, "reply_to": "19955__0_164", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_166", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "You must have a position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1449.35], "stop_times": [1450.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.35}, "reply_to": "19955__0_165", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__0_167", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1450.632], "stop_times": [1451.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.632}, "reply_to": "19955__0_166", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_168", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "You represent a client before us.\n[Laughter]\nAnd I'm curious to know what your position, independent of all the questions that have been asked of you--\n--Perhaps we could have it printed in a casebook on jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1451.353, 1461.799, 1452.533, 1456.926], "stop_times": [1461.799, 1452.533, 1456.926, 1462.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.353}, "reply_to": "19955__0_167", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__0_169", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Obviously, our preference is to have the Court decide the merits, since we believe that the rights of petitioners and respondents would be determined at that point, but if the Court finds that this case was moot, either from the start there was no subject matter jurisdiction, then clearly we would ask the Court to vacate all the way down.\nIf there are no other questions, I'd like to reserve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1462.08, 1481.38], "stop_times": [1481.38, 1484.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.08}, "reply_to": "19955__0_168", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__0_170", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Very well, Mr. Zall.\nMr. Pohlman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1484.974, 1485.925], "stop_times": [1485.925, 1488.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.974}, "reply_to": "19955__0_169", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_000", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWhen the State of Arizona determined in its exercise of it sovereign judgment that it would not join in the petition for certiorari in this case and that it would not appeal the final judgment in Ms. Yniguez' favor for nominal damages in the district court, this case became one without an Article III case for controversy and should have concluded.\nWe would ask that this Court dismiss the petition because the petitioners lack standing to maintain this action in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1488.228, 1504.399, 1527.562], "stop_times": [1504.399, 1527.562, 1535.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1488.228}, "reply_to": "19955__0_170", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_001", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I certainly agree with that, but why didn't it suddenly become nonexistent as soon as the district court entered a judgment that didn't include nominal damages and the petitioner later, and before the appeal, resigned from her State employment?\nWhy didn't it become moot then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1535.72, 1551.009], "stop_times": [1551.009, 1552.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.72}, "reply_to": "19955__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_002", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It wasn't moot for a number of reasons, Justice Scalia, one of which is that there was a final unappealed judgment in favor of the... Ms. Yniguez against Governor Mofford, so that judgment was binding and final long before she left State employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1552.249], "stop_times": [1566.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1552.249}, "reply_to": "19955__1_001", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_003", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, why was there a case or controversy in the district court, please?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1566.348], "stop_times": [1571.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.348}, "reply_to": "19955__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_004", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "In the district court there was a case or controversy initially because, as a factual matter, the district court found that Ms. Yniguez had suffered an injury in fact in that she... her First Amendment rights had been chilled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1571.192], "stop_times": [1584.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1571.192}, "reply_to": "19955__1_003", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_005", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, the Government... the Governor agreed that the proposition was invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1584.891], "stop_times": [1590.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.891}, "reply_to": "19955__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_006", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "The Governor agreed after the judgment, Your Honor, Justice O'Connor, that it was invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1590.995], "stop_times": [1595.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1590.995}, "reply_to": "19955__1_005", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_007", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, there was never... there was never an answer on the merits, was there?\nThere was just a motion to dismiss by Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1595.586, 1599.24], "stop_times": [1599.24, 1602.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.586}, "reply_to": "19955__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_008", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "There... I don't recall, Justice O'Connor, whether there was an answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1602.762], "stop_times": [1607.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1602.762}, "reply_to": "19955__1_007", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_009", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Isn't that right?\nIsn't that all there was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1607.355, 1607.746], "stop_times": [1607.746, 1607.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1607.355}, "reply_to": "19955__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_010", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I don't recall if there was or not.\nI tend to believe there was an answer because the case went on for so long below, and actually went to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1607.796, 1609.268], "stop_times": [1609.268, 1615.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.796}, "reply_to": "19955__1_009", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_011", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But at any point in the litigation did either the Governor or the Attorney General indicate that your client would be disciplined for using Spanish?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1615.502], "stop_times": [1627.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.502}, "reply_to": "19955__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__1_012", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "There was... Justice Kennedy, there was no specific indication.\nHowever, there was a finding that Governor Mofford intended to enforce the article, that she expected Government employees to enforce the article and to comply with the article, and that therefore Ms. Yniguez had a chilling effect on her First Amendment rights that was caused by Governor Mofford, and that's found in the appendix to the petition for certiorari at pages 102 and 103.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1627.371, 1631.741], "stop_times": [1631.741, 1653.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1627.371}, "reply_to": "19955__1_011", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_013", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "What was the basis for that finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1653.187], "stop_times": [1655.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.187}, "reply_to": "19955__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_014", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It was Governor Mofford's outspoken indication that she intended to enforce Article XXVIII, and that she expected Government employees to comply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1655.848], "stop_times": [1664.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1655.848}, "reply_to": "19955__1_013", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_015", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But in view of the Attorney General's opinion, enforcement of it does not seem to have a realistic prospect of any effect on Ms. Yniguez.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1664.514], "stop_times": [1673.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.514}, "reply_to": "19955__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_016", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "First, Mr. Chief Justice, Ms. Yniguez did not have the benefit of that particular Attorney General's opinion until some 3-1/2 months after this litigation was commenced, so for that 3-1/2 month period of time, her rights were obviously chilled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1673.7], "stop_times": [1689.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1673.7}, "reply_to": "19955__1_015", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_017", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, but if they were chilled for 3-1/2 months and then all of a sudden unchilled, the lawsuit doesn't go ahead on the basis of what was the case earlier, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1689.491], "stop_times": [1697.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.491}, "reply_to": "19955__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_018", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It doesn't, Mr. Chief Justice.\nHowever, in the case of the Attorney General's opinion below, that opinion was found to be nonbinding.\nThe district court judge recognized that the... a different Attorney General may well have a different opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1697.936, 1699.769, 1705.162], "stop_times": [1699.769, 1705.162, 1710.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.936}, "reply_to": "19955__1_017", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_019", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Nonbinding on whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1710.445], "stop_times": [1711.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.445}, "reply_to": "19955__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_020", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "The... it was not binding on any court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1711.597], "stop_times": [1714.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.597}, "reply_to": "19955__1_019", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_021", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Ah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1714.388], "stop_times": [1714.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.388}, "reply_to": "19955__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_022", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It was binding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1714.839], "stop_times": [1716.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1714.839}, "reply_to": "19955__1_021", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_023", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But the court wasn't... but the claim wasn't that the court was going to prosecute her.\nThe claim was that someone representing the State, the Governor, the Attorney General, or her supervisor was going to bring some action against her, and the opinion, I presume, was binding on those people, possibly with the exception of the Governor, but it was binding on the others, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1716.019, 1719.14], "stop_times": [1719.14, 1735.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.019}, "reply_to": "19955__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_024", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--My understanding, Justice Souter, is that it would be binding on those lower administrative employees, including Catherine Eden, who was one of the defendants who was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1735.372], "stop_times": [1743.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1735.372}, "reply_to": "19955__1_023", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_025", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So that leaves the Governor, and isn't it also the case that prior to the district court judgment, in any even prior certainly to the expiration of the appeal period, the Governor herself had gone on record in her own right as saying that she thought it was proper to use English if necessary to discharge one's duties in a reasonable way.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1743.998, 1764.22], "stop_times": [1764.22, 1765.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.998}, "reply_to": "19955__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_026", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--In the record, Justice Souter, the Governor always said that she would enforce the article until such time as the judgment was entered by the district court.\nAt that time, she indicated she did not intend to appeal, but she also thought it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1765.311, 1773.827], "stop_times": [1773.827, 1778.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.311}, "reply_to": "19955__1_025", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_027", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "No, but didn't she at some point, and I'm not positive of what this moment was, didn't she also indicate, quite apart from her general position that the amendment should be enforced, that she believed it was proper for a State employee to use some non-English language if that was reasonable in the discharge of the employee's duties?\nDidn't she say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1778.051, 1799.904], "stop_times": [1799.904, 1800.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.051}, "reply_to": "19955__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_028", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--That's not my understanding, Justice Souter.\nThat language was included in the Attorney General's opinion, which was in January, of course, after the lawsuit had been initiated, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1800.685, 1802.377], "stop_times": [1802.377, 1809.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.685}, "reply_to": "19955__1_027", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_029", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But well before judgment was reached in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1809.901], "stop_times": [1812.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.901}, "reply_to": "19955__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_030", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, before judgment was reached and before trial, and at the trial the district court judge determined that, notwithstanding that Attorney General's opinion, given what Governor Mofford had said in public, and given the immediacy of the chilling effect on Ms. Yniguez' rights, that there was, in fact, an injury in fact to her, notwithstanding that opinion, and that is why he entered the declaratory relief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1812.983], "stop_times": [1834.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.983}, "reply_to": "19955__1_029", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_031", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Is your view that there should be no vacation of any decision, not the Ninth Circuit's, and if that is your view, how can, at least with respect to the Ninth Circuit when the plaintiff was no longer in the State's employ and before the Ninth Circuit reached its judgment, how can you defend keeping that judgment on the books?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1834.078], "stop_times": [1864.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.078}, "reply_to": "19955__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_032", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I think what we do is, we look at the Bonner Mall Partnership case, and we find that vacatur is an equitable doctrine.\nIf we look at the equities as to what occurred first in the district court, there was no appeal by the Governor.\nIt was a final unappealed judgment long before Ms. Yniguez left Government service.\nTherefore, that judgment, in our view, cannot be vacated under Bonner Mall Partnership.\nBut if you look at the equities with respect to the Ninth Circuit, at the time that that judgment was entered, Mr. Zall's group and the Attorney General sought to intervene for purposes of taking an appeal of the judgment at that time.\nMs. Yniguez had no reason at that juncture to appeal her claim for nominal damages because the district court said we will not allow this judgment to be appealed.\nNo one has an interest to appeal it.\nIt is going to stop right here.\nAnd so all that was on appeal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1864.538, 1872.633, 1878.227, 1882.38, 1887.753, 1900.683, 1910.166, 1912.299, 1913.579], "stop_times": [1872.633, 1878.227, 1882.38, 1887.753, 1900.683, 1910.166, 1912.299, 1913.579, 1915.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.538}, "reply_to": "19955__1_031", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_033", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, how can a district court prevent someone from appealing?\nI can see how the court of appeals could say there is no interest, but what did the district... did the district court enter some sort of an order that they couldn't appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1915.441, 1918.795], "stop_times": [1918.795, 1927.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.441}, "reply_to": "19955__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_034", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWhat the district court did was to deny the motions of Mr. Zall's group, Arizonans for Official English, and the Attorney General, to intervene for the purpose of taking an appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1927.869, 1929.581], "stop_times": [1929.581, 1939.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1927.869}, "reply_to": "19955__1_033", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_035", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "What you're saying is no one who was then in the lawsuit was interested in appealing.\nWe had the plaintiff and the Governor, and that's it, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1939.248, 1943.829], "stop_times": [1943.829, 1946.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.248}, "reply_to": "19955__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_036", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1946.671], "stop_times": [1947.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.671}, "reply_to": "19955__1_035", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_037", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And it was only after final judgment was entered with respect to those two parties that additional people asked to come in, one AOE and the other the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1947.282], "stop_times": [1963.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.282}, "reply_to": "19955__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_038", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1963.224], "stop_times": [1964.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.224}, "reply_to": "19955__1_037", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_039", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And the district court said no, I deny your motion, your post judgment motion to intervene.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1964.463], "stop_times": [1969.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.463}, "reply_to": "19955__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_040", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That is exactly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1969.627], "stop_times": [1970.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1969.627}, "reply_to": "19955__1_039", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_041", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And the first thing that the court of appeals did was to reverse that denial as to AOE, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1970.756], "stop_times": [1979.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.756}, "reply_to": "19955__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_042", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1979.054], "stop_times": [1979.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1979.054}, "reply_to": "19955__1_041", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_043", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And then what the district... what the court of appeals did concerning the Attorney General I'm not altogether clear.\nWas the Attorney General, in your view, a party in the case at the appellate level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1979.933, 1987.069], "stop_times": [1987.069, 1995.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.933}, "reply_to": "19955__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_044", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I... yes and no, and the reason I answer it that way, Justice Ginsburg, is because they were permitted to intervene under... and I would share Mr. Zall's view that it's kind of a bizarre application of 28 U.S.C. 2403(b), but the Attorney General is permitted to intervene for the purpose of arguing the constitutionality of the amendment.\nThat statute provides that the Attorney General may do so or the State may do so and has all the rights and obligations of a party, but they're not exactly a party, although they have all rights and obligations, including the right to petition for certiorari to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [1995.995, 2016.468], "stop_times": [2016.468, 2030.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.995}, "reply_to": "19955__1_043", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_045", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But the State's position, as I understand it, is that the case became moot when the plaintiff left the State's employ, and that happened before the Ninth Circuit's judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2030.928], "stop_times": [2041.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2030.928}, "reply_to": "19955__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_046", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that's the State's position of the day, although their position has never been consistent throughout this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2041.814], "stop_times": [2049.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.814}, "reply_to": "19955__1_045", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_047", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Whose has?\nYes, that's for sure.\n[Laughter]\nMr. Pohlman, I don't understand why you said it was okay for your client not to appeal the denial of nominal damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2049.429, 2051.433, 2051.922, 2052.524], "stop_times": [2051.433, 2051.922, 2052.524, 2065.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.429}, "reply_to": "19955__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_048", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2065.041], "stop_times": [2067.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.041}, "reply_to": "19955__1_047", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_049", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "She was the plaintiff.\nThe Governor was the defendant.\nThe district court denied her nominal damages against the Governor.\nNow, to be sure, the Governor then said, I don't want to appeal, but why couldn't your client have said, but I do?\nI have been denied nominal damages.\nI think I was entitled to them, and I want an appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2067.472, 2069.245, 2070.534, 2074.838, 2080.902, 2082.983], "stop_times": [2069.245, 2070.534, 2074.838, 2080.902, 2082.983, 2084.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2067.472}, "reply_to": "19955__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_050", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Justice Scalia, she could have appealed at that juncture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2084.983], "stop_times": [2088.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.983}, "reply_to": "19955__1_049", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_051", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, I thought Yniguez never even asked for nominal damages in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2088.505], "stop_times": [2092.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.505}, "reply_to": "19955__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_052", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "We did not ask for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2092.54], "stop_times": [2093.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.54}, "reply_to": "19955__1_051", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_053", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "For such other relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2093.969], "stop_times": [2094.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.969}, "reply_to": "19955__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_054", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--We did not ask for nominal damages in the district court at the initial phase.\nWe asked for all... anything that might be just and equitable in premises in a traditional addendum clause.\nIn the Ninth Circuit, that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2094.909, 2099.314, 2105.607], "stop_times": [2099.314, 2105.607, 2106.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.909}, "reply_to": "19955__1_053", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_055", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, actually, you put in zero zero on dollar amounts, did you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2106.899], "stop_times": [2111.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.899}, "reply_to": "19955__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__1_056", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--With respect to damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2111.414], "stop_times": [2113.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.414}, "reply_to": "19955__1_055", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_057", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2113.402], "stop_times": [2113.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.402}, "reply_to": "19955__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__1_058", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I don't recall that being in the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2113.813], "stop_times": [2116.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2113.813}, "reply_to": "19955__1_057", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_059", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Even if such other relief as may seem just and proper... are they still using that language in Arizona complaints +/?\nthat's good enough to keep... to leave the question open for the district court, but when the district court at the end of the case does not grant nominal damages, then it seems to me you've got a much different question.\nFor the Ninth Circuit to send the thing back and say you could have asked for nominal damages seems extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2116.465, 2124.269, 2138.15], "stop_times": [2124.269, 2138.15, 2145.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.465}, "reply_to": "19955__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_060", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, they are still using that language in Arizona, and what occurred, really, is the Ninth Circuit said, because we had requested at the time that if it goes back, and if there ever is an appeal from the judgment on the merits, which there had not been previously, there had only been an appeal that... a procedural question of whether or not Mr. Zall and his group and the Attorney General could intervene, because up to that point in time Ms. Yniguez had a declaratory judgment in her favor.\nShe had no reason, as long as the actual judgment was not in jeopardy, to go and ask the district court to spend the time to get $1 in nominal damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2145.605, 2172.812], "stop_times": [2172.812, 2180.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.605}, "reply_to": "19955__1_059", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_061", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "When she did ultimately cross-appeal... she did ultimately cross-appeal after the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's intervention order, correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2180.406], "stop_times": [2190.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.406}, "reply_to": "19955__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__1_062", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2190.204], "stop_times": [2190.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.204}, "reply_to": "19955__1_061", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_063", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Now, what was the basis for her cross-appeal.\nWhat was she asking on the cross-appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2190.704, 2194.575], "stop_times": [2194.575, 2196.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.704}, "reply_to": "19955__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__1_064", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "She was asking for a judgment of nominal damages in her favor based upon the rights that she had... had been found to have been violated in the district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2196.467], "stop_times": [2205.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2196.467}, "reply_to": "19955__1_063", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_065", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "On the cross-appeal, but since she had made that claim only on cross-appeal, if AOE's appeal was improper because it's an improper party, then her cross-appeal fails because her cross-appeal was only derivative of the main appeal, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2205.952], "stop_times": [2221.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.952}, "reply_to": "19955__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__1_066", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--We don't believe so, Justice Kennedy, and the reason is this.\nThe State at that point in time was still in the case as an intervenor under 2403(b).\nIn fact, the State actively opposed the nominal damages cross-appeal, filed its own appeal with respect to procedural aspects of the case, and later, after the Ninth Circuit remanded for the purpose of award of nominal damages, or at least entered its decision, the State expressly waived its right, or its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2221.423, 2224.515, 2230.45], "stop_times": [2224.515, 2230.45, 2253.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.423}, "reply_to": "19955__1_065", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_067", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "When did the nominal damages cross-appeal occur?\nI'm not clear on that.\nWhen did that occur?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2253.233, 2256.175, 2257.076], "stop_times": [2256.175, 2257.076, 2257.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.233}, "reply_to": "19955__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_068", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Within 30 days of the first appeal on the merits, by either of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2257.957], "stop_times": [2261.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.957}, "reply_to": "19955__1_067", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_069", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Could we go back just one step?\nWe have... was this a 1983 action in the district courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2261.661, 2264.503], "stop_times": [2264.503, 2269.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.661}, "reply_to": "19955__1_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_070", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2269.455], "stop_times": [2269.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.455}, "reply_to": "19955__1_069", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_071", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Section 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2269.826], "stop_times": [2270.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.826}, "reply_to": "19955__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_072", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2270.955], "stop_times": [2271.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.955}, "reply_to": "19955__1_071", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_073", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And have we not held in cases like Will v. Michigan that States and State officials like the Governor are not persons under 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2271.876], "stop_times": [2281.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.876}, "reply_to": "19955__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_074", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "For purposes of damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2281.633], "stop_times": [2284.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2281.633}, "reply_to": "19955__1_073", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_075", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2284.304], "stop_times": [2284.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2284.304}, "reply_to": "19955__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_076", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2284.975], "stop_times": [2285.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2284.975}, "reply_to": "19955__1_075", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_077", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So how could the district court ever, under a 1983 suit, assess even nominal damages against the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2285.875], "stop_times": [2294.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.875}, "reply_to": "19955__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_078", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--It's my understanding that under the Ex parte Young doctrine there can be an award of nominal damages, and I don't have the case before me.\nI would be happy to submit a letter brief, Justice O'Connor, if that would assist the Court, but in any event what occurred was the nominal damages were awarded in the face of an express waiver of immunity by the State of Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2294.422, 2301.065], "stop_times": [2301.065, 2312.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.422}, "reply_to": "19955__1_077", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_079", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Where do we find that express waiver in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2312.064], "stop_times": [2314.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.064}, "reply_to": "19955__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_080", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That would be on page 32 of our appendix in Ms. Yniguez' brief, which is the letter from the Attorney General, at that point in time Grant Woods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2314.825], "stop_times": [2323.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.825}, "reply_to": "19955__1_079", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_081", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "In your brief on the merits here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2323.281], "stop_times": [2325.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.281}, "reply_to": "19955__1_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_082", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes.\nOur appendix in the brief on the merits, Justice O'Connor.\nAnd it's for that reason that we believe that we properly have damages awarded for $1 and proper damages were awarded.\nThe judgment in fact was entered in November of last year, and that can be found at page 211 of the joint appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2325.281, 2325.772, 2328.143, 2339.82], "stop_times": [2325.772, 2328.143, 2339.82, 2345.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.281}, "reply_to": "19955__1_081", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_083", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mr. Pohlman, I take it you are recognizing that the Attorney General was a proper party adverse to you in the court of appeals.\nI gather that from footnote 10 on page 23 of your brief.\nYou seem to say there that while you have consistently argued that AOE has no standing, that doesn't require vacating the Ninth Circuit's opinion because the State has standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2345.144, 2356.82, 2362.347], "stop_times": [2356.82, 2362.347, 2378.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.144}, "reply_to": "19955__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_084", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That's quite accurate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2378.756], "stop_times": [2380.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.756}, "reply_to": "19955__1_083", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_085", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Now, if that's so, the State's position here is that the case is moot, at least when the plaintiff left the employ of the State of Arizona.\nWhen mootness occurs in between the district court and the court of appeals, isn't Munsingwear the rule that we follow?\nThe State is an appellant.\nIt says, we have no responsibility for the plaintiff leaving the employ.\nWe didn't get a chance to get appellate review, so the district court decision has to be vacated.\nIf the State is legitimately a party, as you seem to concede on appeal, doesn't that follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2380.066, 2390.835, 2401.53, 2404.252, 2409.578, 2417.052], "stop_times": [2390.835, 2401.53, 2404.252, 2409.578, 2417.052, 2425.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.066}, "reply_to": "19955__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_086", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that would follow normally under Munsingwear if, in fact, there had been no judgment for nominal damages, that had not been appealed and had actually been expressly waived, that judgment by the State, and they had opposed that all the way through the Ninth Circuit and then decided after that judgment was entered to eschew a judicial review of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2425.526], "stop_times": [2447.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.526}, "reply_to": "19955__1_085", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_087", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So you're hanging everything on that $1 of nominal damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2447.181], "stop_times": [2451.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.181}, "reply_to": "19955__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_088", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "No, Justice Ginsburg, I would not say that.\nI would say that that is one of the aspects of this case upon which we hang our hat for purposes of case or controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2451.533, 2453.894], "stop_times": [2453.894, 2460.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.533}, "reply_to": "19955__1_087", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_089", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, what else is there?\nLet's leave out the $1 nominal damages.\nWe have a case that's a perfectly good final judgment.\nWe have an appellant that you concede is a proper appellant, the State.\nThe case becomes moot through no... nothing that the appellant has done between the district court and the court of appeals.\nIsn't our normal practice in that situation to vacate the district court's decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2460.999, 2462.311, 2464.994, 2469.134, 2474.12, 2483.884], "stop_times": [2462.311, 2464.994, 2469.134, 2474.12, 2483.884, 2490.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.999}, "reply_to": "19955__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__1_090", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Absent the nominal damages under normal circumstance, Justice Ginsburg, I think that would be the case.\nHowever, here we have a First Amendment overbreadth case, and to add to some of the procedural dilemma below at the time the suggestion of mootness was made by the Solicitor General who replaced the original Solicitor General in the case, we had at that time pending an appeal by State Senator Jaime Gutierrez, whose appeal unfortunately got lost in the docketing system of the Ninth Circuit, and it was agreed--\n[Laughter]\nIt was agreed between the parties, and we can find this in the joint appendix, but it was agreed between the parties at that point in time, that being the State and Ms. Yniguez and AOE, that if the matter were to be remanded for consideration on the merits, then the appeal of Senator Gutierrez would also be joined with it.\nThat never occurred for reasons which are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2490.419, 2495.902, 2524.141, 2524.7, 2544.635], "stop_times": [2495.902, 2524.141, 2524.7, 2544.635, 2547.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.419}, "reply_to": "19955__1_089", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_091", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And what was his standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2547.767], "stop_times": [2548.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.767}, "reply_to": "19955__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__1_092", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Senator Gutierrez was a State legislator at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2548.867], "stop_times": [2553.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.867}, "reply_to": "19955__1_091", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_093", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "He had the same standing as the petitioner does here, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2553.551], "stop_times": [2556.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.551}, "reply_to": "19955__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__1_094", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I would say he had much greater standing in the sense that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2556.122], "stop_times": [2559.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.122}, "reply_to": "19955__1_093", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_095", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "He voted for this measure?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2559.454, 2562.566], "stop_times": [2562.566, 2562.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.454}, "reply_to": "19955__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__1_096", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Senator Gutierrez would not have voted for this, Justice Stevens.\nHe's bilingual and a State legislature who often communicated with his constituents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2562.807, 2565.559], "stop_times": [2565.559, 2569.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2562.807}, "reply_to": "19955__1_095", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_097", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "In other words, he voted against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2569.87], "stop_times": [2570.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.87}, "reply_to": "19955__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__1_098", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I would expect he voted against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2570.902], "stop_times": [2573.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.902}, "reply_to": "19955__1_097", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_099", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So what... again, what is his standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2573.132], "stop_times": [2574.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.132}, "reply_to": "19955__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19955__1_100", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "A State legislator whose conduct was threatened by Article XXVIII in that he routinely, as many State legislatures... legislators do, communicated with his constituents during the performance of Government business in languages other than English.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2574.504], "stop_times": [2587.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.504}, "reply_to": "19955__1_099", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_101", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your position, Mr. Pohlman, is that AOE has no standing here, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2587.803], "stop_times": [2594.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.803}, "reply_to": "19955__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_102", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2594.048], "stop_times": [2595.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2594.048}, "reply_to": "19955__1_101", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_103", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And where does that leave people who vote and perhaps organize to get a referendum passed.\nTypically the Arizona constitutional convention, one of the reasons for referendum was that you couldn't get something through the legislature because of special interests, so let the people do it.\nThe referendum passes, and the Governor and the Attorney General hypothetically say, you know, we don't like this thing, we're not going to defend it.\nWho then defends the action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2595.159, 2602.332, 2612.57, 2621.996], "stop_times": [2602.332, 2612.57, 2621.996, 2623.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.159}, "reply_to": "19955__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_104", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Once it gets to that point in time, Mr. Chief Justice, I don't think anyone defends the action.\nI think it is the obligation of the State to defend that action and indeed, they did in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2623.927, 2629.46], "stop_times": [2629.46, 2634.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.927}, "reply_to": "19955__1_103", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_105", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "What if they don't, though?\nI mean, they say we don't like the bill.\nWe're just going to let it go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2634.783, 2636.656, 2639.648], "stop_times": [2636.656, 2639.648, 2642.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.783}, "reply_to": "19955__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_106", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "In that event I would suggest to Mr. Chief Justice that the voters who passed the initiative would probably change the administration when they next went to the polls.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2642.029], "stop_times": [2651.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.029}, "reply_to": "19955__1_105", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_107", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But there's no way for anybody to come in and defend the initiative if the Governor and the Attorney General won't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2651.295], "stop_times": [2657.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.295}, "reply_to": "19955__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_108", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "In our view, that would be the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2657.658], "stop_times": [2659.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.658}, "reply_to": "19955__1_107", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_109", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, there is a citizens suit provision, and the citizens can sue in State court to enforce something that's been validly passed under the very terms of the provision that was passed, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2659.711], "stop_times": [2669.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.711}, "reply_to": "19955__1_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_110", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "There is, indeed, an enforcement provision in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2669.616], "stop_times": [2672.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.616}, "reply_to": "19955__1_109", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_111", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Anybody who claims to be adversely affected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2672.477], "stop_times": [2675.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.477}, "reply_to": "19955__1_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_112", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Anyone who desires, I believe, Your Honor, to enforce the provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2675.329], "stop_times": [2679.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.329}, "reply_to": "19955__1_111", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_113", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So there is a citizens suit provision.\nSomebody can come into court and raise it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2679.713, 2682.674], "stop_times": [2682.674, 2684.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.713}, "reply_to": "19955__1_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_114", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not so sure that a citizens suit provision in an initiative like this would give any citizen of the State of Arizona then carte blanche under Article III to challenge a declaration by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2684.995], "stop_times": [2697.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.995}, "reply_to": "19955__1_113", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_115", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I guess we don't worry about Article III in State court actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2697.875], "stop_times": [2701.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.875}, "reply_to": "19955__1_114", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_116", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--You're right, in State court they could challenge it, and that challenge would still be viable today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2701.378], "stop_times": [2705.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2701.378}, "reply_to": "19955__1_115", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_117", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Exactly.\nWell, but where the question is based on the Chief Justice's inquiry, followed by Justice O'Connor, is we're assuming the State officials do not enforce the act, and Justice O'Connor points out that the initiative does have a citizens suit provision allowing a citizen to enforce the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2705.369, 2706.08], "stop_times": [2706.08, 2722.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.369}, "reply_to": "19955__1_116", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19955__1_118", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That's accurate, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2722.94], "stop_times": [2725.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.94}, "reply_to": "19955__1_117", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_119", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But the citizens suit provision may come up against a barrier if there's previously been an action in the Federal court where the Governor and the Attorney General are enjoined from enforcing it, which went by default, so the Attorney General and the Governor would then have a perfectly good defense to the citizens suit provision of res judicata as a result of the Federal action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2725.163], "stop_times": [2749.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.163}, "reply_to": "19955__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_120", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I think that may be true with respect to the Attorney General and the Governor.\nMy understanding of the enforcement provision is it was directed at administrative employees or anyone that... a citizen or person doing business in the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2749.147, 2754.102], "stop_times": [2754.102, 2763.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2749.147}, "reply_to": "19955__1_119", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_121", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "And I guess there was no injunction here.\nA declaratory judgment, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2763.348, 2765.228], "stop_times": [2765.228, 2767.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.348}, "reply_to": "19955__1_120", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_122", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--It was simply a declaratory judgment.\nThere was no injunction, injunctive relief granted, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2767.178, 2768.691], "stop_times": [2768.691, 2771.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.178}, "reply_to": "19955__1_121", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_123", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mr. Pohlman, may I go back to Justice Ginsburg's question going to the issue of whether we should vacate the district court judgment?\nWould this be a position that you would espouse, that at the conclusion of the district court action, neither of the parties before the district court appealed.\nIt is quite true that there was then an intervention, and ultimately in the Ninth Circuit the State came in.\nThe Attorney General came in under the statute for the purposes of defending the constitutionality of the State act.\nBut the Attorney General at that point was in there only on a kind of conditional basis.\nHe was only in there saying, if we're going to have an appeal, then I'm here under the statute representing, in effect, the State to uphold the constitutionality of the act if I can, but I'm not an independent appealing party, and the State and the Governor are not independent appealing parties.\nGiven that interpretation, would it, even on our normal equitable vacatur rules, be appropriate not to vacate the district court judgment, because the parties who could have appealed in fact did not.\nThe parties who presumably would suffer from leaving the judgment on the books did not, in fact, appeal.\nWould that be a... would you espouse that argument for opposing vacating the district court order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2771.713, 2778.588, 2792.057, 2800.332, 2807.566, 2814.76, 2833.604, 2852.336, 2858.321], "stop_times": [2778.588, 2792.057, 2800.332, 2807.566, 2814.76, 2833.604, 2852.336, 2858.321, 2864.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.713}, "reply_to": "19955__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_124", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I would espouse that argument to oppose vacating the district court order, exactly.\nJustice, Souter, I believe that the Attorney General, though, had a slightly different position insofar as the Ninth Circuit is concerned.\nThe Attorney General actively sought to reinsert himself as a party for the purposes of pursuing the appeal with or without AOE when they were in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2864.162, 2869.487, 2877.404], "stop_times": [2869.487, 2877.404, 2887.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2864.162}, "reply_to": "19955__1_123", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_125", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But that was... wasn't that after the appeal period had run?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2887.151], "stop_times": [2890.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.151}, "reply_to": "19955__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_126", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "No, Your Honor, it was not.\nThey appealed within the time frame that was necessary in order to... had they been granted leave to intervene.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2890.063, 2891.883], "stop_times": [2891.883, 2898.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.063}, "reply_to": "19955__1_125", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_127", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Oh, so--\n--That was the position that you took in this footnote that I read.\nYou recognized the standing of the Attorney General as a proper party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2898.167, 2898.938, 2901.6], "stop_times": [2898.938, 2901.6, 2907.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.167}, "reply_to": "19955__1_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_128", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2907.725], "stop_times": [2908.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2907.725}, "reply_to": "19955__1_127", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_129", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, if that's the case, then, then the Attorney General was not in only on the limited basis that my suggestion gave him, so I suppose if you accept his standing as a party at that point, and you take the position that he should have been allowed in, period, then I guess the argument for vacating is a valid argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2908.342], "stop_times": [2930.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.342}, "reply_to": "19955__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_130", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Justice Souter, we would disagree with that for some of the reasons that have been said before, but in fact, and this goes back again to the ruling by the Ninth Circuit with regard to 2403(b), in fact you're entitled to intervene as the State, not as a party, but with all the rights and obligations of a party at that point in time, and the district court recognized there is no right to intervene at that point, or at least felt that way.\nThe Ninth Circuit gave them a right which is not contemplated by the statute, which was a defendant standing under 2403(b), and I... and for purposes of your question I'm not so sure that was legally correct, but that was the understanding the State had, that they were in there with defendants--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2930.497, 2954.664], "stop_times": [2954.664, 2970.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.497}, "reply_to": "19955__1_129", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_131", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2970.553], "stop_times": [2971.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.553}, "reply_to": "19955__1_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_132", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--And that was the position... they never appealed that particular ruling, and that was the way that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2971.043], "stop_times": [2976.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.043}, "reply_to": "19955__1_131", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_133", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Ah, so that's why they're stuck.\nYes, okay.\nCould... I have two questions briefly that I'd like to hear your answer to.\nThe most important is, I'd like to hear clearly what your answer was to Justice O'Connor's initial question.\nI take it in the district court there was a person, the plaintiff, and a defendant, the Governor, who had an argument.\nThe plaintiff won, and the Governor didn't appeal.\nAll right, but the question was, was there ever a controversy between them, and the answer to that depends upon whether there was a reasonable threat of prosecution, isn't that right?\nThat's the case they cited in support of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [2976.746, 2977.978, 2979.429, 2984.724, 2990.737, 2999.493, 3002.776, 3014.961], "stop_times": [2977.978, 2979.429, 2984.724, 2990.737, 2999.493, 3002.776, 3014.961, 3017.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.746}, "reply_to": "19955__1_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__1_134", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3017.124], "stop_times": [3017.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3017.124}, "reply_to": "19955__1_133", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_135", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Now, you pointed to a place in the district court's opinion which says I, the district judge, think there was a reasonable threat of prosecution.\nWhere in the record do I find the material upon which that conclusion rests?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3017.595, 3027.411], "stop_times": [3027.411, 3033.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.595}, "reply_to": "19955__1_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19955__1_136", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--You will find the testimony in our appendix attached to our brief on the merits at pages 14 and 15, which is the testimony of Ms. Yniguez concerning her fear that she may be prosecuted, or that there may be a citizens suit based upon the test of Article XXVIII.\nYou will find the judge's conclusion on page 102a of the appendix to the petition for certiorari, where he finds that in fact Ms. Yniguez has suffered an injury in fact due to the threat of potential disciplinary action by virtue of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3033.314, 3055.539], "stop_times": [3055.539, 3071.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.314}, "reply_to": "19955__1_135", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_137", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Was Ms. Yniguez... excuse me.\nWhere do I find what the Governor said, because what he's saying is it's the Governor's statement that leads me to think that the Governor might prosecute her.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3071.8, 3073.512], "stop_times": [3073.512, 3081.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.8}, "reply_to": "19955__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19955__1_138", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--That is in the stipulated facts that are in the joint appendix, I believe.\nIf not, they may be in our appendix beginning at pages 5 and 6.\nI don't have that right in front of me, but I can find that for you, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3081.877, 3087.752, 3093.434], "stop_times": [3087.752, 3093.434, 3097.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3081.877}, "reply_to": "19955__1_137", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_139", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Mr. Pohlman, I hate to come back to this, but I'm still not clear on it.\nAfter the State came in on the appeal, when did the cross-appeal for the denial of nominal damages occur?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3097.087, 3101.939], "stop_times": [3101.939, 3114.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.087}, "reply_to": "19955__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_140", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "The cross-appeal for the denial of nominal damages occurred shortly after the first appeal on the merits was ever filed by any intervenor, and that was after the case had been remanded, following the decision on the suggestion of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3114.977], "stop_times": [3129.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3114.977}, "reply_to": "19955__1_139", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_141", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3129.268], "stop_times": [3129.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.268}, "reply_to": "19955__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_142", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--It was the first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3129.887], "stop_times": [3130.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.887}, "reply_to": "19955__1_141", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_143", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "After remand, though.\nIt's after remand.\nThe original appeal to the Ninth Circuit went up and back down without any claim of nominal damages involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3130.748, 3131.349, 3132.541], "stop_times": [3131.349, 3132.541, 3141.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.748}, "reply_to": "19955__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_144", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--The original appeal was not on the merits, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3141.186], "stop_times": [3143.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3141.186}, "reply_to": "19955__1_143", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_145", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3143.627], "stop_times": [3144.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.627}, "reply_to": "19955__1_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19955__1_146", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "That's why the cross-appeal we are not entitled to unless there are... we don't need to cross-appeal on the judgment unless there is actually an appeal on the judgment.\nThere was none until it was remanded.\nThat's the first time a notice of appeal on the judgment itself was ever filed under Pellegrino v. Nesbit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3144.108, 3150.73, 3153.054], "stop_times": [3150.73, 3153.054, 3159.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3144.108}, "reply_to": "19955__1_145", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_147", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Did the stipulation you... as to the facts covering the Governor's position, I thought that stipulation said nothing about the Governor intending to take enforcement actions, just that the Governor intended to comply.\nWell, if the Governor intends to comply by herself speaking English, I suppose that wouldn't affect this at all.\nIs there anything in the stipulation that says the Governor intends to take enforcement actions against people like Yniguez?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3159.158, 3177.928, 3185.635], "stop_times": [3177.928, 3185.635, 3192.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.158}, "reply_to": "19955__1_146", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_148", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Justice O'Connor, I don't believe there's anything that says that per se.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3192.749], "stop_times": [3196.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3192.749}, "reply_to": "19955__1_147", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_149", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "No, I didn't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3196.662], "stop_times": [3197.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.662}, "reply_to": "19955__1_148", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19955__1_150", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "In our appendix at page 8 to our brief on the merits some of the stipulations appear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3197.483], "stop_times": [3202.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3197.483}, "reply_to": "19955__1_149", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_151", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "In your red brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3202.546], "stop_times": [3204.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.546}, "reply_to": "19955__1_150", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_152", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3204.026], "stop_times": [3204.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3204.026}, "reply_to": "19955__1_151", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_153", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "This is in your red brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3204.236], "stop_times": [3205.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.236}, "reply_to": "19955__1_152", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_154", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, in the red brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3205.127], "stop_times": [3206.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3205.127}, "reply_to": "19955__1_153", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_155", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Page 8?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3206.798], "stop_times": [3207.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3206.798}, "reply_to": "19955__1_154", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_156", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Page 8 of our appendix shows some of the stipulations pertaining to what occurs in the disciplinary process.\nThe testimony below was Ms. Yniguez had seen people disciplined before, that she understood that she was expected to comply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3207.629, 3213.492], "stop_times": [3213.492, 3220.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3207.629}, "reply_to": "19955__1_155", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_157", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Disciplined under this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3220.638], "stop_times": [3223.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.638}, "reply_to": "19955__1_156", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_158", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--Not under this statute, no.\nPeople were disciplined for failing to follow the laws of the State or the constitution of the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3223.018, 3224.198], "stop_times": [3224.198, 3228.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3223.018}, "reply_to": "19955__1_157", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_159", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, that's scarcely surprising.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3228.442, 3230.613], "stop_times": [3230.613, 3230.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.442}, "reply_to": "19955__1_158", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_160", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--That they would be disciplined for that, and that's what we agreed, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt is scarcely surprising.\nThat's why she was in fear of her job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3230.803, 3236.146, 3237.378], "stop_times": [3236.146, 3237.378, 3238.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3230.803}, "reply_to": "19955__1_159", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_161", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, but the question is, did the enactment of this law put her in fear of her job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3238.85], "stop_times": [3244.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3238.85}, "reply_to": "19955__1_160", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__1_162", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Yes, it did, and that is precisely what the district court found, that she had a reasonable belief that she may be disciplined if she in fact spoke something other than English on the job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3244.494], "stop_times": [3253.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3244.494}, "reply_to": "19955__1_161", "speaker": "robert_h_pohlman"}
{"id": "19955__1_163", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Pohlman.\nMr. Zall, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3253.928, 3255.44], "stop_times": [3255.44, 3257.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.928}, "reply_to": "19955__1_162", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__2_000", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I'd like to point the Court's attention to the rulings of the two lower courts on this case.\nIn the petition appendix, page 112, 113a, the order of the district court says, it is further ordered that Article XXVIII of the constitution of the State of Arizona is hereby declared to be void as being invalid on its face in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.\nAnd on page 60a of the same appendix, the Ninth Circuit en banc decision says, we affirm the district court's judgment that Article XXVIII of the Arizona constitution is facially overbroad and violates the First Amendment, and that the article is unconstitutional in its entirety.\nI think that is the heart of the matter here, Your Honors.\nPetitioners are bound by the lower court judgment because they intervened as a party.\nIf Article XXVIII is void in its entirety, then petitioners do not have the enforcement rights that the court suggests that they do.\nIn addition, on the question of who defends the actions, I think in this case the Attorney General attempted to defend, and because of the application of 2403(b) in this case the Attorney General and the State's rights under the Eleventh Amendment were implicated because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3257.82, 3275.483, 3295.825, 3315.718, 3321.193, 3326.848, 3335.663], "stop_times": [3275.483, 3295.825, 3315.718, 3321.193, 3326.848, 3335.663, 3353.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3257.82}, "reply_to": "19955__1_163", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__2_001", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Well, the Attorney General's position is, wisdom has come a little late, but now the Attorney General is enlightened and understands that long before any judgment was entered in the Ninth Circuit the case was moot, so if we accept that, that wipes out the Ninth Circuit's decision, because the Ninth Circuit has no authority to issue a judgment in a moot case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3353.405], "stop_times": [3379.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.405}, "reply_to": "19955__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__2_002", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--It would also wipe out the district court opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3379.58], "stop_times": [3383.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3379.58}, "reply_to": "19955__2_001", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__2_003", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Not necessarily, because if the mootness occurred on appeal, you don't ordinarily wipe out a final judgment from which no party to that judgment has appealed.\nIf we had a lawsuit with two parties at the end of the road, neither pursued an appeal in the district court, and then we have quite different lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit and the State is telling us as to that lawsuit mootness occurred before the judgment, how do you reach back and say, but the mootness also affects the original suit and that original judgment between the plaintiff and the Governor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3383.153, 3398.382], "stop_times": [3398.382, 3431.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3383.153}, "reply_to": "19955__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__2_004", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Your Honor, the problem with the hypothetical is that this is not a standard contract case or an employment problem case.\nThis is a facial overbreadth First Amendment attack on a State constitution which was held to be void in its entirety.\nThis is not just Ms. Yniguez and the Governor.\nThe Court has held that judgments have a value in and of themselves.\nPeople rely on them.\nWe cannot go into State court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3431.214, 3437.669, 3446.184, 3448.457, 3452.238, 3453.83], "stop_times": [3437.669, 3446.184, 3448.457, 3452.238, 3453.83, 3455.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3431.214}, "reply_to": "19955__2_003", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__2_005", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But you can't rely on a judgment that's vacated, and the Federal court has no authority to deal with anything that isn't a genuine controversy at the time judgment was entered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3455.34], "stop_times": [3469.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3455.34}, "reply_to": "19955__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__2_006", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--But, Your Honor, the problem is, if we go into State court and say, sue anyone in the State, the defense by everyone is, the district court for Arizona has held this statute... this constitutional provision unconstitutional in its entirety.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3469.04], "stop_times": [3485.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3469.04}, "reply_to": "19955__2_005", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__2_007", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It was my understanding that a district court's judgment doesn't necessarily bind even another district judge in the same district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3485.16], "stop_times": [3494.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3485.16}, "reply_to": "19955__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__2_008", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "But it does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3494.677], "stop_times": [3495.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3494.677}, "reply_to": "19955__2_007", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__2_009", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "So how does it bind a State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3495.248], "stop_times": [3497.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3495.248}, "reply_to": "19955__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__2_010", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--It doesn't bind it in the sense that it's automatically controlling, but in a number of cases... FDIC v. Jennings, I think in the Tenth Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3497.589], "stop_times": [3507.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3497.589}, "reply_to": "19955__2_009", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__2_011", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "It's like a law review article, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3507.065], "stop_times": [3508.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.065}, "reply_to": "19955__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19955__2_012", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "--It's the prospect of an unfavorable precedent looming over the case to the extent that a State court judge is going to say, this is a question of Federal law.\nAm I going to apply Federal law to this question differently than the district court of Arizona?\nI would find that a prospect that would be daunting for a litigant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3508.665, 3518.732, 3524.305], "stop_times": [3518.732, 3524.305, 3528.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3508.665}, "reply_to": "19955__2_011", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__2_013", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "I've known some State judges who would do that.\n[Laughter]\nHow many district... how many Federal district judges sit in Arizona?\nDo you have any idea?\nThree hundred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3528.708, 3542.117, 3530.941, 3535.292, 3540.144], "stop_times": [3542.117, 3530.941, 3535.292, 3540.144, 3542.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3528.708}, "reply_to": "19955__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19955__2_014", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor.\nI think there's only... I think there's four.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3542.658, 3543.106, 3543.307], "stop_times": [3543.106, 3543.307, 3544.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3542.658}, "reply_to": "19955__2_013", "speaker": "barnaby_w_zall"}
{"id": "19955__2_015", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "There's six in Phoenix and three in Tucson.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3544.929, 3547.209], "stop_times": [3547.209, 3547.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3544.929}, "reply_to": "19955__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19955__2_016", "conversation_id": "19955", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Zall.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-974", "start_times": [3547.5, 3550.913], "stop_times": [3550.913, 3553.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.5}, "reply_to": "19955__2_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__0_000", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1918, Arkansas v. Farm Credit Services of Central Arkansas.\nMs. Hunt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [0.0, 11.179], "stop_times": [11.179, 71.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__0_001", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case was decided incorrectly by the lower courts in two respects.\nFirst, the district court should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act.\nSecond, on the merits, the reliance of the lower courts on a doctrine of implied immunity of production credit associations from State taxation is erroneous when 12 U.S.C. section 2077 clearly provides the extent to which production credit associations are exempt from Arkansas or from any State sales and income tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [71.847, 75.7, 80.314, 88.269], "stop_times": [75.7, 80.314, 88.269, 115.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 71.847}, "reply_to": "20829__0_000", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_002", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I'm curious to know, was the Anti-Injunction Act point, the jurisdictional point argued in the Ninth Circuit... pardon me, in the Eighth Circuit or in the briefs that were filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [115.077], "stop_times": [124.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.077}, "reply_to": "20829__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20829__0_003", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "It was argued in the district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [124.684], "stop_times": [127.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 124.684}, "reply_to": "20829__0_002", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_004", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I noticed that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [127.167], "stop_times": [128.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 127.167}, "reply_to": "20829__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20829__0_005", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--but not in the Eighth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [128.017], "stop_times": [128.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 128.017}, "reply_to": "20829__0_004", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_006", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Not in the briefs and not in the oral argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [128.978], "stop_times": [131.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.978}, "reply_to": "20829__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20829__0_007", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Not in either, that's correct.\nThe Tax Injunction Act, which is printed on page 2 in the petitioner's brief, 28 U.S.C. section 1341, provides an absolute statutory bar to Federal court jurisdiction so long as the state provides an adequate remedy to taxpayers who are seeking to assert a claim against State taxation.\nThe respondents concede that the State of Arkansas's remedy is adequate.\nThis is evidenced by the fact that respondents have currently pending in State court a claim for a refund of these income and sales taxes based on the same theory for which they ask for a declaratory judgment in Federal court.\nThe respondents filed the suit on their own behalf.\nThe United States did not appear with them as a coplaintiff or to represent them.\nThe Court has confirmed that an implied exemption to the Tax Exemption Act exists for the United States.\nIn the Court's decision in Department of Employment, the language of the Court leads us to believe that this exemption applies when the United States appears to protect its interest or that of its instrumentalities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [131.149, 133.643, 157.846, 163.102, 181.152, 185.626, 191.641, 199.535], "stop_times": [133.643, 157.846, 163.102, 181.152, 185.626, 191.641, 199.535, 216.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.149}, "reply_to": "20829__0_006", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_008", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "When you say appears, Ms. Hunt, do you mean appears as a party plaintiff, rather than just perhaps files an amicus brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [216.206], "stop_times": [223.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.206}, "reply_to": "20829__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__0_009", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat would be my contention, that that language does suggest that.\nThe respondents contend, however, that this implied exemption for the benefit of the United States should be extended to Federal instrumentalities.\nRespondents are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [223.36, 223.991, 227.704, 239.161], "stop_times": [223.991, 227.704, 239.161, 241.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.36}, "reply_to": "20829__0_008", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_010", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, certainly the courts have recognized some implied exemptions from that Tax Injunction Act, haven't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [241.843], "stop_times": [249.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.843}, "reply_to": "20829__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__0_011", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--That is correct, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [249.749], "stop_times": [250.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.749}, "reply_to": "20829__0_010", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_012", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "For example, for the NLRB.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [250.779], "stop_times": [252.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 250.779}, "reply_to": "20829__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__0_013", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--I am not aware that in the context of the Tax Injunction Act there has been an exemption applied for the NLRB.\nI am aware that the Solicitor General has analogized the Tax Injunction Act to the general Anti-Injunction Act, to which there is an implied exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [252.021, 263.828], "stop_times": [263.828, 275.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.021}, "reply_to": "20829__0_012", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_014", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [275.686], "stop_times": [276.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.686}, "reply_to": "20829__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__0_015", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "One point that I would like to make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [276.207], "stop_times": [279.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.207}, "reply_to": "20829__0_014", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_016", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "So what's the test?\nIf we're going to have an implied exemption, what's the test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [279.569, 280.29], "stop_times": [280.29, 285.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.569}, "reply_to": "20829__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__0_017", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Our test that we would like to advocate to the Court is a bright line test.\nIf the United States appears with the instrumentality to assert its interest then jurisdiction is proper in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [285.583, 291.319], "stop_times": [291.319, 301.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.583}, "reply_to": "20829__0_016", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_018", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And that's the only instance?\nI don't think that's the position of the Government, is it, the Federal Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [301.163, 302.936], "stop_times": [302.936, 308.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.163}, "reply_to": "20829__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__0_019", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I don't believe... I believe they do disagree with that in some respect.\nI believe that their advocacy, though, would lead toward extending the applied exemption to agencies of the Government, as I understand their argument.\nWe make a distinction, we draw a distinction between agencies and instrumentalities.\nCertainly there is a much more compelling reason for extending the implied exemption to agencies who would be functioning as arms of the Government, who might be regulating.\nTheir functions would certainly be governmental functions in a much greater respect than those of instrumentalities.\nThere are several--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [308.6, 313.361, 323.459, 328.755, 343.754, 351.888], "stop_times": [313.361, 323.459, 328.755, 343.754, 351.888, 353.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 308.6}, "reply_to": "20829__0_018", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_020", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Why leave it to the executive branch to decide what's an instrumentality that is deserving of the exemption and what isn't?\nThat's what your position boils down to.\nIf the Solicitor General, or at the lower level, I suppose, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, decides to argue for immunity under the Tax... from the Tax Injunction Act, then it wins.\nOtherwise, it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [353.308, 359.292, 361.786, 378.115], "stop_times": [359.292, 361.786, 378.115, 378.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.308}, "reply_to": "20829__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__0_021", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, it does appear that that would be the case.\nThere is always the provision in the Tax Injunction Act that provides that if an adequate State remedy does not exist, then the entity can appear in district court.\nIf this is an instrumentality who is seeking to assert its interest, then if there is an adequate State remedy, it can assert those interests in the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [378.776, 381.139, 396.0], "stop_times": [381.139, 396.0, 406.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.776}, "reply_to": "20829__0_020", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_022", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, so far as the United States being a party, you're stuck with the decision of the Department of Employment Security.\nThere is an exemption if the United States appears as a party, and you don't have any trouble with that, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [406.128, 412.382], "stop_times": [412.382, 418.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.128}, "reply_to": "20829__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__0_023", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nWe certainly have no problem with that.\nOf course, we are advocating a bright line.\nWe understand that the lower courts have distinguished this bright line and have not adopted that, and that there have been lower court decisions who have looked at the governmental nature, for example, of the instrumentality to determine whether or not it should be allowed to appear on its own behalf.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [418.268, 419.057, 421.298, 425.221], "stop_times": [419.057, 421.298, 425.221, 443.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 418.268}, "reply_to": "20829__0_022", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_024", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Your bright line... I just want to be sure I understand... is a distinction between an agency and an instrumentality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [443.483], "stop_times": [447.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 443.483}, "reply_to": "20829__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20829__0_025", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [447.687], "stop_times": [448.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.687}, "reply_to": "20829__0_024", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_026", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And what is the difference between the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [448.118], "stop_times": [450.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.118}, "reply_to": "20829__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20829__0_027", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I believe that in most cases an agency would be designated by statute as an agency of the Government.\nThey would obviously--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [450.238, 459.495], "stop_times": [459.495, 461.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.238}, "reply_to": "20829__0_026", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_028", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Suppose the statute had called this entity an agency instead of an instrument?\nWhat if they just gave it that name?\nWould that be enough?\nI mean, part of the problem here is we're not sure the name has any legal significance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [461.034, 465.398, 466.359, 467.14], "stop_times": [465.398, 466.359, 467.14, 472.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.034}, "reply_to": "20829__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20829__0_029", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--The instrumentality--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [472.664], "stop_times": [474.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.664}, "reply_to": "20829__0_028", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_030", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And I'm just wondering how you know so clearly as to such a bright line that tells us whether it's an instrumentality or an agency.\nThat's what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [474.935, 480.678], "stop_times": [480.678, 481.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.935}, "reply_to": "20829__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20829__0_031", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--That is why we would advocate an even more bright line, actually, and draw the line and say, if any entity appears the United States should appear.\nPerhaps I was not entirely clear in trying to distinguish between them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [481.058, 490.496], "stop_times": [490.496, 495.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.058}, "reply_to": "20829__0_030", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_032", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--And you would say, then, that Nash-Finch, the NLRB case, deals with the Anti-Injunction Act generally, not with the Tax Injunction Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [495.207], "stop_times": [502.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.207}, "reply_to": "20829__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__0_033", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, and there are, too... there is a difference in the purpose of those two acts that I would also like to distinguish.\nThe purpose of the general Anti-Injunction Act was to prevent conflict between Federal and State courts, whereas the purpose of the Tax Injunction Act was to limit Federal court jurisdiction when the subject that's being considered is State taxation.\nThis is in recognition of the vast importance, the crucial importance to States of their ability to deal with State tax matters that affect them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [502.263, 509.797, 529.591], "stop_times": [509.797, 529.591, 541.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.263}, "reply_to": "20829__0_032", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_034", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "So you really expect us to hold that if the President is annoyed with the National Labor Relations Board and instructs the Solicitor General or the Civil Division of the Justice Department not to appeal in order to enable that agency to claim the benefit of the exemption from the Anti-Injunction Act, then that's the way it will be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [541.659], "stop_times": [565.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.659}, "reply_to": "20829__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__0_035", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yes, Justice Scalia.\nUnder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [565.843, 567.676], "stop_times": [567.676, 567.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.843}, "reply_to": "20829__0_034", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_036", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Regardless of what Congress... it has nothing to do with Congress' intention to establish the NLRB as an agency of the United States.\nIt's all up to the executive whether he wants to appear in court or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [567.866, 573.981], "stop_times": [573.981, 577.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 567.866}, "reply_to": "20829__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__0_037", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Under the bright... under the absolute bright line test for the presence of the United States, that would be necessary.\nAs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [577.383, 584.128], "stop_times": [584.128, 584.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.383}, "reply_to": "20829__0_036", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_038", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Can you tell me why I should do that, why I should leave this issue of law under a congressional statute to be decided dispositively by the President of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [584.93], "stop_times": [597.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.93}, "reply_to": "20829__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__0_039", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Obviously, if the President of the United States, the executive department, examines the entity that it is there to represent and makes this determination to appear, under the bright line test that would be a decision that would be left to the executive department.\nAs a practical matter, in instances of State taxation, I would find it very difficult to think of an example where a State would attempt to tax an agency.\nState--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [597.799, 618.85, 632.401], "stop_times": [618.85, 632.401, 633.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.799}, "reply_to": "20829__0_038", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_040", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "What if the President, during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt the Civil Division does appear on behalf the labor board and says, this is an agency of the United States.\nWe claim an exemption from the... okay.\nHowever, during the administration of Harry Truman, with a similar suit, the Civil Division chooses not to appear.\nIs the labor board branded once and forever as an agency of the United States by reason of the first appearance under the prior administration, or can it be undone by the second?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [633.52, 643.046, 645.119, 654.313], "stop_times": [643.046, 645.119, 654.313, 666.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.52}, "reply_to": "20829__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__0_041", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, I believe it could be undone.\nIf you are allowing the executive to make that decision, then it appears that it would be within the executive's discretion under that test.\nOf course, on behalf of the State of Arkansas, in considering that the entities here are production credit associations, regardless of whether the Court adopts a bright line test, and even if the Court should determine that a much more flexible test is appropriate, it is our contention that the production credit associations would fail to meet the standard regardless of what the test is, even if it's a more flexible governmental nature of the organization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [666.842, 670.435, 679.421], "stop_times": [670.435, 679.421, 710.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.842}, "reply_to": "20829__0_040", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_042", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Ms. Hunt, may I ask you a question about the discrete jurisdictional issue, which this Court asked the parties to address.\nIt seems to me that the answer to the jurisdictional question goes a long way, if not all the way, to answer the question on the merits as well.\nWould you agree with that, that how you categorize this agency for purposes of the Tax Injunction Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [710.452, 719.548, 729.784], "stop_times": [719.548, 729.784, 739.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.452}, "reply_to": "20829__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__0_043", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "No, Justice Ginsburg.\nI believe that the tests are different here.\nThe test for purposes of the Tax Injunction Act has not totally been established by this Court.\nHowever, I believe the test for whether or not an instrumentality has been... tax immunity has been conferred on an instrumentality is determined first of all by looking to whether or not Congress has addressed the issue.\nIf Congress has clearly addressed the issue of tax immunity, then I think that forecloses further inquiry by the Court into the tax exempt status, so in that respect I believe the tests are different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [739.961, 741.223, 744.085, 751.629, 766.521], "stop_times": [741.223, 744.085, 751.629, 766.521, 779.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.961}, "reply_to": "20829__0_042", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_044", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Why wouldn't it make sense to have the test simply be whether Federal dollars are at stake as the exemption for the Tax Injunction Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [779.978], "stop_times": [788.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.978}, "reply_to": "20829__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20829__0_045", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "If the only test were whether or not Federal dollars were at stake, there would be many, many entities who would then be entitled to the benefit of the Tax Injunction Act.\nThere are so many entities that in some respect have a stake in Federal money who do not execute agency functions, so in that respect I don't believe that merely the infusion of some sort of Government capital or access to Government capital would be a sufficient test to decide this case.\nIn addition to the other respects, Congress also has the power to provide an exemption to the Tax Injunction Act.\nFor example, in the Moe decision this Court construed a statute that had been passed, section 28 U.S.C. 1362 which deals specifically with the Indian tribes, to be an implied exemption to... not an implied exemption, but to be a statutory exemption to the Tax Injunction Act, which was passed sometime after the Tax Injunction Act.\nSince this is an implied immunity for the benefit of the United States, it is our contention that implied immunity should be strictly construed, and before the Court would extend this implied immunity to another entity, this Court should look very carefully at that extension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [788.914, 804.375, 829.442, 840.229, 869.397], "stop_times": [804.375, 829.442, 840.229, 869.397, 892.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.914}, "reply_to": "20829__0_044", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_046", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Ms. Hunt, could we borrow a test from somewhere else?\nWhat about just applying the same test that we would apply for sovereign immunity?\nYou know, if you sue the labor board you would not get anywhere.\nWhy don't we just say the same thing, it's any agency that would come under our sovereign immunity rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [892.824, 897.709, 901.722, 905.295], "stop_times": [897.709, 901.722, 905.295, 913.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.824}, "reply_to": "20829__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__0_047", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "In the sense of sovereign immunity this has frequently been addressed by statute, by the sue-and-be-sued statutes, so this alone would not be a sufficient test because that might have been spoken to by Congress already, and then you would have to enter into that sphere of statutory language dealing with the sue-and-be-sued provision.\nMay I reserve my time for rebuttal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [913.402, 939.118], "stop_times": [939.118, 940.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.402}, "reply_to": "20829__0_046", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__0_048", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yes, you may, Ms. Hunt.\nMr. Wallace, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [940.821, 942.163], "stop_times": [942.163, 944.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.821}, "reply_to": "20829__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__1_000", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe principle underlying the exception to the Tax Injunction Act that was recognized in Department of Employment was described by this Court in 1960 in Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation as,\n\"General statutes imposing restrictions do not apply to the Government itself without a clear expression to that effect. \"\nand in 1947 in United States v. United Mineworkers, instead of to the Government itself the Court said, will not be applied to the sovereign.\nNow, who is the sovereign, or the Government for this purpose in our modern, complex governmental framework?\nWhile the term, instrumentality is often used on the merits of questions of tax immunity, because obviously the Government itself cannot be taxed, and the issue is about whether an instrumentality is immune from tax, the expression that the Court used when it addressed this closely analogous question in NLRB v. Nash-Finch under section 2283 of title 28, was the United States and its agencies, or in one instance it used the term, public authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [944.053, 956.362, 973.652, 984.311, 993.288, 1005.117], "stop_times": [956.362, 973.652, 984.311, 993.288, 1005.117, 1040.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 944.053}, "reply_to": "20829__0_048", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_001", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "When the Congress incorporates... a Federal corporation has a Federal charter, is it always an instrumentality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1040.809], "stop_times": [1048.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.809}, "reply_to": "20829__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20829__1_002", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Sometimes they're designated an instrumentality.\nSometimes that question is up in the air.\nBut the question is always, instrumentality for what purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1048.523, 1052.926, 1055.349], "stop_times": [1052.926, 1055.349, 1059.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1048.523}, "reply_to": "20829__1_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_003", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I should have asked, and it's apparent from your question, they are not always designated instrumentalities apparently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1059.411], "stop_times": [1065.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.411}, "reply_to": "20829__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20829__1_004", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Not always.\nSometimes they're just designated a Government enterprise, but in footnote 8 of our brief we try to explain that the same body can be an instrumentality for one purpose but not for another under various holdings.\nBut what is different about an agency from other instrumentalities?\nOne model for an answer, and these terms are not always used in precisely the same way from one context to another, but one model for an answer is in the words themselves.\nAn instrumentality, or an instrument, is a tool or a device through which the Government accomplishes an objective.\nIt may be a very important objective, but it may be accomplished through a contractor, a corporation, or what-have-you.\nAn agency is related to the law of agency.\nAn agent is someone who shares in the governmental authority, or what we would call the regulatory authority of the Government, and that in our system is at least an important way of looking at it.\nAnother way of differentiating the group to whom the exception should extend is whether it is a public governmental body, or a privately owned enterprise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1065.517, 1066.347, 1086.012, 1091.686, 1101.843, 1110.969, 1117.824, 1125.819, 1145.583], "stop_times": [1066.347, 1086.012, 1091.686, 1101.843, 1110.969, 1117.824, 1125.819, 1145.583, 1162.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1065.517}, "reply_to": "20829__1_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_005", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, what about the Red Cross?\nI mean, that... it's hard to look at that as so much a part of the Government that it should share the Government's exempt status, and yet we have a case where at least when the Government was a coplaintiff it came within the exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1162.126, 1164.256], "stop_times": [1164.256, 1181.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.126}, "reply_to": "20829__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__1_006", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "There... there it was held to be entitled to a tax immunity, but it was not held to be within the exception to the Tax Injunction Act.\nThe exception was recognized in that case because the United States was a coplaintiff.\nThe Court did not address whether the Red Cross could have brought the suit in Federal court itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1181.627, 1194.005, 1199.12], "stop_times": [1194.005, 1199.12, 1204.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1181.627}, "reply_to": "20829__1_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_007", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Mr. Wallace, I hate to go on creating different tests for all these different purposes.\nCan we agree that the test here is the same as the test for sovereign immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1204.245, 1209.209], "stop_times": [1209.209, 1214.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.245}, "reply_to": "20829__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__1_008", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1214.373], "stop_times": [1215.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1214.373}, "reply_to": "20829__1_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_009", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Not... not... leaving out the situation where the Government has said that a particular instrumentality can or cannot sue or be sued.\nLet's assume that, you know, there's nothing said.\nWould applying the general rules for sovereign immunity of agencies or instrumentalities of the United States produce the same result that you're arguing for here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1215.264, 1223.098, 1225.502], "stop_times": [1223.098, 1225.502, 1236.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.264}, "reply_to": "20829__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__1_010", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well, I think it's closely related, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1236.107], "stop_times": [1239.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1236.107}, "reply_to": "20829__1_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_011", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I know it's closely related.\nIs it the same rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1239.651, 1241.08], "stop_times": [1241.08, 1241.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.651}, "reply_to": "20829__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__1_012", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--There are reasons... there are reasons I would hesitate to say it's the same.\nIn some instances it would require the Court to address a hypothetical constitutional question in order to answer a question that really could be resolved without resort to that.\nThere is... if I can commend to the Court's attention just one of the lower court cases that I think particularly rewards study it would be the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston case, in which Levin Campbell wrote for the First Circuit a very thoughtful opinion about why he concluded that the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, because it functions as an arm of the Government sharing an important regulatory authority, would... should have the benefit of this exception.\nI'm not sure that the considerations are the same as whether it would be entitled to sovereign immunity, whether or not the answer would be the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1241.881, 1245.875, 1260.634, 1294.638], "stop_times": [1245.875, 1260.634, 1294.638, 1306.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1241.881}, "reply_to": "20829__1_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_013", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Mr. Wallace, would the answer be... in your view, would the same test apply under both the Tax Injunction Act and the... 2283?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1306.586], "stop_times": [1312.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.586}, "reply_to": "20829__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20829__1_014", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--I think that it's a good model, and probably would be the same test.\nThat view is not universally held within the Government.\nI have many nervous agencies and instrumentalities out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1312.629, 1319.836, 1324.098], "stop_times": [1319.836, 1324.098, 1328.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1312.629}, "reply_to": "20829__1_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_015", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Given that, why isn't... what's wrong with Arkansas' approach?\nI mean, her approach is very clear, and moreover, all it say is that Congress and the President, who signed the bill, believe that State tax laws are pretty important, and before you go mucking around with an injunction, go into State court.\nAnd if they're important enough for the United States, namely the Justice Department, to think they're that important, fine.\nThen you can set them aside.\nBut if no one in the Justice Department thinks they're that important, that's the end of it.\nOkay, then you can't.\nGo into State court.\nNow, that would be a very clear administrative way to do it, it would be simple, and I don't really see what the policy is underlying this that would be seriously interfered with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1328.521, 1332.353, 1346.771, 1355.219, 1356.28, 1361.115, 1363.156, 1364.228], "stop_times": [1332.353, 1346.771, 1355.219, 1356.28, 1361.115, 1363.156, 1364.228, 1374.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.521}, "reply_to": "20829__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__1_016", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, what Judge Campbell suggested--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1374.707], "stop_times": [1376.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1374.707}, "reply_to": "20829__1_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_017", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "What... what does he... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1376.386], "stop_times": [1376.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.386}, "reply_to": "20829__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__1_018", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--for the First Circuit on this very point was that the Court should respect the reasons why Congress has chosen to confer independent litigating authority in the lower courts on certain agencies, because they should to some degree be insulated from the executive chain of command, and I think it's very well put.\nIt's an opinion that deserves--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1376.897, 1403.004], "stop_times": [1403.004, 1405.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1376.897}, "reply_to": "20829__1_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_019", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1405.247], "stop_times": [1405.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.247}, "reply_to": "20829__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__1_020", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--and rewards study.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1405.457], "stop_times": [1407.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1405.457}, "reply_to": "20829__1_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_021", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Is it clear that you could have intervened here if you had chosen to do so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1407.368], "stop_times": [1410.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.368}, "reply_to": "20829__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20829__1_022", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yes, we could have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1410.561], "stop_times": [1413.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1410.561}, "reply_to": "20829__1_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_023", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Under Rule 24 you have an interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1413.402], "stop_times": [1414.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1413.402}, "reply_to": "20829__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20829__1_024", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I believe so.\nIt would be very similar to the interest in the intervention in Department of Employment, the case itself, on behalf of the Red Cross' exemption.\nThese farm credit institutions perform an important Federal statutory function under the oversight of the Farm Credit Administration, some of the others are explicitly conferred tax exemptions, and the Government might well come forward.\nThey're part of the executive branch in such cases.\nNow, I might just say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1414.744, 1418.565, 1430.532, 1447.884, 1452.278], "stop_times": [1418.565, 1430.532, 1447.884, 1452.278, 1454.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1414.744}, "reply_to": "20829__1_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_025", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "You're not saying that the executive branch should have any leverage in deciding whether there's an exemption or not.\nYou're just saying if it's a coplaintiff that should survive the Tax Injunction Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1454.128, 1459.512], "stop_times": [1459.512, 1463.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.128}, "reply_to": "20829__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__1_026", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Exactly, so it's up to the courts to decide the merits of the exemption issue.\nObviously, the willingness of the Government to come forward might have something to do with its view of the merits, and if I could just say a word about the merits... since the court of appeals addressed the merits, the Court may choose to comment on the merits because of that.\nWe think that this is a clear case for application of the rule of the Russello case that, when different provisions of a statute address the matter explicitly in different ways, that difference should be respected.\nThis is a matter that Congress has addressed from the outset.\nUnder this scheme, the reliance on the part of the respondents is on the part of a deletion of two sentences which we have italicized--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1463.796, 1468.898, 1486.73, 1503.433, 1506.855], "stop_times": [1468.898, 1486.73, 1503.433, 1506.855, 1516.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1463.796}, "reply_to": "20829__1_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_027", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Thank--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1516.983], "stop_times": [1517.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.983}, "reply_to": "20829__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__1_028", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--on page 5 of their brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1517.194], "stop_times": [1518.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1517.194}, "reply_to": "20829__1_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20829__1_029", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nYour time has expired.\nMr. Hanson, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1518.415, 1518.663, 1520.285], "stop_times": [1518.663, 1520.285, 1522.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.415}, "reply_to": "20829__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_000", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to answer Justice Scalia's question as to what standards ought to apply in determining application of the Tax Injunction act, application of sovereign immunity concepts, application of tax immunity concepts, but I think it really has two pieces.\nOne is that the same standard should apply in determining whether or not an entity is a Federal instrumentality, and the Court's most recent discussion of that is in U.S. v. New Mexico, where they talked about an entity being so closely connected to the Government that it cannot be viewed as a separate party.\nNow, beyond that, and I think the Court said this in Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, you then get to the question of whether... and let me back up just a second.\nIn Federal Land Bank v. Priddy the Court, talking about a Federal Land Bank, which is one of the institutions of the system, said that it would partake of the sovereign immunity of the United States absent a waiver by Congress, and there was sue-and-be-sued language in the statutes, therefore the Court concluded that sovereign immunity to some extent had been waived.\nThe issue in that case involved execution of a judgment.\nThe result which you get in a Tax Injunction Act case, an immunity case, a sovereign immunity case, a case involving punitive damages, and a case involving estoppel, all of which are issues which have been addressed by this Court or the lower courts, then turns on what has Congress done?\nAnd it becomes a question of, you know they're a Federal instrumentality.\nYou know they partake of the sovereignty of the United States.\nNow, what does the governing statute tell you about what Congress has done in terms of waiver of tax immunity, waiver of sovereign immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1522.947, 1527.78, 1542.418, 1559.451, 1567.366, 1588.73, 1591.722, 1611.826, 1616.92, 1619.344], "stop_times": [1527.78, 1542.418, 1559.451, 1567.366, 1588.73, 1591.722, 1611.826, 1616.92, 1619.344, 1626.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1522.947}, "reply_to": "20829__1_029", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_001", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And your position is that unless Congress has affirmatively waived that immunity, they are immune?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1626.67], "stop_times": [1633.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.67}, "reply_to": "20829__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_002", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "On the merits, unless Congress has affirmatively consented to the taxation of these entities by Arkansas, 180 years of case law says that we are immune.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1633.235], "stop_times": [1641.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1633.235}, "reply_to": "20829__2_001", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_003", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, there's a lot of case law contrary to that, it seems to me.\nThe cases that say you have to look at what Congress has said, not saying that the burden is necessarily on those who would show that Congress had not waived the immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1641.312, 1645.593], "stop_times": [1645.593, 1657.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.312}, "reply_to": "20829__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_004", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, I'm not aware of any case where this Court has departed from the rule that immunity is implied under the Supremacy Clause, and immunity exists unless Congress has consented to taxation, and certainly that has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1657.301], "stop_times": [1672.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1657.301}, "reply_to": "20829__2_003", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_005", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And you would say this is true of every single thing that is called a Federal instrumentality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1672.591], "stop_times": [1676.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.591}, "reply_to": "20829__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_006", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--If it is a Federal instrumentality, and that really in large part is the crux of this case.\nYou know, the Government of the United States on brief said that these entities perform no governmental function.\nNow, they say that in the face of a preamble which explains exactly what they do, in the face of being repeatedly designated... and frankly for current institutions this is a unique designation... Federal instrumentalities, and in face of a number of decisions by this Court involving various farm credit system entities.\nBut I think the other thing they say we need to... I would like to discuss a bit further.\nThey say that these entities exist to make profits for their members, and that simply misconceives the nature of the farm credit system.\nWhen the Federal Land Banks were created back in 1916, Congress referred to the farm credit system as a bridge between farmers and the credit markets.\nThey said the Federal Government cannot provide a mechanism to get adequate credit to farmers, that the commercial banking institutions cannot provide a mechanism to get adequate credit to farmers, so what we will do is, we will provide a federally supported mechanism, and that's all the modern farm credit system does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1676.645, 1682.929, 1690.112, 1708.305, 1713.45, 1721.335, 1733.632], "stop_times": [1682.929, 1690.112, 1708.305, 1713.45, 1721.335, 1733.632, 1751.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1676.645}, "reply_to": "20829__2_005", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_007", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Mr. Hanson, whatever this was originally when there was a Federal administrator involved, is there anything that these entities are doing that the farmers and ranchers couldn't have done getting together for themselves?\nIs there anything that they are doing that is an exercise of Federal power, or are they just acting, admittedly with the spark provided by the Government, but as any privately arranged cooperative could act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1751.485, 1763.674], "stop_times": [1763.674, 1778.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.485}, "reply_to": "20829__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_008", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, if they are... there are not in any material way exercising any Federal regulatory power.\nThe regulatory power exists in the Farm Credit Administration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1778.682, 1784.236], "stop_times": [1784.236, 1787.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.682}, "reply_to": "20829__2_007", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_009", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "So the only power that they're exercising is what the farmers and the ranchers choose to confer on them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1787.558], "stop_times": [1792.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.558}, "reply_to": "20829__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_010", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "With the support of the United States, but there is a reason why the system was set up this way.\nNow, obviously there are all sorts of Federal farm programs and there are all sorts of Federal lending programs.\nThere are lending programs for students.\nThere are lending programs for small business, for veterans, for homeowners.\nA determination was made that the unique nature of agricultural credit required a system set up so that the farmers would become the managers of their own system.\nThey could not have done it without Federal support.\nThey couldn't have done it in 1916, they couldn't have done it in 1933, and they can't do it without Federal regulation.\nWhat the... and in 1985, it was again proven that the system itself required and was in fact given Federal help, so while it is true that the day-to-day management operations have been given to the farmers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1792.882, 1800.269, 1806.792, 1807.934, 1812.809, 1827.028, 1829.74, 1836.715], "stop_times": [1800.269, 1806.792, 1807.934, 1812.809, 1827.028, 1829.74, 1836.715, 1852.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1792.882}, "reply_to": "20829__2_009", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_011", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, lots of private actors are given Federal help.\nUniversities and colleges are given Federal help, but that doesn't make them Government agencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1852.616, 1854.346], "stop_times": [1854.346, 1858.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.616}, "reply_to": "20829__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_012", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--The program under which that help is given, the program may or may not be a Federal agency, or a Federal instrumentality, but my point is that the farm credit system does not exist to make profit for its members.\nThe farm credit system exists to accomplish a governmental objective, which is stated in section 2001, which is to... that a program needs to exist to provide adequate secure and affordable credit to farmers.\nCongress looked and said, the way we will do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1858.851, 1873.851, 1888.661], "stop_times": [1873.851, 1888.661, 1891.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.851}, "reply_to": "20829__2_011", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_013", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I don't think that's enough to answer the question.\nThe Federal Government provides help to support the arts.\nThat doesn't mean that a company providing artistic service ought to be extended some form of Government immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1891.432, 1894.514, 1900.3], "stop_times": [1894.514, 1900.3, 1913.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.432}, "reply_to": "20829__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__2_014", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--No, I would absolutely agree, and that in part was what was addressed in U.S. v. New Mexico.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1913.408], "stop_times": [1918.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1913.408}, "reply_to": "20829__2_013", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_015", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yet there's a Government purpose there.\nIt serves a Government purpose, and that's what's happened now to the production credit association.\nYes, Congress wants to be sure that farmers and ranchers have credit to help them over the hard times, but that doesn't answer the question, it seems to me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1918.82, 1920.302, 1926.389], "stop_times": [1920.302, 1926.389, 1936.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.82}, "reply_to": "20829__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__2_016", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1936.464], "stop_times": [1937.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.464}, "reply_to": "20829__2_015", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_017", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--of whether immunity should exist or whether you ought to go first into State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1937.015], "stop_times": [1941.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1937.015}, "reply_to": "20829__2_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__2_018", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well, let me contrast perhaps two different institutions.\nYou have an independent contractor who is... contracts with the Government to perform a governmental function.\nWhat this Court has said is that that contractor is a separate entity pursuing its own private profit interests, and the fact that it is performing a function for the Government doesn't make it a Federal instrumentality, so the fact that a company assists the National Endowment for the Arts doesn't make it a Federal instrumentality under U.S. v. New Mexico and the prior cases.\nMy point is here that these entities perform no function except the specific governmental function that the system was set up to perform.\nThey have no separate private existence.\nNow, they certainly have private characteristics, and I admit that.\nI mean, they have officers, and they have directors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1941.427, 1945.751, 1952.095, 1977.55, 1985.527, 1987.367, 1990.78], "stop_times": [1945.751, 1952.095, 1977.55, 1985.527, 1987.367, 1990.78, 1992.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.427}, "reply_to": "20829__2_017", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_019", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, what functions ally them with the Government rather than with the private members, because I think you answered my question candidly that they can do, these PCA's can do only what the members choose to allow them to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [1992.871], "stop_times": [2005.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.871}, "reply_to": "20829__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_020", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, they can do only what the Government allows them to do under the controlling statute and regulations.\nThe members have day-to-day control.\nBut that's the purpose of the system.\nI mean, the governmental function, as has been expressed by this Court, is to provide credit to farmers.\nYou've just defined the function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2005.339, 2010.472, 2012.355, 2013.784, 2019.848], "stop_times": [2010.472, 2012.355, 2013.784, 2019.848, 2022.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2005.339}, "reply_to": "20829__2_019", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_021", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Can you tell me if there are other instrumentalities where all of the people, all of the personnel are on private payrolls, not Government payrolls, that would have this tax immunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2022.102], "stop_times": [2035.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.102}, "reply_to": "20829__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_022", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2035.9], "stop_times": [2036.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2035.9}, "reply_to": "20829__2_021", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_023", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--from income tax, State income tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2036.641], "stop_times": [2038.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.641}, "reply_to": "20829__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_024", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Certainly the Federal credit unions would be an analogous situation, and one of the ironies in this case... and frankly I want to come back to Justice Scalia's question on the jurisdictional issue.\nIn a case called United States v. Michigan before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States did file suit on behalf of the Federal credit unions with respect to a Michigan sales tax issue.\nThey argued not only a statutory exemption but the instrumentalities were... that the credit unions were in fact instrumentalities.\nThey did so by analogy to the farm credit system.\nNow, we're being told that the farm credit system somehow is not entitled to that kind of representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2038.581, 2049.208, 2060.206, 2067.061, 2069.043], "stop_times": [2049.208, 2060.206, 2067.061, 2069.043, 2079.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.581}, "reply_to": "20829__2_023", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_025", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "There's a distinction between the... a Federal credit union and the PCA's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2079.591], "stop_times": [2084.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.591}, "reply_to": "20829__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_026", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "There is in the statutory provision describing certain aspects of the tax exemption, but I'm not sure that there's much other than that, and the Sixth Circuit basically compares and contrasts the two and says the only real distinction is one provides financial services to a broader range of the public than the farm credit system does.\nBut the system is probably fairly stated unique.\nIt was formed because there was a congressional determination that this is how the congressional purpose could be accomplished, that the Federal Government can't do it because the farm economy is too complex, that you can't run the system from Washington.\nThe legislative history on the '33 act explains that a centralized Federal funding program during the early stages of the Depression had managed to lose some $40 million and had not accomplished its purpose.\nThey said, we can't do this, so what we will do is we will set up a farmer-supported system, or a federally supported system, and we will engage the farmers.\nNow, that doesn't mean that they get into this system to make a profit.\nIt means that if a farmer wants to borrow money from the system, he has to buy stock, and it's mandatory.\nIt's not voluntary, because there is no profit potential.\nIt is a cost of entry, in effect, but it was determined that that way the farmer would be interested in the success of the associations, the success of the system as a whole.\nSo the role of the farmer reflects Congress' considered decision that this makes sense as a means of an effective system for delivery of credit, but you know, it's a closed system, too, except for periodic Government investment.\nWhen you talk about where the system gets its \"earnings\" or its capital, basically that comes from its members.\nThey provide the capital.\nThat provided the source of funds to retire Government stock.\nIt's providing the source of... to retire the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2084.425, 2104.247, 2112.653, 2126.773, 2137.971, 2148.489, 2152.362, 2158.126, 2162.66, 2171.615, 2190.597, 2198.694, 2200.785, 2204.057], "stop_times": [2104.247, 2112.653, 2126.773, 2137.971, 2148.489, 2152.362, 2158.126, 2162.66, 2171.615, 2190.597, 2198.694, 2200.785, 2204.057, 2207.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.425}, "reply_to": "20829__2_025", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_027", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Mr. Hanson suppose you were to say, look, if it is a matter of degree, here we have an organization that looks like an ordinary bank, performs the functions of ordinary banks.\nThe benefit of this tax exemption or immunity, if they get it, will go entirely to private shareholders or to other members outside the Government.\nThe United States Treasury is not affected by a penny--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2207.73, 2218.379, 2227.545], "stop_times": [2218.379, 2227.545, 2230.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.73}, "reply_to": "20829__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_028", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2230.207], "stop_times": [2230.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.207}, "reply_to": "20829__2_027", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_029", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--and given these similarities between ordinary banks and what's going on here, and the fact that the Treasury is not implicated, this is not a Government instrumentality for purposes of the Tax Injunction Act.\nThat seems to track the kind of thing that Judge Campbell was doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2230.988, 2245.047], "stop_times": [2245.047, 2247.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.988}, "reply_to": "20829__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_030", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well, it is interesting that the Government's reference to the Federal Reserve Bank case... for example, the Federal Reserve Banks are capitalized solely by their member banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2247.49], "stop_times": [2256.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.49}, "reply_to": "20829__2_029", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_031", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Ah, but he has large number of things--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2256.035], "stop_times": [2258.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.035}, "reply_to": "20829__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_032", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2258.055], "stop_times": [2258.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.055}, "reply_to": "20829__2_031", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_033", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2258.296], "stop_times": [2258.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.296}, "reply_to": "20829__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_034", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "He talks about the regulatory function and so on.\nI'm aware of that, but I go back to the nature that there is somehow sort of a separate private entity here, separate from the performance of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2258.636, 2260.517], "stop_times": [2260.517, 2267.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.636}, "reply_to": "20829__2_033", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_035", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--I'm just saying look at the similarities.\nIt looks like a bank, acts like a bank, talks like a bank, et cetera, and moreover the Treasury is not involved to the tune of a penny, nor is the member, nor are the taxpayers.\nWhat's at issue here is private money that will go either to the State of Arkansas or to private shareholders or to their customers, who are private people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2267.352, 2268.704, 2277.102], "stop_times": [2268.704, 2277.102, 2286.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.352}, "reply_to": "20829__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_036", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2286.168], "stop_times": [2286.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.168}, "reply_to": "20829__2_035", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_037", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And given all that, we don't need to go further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2286.766], "stop_times": [2288.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.766}, "reply_to": "20829__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_038", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2288.539], "stop_times": [2288.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.539}, "reply_to": "20829__2_037", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_039", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I mean, that's... that, it seems to me, is what you face here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2288.91], "stop_times": [2290.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.91}, "reply_to": "20829__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_040", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--The profits, the earnings, as this Court recognized in Kiawah County, are not a distribution of profits to the shareholder of the system.\nThey are a means, which is another part of the design of the system, to reduce the interest cost to the farmer, and that was part of the initial design in 1916.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2290.692, 2299.708], "stop_times": [2299.708, 2307.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.692}, "reply_to": "20829__2_039", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_041", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "But they do benefit the farmers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2307.993], "stop_times": [2310.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.993}, "reply_to": "20829__2_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_042", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "The farmer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2310.204], "stop_times": [2310.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.204}, "reply_to": "20829__2_041", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_043", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--rather than the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2310.434], "stop_times": [2311.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.434}, "reply_to": "20829__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_044", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2311.596], "stop_times": [2312.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2311.596}, "reply_to": "20829__2_043", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_045", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Rather than taxpayers, let's say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2312.006], "stop_times": [2314.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.006}, "reply_to": "20829__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_046", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--They benefit the Government to this extent, and that is that currently, as part of the package of assistance that was provided in 1987, the system owes the Treasury some $600 million, and not only do they owe the Treasury $600 million, but the Government has implicitly guaranteed the system's bonds, and I realize it's not a statutory guarantee, but the market believes that the Government will support those bonds and, of course, it always has.\nSo that any additional expense that you place on the system, potentially at least, increases the likelihood of the Government having to come back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2314.078, 2341.795], "stop_times": [2341.795, 2349.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.078}, "reply_to": "20829__2_045", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_047", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "You can say that, though, about a lot of the Government contractor cases that were involved... that were discussed in New Mexico.\nYou can say ultimately the Federal Government is going to pick up the increased tab.\nThat didn't make... for a contractor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2349.9, 2355.384, 2359.568], "stop_times": [2355.384, 2359.568, 2362.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.9}, "reply_to": "20829__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_048", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "That did not make it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2362.47], "stop_times": [2363.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.47}, "reply_to": "20829__2_047", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_049", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--You can say that about Chrysler Corporation, come to think of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2363.509], "stop_times": [2366.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.509}, "reply_to": "20829__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__2_050", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "You could say it about them also.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2366.291], "stop_times": [2368.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.291}, "reply_to": "20829__2_049", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_051", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "If it's just probabilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2368.574], "stop_times": [2370.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.574}, "reply_to": "20829__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20829__2_052", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "But as to none of those could you say that Congress has said this is a federally chartered instrumentality of the United States, and as to none of those could you say that its sole function is to perform an important governmental function.\nI mean, what we have here, and we recognize that, you know, one could say this looks like a bank.\nNow, I disagree, because it looks far more like a Federal Reserve Bank in its operations.\nThe Federal Reserve Bank performs significant services to its member banks through discounting and otherwise.\nDoes that make it not a Federal instrumentality?\nObviously not.\nNow, I grant that the Federal Reserve Banks also have some regulatory authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2370.575, 2382.532, 2388.787, 2393.642, 2400.017, 2405.65, 2406.231], "stop_times": [2382.532, 2388.787, 2393.642, 2400.017, 2405.65, 2406.231, 2409.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.575}, "reply_to": "20829__2_051", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_053", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "What Campbell said, if we go into that, if you want to, he says they're operated in furtherance of national fiscal policy, not operated for the profit of shareholders, do not provide ordinary commercial banking services, act as depositories for money held in the United States Treasury, hold the legal reserves and any remaining earnings are paid into the surplus fund where they may be used to supplement the gold reserve.\nI mean, that was basically his--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2409.563, 2431.488], "stop_times": [2431.488, 2433.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.563}, "reply_to": "20829__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_054", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2433.079], "stop_times": [2434.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2433.079}, "reply_to": "20829__2_053", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_055", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--And most of those things seem absent here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2434.02], "stop_times": [2435.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2434.02}, "reply_to": "20829__2_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_056", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well, I don't believe that's true.\nI don't think there is any distribution of profits to private persons.\nWe do not perform normal banking services.\nWe do only one thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2435.793, 2436.652, 2439.196, 2442.406], "stop_times": [2436.652, 2439.196, 2442.406, 2443.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.793}, "reply_to": "20829__2_055", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_057", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "You mean there aren't private shareholders who get the money here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2443.367], "stop_times": [2445.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.367}, "reply_to": "20829__2_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_058", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "There are farmers who own stock for which they receive no return, and if that stock is ever redeemed, which is at the discretion of the banks--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2445.038], "stop_times": [2451.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.038}, "reply_to": "20829__2_057", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_059", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2451.832], "stop_times": [2452.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.832}, "reply_to": "20829__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_060", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--and the system--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2452.143], "stop_times": [2452.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.143}, "reply_to": "20829__2_059", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_061", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2452.794], "stop_times": [2453.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.794}, "reply_to": "20829__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_062", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--they get what they paid in.\nTo suggest anybody has ever invested in the system I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2453.124, 2454.623], "stop_times": [2454.623, 2458.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.124}, "reply_to": "20829__2_061", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_063", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I see, so they don't get a profit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2458.767], "stop_times": [2461.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.767}, "reply_to": "20829__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_064", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--They don't get a profit.\nWhat you do see is a system set up to reduce their interest cost.\nNow, obviously they get a benefit, but that's the benefit that Congress intended in the first instance.\nI keep coming back to that.\nCongress has said we're going to set up a system, we're going to provide it with an implicit guarantee at the top, we're in fact going to provide some support for it, if you will, at the bottom through farm price support programs, and that was one of the things that helped the farmers get out of the depression of the mid-eighties, as the system itself recognized.\nSo we have this system which serves no purpose except to perform a governmental function.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2461.579, 2462.57, 2465.883, 2470.307, 2472.157, 2492.18, 2498.594], "stop_times": [2462.57, 2465.883, 2470.307, 2472.157, 2492.18, 2498.594, 2499.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.579}, "reply_to": "20829__2_063", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_065", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Mr. Hanson, it took me a while, but the farm credit union example that you gave in answer to my earlier question, as I understand, that is entirely statutory.\nThe code exempts them from Federal, State, or local taxation except for their real and personal property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2499.425, 2511.263], "stop_times": [2511.263, 2520.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.425}, "reply_to": "20829__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_066", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--No.\nIt is true that they have a statutory provision which specifies those exemptions, but the case also involved the proper statute of limitations, and that turned on a constitutional question, whether they were a Federal instrumentality for Supremacy Clause purposes in the decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2520.319, 2521.02], "stop_times": [2521.02, 2541.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.319}, "reply_to": "20829__2_065", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_067", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, you recognize that you can be an instrumentality for one purpose but not for another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2541.332], "stop_times": [2544.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.332}, "reply_to": "20829__2_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_068", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well now, I don't believe that that's what this Court has ever said.\nWhat this Court has said is, there is such a thing as an instrumentality.\nNow, what its characteristics are with respect to various immunities may differ depending on what Congress has said.\nThe lower courts have said, well, there's this kind of instrumentality and that kind.\nI find that very troubling, because I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2544.906, 2548.388, 2551.689, 2558.404, 2561.787], "stop_times": [2548.388, 2551.689, 2558.404, 2561.787, 2564.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.906}, "reply_to": "20829__2_067", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_069", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Do you think there is a pattern in, say, federally chartered institutions for when Congress labels them Federal instrumentalities and when it doesn't, say the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts, and the Red Cross and the others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2564.141], "stop_times": [2578.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.141}, "reply_to": "20829__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_070", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Actually, the only pattern is that we're the only institutions that currently bear that designation.\nThere were... that specifically are designated that way.\nThere are... there were institutions in the past, I believe the Homeowner's Loan Corporation, for example, was designated as a Federal instrumentality.\nBut I do believe there are a set of characteristics which define the Federal instrumentality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2578.169, 2582.102, 2585.515, 2592.628], "stop_times": [2582.102, 2585.515, 2592.628, 2596.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.169}, "reply_to": "20829__2_069", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_071", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, perhaps it was a definition that came in originally when this... these associations were headed by a Federal administrator, and since the character of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2596.671], "stop_times": [2608.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.671}, "reply_to": "20829__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_072", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "That designation changed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2608.559], "stop_times": [2612.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.559}, "reply_to": "20829__2_071", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_073", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--association changed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2612.212], "stop_times": [2612.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.212}, "reply_to": "20829__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_074", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nI didn't mean to interrupt.\nThat designation was reaffirmed in 1971, when all the Government stock had been redeemed and when the Farm Credit Administration was more independent than originally, so it certainly doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2612.392, 2613.063, 2613.734], "stop_times": [2613.063, 2613.734, 2625.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.392}, "reply_to": "20829__2_073", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_075", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--You mean reaffirmed by some positive act, or just so they didn't change it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2625.792], "stop_times": [2629.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.792}, "reply_to": "20829__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20829__2_076", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--The Farm Credit Act of 1971, which was a recodification of the entire act, said the production credit associations continued to be Federal instrumentalities, federally chartered instrumentalities of the United States, so it was an affirmative act in 1971.\nThat's interesting, in 1987 various new entities were added to the system.\nThere was a Federal Systems Corporation, a Federal Insurance, Federal Farm Insurance Corporation, service corporations... Congress gave each one of them the same designation, federally chartered instrumentality of the United States.\nSo as I say, I believe that statement, that designation has some substance, and this Court has recognized that substance in various circumstances, and I go back to the Priddy case, which said that a Federal instrumentality would partake of sovereignty of the United States and would exercise sovereign immunity as against a private suit absent waiver by Congress, so I mean, it is a designation that does have significance.\nI'd like to spend just a couple of minutes talking about why we believe that a bright line rule that requires that the United States to be... or the Justice Department, whoever it would be, to be the gatekeeper in suing in Federal court we think is inappropriate.\nThe underlying policy, or the underlying reason for Department of Employment, as I understand it, was the notion that a sovereign should not be viewed as having relinquished access to its own courts absent a very explicit surrender.\nThat's United Mineworkers and some of the earlier cases.\nIf that's a fair statement, and if the farm credit system institutions partake of the sovereignty of the United States, then it doesn't seem to me to be any... and I... and if we are talking about things that we agree are Federal instrumentalities I don't think it's a stretch to say, as... and this goes back to your question about, Justice Scalia, the question of whether you use the same standard for sovereign immunity or not.\nI don't see it's any stretch to say that one should ask whether Congress has explicitly said that the Federal instrumentalities are... have to sue in State court to vindicate Federal rights which are based on the Supremacy Clause.\nI mean, that seems unlikely, though it may be true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2629.024, 2643.944, 2649.858, 2662.167, 2696.629, 2710.998, 2730.271, 2735.054, 2764.663, 2776.951], "stop_times": [2643.944, 2649.858, 2662.167, 2696.629, 2710.998, 2730.271, 2735.054, 2764.663, 2776.951, 2780.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.024}, "reply_to": "20829__2_075", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_077", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Of course, the Court could have said that in Department of Employment Security, and it didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2780.524], "stop_times": [2785.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.524}, "reply_to": "20829__2_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_078", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, this Court is typically careful about deciding the case in front of it, and the case in front of it, United States had brought suit on behalf of an instrumentality.\nInteresting, the cases it cited were all suits... I believe they were all suits where the United States had sued in the lower courts on behalf of what we would now say were not Federal instrumentalities but were private contractors.\nBut the court specifically said suits by the United States, so I grant that it... its... it clearly, that decision does not give us permission to be in Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2785.327, 2792.723, 2804.998], "stop_times": [2792.723, 2804.998, 2817.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.327}, "reply_to": "20829__2_077", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_079", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "It didn't reject your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2817.407], "stop_times": [2819.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.407}, "reply_to": "20829__2_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_080", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--It did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2819.12], "stop_times": [2820.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2819.12}, "reply_to": "20829__2_079", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_081", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "But it could have gone the way that would have supported it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2820.172], "stop_times": [2821.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.172}, "reply_to": "20829__2_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_082", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Yes.\nBut wha... I think more troubling than sort of the judicial question, while I recognize that, is that if the Justice Department becomes what I've described as the gatekeeper, their decision is both sort of final and nonappealable as to the instrumentality, except perhaps in the political arena, because no court is ever going to look at it.\nI mean, I can't go to Federal court say the Justice Department won't represent me.\nThat's simply final.\nAnd what considerations the executive branch may bring to bear on that I offer again as an illustration.\nThey sued on behalf of the Federal credits unions in 1986 and drew an analogy to us.\n10 years later, we're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2821.764, 2821.985, 2844.968, 2849.761, 2852.592, 2858.937, 2863.49], "stop_times": [2821.985, 2844.968, 2849.761, 2852.592, 2858.937, 2863.49, 2867.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.764}, "reply_to": "20829__2_081", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_083", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "You might try... I mean, I don't mean this necessarily seriously, but you could try a distinction between those agencies where there are strong reasons for independence of executive authority, the Fed, for example, maybe the FCC and a few other traditional independent ones, and those agencies where the proliferation of independent legal authority to control their own cases reflects nothing more than likely administrative convenience, and I don't know that that kind of distinction would work.\nIt would be difficult to apply, but so is the distinctions difficult to apply in the absence of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2867.823, 2897.703], "stop_times": [2897.703, 2903.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2867.823}, "reply_to": "20829__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_084", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well, I certainly agree that trying to write a bright line here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2903.577], "stop_times": [2907.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.577}, "reply_to": "20829__2_083", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_085", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "What about a rule that said Nash-Finch was the general Anti-Injunction Act and shouldn't be carried over to the Tax Injunction Act, so that neither Federal agencies nor Federal instrumentalities can get out of the Tax Injunction Act.\nThat would obviate the problem of the Department of Justice.\nIt would also make you lose your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2907.858, 2924.891, 2927.882], "stop_times": [2924.891, 2927.882, 2929.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.858}, "reply_to": "20829__2_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__2_086", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--I appreciate that, so I'm not sure I'm prepared to advocate that argument.\nI think that that creates both a participation by the executive branch in a decision which they are not... they are not permitted to partake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2929.344, 2933.518], "stop_times": [2933.518, 2943.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2929.344}, "reply_to": "20829__2_085", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_087", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "The... what's difficult is Congress very often proliferates litigating authority for no reason other than the general counsel's office or the agency would like it, or there could be all kinds of reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2943.183], "stop_times": [2952.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.183}, "reply_to": "20829__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_088", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2952.179], "stop_times": [2952.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.179}, "reply_to": "20829__2_087", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_089", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And it's unlikely Congress thought about this part when they did that, and of course the Fed's different.\nIt absolutely wanted independence there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2952.409, 2959.895], "stop_times": [2959.895, 2962.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.409}, "reply_to": "20829__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_090", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2962.557], "stop_times": [2962.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.557}, "reply_to": "20829__2_089", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_091", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I don't know how it works across the banking agencies.\nThat's what I can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2962.798, 2965.959], "stop_times": [2965.959, 2966.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.798}, "reply_to": "20829__2_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_092", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well, in... but... you know... two points.\nOne is, obviously there are cases, there are lower court cases permitting the FDIC to sue on its own behalf.\nThat is a different circumstance, and the New Iberia case makes I think a pertinent point, is that all of the considerations that led to the passage of the Tax Injunction Act are completely missing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2966.347, 2967.269, 2972.083], "stop_times": [2967.269, 2972.083, 2983.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2966.347}, "reply_to": "20829__2_091", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_093", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--It would be nice to get--\n--Well, certainly... certainly you could file your suit in State court here.\nYou admit that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2983.1, 2983.911, 2988.966], "stop_times": [2983.911, 2988.966, 2989.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.1}, "reply_to": "20829__2_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__2_094", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Sure.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2989.887, 2990.827], "stop_times": [2990.827, 2991.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.887}, "reply_to": "20829__2_093", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_095", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And indeed, if you're going to get a refund of any taxes paid you're going to have to, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2991.218], "stop_times": [2996.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.218}, "reply_to": "20829__2_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__2_096", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2996.323], "stop_times": [2996.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.323}, "reply_to": "20829__2_095", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_097", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "So what's the harm in saying, gee, this is the kind of situation where it ought to track the Eleventh Amendment situation, go to State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [2996.613], "stop_times": [3006.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.613}, "reply_to": "20829__2_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__2_098", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3006.647], "stop_times": [3008.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3006.647}, "reply_to": "20829__2_097", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_099", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "And you always have the right to petition to this Court if you think the State courts have erred on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3008.27], "stop_times": [3014.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.27}, "reply_to": "20829__2_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__2_100", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well, I think the concern that I would have is that there is some taint associated with the fact that this type of entity, unless you go back... if you adopt a bright line rule of the United States has to be a party, and if you accept, as I certainly do as a practicing attorney that, given a Federal question of this type I'd want to be in Federal court, not State court, I mean, with no disrespect to the Arkansas courts, my preference, as the United States' would be, would be in Federal district court.\nIf I have to go to State court, am I going to have Arkansas, as the multi-State Tax Commission say, gee, if you have to go to State court you're really not serving an important governmental interest, are you, or did the United States decide that, you know, you're wrong on the merits.\nWe go into State court with some serious adverse implications from the decision of the United States, and I think those implications exist whether the United States was asked, and to my knowledge they were not in this case, or they're asked and turn you down.\nNow, in fairness, of course, we have that same problem here, because we have a brief by the United States which I'm sure will be widely publicized.\nIt is a question of whether we are sufficiently part of the sovereign that the principle of Department of Employment, are we... did Congress have to be more specific?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3014.943, 3044.622, 3057.461, 3074.993, 3082.029], "stop_times": [3044.622, 3057.461, 3074.993, 3082.029, 3096.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3014.943}, "reply_to": "20829__2_099", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_101", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Maybe it ought to be the same kind of a test we'd employ to see if there's some exception to the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3096.718], "stop_times": [3102.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.718}, "reply_to": "20829__2_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__2_102", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Well, and... I think that the test may be in part the same, though... though--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3102.742], "stop_times": [3114.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3102.742}, "reply_to": "20829__2_101", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_103", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "That worries me, because I don't know about how many instances there are in borderline cases where you never have to reach the issue because Congress has said we give this the power to sue and be sued, and if we suddenly took an Eleventh Amendment test, I'd worry that all of a sudden we had to decide those things that otherwise never had to be decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3114.059], "stop_times": [3129.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3114.059}, "reply_to": "20829__2_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_104", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3129.66], "stop_times": [3129.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.66}, "reply_to": "20829__2_103", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_105", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--which are difficult.\nI'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3129.89, 3130.519], "stop_times": [3130.519, 3131.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.89}, "reply_to": "20829__2_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_106", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3131.35], "stop_times": [3131.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.35}, "reply_to": "20829__2_105", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_107", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "I'm just putting that forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3131.52], "stop_times": [3132.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.52}, "reply_to": "20829__2_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20829__2_108", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--I believe I misspoke, though, because one difference between sovereign immunity is, of course, that's a constitutional protection given the State.\nThis is simply... not simply.\nThis is a congressional action.\nThe question is, Congress said, all right, for various reasons, comity and federalism and so on, we want private suit cases in State court and, of course, there's nothing in the legislative history that anybody's identified that suggests an intention to cover this kind of a case.\nAnd I observe that James v. Dravo, which I find kind of interesting as sort of a landmark Federal instrumentality case, was brought in Federal court by private attorneys on behalf of the contractor, and granted it was, I'm sure, litigation that started before the Tax Exemption Act was adopted, but there's not even a comment about it.\nIt seemed perfectly natural.\nAnd the United States participated as an amicus, taking a position adverse to the taxpayer, and the Court decided the case.\nBut it... you know, I admit that's simply... maybe... maybe it's just an historical anomaly.\nOn the merits, our view is, as expressed in Professor Tribe's article, as expressed in the Congressional Reference Bureau's analysis of the Constitution... thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3132.311, 3137.777, 3139.547, 3140.839, 3159.493, 3178.203, 3179.264, 3187.299, 3191.693], "stop_times": [3137.777, 3139.547, 3140.839, 3159.493, 3178.203, 3179.264, 3187.299, 3191.693, 3207.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3132.311}, "reply_to": "20829__2_107", "speaker": "richard_a_hanson"}
{"id": "20829__2_109", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hanson.\nMs. Hunt, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3207.163, 3208.863], "stop_times": [3208.863, 3210.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.163}, "reply_to": "20829__2_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__3_000", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "First of all, regardless of test that the Court decides to apply, the respondents' arguments that they are entitled to first of all status under the Tax Injunction Act that would be the same as that of the United States is certainly not something that they have successfully been able to argue.\nFirst of all, their argument that they are a Federal instrumentality certainly does not imply that that is the case for all purposes.\nThere are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3210.905, 3231.869, 3239.976], "stop_times": [3231.869, 3239.976, 3241.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3210.905}, "reply_to": "20829__2_109", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__3_001", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "What is your response to the Michigan case where he says the Government took just the opposite position in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3241.195], "stop_times": [3246.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.195}, "reply_to": "20829__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20829__3_002", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "--There is a specific statute, a specific taxation statute that relates to the Federal credit unions that gives them a very broad immunity from taxation.\nIn fact, that statute is very similar in wording and in language to the statute that the PCA's had prior to the amendment, and at the time that they were Government-owned, so Federal credit unions may be distinguished in that respect in that their tax immunity is very clear by statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3246.41, 3258.398], "stop_times": [3258.398, 3276.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3246.41}, "reply_to": "20829__3_001", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__3_003", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "What would your position be if the statute here had not been amended and were the same as it had been?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3276.471], "stop_times": [3282.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.471}, "reply_to": "20829__3_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20829__3_004", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "If the statute were the same, where the... well, first of all I need to answer that in two respects.\nIf the statute were exactly the same, then we would make the argument that because the PCA's are now privately owned, that they are not entitled to that exemption because the last sentence of that original statute provided that at the time they became privately owned the broad exemption was waived, so my answer would be they would still have essentially the same immunity that they do today because they are privately owned.\nIn another respect there are many other Federal instrumentalities other than production credit associations.\nFor example, the other Government-sponsored enterprises like Ginnie Mae, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and all of those entities are designated by statute as Federal instrumentalities.\nIf you look at the language of the enacting statutes where Federal... where production credit associations are designated instrumentalities, which is printed on the respondent's brief on page Roman i, first of all it says each production credit association shall continue as a federally chartered instrumentality of the United States.\nThis is quoting directly from 12 U.S.C. section 2071(a).\nIt is my contention that this designation simply implies that Congress has the power to create or to allow these farmers to band together and to charter these institutions, because again, on the same page at 12 U.S.C. section 2071 (b)(7), there's the same instrumentality language relating to the fact that PCA's are federally chartered body corporate and an instrumentality of the United States.\nThen, in their statute, the PCA statute relating to their taxation, which is printed in the petitioner's brief on page 2, we again see the instrumentality language.\nQuoting from 2077, each production credit association and its obligations are instrumentalities of the United States and as such, going on with the language of the exemption from tax.\nIt is my contention that that language is there for a specific purpose, in the first instance to show that Congress has power to create these institutions, and in the second to show that Congress has the power to immunize them to the limited degree that they did from tax, which leads into the argument on the merits.\nThe respondents' attempt to apply the doctrine of McCulloch to this case, there is a very specific reason why the doctrine of McCulloch does not apply here.\nThere was no tax exemption statute in McCulloch which led the Court to construe the implied immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3282.274, 3287.139, 3315.477, 3323.831, 3335.589, 3360.797, 3365.351, 3396.421, 3410.951, 3426.21, 3447.784, 3460.273], "stop_times": [3287.139, 3315.477, 3323.831, 3335.589, 3360.797, 3365.351, 3396.421, 3410.951, 3426.21, 3447.784, 3460.273, 3468.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3282.274}, "reply_to": "20829__3_003", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__3_005", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Hunt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3468.147], "stop_times": [3469.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3468.147}, "reply_to": "20829__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20829__3_006", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3469.139], "stop_times": [3469.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3469.139}, "reply_to": "20829__3_005", "speaker": "martha_grissom_hunt"}
{"id": "20829__3_007", "conversation_id": "20829", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1918", "start_times": [3469.83], "stop_times": [3471.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3469.83}, "reply_to": "20829__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__0_000", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 96-454, Associates Commercial Corporation v. Elray Rash.\nSpectators are admonished not to speak until you get outside of the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nMr. Phillips.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [0.0, 11.139, 27.018, 28.72], "stop_times": [11.139, 27.018, 28.72, 68.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__0_001", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is whether the value of collateral that a Chapter 13 debtor proposes to retain and use should be determined by what the secured creditor could obtain if it foreclosed on that property and sold it, or by what the debtor would have to pay in order to acquire a comparable property.\nOur argument is that Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code declares that the value of the property should vary, depending on whether it is proposed to be used or proposed to be disposed of, and that a hypothetical disclosure value is insufficient and ignores the language of the statute.\nAccordingly, the Court of Appeals erred when it undervalued the secured interest of the Petitioner in this case.\nThis is a Chapter 13 case in which the Respondents proposed a plan that would permit them to keep a tractor trailer truck, which served as collateral for a debt owed to the Petitioner.\nAt the time of the bankruptcy, the Petitioner was owed approximately... well, not approximately... was owed $41,171, and it had perfected a lien on the... under State law.\nPetitioner sought, under Section 362, to lift the automatic stay and to repossess the truck.\nRespondents objected, sought to keep the truck as necessary for their reorganization, and asked the court to value the truck at $28,500.\nThey proposed to pay that amount, plus interest, and then to strip the lien from the... from the Petitioner.\nBoth sides offered expert testimony on the value of the truck.\nThe Respondents' expert valued it at retail, at $42,500.\nOur expert valued it at $41,000.\nAnd the... the Respondents' expert also valued it at wholesale, at $31,875, which he got to by discounting by 25 percent the retail value.\nAnd all of these numbers were derived, essentially, from standard industry bluebooks.\nThe Bankruptcy Court, the District Court and the Court of Appeals all concluded that, under these circumstances, they had to decide the question as a matter of law, which is the proper method of valuation, wholesale or retail.\nIn doing so, they quite properly turned to Section 506(a) of the Code.\nUnfortunately, they misconstrued that provision.\n506(a) has two sentences.\nThe first sentence tells you what you value.\nAnd as this Court held in Timbers, that phrase simply tells you that you value the creditor's collateral.\nThe first sentence says nothing about how you value the collateral.\nThe second sentence, which is reproduced on page 3 of the Petitioner's brief, says that the way you value collateral is that you... is that you value... shall be determined in light of the proposed disposition or use of such property.\nNow, the Court is fond of observing, generally speaking, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [68.055, 70.348, 86.998, 103.607, 109.143, 118.317, 127.975, 133.478, 141.055, 146.066, 149.539, 153.881, 156.483, 168.082, 172.253, 182.531, 187.163, 190.265, 193.627, 196.019, 201.192, 205.085, 217.204], "stop_times": [70.348, 86.998, 103.607, 109.143, 118.317, 127.975, 133.478, 141.055, 146.066, 149.539, 153.881, 156.483, 168.082, 172.253, 182.531, 187.163, 190.265, 193.627, 196.019, 201.192, 205.085, 217.204, 220.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.055}, "reply_to": "20327__0_000", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_002", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You left out part of the sentence, though, I think, didn't you, Mr. Phillips?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [220.636], "stop_times": [222.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.636}, "reply_to": "20327__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_003", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [222.116], "stop_times": [222.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 222.116}, "reply_to": "20327__0_002", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_004", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You left out part of the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [222.527], "stop_times": [223.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 222.527}, "reply_to": "20327__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_005", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That's true.\nYou're supposed to do it in light of the purposes of the valuation and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [223.809, 224.596], "stop_times": [224.596, 227.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.809}, "reply_to": "20327__0_004", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_006", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Is it... or of the... or, and of the proposed disposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [227.41], "stop_times": [229.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 227.41}, "reply_to": "20327__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_007", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [229.191], "stop_times": [229.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.191}, "reply_to": "20327__0_006", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_008", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [229.381], "stop_times": [229.892], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 229.381}, "reply_to": "20327__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__0_009", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Right.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [229.892, 230.29], "stop_times": [230.29, 230.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.892}, "reply_to": "20327__0_008", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_010", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [230.991], "stop_times": [231.422], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 230.991}, "reply_to": "20327__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__0_011", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I will reread it: shall be determined in light of the proposed disposition or use of the property.\nSuggesting, as we... as we say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [231.422, 235.285], "stop_times": [235.285, 236.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.422}, "reply_to": "20327__0_010", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_012", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No, in light of the purpose of the valuation and of proposed disposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [236.485], "stop_times": [240.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.485}, "reply_to": "20327__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_013", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nAlthough there is no dispute between the parties about the purpose of the valuation, so I... I skipped over that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [240.769, 241.039], "stop_times": [241.039, 245.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.769}, "reply_to": "20327__0_012", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_014", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "What was the purpose of the valuation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [245.261], "stop_times": [246.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.261}, "reply_to": "20327__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_015", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, the purpose of the valuation here was to decide the full extent of our... of our collateral, for purposes of deciding how much money should be paid as part of... as part of the Chapter 13 reorganization.\nAnd there's no dispute over that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [246.743, 256.449], "stop_times": [256.449, 258.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.743}, "reply_to": "20327__0_014", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_016", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Now, I suppose, if the higher value had been placed on it, that the reorganization might not have occurred... at least that's what Respondents say.\nThey couldn't have made the payments.\nAnd then your client would have had to take a truck back and sell it, presumably at wholesale value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [258.731, 269.115, 270.537], "stop_times": [269.115, 270.537, 277.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.731}, "reply_to": "20327__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__0_017", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That... that is correct, Your Honor.\nBut we would have been perfectly happy with that, because that's what we proposed in the first instance.\nBut it's not at all clear, and it's simply speculation as to whether or not this Chapter 13 reorganization would have succeeded or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [277.561, 279.053, 282.836], "stop_times": [279.053, 282.836, 289.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.561}, "reply_to": "20327__0_016", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_018", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, in any event, the thing proceeded, and Respondents made payments for 5 years, and presumably have completed this thing.\nNow, if you prevail, what's going to happen on remand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [289.73, 297.727], "stop_times": [297.727, 301.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.73}, "reply_to": "20327__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__0_019", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, what the Respondent said in opposition to the stay in the Bankruptcy Court was that they remain on the hook to pay back Associates for the amount of money that's owed.\nAnd it's approximately $7,000... is the difference between what they paid and what we think they should have paid.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [301.129, 311.014, 315.448], "stop_times": [311.014, 315.448, 316.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.129}, "reply_to": "20327__0_018", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_020", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Now, there are no warranties, I guess, left on the truck as far as the debtor is concerned at this point... I mean at the point they kept the truck.\nDoes that have to be taken into consideration in setting a value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [316.037, 325.714], "stop_times": [325.714, 330.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.037}, "reply_to": "20327__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__0_021", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, the appraiser can... ordinarily, I think the appraiser would take into consideration what is on the truck.\nI mean what you're being asked to do is to replace the truck that that particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [330.348, 335.682], "stop_times": [335.682, 339.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 330.348}, "reply_to": "20327__0_020", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_022", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, and it might... it might not be straight blue book wholesale value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [339.283], "stop_times": [344.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.283}, "reply_to": "20327__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__0_023", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Right.\nBut then the appraiser could... could adjust it, to take into account precisely what's on the truck.\nJust as if, for some reason, there was something very special that he put on the truck that he paid for that wasn't part of the secured interest.\nI don't think that we would get the higher value of that, as we say in the brief.\nYou know, you would look at it as a truck to replace, essentially, what the secured interest is, what is the collateral.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [344.847, 345.057, 348.337, 355.272, 358.425], "stop_times": [345.057, 348.337, 355.272, 358.425, 363.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.847}, "reply_to": "20327__0_022", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_024", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, just on this preliminary point, there was some payment to be made to the unsecured creditors I think a few years down the line, was there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [363.097], "stop_times": [370.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.097}, "reply_to": "20327__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__0_025", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yes, there was money paid to unsecured creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [370.092], "stop_times": [371.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.092}, "reply_to": "20327__0_024", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_026", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "All right.\nSo... so if the replacement value had been granted, maybe this is just a question between the secured and unsecured creditors, not between the debtor and the secured creditors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [371.765, 372.143], "stop_times": [372.143, 379.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.765}, "reply_to": "20327__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__0_027", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Generally speaking, that is going to be the case.\nIs this... the question is whether or not the unsecureds get anything--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [379.9, 381.59], "stop_times": [381.59, 384.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 379.9}, "reply_to": "20327__0_026", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_028", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, then--\n--Sorry.\nNo, that's okay.\nWere you finished?\nOr if it would be the case, and I think it would be.\nThe words \"wholesale\" and \"retail\" don't appear in this statute.\nSo I take it Congress wanted to leave it up to the bankruptcy judge, pretty much.\nAnd why wouldn't the bankruptcy judge be sensible in saying, well, the value includes whatever will be disputed between the unsecured and secured creditors?\nBut, as in this case, if you value it at 41,000, and then he can't even go into the... Chapter 13 because he just doesn't have that money, that couldn't possibly be the value.\nThere's no theory on which that would be the value, because if you value it at that, there won't be a Chapter 13 reorganization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [384.051, 384.272, 384.903, 386.144, 387.243, 389.676, 392.829, 397.191, 409.419, 419.585], "stop_times": [384.272, 384.903, 386.144, 387.243, 389.676, 392.829, 397.191, 409.419, 419.585, 425.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.051}, "reply_to": "20327__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__0_029", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [425.738], "stop_times": [426.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 425.738}, "reply_to": "20327__0_028", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_030", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "So we cut back the value in order to make certain he gets into the reorganization, he puts in his disposable income that you get the amount insofar as it's in dispute between the creditors.\nNow, that kind of result seems fair.\nAnd it would be very case specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [426.139, 435.145, 436.975], "stop_times": [435.145, 436.975, 439.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 426.139}, "reply_to": "20327__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__0_031", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, no, that kind of result seems to undo the statute.\nChapter 13 is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [439.418, 442.33], "stop_times": [442.33, 443.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 439.418}, "reply_to": "20327__0_030", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_032", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "It doesn't say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [443.66], "stop_times": [445.102], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 443.66}, "reply_to": "20327__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__0_033", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--essentially, a right that all debtors have.\nThey have a choice between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13.\nAnd if their debts are... are too great to allow them to reorganize under Chapter 13, then they have to put up with... under... with Chapter 7.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [445.102, 445.831, 448.264], "stop_times": [445.831, 448.264, 456.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.102}, "reply_to": "20327__0_032", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_034", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But how could the... the value for purposes of a Chapter 13 reorganization, insofar as that exceeds what your client would get in a liquidation, couldn't... it's nonexistent if there isn't going to be a Chapter 13 reorganization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [456.109], "stop_times": [469.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.109}, "reply_to": "20327__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__0_035", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But... but it seems to me that you... you... you have to look at the language of the statute.\nAnd Section 506(a) says look at the proposed disposition or the proposed use.\nNow, if... if he cannot use it and successfully come out of Chapter 13, then he is required to go under Chapter 7.\nAnd you don't avoid the Chapter 7 problem by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [469.957, 472.909, 477.463, 486.019], "stop_times": [472.909, 477.463, 486.019, 488.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.957}, "reply_to": "20327__0_034", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_036", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "In other words, you... you don't agree that... that a secured interest is not a secured interest if... if its existence would prevent Chapter 13?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [488.35], "stop_times": [495.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.35}, "reply_to": "20327__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__0_037", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Exactly.\nExactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [495.696, 496.235], "stop_times": [496.235, 497.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.696}, "reply_to": "20327__0_036", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_038", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That sounds reasonable to me, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [497.086], "stop_times": [498.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.086}, "reply_to": "20327__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__0_039", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [498.187], "stop_times": [498.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.187}, "reply_to": "20327__0_038", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_040", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Isn't it also relevant, Mr. Phillips, that... and... the Chapter 13 proposal was not that your client get the security back at whatever value, but that the security remain in the hands of the debtor and continue to depreciate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [498.758], "stop_times": [514.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.758}, "reply_to": "20327__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__0_041", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That's... that's... that's exactly right, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnd... and the point I was starting to move toward, which is the rule of construction, that the Fifth Circuit relied upon and that I think, really, is where they made the fundamental error in this case, is by saying that the State law rights that are implicated here favor requiring us to show by clear and unambiguous language that our interpretation of the statute is the correct one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [514.546, 516.957], "stop_times": [516.957, 536.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.546}, "reply_to": "20327__0_040", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_042", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Phillips, may I... may I ask you about the Fifth Circuit, because I thought that the main point for Judge King was based on the Federal statute as much... well, more than the State law point that you were about to deal with.\nShe looked to 1325, and she said, now there are two things the debtor can do in this situation.\nAnd one is surrender the collateral.\nGive it back to the creditor.\nAnd then it would have what's been called wholesale value.\nThe other thing is leave it with the debtor and value it.\nThe question that she put was, why should there be different results whether which of those two routes the creditor who doesn't want to go along with the reorganization... which... which route that is... is picked by the debtor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [536.061, 550.24, 558.437, 560.097, 562.458, 566.402, 570.796], "stop_times": [550.24, 558.437, 560.097, 562.458, 566.402, 570.796, 589.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.061}, "reply_to": "20327__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__0_043", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Right.\nAnd the answer to that is twofold.\nOne is that the language suggests... proposed disposition or proposed use... which suggests that there are different methods of valuation.\nAnd second of all, there's no reason to assume equivalence between what you do if you give up the property and what you do when you retain the property and use it as part of a successful reorganization.\nThere's clearly a difference in the valuation.\nBoth parties agree on that.\nAnd the only question is who should get the benefit of the difference in the valuation.\nIf you use always a hypothetical foreclosure value, then... then... then there's... you never have any advantages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [589.606, 590.357, 591.96, 598.222, 607.127, 609.13, 610.991, 615.034], "stop_times": [590.357, 591.96, 598.222, 607.127, 609.13, 610.991, 615.034, 622.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.606}, "reply_to": "20327__0_042", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_044", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But I thought the question was putting... what... what rationale would the legislature have for having two different... one much more favorable to the secured creditor?\nAnd I thought that that was the point.\nWouldn't one logically expect, in the balance between the secured and unsecured, either of those routes to yield the same end result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [622.488, 632.245, 636.516], "stop_times": [632.245, 636.516, 647.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.488}, "reply_to": "20327__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__0_045", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, again, I don't think so.\nAnd the reason is, in part, the Congress envisioned that there would be negotiations between the parties on these kinds of issues.\nAnd you can only negotiate if you have some kind of differential in the valuations.\nAnd if you use the same hypothetical foreclosure valuation, you'll always end up with the same number.\nWhich means there is no basis for negotiation between the debtor and the creditor in any particular case.\nAnd it seems clearly... and there's nothing in anything that supports the notion that going along on the disposed use... I mean going along with the proposed use, as opposed to proposed disposition, is meant to get you to the same value.\nIt doesn't.\nThe assumption is, is that it will create more value, because it's going to be used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [647.345, 648.685, 655.911, 659.514, 663.746, 668.827, 680.287, 681.366], "stop_times": [648.685, 655.911, 659.514, 663.746, 668.827, 680.287, 681.366, 685.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.345}, "reply_to": "20327__0_044", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_046", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "If... if that is your... your theory, if we adopt that theory, then would it be an abuse of discretion or a violation of the statute for a judge... a bankruptcy judge to adopt Judge Posner's solution, which is just split the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [685.62], "stop_times": [697.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.62}, "reply_to": "20327__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__0_047", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, it would be a violation of the statute, because, again, the statute tells you to look at the proposed use or proposed disposition, and... and Judge Posner's analysis does neither of those things.\nIt does an amalgam of the two.\nAnd so, therefore, it has no statutory basis.\nIt's much like the rule that the Court condemned in BFP, the 70 percent rule, that said if you deviate by 70 percent.\nI mean it's a good rule and it might make good policy and Congress might want to adopt it, but there's nothing in the statute that... that remotely supports it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [697.488, 706.763, 708.665, 710.855, 716.919], "stop_times": [706.763, 708.665, 710.855, 716.919, 722.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.488}, "reply_to": "20327__0_046", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_048", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But, in particular--\n--Go on.\nNo, please.\nGo.\nIn particular cases that might be a sensible thing for... for the... for the judge to do, I take it.\nThe judge might very well say, well, you know, I don't know whether they buy it for a dollar more than the foreclosure value or a dollar less than retail.\nAnd the evidence is unclear.\nSo the only fair thing for me to do in this particular case is to split the difference.\nI... I take it you're not ruling out that possibility in individual cases, or are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [722.863, 723.514, 724.315, 725.145, 725.475, 730.059, 739.326, 741.357, 745.518], "stop_times": [723.514, 724.315, 725.145, 725.475, 730.059, 739.326, 741.357, 745.518, 749.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.863}, "reply_to": "20327__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__0_049", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, I'd have to see the particular case.\nIt seems to me that if the evidence in the record is that there are two very distinct appraisal values and they are supported by solid testimony, it seems to me you'd probably be obliged to take one rather than the other, rather than split the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [749.661, 751.571], "stop_times": [751.571, 762.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.661}, "reply_to": "20327__0_048", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_050", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, one party says, well... we... we can reasonably hypothesize three bidders at the foreclosure for the... for the disposal of the... of the property, and there's a fight about that.\nThere might be cases in which the court could say, look, I... I... I can't calibrate these probabilities, and the only sensible thing to do is to say it's somewhere in the middle.\nYou don't rule out that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [762.541, 774.769, 783.424], "stop_times": [774.769, 783.424, 784.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.541}, "reply_to": "20327__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__0_051", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I don't rule that out.\nThe important part about that, though, to keep in mind is, is that's not the difference between the hypothetical foreclosure value and the use value.\nWhat I'm looking at... what you're talking about are two different use values and trying to resolve those by splitting the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [784.685, 785.205, 793.018], "stop_times": [785.205, 793.018, 798.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.685}, "reply_to": "20327__0_050", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_052", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But your argument is you simply cannot construe the statute, as a matter of law, to require that median figure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [798.722], "stop_times": [804.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.722}, "reply_to": "20327__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__0_053", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [804.318], "stop_times": [805.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.318}, "reply_to": "20327__0_052", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_054", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That's your understanding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [805.217], "stop_times": [805.938], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 805.217}, "reply_to": "20327__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__0_055", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [805.938], "stop_times": [806.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.938}, "reply_to": "20327__0_054", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_056", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Phillips, let me ask, while I do not agree with Justice Breyer's suggestion that the valuation should be whatever it takes to enable the 13 to proceed, there is some textual basis for... for saying that.\nWhat meaning do you give to the... to the other portion?\nYou say both parties agree as to what the purpose of the valuation was.\nBut... but what... what is the meaning of that: Such value shall be determined... we're discussing here... in light of the proposed disposition or use?\nBut it also says: in light of the purpose of the valuation.\nWhat... what does that mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [806.158, 821.358, 824.751, 828.882, 836.449, 839.371], "stop_times": [821.358, 824.751, 828.882, 836.449, 839.371, 840.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.158}, "reply_to": "20327__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__0_057", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, there are lots of different situations which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [840.83], "stop_times": [843.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 840.83}, "reply_to": "20327__0_056", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_058", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And a lot of different purposes.\nWhy would its valuation be different for one purpose rather than another?\nI'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [843.061, 843.883, 847.345], "stop_times": [843.883, 847.345, 848.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 843.061}, "reply_to": "20327__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__0_059", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, it depends on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [848.026], "stop_times": [849.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.026}, "reply_to": "20327__0_058", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_060", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Give me an example of... of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [849.236], "stop_times": [850.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.236}, "reply_to": "20327__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__0_061", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Of a situation where that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [850.938], "stop_times": [852.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.938}, "reply_to": "20327__0_060", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_062", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--in which the purpose would... would... would produce a different valuation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [852.258], "stop_times": [855.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.258}, "reply_to": "20327__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__0_063", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, my guess is it might make a difference whether or not you are trying to decide whether the outstanding debt puts you into Chapter 13 in the first place, because there are limits on how much debt you can carry into Chapter 13.\nSo you might value that differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [855.069, 865.376], "stop_times": [865.376, 867.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.069}, "reply_to": "20327__0_062", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_064", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Now, why... why should that affect the valuation you give?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [867.116], "stop_times": [868.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.116}, "reply_to": "20327__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__0_065", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, if Congress had made clear... and... and I'm speculating here, because I don't know the answer to this... but if Congress indicated a preference at the edges to have more cases into Chapter 13, where it's close, you might, under those circumstances, attempt to value the outstanding debt in a way that would make it, you know, less in order to bring them into Chapter 13.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [868.568], "stop_times": [886.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.568}, "reply_to": "20327__0_064", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_066", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Okay.\nBut you don't think Congress has indicated any preference for Section... for Chapter 13?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [886.801, 887.032], "stop_times": [887.032, 889.283], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 886.801}, "reply_to": "20327__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__0_067", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Not... not with the language \"proposed disposition or use\".\nI think what Congress has clearly indicated is that if you have a proposed use, then you should value it from the perspective of what the debtor would pay in order to be able to acquire that exact same property and to use it.\nAnd... and I think it's important... I want to go back to the rule of construction, because I think it's vital to the... the proper outcome of this case.\nWe're dealing with a situation here where the Court of Appeals said that the problem is... is that your rights under State law are measured by foreclosure value.\nNow, our rights are not measured by the foreclosure value.\nOur rights are measured by the lien.\nAnd the lien, it protects us all the way through to the actual payment.\nIt's supposed to protect the stream of payments.\nThat's the vital element of what our State rights are.\nAnd to come in here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [889.283, 892.275, 903.05, 908.744, 916.1, 919.543, 921.223, 925.067, 927.848, 929.929], "stop_times": [892.275, 903.05, 908.744, 916.1, 919.543, 921.223, 925.067, 927.848, 929.929, 930.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.283}, "reply_to": "20327__0_066", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_068", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yes, but it only gives that protection to the extent that there... the value of the lien can be realized through sale of the collateral.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [930.861], "stop_times": [936.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.861}, "reply_to": "20327__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_069", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--No, that's not true, Your Honor.\nI mean it is true that you have a remedy to sell the collateral, but that's not the end of your right.\nYou're still entitled to a judgment for the amount of the debt that's outstanding.\nAnd that's how your State law right is defined.\nAnd that really is the mistake that the Court of Appeals made.\nWe have a much broader State law right, which ought to be valued here.\nAnd this Court said both Radford and in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [936.534, 938.195, 942.418, 945.569, 947.86, 950.301, 953.724], "stop_times": [938.195, 942.418, 945.569, 947.86, 950.301, 953.724, 955.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.534}, "reply_to": "20327__0_068", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_070", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I'm really puzzled by that.\nBecause if you proceeded under State law, you'd get what the other side says you should have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [955.825, 956.415], "stop_times": [956.415, 960.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.825}, "reply_to": "20327__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_071", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--No, no.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [960.379, 961.488], "stop_times": [961.488, 961.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.379}, "reply_to": "20327__0_070", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_072", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You would foreclose, you'd sell the it and you would get the wholesale value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [961.689], "stop_times": [964.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.689}, "reply_to": "20327__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_073", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--And I'd still be entitled to the difference between what the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [964.033], "stop_times": [968.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 964.033}, "reply_to": "20327__0_072", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_074", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "The deficiency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [968.465], "stop_times": [970.247], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 968.465}, "reply_to": "20327__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__0_075", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--the under amount and the amount of the actual debt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [970.247], "stop_times": [971.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.247}, "reply_to": "20327__0_074", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_076", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, but you still are here as a general creditor, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [971.797], "stop_times": [973.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.797}, "reply_to": "20327__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_077", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, I understand that.\nBut we're not... we're not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [973.7, 974.649], "stop_times": [974.649, 975.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.7}, "reply_to": "20327__0_076", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_078", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Which is all you'd be under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [975.72], "stop_times": [976.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.72}, "reply_to": "20327__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_079", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--But we're not distributing it under those circumstances.\nThat's the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [976.62, 978.963], "stop_times": [978.963, 979.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.62}, "reply_to": "20327__0_078", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_080", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No.\nBut under State law, if you had a $50,000 debt, secured by collateral worth 40,000, you'd foreclose, you'd get your 40,000, and you'd be a general creditor for the 10,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [979.551, 979.952], "stop_times": [979.952, 988.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.551}, "reply_to": "20327__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_081", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No.\n--but that's if I'm in bankruptcy.\nUnder State law, I'd... I'd foreclose and I'd go and ask him--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [988.527, 988.697, 989.518], "stop_times": [988.697, 989.518, 992.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.527}, "reply_to": "20327__0_080", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_082", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You would be under State law, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [992.359], "stop_times": [992.83], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 992.359}, "reply_to": "20327__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__0_083", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--ask him for the extra money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [992.83], "stop_times": [993.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.83}, "reply_to": "20327__0_082", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_084", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, but here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [993.571], "stop_times": [994.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.571}, "reply_to": "20327__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__0_085", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--and I'd go against the other assets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [994.661], "stop_times": [996.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.661}, "reply_to": "20327__0_084", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_086", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Here you don't... you don't get to have your security back.\nIt's still in the hands of the debtor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [996.253, 999.395], "stop_times": [999.395, 1001.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.253}, "reply_to": "20327__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__0_087", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1001.676], "stop_times": [1002.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.676}, "reply_to": "20327__0_086", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_088", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And all you're getting is... is periodic payments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1002.026], "stop_times": [1004.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.026}, "reply_to": "20327__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__0_089", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Exactly.\nAnd that is precisely what the Court said in Radford.\nYou don't expect Congress to do... unless it does it expressly.\nAnd Congress clearly didn't do it expressly here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1004.538, 1004.838, 1007.049, 1010.292], "stop_times": [1004.838, 1007.049, 1010.292, 1012.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.538}, "reply_to": "20327__0_088", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_090", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, but you're getting the periodic payment.\nIs it not true, though, that you do have the status of a general creditor as to the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1012.573, 1013.053], "stop_times": [1013.053, 1016.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.573}, "reply_to": "20327__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__0_091", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "As to the difference, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1016.256], "stop_times": [1018.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.256}, "reply_to": "20327__0_090", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_092", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1018.026], "stop_times": [1018.267], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.026}, "reply_to": "20327__0_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__0_093", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1018.267], "stop_times": [1020.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.267}, "reply_to": "20327__0_092", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__0_094", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Very well, Mr. Phillips.\nMr. Jones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1020.5, 1021.65], "stop_times": [1021.65, 1022.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.5}, "reply_to": "20327__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__1_000", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe common sense... the history of the statute, in this Court's opinion in Whiting Pools, all reflect that when collateral is retained for the use of the debtor, it has a going concern or fair market value that exceeds its liquidation value and that enhances the value of the secured claim.\nThis additional value--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1022.82, 1031.445, 1048.276], "stop_times": [1031.445, 1048.276, 1049.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1022.82}, "reply_to": "20327__0_094", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_001", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Kent, could you... could you explain to me, then, what Judge Easterbrook meant, because you just made this common sense proposition.\nThis is quoted in the appendix to the petition for cert at 30-31... it's something the Fifth Circuit seemed to rely on... that there was no real difference between these two values when you take out of the so-called retail value the things that don't relate to the object itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1049.778, 1057.283], "stop_times": [1057.283, 1075.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.778}, "reply_to": "20327__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__1_002", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, Judge Easterbrook, in that part of his opinion, in the, what, Hansen case, I believe, was... was thinking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1075.165], "stop_times": [1082.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1075.165}, "reply_to": "20327__1_001", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_003", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Samson against Alton Bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1082.008], "stop_times": [1083.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.008}, "reply_to": "20327__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__1_004", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Ah, okay.\nJudge... that's a different opinion than the one I was referring to.\nWhat Judge Easterbrook may have been referring to is the difference between cost, replacement cost, and value.\nReplacement cost could include items that would not need to be spent if the item were to be replaced from the own inventory, if you will, of the debtor.\nBut that doesn't have... that cost doesn't relate to the value of the asset.\nThe value of the asset is dependent upon what... is dependent upon what the use... what use can be made of it.\nAnd a debtor can't reasonably say that the value of the asset in his possession has a different value than it would in the possession of anyone else who used the same sort of property.\nCongress used an objective term, \"value\".\nAnd value in that sense is what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1083.37, 1084.701, 1087.242, 1092.615, 1102.132, 1104.874, 1112.93, 1122.835, 1125.387], "stop_times": [1084.701, 1087.242, 1092.615, 1102.132, 1104.874, 1112.93, 1122.835, 1125.387, 1127.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1083.37}, "reply_to": "20327__1_003", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_005", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "May I, just before... you're talking about replacement... market value rather than replacement cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1127.39], "stop_times": [1131.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.39}, "reply_to": "20327__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__1_006", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Replacement cost is... is a term that can be used to describe value in the sense that value is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller to... for the right to use the same property.\nThat's the way the Court defined it in the BFP case.\nAnd there's something important in BFP that really is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1131.213, 1143.84, 1145.861], "stop_times": [1143.84, 1145.861, 1148.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1131.213}, "reply_to": "20327__1_005", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_007", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "In your submission, is that the same or different from replacement cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1148.823], "stop_times": [1151.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.823}, "reply_to": "20327__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__1_008", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, replacement cost is normally what a willing buyer would pay a willing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1151.964], "stop_times": [1160.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1151.964}, "reply_to": "20327__1_007", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_009", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You can't answer it yes or no, our favorite thing to lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1160.361], "stop_times": [1161.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.361}, "reply_to": "20327__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__1_010", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, I would say it's the same, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1161.671], "stop_times": [1163.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1161.671}, "reply_to": "20327__1_009", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_011", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "It's the same, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1163.443], "stop_times": [1163.842], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.443}, "reply_to": "20327__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__1_012", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--But I... but... but it depends on who is paying it.\nI mean if you use the objective concept of the willing buyer and the willing seller, it's the same.\nYes.\nBFP makes the point that the difference between a liquidation value and a fair market value is that fair market value is realized if an ample opportunity is given to realize the full value of the collateral.\nThat's exactly what a Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 reorganization do.\nThey give the debtor the opportunity, the ample opportunities, the Court said in BFP, to realize the full value of the collateral.\nNow, that is the value... the difference between the fair market value and the liquidation value, that premium or surplus, whatever you want to call it, is the heart of the reorganization concept.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1163.842, 1165.945, 1170.87, 1171.441, 1183.727, 1188.06, 1195.116], "stop_times": [1165.945, 1170.87, 1171.441, 1183.727, 1188.06, 1195.116, 1205.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1163.842}, "reply_to": "20327__1_011", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_013", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But, in a sense, the security owner ought to be able to get the same amount of money, if... if it took its time and sold the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1205.621], "stop_times": [1216.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.621}, "reply_to": "20327__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__1_014", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Congress didn't... didn't write the statute that way.\nAnd... and... and nor does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1216.31, 1219.851], "stop_times": [1219.851, 1221.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1216.31}, "reply_to": "20327__1_013", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_015", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "In theory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1221.724], "stop_times": [1222.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.724}, "reply_to": "20327__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__1_016", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--as a practical matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1222.372], "stop_times": [1223.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1222.372}, "reply_to": "20327__1_015", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_017", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--As a practical matter, it seems to me they might be pretty close together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1223.293], "stop_times": [1227.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.293}, "reply_to": "20327__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__1_018", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--What... what Section 506(a) does, by distinguishing between disposition and use, distinguishes between a liquidation and a reorganization.\nAnd in a reorganization, what Congress had in mind was that there would be this surplus value created.\nIt's... it's like Pareto optimality.\nEveryone, debtor and creditor alike, are going to be made better off.\nAnd no one is going to be made worse off than they would be in a liquidation.\nThe provisions of Sections 1325 and 1129 that... that invoke this valuation process make clear that Congress didn't intend a liquidation value to apply when collateral is retained by the debtor.\nThere is a little bit of text here, but I've got to go through it.\n1325(a)(5) and 1129(b)(2) both provide that the debtor can retain the collateral in a reorganization if it pays the allowed amount of the secured claim as determined under Section 506.\nSections 1325(a)(4) and 1129(a)(7), by contrast, say that an unsecured creditor is only guaranteed to get, in a reorganization, what he would get if the property had been liquidated.\nSo Congress clearly distinguished between the treatment of a security... secured claim and an unsecured claim in reorganizations.\nWhat the Court of Appeals did in this case was to say, we're going to give them exactly the same train, we're going to... treatment... we're going to abolish the distinction, because a secured creditor, like an unsecured creditor, will only receive the liquidation value of the asset... what he would have gotten if there had been a liquidation.\nThat result plainly violates a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation, because it nullifies the careful distinctions that Congress made between secured and unsecured claims in these reorganization cases.\nSection 506(a) itself, of course, specifies that this value is to be determined based upon the proposed disposition and use of the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1227.487, 1237.752, 1243.025, 1245.098, 1249.23, 1253.354, 1266.752, 1269.943, 1284.383, 1296.921, 1303.046, 1320.216, 1332.785], "stop_times": [1237.752, 1243.025, 1245.098, 1249.23, 1253.354, 1266.752, 1269.943, 1284.383, 1296.921, 1303.046, 1320.216, 1332.785, 1341.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1227.487}, "reply_to": "20327__1_017", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_019", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yes.\nAnd what... do you have any notion as to what the other thing, in... in light of the purpose of the valuation... do you have any notion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1341.461, 1341.681], "stop_times": [1341.681, 1347.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.461}, "reply_to": "20327__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__1_020", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, an example of a... of a different purpose for the valuation would be to... when a creditor wants adequate protection for the use... for the temporary use of the asset during the period before... during... for example, before a liquidation or at some point during the process of the reorganization.\n361--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1347.225, 1365.327], "stop_times": [1365.327, 1367.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1347.225}, "reply_to": "20327__1_019", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_021", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, why would you give it a different valuation for that purpose than you would for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1367.077], "stop_times": [1370.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.077}, "reply_to": "20327__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__1_022", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, it's not some... it's not necessarily the... I'm no... I can't answer, in the abstract, that there would be a different valuation for that.\nIt's just that you would want to know what the purpose of the valuation was.\nBecause, in 361, when you're determining whether... what you're supposed to decide is whether the collateral is diminishing in value by its use during the reorganization procedures.\nAnd so, in deciding how much it's diminishing in value, I suppose you... the purpose would be to focus on that.\nWhereas here, the purpose is to determine what is the value to be realized from the use of the collateral... what would a willing buyer pay a willing seller for the right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1370.239, 1376.653, 1380.286, 1389.653, 1396.736], "stop_times": [1376.653, 1380.286, 1389.653, 1396.736, 1404.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1370.239}, "reply_to": "20327__1_021", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_023", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--You're always going to have a possible difference in valuation.\nIf you simply take something out and sell it at forced sale as opposed to, say, renting it for a couple of years and... with an assured tenant, there is going to be a difference in valuation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1404.552, 1408.003], "stop_times": [1408.003, 1417.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.552}, "reply_to": "20327__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__1_024", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Absolutely.\nAnd... and in Whiting Pools, this Court noted that Congress fully understood that you... that... that the... in a reorganization, when the debtor is allowed to retain the collateral, that the... the value would be greater than what I think the Court said it would be if they scrapped it, if they sold it at a foreclosure sale.\nAnd in BFP, as I've already mentioned, the Court explained that the difference... well, I didn't mention this... I meant to... that in BFP--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1417.971, 1418.662, 1436.012], "stop_times": [1418.662, 1436.012, 1442.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1417.971}, "reply_to": "20327__1_023", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_025", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You were about to.\n[Laughter]\nSomebody interrupted you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1442.707, 1443.676, 1443.947], "stop_times": [1443.676, 1443.947, 1445.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.707}, "reply_to": "20327__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__1_026", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--In 10 minutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1445.669], "stop_times": [1446.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1445.669}, "reply_to": "20327__1_025", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_027", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--just as I'm doing now, right?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1446.07, 1446.709], "stop_times": [1446.709, 1447.24], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.07}, "reply_to": "20327__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__1_028", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--It's just kind of all blends together.\nThat in BFP, the Court explained the difference between a liquidation value and a fair market value... well, I did say this... is the... is that you have an ample opportunity to make the... to make... to realize the full value of the collateral.\nThat is what reorganizations give you.\nThey give you that ample opportunity to get that value.\nAnd the value that you've gotten is the value that is referred to in 506(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1447.24, 1448.131, 1461.428, 1463.501, 1466.503], "stop_times": [1448.131, 1461.428, 1463.501, 1466.503, 1471.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1447.24}, "reply_to": "20327__1_027", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_029", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Is... is it possible that... accepting for argument's sake all your arguments... that it's better to give this money to the secured creditor, basically, than the unsecured?\nStill, doesn't what he's argued in his red brief at least set a ceiling on what you can... I mean, in other words, if it's impossible for the person to go into reorganization--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1471.155, 1479.66], "stop_times": [1479.66, 1489.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.155}, "reply_to": "20327__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__1_030", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1489.407], "stop_times": [1490.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1489.407}, "reply_to": "20327__1_029", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_031", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--unless you lop off some of this surplus... well, then, I don't see how you could value the secured interest at an amount that includes what we've just seen is lopped off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1490.639], "stop_times": [1500.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.639}, "reply_to": "20327__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__1_032", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "The only reason we're... the only purpose of the valuation involved in this case is if he does qualify for a 13, if there is a surplus that will be realized.\nSometimes debtors can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1500.136, 1508.32], "stop_times": [1508.32, 1509.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1500.136}, "reply_to": "20327__1_031", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_033", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But he said, I think, that he couldn't qualify if he had to... if he had to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1509.81], "stop_times": [1513.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.81}, "reply_to": "20327__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__1_034", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Sometimes debtors' business situation is such that they cannot... they cannot generate the surplus.\nThey cannot... don't forget, 1325(a)(5)(B) will require that debtor to pay the value of this collateral if he's going to use it.\nAnd Chapter 13 is only available if a debtor can meet that requirement.\nAnd a debtor who can't meet that requirement, because, for example, his business roots might... might... might not recognize the income available from such an asset, is a... is a debtor who may not qualify under Chapter 13.\nCongress did not mean to let anyone qualify.\nThey were very severe about the requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1513.293, 1519.006, 1528.624, 1533.026, 1546.585, 1549.057], "stop_times": [1519.006, 1528.624, 1533.026, 1546.585, 1549.057, 1551.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1513.293}, "reply_to": "20327__1_033", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_035", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Of course, they would not open-end that valuation based on anything that will let the man qualify.\nBut what if the condition is that he would qualify as long as he provides the creditor with as much as the creditor would realize if the creditor foreclosed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1551.258, 1555.831], "stop_times": [1555.831, 1563.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.258}, "reply_to": "20327__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__1_036", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, that's exactly what he has to give unsecured creditors.\nThat's what he has to make sure unsecured creditors get.\nAnd that was the point I was making earlier.\n1325(a)(5) says that for a secured creditor, he's got to give them the allowed amount of the allowed secured claim as determined under Section 506.\nBy doing that, Congress meant clearly to provide a different result for the secured creditor than the unsecured creditor.\nBut what the Court did here was to treat them identically.\nAnd that deprived the words of the statute of any plausible meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1563.625, 1566.568, 1570.251, 1572.482, 1580.657, 1587.471, 1589.612], "stop_times": [1566.568, 1570.251, 1572.482, 1580.657, 1587.471, 1589.612, 1593.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1563.625}, "reply_to": "20327__1_035", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_037", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1593.365], "stop_times": [1595.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.365}, "reply_to": "20327__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__1_038", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1595.496], "stop_times": [1595.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1595.496}, "reply_to": "20327__1_037", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20327__1_039", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Durkay, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1595.826], "stop_times": [1598.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.826}, "reply_to": "20327__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_000", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue before the Court today is the value of a truck.\nAnd the context is this: Instead of allowing the secured creditor to take back the truck and put it on the market to sell, the debtor is going to be allowed to retain the truck and use it in his business.\nIf I can make one comment, Chief Justice Rehnquist, about that that came up in one of your statements of concern earlier.\nRemember, the secured... the debtor is not just going to retain the collateral.\nHe's going to do a lot more than that.\nHe's going to be required, under the system to pay interest.\nHe's going to be required to answer to the strongest collection agent in the country, the Chapter 13 trustee.\nThe minute he's late there's going to be a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy.\nHe's got to maintain full insurance at all times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1598.027, 1600.689, 1604.412, 1615.812, 1625.396, 1629.249, 1630.329, 1633.561, 1640.447, 1644.12], "stop_times": [1600.689, 1604.412, 1615.812, 1625.396, 1629.249, 1630.329, 1633.561, 1640.447, 1644.12, 1647.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1598.027}, "reply_to": "20327__1_039", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_001", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But he does run the risk of seeing the collateral depreciate in value very sharply, does he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1647.552], "stop_times": [1654.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.552}, "reply_to": "20327__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_002", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "The secured creditor can insist that that depreciation never be faster than the amount of payments.\nThat's not 506.\nThat's 362.\nAnd adequate protection would apply in a Chapter 13 plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1654.485, 1660.519, 1662.832, 1664.392], "stop_times": [1660.519, 1662.832, 1664.392, 1666.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1654.485}, "reply_to": "20327__2_001", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_003", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1666.473], "stop_times": [1666.864], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.473}, "reply_to": "20327__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_004", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "This was, remember, not only a 502 hearing, but it was also a motion to stay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1666.864], "stop_times": [1671.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1666.864}, "reply_to": "20327__2_003", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_005", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Yeah, but none of the parties can fully anticipate what the bluebook on this particular truck is going to say 5 years from now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1671.468], "stop_times": [1678.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.468}, "reply_to": "20327__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_006", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.\nFinally, of course, he has to promise to preserve and maintain the collateral.\nYou know, your point is well taken in this sense.\nBut, remember, nobody knows what property is going to be worth in the future.\nThat's part of what we're doing.\nWe're trying to find out.\nNow, one of the things we do to try and find out is we go to people that know.\nI'd like to raise another question, I think, that's been raised already in argument, that there were two experts here.\nIf you read in the transcript on page 90, at the end of the hearing, the bankruptcy judge said there's only been one expert in this case.\nOne of the problems with the whole posturing of the case to this point in time, from the point of view of understanding where it's coming from, is in order to make sure that the Rashes were going to win their hearing and get a good confirmal plan, Mr. Baron and I made a tactical decision that we weren't going to come in and try to prove a forced sale or foreclosure sale or any of that.\nWe brought an appraiser in, who testified as to fair market value.\nThe fair market value of this truck is $31,875.\nAnd the judge, listening to the testimony, totally rejected the so-called testimony of... brought by the Associates.\nThe witness from the Associates had never seen the truck.\nHe admitted it.\nHe didn't even know what color it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1678.541, 1679.762, 1684.004, 1686.746, 1689.249, 1690.499, 1691.42, 1693.992, 1699.404, 1707.87, 1734.798, 1737.719, 1742.013, 1748.767, 1751.999, 1753.091], "stop_times": [1679.762, 1684.004, 1686.746, 1689.249, 1690.499, 1691.42, 1693.992, 1699.404, 1707.87, 1734.798, 1737.719, 1742.013, 1748.767, 1751.999, 1753.091, 1754.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1678.541}, "reply_to": "20327__2_005", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_007", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Never seen any truck or he hadn't seen this truck?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1754.172], "stop_times": [1756.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.172}, "reply_to": "20327__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_008", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That truck.\nWell, you know, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraiser Practice is a guide here.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1756.112, 1757.184, 1762.847], "stop_times": [1757.184, 1762.847, 1763.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.112}, "reply_to": "20327__2_007", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_009", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, but you're indicating by your tactical... your strategic decision that you made that you could have asked for foreclosure value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1763.037], "stop_times": [1769.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.037}, "reply_to": "20327__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__2_010", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--The Fifth Circuit says we could have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1769.152], "stop_times": [1772.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.152}, "reply_to": "20327__2_009", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_011", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1772.144], "stop_times": [1772.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.144}, "reply_to": "20327__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__2_012", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That's their opinion.\nWe didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1772.632, 1773.543], "stop_times": [1773.543, 1774.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.632}, "reply_to": "20327__2_011", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_013", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--But you didn't... in other words, you didn't even try that in the... in the... in the trial court.\nThat would have been your right under this theory of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1774.405, 1778.756], "stop_times": [1778.756, 1780.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.405}, "reply_to": "20327__2_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__2_014", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Right.\nAnd... and the reason was tactical.\nWe wanted to win.\nWe... we took a... we gave the number, 31,875--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1780.638, 1781.548, 1782.85, 1783.551], "stop_times": [1781.548, 1782.85, 1783.551, 1786.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.638}, "reply_to": "20327__2_013", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_015", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, was it... was it error, then, for the judge to find the value that he did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1786.873], "stop_times": [1789.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.873}, "reply_to": "20327__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__2_016", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--No, the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1789.875], "stop_times": [1790.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.875}, "reply_to": "20327__2_015", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_017", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I mean, your view of the case, he should have said, no, no, it's foreclosure value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1790.984], "stop_times": [1793.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.984}, "reply_to": "20327__2_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20327__2_018", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--No... well, it... it's at least foreclosure value.\nThat was the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1793.348, 1796.227], "stop_times": [1796.227, 1798.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.348}, "reply_to": "20327__2_017", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_019", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, so far as it's more than that... let's suppose it's... suppose, in the hands of your client, this is going to earn enough money so that he has plenty of money to... to pay what he owes, or much of it, why should the extra amount, up to the retail value or the replacement value, go to unsecured creditors rather than the person who had the foresight to take a secured interest in the truck?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1798.08], "stop_times": [1818.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.08}, "reply_to": "20327__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_020", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1818.924], "stop_times": [1819.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.924}, "reply_to": "20327__2_019", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_021", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That's the part that's worrying me the most.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1819.584], "stop_times": [1820.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.584}, "reply_to": "20327__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_022", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--I think what 506 says, if I can get directly to that, is that the Associates is entitled to be as well off as if they had taken the truck back and sold it.\nThey're not entitled to be better off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1820.974, 1831.711], "stop_times": [1831.711, 1833.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.974}, "reply_to": "20327__2_021", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_023", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, they're... if they took the truck back, it just says that's one of their options... C, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1833.824], "stop_times": [1839.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.824}, "reply_to": "20327__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_024", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1839.067], "stop_times": [1839.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.067}, "reply_to": "20327__2_023", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_025", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, they might use it themselves.\nThey might look around for a long time.\nThey might... who knows what they might do.\nAnd these things are always... all we know is they want to take it back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1839.337, 1841.088, 1843.179, 1845.031], "stop_times": [1841.088, 1843.179, 1845.031, 1847.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.337}, "reply_to": "20327__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_026", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1847.743], "stop_times": [1848.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.743}, "reply_to": "20327__2_025", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_027", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And so if they want to take it back, they must think they're better off.\nAnd... otherwise they wouldn't want to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1848.173, 1851.375], "stop_times": [1851.375, 1854.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.173}, "reply_to": "20327__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_028", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And that's the argument they used about Mr. Rash, saying, if I want to keep the truck, the truck has to be worth more value.\nThat... that truck is still the same truck.\nIt doesn't increase or decrease in value because somebody does or doesn't want to retain it or not retain.\nIt's the same truck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1854.177, 1858.808, 1861.081, 1865.563], "stop_times": [1858.808, 1861.081, 1865.563, 1866.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.177}, "reply_to": "20327__2_027", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_029", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, I didn't mean to get sidetracked.\nBecause my question really was, why not... why not give the extra amount, above the 31... suppose it turns out to be 38 or whatever it is... why shouldn't that go to the truck owner rather than the unsecured creditors?\nI understand that maybe your client should be... shouldn't... if the money isn't there for him to go into 13, that seems like a separate argument.\nBut the unsecured versus the secured?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1866.465, 1868.094, 1879.302, 1887.717], "stop_times": [1868.094, 1879.302, 1887.717, 1889.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.465}, "reply_to": "20327__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_030", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Because that additional money isn't just being generated by the truck.\nIt's also being generated by Mr. Rash driving the truck.\nYou know, I heard a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1889.911, 1893.902, 1896.844], "stop_times": [1893.902, 1896.844, 1898.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.911}, "reply_to": "20327__2_029", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_031", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1898.486], "stop_times": [1898.957], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.486}, "reply_to": "20327__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_032", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1898.957], "stop_times": [1899.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.957}, "reply_to": "20327__2_031", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_033", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--it... it sets up a... a queer scheme for... for Chapter 13.\nYou... you... you're telling the unsecured creditors... you... you don't... you don't tell them, you're not going to get any more out of Chapter 13 than what you get if you... if you demanded all of your money right now.\nWe're going to give you an incentive to let the guy continue to do business.\nYou... you may get more.\nBut you're not telling that to the secured creditors.\nYou're insisting that the court-secured creditors get nothing more, as secured creditors, than they would have gotten by foreclosing immediately and taking the truck away.\nLeaving them no incentive, no benefit from the Chapter 13, although you give the benefit to the unsecured creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1899.454, 1902.447, 1914.625, 1917.237, 1918.559, 1920.8, 1929.045], "stop_times": [1902.447, 1914.625, 1917.237, 1918.559, 1920.8, 1929.045, 1934.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.454}, "reply_to": "20327__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_034", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "We... we guaranteed to them in the process that they're at least going to get their liquidation value.\nAnd then we allow them to participate as an unsecured creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1934.958, 1940.561], "stop_times": [1940.561, 1943.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.958}, "reply_to": "20327__2_033", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_035", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1943.204], "stop_times": [1943.683], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.204}, "reply_to": "20327__2_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_036", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And that's a fair balancing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1943.683], "stop_times": [1944.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.683}, "reply_to": "20327__2_035", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_037", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--But you don't say that to the unsecured creditors.\nYou don't tell them, you're not going to get any more out of this than what... what you would have gotten if you... if you closed down the business today.\nWhy should you... why should you say that to the secured creditor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1944.424, 1946.417, 1950.889], "stop_times": [1946.417, 1950.889, 1953.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.424}, "reply_to": "20327__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_038", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I think, in the bottom line, what reorganization is all about is trying to create value, as opposed to Chapter 7, which is liquidation, close the door, let's see what we've got.\nThe way you measure whether or not a reorganization is a good reorganization is you measure it against the standard of what would happen in a 7.\nIf we're going to have a 7, what are the results?\nThat's what is the so-called liquidation analysis, the Chapter 7 analysis.\nAll right.\nNow, if its reorganization is able to do better than that, okay, it probably should go forward.\nThat's the goal, to do better than the straight liquidation.\nIn this case, there are a lot of parties that are then going to look to that additional amount of money.\nThe Rashes get to live on some of the money that they make, within the bounds of the disposable income test.\nThe Chapter 13 trustee in the system gets some compensation.\nAt the point in time when you begin to distribute this extra value, this extra value is almost totally attributable to the fact that an individual made a commitment to go to work in this context, in this system.\nHe did that because he wanted to pay his bills.\nThat should be shared among the creditors on a fair basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [1953.661, 1968.19, 1974.645, 1978.378, 1982.629, 1983.57, 1991.135, 1995.018, 2000.622, 2004.896, 2008.607, 2020.874, 2024.276], "stop_times": [1968.19, 1974.645, 1978.378, 1982.629, 1983.57, 1991.135, 1995.018, 2000.622, 2004.896, 2008.607, 2020.874, 2024.276, 2028.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.661}, "reply_to": "20327__2_037", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_039", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "So is the unsecured creditors' additional income that they... that they derive from letting this person stay in business.\nAnd you say, you know, that's the deal, by letting him stay in business, you get more than you otherwise would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2028.41, 2038.275], "stop_times": [2038.275, 2043.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.41}, "reply_to": "20327__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_040", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2043.721], "stop_times": [2044.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.721}, "reply_to": "20327__2_039", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_041", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That's the whole purpose of it.\nNow, why do you give that incentive to the unsecured creditors but not give it to the secured creditor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2044.229, 2045.812], "stop_times": [2045.812, 2050.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.229}, "reply_to": "20327__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_042", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I think Congress said this is how it's going to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2050.864], "stop_times": [2055.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.864}, "reply_to": "20327__2_041", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_043", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "It would seem to me Congress wants to preserve the security and... and wanted to give the secured creditor a benefit in Chapter 13, just as it gives to unsecured creditors a benefit.\nBut you're not giving him any... any benefit as a secured creditor.\nYou're... you're treating him as though the whole thing came to an end, then, although... although you don't treat the unsecured creditors that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2055.148, 2064.592, 2067.724], "stop_times": [2064.592, 2067.724, 2072.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.148}, "reply_to": "20327__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_044", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, I guess my simple answer, Justice Scalia, is I don't... I understand that, but I don't find any... anything in 506 that says that one of the things you take a look at is a... a premium or a kicker to the secured, for the privilege of allowing this to happen.\nThe secured has to allow it to happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2072.128, 2086.757], "stop_times": [2086.757, 2087.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2072.128}, "reply_to": "20327__2_043", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_045", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Durkay, can I interrupt, just to be sure?\nI may not understand it right.\nBut I thought that the... to the extent that the secured creditor does not realize on the collateral, he's an unsecured creditor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2087.909, 2088.998, 2090.031], "stop_times": [2088.998, 2090.031, 2097.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.909}, "reply_to": "20327__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__2_046", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2097.715], "stop_times": [2098.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.715}, "reply_to": "20327__2_045", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_047", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "So doesn't he get the same participation in whatever the surplus available for general creditors is as any other general creditor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2098.026], "stop_times": [2103.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.026}, "reply_to": "20327__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__2_048", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2103.508], "stop_times": [2103.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.508}, "reply_to": "20327__2_047", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_049", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "So he has the same motivation as the general creditors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2103.749], "stop_times": [2106.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.749}, "reply_to": "20327__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__2_050", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And... and this creditor did a couple of thousand dollars better than if they had taken the truck and sold it.\nI mean that's... that's the fair principle.\nLet... let me advance this one step further, in connection with the split--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2106.16, 2111.224, 2112.544], "stop_times": [2111.224, 2112.544, 2116.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.16}, "reply_to": "20327__2_049", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_051", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But... but his... but his secured status is not at all recognized as giving... as being given any preference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2116.527], "stop_times": [2122.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.527}, "reply_to": "20327__2_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_052", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--It doesn't have a preference, but it has its own source of payment stream.\nIt has the payment to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2122.942, 2130.977], "stop_times": [2130.977, 2132.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.942}, "reply_to": "20327__2_051", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_053", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, I meant... I meant preference in the sense of in... of incentive to go forward with reorganization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2132.827], "stop_times": [2136.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.827}, "reply_to": "20327__2_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_054", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--I guess--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2136.791], "stop_times": [2139.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.791}, "reply_to": "20327__2_053", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_055", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "It's rather odd that the secured creditors are the one class that... that are not treated any better.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2139.412], "stop_times": [2145.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.412}, "reply_to": "20327__2_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_056", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--As a creditor, they are treated better.\nTheir collateral isn't treated better.\nThey get the same good deal that any unsecured creditor gets to participate in the fruits of the successful reorganization.\nAnd, frankly, a secured creditor's incentive is exactly that.\nNow, a secured creditor can still say, even though I made $2,000 more, I don't want to do this, because I don't want to have to fool with this, among all these cases.\nBut that's what Congress said, no, you do have to.\nThat's the difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2145.426, 2151.33, 2153.31, 2159.274, 2164.948, 2172.324, 2174.105], "stop_times": [2151.33, 2153.31, 2159.274, 2164.948, 2172.324, 2174.105, 2174.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.426}, "reply_to": "20327__2_055", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_057", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Are... are there other cases which are not maybe quite so close as the one involving a truck?\nSuppose there's a business where the secured property is all... is all fixed, is machinery, a small business like a laundromat or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2174.876, 2179.29], "stop_times": [2179.29, 2187.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.876}, "reply_to": "20327__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_058", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2187.065], "stop_times": [2187.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.065}, "reply_to": "20327__2_057", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_059", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And the... the foreclosure value of this... of this is... when it's taken out is very, very low, because the machinery is ripped out and sold for almost scrap.\nIt doesn't seem fair that... that that should be the sole value, if the option... the alternative is to keep this business as a going business, where the... where, in place, the machinery is worth much, much more.\nI think this case is a little distorted because we have a truck and we're all used to the idea of bluebook values and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2187.285, 2198.602, 2212.251], "stop_times": [2198.602, 2212.251, 2218.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.285}, "reply_to": "20327__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_060", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, in... in the case you give, again, if the laundromat operates, it's going to raise revenue for the... the secureds, generally, including the unsecured.\nThat's why, really, part of the scheme is the bifurcation of claim.\nThe secured creditor comes in, it's undersecured, and they get two claims.\nThey have the status as secured creditor... that's defined one way... then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2218.406, 2227.673, 2231.624, 2235.046], "stop_times": [2227.673, 2231.624, 2235.046, 2238.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.406}, "reply_to": "20327__2_059", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_061", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "My point was that the range of values is much more dramatic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2238.238], "stop_times": [2241.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.238}, "reply_to": "20327__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_062", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Correct.\nLet me... let me address that issue specifically, and Justice Breyer's comments about the discretion of the bankruptcy judge.\nThere are three key words in 506 that you can't lose sight of.\nThose three key words are \"in light of\".\nWhat 506 requires the... the judge to do is to put the valuation in a context.\nIt used to be... this was a very common practice in the Southern District... when you first file a bankruptcy, you'd go in and you'd value everything, sight unseen, to see what kind of hand you got dealt.\nThen you'd start to work your reorganization theory based on the fixed values that were set down.\nThat's not how you do it.\nWhat 506 says, when you conduct a valuation, put it in context.\nWhy are you getting this valuation?\nWhat do you plan to do with the property?\nWhat are you contemplating?\nWhat are the res judicata effects?\nWhat are the collateral estoppel effects?\nWhat's this going to mean in the real world of this bankruptcy?\nBut it says \"in light of\".\nIt says put it in a context.\nThere's no mandatory language there.\nThere's... the judge has... has eminent discretion in connection with this factfinding process to come up with what you're really asking him to do, which is the common sense answer, in context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2241.02, 2241.47, 2248.396, 2251.906, 2254.46, 2263.006, 2274.784, 2280.417, 2283.088, 2286.601, 2288.371, 2289.673, 2290.812, 2292.805, 2294.204, 2297.246, 2299.858, 2301.11, 2302.69], "stop_times": [2241.47, 2248.396, 2251.906, 2254.46, 2263.006, 2274.784, 2280.417, 2283.088, 2286.601, 2288.371, 2289.673, 2290.812, 2292.805, 2294.204, 2297.246, 2299.858, 2301.11, 2302.69, 2312.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.02}, "reply_to": "20327__2_061", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_063", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, but the... the judge surely doesn't just pick a number out of the air.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2312.988], "stop_times": [2316.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.988}, "reply_to": "20327__2_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_064", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2316.829], "stop_times": [2317.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.829}, "reply_to": "20327__2_063", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_065", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Doesn't he listen to witnesses as to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2317.08], "stop_times": [2319.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.08}, "reply_to": "20327__2_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_066", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2319.012], "stop_times": [2320.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.012}, "reply_to": "20327__2_065", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_067", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--let's... supposing this... this weren't a truck, which is perhaps something we all figure we might have an idea of what it's worth.\nSuppose it's a big apartment building or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2320.251, 2325.016], "stop_times": [2325.016, 2327.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.251}, "reply_to": "20327__2_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_068", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.\nYeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2327.717, 2328.546], "stop_times": [2328.546, 2329.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.717}, "reply_to": "20327__2_067", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_069", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Certainly the judge would listen to witnesses, would he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2329.157], "stop_times": [2331.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.157}, "reply_to": "20327__2_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_070", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Absolutely.\nAnd he... one of the things he would do is he'd make sure that those witnesses, those appraisers, knew why the valuation was being conducted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2331.328, 2331.829], "stop_times": [2331.829, 2339.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.328}, "reply_to": "20327__2_069", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_071", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2339.625], "stop_times": [2339.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.625}, "reply_to": "20327__2_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_072", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--what was the hearing all about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2339.936], "stop_times": [2340.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.936}, "reply_to": "20327__2_071", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_073", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--And don't you think all of the appraisers would agree that if there had to be a forced sale in 30 days, the value would be less than if they were allowed a year to find a buyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2340.715], "stop_times": [2351.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.715}, "reply_to": "20327__2_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_074", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Absolutely.\nJustice Rehnquist, the formulation I propose, which is the net proceeds to the secured creditor on repossession and liquidation of collateral, doesn't require that you have to consider a forced sale.\nI... I don't see why you can't allow the secured creditor the luxury of coming in and saying, I would do better than that.\nIn fact, at the trial, that was exactly the Associates' position.\nThey said, you shouldn't hang us with wholesale because we can get retail when we sell our collateral.\nThe only problem was their witness said they couldn't.\nHe said he saw 15 sales and nobody showed up at 12 at... of them and he just said that was company policy.\nA secured creditor ought to be able to come in and say, if I hold this property.\nIn fact, there's a very simple way to do this.\nI mean what the secured creditor does is he comes in with a buyer with a commitment.\nThat's good... that's how a trustee would do it.\nHe wouldn't say, I think it's worth this, I think it's worth that.\nHe'd go find a buyer that's willing to sign up to that.\nTo... to take a good example... and the reason why the United States is here... and there's some real problems, I think, with the presence of the United States in this case and the posture they're taking.\nOf course, they're here because of the Taffi case.\nThe Taffi case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2351.724, 2352.713, 2365.261, 2370.975, 2373.987, 2378.819, 2381.973, 2388.106, 2393.329, 2395.412, 2398.574, 2401.776, 2403.576, 2405.937, 2412.842, 2415.013], "stop_times": [2352.713, 2365.261, 2370.975, 2373.987, 2378.819, 2381.973, 2388.106, 2393.329, 2395.412, 2398.574, 2401.776, 2403.576, 2405.937, 2412.842, 2415.013, 2417.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.724}, "reply_to": "20327__2_073", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_075", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "The... the what case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2417.124], "stop_times": [2418.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.124}, "reply_to": "20327__2_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_076", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--The Taffi case.\nIn... in the Taffi case, In re Taffi, which is the Ninth Circuit case that... that has come here in connection with this, there was a stipulation presented that the home had a fair market value of 300 and a forced sale value of 250.\nAnd the... and the first and second liens were 233,000, and the question then was, what was the value of the IRS claim.\nWell, in the first place, as a practical matter, you're not going to find an appraiser... you're not going to find an appraiser willing, to give any value to that third lien.\nThat's so far back in the train, that caboose just doesn't have value.\nTo give, in the stipulation, any value at all to the IRS was very generous.\nBut, secondly, and more importantly, in the real world of bankruptcy, the general way that would be handled is if you're a third lien and you really think there is equity in that collateral, you write a check to the first and second and take the first position.\nThis isn't a... a formula or a mathematics.\nThis is real business in the real world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2418.116, 2419.257, 2432.666, 2438.75, 2447.715, 2451.278, 2454.38, 2467.507, 2471.3], "stop_times": [2419.257, 2432.666, 2438.75, 2447.715, 2451.278, 2454.38, 2467.507, 2471.3, 2473.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.116}, "reply_to": "20327__2_075", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_077", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But in... in that context, assuming, which I do think this statute is really opaque on this question, you can make excellent arguments on both sides.\nSo... so if you think what Justice Kennedy said, which is that in many businesses, perhaps small businesses, the creditor doesn't really expect to repossess and sell?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2473.682, 2482.286], "stop_times": [2482.286, 2492.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.682}, "reply_to": "20327__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_078", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2492.214], "stop_times": [2492.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.214}, "reply_to": "20327__2_077", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_079", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "He... this repossession is a threat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2492.835], "stop_times": [2493.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.835}, "reply_to": "20327__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_080", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2493.904], "stop_times": [2494.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.904}, "reply_to": "20327__2_079", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_081", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And... and he wants to get the money out of the person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2494.665], "stop_times": [2497.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.665}, "reply_to": "20327__2_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_082", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2497.267], "stop_times": [2497.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.267}, "reply_to": "20327__2_081", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_083", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And that's... that's the whole thing.\nYou're going to lose your refrigerator or whatever.\nThat's a threat.\nIt's not because it... so... so if that's what... how he's thinking, then I come back to the possible interpretation that... that he should be able to get the money out of the debtor if there is the money to be gotten and it would otherwise go to a different creditor.\nThat's where I keep coming up against... I don't know why... what would be wrong with that part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2497.647, 2498.549, 2500.359, 2500.97, 2515.68], "stop_times": [2498.549, 2500.359, 2500.97, 2515.68, 2520.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.647}, "reply_to": "20327__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_084", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Justice Breyer, otherwise what you do is you create a waste.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2520.301], "stop_times": [2524.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.301}, "reply_to": "20327__2_083", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_085", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Where is the waste?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2524.525], "stop_times": [2525.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.525}, "reply_to": "20327__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_086", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "If you hypothesize an asset, that's the extra value from reorganizing.\nAnd under the Petitioner's theory, you have to give that extra value to the Petitioner, which means the 13 never happens, which means that value--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2525.687, 2530.369], "stop_times": [2530.369, 2538.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2525.687}, "reply_to": "20327__2_085", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_087", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, you see, that's why I say, at that part... at that part, if it's a question between you and the... you and the creditor.\nThat's a different question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2538.795, 2543.609], "stop_times": [2543.609, 2544.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.795}, "reply_to": "20327__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_088", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2544.739], "stop_times": [2544.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.739}, "reply_to": "20327__2_087", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_089", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And... and that's why I raise what may be the dead horse, but... but I don't want to keep flogging it, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2544.979], "stop_times": [2549.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.979}, "reply_to": "20327__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_090", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No, I... I totally agree with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2549.583], "stop_times": [2550.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2549.583}, "reply_to": "20327__2_089", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_091", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--that... that it would set a ceiling... it would set a ceiling on the ground that there is no... you know, that the value would be what you would have gotten in the liquidation, plus any amount that would otherwise go to the unsecured creditors, up to the retail value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2550.542], "stop_times": [2563.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.542}, "reply_to": "20327__2_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_092", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2563.821], "stop_times": [2564.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.821}, "reply_to": "20327__2_091", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_093", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "It seems to me, Mr. Durkay, that in agreeing with all of this, you understate the position of the... of the secured creditor.\nIt isn't just that he has the... the power to get back the distress value of... of what he's able to yank, but he is able to say to the... to the businessman, you pay me what you owe me or I'm going to close your business down by taking away the washing machines or whatever you have that's essential for your business.\nSo the businessman says, well, I'll pay you first, because you can close me down entirely.\nNow, you're setting up a Chapter 13, which deprives him of that benefit of being able to close the... the business down.\nAnd yet, at the same time, you're telling this... this debtor that he doesn't have to pay him what he would have been able to... to extract from him had there not been a Chapter 13.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2564.66, 2571.535, 2592.35, 2597.092, 2604.227], "stop_times": [2571.535, 2592.35, 2597.092, 2604.227, 2612.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.66}, "reply_to": "20327__2_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20327__2_094", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I totally agree with you in the way you frame your hypothetical.\nWhat puzzles me is what you've said is what I've said all along, which is the only reason that the Associates wants this extra value is to have leverage and power in the transaction.\nAnd the one thing the United States Congress said was, we're not going to play a power game.\nThe bankruptcy court is going to hand out assets fairly.\nAnd we're not going to accommodate the leverage, the power, the authority, or the transaction.\nThat's gone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2612.072, 2617.227, 2625.582, 2631.266, 2634.008, 2638.93], "stop_times": [2617.227, 2625.582, 2631.266, 2634.008, 2638.93, 2639.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.072}, "reply_to": "20327__2_093", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_095", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, they say... they say they're not going to let the... they're not going to let the... the secured party prevent the Chapter 13.\nBut it... it's the whole purpose of... of this discussion to... to determine whether they have said, we're going to, moreover, deprive the... the secured creditor of... of the value that he has of... of keeping the business a going concern, so that he can get his money out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2639.541, 2647.945], "stop_times": [2647.945, 2666.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.541}, "reply_to": "20327__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_096", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That isn't value in an appraisal sense.\nThat's power and it's leverage.\nRight off the bat, when a bankruptcy is filed, that secured creditor is told, hands off, you're stayed.\nThat power and leverage is gone until the court says otherwise.\nAnd as long as you can extract the economic value of your loss, your depreciation, over time, adequate protection, that stay is going to stay in effect.\nThis is a... this is a debtor remedial statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2666.929, 2670.452, 2672.082, 2677.615, 2681.128, 2690.344], "stop_times": [2670.452, 2672.082, 2677.615, 2681.128, 2690.344, 2694.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.929}, "reply_to": "20327__2_095", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_097", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "May I ask you a question that was prompted by the example you gave earlier.\nSupposing in this case, just as the bankruptcy judge was about to rule, the creditor, the secured creditor, got a buyer, somebody who was interested in antique Kenworth trucks or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2694.107, 2699.16], "stop_times": [2699.16, 2711.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.107}, "reply_to": "20327__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__2_098", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2711.449], "stop_times": [2711.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.449}, "reply_to": "20327__2_097", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_099", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Came in with a buyer, who made him a 40... $48,000 offer, higher than any of the appraisals.\nCould he have insisted on that valuation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2711.709, 2717.142], "stop_times": [2717.142, 2718.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.709}, "reply_to": "20327__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__2_100", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Oh, if he brought that evidence before the judge, I think a judge would be hard pressed not to give that evidence... hard, fast, factual evidence... full value.\nYou know, really, what we're talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2718.512, 2727.337], "stop_times": [2727.337, 2730.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.512}, "reply_to": "20327__2_099", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_101", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "So that if the... if the creditor could establish that he could get a premium value for the truck, and if he... if they actually repossessed and sold it, you'd say they'd be entitled to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2730.038], "stop_times": [2738.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.038}, "reply_to": "20327__2_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__2_102", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--If you want to take that position, you better bring in some good evidence, though.\nThat's the... that's the only point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2738.215, 2741.338], "stop_times": [2741.338, 2742.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.215}, "reply_to": "20327__2_101", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_103", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2742.467], "stop_times": [2742.637], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.467}, "reply_to": "20327__2_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_104", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2742.637], "stop_times": [2742.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.637}, "reply_to": "20327__2_103", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_105", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You... you can't have a phony--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2742.937], "stop_times": [2743.649], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.937}, "reply_to": "20327__2_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_106", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--it flips the other way around.\nSuppose you've got a... a pharmacy and they're... they're going to be delivering pharmaceuticals.\nAnd the owner of the pharmacy insists on using a 1954 antique Mustang instead of a Hyundai.\nAnd... and he says, well, according to the standard advanced by the Associates, I'm entitled to value that collateral at what it would cost me to replace that car, which is a Hyundai.\nThat doesn't make any sense.\nA '54 Mustang is worth real money.\nA judge is not going to pay any attention to that.\nNow, this isn't mechanical.\nI mean it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2743.649, 2744.49, 2748.201, 2754.485, 2765.631, 2767.945, 2770.656, 2773.789, 2775.369], "stop_times": [2744.49, 2748.201, 2754.485, 2765.631, 2767.945, 2770.656, 2773.789, 2775.369, 2775.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.649}, "reply_to": "20327__2_105", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_107", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--They didn't make Mustangs till '63.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2775.759], "stop_times": [2777.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.759}, "reply_to": "20327__2_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_108", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Sorry, Justice.\n[Laughter]\nWell, Justice Rehnquist, now you have to admit, under those circumstances, that '54 Mustang is now mighty valuable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2777.9, 2787.167, 2779.042], "stop_times": [2787.167, 2779.042, 2787.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.9}, "reply_to": "20327__2_107", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_109", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Durkay, what is your explanation... I think this... to my mind, the strongest argument for Petitioners here is... is the language\n\"in light of the proposed disposition or use of such property. \"\nWhat is your explanation of that language?\nIf it does not mean in light of the fact that this property is going to be continued to be used in this case by the debtor and therefore has a going... a going concern value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2787.417, 2801.098, 2805.29, 2808.264], "stop_times": [2801.098, 2805.29, 2808.264, 2816.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.417}, "reply_to": "20327__2_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_110", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "The strong position I took with the Fifth Circuit that's embodied in the King opinion is that it is a genuine non sequitur to say that simply because the debtor proposes to retain the value... the property... in and of itself, it suddenly has an inherently enhanced value.\nYou have to think about those issues, but it doesn't automatically follow that that means that number changes.\nBut let... let me add this point if I can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2816.449, 2832.988, 2838.322], "stop_times": [2832.988, 2838.322, 2841.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2816.449}, "reply_to": "20327__2_109", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_111", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "May I ask you about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2841.154], "stop_times": [2841.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.154}, "reply_to": "20327__2_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__2_112", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2841.654], "stop_times": [2841.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.654}, "reply_to": "20327__2_111", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_113", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, wait.\nThat isn't the question I asked.\nYou haven't answered my question.\nYou're... you're arguing it on the merit.\nWhat is your... what is your... you say it doesn't mean that... that language doesn't mean that.\nWhat does it mean,\n\"in light of the proposed disposition or use? \"\nWhat does it refer to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2841.865, 2842.185, 2843.146, 2844.876, 2847.058, 2851.542, 2852.821, 2854.824], "stop_times": [2842.185, 2843.146, 2844.876, 2847.058, 2851.542, 2852.821, 2854.824, 2856.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.865}, "reply_to": "20327__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_114", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "In this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2856.013], "stop_times": [2856.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.013}, "reply_to": "20327__2_113", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_115", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--if it doesn't refer to precisely this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2856.404], "stop_times": [2858.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.404}, "reply_to": "20327__2_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_116", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--In connection with a 1989 Kenworth in a Chapter 13, those words may not give you a lot of answers.\nIn some bankruptcies involving some kinds of properties and some kinds of proceedings, they may be totally dispositive of the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2858.076, 2869.563], "stop_times": [2869.563, 2877.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2858.076}, "reply_to": "20327__2_115", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_117", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Give me an example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2877.238], "stop_times": [2877.869], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.238}, "reply_to": "20327__2_116", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_118", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "The trustee comes in and says, I want to sell the Kenworth.\nIt's a Chapter 7 now.\nAnd the reason I want to sell it is I think I can get $50,000 for it at auction.\nAnd that's equity above and beyond what the Associates claims their first lien is.\nAnd for my first witness I'm going to call a fellow and he's going to come in and he's going to give an income valuation of that truck that says it's worth $50,000.\nThe judge would say, wait a minute, you're proposing to auction this property.\nWhat are you going to get at auction?\nI don't want to hear about what somebody says it's worth on an income approach.\nYou're saying, I'm going to auction it; what's the auction value?\nThat's the proposed user disposition.\nAnd under those circumstances, that language gives you a little bit of information.\nRemember how much ground 506 has to cover.\nI mean it has to cover every imaginable type of property and every proceeding and bankruptcy, and that's a lot of ground.\nYou know, if you read 506, and you sit it next to the Canons of Ethics of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that tell you what an appraiser needs to know before conducting an appraisal, the language is remarkably similar.\nIt's remarkably similar.\nWhat both are saying is, do this in the real world, in context.\nNo hypotheticals, no theoreticals.\nLet the appraisers know everything there is to know.\nGive accurate, honest answers.\nJudge, take all the proper context into consideration before you make your determination.\nDon't do any blind appraisals.\nAnd if you do that, and when you do that, we will generally leave that alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2877.869, 2883.412, 2884.514, 2889.106, 2893.29, 2900.863, 2904.296, 2905.768, 2908.807, 2911.24, 2914.073, 2919.666, 2921.857, 2926.91, 2939.058, 2940.891, 2945.563, 2947.232, 2949.556, 2951.416, 2956.88, 2959.001], "stop_times": [2883.412, 2884.514, 2889.106, 2893.29, 2900.863, 2904.296, 2905.768, 2908.807, 2911.24, 2914.073, 2919.666, 2921.857, 2926.91, 2939.058, 2940.891, 2945.563, 2947.232, 2949.556, 2951.416, 2956.88, 2959.001, 2963.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2877.869}, "reply_to": "20327__2_117", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_119", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, are you suggesting that in the hypothetical that Justice Kennedy gave, where you've got a laundromat and the forced sale would be almost zero, but the income-generating value of the property would be significant, that there you would use some kind of a... a cash flow valuation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2963.074], "stop_times": [2976.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.074}, "reply_to": "20327__2_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__2_120", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You might be able to do that.\nCorrect.\nIf... if an appraiser were able to provide that kind of analysis, that may well be acceptable.\nBut under this scenario--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2976.863, 2977.594, 2978.505, 2983.538], "stop_times": [2977.594, 2978.505, 2983.538, 2984.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.863}, "reply_to": "20327__2_119", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_121", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But why not here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2984.98], "stop_times": [2985.378], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.98}, "reply_to": "20327__2_120", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_122", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--if I can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2985.378], "stop_times": [2985.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.378}, "reply_to": "20327__2_121", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_123", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Why not here?\nIf there, why not here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2985.949, 2986.69], "stop_times": [2986.69, 2987.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.949}, "reply_to": "20327__2_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_124", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, because in the scenario that Justice Kennedy gave, what could happen is that secured creditor could find somebody to come in and buy the laundromat, lock, stock and barrel... buy the business.\nAnd he would get the cash flow.\nHe'd come in and start operating it.\nI mean you're going to have to have some good evidence on this, but that's at least theoretically possible.\nIn the case of a truck, there's no going-concern value for a truck.\nThe truck is a truck is a truck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [2987.962, 2996.296, 2999.478, 3001.589, 3005.322, 3007.072], "stop_times": [2996.296, 2999.478, 3001.589, 3005.322, 3007.072, 3008.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.962}, "reply_to": "20327__2_123", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_125", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And that's the only... the only situation in which you would... you would answer Justice Kennedy's hypothetical by saying, we would give it going-concern value... only if you could show that... that he could sell it to somebody else... the whole concern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3008.144], "stop_times": [3020.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.144}, "reply_to": "20327__2_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_126", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yes.\nI can't say it's the only... but, yes.\nI mean that's really the likely alternative scenario.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3020.272, 3021.002, 3022.925], "stop_times": [3021.002, 3022.925, 3025.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.272}, "reply_to": "20327__2_125", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_127", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3025.556], "stop_times": [3025.816], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.556}, "reply_to": "20327__2_126", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_128", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Some... somebody would come in and buy the laundromat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3025.816], "stop_times": [3027.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.816}, "reply_to": "20327__2_127", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_129", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--If he's willing to stay there and operate it himself, but there's nobody else in this little town willing to buy it, then all the secured creditor gets is the scrap value of these machines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3027.676], "stop_times": [3037.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.676}, "reply_to": "20327__2_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__2_130", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "And the secured creditor gets all the cash flow from the operation of the laundromat, because he's probably the major unsecured.\nRemember, he's got that backup position.\nNow, one thing, also, to do with 506 that I think is important, don't use 506 to judge the quality of the bankruptcy.\nThere are a lot of other provisions in the Bankruptcy Code the judge can use, such as the good-faith provisions, the liquidation analysis, et cetera, that are going to make sure that these are good bankruptcies, that they're not bad deals, they're not bad outcomes.\nThey don't really harm creditors unnecessarily.\n506 is one component.\nIf you get a scenario that says, well, I really don't like the way this spins down, in terms of what the bankruptcy looks like... I mean remember that you've got a common sense judge watching that and saying, well, that still doesn't mean you're going to get your bankruptcy.\nEven if you get your 506 evidence proved, you don't automatically have a confirmation of your plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3037.293, 3045.888, 3047.669, 3054.845, 3067.804, 3071.023, 3072.695, 3083.942], "stop_times": [3045.888, 3047.669, 3054.845, 3067.804, 3071.023, 3072.695, 3083.942, 3088.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3037.293}, "reply_to": "20327__2_129", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_131", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Durkay, could you explain to me, since you put it to Judge King, why she thought that it was irrational to make a distinction about the result that you get... now, looking to 1325... whether you use (b) or (c)... that the value should be the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3088.517], "stop_times": [3108.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.517}, "reply_to": "20327__2_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__2_132", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "1325(b) and (c) handle the dynamics of the bankruptcy.\nThey don't really answer the question of what the property is worth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3108.089, 3116.744], "stop_times": [3116.744, 3119.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3108.089}, "reply_to": "20327__2_131", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_133", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But she thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3119.696], "stop_times": [3122.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.696}, "reply_to": "20327__2_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__2_134", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "In order to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3122.168], "stop_times": [3122.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3122.168}, "reply_to": "20327__2_133", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_135", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--that it would be an unseemly difference to have, when the debtor surrenders the property, one value--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3122.648], "stop_times": [3128.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.648}, "reply_to": "20327__2_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__2_136", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3128.622], "stop_times": [3128.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.622}, "reply_to": "20327__2_135", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_137", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--and when the... the debtor keeps the property, a much higher value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3128.823], "stop_times": [3134.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.823}, "reply_to": "20327__2_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20327__2_138", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "The simple formula I used here is I just don't think you can say that when Mr. Rash told the Associates he wanted to keep the truck, poof, it was suddenly now more valuable.\nI... I just think it's as simple at that.\nIt's the same truck.\nYou know, the comment that was made in en banc was, well, what about the going-concern value?\nTrucks don't have going-concern value.\nThe... trucks have a ready market.\nYou know what they're worth.\nYou can find the market.\nIt's very easy to determine what that truck is worth, what it can be bought and sold for.\nYou know, if you look, for example, at the Petitioner's reply brief, in discussing BFP and this issue, they toggle back and forth... here... what I'm talking about is... is page 14, 15 and 16.\nThey say that the value should be based on what the debtor would have to pay... quoting BFP... which is if offered for sale.\nThen they say at the top of 15 that it has to be sold within the time and manner.\nThen they go on down and say, to determine the price it's paid for.\nIn other words, they're toggling back and forth between paid and... and bought.\nGet on... get in the boat or get on the shore.\nI mean you can't flip back and forth between what the buy price is and what the sale price is in the retail context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3134.396, 3144.955, 3146.314, 3147.426, 3152.328, 3154.158, 3155.58, 3156.8, 3157.691, 3161.874, 3176.284, 3185.25, 3188.472, 3191.705, 3195.264, 3198.627], "stop_times": [3144.955, 3146.314, 3147.426, 3152.328, 3154.158, 3155.58, 3156.8, 3157.691, 3161.874, 3176.284, 3185.25, 3188.472, 3191.705, 3195.264, 3198.627, 3205.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3134.396}, "reply_to": "20327__2_137", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_139", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You... you say that a truck doesn't have a going-concern value, but that really wasn't what was at issue here, was it?\nIt was a truck by an owner who had a long-term contractual relationship with... what, was it Lane, the... the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3205.442, 3209.984], "stop_times": [3209.984, 3216.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.442}, "reply_to": "20327__2_138", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_140", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3216.73], "stop_times": [3216.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3216.73}, "reply_to": "20327__2_139", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_141", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--the trucking concern.\nSo that we... we have something more than a truck here.\nAnd why, therefore, isn't it fair, even on your premise, to say there... there would be a going-concern value here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3216.94, 3217.761, 3221.274], "stop_times": [3217.761, 3221.274, 3226.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.94}, "reply_to": "20327__2_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_142", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "He... he wasn't renting his truck on a long-term basis.\nEvery day he showed up and hauled, he got paid.\nIf he didn't, he didn't.\nAnd a part of that activity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3226.467, 3228.918, 3231.68, 3232.411], "stop_times": [3228.918, 3231.68, 3232.411, 3235.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3226.467}, "reply_to": "20327__2_141", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_143", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, but I... I... I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3235.292], "stop_times": [3236.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.292}, "reply_to": "20327__2_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_144", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--It wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3236.341], "stop_times": [3237.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3236.341}, "reply_to": "20327__2_143", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_145", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--maybe... maybe I'm making an assumption, in fact, that is wrong, but I assume that if I were to go out in the market and buy a truck, and show up in Lane's driveway tomorrow morning, I would not get the same kind of preference for business that this individual would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3237.012], "stop_times": [3248.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3237.012}, "reply_to": "20327__2_144", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_146", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--No, you would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3248.249], "stop_times": [3248.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3248.249}, "reply_to": "20327__2_145", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_147", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Okay.\nSo he's got something that I, as a buyer on the open market, wouldn't have, and therefore there at least is a sense in which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3248.649, 3249.08], "stop_times": [3249.08, 3255.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.649}, "reply_to": "20327__2_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_148", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No.\nYou... you would get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3255.995, 3256.176], "stop_times": [3256.176, 3256.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3255.995}, "reply_to": "20327__2_147", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_149", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--there's a going concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3256.586], "stop_times": [3256.947], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3256.586}, "reply_to": "20327__2_148", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_150", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--You would get the Lane deal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3256.947], "stop_times": [3257.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3256.947}, "reply_to": "20327__2_149", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_151", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3257.826], "stop_times": [3258.597], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.826}, "reply_to": "20327__2_150", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__2_152", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "You would get the Lane deal.\nIf you showed up at Lane, you would be able to haul for Lane on the same basis as Mr. Rash.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3258.597, 3259.819], "stop_times": [3259.819, 3262.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.597}, "reply_to": "20327__2_151", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_153", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But Lane believes in equal protection no matter who shows up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3262.969], "stop_times": [3264.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3262.969}, "reply_to": "20327__2_152", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_154", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "If you can drive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3264.832], "stop_times": [3265.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3264.832}, "reply_to": "20327__2_153", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_155", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I can't even shift the truck, and he's going to give me the business?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3265.921, 3269.153], "stop_times": [3269.153, 3269.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.921}, "reply_to": "20327__2_154", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_156", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--But, see, that's the point.\nThe value here is two components.\nThere's the truck and there's the truck driver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3269.344, 3270.445, 3271.824], "stop_times": [3270.445, 3271.824, 3274.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3269.344}, "reply_to": "20327__2_155", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_157", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah.\nAnd the truck driver is part of the deal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3274.167, 3274.797], "stop_times": [3274.797, 3276.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.167}, "reply_to": "20327__2_156", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_158", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No, the truck driver wasn't pledged to the Associates.\n[Laughter]\nThat's... that's a 13th amendment problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3276.259, 3278.422, 3278.633], "stop_times": [3278.422, 3278.633, 3281.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3276.259}, "reply_to": "20327__2_157", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_159", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No, but the... the truck... the truck driver is the one who is going to use the truck if he retains it.\nAnd that makes a difference, doesn't it, economically?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3281.664, 3286.137], "stop_times": [3286.137, 3288.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.664}, "reply_to": "20327__2_158", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__2_160", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "I don't think it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3288.607], "stop_times": [3291.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3288.607}, "reply_to": "20327__2_159", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_161", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Durkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3291.75], "stop_times": [3294.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.75}, "reply_to": "20327__2_160", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__2_162", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Thank you, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3294.792], "stop_times": [3295.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.792}, "reply_to": "20327__2_161", "speaker": "john_j_durkay"}
{"id": "20327__2_163", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Mr. Phillips, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3295.293], "stop_times": [3297.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.293}, "reply_to": "20327__2_162", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20327__3_000", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI'll try to be short or briefer than that.\nI think, ultimately, the case could be disposed of based on, essentially, Justice Scalia's question, which is, you have language that says \"proposed disposition or proposed use\".\nAnd we... every example he gave talked about auctions, talked about sales.\nHe's got lots of use for the language 506(a).\nAnd... and, in fact, if you look in his brief, he doesn't offer up an explanation of what that language is designed to mean.\nAnd the only brief on their side is the one amicus brief says that 12 proceeding.\nAnd it's reasonably clear to me that, to have to stretch that far to find some meaning in this particular language, tells you that their interpretation really eliminates the \"proposed use\" term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3297.713, 3300.094, 3301.957, 3311.113, 3315.585, 3322.971, 3328.395, 3336.78], "stop_times": [3300.094, 3301.957, 3311.113, 3315.585, 3322.971, 3328.395, 3336.78, 3346.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3297.713}, "reply_to": "20327__2_163", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_001", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Of course, \"proposed use\" doesn't really lead you to \"retail value\" necessarily.\nI mean I... I can see how it doesn't lead you to \"wholesale value\", but why does it lead you to \"retail value\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3346.086, 3349.348], "stop_times": [3349.348, 3354.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.086}, "reply_to": "20327__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20327__3_002", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, what... what it leads you to, ultimately... and the value we're looking for and the rule we ask for is what it would cost the debtor to purchase the same property in the open market.\nAnd that's the fair market value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3354.571, 3364.897], "stop_times": [3364.897, 3366.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3354.571}, "reply_to": "20327__3_001", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_003", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But why isn't that the same as the fair market value of this truck, as appraised?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3366.119], "stop_times": [3369.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.119}, "reply_to": "20327__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__3_004", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3369.852], "stop_times": [3371.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3369.852}, "reply_to": "20327__3_003", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_005", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Or is it?\nI'm not sure whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3371.653, 3372.063], "stop_times": [3372.063, 3372.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.653}, "reply_to": "20327__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__3_006", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, it... it is.\nIt's the... I mean if he had to go out and buy this truck today, it would have cost him either 41,000 or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3372.985, 3373.806], "stop_times": [3373.806, 3378.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3372.985}, "reply_to": "20327__3_005", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_007", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--But why is that different from what it can be sold for if you have fair opportunity to offer it in the market?\nWhy is there... I... I must confess, I should have asked this in the very beginning... but why is the fair market diff... value... different, depending on whether you're the buyer or the seller?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3378.478, 3383.719], "stop_times": [3383.719, 3390.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.478}, "reply_to": "20327__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__3_008", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Because of the differences of what you can get for it.\nI mean I realize that's tautological, but I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3390.815, 3393.717], "stop_times": [3393.717, 3396.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3390.815}, "reply_to": "20327__3_007", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_009", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "But you're saying there are two different markets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3396.158], "stop_times": [3397.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.158}, "reply_to": "20327__3_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20327__3_010", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Yes, exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3397.798], "stop_times": [3398.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3397.798}, "reply_to": "20327__3_009", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_011", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3398.419], "stop_times": [3398.59], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3398.419}, "reply_to": "20327__3_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20327__3_012", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "It's the market that... that determines it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3398.59], "stop_times": [3400.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3398.59}, "reply_to": "20327__3_011", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_013", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Well, I would have thought the difference might be what you have to pay somebody, by way of a commission, to sell it for you.\nI mean if the debtor is going to keep it, it isn't going to be sold.\nBut if the creditor is going to take it back and sell it, they're going to have to pay something to somebody to do that, in effect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3400.653, 3408.437, 3412.569], "stop_times": [3408.437, 3412.569, 3418.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.653}, "reply_to": "20327__3_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__3_014", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "That's true.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3418.833, 3419.463], "stop_times": [3419.463, 3419.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3418.833}, "reply_to": "20327__3_013", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_015", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--typically.\nAnd I thought that was the real difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3419.784, 3420.055], "stop_times": [3420.055, 3422.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.784}, "reply_to": "20327__3_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__3_016", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3422.195], "stop_times": [3422.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.195}, "reply_to": "20327__3_015", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_017", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Maybe I'm wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3422.385], "stop_times": [3423.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3422.385}, "reply_to": "20327__3_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20327__3_018", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "No, I think that's right.\nAnd that... that plays out particularly in the hypothetical foreclosure cases, where you have a foreclosure on the house and you... and you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3423.046, 3423.677], "stop_times": [3423.677, 3429.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3423.046}, "reply_to": "20327__3_017", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_019", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Yeah, but that... that assumption means if you keep the truck, you save the commission.\nYeah.\nSo that would be the cheaper value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3429.481, 3431.411, 3431.862], "stop_times": [3431.411, 3431.862, 3433.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.481}, "reply_to": "20327__3_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20327__3_020", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "--Well, except if... if you keep the truck, he wouldn't save the commission, because he... they would ask you to deduct the hypothetical cost of the commission.\nAnd that's... and that... and there are some decisions to that effect.\nBut I... as... for reasons I think I've made clear, I think those decisions are wrong.\nIf there are no other questions, I would urge the Court to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3433.622, 3439.316, 3442.07, 3444.9], "stop_times": [3439.316, 3442.07, 3444.9, 3447.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3433.622}, "reply_to": "20327__3_019", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20327__3_021", "conversation_id": "20327", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Phillips.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-454", "start_times": [3447.682, 3448.993], "stop_times": [3448.993, 3450.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.682}, "reply_to": "20327__3_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__0_000", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-928, John W. Atherton, Jr. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.\nMr. Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [0.0, 9.272], "stop_times": [9.272, 10.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__0_001", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nAt issue in this case is whether the FDIC, in its capacity as Receiver of a federally chartered savings association, has a Federal common law claim based on simple negligence against the former directors and officers of that association for breach of their fiduciary duty of care, which is the proposition for which the Government contends, or whether the FDIC's sole Federal claim is the statutory claim for gross negligence under 12 U.S.C. section 1821(k), which is the proposition for which we contend.\nThat latter provision was adopted as part of the Financial Institution Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, otherwise known as FIRREA.\nAlthough a divided panel of the Third Circuit found that 1821(k) does not even apply to federally chartered depository institutions, the Government has conceded in this Court that it does.\nWhere petitioner and the Government part company is on the question of whether the FDIC has a preexisting Federal common law claim for simple negligence and, if it does, whether that claim was displaced by section 1821(k).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [10.572, 14.926, 46.045, 54.885, 66.108], "stop_times": [14.926, 46.045, 54.885, 66.108, 80.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.572}, "reply_to": "19912__0_000", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_002", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Mr. Stevens, I think, if I remember correctly, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals assumed there was a Federal common law standard here, and left it open on remand to the district court to determine the scope of the standard, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [80.202], "stop_times": [99.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.202}, "reply_to": "19912__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_003", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, they did... they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [99.08], "stop_times": [100.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.08}, "reply_to": "19912__0_002", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_004", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Did the petitioners here concede in the court of appeals that a Federal common law standard applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [100.949], "stop_times": [108.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.949}, "reply_to": "19912__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_005", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--No, we did not.\nWe argued to the Third Circuit, which argument occurred subsequent to this Court's decision in O'Melveny and Myers, that under that decision there was no general Federal common law right of action that accrued prior to the enactment of FIRREA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [108.935, 109.737], "stop_times": [109.737, 125.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.935}, "reply_to": "19912__0_004", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_006", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And do you think that the question whether there exists a Federal common law rule was preserved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [125.064], "stop_times": [132.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.064}, "reply_to": "19912__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_007", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [132.318], "stop_times": [133.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.318}, "reply_to": "19912__0_006", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_008", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [133.503], "stop_times": [134.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.503}, "reply_to": "19912__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_009", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [134.053], "stop_times": [134.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.053}, "reply_to": "19912__0_008", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_010", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It wasn't... it wasn't set out that clearly in your original cert petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [134.503], "stop_times": [139.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 134.503}, "reply_to": "19912__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_011", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, in the... the second of the two questions presented in the cert petition is as follows, quote, Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that section 1821(k)... and I'm leaving out some descriptive language of that now... has no application whatsoever to RTC actions against officers and directors of failed federally chartered FDIC insured institutions, and that the liability of officers and directors of such institutions is instead governed exclusively by Federal common law.\nThe second of the reasons for granting the writ which was set forth at page 8 of the petition is, quote, the court of appeals' conclusion that Federal common law instead of section 1821(k) supplies the applicable law in this case violates this Court's longstanding rules respecting the creation and application of such judgemade law, and finally, section 2 of the petition is expressly entitled, quote, the Third Circuit's decision is in direct conflict with this Court's prior rulings respecting the application of Federal common law, and particularly its recent decision in O'Melveny and Myers v. FDIC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [139.241, 170.426], "stop_times": [170.426, 208.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.241}, "reply_to": "19912__0_010", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_012", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And what State law do you say applies in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [208.051], "stop_times": [211.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.051}, "reply_to": "19912__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_013", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It's our contention that the State law that would apply in cases such as this would be the law of the place of the location of the principal place of business of the association.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [211.437], "stop_times": [219.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.437}, "reply_to": "19912__0_012", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_014", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Which is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [219.443], "stop_times": [220.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.443}, "reply_to": "19912__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_015", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "New Jersey.\nIn this case, however, the FDIC has waived its State law claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [220.359, 221.728], "stop_times": [221.728, 226.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 220.359}, "reply_to": "19912__0_014", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_016", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But that was in response to the district court's ruling, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [226.529], "stop_times": [230.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.529}, "reply_to": "19912__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_017", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThat was a unilateral voluntary action taken by the FDIC and articulated in its brief to the district court below when the matter was being briefed in connection with the motion to dismiss.\nIt was not an action taken subsequent to the district court's order.\nIt was a voluntary, unilateral decision by the FDIC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [230.85, 231.966, 246.11, 249.712], "stop_times": [231.966, 246.11, 249.712, 253.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 230.85}, "reply_to": "19912__0_016", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_018", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But do I understand correctly that the district court's opinion said that 1821(k) was the exclusive law applicable to a Federal, federally chartered institution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [253.097], "stop_times": [265.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.097}, "reply_to": "19912__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_019", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [265.488], "stop_times": [266.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.488}, "reply_to": "19912__0_018", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_020", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And you are not defending that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [266.106], "stop_times": [268.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.106}, "reply_to": "19912__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_021", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, Your Honor, we are not.\nIt is our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [268.625, 269.525], "stop_times": [269.525, 270.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.625}, "reply_to": "19912__0_020", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_022", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "So no one is supporting the district court, who said that 1821(k) is just it, there's nothing else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [270.175], "stop_times": [276.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.175}, "reply_to": "19912__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_023", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Well, let me be clear.\nIt's our position that the only Federal law claim that the FDIC has postreceivership is a claim for gross negligence under section 1821(k).\nIt is our position, however, that that's not the only claim that's available to the Government.\nThe Government would also have a claim under State law for simple negligence if the State law in question provided such a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [276.545, 277.481, 287.087, 292.241], "stop_times": [277.481, 287.087, 292.241, 299.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.545}, "reply_to": "19912__0_022", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_024", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, so to that extent you agree that the district court was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [299.228], "stop_times": [305.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.228}, "reply_to": "19912__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_025", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [305.149], "stop_times": [305.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.149}, "reply_to": "19912__0_024", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_026", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "May I ask--\n--It's also--\n--I don't think the briefs tell us what the rule is in New Jersey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [305.849, 307.166, 307.733], "stop_times": [307.166, 307.733, 311.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.849}, "reply_to": "19912__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_027", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, to be candid, Your Honor, I think that's why the FDIC waived its State law claim.\n[Laughter]\nIt's our position that the standard in New Jersey is gross negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [311.552, 316.689, 317.356], "stop_times": [316.689, 317.356, 323.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.552}, "reply_to": "19912__0_026", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_028", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "So it really doesn't matter, then, if there's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [323.426], "stop_times": [324.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 323.426}, "reply_to": "19912__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_029", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I don't think it does.\nI'm sure the FDIC will argue that it's in fact simple negligence, but at this point it's an academic issue because they've waived the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [324.962, 326.128], "stop_times": [326.128, 332.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.962}, "reply_to": "19912__0_028", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_030", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Well, it might not be.\nThey've waived that legal basis for the claim, but I would think there's a question whether the basically alleging the same, you know, misconduct by the defendants in the case.\nWhether it's too late for them to say an alternative legal base for the claim would be State law even though we haven't argued it up to now, I'm not sure what the answer to that is is all I'm saying.\nThat's why I was curious about whether there is a difference, but the answer to that is, you would disagree with your opponents, probably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [332.116, 332.749, 341.988, 350.76], "stop_times": [332.749, 341.988, 350.76, 355.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.116}, "reply_to": "19912__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_031", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [355.064], "stop_times": [355.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.064}, "reply_to": "19912__0_030", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_032", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [355.581], "stop_times": [356.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.581}, "reply_to": "19912__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_033", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "We would take the position there's no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [356.131], "stop_times": [357.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.131}, "reply_to": "19912__0_032", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_034", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Do you--\n--If the State law issue... the State law standard were, let's say, intentional negligence, you would still concede that there was a gross negligence claim under (k), is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [357.349, 357.816], "stop_times": [357.816, 365.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.349}, "reply_to": "19912__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__0_035", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [365.853], "stop_times": [366.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.853}, "reply_to": "19912__0_034", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_036", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [366.289], "stop_times": [366.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.289}, "reply_to": "19912__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__0_037", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [366.755], "stop_times": [367.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.755}, "reply_to": "19912__0_036", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_038", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Do you say that Federal law governs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [367.272], "stop_times": [370.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.272}, "reply_to": "19912__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_039", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [370.474], "stop_times": [371.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.474}, "reply_to": "19912__0_038", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_040", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--federally chartered--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [371.09], "stop_times": [372.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.09}, "reply_to": "19912__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_041", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Institutions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [372.107], "stop_times": [375.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.107}, "reply_to": "19912__0_040", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_042", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--savings and loans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [375.676], "stop_times": [376.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.676}, "reply_to": "19912__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_043", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, and the reason for that is that this Court has made it clear that for Federal common law to apply, two tests have to be met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [376.128], "stop_times": [385.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.128}, "reply_to": "19912__0_042", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_044", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well now, wait a minute.\nThat's a separate question.\nYou could say yes, Federal law applies, but the Federal law in turn refers to State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [385.817, 386.6, 387.935], "stop_times": [386.6, 387.935, 393.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.817}, "reply_to": "19912__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_045", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, that would be predicated upon a finding that the criteria for the application of Federal law, Federal common law is present, but that there is no conflict, and that there's no conflict between the application of State law and Federal law as in Kimbell Foods, where this Court held that the issue there was governed by Federal law, but that there was no reason not to use State law as the rule of Federal decision.\nBut before you can get to that point, you have to decide that there's a uniquely Federal interest present.\nAnd it's our position that in this case no such uniquely Federal interest is present because this Court has defined such interest principally to involve the rights and duties of the United States and, as this Court said in O'Melveny, the FDIC is not the United States, and even if it were it, would be begging the issue because the FDIC is asserting claims in this case in its capacity as a receiver for the institution, standing in the shoes of the institution.\nIn fact, the FDIC's position would not only require the application of Federal common law to cases where it's bringing the claims, it would require the application of Federal common law if the institution when solvent was bringing claims like this against its directors and officers or if a shareholder of a solvent institution was bringing a derivative action where the FDIC itself wouldn't be a party, where no United States entity would be a party, where no United States funds would be directly involved, and where not even the insurance fund would be directly involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [393.07, 418.705, 424.459, 449.224], "stop_times": [418.705, 424.459, 449.224, 480.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 393.07}, "reply_to": "19912__0_044", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_046", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "The only thing to be said on the other side, however, is what... it's... other corporations that are established under Delaware law, New Jersey law, or whatever, they have a clear law to apply when there is a suit by shareholders as far as internal management is concerned.\nYou know what the law is.\nIs it likely that Congress set up this Federal corporation without any internal procedures governed by Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [480.628, 502.375, 503.811], "stop_times": [502.375, 503.811, 512.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.628}, "reply_to": "19912__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_047", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It's not only likely, it's what they did.\nThey have adopted a statute, HOLA, the Homeowners Loan Act, back in 1933 which has all kinds of statutory provisions in it that talk about what banks and... I'm sorry, what S&L's have to do, how they conduct their operations and so forth, but there's nothing in that statute that talks about a standard of care for officers and directors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [512.416, 514.716], "stop_times": [514.716, 533.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.416}, "reply_to": "19912__0_046", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_048", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "When was that adopted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [533.246], "stop_times": [534.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.246}, "reply_to": "19912__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_049", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "1933, and it... and we have had 63 years when Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [534.013], "stop_times": [538.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.013}, "reply_to": "19912__0_048", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_050", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It was before Erie, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [538.65], "stop_times": [540.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.65}, "reply_to": "19912__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_051", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--It was before Erie, but Congress has had every opportunity to amend the statute numerous times after Erie and it hasn't done so, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [540.234], "stop_times": [546.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.234}, "reply_to": "19912__0_050", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_052", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "So I guess what Congress was thinking at the time was that there is up in the sky there a common law concerning directors' liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [546.054], "stop_times": [554.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.054}, "reply_to": "19912__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_053", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Well, it might have thought that there was a State common law, but it would have been hard to think that there was a Federal common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [554.509], "stop_times": [561.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.509}, "reply_to": "19912__0_052", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_054", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, it didn't.\nIt didn't.\nThere was no such thing as State common law and Federal common law before Erie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [561.73, 562.099, 562.515], "stop_times": [562.099, 562.515, 565.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.73}, "reply_to": "19912__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_055", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I agree, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [565.384], "stop_times": [566.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.384}, "reply_to": "19912__0_054", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_056", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "We made that up after Erie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [566.384], "stop_times": [567.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.384}, "reply_to": "19912__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_057", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor, but in this Court's decision in Herrmann v. Edwards and Whittemore v. Amoskeag Bank, the Court made it clear that the mere fact that there was an assertion by shareholders of a national bank against its directors and officers for mismanagement was not sufficient to give rise to a Federal cause of action where the assertion was made under common law.\nNow, I think the Court was saying in that case, this is a case for the application... in those two cases, those are cases for the application of State law, not Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [567.601, 588.667], "stop_times": [588.667, 598.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.601}, "reply_to": "19912__0_056", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_058", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "What you're saying is, we... in light of what happened after Erie we should treat corporate law the same way we treat contract law.\nAlthough we thought there was a Federal law, having discovered there is not, it goes back to being governed by State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [598.955, 604.676], "stop_times": [604.676, 610.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 598.955}, "reply_to": "19912__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_059", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, assuming for the sake of argument that there was a Federal common law pre-Erie in this area, yes, Erie demolishes it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [610.496], "stop_times": [616.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 610.496}, "reply_to": "19912__0_058", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_060", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But Mr. Stevens, one problem is that there is no entity, no State that has chartered the Federal institution, so let's assume for the minute that we don't have any 1821(k), and the question is simply, what law governs the internal operations of a federally chartered institution?\nHow do you answer that?\nIt wouldn't be the law of incorporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [616.567, 640.032, 641.967], "stop_times": [640.032, 641.967, 643.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.567}, "reply_to": "19912__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_061", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, it would be State law where the principal place of business was located, and I would point Your Honor to the recent regulation promulgated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates all nationally chartered banks.\nThey recently adopted a regulation which is cited in our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [643.567, 656.459], "stop_times": [656.459, 660.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.567}, "reply_to": "19912__0_060", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_062", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "You cited that in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [660.346], "stop_times": [661.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.346}, "reply_to": "19912__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_063", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [661.629], "stop_times": [662.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.629}, "reply_to": "19912__0_062", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_064", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But you have to get to the principal place of business by some Federal law, and you at least have a Federal choice of law rule, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [662.163], "stop_times": [669.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.163}, "reply_to": "19912__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_065", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I don't think you do.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [669.885, 670.819], "stop_times": [670.819, 671.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.885}, "reply_to": "19912__0_064", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_066", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well then, where did the identification of the principal place of business come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [671.42], "stop_times": [676.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.42}, "reply_to": "19912__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_067", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [676.022], "stop_times": [676.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.022}, "reply_to": "19912__0_066", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_068", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Not the sky.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [676.405], "stop_times": [677.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.405}, "reply_to": "19912__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_069", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--No.\nI think you do it by reference to State law.\nFor example, in 1821(k)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [677.224, 677.69, 680.426], "stop_times": [677.69, 680.426, 682.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.224}, "reply_to": "19912__0_068", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_070", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But under State law the State of incorporation would govern internal operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [682.342], "stop_times": [688.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.342}, "reply_to": "19912__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_071", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--I understand that, but in 1821(k) Congress itself said, define gross negligence under applicable State law.\nCongress itself indicated it had no interest in having some Federal uniform standard apply here.\nAnd by the same token, it seems to me that the fact that the institution happens to have gotten its charter from the Federal Government is not sufficient to predicate the creation of an entire body of Federal common law, which would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [688.18, 697.536, 704.375], "stop_times": [697.536, 704.375, 717.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 688.18}, "reply_to": "19912__0_070", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_072", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That may be, but I think you still have to overcome Justice Ginsburg's assertion that if there is no Federal substantive law there is also no Federal choice of law, so you really can't say for sure that the law which governs is the law of principal place of business.\nIt depends on what the State law of the forum is, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [717.282, 734.977], "stop_times": [734.977, 737.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.282}, "reply_to": "19912__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_073", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [737.596], "stop_times": [738.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.596}, "reply_to": "19912__0_072", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_074", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "So you really don't know what law governs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [738.563], "stop_times": [741.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.563}, "reply_to": "19912__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_075", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It's... it's my... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [741.065], "stop_times": [743.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.065}, "reply_to": "19912__0_074", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_076", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "In most forums it would probably be the State of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [743.0], "stop_times": [745.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.0}, "reply_to": "19912__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_077", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--I can't say definitively, but that's not the issue that's in front of the Court, and it could be resolved below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [745.067], "stop_times": [749.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.067}, "reply_to": "19912__0_076", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_078", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--In a way it is, because we hate to have these corporations floating out there with no accepted law governing their internal operations.\nAnd you've already said that under State law it would not be the principal place of business, it would be the place of incorporation that determines the internal operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [749.904, 758.926], "stop_times": [758.926, 769.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.904}, "reply_to": "19912__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_079", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, if it's necessary to establish a uniform Federal rule that says it's the principal place of business, I suppose the Court could do that, although it strikes me that that's antithetical to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [769.984], "stop_times": [783.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 769.984}, "reply_to": "19912__0_078", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_080", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "You have identified the principal place of business as the State law that would control.\nI asked you how you get there, how you get that pointing rule.\nYou have to get it from some place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [783.058, 788.546, 791.914], "stop_times": [788.546, 791.914, 793.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.058}, "reply_to": "19912__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_081", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Well, I guess I get it from the fact that the rule in most States is that, that that's the rule in the Model Business Code, that that's the rule that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [793.782], "stop_times": [802.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 793.782}, "reply_to": "19912__0_080", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_082", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But I thought the rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [802.205], "stop_times": [803.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.205}, "reply_to": "19912__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_083", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--the OCC has indicated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [803.138], "stop_times": [804.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.138}, "reply_to": "19912__0_082", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_084", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--No, but--\n--I thought the rule in most States is the State of incorporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [804.573, 805.107], "stop_times": [805.107, 806.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.573}, "reply_to": "19912__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_085", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--It is, but that rule wouldn't be applicable here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [806.657], "stop_times": [809.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.657}, "reply_to": "19912__0_084", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_086", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, but you're--\n--So then you're not... then you're not getting the pointing rule from State law, because State law would say, we look to the State of incorporation to determine matters of internal operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [809.875, 811.694], "stop_times": [811.694, 820.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 809.875}, "reply_to": "19912__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_087", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's correct, but I think you have to keep in mind that historically the reason they looked to the State law of incorporation was because that was where the principal place of business was.\nNow, it's true that over time that's changed, and as Delaware passed laws that made it more receptive to corporations, more and more corporations incorporated there even though their principal places of business were elsewhere, but the concept here to my way of thinking is that the Federal Government, the only Federal banking agencies that's indicated any thoughts on this has said the principal place of business is fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [820.683, 830.373], "stop_times": [830.373, 853.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.683}, "reply_to": "19912__0_086", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_088", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, but you--\n--Mr. Stevens, maybe we have here what is... what conflict-of-laws mavens call \"renvoi\".\nThat is to say that the State law would look to the place of... to the State of incorporation, the state of incorporation here being the Federal Government, the Federal Government having no rule on the question refers it back to State law, and maybe that's how you get where you want to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [853.738, 854.923, 859.725], "stop_times": [854.923, 859.725, 874.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.738}, "reply_to": "19912__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_089", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I think that's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [874.468], "stop_times": [875.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.468}, "reply_to": "19912__0_088", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_090", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, but even on Justice Scalia's analysis, you've still got to have a basis for looking to some State law somewhere, and it seems to me that your answer to Justice Ginsburg boils down to this, that in addition to the O'Melveny standard, there's another source of Federal common law here, and the source is something like necessity.\nIf there's got to be a basis for court dealing with a federally chartered institution, to say what law applies, there is of necessity a Federal common law to the extent of deriving a pointing rule, and you're saying, I think, the necessity here is that Federal laws say that you look to the State of principal place of business.\nIsn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [875.586, 895.565, 919.532], "stop_times": [895.565, 919.532, 920.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.586}, "reply_to": "19912__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__0_091", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I would... I would agree with that as well, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [920.282], "stop_times": [923.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.282}, "reply_to": "19912__0_090", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_092", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Okay.\nWell, do we have to determine in this case before us which State law is applicable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [923.234, 924.067], "stop_times": [924.067, 933.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.234}, "reply_to": "19912__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__0_093", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, you don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [933.523], "stop_times": [934.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.523}, "reply_to": "19912__0_092", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_094", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--in order to answer the questions before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [934.292], "stop_times": [936.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.292}, "reply_to": "19912__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_095", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, you do not, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [936.075], "stop_times": [937.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.075}, "reply_to": "19912__0_094", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_096", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "What about applying the gross negligence standard in accordance with State law and so forth?\nWould you look to the State of incorporation or the place of business of the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [937.91, 943.314], "stop_times": [943.314, 946.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.91}, "reply_to": "19912__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_097", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, I think you'd look to State conflicts laws.\nI mean, Congress has made it clear you're supposed to determine that issue according to applicable State law.\nHowever you would go about doing that is... Congress didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [946.933, 950.052, 955.039], "stop_times": [950.052, 955.039, 958.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.933}, "reply_to": "19912__0_096", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_098", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But on your view of the case, that's what has to be done in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [958.59], "stop_times": [961.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.59}, "reply_to": "19912__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_099", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [961.775], "stop_times": [962.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.775}, "reply_to": "19912__0_098", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_100", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It's the gross negligence standard specified in 1821(k) in conformity with State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [962.409], "stop_times": [967.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 962.409}, "reply_to": "19912__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_101", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Right, in my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [967.013], "stop_times": [967.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.013}, "reply_to": "19912__0_100", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_102", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And what State law are we talking about in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [967.779], "stop_times": [969.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.779}, "reply_to": "19912__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_103", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--New Jersey in my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [969.548], "stop_times": [970.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.548}, "reply_to": "19912__0_102", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_104", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Everybody agrees to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [970.231], "stop_times": [971.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.231}, "reply_to": "19912__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_105", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--New Jersey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [971.115], "stop_times": [971.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.115}, "reply_to": "19912__0_104", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_106", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And is that because that's the principal place of business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [971.731], "stop_times": [973.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.731}, "reply_to": "19912__0_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_107", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [973.933], "stop_times": [974.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.933}, "reply_to": "19912__0_106", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_108", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And I take it that if the State of New Jersey allowed an action for simple negligence, that would be permissible under the Reserve Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [974.517], "stop_times": [983.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.517}, "reply_to": "19912__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__0_109", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [983.606], "stop_times": [984.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.606}, "reply_to": "19912__0_108", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_110", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "So they have to allow at least gross negligence, but if they have a more proplaintiff standard of liability than that, that, too, is incorporated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [984.808], "stop_times": [995.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 984.808}, "reply_to": "19912__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__0_111", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's correct, which I think is entirely consistent with the policy behind FIRREA and the legislative history of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [995.414], "stop_times": [1001.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.414}, "reply_to": "19912__0_110", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_112", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Could all this be solved by regulation?\nI mean, suppose the Federal Government is very upset that there is no clear... clear rule as to which law governs the internal affairs on this particular issue, could a regulation be issued which would set forth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1001.834, 1003.52], "stop_times": [1003.52, 1014.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.834}, "reply_to": "19912__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_113", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, this Court, in de la questa, said that the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which has been succeeded by the OTS, has plenary authority over federally chartered thrifts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1014.577], "stop_times": [1023.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.577}, "reply_to": "19912__0_112", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_114", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1023.183], "stop_times": [1023.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.183}, "reply_to": "19912__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_115", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I think that the OTS would have authority to promulgate regulations, all kinds of regulations related to the internal operations by saying you can only make loans that have this loan-to-value ratio, or you have to have this kind of collateral.\nThey could establish standards of conduct for virtually every aspect of the operations of the institution.\nI don't believe that they could articulate a standard that would create a Federal common law standard of liability for application in Federal court actions, civil court actions, and the reason for that is that Congress in section 1818(b)(6)(a), which was part of FIRREA, has provided an administrative remedy for all the Federal banking agencies to pursue claims against Federal and State-chartered institution thrifts and directors, and to recover losses from those individuals incurred as a result of their misconduct.\nBut in that statutory provision Congress has said that such recoveries can only be had where there is a showing of either unjust enrichment or reckless disregard.\nCongress imposed that statutory standard, and I don't believe that any of the Federal banking agencies has the authority to adopt a less stringent standard than that in the face of Congress having spoken.\nI think that's what a number of prior decisions of this Court indicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1023.849, 1036.906, 1041.994, 1076.734, 1086.757, 1099.581], "stop_times": [1036.906, 1041.994, 1076.734, 1086.757, 1099.581, 1104.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.849}, "reply_to": "19912__0_114", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_116", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, this is only after takeover, though, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1104.651], "stop_times": [1106.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.651}, "reply_to": "19912__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_117", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1106.503], "stop_times": [1107.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.503}, "reply_to": "19912__0_116", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_118", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1107.303], "stop_times": [1107.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.303}, "reply_to": "19912__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__0_119", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That administrative remedy is available to the agencies when the institution is solvent at any time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1107.853], "stop_times": [1114.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.853}, "reply_to": "19912__0_118", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_120", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "What about the savings clause in this Federal statute, 18--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1114.174], "stop_times": [1120.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.174}, "reply_to": "19912__0_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_121", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "21(k)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1120.078], "stop_times": [1121.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.078}, "reply_to": "19912__0_120", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_122", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--21(k)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1121.18], "stop_times": [1122.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.18}, "reply_to": "19912__0_121", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_123", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "The savings clause in this statute doesn't help the Government here for several reasons.\nWhat the savings clause says is that nothing in this paragraph shall impair or affect any right of the FDIC under other applicable law.\nOther applicable law can't be read in a way that renders the first sentence of 1821(k) inoperative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1122.23, 1127.833, 1137.272], "stop_times": [1127.833, 1137.272, 1146.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.23}, "reply_to": "19912__0_122", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_124", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, it isn't inoperative if you look at it from the point of view that at least faced with State law that says you need intentional misconduct, that the Federal law says no gross negligence will suffice, so of course it isn't inoperable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1146.145], "stop_times": [1164.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.145}, "reply_to": "19912__0_123", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_125", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It isn't... it doesn't render the language inoperable with respect to State-chartered institutions.\nIt does with respect to federally chartered institutions if you assume the existence of a Federal common law simple negligence claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1164.876, 1169.677], "stop_times": [1169.677, 1177.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.876}, "reply_to": "19912__0_124", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_126", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, but it doesn't if what you just said is the case.\nThat is, if Federal common law is, look to the State where the principal place of business exists, then it means just what Justice O'Connor said, and what we would do if the principal place of business is New Jersey, and if New Jersey has a statute of simple negligence, this statute would retain that cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1177.116, 1180.235], "stop_times": [1180.235, 1199.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.116}, "reply_to": "19912__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19912__0_127", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Absolutely correct.\nI... we do not contend that the savings clause precludes the Government from asserting a claim for simple negligence under applicable State law.\nThat is not our contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1199.43, 1200.113, 1206.953], "stop_times": [1200.113, 1206.953, 1208.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.43}, "reply_to": "19912__0_126", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_128", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And also that would be true if, as you've just said, the Federal law is that we look to the law of the State where the principal place of business of the federally incorporated bank exists.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1208.036], "stop_times": [1220.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.036}, "reply_to": "19912__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19912__0_129", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, I wouldn't agree with that for this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1220.962], "stop_times": [1222.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1220.962}, "reply_to": "19912__0_128", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_130", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1222.378], "stop_times": [1222.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.378}, "reply_to": "19912__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19912__0_131", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--For this reason.\nIn City of Milwaukee, one of the arguments that was made there was that there was a statutory section that dealt with citizen suits, and there was a provision in that section that said that any person was preserved the right to assert any remedy under State or common law, and that respondent in that case argued... petitioner in that case argued that that savings clause preserved Federal common law.\nThe Court rejected that argument and said at most... at most, that language only provided that that section dealing with citizen rights didn't have the effect of impacting a claim under common law, but that didn't mean that the comprehensive nature of the act as a whole didn't displace Federal common law, number 1, and number 2, it made the comment that the term common law as used in that savings clause was highly unlikely to have meant the specific narrowly construed Federal common law as opposed to the more generic State common law.\nIn this statutory provision, the savings clause doesn't even use the phrase, common law, and in our brief we point to a number of statutory provisions where when Congress wanted to save Federal common law it did so expressly.\nHere, the only phrase used is other applicable law, and we think that means Federal statutory law, State statutory law, State common law, which is the routine common law, but not the narrow, specific, rarely invoked Federal common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1222.812, 1223.578, 1251.231, 1287.155, 1298.895], "stop_times": [1223.578, 1251.231, 1287.155, 1298.895, 1314.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.812}, "reply_to": "19912__0_130", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_132", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Mr. Stevens, I thought your position was that there was in effect nothing to save, because there never was any governing Federal common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1314.238], "stop_times": [1324.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.238}, "reply_to": "19912__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_133", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That is our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1324.28], "stop_times": [1325.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.28}, "reply_to": "19912__0_132", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_134", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Which is quite different from... your answer to Justice Breyer seemed to imply there was Federal common law but there is no longer by virtue of the first sentence of 1821(k).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1325.196], "stop_times": [1336.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.196}, "reply_to": "19912__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_135", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I didn't mean to say that, Your Honor.\nOur position is there never was a Federal common law claim.\nThere isn't now.\nOur alternative argument is, should the court determine that there was a preexisting Federal common law claim for simple negligence that existed prior to the adoption of FIRREA, then Congress' reference to gross negligence standard in that statutory provision displaces that preexisting Federal common law, and that preexisting Federal common law is not preserved by the savings clause, so it's an alternative argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1336.087, 1336.987, 1340.055, 1341.155], "stop_times": [1336.987, 1340.055, 1341.155, 1366.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.087}, "reply_to": "19912__0_134", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_136", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But your position is that there is no substantive Federal common law, no common law governing the substantive standard of liability.\nIt is consistent with your argument that there might be a Federal pointer law telling you where you look, what State you look to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1366.503, 1374.459], "stop_times": [1374.459, 1382.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.503}, "reply_to": "19912__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__0_137", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1382.965], "stop_times": [1383.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.965}, "reply_to": "19912__0_136", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_138", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And that's what Justice Breyer's question was assuming, and I would have supposed that the Milwaukee case did not deal with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1383.598], "stop_times": [1390.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.598}, "reply_to": "19912__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__0_139", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1390.052], "stop_times": [1390.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.052}, "reply_to": "19912__0_138", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_140", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--because the Milwaukee case was dealing with substantive law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1390.754], "stop_times": [1392.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.754}, "reply_to": "19912__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__0_141", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1392.788], "stop_times": [1394.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1392.788}, "reply_to": "19912__0_140", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_142", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "So I would... then would you change your answer to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1394.606], "stop_times": [1397.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.606}, "reply_to": "19912__0_141", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__0_143", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes.\nIf that's where your question was coming from, Your Honor, then I misunderstood the question, and I would agree with Justice Souter.\nIf the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1397.142, 1397.608, 1403.211], "stop_times": [1397.608, 1403.211, 1405.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.142}, "reply_to": "19912__0_142", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_144", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Does the State of New Jersey under your view of the case have certain obligations that it imposes on directors by which we measure whether or not there has been gross negligence?\nThat is to say, you must have three appraisals before you lend on real property in excess of $3 million, or something like that?\nDoes the State of New Jersey have specific duties that are imposed on directors that are applicable to this corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1405.58, 1418.988, 1427.494], "stop_times": [1418.988, 1427.494, 1434.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.58}, "reply_to": "19912__0_143", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19912__0_145", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--I don't believe so.\nThere are State banking provisions under the law of New Jersey, but I don't know that... I don't think that they... they would be preempted by Federal regulations on the same subject matter.\nThey do have general statutory provisions that establish a duty of care for officers and directors of banking corporations, which would be applicable.\nMr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1434.331, 1435.85, 1444.138, 1451.709], "stop_times": [1435.85, 1444.138, 1451.709, 1456.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1434.331}, "reply_to": "19912__0_144", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_146", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, I have one last question.\nI'd asked you before if you... if petitioners had conceded below that Federal common law governed.\nNow, Judge Becker's opinion says both parties conceded that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1456.363, 1456.746, 1464.286], "stop_times": [1456.746, 1464.286, 1469.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.363}, "reply_to": "19912__0_145", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_147", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1469.571], "stop_times": [1470.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1469.571}, "reply_to": "19912__0_146", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_148", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "So was that an error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1470.44], "stop_times": [1471.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.44}, "reply_to": "19912__0_147", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__0_149", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Yes.\nWe are... we did argue at the district court level that Federal law governed.\nWe did make that argument, and we have reversed our position since then, but we reversed it at the Third Circuit level in light of this Court's decision in O'Melveny and Myers, not because the law fundamentally changed with that decision, to be honest, but because that decision focused attention on the fact... on the importance of the proposition that there is no general Federal common law, and we argued to the Third Circuit that the Government's position was wrong because it had no general Federal common law claim.\nThe Third Circuit was in error.\nWhat we did concede is that the only thing at issue in that case, because they had waived their State law claim, was, what was the nature of their Federal law claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1471.59, 1472.19, 1476.558, 1506.094, 1507.779], "stop_times": [1472.19, 1476.558, 1506.094, 1507.779, 1518.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.59}, "reply_to": "19912__0_148", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_150", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Mr. Stevens, I don't follow how you suddenly saw a light from O'Melveny which involved a State chartered institution, so this question of what law governs the internal operations of a federally chartered institution wasn't touched by O'Melveny.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1518.219], "stop_times": [1535.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.219}, "reply_to": "19912__0_149", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_151", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it's true that that case involved a State-chartered institution, but the proposition that there is no general Federal common law, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1535.78], "stop_times": [1543.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1535.78}, "reply_to": "19912__0_150", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_152", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "To govern a State-chartered institution that has internal operations controlled by the State of incorporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1543.869], "stop_times": [1550.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.869}, "reply_to": "19912__0_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__0_153", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Well, as I said, it's true that the facts of that case involved a State-chartered institution, but the propositions articulated by the Court at the beginning of that opinion I don't believe are limited by the fact that the institution in that case was State-chartered.\nI don't think the fact that you have to have unique Federal interests present and a conflict, a significant conflict between the application of State law and some identifiable Federal purpose is unique to State-chartered institutions.\nI think that standard applies for the creation of Federal common law no matter what the facts of the case are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1550.356, 1565.133, 1576.94], "stop_times": [1565.133, 1576.94, 1581.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1550.356}, "reply_to": "19912__0_152", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__0_154", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stevens.\nYou've reserved the time remaining.\nMr. Bress, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1581.494, 1582.744, 1584.446], "stop_times": [1582.744, 1584.446, 1585.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.494}, "reply_to": "19912__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__0_155", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1585.963], "stop_times": [1587.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.963}, "reply_to": "19912__0_154", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_000", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nSection 1821(k) is a plainly worded provision, and in our view it means precisely what it says.\nIt provides that the FDIC as receiver may hold officers and directors of failed financial institutions liable for their gross negligence or worse misconduct while preserving the FDIC's preexisting right to assert against those officers and directors whatever claims the institution could have asserted on its own behalf.\nNow, petitioner's argument to the contrary is based on a supposed negative implication.\nAt least--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1587.315, 1592.767, 1599.539, 1617.433, 1624.57], "stop_times": [1592.767, 1599.539, 1617.433, 1624.57, 1625.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.315}, "reply_to": "19912__0_155", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_001", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "They haven't argued to the contrary.\nThey would agree with everything you've said so far.\nThe only issue is, they don't think there are any rights that it had under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1625.254, 1626.106, 1628.006], "stop_times": [1626.106, 1628.006, 1633.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.254}, "reply_to": "19912__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_002", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Your Honor, that is certainly their primary argument.\nTheir secondary argument, however, is that even if there was Federal common law it's been supplanted by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1633.176, 1635.295], "stop_times": [1635.295, 1640.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1633.176}, "reply_to": "19912__1_001", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_003", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Is that what you're going to address now, or the primary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1640.514], "stop_times": [1642.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.514}, "reply_to": "19912__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_004", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, the arguments have sort of switched place in terms of what's primary and what's not from the briefing schedule.\nIf you'd like, Your Honor, I can address the underlying law at this point.\nI'd just like to note before I do it that either Federal common law exists, in which case the statute preserves the FDIC's right to assert it, or Federal law, common law doesn't exist, in which case we're all agreed that State law governs and that the FDIC can assert the institution's State law claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1642.716, 1648.084, 1651.988], "stop_times": [1648.084, 1651.988, 1667.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1642.716}, "reply_to": "19912__1_003", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_005", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I think that's generally agreed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1667.997], "stop_times": [1670.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.997}, "reply_to": "19912__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_006", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "All right, and I'd like to note one extra thing at this point which is, to the degree that there's an argument here that the FDIC has waived its State law claims, there has been no waiver here.\nIn fact, the third amended complaint that's been filed simply alleges counts for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1670.033, 1678.805], "stop_times": [1678.805, 1686.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.033}, "reply_to": "19912__1_005", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_007", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, do you agree we don't have to decide what the applicable State law is here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1686.143], "stop_times": [1690.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.143}, "reply_to": "19912__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__1_008", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Oh, I agree, Your Honor, primarily because we don't believe that there is applicable State law here.\nI'd like to address that, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1690.863, 1695.851], "stop_times": [1695.851, 1697.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1690.863}, "reply_to": "19912__1_007", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_009", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "May I... I think this is what you're going to address, but you contend there is a Federal common law that is applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1697.483], "stop_times": [1703.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.483}, "reply_to": "19912__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_010", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1703.52], "stop_times": [1704.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1703.52}, "reply_to": "19912__1_009", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_011", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And is the Federal common law rule one that is the same in all States in the country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1704.604], "stop_times": [1709.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.604}, "reply_to": "19912__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_012", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1709.074], "stop_times": [1709.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.074}, "reply_to": "19912__1_011", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_013", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And why, then, is the Federal statutory gross negligence law... rule somewhat different in different States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1709.991], "stop_times": [1716.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1709.991}, "reply_to": "19912__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_014", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, that can be explained by what the state of the law was at the time that Congress acted, and what Congress' purposes here were.\nThis was emergency legislation, and Congress had a very simple purpose, which was to preempt State insulating statutes that could insulate officers and directors of financial institutions from liability to the FDIC.\nNow, at that time, while the majority of courts were applying the uniform ordinary care standard of Federal common law to officers and directors of federally chartered associations, some courts were applying State law to officers and directors of federally chartered associations.\nCongress didn't try to sort out which was the right answer.\nCongress just wanted to make sure, whatever a court might otherwise apply, the FDIC would always have a suit for gross negligence, so if a court would apply the State's law to a federally chartered association, Congress was telling them, well, apply that State's gross negligence standard.\nHowever, if a court were to apply Federal common law the question really would never come up, because under Federal common law the standard is, and has for a long time, been a standard of ordinary care.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1716.597, 1724.101, 1735.826, 1749.318, 1752.103, 1768.447], "stop_times": [1724.101, 1735.826, 1749.318, 1752.103, 1768.447, 1777.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.597}, "reply_to": "19912__1_013", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_015", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's by no means the only reading of that statute, certainly.\nI mean, to... your interpretation is certainly not the only one that comes from the language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1777.136, 1781.02], "stop_times": [1781.02, 1786.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.136}, "reply_to": "19912__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_016", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, Your Honor, but we believe it's the one that makes the most sense out of the language in the following sense.\nThe savings clause preserves the FDIC's rights under other applicable law.\nNow, at the time, Congress is presumed to enact laws with knowledge of what the surrounding law is, and at that time the vast majority of courts were applying Federal common law to suits against officers and directors of federally chartered associations, so to take their interpretation of the statute you have to believe that Congress missed that entirely and believed that State law was applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1786.424, 1790.562, 1795.347], "stop_times": [1790.562, 1795.347, 1813.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.424}, "reply_to": "19912__1_015", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_017", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "You're saying there's no reference to State law, that that provision does not refer to State law at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1813.659], "stop_times": [1818.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.659}, "reply_to": "19912__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_018", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Oh, no, no, no.\nNo, that's not what I'm saying, Your Honor.\nWhat I'm saying is that with regard to federally chartered associations the reference to other applicable law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1818.963, 1819.997, 1821.197], "stop_times": [1819.997, 1821.197, 1826.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.963}, "reply_to": "19912__1_017", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_019", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1826.401], "stop_times": [1827.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.401}, "reply_to": "19912__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_020", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--in terms of civil suits would be Federal common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1827.051], "stop_times": [1828.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.051}, "reply_to": "19912__1_019", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_021", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Right.\nOrdinarily, when Congress legislates in a particular field, it is substituting a statute for what might have been Federal common law before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1828.853, 1829.487], "stop_times": [1829.487, 1836.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.853}, "reply_to": "19912__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_022", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1836.257], "stop_times": [1838.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.257}, "reply_to": "19912__1_021", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_023", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's the City of Milwaukee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1838.393], "stop_times": [1839.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.393}, "reply_to": "19912__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_024", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, when the statute speaks to the matter at issue this Court has said that that's what... but in order to determine what the statute says when it speaks we've got to look at the words of the statute, and what this statute says is, the FDIC can always sue for gross negligence, but the FDIC can also assert whatever it could have asserted otherwise under other applicable law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1839.509], "stop_times": [1857.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.509}, "reply_to": "19912__1_023", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_025", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, but when you say other applicable law, do you think that... you say that meant they meant to preserve Federal common law, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1857.338], "stop_times": [1864.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.338}, "reply_to": "19912__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_026", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIn fact, it would have been odd had they not, because as I've said, with regard to Federal associations that was the primary law that was applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1864.193, 1864.843], "stop_times": [1864.843, 1870.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.193}, "reply_to": "19912__1_025", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_027", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, but no... there were no decisions from this Court on point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1870.68], "stop_times": [1873.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.68}, "reply_to": "19912__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_028", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, but there were decisions from courts of appeals in district courts, and Congress is presumed to know those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1873.382], "stop_times": [1877.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.382}, "reply_to": "19912__1_027", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_029", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "So Congress is supposed to sort out the various Federal rules and the State rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1877.918], "stop_times": [1881.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.918}, "reply_to": "19912__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_030", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, we're not contending that Congress sorted out and decided what was correct and what was incorrect.\nAll we're saying is that Congress would have been aware that the vast majority of courts were applying Federal common law.\nCongress didn't try to sort it out.\nCongress just said whatever the courts are applying, you've got a gross negligence standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1881.636, 1885.607, 1890.159, 1891.344], "stop_times": [1885.607, 1890.159, 1891.344, 1895.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.636}, "reply_to": "19912__1_029", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_031", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But some weren't, and to say in the statute that nothing in this paragraph shall affect any right of the FDIC under other applicable law reads to me as though they are also saving State law where it applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1895.23], "stop_times": [1910.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.23}, "reply_to": "19912__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__1_032", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Oh, there's no doubt about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1910.472], "stop_times": [1911.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.472}, "reply_to": "19912__1_031", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_033", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And quite possibly the Federal common law directs us to State common law for the standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1911.757], "stop_times": [1919.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.757}, "reply_to": "19912__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19912__1_034", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "All right.\nI'd like to address that, Your Honor.\nLet me just preface it with a notion, though, that the statute doesn't purport to affect what the rights of the institution would have against its own officers and directors, so if you adopt the position that Federal common law is supplanted with respect to FDIC suits, you do have a situation where the institution before it fails could sue under Federal common law for ordinary care, but if the officer-directors perform so poorly the institution goes under, the FDIC is limited to the gross negligence standard.\nThat's a bit odd.\nBut now let me address what the underlying law is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1919.911, 1920.161, 1922.027, 1947.911, 1948.694], "stop_times": [1920.161, 1922.027, 1947.911, 1948.694, 1950.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.911}, "reply_to": "19912__1_033", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_035", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But Mr. Bress, that depends on assuming that there is Federal common law that would govern the internal operation, something that this Court has never decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1950.68], "stop_times": [1957.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.68}, "reply_to": "19912__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_036", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's right, Your Honor, and let me now address that.\nThis Court has long understood that a corporation is a creature of law, and that its internal affairs are governed by the laws of the chartering authority, that the chartering authority and no other sovereign is the sovereign that has the predominant interest in those internal affairs.\nNow, that's not just as a conflict of laws principle.\nThe Court has applied that in the context where you've got Federal preemption in dormant Commerce Clause challenges.\nIt's a principle of sovereignty at its fundamental base.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1957.834, 1960.036, 1978.848, 1981.901, 1987.805, 1990.923], "stop_times": [1960.036, 1978.848, 1981.901, 1987.805, 1990.923, 1991.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.834}, "reply_to": "19912__1_035", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_037", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Of sovereignty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1991.657], "stop_times": [1993.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.657}, "reply_to": "19912__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_038", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1993.257], "stop_times": [1994.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.257}, "reply_to": "19912__1_037", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_039", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "You think it would be unconstitutional for a State, for example, to impose upon directors for certain activities a liability higher... to that State's citizens a liability higher than what the corporate State of incorporation would provide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [1994.375], "stop_times": [2014.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.375}, "reply_to": "19912__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_040", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, it flows from principles of sovereignty.\nIt does not make it unconstitutional, but it certainly does flow from principles of sovereignty.\nThis Court has stated that in Burks, in Kamen, in Cohens.\nWith regard to State institutions the Court has said, because it's created by the State, all of the rights and responsibilities flow from that State's laws, and it has also made clear the flip side, that when an institution... the Court has made clear that when an institution is chartered by the Federal Government it's from the Federal Government and from that charter that the rights and responsibilities flow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2014.021, 2016.956, 2021.193, 2025.394], "stop_times": [2016.956, 2021.193, 2025.394, 2044.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2014.021}, "reply_to": "19912__1_039", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_041", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "In contracts--\n--Well, that may be, but it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2044.142, 2045.142], "stop_times": [2045.142, 2046.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.142}, "reply_to": "19912__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_042", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "What's that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2046.008], "stop_times": [2046.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.008}, "reply_to": "19912__1_041", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_043", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--In contracts, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2046.542], "stop_times": [2047.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.542}, "reply_to": "19912__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_044", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And in contracts as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2047.094], "stop_times": [2048.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2047.094}, "reply_to": "19912__1_043", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_045", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No.\nI mean, I said that somewhat facetiously, because I just wondered under the principles of Erie what good reason there is to have a special Federal law that's substantive in relation to banks that are chartered federally that wouldn't also apply to contracts, torts, and a whole bunch of things, and indeed, what is the implication of that for Erie?\nAre we recreating Federal common law in a new area across the board?\nThat's, I guess, the question you've been asked by others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2048.677, 2049.476, 2069.523, 2073.661], "stop_times": [2049.476, 2069.523, 2073.661, 2075.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.677}, "reply_to": "19912__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_046", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Not at all, Your Honor, in this sense.\nI mean, Erie, the primary purpose of Erie and the primary insight of Erie is that law has to flow from an identifiable sovereign.\nThere's no transcendental common law floating out there.\nBut after Erie, it was not the case that all common law was State.\nMost common law was, but in areas of unique or essential Federal interest the law is Federal.\nNow, with regard to contracts, we're not saying that a bank's contracts with third parties are governed by Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2075.893, 2078.196, 2084.617, 2087.152, 2090.504, 2095.074], "stop_times": [2078.196, 2084.617, 2087.152, 2090.504, 2095.074, 2099.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2075.893}, "reply_to": "19912__1_045", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_047", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But that's exactly my question, to be less elliptical, is what is the practical Federal interest here that requires a Federal common law that could not be served as well by a Federal common law pointer rule that said, simply apply the law of the State, a principal place of business, or the Model Business Code?\nIn other words, the things that were cited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2099.979, 2120.725], "stop_times": [2120.725, 2122.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.979}, "reply_to": "19912__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19912__1_048", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, it's certainly true that in many areas this Court as a pointer rule will look to a State's law really as a convenient point of reference, and we think that that's a propriate in many instances.\nIt is not appropriate, however, where analogous Federal law provides you with some idea of what Congress thought about the matter, and in this case, by providing under section 1818(i) and section 1818(e) that the Federal regulators can enforce breaches of fiduciary duties which at the time the statute was created clearly included the duty of ordinary care, Congress is telling us that for Federal purposes enforcement of the duty of ordinary care is an important interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2122.692, 2132.7], "stop_times": [2132.7, 2162.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.692}, "reply_to": "19912__1_047", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_049", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But your argument goes well beyond that.\nIt goes to the entire internal management of the corporation if the theory you're putting before us is correct, and I would go further than Justice Breyer.\nIt seems to me that there's a lot more chance of some certainty in the law if we refer to State law than if we try to apply some nebulous Federal common law of internal operations of the corporation.\nIt will take us, you know, 100 years to develop a Federal law of internal management of corporations.\nWe've never done it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2162.902, 2164.219, 2172.575, 2186.75, 2192.004], "stop_times": [2164.219, 2172.575, 2186.75, 2192.004, 2193.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.902}, "reply_to": "19912__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_050", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, Your Honor, if we were talking about inventing all of corporate law for financial institutions I would be constrained to agree with you.\nWe're not talking about that.\nAll we're talking about is an area where Congress has itself said that the duty of ordinary care will be enforced.\nNow, matters as demand on the corporation, futility of demand, that sort of thing, sure, a pointer rule would be appropriate, but where Congress has said the duty of ordinary care should be enforced, it would be appropriate to enforce that duty of ordinary care rather than, for instance... let me give you an example.\nIf a State were to completely remove all duty of care from its officers and directors, should that then mean that the Federal institution would have no claim whatever and no ability to enforce fiduciary duties of its own officers-directors, and similarly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2193.038, 2200.594, 2201.677, 2208.331, 2221.841], "stop_times": [2200.594, 2201.677, 2208.331, 2221.841, 2237.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.038}, "reply_to": "19912__1_049", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_051", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Are you talking about preinsolvency, or postinsolvency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2237.617], "stop_times": [2239.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.617}, "reply_to": "19912__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_052", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--I'm talking about preinsolvency, and similarly, if a State were to enact strict liability as the standard, should that mean that the Federal chartering authority should have no ability to make sure that their institutions could attract officers and directors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2239.883], "stop_times": [2252.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.883}, "reply_to": "19912__1_051", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_053", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But it's one thing to say the Federal chartering authority has no right to do that, but it's another thing to say that the Federal courts should step in on their own and develop a body of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2252.793], "stop_times": [2261.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.793}, "reply_to": "19912__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_054", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I'm glad you've mentioned that.\nThe OTS, Office of Thrift Supervision, enforces section 1818(i) and section 1818(e), and in the context of agency adjudication has interpreted those sections to refer, when they refer to breach of fiduciary duties, to the duty of ordinary care, and further than that, and in terms of looking for certainty in the law, the OTS has set out the sorts of duties that are expected of an ordinarily prudent director in those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2261.998, 2263.865], "stop_times": [2263.865, 2290.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.998}, "reply_to": "19912__1_053", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_055", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Mr. Bress, those duties govern the relationship between the regulator and the bank, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2290.566], "stop_times": [2296.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.566}, "reply_to": "19912__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_056", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Those duties are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2296.12], "stop_times": [2297.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.12}, "reply_to": "19912__1_055", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_057", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Does OTS purport to be governing the relationship between the bank and its shareholders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2297.572], "stop_times": [2303.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.572}, "reply_to": "19912__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_058", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--The OTS has spoken in agency adjudication and said that the duties that are enforced should be the duties that the Federal regulator enforces as a matter of Federal law and should not depend on the courts of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2303.809], "stop_times": [2314.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2303.809}, "reply_to": "19912__1_057", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_059", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2314.967], "stop_times": [2315.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.967}, "reply_to": "19912__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_060", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It said that in agency adjudication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2315.383], "stop_times": [2316.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2315.383}, "reply_to": "19912__1_059", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_061", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, it says it shouldn't depend on the quirks of State law, and yet under O'Melveny don't we have to see whether there is a conflict between the Federal interest and the State law, and it has been virtually conceded here that the law of every State on this point is ordinary negligence.\nWhy, then, do we have an occasion to look to this issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2316.65, 2335.031], "stop_times": [2335.031, 2338.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.65}, "reply_to": "19912__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_062", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Okay.\nYour Honor, I'd like to address that in two parts, if I may.\nFirst of all, the conflict and the degree of conflict that is necessary really depends on what you're doing with regard to State law.\nIn O'Melveny and many other of these courts' cases what you're dealing with is... and in Boyle as well... you're displacing State law that would, in fact, otherwise apply in an area where the State has an interest.\nHere what you're talking about is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2338.899, 2339.333, 2341.434, 2348.338, 2358.812], "stop_times": [2339.333, 2341.434, 2348.338, 2358.812, 2360.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.899}, "reply_to": "19912__1_061", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_063", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "And you're displacing that law presumably in favor of a standard substantively which is different from the State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2360.329], "stop_times": [2367.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.329}, "reply_to": "19912__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_064", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--That's right.\nThat's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2367.502, 2367.802], "stop_times": [2367.802, 2368.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.502}, "reply_to": "19912__1_063", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_065", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2368.468], "stop_times": [2369.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.468}, "reply_to": "19912__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_066", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, let me... I will address that, Your Honor.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2369.418, 2372.47], "stop_times": [2372.47, 2372.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.418}, "reply_to": "19912__1_065", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_067", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Mr. Bress, I think you ought to clarify one thing.\nIt isn't the State law generally that ordinary negligence is the standard, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2372.837, 2373.656], "stop_times": [2373.656, 2378.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.837}, "reply_to": "19912__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_068", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2378.708], "stop_times": [2379.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.708}, "reply_to": "19912__1_067", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_069", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I thought... if that were the case there would never have been any need for this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2379.31], "stop_times": [2382.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.31}, "reply_to": "19912__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_070", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Your Honor, most States as a matter of common law and a matter of statutory law, they don't speak in terms of ordinary negligence.\nWhat they speak of in terms of is ordinary care is the standard, and they apply that with the business judgment rule, so that you've got to demonstrate ordinary care to even get within the business judgment rule, and if you've exercised ordinary care... and we agree with this.\nIf you've exercised ordinary care you will not be held liable for honest mistakes of judgment.\nThere's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2382.06, 2388.832, 2401.156, 2404.925], "stop_times": [2388.832, 2401.156, 2404.925, 2406.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.06}, "reply_to": "19912__1_069", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_071", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But--\n--Maybe I'm confused.\nI thought that the whole reason for 1812 had nothing to do with federally chartered institutions.\nIt had to do with States that were insulating officers and directors from any liability--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2406.043, 2406.56, 2407.427, 2412.531], "stop_times": [2406.56, 2407.427, 2412.531, 2416.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.043}, "reply_to": "19912__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_072", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Okay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2416.999], "stop_times": [2417.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2416.999}, "reply_to": "19912__1_071", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_073", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--so Congress wanted to say at least gross negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2417.533], "stop_times": [2419.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.533}, "reply_to": "19912__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_074", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Your Honor, there are several States, and there was a trend during the late 1980's of States that were, as a matter of statutory law, restricting liability of officers and directors to gross negligence or worse.\nMany... several of them were restricting it to intentional or wanton misconduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2419.868, 2431.259], "stop_times": [2431.259, 2434.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.868}, "reply_to": "19912__1_073", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_075", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes, I think where we got confused is that the State common law was ordinary negligence, but the State insulating statutes supplanted common law and that's why we got--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2434.461], "stop_times": [2441.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2434.461}, "reply_to": "19912__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_076", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and in terms of negligence and ordinary negligence this... it's somewhat helpful, I think, even now to look back at the... at this Court's formulation in Briggs where it said what you're really talking about is ordinary care is the standard, and in some circumstances perhaps slight care is required.\nFor example, it isn't a transaction that really has much impact on the bank.\nIn some instances, however, you've got a bet... your company transaction and great care is required, and you look to whether the director has satisfied the care required under the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2441.3, 2455.291, 2459.012], "stop_times": [2455.291, 2459.012, 2468.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2441.3}, "reply_to": "19912__1_075", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_077", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2468.034], "stop_times": [2468.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.034}, "reply_to": "19912__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_078", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But if I might continue as to why we use a Federal standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2468.518], "stop_times": [2470.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.518}, "reply_to": "19912__1_077", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_079", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--May I interrupt with one question?\nYour argument based on 1818(i) and (e) and the regulatory power, are those regulatory powers of the OTS applicable to State-chartered institutions as well as Federal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2470.634, 2472.07], "stop_times": [2472.07, 2481.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.634}, "reply_to": "19912__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_080", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--They are, Your Honor, and in those instances you do have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2481.508], "stop_times": [2484.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.508}, "reply_to": "19912__1_079", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_081", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2484.643], "stop_times": [2485.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.643}, "reply_to": "19912__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_082", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Well, in those instances you have two separate standards that are going to apply to the officers and directors, because you have two separate sovereigns that have an interest.\nHowever, as petitioner has effectively conceded here, I think, while we can point as a pointer rule to the State where the main office is, that doesn't necessarily mean that that State has a substantial interest in the internal workings of a federally chartered institution.\nWe're just pointing to it as a matter of convenience, Your Honor, and in that circumstance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2485.077, 2491.031, 2503.374], "stop_times": [2491.031, 2503.374, 2507.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2485.077}, "reply_to": "19912__1_081", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_083", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Yes, but if you're right that those sections dictate ordinary care across the board, Congress didn't have to enact this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2507.909], "stop_times": [2514.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2507.909}, "reply_to": "19912__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_084", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--No, Your Honor, and I think Congress did, because there's no question that ordinary care is the standard for purposes of Federal regulatory enforcement as a Federal standard, because the statute was enacted to protect the Federal interest in the safety and soundness of all banks.\nHowever, Congress recognizes that States are the ones that dictate the civil standards of liability for their own institutions, the rights of the institution and the shareholders vis-a-vis the directors.\nYou have two different standards for States because you've got two different sovereigns.\nHere, you've one sovereign with an interest in it, and under HOLA, as this Court recognized in de la questa, the Homeowners Loan Act, Congress evinced a desire to have uniformity in the regulation of savings and loans.\nThis isn't just the courts invoking the interest of uniformity, this is Congress saying that uniformity is important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2514.83, 2530.608, 2539.38, 2542.416, 2554.474], "stop_times": [2530.608, 2539.38, 2542.416, 2554.474, 2559.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.83}, "reply_to": "19912__1_083", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_085", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But then in--\n--Mr. Bress, what are the problems about the uniformity?\nYou are saying Federal common law, and we look to an administrative agency, OTS, to get that Federal common law, and that... that's rather odd.\nThere is no Delaware corporation statute for the Federal, so we have to get the law from some place, and you say, well, the Federal common law should be what the OTS has pronounced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2559.544, 2560.428, 2562.579, 2573.601], "stop_times": [2560.428, 2562.579, 2573.601, 2584.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.544}, "reply_to": "19912__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_086", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "If I... if that's how I came across, Your Honor, I'm sorry.\nI would... and that's further that I wanted to go.\nWhat I'm saying is that the statute itself includes a duty of ordinary care in it.\nThe OTS, in enforcing that duty of ordinary care, will, as the expert body, flesh it out somewhat, give an idea of what that entails for officers and directors of federally chartered institutions, and that's going to give you a better idea... I mean, perhaps Delaware does have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2584.826, 2587.611, 2590.23, 2594.015], "stop_times": [2587.611, 2590.23, 2594.015, 2606.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.826}, "reply_to": "19912__1_085", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_087", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But that's not common law, then.\nYou're saying there's a statutory preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2606.406, 2608.358], "stop_times": [2608.358, 2610.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.406}, "reply_to": "19912__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_088", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2610.576], "stop_times": [2611.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.576}, "reply_to": "19912__1_087", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_089", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "If you're saying its right in the statute and that's all that OTS is doing, then aren't you saying there's a preemption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2611.876], "stop_times": [2616.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.876}, "reply_to": "19912__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_090", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, not quite, Your Honor.\nWhat we're really saying is this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2616.464, 2617.897], "stop_times": [2617.897, 2618.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.464}, "reply_to": "19912__1_089", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_091", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, how close do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2618.832], "stop_times": [2619.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.832}, "reply_to": "19912__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_092", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--All right... well, fairly close, Your Honor.\nWhat we're coming at is really in Kamen what this Court said is if there is an analogous Federal provision that gives you an idea of what Congress would have done in this area, you look to that.\nThis Court did that in Musick and Peeler, the same sort of a thing, where under 10(b)(5) the Court said that you would use the contribution from the '34 act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2619.566, 2621.166, 2629.705], "stop_times": [2621.166, 2629.705, 2639.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.566}, "reply_to": "19912__1_091", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_093", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Well, that would be a much stronger argument, I would suppose, if this statute had never been passed.\nYes.\nBecause if (k) had never been... if subsection (k) had rever been enacted, then if I follow your argument I would say, well, there's an area which is analogous to something covered by the statute that OTS is administering, but that statute doesn't cover it literally, and therefore I could say, well, there's a place where there seems to be a conflict between perceived Federal interest and State common law, and therefore we better develop some Federal common law for... to govern that.\nBut this statute has been passed which in effect is saying that in the area of possibly perceived conflict the threshold of gross negligence is good enough, so there doesn't seem to be any occasion to develop a common law to supplement that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2639.413, 2643.298, 2643.932, 2677.871], "stop_times": [2643.298, 2643.932, 2677.871, 2694.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.413}, "reply_to": "19912__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_094", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, I think what the statute's telling you, and I think that what's actually the case here, is that there is a Federal interest, for instance, with regard to all banks whether they're State or Federal, that's clear, and in 1821(k) that interest was the Federal interest as in Shaw, and what Congress did is said... the first draft, in fact, of the Senate bill would have allowed the FDIC to proceed as receiver under any common law action, including ordinary negligence.\nThere were objections to that that were federalism-based.\nThe federalism-based objection said, look, what you're talking about are, you're including corporations that we've chartered, and as to which we dictate the internal affairs, and some States might legitimately believe that gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence is the right standard.\nSo Congress compromised.\nThey said the FDIC will always be able to sue for gross negligence even though, if a State has chosen a lower threshold or a higher threshold--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2694.797, 2718.246, 2720.865, 2733.339, 2734.557], "stop_times": [2718.246, 2720.865, 2733.339, 2734.557, 2740.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2694.797}, "reply_to": "19912__1_093", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_095", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But that suggests neither uniformity, nor does it suggest, as I thought you said earlier, that 1821(k) adopts some sort of standard of ordinary negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2740.695], "stop_times": [2750.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.695}, "reply_to": "19912__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_096", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I... I'm sorry if that point has become confused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2750.734], "stop_times": [2755.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2750.734}, "reply_to": "19912__1_095", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_097", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I'm not sure I correctly understood you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2755.455], "stop_times": [2756.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.455}, "reply_to": "19912__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_098", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "We don't say that 1821(k) as a standard of ordinary negligence.\nWhat we're pointing to for that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2756.205, 2759.423], "stop_times": [2759.423, 2760.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.205}, "reply_to": "19912__1_097", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_099", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It has... to the extent it has a standard, its standard is gross negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2760.775], "stop_times": [2763.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.775}, "reply_to": "19912__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_100", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Your Honor, there's no question about that, and that's not where our argument's going.\n1818(i) and 1818(e) are provisions where the Federal regulator can enforce breaches of fiduciary duties.\nAt the time those provisions were enacted, it was very clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2763.894, 2766.178, 2774.432], "stop_times": [2766.178, 2774.432, 2778.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2763.894}, "reply_to": "19912__1_099", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_101", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Preinsolvency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2778.32], "stop_times": [2779.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.32}, "reply_to": "19912__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_102", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--that breach of fiduciary duties included... preinsolvency that breach of fiduciary duties included the breach of the duty of ordinary care.\nAll we're saying here is, you've got a circumstance where you're either going to use a State law pointer rule, or you're going to adopt a uniform Federal standard.\nBecause Congress has said that the uniform Federal standard should be enforced as ordinary care, it's more appropriate to use that Federal standard that Congress has already told us is the standard that should apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2779.42, 2785.89, 2792.478], "stop_times": [2785.89, 2792.478, 2803.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2779.42}, "reply_to": "19912__1_101", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_103", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "I think your argument's just extremely opaque on that point.\nAre we getting into a position where we're like the King of France?\nWe march up the hill and then march down again?\nIf Federal law points to State law, then what difference does it make?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2803.452, 2806.804, 2810.105, 2812.374], "stop_times": [2806.804, 2810.105, 2812.374, 2816.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.452}, "reply_to": "19912__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_104", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--We're not saying that Federal law points to State law, Your Honor.\nWhat we're saying is that Federal law is the law that's applicable.\nIt's been suggested that we could point to State law.\nWe're disagreeing with that.\nWe're saying, no, there's a Federal standard that Congress has already said these officers and directors should live up to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2816.861, 2819.313, 2822.599, 2825.051, 2826.584], "stop_times": [2819.313, 2822.599, 2825.051, 2826.584, 2831.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2816.861}, "reply_to": "19912__1_103", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_105", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "At a different stage of the proceeding, preinsolvency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2831.288], "stop_times": [2835.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.288}, "reply_to": "19912__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_106", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, but again, all the FDIC's taking here are the rights that the institution had preinsolvency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2835.507], "stop_times": [2840.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.507}, "reply_to": "19912__1_105", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_107", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well then, we are just... if you're saying 1821(k) addresses this, we're talking about gross negligence, not simple negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2840.311], "stop_times": [2848.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.311}, "reply_to": "19912__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__1_108", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, 1821(k) says that if the other applicable law doesn't give you a gross negligence standard, you can still sue for gross negligence.\nWhat we're saying is that with regard to federally chartered institutions their rights vis-a-vis their own directors and officers are governed by Federal law because they operate under a Federal charter, and in determining what those rights are and what the duties are, we can either look for the State pointer... and by the way, the pointer is not always going to look to States with a well developed corporate law.\nAccording to petitioner, the pointer might point to any State where you've got the main office, but you can either use a State pointer, or you could look to what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2848.231, 2857.938, 2876.75], "stop_times": [2857.938, 2876.75, 2885.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.231}, "reply_to": "19912__1_107", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_109", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Mr. Bress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2885.006], "stop_times": [2885.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.006}, "reply_to": "19912__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_110", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Federal Government has said ought to be enforced as the duty, and we're just saying, given the interest in uniformity demonstrated in the Homeowners Loan Act that savings and loans should be subject to uniform standards, one should look to what Congress has said and apply a uniform standard, otherwise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2885.89], "stop_times": [2899.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.89}, "reply_to": "19912__1_109", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_111", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--What Congress has said where, in (i)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2899.015], "stop_times": [2902.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.015}, "reply_to": "19912__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_112", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--In section 1818(i)(b)(2) Congress has said that officers and directors can be subject to civil money penalties for breach of fiduciary duties that cause or are likely to cause more than minimum damage to the institution.\nNow, I grant that that section doesn't say what breach of fiduciary duties means, but this Court has long looked, and the latest case is DeSaterfield v. Mans and CCNV v. Reid... has long said that when the Congress uses a common law term, we look to what that term... whether that term had an established meaning.\nThe term did have an established meaning, and that included the duty of ordinary care, and if you rule against us, Your Honor, what will occur is that officers and directors of Federal institutions will have different and varying duties of care.\nIt will have a duty of care for the Federal regulators and a different one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2902.467, 2917.644, 2936.272, 2950.615], "stop_times": [2917.644, 2936.272, 2950.615, 2953.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2902.467}, "reply_to": "19912__1_111", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_113", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, they do under the gross negligence standard anyway.\nYou've agreed they do under the gross negligence standard, because that refers to State law in any event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2953.15, 2954.55], "stop_times": [2954.55, 2959.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.15}, "reply_to": "19912__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_114", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Officers and directors of federally chartered associations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2959.185], "stop_times": [2961.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.185}, "reply_to": "19912__1_113", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_115", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Oh.\nOh, you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2961.47, 2961.954], "stop_times": [2961.954, 2962.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2961.47}, "reply_to": "19912__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_116", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--That's all I'm talking about, is officers and directors of Federals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2962.387], "stop_times": [2964.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.387}, "reply_to": "19912__1_115", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_117", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Am I correct that... you're familiar with the Seventh Circuit case where Judge Easterbrook took part of your position and Judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2964.672], "stop_times": [2970.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.672}, "reply_to": "19912__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_118", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2970.743], "stop_times": [2971.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.743}, "reply_to": "19912__1_117", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_119", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Posner took another part.\nYou wouldn't agree with either one of those opinions, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2971.31, 2972.695], "stop_times": [2972.695, 2975.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.31}, "reply_to": "19912__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_120", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2975.379], "stop_times": [2976.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2975.379}, "reply_to": "19912__1_119", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_121", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2976.213], "stop_times": [2976.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.213}, "reply_to": "19912__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_122", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "We think that Judge Easterbrook correctly recognized that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2976.646], "stop_times": [2979.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.646}, "reply_to": "19912__1_121", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_123", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "He went the first step.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2979.081], "stop_times": [2979.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.081}, "reply_to": "19912__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_124", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--throughout the chartering authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2979.548], "stop_times": [2980.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.548}, "reply_to": "19912__1_123", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_125", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2980.665], "stop_times": [2981.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.665}, "reply_to": "19912__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__1_126", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--but he was incorrect in believing that it was displaced when you've got an express savings clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2981.2], "stop_times": [2986.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.2}, "reply_to": "19912__1_125", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_127", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Then you are taking the position, Mr. Bress, that the first sentence has no application to a federally chartered institution because you will have under the Federal common law this ordinary negligence standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2986.252], "stop_times": [2999.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.252}, "reply_to": "19912__1_126", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_128", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, our position is that it really has no practical application.\nI mean, when Congress passed the statute, though, it wasn't acting imprudently, because at that time some courts were applying State law to Federal institutions, so Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [2999.495, 3002.197], "stop_times": [3002.197, 3010.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2999.495}, "reply_to": "19912__1_127", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_129", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "You were saying that Congress said we don't know what it is, but whatever it is, we're not leaving... we're leaving it alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3010.185], "stop_times": [3014.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3010.185}, "reply_to": "19912__1_128", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_130", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Whenever the law is out there, we're leaving it alone.\nIf they were going to apply State law to you, and that State law would not give you a cause of action for gross negligence, you've got it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3014.421, 3016.623], "stop_times": [3016.623, 3024.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3014.421}, "reply_to": "19912__1_129", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_131", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "But you are saying, if your reading is correct that there is an ordinary negligence, Federal common law standard, then there would be no occasion ever to resort to the gross negligence part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3024.044], "stop_times": [3035.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.044}, "reply_to": "19912__1_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_132", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "There would be no... there would... no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3035.835], "stop_times": [3036.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3035.835}, "reply_to": "19912__1_131", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_133", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--for any federally chartered institution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3036.868], "stop_times": [3037.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.868}, "reply_to": "19912__1_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__1_134", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--By virtue of this Court's decision, if the Court were to rule that way, there would be no need to resort to the first sentence.\nHowever, I am at pains to emphasize that at the time Congress passed the statute, that sentence would have had meaning even with regard to Federal associations because some courts were applying State law, and if Congress hadn't included Federal associations within the first sentence, then as to those courts that were applying State law to Federal charters, you wouldn't have a standard of... a cause of action of gross negligence available.\nSo a subsequent event, this Court's decision unifying the law and saying that there is a Federal common law standard, and I don't believe the Court has to go on and say what it is, but if it does, it's ordinary care--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3037.887, 3044.024, 3063.771], "stop_times": [3044.024, 3063.771, 3073.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3037.887}, "reply_to": "19912__1_133", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_135", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3073.627], "stop_times": [3074.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.627}, "reply_to": "19912__1_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19912__1_136", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--a subsequent decision of that sort would render the first sentence of no practical effect with regard to Federal charters, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3074.193], "stop_times": [3079.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3074.193}, "reply_to": "19912__1_135", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_137", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--It's that last part.\nI want to be... assume I'm with you.\nAssume for the sake of argument that 1821(k) leaves Federal common law where it found it, all right.\nThat's base.\nNow, where did it find it, and what you're saying is, it found it (a) a rule of law that points you to the principle place of business, no.\nYou say no, correct?\nIt doesn't point you to the law of the principal place of business.\nRather, it creates its own standards.\nSo I say, what leads you to think that?\nAnd now you're only reply to that is to source... is to cite primarily is 1818(e) and (i), and 1818(e) and (i), from my finding it here, are these infinitely long page-full procedural requirements that go on endlessly that I can't find anything that seems to be relevant, except for one sentence that refers to gross or continuing disregard, or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3079.797, 3080.813, 3083.082, 3089.336, 3089.869, 3100.025, 3102.393, 3104.762, 3107.03, 3109.03], "stop_times": [3080.813, 3083.082, 3089.336, 3089.869, 3100.025, 3102.393, 3104.762, 3107.03, 3109.03, 3128.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3079.797}, "reply_to": "19912__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19912__1_138", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "All right, Your Honor, let me address that.\nWe're not saying that Congress acted in recognition of the standard under 1818(i) or 1818(e) at the point when it enacted 1821(k).\nWhat we're saying is that when it enacted 1821(k), Justice Breyer, the courts, the majority, vast majority of courts at that time were already applying a uniform ordinary care standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3128.628, 3130.146, 3138.9], "stop_times": [3130.146, 3138.9, 3150.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.628}, "reply_to": "19912__1_137", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_139", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "We, this Court had not.\nThis Court had not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3150.124, 3151.309], "stop_times": [3151.309, 3152.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.124}, "reply_to": "19912__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19912__1_140", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "This Court had not, but Congress doesn't... it doesn't just enact laws in recognition of what this Court's decisions are.\nCongress is presumed to know at least where there is a majority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3152.242, 3156.796], "stop_times": [3156.796, 3159.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3152.242}, "reply_to": "19912__1_139", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_141", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, but you just told us the opposite.\nYou just told us that the reason the... in response to Justice Ginsburg that the reason the first sentence makes sense even as applied to Federal institutions is that Congress didn't know what the law was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3159.831, 3161.098], "stop_times": [3161.098, 3173.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.831}, "reply_to": "19912__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_142", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3173.823], "stop_times": [3174.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.823}, "reply_to": "19912__1_141", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_143", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "It might be applying State law, they might be applying Federal law.\nThat's what you told Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3174.425, 3176.658], "stop_times": [3176.658, 3177.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.425}, "reply_to": "19912__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_144", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3177.71], "stop_times": [3178.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3177.71}, "reply_to": "19912__1_143", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_145", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Now in response to this question you say Congress must have assumed that they... you know, since the vast majority of lower courts were applying Federal law, that this was a Federal law at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3178.11], "stop_times": [3185.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.11}, "reply_to": "19912__1_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19912__1_146", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Your Honor, there's no contradiction whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3185.964], "stop_times": [3186.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3185.964}, "reply_to": "19912__1_145", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_147", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Okay, well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3186.983], "stop_times": [3187.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3186.983}, "reply_to": "19912__1_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_148", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "What we're saying is that Congress had no view as to what the correct answer was.\nThe vast majority of courts were applying Federal law, but some courts clearly were applying State law as well.\nCongress had no reason, no desire to sort that out.\nThis was emergency legislation.\nCongress said, whatever the courts are applying, they... you can continue to have that, but you're going to have gross negligence as a minimum, as a floor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3187.499, 3190.185, 3195.588, 3198.123, 3199.356], "stop_times": [3190.185, 3195.588, 3198.123, 3199.356, 3206.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3187.499}, "reply_to": "19912__1_147", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_149", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--Then how do you get a congressional policy for uniformity?\nYou've just said Congress took no position as to what was the correct law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3206.176, 3209.045], "stop_times": [3209.045, 3214.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3206.176}, "reply_to": "19912__1_148", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_150", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3214.532], "stop_times": [3215.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3214.532}, "reply_to": "19912__1_149", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_151", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "If that's correct, how do you conclude in answer to Justice Breyer's question and other questions that somehow there is a congressional indication somewhere, (e), (i), or anyway, that there is a need for a uniform standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3215.599], "stop_times": [3227.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.599}, "reply_to": "19912__1_150", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_152", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Your Honor, if that's gotten lost, I'm sorry.\nThe uniformity comes from HOLA itself, the Homeowners Loan Act.\nAs this Court interpreted the Homeowners Loan Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3227.089, 3228.456, 3231.558], "stop_times": [3228.456, 3231.558, 3233.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3227.089}, "reply_to": "19912__1_151", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_153", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, that's Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3233.493], "stop_times": [3234.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.493}, "reply_to": "19912__1_152", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_154", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--What's that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3234.093], "stop_times": [3234.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3234.093}, "reply_to": "19912__1_153", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_155", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Oh, you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3234.66], "stop_times": [3235.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.66}, "reply_to": "19912__1_154", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19912__1_156", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Right.\nNo, what I'm saying is, as this Court has interpreted the Homeowners Loan Act in de la questa, Congress intended at the time that statute was enacted to have uniform regulation of savings and loans.\nNow, at the time FIRREA was enacted Congress wasn't interested in changing the workings of the internal affairs of banks themselves.\nAll it was saying was, when the FDIC comes in as receiver, in order to protect the insurance fund the FDIC is always going to be able to sue for gross negligence.\nNow, it's still going to step into the shoes of the institution, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3235.395, 3235.779, 3244.718, 3251.622, 3258.776], "stop_times": [3235.779, 3244.718, 3251.622, 3258.776, 3261.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3235.395}, "reply_to": "19912__1_155", "speaker": "richard_p_bress"}
{"id": "19912__1_157", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--You've answered the question, Mr. Bress.\nMr. Stevens, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3261.228, 3263.68], "stop_times": [3263.68, 3267.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.228}, "reply_to": "19912__1_156", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19912__2_000", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe FDIC is saying, as a matter of policy we have to have uniformity.\nThat's its argument in this Court.\nIn FDIC v. Thall, a decision which came down in August of 1996 of this year from the Eleventh Circuit, the FDIC argued and prevailed exactly the opposite proposition, that State law should apply to federally chartered institutions.\nThey took the position in that case that the application of the internal affairs doctrine to federally chartered institutions was, and I quote from their brief, which is cited at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3267.564, 3268.833, 3274.503, 3276.187, 3290.763], "stop_times": [3268.833, 3274.503, 3276.187, 3290.763, 3300.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3267.564}, "reply_to": "19912__1_157", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_001", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Of course, they're entitled to change their position.\nYou've changed your position too, but--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3300.203, 3301.971, 3303.638], "stop_times": [3301.971, 3303.638, 3304.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.203}, "reply_to": "19912__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_002", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--We changed our position on the basis of a change in the law.\nTheirs is a policy argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3304.14, 3305.807], "stop_times": [3305.807, 3307.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3304.14}, "reply_to": "19912__2_001", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_003", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, but basically you do... you agree with Judge Posner's analysis, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3307.208], "stop_times": [3311.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.208}, "reply_to": "19912__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_004", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No.\nHe uses an internal affairs... the internal affairs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3311.51, 3312.612], "stop_times": [3312.612, 3315.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3311.51}, "reply_to": "19912__2_003", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_005", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "No, he rejected that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3315.445], "stop_times": [3315.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.445}, "reply_to": "19912__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_006", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3315.914], "stop_times": [3317.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3315.914}, "reply_to": "19912__2_005", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_007", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3317.164], "stop_times": [3317.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.164}, "reply_to": "19912__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_008", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Well, that's... he still used it, but he's... I believe... to the extent that he indicated it's not applicable, I agree with him.\nThe second point is that... that the OTS standard that they're talking about has nothing to do with simple negligence.\nThe... the... well, the... first of all, 1818(i) is a civil money penalty provision.\nIt's a provision for imposing a penalty, but the provision that deals with conduct precisely analogous to that at issue here is not a civil money penalty section.\nIt's not a fining section.\nIt's 1818(b)(6)(a), which is the section which gives the agencies to recover losses incurred by the institutions, Federal or State chartered, caused by directors and officers, and the standard for recovery there is not simple negligence.\nCongress set the standard at unjust enrichment or reckless disregard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3317.697, 3322.984, 3332.174, 3338.311, 3348.868, 3350.285, 3366.847], "stop_times": [3322.984, 3332.174, 3338.311, 3348.868, 3350.285, 3366.847, 3371.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3317.697}, "reply_to": "19912__2_007", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_009", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "--And what section are you referring to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3371.734], "stop_times": [3373.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.734}, "reply_to": "19912__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19912__2_010", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "1818(b)(6)(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3373.734], "stop_times": [3376.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3373.734}, "reply_to": "19912__2_009", "speaker": "ronald_w_stevens"}
{"id": "19912__2_011", "conversation_id": "19912", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stevens.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-928", "start_times": [3376.103, 3377.603], "stop_times": [3377.603, 3378.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3376.103}, "reply_to": "19912__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_000", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-897, Francis Bernard Auer v. David Robbins.\nMr. Leibig, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [0.0, 9.577], "stop_times": [9.577, 51.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_001", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves the application of a rule in the Fair Labor Standards Act dealing with the salary basis test.\nThe rule is contained in 29 C.F.R. 541.5d and 541.118.\nThe rule basically provides that for persons to be considered white collar exempt... that is, professional exempt adminis... professionals, administrators, exempt administrators or exempt executives, their salary must be fixed and not contingent.\nThe specifics of the rule provide that they must receive a predetermined amount not subject to deduction because of the variations in quality or quantity of work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [51.766, 78.843, 88.17, 95.446, 113.367], "stop_times": [78.843, 88.17, 95.446, 113.367, 125.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 51.766}, "reply_to": "21129__0_000", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_002", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I've noticed with interest that the Federal Government does not follow the salary basis test for employees that are under the jurisdiction of the Office of Personnel Management.\nIt chooses not to go along with that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [125.255, 138.954], "stop_times": [138.954, 141.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.255}, "reply_to": "21129__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_003", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, it attempted to choose not to go along with that at all.\nIn 1975, I believe, when the Federal Government first came under the act, Congress provided that the Fair Labor Standard Act would be enforced by the Office of Personnel Management, but that the rule... but the definitions would still be defined and delinated by the Department of Labor, and when the Office of Personnel Management initially issued regulations for the Federal sector, they defined exempt status for salaried persons based on salary classifications.\nBut that definition was challenged in court in a specific case involving the Uniform Division of the Secret Service, Police Sergeants and Lieutenants, and the court of claims in that case specifically found that the enforcement by the Office of Personnel Management has to be undertaken consistently, consistent with the Department of Labor regulations, because it's the Department of Labor that defines and limits exemptions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [141.428, 144.422, 170.15], "stop_times": [144.422, 170.15, 194.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.428}, "reply_to": "21129__0_002", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_004", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And now are all Federal employees applying this salary basis test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [194.557], "stop_times": [199.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.557}, "reply_to": "21129__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_005", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Well, first of all the court of claims found that to be the case.\nThey found it... and they also found it in some other cases involving the AFG case, which is cited in the briefs, and currently the position in the Department of Labor... I'm sorry.\nThe position in the Federal Government is that the Office of Personnel Management often treats people as exempt even though they're not salaried, but the Court of Claims and the United States District... the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have held that they should apply the salary test.\nAnd when that has been a challenge... and the one place it's been challenged specifically is in the Uniform Division of the Secret Service and for employees that are exactly... do the exact work of the employees in this case, that is, sergeants and lieutenants in the Uniform Division, and the court ruled that the Department of Labor pay classification things have to be applied consistent with the salary basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [199.871, 205.366, 214.891, 232.974], "stop_times": [205.366, 214.891, 232.974, 254.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.871}, "reply_to": "21129__0_004", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_006", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "But Justice O'Connor was not asking about court decisions, she was asking about the position being taken by the executive branch--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [254.909], "stop_times": [260.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.909}, "reply_to": "21129__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__0_007", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I believe the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [260.683], "stop_times": [261.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.683}, "reply_to": "21129__0_006", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_008", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--and in fact... and OPM takes a different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [261.074], "stop_times": [263.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.074}, "reply_to": "21129__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__0_009", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [263.615], "stop_times": [263.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.615}, "reply_to": "21129__0_008", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_010", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--view from Labor, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [263.815], "stop_times": [264.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 263.815}, "reply_to": "21129__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__0_011", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The Office of Personnel Management takes the position that Federal employees can be exempted based on pay classification alone.\nI do not think that, and I think that the courts have found that to be the case, and I don't think it's consistent with the statute.\nFor example, when Congress passed the statute applying the Fair Labor Standards Act to themselves, they did make... apply the salary basis test to themselves, and under the Professional Accountability Act, the regulations under that act specifically say that the salary basis test does apply to congressional employees.\nAnd it specifically includes the regulation including, there was some discussion in the comments on the regulation of whether 541.5d, which is a special rule limiting part of it... I'll talk about in a minute... how that should be dealt with by the Congressional Accountability Office, and after considering the comments they included the regulation and specifically made reference to the applicability of the salary basis test to congressional employees.\nSo... and in addition to that, in the record there's a history of the Department of Labor's current consideration of the regulations and as part of that history the Director of OMB has had a series of reports and considerations with the Department of Labor about this problem and what to deal... how to deal with it in the future.\nSo the answer is, the Office of Personnel Management, just like a lot of employers in a lot of places, claim that they can exempt people based on classifications alone, but when the Federal Government and when the Congress have looked at it they've said they have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [264.696, 270.26, 276.033, 291.853, 314.52, 331.551], "stop_times": [270.26, 276.033, 291.853, 314.52, 331.551, 344.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.696}, "reply_to": "21129__0_010", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_012", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, they also have a regulation saying the Federal Government can dismiss or suspend employees for 14 days or less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [344.859], "stop_times": [352.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.859}, "reply_to": "21129__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_013", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [352.946], "stop_times": [354.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.946}, "reply_to": "21129__0_012", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_014", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "By way of discipline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [354.385], "stop_times": [355.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 354.385}, "reply_to": "21129__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_015", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "They have a regulation to... yes, that's true, they do, and in the... and the... that raises the question of whether that would make all Federal employees subject to that rule, which doesn't cover all Federal employees, but I think it covers all Federal employees in the Classified Service, nonexempt, and I think that is part of the struggle the Department of Labor has had, and that is why the Department of Labor has had the practical rule to the longstanding salary basis test, and I think I can explain how the practical rule I think works.\nBut if you look at, and we attach the Department of Labor briefs going back from 1981 and their positions, there has been some development in how you deal with the problem where there's a rule on the books that seems counterintuitive.\nHow can an employer apply that rule?\nAnd I think the rule that I would argue is that the first rule of the regulation, and after all, the Department of Labor that issued this regulation issued it under a direct rule of Congress, is that the employee's salary must be fixed, and it cannot be contingent.\nAn exempt employee cannot have contingent income, and that, however... that is the test, and then, however, there can be a situation where there are rules on the books, where people have a rule that says you're... you can be subject to discipline by... for 14 days, which would be longer than a work period, so that would be okay.\nBut if under that rule they discipline somebody for 1 day, which, by the way, the statute... the Federal regulation doesn't say they can do, but if they did do it, that would raise the question of whether the people were practically subject to deductions for less than a full work period, and I think in that case you'd have to prove... if all you had was a rule and the employer claimed that the people were exempt and that they were not doing deductions, I think the burden's on the employer to come forward with some evidence.\nThey at least have to assert that we wouldn't exempt... we would not punish anybody for less than a pay period, which the Federal Government could do in a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [355.467, 384.386, 397.425, 399.826, 416.706, 438.822, 462.658], "stop_times": [384.386, 397.425, 399.826, 416.706, 438.822, 462.658, 469.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.467}, "reply_to": "21129__0_014", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_016", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, of course, here you're asserting, I guess, that because of one instance involving one sergeant that all the other people who have never been disciplined fall under some nonexempt status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [469.183], "stop_times": [486.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.183}, "reply_to": "21129__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_017", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I am... I am--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [486.487], "stop_times": [488.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.487}, "reply_to": "21129__0_016", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_018", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Just on the basis of some possibly broader State rule applicab... or a county rule, or police department rule here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [488.267], "stop_times": [498.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.267}, "reply_to": "21129__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_019", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I'm asserting that all sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department whose pay is contingent and who all the witnesses, including the chief of police, including all... everyone who testified, no one ever testified that any sergeant or lieutenant's pay was not subject to discipline.\nNo one not only didn't testify, but nobody ever even asserted that.\nI did not rely on Mr. Guzy... it isn't because Mr. Guzy received one 2-day suspension that that transferred all of the employees who had a contingent pay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [498.394, 514.293, 516.917], "stop_times": [514.293, 516.917, 526.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.394}, "reply_to": "21129__0_018", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_020", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, that's what it looks like, because it didn't happen to anybody else in the numerous plaintiffs here, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [526.063], "stop_times": [531.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.063}, "reply_to": "21129__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_021", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--It... I'm sorry, it didn't... there is evidence in the record that it did happen to other sergeants, in fact, and in fact it did happen to other sergeants.\nWhat's not in the record is an example of a specific sergeant who testified that he was suspended, but the reason for that is, if you look at the whole record, the case was bifurcated, and it was tried on the basis of representative witnesses.\nFor example, there was only one witness that testified that he was a homicide detective--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [531.897, 538.428, 551.397], "stop_times": [538.428, 551.397, 554.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.897}, "reply_to": "21129__0_020", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_022", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [554.489], "stop_times": [554.76], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 554.489}, "reply_to": "21129__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21129__0_023", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--and yet all the homicide detectives--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [554.76], "stop_times": [556.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.76}, "reply_to": "21129__0_022", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_024", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--The Eighth Circuit, as I read its opinion, said that a one-time suspension without pay for violating the city's residence requirement doesn't mean that the whole thing is over.\nNow, do you disagree with that ruling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [556.052, 566.417], "stop_times": [566.417, 568.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.052}, "reply_to": "21129__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_025", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I agree that a one-time suspension, standing in isolation, if the employer took the position that the pay was guaranteed and that was a mistake, it was inadvertent, that it wouldn't automatically mean, so a one-time suspension all by itself would not settle the case, and one reason for that is the burden's on the employer in the first in to establish... in the first instance to establish the employees are guaranteed a predetermined amount of pay.\nOne instance of a... somebody losing a guaranteed amount of pay would certainly raise a lot of suspicion, but if the employer were in some case... in a given case, for instance, to claim that was a mistake, it wasn't under the rules, that's different.\nBut in our case the chief of police, the 30(b)(6) designees of the employer for exempt status and for application to the regulations, and everyone else testified that in fact all sergeants were subject to being disciplined, and there is repeated evidence in the record which... which is cited in the brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [568.03, 593.005, 606.865], "stop_times": [593.005, 606.865, 622.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.03}, "reply_to": "21129__0_024", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_026", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "What evidence in the record of actual discipline, other than this one sergeant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [622.986], "stop_times": [628.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.986}, "reply_to": "21129__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_027", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "In... there is... at page... the chief of police testified that all sergeants were subject to suspension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [628.139], "stop_times": [642.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.139}, "reply_to": "21129__0_026", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_028", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes, I... but that wasn't my question.\nI asked you what evidence is there in the record of actual discipline, not whether someone was subject to discipline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [642.618, 644.19], "stop_times": [644.19, 650.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.618}, "reply_to": "21129__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_029", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, for instance, Sergeant Michael Fredericks testified that he knew of sergeants that were suspended for less than a day.\nThere's no... there is no... in the record there is no other name of a specific sergeant who was suspended, but there is a great deal of evidence that in fact other sergeants, other than Mr. Guzy, were suspended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [650.114, 657.92], "stop_times": [657.92, 668.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.114}, "reply_to": "21129__0_028", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_030", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes, but the Eighth Circuit didn't find the... didn't find for you as a fact on that point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [668.738], "stop_times": [672.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.738}, "reply_to": "21129__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_031", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [672.892], "stop_times": [673.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.892}, "reply_to": "21129__0_030", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_032", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [673.082], "stop_times": [673.303], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 673.082}, "reply_to": "21129__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21129__0_033", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Because the Eighth Circuit did not agree with the base rule... a) they didn't agree that the burden was on the employer to establish that pay was fixed rather than contingent, and b) they put the burden on the plaintiffs to establish actual instances of deduction, which I don't think they should have done, but looking at all the evidence of the record, no one could conclude from the evidence of that record that the regulation which says pay is not subject to deduction was followed in this case.\nI mean, it would be different if the... and there are cases that are reported--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [673.303, 704.384], "stop_times": [704.384, 707.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.303}, "reply_to": "21129__0_032", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_034", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "You're just asking for a factual revision, then, from this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [707.288], "stop_times": [710.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.288}, "reply_to": "21129__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_035", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [710.569], "stop_times": [710.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.569}, "reply_to": "21129__0_034", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_036", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The Eighth Circuit saw it one way, and you're asking us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [710.829], "stop_times": [712.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.829}, "reply_to": "21129__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_037", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [712.692], "stop_times": [712.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 712.692}, "reply_to": "21129__0_036", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_038", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--to see it a different way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [712.902], "stop_times": [713.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.902}, "reply_to": "21129__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_039", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "No.\nThe Eighth Circuit... the Eighth Circuit said that Mr. Guzy was suspended.\nThe Eighth Circuit did not say that the Department did not have a rule that made everybody subject to suspension.\nThey don't think that's required.\nFor instance, if you compare the Eighth Circuit decisions to the decisions in, now, seven of the eight circuits, in the Second Circuit the Yourman case, in the Third Circuit the Balgowan case, in the Fourth Circuit the Shockley case, in the Sixth Circuit the two Michigan court cases, and in the Seventh Circuit Mueller and Bankston, and in the Ninth Circuit Abshire and six or seven other cases, in the Tenth Circuit Carpenter and Spradling, all of those cases heard said that the test is not whether or not there were actual individual instances of deductions.\nThe question is whether the person working there is subject is fixed... pay is fixed or contingent.\nIf you have contingent pay, then you cannot be exempt, and there's a reason for that.\nIf you only say the people who are disciplined lose the exemption, then you say only rule-breakers would be exempt.\nFor example, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [713.32, 713.9, 719.434, 725.459, 727.091, 758.38, 764.745, 769.379, 776.234], "stop_times": [713.9, 719.434, 725.459, 727.091, 758.38, 764.745, 769.379, 776.234, 778.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.32}, "reply_to": "21129__0_038", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_040", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, but you have a letter, a couple of letters from the Secretary here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [778.004], "stop_times": [781.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.004}, "reply_to": "21129__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_041", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [781.767], "stop_times": [782.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.767}, "reply_to": "21129__0_040", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_042", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--saying that the exemption... the exemption is lost as to all employees only if the employer engages in a regular and recurrent practice of making impermissible deductions, and the opinion we have before us does not find that the police department had a regular and recurring practice.\nIt dealt only with the one sergeant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [782.157, 807.334], "stop_times": [807.334, 809.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.157}, "reply_to": "21129__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__0_043", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The... there aren't a series of letters from the Department.\nThe Department of Labor has written one letter in one other place where they said that they will look for regularly recurring exemptions, but they've always done that in the context of whether... and the regulation itself, the plain wording of the regulation itself says the key is whether you're subject to deduction, not whether actual deductions occur.\nThere's also some confusion because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [809.795, 813.588, 829.88], "stop_times": [813.588, 829.88, 832.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.795}, "reply_to": "21129__0_042", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_044", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It would be an important factor in deciding whether you were subject to deduction to know whether actual deductions occurred, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [832.061], "stop_times": [839.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.061}, "reply_to": "21129__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_045", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [839.636], "stop_times": [840.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.636}, "reply_to": "21129__0_044", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_046", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "May I ask one question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [840.127], "stop_times": [842.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.127}, "reply_to": "21129__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_047", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Could I make one other... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [842.608], "stop_times": [843.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.608}, "reply_to": "21129__0_046", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_048", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Go ahead and finish... you had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [843.397], "stop_times": [844.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 843.397}, "reply_to": "21129__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_049", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Just one other point.\nThat Department of Labor letter also, there's another thing in the regulation.\nThere's a difference... there's two parts of the regulation.\nOne talks about deductions for part of a day for being absent.\nAnother part talks about disciplinary deductions, and I think the enact... the part about being absent for part of a day doesn't apply in the public sector any more anyway, and I can explain more about that why... why, if you need to.\nBut the point is, disciplinary deductions are different than deductions for part of a day.\nAn employer that allows employees to leave for part of a day means to adopt a flexible work schedule, and intends people to be able to come and go as they please.\nIt would be unusual if people didn't leave for part of a day, so you'd want to find... you'd expect to find a lot of people who did.\nHowever, disciplinary rules are exactly the opposite.\nThe reason the employer imposes disciplinary rules is so people will obey them and anticipates that they will not disobey them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [844.269, 844.88, 848.072, 850.675, 853.448, 864.905, 868.938, 877.924, 882.588, 885.66], "stop_times": [844.88, 848.072, 850.675, 853.448, 864.905, 868.938, 877.924, 882.588, 885.66, 890.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.269}, "reply_to": "21129__0_048", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_050", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--May I ask a question about these disciplinary rules?\nIs this manual applicable to all employees, including people who are undoubtedly covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act?\nThis is not a discrete code for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [890.695, 892.686, 901.952], "stop_times": [892.686, 901.952, 904.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.695}, "reply_to": "21129__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_051", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It's covered by... excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [904.223], "stop_times": [905.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.223}, "reply_to": "21129__0_050", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_052", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Just for professional, administrative, and executive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [905.155], "stop_times": [908.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.155}, "reply_to": "21129__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_053", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The manual, in this case the police manual is covered by all commissioned police officers, which in St. Louis includes... probably doesn't include the chief, but there's two deputy chiefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [908.067], "stop_times": [917.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.067}, "reply_to": "21129__0_052", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_054", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "But it would include people who are covered by the FLSA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [917.764], "stop_times": [921.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.764}, "reply_to": "21129__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_055", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [921.174], "stop_times": [922.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.174}, "reply_to": "21129__0_054", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_056", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [922.195], "stop_times": [922.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.195}, "reply_to": "21129__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_057", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Regular line officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [922.916], "stop_times": [923.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.916}, "reply_to": "21129__0_056", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_058", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Now, why couldn't somebody look at this code and say, gee, it's got a range of sanctions, from reprimand to dismissal, and we'll assume that a law-abiding employer is going to apply to the people who are subject to the act, the sanctions, the full range of sanctions, but to the people who are exempt, only... only those sanctions that would fit with exempt status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [923.657], "stop_times": [948.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.657}, "reply_to": "21129__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_059", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Hypothetically you could have this manual in some police department where you ask the people in charge of discipline do you apply this manual to sergeants and lieutenants, and they could say no, we don't, but in the facts of this case, the chief of police, the person in charge of discipline, the person in charge of record-keeping, and the 30(b)(6) designee in terms of exemptions, all testified that sergeants and lieutenants were subject to the manual, and those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [948.013], "stop_times": [974.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.013}, "reply_to": "21129__0_058", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_060", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes, but may I ask the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [974.082], "stop_times": [975.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.082}, "reply_to": "21129__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_061", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--so it's not the manual alone.\nIt's the manual plus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [975.833, 976.815], "stop_times": [976.815, 977.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.833}, "reply_to": "21129__0_060", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_062", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--But it's... but one could say yes, the manual, but only those sanctions in it that are compatible with exempt status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [977.924], "stop_times": [985.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.924}, "reply_to": "21129__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_063", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "No, but they testified that they were subject to 2-day suspensions and suspensions less than a day under the manual.\nThe chief testified to that, the 30(b)(6)... I mean, an employer could have that manual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [985.731, 991.573], "stop_times": [991.573, 995.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.731}, "reply_to": "21129__0_062", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_064", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "What is the testimony in this record that says people who are in this category in fact got such sanctions, that there was a pattern and practice of applying the sanctions that would ordinarily be disqualifying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [995.626], "stop_times": [1012.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.626}, "reply_to": "21129__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_065", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--The last part of your question... there is evidence, the evidence in the record that any police sergeant or lieutenant in the St. Louis Police Department who violates a rule that provides... has one of the potential penalties of a suspension of, say, 2 days, is subject to them, is that the... the chief testified to that at joint appendix page 60, and joint appendix page 62.\nWhen he was asked did he recall any specific person... this is at page 62... who had ever been disciplined he said he didn't remember any names, but yes, there would be people that had done that.\nMs. Cortelyou, who was the recordkeeper that keeps track of exemptions testified in the joint appendix from page 49 through 57 that people were not subject for absenting themselves for part of a day under a flexible work week rule, but if they broke the rules, they were subject to being suspended for a day or two, and she specifically said that they could be disciplined and that they could lose pay for a day or two.\nLarry Patterson--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1012.069, 1037.164, 1048.262, 1072.488], "stop_times": [1037.164, 1048.262, 1072.488, 1074.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.069}, "reply_to": "21129__0_064", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_066", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Could, but where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1074.409], "stop_times": [1075.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.409}, "reply_to": "21129__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_067", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--If they broke the rules they would be, and they said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1075.368], "stop_times": [1077.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.368}, "reply_to": "21129__0_066", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_068", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Where is this testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1077.421], "stop_times": [1078.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.421}, "reply_to": "21129__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_069", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, that... let me get the joint appendix.\nWhy don't I, ma'am... at page 60... let's do one at a time.\nThat's the chief.\nThis is the joint appendix at page 60.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1078.891, 1083.114, 1086.616, 1087.207], "stop_times": [1083.114, 1086.616, 1087.207, 1090.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1078.891}, "reply_to": "21129__0_068", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_070", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And which is the testimony from there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1090.87], "stop_times": [1098.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.87}, "reply_to": "21129__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_071", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "This is the testimony of the chief of police at the time, Robert Sheetz, and at the top of the page... well, first he was asked, as a result of charges, could they be docked pay, and there's a question right before that.\nAnd at the top of the page he says... this is if someone was... broke a rule, could they... and he said, I would say that he probably would be.\nHe could be.\nHe would be suspended in lieu of, say, maybe 1-day suspension or 2-days suspension.\nI don't recall that we've ever docked anybody, you know, like you're docked $10 or something like that.\nI don't know.\nI don't recall any time the department has ever... that has ever happened.\nBut I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1098.995, 1113.514, 1119.707, 1120.579, 1125.013, 1130.208, 1131.207, 1134.1], "stop_times": [1113.514, 1119.707, 1120.579, 1125.013, 1130.208, 1131.207, 1134.1, 1135.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.995}, "reply_to": "21129__0_070", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_072", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, that seems to me the answer is, as long as I've been in this Department, it hasn't happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1135.191], "stop_times": [1138.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.191}, "reply_to": "21129__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_073", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--No.\nIt could be, except he says more, because he's... that... there's a follow-up on that, and then on page 62--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1138.784, 1139.024], "stop_times": [1139.024, 1145.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.784}, "reply_to": "21129__0_072", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_074", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Where is the followup?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1145.278], "stop_times": [1146.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.278}, "reply_to": "21129__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_075", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Well, it goes along... there's a series of questions about that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1146.58], "stop_times": [1149.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1146.58}, "reply_to": "21129__0_074", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_076", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, I see the last statement he made is, I don't recall in my time in the Department that that ever happened.\nNow, what qualifies that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1149.802, 1155.685], "stop_times": [1155.685, 1158.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.802}, "reply_to": "21129__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_077", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--This... what he... let me get you the... it's on page 62.\nOn page 62 he says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1158.187, 1163.102], "stop_times": [1163.102, 1167.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.187}, "reply_to": "21129__0_076", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_078", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Down at the bottom of the page.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1167.226], "stop_times": [1173.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.226}, "reply_to": "21129__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__0_079", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--He says at the bottom of where... 40... it says, Okay.\nDo you know if a sergeant has ever been disciplined for AWOL, say in the recent past, in the last 3 or 4 years?\nI don't recall any specifics, but I would say yes.\nI don't take the chief's testimony, by the way, in isolation.\nIn our brief on page 42, on page 42 and then page 9 through 17, we go through... a whole bunch of witnesses testified that people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1173.099, 1174.68, 1180.686, 1182.419, 1187.352], "stop_times": [1174.68, 1180.686, 1182.419, 1187.352, 1196.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1173.099}, "reply_to": "21129__0_078", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_080", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "May I ask the question I've been trying to ask for a little while?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1196.919], "stop_times": [1199.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.919}, "reply_to": "21129__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_081", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1199.8], "stop_times": [1200.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.8}, "reply_to": "21129__0_080", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_082", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The manual... you rely heavily on the manual, and you rely on this testimony they might be disciplined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1200.121], "stop_times": [1204.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.121}, "reply_to": "21129__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_083", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1204.504], "stop_times": [1205.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1204.504}, "reply_to": "21129__0_082", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_084", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "But would you not agree that there are forms of discipline other than docking for a day's pay, or 2 days' pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1205.115], "stop_times": [1210.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.115}, "reply_to": "21129__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_085", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Right.\nThere are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1210.748, 1211.129], "stop_times": [1211.129, 1212.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.748}, "reply_to": "21129__0_084", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_086", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "So this... the general... the text of the manual doesn't make out your case.\nIt's only if you can get enough--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1212.0, 1216.332], "stop_times": [1216.332, 1217.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.0}, "reply_to": "21129__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_087", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, there are some provisions in the manual that the penalty, the only penalty listed there is less than a full week's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1217.734], "stop_times": [1223.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.734}, "reply_to": "21129__0_086", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_088", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Well, do you take the position that the only form of discipline is docking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1223.998], "stop_times": [1227.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.998}, "reply_to": "21129__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_089", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1227.531], "stop_times": [1228.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1227.531}, "reply_to": "21129__0_088", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_090", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "All right.\nSo the manual itself doesn't get you home, at least, nor does the testimony at page 62, because he just says there's been some discipline, and I think that we must assume that there are possibly forms of discipline other than docking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1228.13, 1228.531], "stop_times": [1228.531, 1241.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.13}, "reply_to": "21129__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__0_091", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "There are, and there's a chart in the manual that says when it's docking and when it's not docking, and in some of the penalties, the only penalty... for instance, in the second... in the second non... in the preventable accident, the only penalty is a 1 or 2-day suspension.\nAnd by the way, it's not just chief... the chief's not the only one who testified.\nAll of the designees testified that people were suspension and their pay... were subject to being suspended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1241.239, 1255.548, 1260.423], "stop_times": [1255.548, 1260.423, 1265.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.239}, "reply_to": "21129__0_090", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_092", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes, but in actual cases, and what I tried to ask you before about this manual, which has a range of sanctions... and discipline doesn't show docking.\nDiscipline can be many things, from a reprimand to termination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1265.598, 1274.294], "stop_times": [1274.294, 1278.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.598}, "reply_to": "21129__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__0_093", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "No... I'm sorry.\nIt shows... the manual at page... in the manual from page 43a... this is in the appendix to the petition, and from page 43a through 50... 49a there are charts that have the list of all the violations and then it has a list of all the penalties, and it says what the penalty is for a first offense and a second offense, and many of those penalties include suspensions, from a letter of reprimand to a 5-day suspension, and for a first or second day, and for example, one of the penalties provides a 1-day suspension.\nThat's on page 147.\nAnd so it's clear that the sergeants are subject to being suspended for periods of less than a full week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1278.668, 1279.86, 1314.672, 1316.595], "stop_times": [1279.86, 1314.672, 1316.595, 1322.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1278.668}, "reply_to": "21129__0_092", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_094", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, I don't see even on that reasoning that it's clear, because I come back to a question that's been asked before.\nIn the absence of evidence to the contrary, why shouldn't we assume that an employer who knows that he cannot apply a particular disciplinary form consistent with the status, with the salaried status for the Fair Labor Standards Act, will not apply it?\nYou've got a manual that applies across the board to everybody.\nWhy shouldn't we assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the employer will not apply what is in that manual in such a way as to destroy the salaried status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1322.729, 1328.402, 1349.456, 1352.819], "stop_times": [1328.402, 1349.456, 1352.819, 1363.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.729}, "reply_to": "21129__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__0_095", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "First... for two reasons.\nOne is, under the statute the requirement to establish exemptions, the burden is on the employer, not on the employee, so you shouldn't assume anything.\nThe second thing, however, is, suppose the employer... the employer should at least be put to a standard of proof to assert that sergeants and lieutenants... have some witnesses or have somebody assert on the record that sergeants and lieutenants are not subject to being suspended for a 2-day suspension, for example, and in this case the employer simply never did that.\nThe reason they simply never did that is, people had been suspended, and it... there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1363.045, 1364.317, 1372.23, 1390.143], "stop_times": [1364.317, 1372.23, 1390.143, 1394.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.045}, "reply_to": "21129__0_094", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_096", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, we know of only one instance, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1394.276], "stop_times": [1396.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.276}, "reply_to": "21129__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__0_097", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Well, for instance, Sergeant Frederick testified that there were other instances, but he didn't name--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1396.628], "stop_times": [1401.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.628}, "reply_to": "21129__0_096", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_098", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes, but he couldn't come up with any.\nThe only specific instance that is in fact shown on the record is this one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1401.082, 1402.171], "stop_times": [1402.171, 1406.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.082}, "reply_to": "21129__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__0_099", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1406.154], "stop_times": [1406.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1406.154}, "reply_to": "21129__0_098", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_100", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--instance, Guzy, or Guzy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1406.365], "stop_times": [1407.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1406.365}, "reply_to": "21129__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__0_101", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The first reason you shouldn't assume that the employer, just because they claim exemptions, that they automatically are going to apply all the rules not to do exemptions, is because that would put the burden on the employees to prove exempt status.\nThe second reason which you should not approve it is because it's contrary to the whole idea of having... of the plain wording of the statute itself, which says it's not the act of making exemptions, but it's the fact of putting employees and making their pay subject to deductions, that's been the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1407.476, 1417.032], "stop_times": [1417.032, 1433.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.476}, "reply_to": "21129__0_100", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_102", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "But on that point, it seemed to me that the regulation, which says, subject to... not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work might not apply to discipline at all.\nIt might be just the operational needs of the employer.\nOn one day you have to unload the dustbin, and on the other day you get to perform a skilled job.\nIt seems to me that that is a plausible reading and that that's all that it means.\nIs there any authority to support my reading at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1433.484, 1445.343, 1448.484, 1453.218, 1457.461], "stop_times": [1445.343, 1448.484, 1453.218, 1457.461, 1459.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1433.484}, "reply_to": "21129__0_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21129__0_103", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Sure.\nThe Department... The regulations go on, if you read the whole regulations, and down at a later point it talks about discipline for safety reasons but not discipline for other reasons.\nPlus, the Department of Labor has interpreted the regulations for 40 years to require disciplinary docking, and there's a lot of cites in the record, plus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1459.452, 1459.672, 1468.698], "stop_times": [1459.672, 1468.698, 1476.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.452}, "reply_to": "21129__0_102", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_104", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Thank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1476.185], "stop_times": [1476.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1476.185}, "reply_to": "21129__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_105", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--the last 20 seconds--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1476.977], "stop_times": [1478.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1476.977}, "reply_to": "21129__0_104", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_106", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Mr. Liebig.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1478.189], "stop_times": [1478.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.189}, "reply_to": "21129__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_107", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--the quality of work--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1478.429], "stop_times": [1478.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1478.429}, "reply_to": "21129__0_106", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_108", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I think you've answered the question.\nYour time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1478.829, 1480.02], "stop_times": [1480.02, 1481.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.829}, "reply_to": "21129__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__0_109", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1481.222], "stop_times": [1481.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1481.222}, "reply_to": "21129__0_108", "speaker": "michael_t_leibig"}
{"id": "21129__0_110", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "We'll hear from you, Mr. Gornstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1481.583], "stop_times": [1483.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.583}, "reply_to": "21129__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__1_000", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOur position is that the existence of the respondent's police manual cannot by itself show that petitioners as a class are subject to disciplinary deductions of less than 1 week's pay within the meaning of the Secretary's salary basis test, and we reach that conclusion for three reasons.\nThe first is that the Secretary interprets the phrase subject to reduction to mean that there must be more than a theoretical possibility that a violation of a work rule will result in a partial week disciplinary deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1483.907, 1506.27, 1527.016], "stop_times": [1506.27, 1527.016, 1540.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1483.907}, "reply_to": "21129__0_110", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_001", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Would that more than theoretical possibility be satisfied in an instance in which the employer had promulgated the manual solely to salaried employees, and yet nonetheless provided as to them that there would be these impermissible dockings.\nWould you say that was enough that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1540.555, 1555.564], "stop_times": [1555.564, 1557.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.555}, "reply_to": "21129__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__1_002", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I would say that if you just had that you could reach that conclusion, Justice Souter, subject to whatever the employer might show in response to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1557.247], "stop_times": [1565.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1557.247}, "reply_to": "21129__1_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_003", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I've lost you here.\nIf you just had that you could reach what conclusion?\nIf you just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1565.193, 1566.315, 1568.165], "stop_times": [1566.315, 1568.165, 1568.696], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.193}, "reply_to": "21129__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21129__1_004", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That you are... that if the only possible sanctions are... if I took the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1568.696], "stop_times": [1575.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1568.696}, "reply_to": "21129__1_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_005", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Only possible sanctions and the only possible class--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1575.151], "stop_times": [1577.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.151}, "reply_to": "21129__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__1_006", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Class--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1577.922], "stop_times": [1578.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1577.922}, "reply_to": "21129__1_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_007", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--was a salaried class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1578.163], "stop_times": [1578.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.163}, "reply_to": "21129__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__1_008", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--It's a book for sergeants, and the only possible sanctions are partial week disciplinary sanctions.\nI think you could infer from that that sergeants as a class are subject to reductions, subject to the employer coming back and say, look, we don't really... I know we said this, but this is out of date, or it's ineffective for some reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1578.804, 1584.287], "stop_times": [1584.287, 1598.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1578.804}, "reply_to": "21129__1_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_009", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "But that's the part I don't understand... see, you're all knowledgeable, and I just don't understand this.\nI don't know which way it cuts.\nBut there's a statute here, and the statute uses the words, executive, professional, or administrative employees, and it says they're not subject to overtime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1598.519, 1602.459, 1603.731], "stop_times": [1602.459, 1603.731, 1612.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.519}, "reply_to": "21129__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21129__1_010", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1612.907], "stop_times": [1613.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1612.907}, "reply_to": "21129__1_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_011", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And then there's a reg that I can't fit with the statute.\nThat is, suppose Microsoft says, Bill Gates has to dock a day's pay every time he wrongly uses the corporate jet, okay.\nDoes that make Bill Gates an hourly employee, subject to overtime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1613.839, 1616.56, 1626.277], "stop_times": [1616.56, 1626.277, 1630.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.839}, "reply_to": "21129__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21129__1_012", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It does for purposes of the regulation, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1630.161], "stop_times": [1633.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1630.161}, "reply_to": "21129__1_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_013", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, if it does, how do you reconcile that with the statute, because I would think there's no one in history who's less an hourly worker than Bill Gates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1633.143], "stop_times": [1640.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.143}, "reply_to": "21129__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21129__1_014", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--And I doubt very much that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1640.876], "stop_times": [1642.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1640.876}, "reply_to": "21129__1_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_015", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--and so if you have a reg--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1642.268], "stop_times": [1642.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.268}, "reply_to": "21129__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21129__1_016", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--That's right, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1642.538], "stop_times": [1643.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1642.538}, "reply_to": "21129__1_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_017", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--that seems to make him an hourly worker, that seems to me to be a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1643.487], "stop_times": [1646.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.487}, "reply_to": "21129__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21129__1_018", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I think, Justice... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1646.171], "stop_times": [1647.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1646.171}, "reply_to": "21129__1_017", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_019", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And that's what I want to understand, how that fits within this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1647.032], "stop_times": [1649.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.032}, "reply_to": "21129__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21129__1_020", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I think what the Secretary did when he originally formulated the regulations was to try to draw a line that would not necessarily make a 100-percent case in every single case, but would be a reasonable line for the vast amount of cases.\nAnd what the Secretary concluded, based on hearings that were held after, in the wake of the Fair Labor Standards Act being enacted, is that one of the hallmarks of having the exempt status, the exempt... that exempt employees, one of the hallmarks of the importance and status that those employees had is that they were paid on a weekly basis, that for any week in which they worked they would receive a full week's pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1649.914, 1665.615], "stop_times": [1665.615, 1690.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1649.914}, "reply_to": "21129__1_019", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_021", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "But he makes it the hallmark.\nHe doesn't make it one of the characteristics.\nHe says, this is the criterion, and is it adequate to say, you know, that will handle maybe 90 percent of the cases.\nIt won't get Gates, but, you know, close enough for Government work.\nIs that what you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1690.853, 1691.884, 1693.824, 1701.27, 1703.833], "stop_times": [1691.884, 1693.824, 1701.27, 1703.833, 1705.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.853}, "reply_to": "21129__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__1_022", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I think it is wrong to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1705.574], "stop_times": [1706.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1705.574}, "reply_to": "21129__1_021", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_023", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--The statute doesn't say that.\nThe fact is, Gates shouldn't be within it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1706.866, 1707.645], "stop_times": [1707.645, 1710.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.866}, "reply_to": "21129__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__1_024", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Justice Scalia, what the statute says is that they are executive, administrative, and professional, as defined by the Secretary.\nThat's what the statute says, and it gives the Secretary wide leeway to give content to the meaning of those terms.\nAnd what the Secretary has done is set out an administrable statute, not to leave to a district court or an employer in every case to figure out whether under the totality of circumstances we are going to regard this person as executive, administrative, or professional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1710.817, 1717.822, 1724.717], "stop_times": [1717.822, 1724.717, 1740.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1710.817}, "reply_to": "21129__1_023", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_025", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "So your response is, if Microsoft doesn't like it, it can just rescind the rule that... you know, punish Gates some other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1740.258], "stop_times": [1745.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.258}, "reply_to": "21129__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__1_026", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Some other way, or if it was a one-time deduction, then the window of correction could be used to retroactively restore his exempt status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1745.381], "stop_times": [1753.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1745.381}, "reply_to": "21129__1_025", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_027", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And that's good, and so that's why you say the effect of making a deduction which is not permitted under the rule as a practical matter depends on the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1753.227], "stop_times": [1760.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.227}, "reply_to": "21129__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21129__1_028", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It does, but I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1760.971], "stop_times": [1762.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1760.971}, "reply_to": "21129__1_027", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_029", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That's what the reg says, and are you saying that then here you look at practically what happens in this case.\nYou're saying as a practical matter the facts of this case show the deductions that they made didn't transmute them into hourly employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1762.163, 1766.806], "stop_times": [1766.806, 1773.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.163}, "reply_to": "21129__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21129__1_030", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--That is correct, that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1773.902], "stop_times": [1775.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1773.902}, "reply_to": "21129__1_029", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_031", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1775.605], "stop_times": [1775.835], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.605}, "reply_to": "21129__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21129__1_032", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--That as a practical matter in this case, I don't think you have to get to the window of correction to decide that, though.\nI think you can look at just the text of the 541.118 and here we interpret the term, subject to reduction, to mean that as a practical matter the employees in the class have to face a significant possibility of having their pay reduced.\nIf there is no such practice, there is no such policy, and nonetheless there is a deduction taken, for whatever reason, then you look to the window of correction to restore retroactive status.\nNow, the second point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1775.835, 1782.29, 1799.13, 1811.619], "stop_times": [1782.29, 1799.13, 1811.619, 1813.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1775.835}, "reply_to": "21129__1_031", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_033", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--But the burden is on the employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1813.531], "stop_times": [1814.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.531}, "reply_to": "21129__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__1_034", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--The burden--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1814.461], "stop_times": [1815.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1814.461}, "reply_to": "21129__1_033", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_035", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--to show that there is no such possibility, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1815.122], "stop_times": [1817.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.122}, "reply_to": "21129__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__1_036", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--That there's not a significant possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1817.693], "stop_times": [1819.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1817.693}, "reply_to": "21129__1_035", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_037", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1819.676], "stop_times": [1819.886], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.676}, "reply_to": "21129__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21129__1_038", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That's correct, that there's not a significant possibility that employees in this class will face partial week disciplinary suspensions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1819.886], "stop_times": [1828.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1819.886}, "reply_to": "21129__1_037", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_039", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And in this case the employer bears not just that initial burden, but also the burden of overcoming a manual which on its face is applicable to all employees, and on its face seems to say that these people are subject to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1828.011], "stop_times": [1841.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.011}, "reply_to": "21129__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__1_040", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, let me talk about the manual on its face, because the manual is broadly applicable to all employees, both those who clearly perform exempt duties, like captains on up, and clearly perform nonexempt duties, like patrol officers who patrol the beat, and those rules can all be enforced in ways that are completely consistent with retaining exempt status for those employees who perform clearly exempt duties, so I think if you just look at the manual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1841.62], "stop_times": [1869.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1841.62}, "reply_to": "21129__1_039", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_041", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, what do you do with the... what do you do with the point that your brother was making about the record, that the chief and the others who came in and testified didn't testify that these particular sanctions would be applied only to the nonsalaried.\nThey said something like, well, gee, yeah, I guess it could, but I can't think of any instance.\nThey didn't take the position that's consistent with your argument, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1869.959, 1884.049, 1888.512], "stop_times": [1884.049, 1888.512, 1892.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.959}, "reply_to": "21129__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__1_042", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I think that as the case came to the court of appeals that the petitioner in this case really put the case to the court of appeals, you can just look at the manual and you can add in the Guzy incident, and we should win this case.\nNone of this was brought to the attention of the court of appeals.\nNone of this was part of the question that was framed for review by this Court.\nAgain, I think the question that was framed for review by this Court was, can you just look at this manual and conclude that these people are subject to disciplinary deductions.\nThe burden of proof issue was not raised in the court of appeals, and I don't think it was raised here.\nI think there is a problem.\nWhen you look at all the testimony there's a lot of ambiguous statements about what could or could not happen.\nBut I think as the case went to the court of appeals, and to this Court at the certiorari stage, the understanding was there was not a single incident of actual deductions having ever occurred with the exception of the one case of Sergeant Guzy, and that took place under such highly unusual circumstances that I don't think it was indicative that sergeants as a class face a significant possibility of having their pay reduced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1892.214, 1903.872, 1906.774, 1910.597, 1920.423, 1925.358, 1926.449, 1932.945], "stop_times": [1903.872, 1906.774, 1910.597, 1920.423, 1925.358, 1926.449, 1932.945, 1957.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1892.214}, "reply_to": "21129__1_041", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_043", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The Government's position is that the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1957.802], "stop_times": [1961.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.802}, "reply_to": "21129__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__1_044", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It is that it should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1961.415], "stop_times": [1962.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1961.415}, "reply_to": "21129__1_043", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_045", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And that we don't need to get to the window of correction, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1962.576], "stop_times": [1967.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.576}, "reply_to": "21129__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__1_046", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "With respect to Sergeant Guzy, that in our view the only... the window of correction is only implicated with respect to Sergeant Guzy.\nThat incident doesn't show that the class is subject--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1967.829, 1976.134], "stop_times": [1976.134, 1980.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1967.829}, "reply_to": "21129__1_045", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_047", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--But isn't it probative of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1980.087], "stop_times": [1981.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.087}, "reply_to": "21129__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__1_048", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--but Sergeant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1981.558], "stop_times": [1981.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1981.558}, "reply_to": "21129__1_047", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_049", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Isn't it probative of the treatment of the whole class when they said, well, we'll correct it if we have to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1981.758], "stop_times": [1986.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.758}, "reply_to": "21129__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__1_050", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I don't think that that is... I think that the position of the employer here is, we don't think we owed Sergeant Guzy money, but if we do, we want to be able to restore his retroactive status, and under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1986.232], "stop_times": [1997.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1986.232}, "reply_to": "21129__1_049", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_051", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "If they don't think they owe him money, they must interpret the fact that they ever... they are agreeing with your opponent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [1997.198], "stop_times": [2003.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.198}, "reply_to": "21129__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__1_052", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I think that in fact what they did is, they took a view similar to the one that Justice Kennedy was raising in his question about what it means to be subject to reduction for quality and quantity of work, and they said, we don't think Guzy was reduced for that reason, but if he was, we want to restore his status retroactively.\nIn our view, the window of correction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2003.724, 2022.827], "stop_times": [2022.827, 2024.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2003.724}, "reply_to": "21129__1_051", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_053", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And the court has to tell him why he was reduced.\nI don't quite understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2024.389, 2025.779], "stop_times": [2025.779, 2026.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.389}, "reply_to": "21129__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__1_054", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Well, there is nothing in the window of correction rule that precludes an employee from correcting after litigation.\nI... we don't think that there is a prelitigation correction rule in the window.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2026.961, 2034.685], "stop_times": [2034.685, 2038.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2026.961}, "reply_to": "21129__1_053", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_055", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Maybe the employer... as I understand the Guzy case there was a kind of a plea bargain for this lesser sanction when the sanction that eventually was made, the single sanction termination, would not have affected FLS--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2038.348], "stop_times": [2054.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.348}, "reply_to": "21129__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__1_056", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That's correct.\nHe was originally filed, or that was the original imposition of a penalty, was a firing, which would not implicate the rule at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2054.629, 2054.978], "stop_times": [2054.978, 2061.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2054.629}, "reply_to": "21129__1_055", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21129__1_057", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Renick, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2061.344, 2062.755], "stop_times": [2062.755, 2065.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.344}, "reply_to": "21129__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__2_000", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nLet me address this... at least partially this question about the chief of police's testimony.\nFirst of all, I think it's important for the Court to understand that the chief of police does not impose discipline.\nThat is the role of the police board, which is the defendant in this case.\nSecondly, if you examine the testimony that Mr. Leibig was referring to, the chief consistently says, you know, maybe that could happen, it's possible, but he can't recall it ever happening, and I think that's important, and I think that points out the problem with petitioner's position here as to someone who's subject to a deduction.\nAnd it goes to Justice Breyer's point.\nLogically, you could file one of these lawsuits and take the deposition of the chief executive officer and simply ask the question, is it possible that you could discipline one of your vice presidents who is found to have engaged in some kind of misconduct for a period of less than a week.\nAnd if the answer to that is yes, it's possible, because that is part of the inherent right of management, then the logical extension of petitioner's argument is that everyone in that organization, because they are conceivably subject to an improper deduction, would be nonexempt.\nTherefore, no one, whether you're a vice president, or Bill Gates, whatever it would be, under that theory would be exempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2065.739, 2074.625, 2080.216, 2084.681, 2087.572, 2106.556, 2108.947, 2125.506, 2141.908], "stop_times": [2074.625, 2080.216, 2084.681, 2087.572, 2106.556, 2108.947, 2125.506, 2141.908, 2148.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.739}, "reply_to": "21129__1_057", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_001", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, he could say that's not my fault, that's the Secretary's fault.\nHe wrote this regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2148.723, 2150.646], "stop_times": [2150.646, 2152.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.723}, "reply_to": "21129__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_002", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2152.096], "stop_times": [2152.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.096}, "reply_to": "21129__2_001", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_003", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I mean, we'll blame it on him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2152.486], "stop_times": [2153.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2152.486}, "reply_to": "21129__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_004", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--We think that that shows that that interpretation really doesn't make sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2153.728], "stop_times": [2157.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.728}, "reply_to": "21129__2_003", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_005", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, would you agree that if you had a manual that applied only to salaried employees, and specifically provided for discipline that would be inconsistent with salaried status, that that would be enough to preclude salaried status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2157.281], "stop_times": [2172.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.281}, "reply_to": "21129__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__2_006", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "If the discipline... if the manual was worded in such a way that discipline was mandatory, I would agree with you, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2172.428], "stop_times": [2179.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.428}, "reply_to": "21129__2_005", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_007", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, I... wouldn't... wouldn't we be entitled to act on the assumption that the manual was not a totally nugatory exercise and that, in at least some instances, consistently with the manual, discipline would be applied?\nWouldn't that be a reasonable basis for a decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2179.143, 2194.585], "stop_times": [2194.585, 2197.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.143}, "reply_to": "21129__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__2_008", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes, but I still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2197.396], "stop_times": [2199.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.396}, "reply_to": "21129__2_007", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_009", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I mean, your argument has to say... it seems to me seems to be, even when they specifically say they will do and are entitled to do what is inconsistent with salaried status, we won't take them at their word.\nWe'll wait and see.\nThat surely is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2199.577, 2213.805, 2215.308], "stop_times": [2213.805, 2215.308, 2216.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.577}, "reply_to": "21129__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__2_010", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--What I'm saying is, and I think the Secretary of Labor has agreed with our position, is that... is that as... you have to look at what actual experience... the best evidence is what is the actual experience in the application of whatever manual... if you have a manual or not, what has actually happened, and the evidence in this case is very clear.\nIn 1979, which was 6 years before the Garcia case was decided by this Court, the legislature of the State of Missouri amended the governing statute which controls the operations of the St. Louis Police Department to convert all commissioned officers at the rank of sergeant or above to a salary basis of payment.\nIt specifically amended the statute to disallow payment of overtime and to compensate for that they gave everyone an across-the-board 8 percent increase, and none of the individuals in this case have come forward... contrary to any other representations, the record is devoid of any evidence... we had 288 sergeants by the time we go to trial.\nNot a single one of those sergeants took the witness stand and testified that he or she had actually suffered an improper deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2216.04, 2234.694, 2252.314, 2280.124], "stop_times": [2234.694, 2252.314, 2280.124, 2287.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.04}, "reply_to": "21129__2_009", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_011", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Oh, I quite agree, but that's not the case that I put to you in the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2287.118], "stop_times": [2290.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.118}, "reply_to": "21129__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21129__2_012", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, I think I'm agreeing with you if you have a manual that says this is specifically applicable to exempt employees, or functionally exempt, and it provides that penalties will be imposed for certain forms of misconduct that would be periods of less than a week, if you accept the Secretary's interpretation of the salary basis test, then I would agree with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2290.541], "stop_times": [2317.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.541}, "reply_to": "21129__2_011", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_013", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "But the Secre... but penalties may be imposed.\nIf it says penalties may be imposed, your position is that would not be enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2317.349, 2319.281], "stop_times": [2319.281, 2322.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.349}, "reply_to": "21129__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_014", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, I think then you have to look at the practice, because I think as one of the justices earlier pointed out, I think you... where there are a range of penalties, as there are in this case, there's no reason to assume that the employer is going to choose a new proper penalty and thereby convert all of his or her salaried employees to nonexempt employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2322.524], "stop_times": [2341.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.524}, "reply_to": "21129__2_013", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_015", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, you know, all the text of the regulation says is not which amount must be reduced because of variations in the quality or... it says which amount is not subject to reduction, and you know, subject to reduction doesn't mean will certainly be reduced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2341.557], "stop_times": [2356.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.557}, "reply_to": "21129__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_016", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2356.319], "stop_times": [2357.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.319}, "reply_to": "21129__2_015", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_017", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It just means it's subject to reduction, and as I understood the exception is, if that thing is just a paper tiger, that in fact it is never used, that's one thing, but if it's even used in one case, it seems to me that's enough to show that it's for real.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2357.459], "stop_times": [2374.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.459}, "reply_to": "21129__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_018", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Well, but the state of the record here, Justice Scalia, is that in the period between 1979, when the statute was amended, and the time we went to trial in 1993, not one witness came forth to testify that he or she had been subjected to a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the department, by the police department, based on a variation, which is the word in the interpretation, on a variation in the quality or quantity of work.\nThere's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2374.839, 2399.046], "stop_times": [2399.046, 2399.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.839}, "reply_to": "21129__2_017", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_019", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Of course, the burden's on the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2399.386], "stop_times": [2399.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.386}, "reply_to": "21129__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_020", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Not one appears.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2399.767], "stop_times": [2400.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.767}, "reply_to": "21129__2_019", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_021", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The burden's on the employer here to show that nobody had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2400.097], "stop_times": [2403.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.097}, "reply_to": "21129__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_022", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2403.79], "stop_times": [2404.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.79}, "reply_to": "21129__2_021", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_023", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Did anyone come in on behalf of the employer and say, nobody has?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2404.341], "stop_times": [2407.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.341}, "reply_to": "21129__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_024", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--The employer prevailed on the salary test on partial summary judgment prior to the trial, and the record shows that I queried the trial judge both at the beginning and at the end of my presentation to ensure that that issue was no longer in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2407.764], "stop_times": [2421.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.764}, "reply_to": "21129__2_023", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_025", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Do you claim to have established at trial that nobody had, that nobody had been subjected to this disqualifying kind of discipline?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2421.986], "stop_times": [2430.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.986}, "reply_to": "21129__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_026", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "At the trial there was no evidence to that effect because we had prevailed on partial summary judgment prior to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2430.243], "stop_times": [2435.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.243}, "reply_to": "21129__2_025", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_027", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Okay, but it seems to me that's your burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2435.966], "stop_times": [2437.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2435.966}, "reply_to": "21129__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_028", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The trial judge found that we met that burden when he ruled in a pretrial ruling which granted partial summary judgment on the salary basis issue and took that out of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2437.046], "stop_times": [2448.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.046}, "reply_to": "21129__2_027", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_029", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "May I ask you to just address the one thing that I find a little puzzling?\nWhy, if you're correct that the... Sergeant Guzy was not subject to the particular discipline he got, why hasn't he been repaid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2448.235, 2452.967], "stop_times": [2452.967, 2463.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.235}, "reply_to": "21129__2_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__2_030", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, I think there are a couple of reasons for that.\nFirst of all, we believe, and I think it's clear, that the basis for the discipline in that case was the fact that he had violated a city residency requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2463.015, 2465.196], "stop_times": [2465.196, 2475.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.015}, "reply_to": "21129__2_029", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_031", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2475.694], "stop_times": [2475.874], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.694}, "reply_to": "21129__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21129__2_032", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Which was a requirement of employment.\nThat had absolutely nothing to do with the quality or quantity of his work, so it would be my position that he was never subjected to a reduction in his salary based on anything that had to do with the quality or quantity of his work, which is the phrase that the Secretary uses.\nSecondly, our position has been consistently in this litigation that if we are wrong... and the Eighth Circuit's opinion actually only says arguably that this deduction made Sergeant Guzy nonexempt, and we think it's just as reasonable that it may not be, but our position has been all along that if at the outcome of this litigation it is determined that that was an impermissible deduction, the salary test basis is validly applied to the Board of Police Commissioners, then we will comply by reimbursing Sergeant Guzy, and we will continue our existing practice of not allowing deductions of less than a week for exempt officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2475.874, 2478.235, 2492.754], "stop_times": [2478.235, 2492.754, 2534.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2475.874}, "reply_to": "21129__2_031", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_033", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "So you construe the disciplinary manual really as saying that although you may have some of the deductions, we won't have them if they're based on defects in quality or quantity of work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2534.081], "stop_times": [2544.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.081}, "reply_to": "21129__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21129__2_034", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2544.129], "stop_times": [2544.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.129}, "reply_to": "21129__2_033", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_035", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Now, you raise a lot of other issues, I think, in your response, an Eleventh Amendment issue, a claim that the FSLA does not apply at all to public employees of State and local government, and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2544.88], "stop_times": [2564.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.88}, "reply_to": "21129__2_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__2_036", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2564.595], "stop_times": [2565.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.595}, "reply_to": "21129__2_035", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_037", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Respondents never filed a cross-petition here, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2565.587], "stop_times": [2571.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.587}, "reply_to": "21129__2_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__2_038", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "No, we did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2571.123], "stop_times": [2571.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.123}, "reply_to": "21129__2_037", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_039", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And the court below assumed without deciding that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to the public employees here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2571.804], "stop_times": [2581.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.804}, "reply_to": "21129__2_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__2_040", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2581.09], "stop_times": [2581.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.09}, "reply_to": "21129__2_039", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_041", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And you went forward under that assumption the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2581.321], "stop_times": [2586.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.321}, "reply_to": "21129__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__2_042", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, the first question presented in the petition for the writ of certiorari, as I recall, is does the salary basis test validly apply to public employees, and we would say on the facts of this case, just demonstrates that taking this disciplinary deduction rule and trying to apply it to a law enforcement agency is arbitrary and capricious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2586.056], "stop_times": [2606.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2586.056}, "reply_to": "21129__2_041", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_043", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Well, we really didn't grant, as I see it, on a question of applicability of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.\nThere was no request made by you in any event, by a cross-petition, that we consider Garcia... reconsider Garcia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2606.408, 2615.014], "stop_times": [2615.014, 2622.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.408}, "reply_to": "21129__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__2_044", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I agree with you, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2622.521], "stop_times": [2623.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.521}, "reply_to": "21129__2_043", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_045", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Some amici have made that point, but you did not raise that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2623.702], "stop_times": [2627.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2623.702}, "reply_to": "21129__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__2_046", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--That's correct, Justice.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2627.236, 2627.476], "stop_times": [2627.476, 2627.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2627.236}, "reply_to": "21129__2_045", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_047", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "And I assume that the respondents waived the Eleventh Amendment immunity below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2627.937], "stop_times": [2633.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.937}, "reply_to": "21129__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__2_048", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--I don't believe that we did.\nWe don't believe that we have ever waived that.\nThey pointed out that we consented to the judgment, but I believe the... our Eleventh Amendment argument is based on this Court's decision on Seminole Tribe v. Florida, which only came out, I believe, March of this year, but at the time this litigation was taking place, my recollection is that Pennsylvania v. Union Gas was still good law, and there was really no basis for me to make that claim until this Court decided the Seminole Tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2633.46, 2635.06, 2639.194], "stop_times": [2635.06, 2639.194, 2661.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.46}, "reply_to": "21129__2_047", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_049", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I would have thought there might be some cross-petition to get into these things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2661.579], "stop_times": [2666.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.579}, "reply_to": "21129__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21129__2_050", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, we raised it simply at the point in time that the Court's Seminole Tribe decision had come out, and the timing of the sequence of events, we raised it basically as a jurisdictional issue, which, as I read the Court's cases, can be raised under these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2666.031], "stop_times": [2680.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.031}, "reply_to": "21129__2_049", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_051", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Is there any authority in the circuits to support the argument that the subject to clause doesn't apply to disciplinary actions at all, it simply applies when the work changes, for the operational needs of the employer?\nThat is what I thought was the common sense reading of it when I read the regulation, but I don't know if there's any support for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2680.29, 2696.232], "stop_times": [2696.232, 2702.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.29}, "reply_to": "21129__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21129__2_052", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I think that is the common sense reading.\nWhen you read 541.118(a) in the general sense, what the Secretary of Labor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2702.185, 2704.268], "stop_times": [2704.268, 2709.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.185}, "reply_to": "21129__2_051", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_053", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It's such a common sense reading that none of the circuits seem to have adopted it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2709.391], "stop_times": [2713.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.391}, "reply_to": "21129__2_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21129__2_054", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--The circuits--\n[Laughter]\nThe circuits have all picked up the point of what we're dealing with here, that a disciplinary suspension fits under 541.118(a)(5), which says penalties... it's actually worded in the affirmative, that an employer may impose penalties which... for violations of major safety rules.\nThat has since been interpreted to mean a penalty can be a suspension without pay, and the courts have then read and said the converse of that, then, is that you can't impose a penalty for something that's not a violation of a major safety rule, and I think that's how we get where we are here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2713.014, 2713.545, 2713.965, 2733.7], "stop_times": [2713.545, 2713.965, 2733.7, 2746.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.014}, "reply_to": "21129__2_053", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_055", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Has the agency ever expressly rejected the interpretation I suggest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2746.689], "stop_times": [2751.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.689}, "reply_to": "21129__2_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21129__2_056", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Not to my knowledge, although it is a matter of record at pages 43 through 46 of the joint appendix that the Secretary of Labor went on record this May and indicated that there was still confusion among litigants, particularly in the public sector, as to what all this means, and it appears that the Secretary intends to undertake some kind of a rulemaking procedure to review this disciplinary aspect of the salary test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2751.945], "stop_times": [2781.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.945}, "reply_to": "21129__2_055", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_057", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "In any number--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2781.635], "stop_times": [2782.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.635}, "reply_to": "21129__2_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21129__2_058", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It has never been done to date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2782.233], "stop_times": [2783.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.233}, "reply_to": "21129__2_057", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_059", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Any number of the specific rulings, the letters that the Secretary has given seems to be inconsistent with the reading I suggest.\nOr is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2783.344, 2789.939], "stop_times": [2789.939, 2791.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.344}, "reply_to": "21129__2_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21129__2_060", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I can't cite you to one, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2791.989], "stop_times": [2794.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.989}, "reply_to": "21129__2_059", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_061", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "In any event, your main argument, as I understand it, is you... accepting the Government's current interpretation of the regulation, that you properly prevailed in the Eighth Circuit, but didn't you... you made... one of your border attacks was on the Government's position as irrational in distinguishing between suspension for a full week versus a couple of days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2794.771], "stop_times": [2827.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.771}, "reply_to": "21129__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__2_062", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That's correct.\nWe believe that, particularly on the facts of this case, we are dealing with a law enforcement agency where you have a recognized exception that... and you... and again, you have to go back to the premise that all of these sections of the salary basis test are based on studies that were conducted in the 1940's and fifties, when public employers were not subject to the law, and that's part of the problem, is now trying to take what seemed to make sense back in the 1940's and fifties, when these studies were done, and then there was never any contemplation that the law would apply to public employers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2827.274, 2827.923], "stop_times": [2827.923, 2862.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2827.274}, "reply_to": "21129__2_061", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_063", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "But if we were to get into that, we would be going considerably beyond where the Eighth Circuit was in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2862.417], "stop_times": [2868.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.417}, "reply_to": "21129__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__2_064", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That would be true, yes, but we believe that, as I said, on the facts of this case this demonstrates that... and the Secretary has specifically recognized that you don't treat law enforcement agencies the same as even other public employees, let alone private employees.\nThere are differences in the standards for hours worked, there are differences in the fact that they get compensatory time, and our point here is that this disciplinary deduction prohibition doesn't make sense when you try to fit it into this kind of a situation.\nThis is a... as the trial judge found, this is a quasimilitary organization, it would be my position, where the sole or primary function of the St. Louis Police Department is to ensure the public safety, that by limiting our ability to impose discipline on the members of that police department, that the Secretary of Labor, in application, that that application is improper, it's arbitrary, it's capricious, and should be invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2868.331, 2884.391, 2900.962], "stop_times": [2884.391, 2900.962, 2933.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.331}, "reply_to": "21129__2_063", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_065", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "That might be your dispute with the Secretary of Labor, but it doesn't... this case, your victory in this case doesn't turn on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2933.165], "stop_times": [2942.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2933.165}, "reply_to": "21129__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21129__2_066", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "It doesn't depend on that.\nOur position is that if you assume that the regulations and the Secretary's interpretations are entirely valid in their application to the St. Louis Police Board, that the actions in this case demonstrate first of all the... we tried the case.\nWe had 21 different categories of sergeants, all of whom were found to perform exempt functions as either executive or administrative employees.\nThey were functionally exempt, and they've come to this Court and claimed that solely because they were subject to a disciplinary action which might possibly include a suspension of less than a week, for that sole reason, without demonstrating that it ever actually happened, that they are thus nonexempt, and we think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2942.041, 2943.032, 2958.623, 2968.53], "stop_times": [2943.032, 2958.623, 2968.53, 2989.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2942.041}, "reply_to": "21129__2_065", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_067", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Why does the distinction between suspension for less than a week and suspension for a week make sense for non-Government employees, or nonpolice employees, rather?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2989.424], "stop_times": [2998.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.424}, "reply_to": "21129__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_068", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Why does it make sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2998.19], "stop_times": [2999.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.19}, "reply_to": "21129__2_067", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_069", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2999.472], "stop_times": [2999.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.472}, "reply_to": "21129__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_070", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I don't know that it does.\nIt just... that has been in the Secretary's interpretation of 541.118(a) I think since 1954.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [2999.893, 3001.873], "stop_times": [3001.873, 3007.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2999.893}, "reply_to": "21129__2_069", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_071", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "What's the theory of it?\nWhy does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3007.967, 3009.008], "stop_times": [3009.008, 3010.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.967}, "reply_to": "21129__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_072", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The Secretary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3010.03], "stop_times": [3011.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3010.03}, "reply_to": "21129__2_071", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_073", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--suspended for a whole week, not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3011.021], "stop_times": [3011.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.021}, "reply_to": "21129__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_074", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--It's just included, a proviso that says in a week in which an employee performs no work at all, that the employer is under no obligation to pay the salary.\nThere are some distinctions as to when you have to pay the full salary.\nThe Secretary's interpretation is that generally, if you perform any work at all within a week, if you're a salaried employee, you shouldn't lok at the number of hours.\nIt shouldn't matter.\nYou're entitled to your full salary.\nThen they draw the distinction and say, in a week in which no work is performed, that the employer need not pay the salary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3011.872, 3021.38, 3024.853, 3032.519, 3033.399, 3034.751], "stop_times": [3021.38, 3024.853, 3032.519, 3033.399, 3034.751, 3041.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.872}, "reply_to": "21129__2_073", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_075", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "--Yes, but they also... the docking rule also applies.\nA docking for a whole week is okay, even though you work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3041.375, 3043.406], "stop_times": [3043.406, 3046.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.375}, "reply_to": "21129__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_076", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Docking for a whole week of work is okay, according to the Secretary of Labor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3046.44], "stop_times": [3048.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.44}, "reply_to": "21129__2_075", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_077", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "I don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3048.151], "stop_times": [3049.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3048.151}, "reply_to": "21129__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21129__2_078", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Well, we think that's even more so demonstrated by the fact that in 1992 the Secretary of Labor amended the regulation 541.5d that applies to public employees, so that the salary basis test, if you read it, doesn't even mean what it says for public employees, because the salary basis test says you're supposed to receive a predetermined amount of compensation every pay period that is not subject to reduction based on quality or quantity of work.\nThe Secretary of Labor, through a rulemaking procedure in '91, looked at the outcry that this caused in the public area, that there are many people who are exempt, but because of principles of public accountability are... under State laws are not able to be paid for time they don't work, so the Secretary amended the regulation to specifically allow a public employer to make deductions on an hour-by-hour basis from an otherwise exempt employee's salary and still allow them to claim that they're paid on a salary basis, which in and of itself is inconsistent.\nSo the salary basis test as applied to public employers no longer means what it says, and we say, why should there be this disciplinary deduction aspect maintained when the Secretary has already recognized that the variation in quantity of work does not destroy the salary basis.\nI would also point out that, in the petition that was filed by the petitioners in this case, they took the position very clearly that this Court was required to defer to the interpretations of the Secretary of Labor, and this Court invited the views of the Government, asking the Solicitor General to file a brief prior to deciding whether or not to accept this case.\nIn that case, the Secretary of Labor's views were specifically expressed, and it was described in that brief as for the sole... for the very specific purpose of clarifying what the Secretary's position was on these interpretations, and the Secretary has specifically disagreed with the position taken by the petitioners.\nBut the petitioners continue nonetheless to have had... apparently have had a change of heart as to the deference owed to the Secretary of Labor under the circumstances, and we would submit that the... whether or not the Secretary's interpretations are agreeable to the petitioner should not determine whether or not they are entitled to deference in this case, and we believe, under the circumstances, that they clearly are, and as I said earlier, if you accept the Secretary's current clarification of what the interpretations mean, this case fits squarely within it, whether or not you get to the window of correction.\nIf there are no other questions, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3049.6, 3081.092, 3116.014, 3138.157, 3165.556, 3185.969, 3229.709], "stop_times": [3081.092, 3116.014, 3138.157, 3165.556, 3185.969, 3229.709, 3234.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3049.6}, "reply_to": "21129__2_077", "speaker": "john_b_renick"}
{"id": "21129__2_079", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Renick.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3234.322, 3234.993], "stop_times": [3234.993, 3236.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.322}, "reply_to": "21129__2_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21129__2_080", "conversation_id": "21129", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-897", "start_times": [3236.426], "stop_times": [3241.628], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.426}, "reply_to": "21129__2_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21261__0_000", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1595, Bruce Babbitt v. Marvin K. Youpee, Sr.--\nMr. Feldman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [0.0, 8.946], "stop_times": [8.946, 10.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__0_001", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case concerns the constitutionality of section 2... of the amended version of section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act.\nThe unamended version of this statute was before this Court almost 10 years ago in Hodel v. Irving, and the Court found it unconstitutional.\nOur submission is that the amended statute remedies the flaws that this Court found in the original version of the statute, and the amended statute is therefore constitutional.\nNow, the purpose... the statute arose as a response to what this Court has characterized in Hodel as the extraordinary problem of extreme fractionation of Indian trust lands.\nSuch extreme fractionation when many people combine to own undivided interests in single parcels of land makes productive use of the land very difficult.\nIf a given parcel has a large number, sometimes in the hundreds of different owners, it's very hard for anyone to take initiative to see to it that the parcel is put to a productive economic use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [10.007, 12.329, 20.246, 27.829, 37.336, 48.983, 58.291], "stop_times": [12.329, 20.246, 27.829, 37.336, 48.983, 58.291, 68.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.007}, "reply_to": "21261__0_000", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_002", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Mr. Feldman, in this case, under the facts of this case, did the disposition of the land in question further fractionalize it or did one person take each interest as a whole?\nI mean, one daughter took some, and a son took all of another, the interest in another tract, and so on?\nIt was not further fractionalized, was it, in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [68.245, 84.556, 92.842], "stop_times": [84.556, 92.842, 95.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 68.245}, "reply_to": "21261__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_003", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "That's correct.\nI mean, actually... in respect to one parcel of land was further fractionated, but that was not a parcel that was subject to a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [95.954, 96.605], "stop_times": [96.605, 103.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.954}, "reply_to": "21261__0_002", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_004", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [103.608], "stop_times": [104.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 103.608}, "reply_to": "21261__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_005", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--It was small enough--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [104.169], "stop_times": [104.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 104.169}, "reply_to": "21261__0_004", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_006", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [104.9], "stop_times": [105.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.9}, "reply_to": "21261__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_007", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--The decedent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [105.551], "stop_times": [106.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.551}, "reply_to": "21261__0_006", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_008", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Does that make a difference, do you think, in our analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [106.121], "stop_times": [109.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.121}, "reply_to": "21261__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_009", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--No, I don't think it does.\nIn Hodel v. Irving what the Court held was that the extreme fractionation is a serious problem, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [109.221, 111.083], "stop_times": [111.083, 119.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.221}, "reply_to": "21261__0_008", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_010", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But we nevertheless thought it was a taking in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [119.328], "stop_times": [122.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.328}, "reply_to": "21261__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_011", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right.\nIt was a taking because... because such small... because... excuse me.\nLet me start again.\nThe Court held in Hodel that there was a taking because it completely and totally eliminated all rights of descent and devise for the land and, as the Court said twice in its opinion, even when permitting descent or devise would result in a consolidation of the land.\nIn this case none of the... none of the interest that they had passed effectively through the will would have resulted in such a consolidation of the land and, indeed, in Hodel v. Irving when the Court... in one of the places where the Court made that comment it put a Cf cite specifically to the amended version of the statute.\nNow, the amended version of the statute in our view remedies the flaws in the original statue in two ways.\nIn the first place, in connection with the economic impact of the statute, the amended... the original statute required that land be escheated if in the 1 year prior to the decedent's death it had not earned more than $100, and if the interest involved was less than 2 percent.\nThe amended version of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [122.711, 123.002, 128.856, 130.496, 148.527, 165.449, 172.263, 186.983], "stop_times": [123.002, 128.856, 130.496, 148.527, 165.449, 172.263, 186.983, 188.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.711}, "reply_to": "21261__0_010", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_012", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well now, let's talk about the amended version a little.\nSubsection (a) of 207 says if the land is incapable of earning $100 in any one of the 5 years from the date of decedent's death, and where the factional interest has earned its owner less than $100 in any one of the 5 years before the decedent's death there's a rebuttable presumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [188.845, 191.915], "stop_times": [191.915, 221.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.845}, "reply_to": "21261__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_013", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [221.836], "stop_times": [222.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 221.836}, "reply_to": "21261__0_012", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_014", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--that applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [222.857], "stop_times": [223.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 222.857}, "reply_to": "21261__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_015", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "If I may, if I can take the first passage that you quoted, it's our position that that is ambiguous, and that the... it is true that the any one... incapable of earning $100 in any one of the 5 years could mean in any of the 5 years or in any one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [223.398], "stop_times": [239.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.398}, "reply_to": "21261__0_014", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_016", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, that would be the normal reading of it, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [239.337], "stop_times": [241.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 239.337}, "reply_to": "21261__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_017", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [241.941], "stop_times": [242.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.941}, "reply_to": "21261__0_016", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_018", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I had a hard time understanding your reading of it, which would read in the word each of the 5 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [242.528], "stop_times": [248.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.528}, "reply_to": "21261__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_019", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--No... well, I think any in some circumstances can mean each, especially when it's conjoined with the negative, but let me just abstract from that for a minute.\nIn the first place, that issue isn't presented by this case because no one has claimed that our reading of the statute in this case was wrong, but more importantly, the kinds of lands that we're generally dealing with here are lands that are useful primarily for grazing or for mineral leasing, and as a general matter it doesn't really make... it will be a very small number of cases where which year you're looking at is going to be an important factor.\nIf it can be leased for a 5-year period for grazing, it will be leased at about the same amount of money every year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [248.884, 257.399, 279.764], "stop_times": [257.399, 279.764, 285.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.884}, "reply_to": "21261__0_018", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_020", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "What about timber?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [285.608], "stop_times": [286.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.608}, "reply_to": "21261__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_021", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, and if it can be leased for timber harvest it might be more than a 5-year period that a lease would permit, but still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [286.588], "stop_times": [293.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.588}, "reply_to": "21261__0_020", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_022", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well that's... I asked... you said it's mostly grazing and mineral.\nDoes the record support that, and not timber, because one of my concerns along the lines of Justice O'Connor's questioning under this statute is that timber harvesting typically is... oh, some parts of California at least once every 15 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [293.863, 296.946], "stop_times": [296.946, 312.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.863}, "reply_to": "21261__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_023", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right.\nAs our reading of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [312.186, 313.815], "stop_times": [313.815, 314.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.186}, "reply_to": "21261__0_022", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_024", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But it could be very valuable in that one year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [314.736], "stop_times": [316.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.736}, "reply_to": "21261__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_025", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--That's right.\nIn our reading of the statute, because the other key part of the change is not only that it changed to a 5-year period, but the question is whether it's capable, not whether in fact in any given year it earns an amount--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [316.507, 317.007], "stop_times": [317.007, 326.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.507}, "reply_to": "21261__0_024", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_026", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "What point does this go to?\nDoes it go to the point that if the Government only takes a little bit of value it's not a taking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [326.544, 327.115], "stop_times": [327.115, 331.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.544}, "reply_to": "21261__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_027", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--No.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [331.287, 331.918], "stop_times": [331.918, 332.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.287}, "reply_to": "21261__0_026", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_028", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Do we have any law that says that a de minimis taking is not a taking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [332.188], "stop_times": [335.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.188}, "reply_to": "21261__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_029", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--No, but it... I think it does go to the fact that Congress more carefully tailored what it did in this statute to just those interests that were causing the serious problem.\nWhen someone owns the smallest interest that was involved in this case... I think it was 5/1000ths of the parcel, and when people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [335.621, 345.556], "stop_times": [345.556, 352.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.621}, "reply_to": "21261__0_028", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_030", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes, but it doesn't go to the extent of the interest.\nIt goes to the value of the land more than the extent of the interest, or at least as much to the value of the land as the extent of the interest, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [352.661, 354.063], "stop_times": [354.063, 361.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.661}, "reply_to": "21261__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_031", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--It goes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [361.097], "stop_times": [361.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.097}, "reply_to": "21261__0_030", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_032", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I mean, you could have a pretty big chunk of an interest of worthless land and... you know, worthless for anything except perhaps camping on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [361.628], "stop_times": [370.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.628}, "reply_to": "21261__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_033", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right, but Congress was trying to define a category of land that was really causing the problem, and in the amended version of the act it acted much more closely and precisely to target that particular land.\nFor example, by referring to land that's capable of earning $100 rather than land that had in a certain year earned $100, someone whose land might escheat might go into a court and say, well, this can be harvested for timber every 15 years, therefore I can lease the land to somebody for a 15-year period, and if the annual rental on that lease will result in more than $100 for me, then I'm out of the statute.\nIt's... it was really the change to a capable-of-earning standard as much as focusing on the 5 years versus 1 year that was significant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [370.464, 381.763, 403.877], "stop_times": [381.763, 403.877, 411.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.464}, "reply_to": "21261__0_032", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_034", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I must admit, one has to marvel at the prognosticative ability, or else the serendipity of the Congress, that 3 years before our opinion in Hodel it should pass a statute which happens to solve the very things we were troubled with in Hodel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [411.862], "stop_times": [430.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 411.862}, "reply_to": "21261__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_035", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, I think that in fact the two key things that the Court pointed out in Hodel that it was most concerned about were first that this... taking just one arbitrary year before the decedent died might really result in the escheat of very valuable interest, and secondly that it completely and totally abolished all descent and devise, even in cases where descent and devise might consolidate interests.\nWhat Congress did was, it remedied the first problem primarily by talking about capable of earning, rather than just what it had in fact earned, and in addition by setting up this 5-year window rather than just 1 year before the decedent's death, and it dealt with the second problem by permitting devise in precisely those cases where the devise would result in consolidation of the property.\nThe kind of property interest that we're talking about here, the smallest interest in this case, as I said, was something like 5/1000ths of a percent, and people who own that small of a property interest can't reasonably be expected, or at least very infrequently will take enough of an interest in the property to do anything with it to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [430.785, 451.571, 471.634], "stop_times": [451.571, 471.634, 489.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.785}, "reply_to": "21261__0_034", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_036", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I don't know that we said in Hodel that there wasn't enough of a need.\nIt seems to me what we said in Hodel is simply, you... an essential part of the bundle of property rights is the ability to bequeath it, and if you take that away, you've taken property, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [489.836, 494.267], "stop_times": [494.267, 505.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.836}, "reply_to": "21261__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_037", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think, as I read the... as I read the Court's opinion, what it was speaking of was the complete and total and absolute abrogation of rights of descent and devise.\nAfter all, the Court reaffirmed a long line of precedent that had held that the Government has very broad authority to regulate the rules of descent and devise.\nIn this case, this kind of rule is analogous both to typical escheat rules, which are kind of abandonment rules, where you have a very small interest, you can't really expect the owner to do anything, he doesn't have enough of an economic incentive to ever do anything with the property, even to return a post card, perhaps, that... where someone proposes a use of the property that requires his consent, and what Congress was saying was, if that's the kind of interest you have, that is imposing serious costs on the community, and we're going to presume that you abandoned it unless you did one of three things.\nEither, during your lifetime, you unite it with another interest and consolidate your interest and get above the 2 percent threshold, or second, you can dispose of the property during your lifetime and thereby... and pass on... you can certainly pass on any money that you're able to realize by disposing it to your heirs by descent or devise, or however it can be passed on, or three, you can pass it on by... through... after your death, through a probate proceeding, but you can only devise it to somebody who already owns an interest in the same property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [505.515, 514.443, 521.886, 551.246], "stop_times": [514.443, 521.886, 551.246, 580.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.515}, "reply_to": "21261__0_036", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_038", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Doesn't that effectively mean that you can't devise it to the people you are most likely to want to devise it to?\nI mean, I presume it is highly unlikely that the people who are already owners of the parcel are related to you, or lineal descendants of yours, so I suppose that really cancels out most of the prospective devises, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [580.394, 585.888], "stop_times": [585.888, 603.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.394}, "reply_to": "21261__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21261__0_039", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I actually don't think that's true.\nAs a matter of fact, in this very case one of the six respondents got three properties that she wouldn't otherwise have gotten, because she was a daughter of the decedent, and she already owned interest in those properties.\nBut more generally, what's caused the problem that Congress was addressing here was kind of... was rules of descent, was primarily rules of descent that allowed the land to be fractionated over the years, and frequently the land will be held within a given lineal family.\nPerhaps it's branched out quite a bit by the time it gets to the third or fourth generation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [603.24, 604.842, 616.008, 631.038], "stop_times": [604.842, 616.008, 631.038, 634.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.24}, "reply_to": "21261__0_038", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_040", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [634.501], "stop_times": [635.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.501}, "reply_to": "21261__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__0_041", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "So generally it will be other... or at least, very frequently it will be other people who you do have a family tie to, who are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [635.122], "stop_times": [640.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.122}, "reply_to": "21261__0_040", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_042", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--But you're talking about collateral heirs, a quite distant relationship if you get to the third or fourth generation, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [640.846], "stop_times": [647.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.846}, "reply_to": "21261__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__0_043", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--You might be.\nYou might well be, although as I said in this case one of the people was a daughter, but certainly many of them, some of the other five didn't get any land on that basis, and didn't already own interest in the parcels.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [647.548, 649.04], "stop_times": [649.04, 657.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.548}, "reply_to": "21261__0_042", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_044", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Mr. Feldman, I don't read Hodel as resting upon the total elimination of the ability to devise.\nIt just doesn't say that.\nIt says... it says the regulation here amounts to virtually the abrogation of the right to pass on a certain type of property, the small, undivided interest, to one heir... to one's heirs.\nNot totally, virtually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [657.836, 664.17, 665.88, 679.151], "stop_times": [664.17, 665.88, 679.151, 681.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.836}, "reply_to": "21261__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_045", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [681.261], "stop_times": [683.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.261}, "reply_to": "21261__0_044", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_046", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "And it does virtually that here, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [683.322], "stop_times": [685.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.322}, "reply_to": "21261__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_047", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--And the Court... I would say the Court also said in Hodel the difference in this case from the other cases that the Court reaffirmed that have affirmed the authority of the sovereign to set rules of descent and devise, the difference in this case is the fact that descent and devise are completely abolished.\nIndeed, they are abolished even in circumstances where the governmental purpose sought to be advanced does not conflict with the further descent of the property.\nBut I think, stepping aside for a minute, whether the Court's... and, indeed, I think the question before the Court today is the question of whether Hodel rested on the complete abrogation of descent or devise, or rested on a rule that would much more severely restrict the sovereign's ability to regulate descent or devise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [685.744, 702.255, 709.0], "stop_times": [702.255, 709.0, 725.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.744}, "reply_to": "21261__0_046", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_048", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "With respect to that, Mr. Feldman, I was trying to think of any other kind of regulation by the sovereign of the right to dispose of property on death that would be comparable to this, and you rely on the large power of the sovereign to regulate the disposition of property on death, and here the regulation says most lineal descendants will not qualify.\nI couldn't think of anything that would be close to this.\nIs there any... you talk about a larger authority, but is there anything that so severely restricts the category of potential devisees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [725.591, 751.556, 754.669], "stop_times": [751.556, 754.669, 766.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.591}, "reply_to": "21261__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__0_049", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I don't think... there's nothing I can... I can't answer that I can give you an example of any particular statute that does... that restricts the category of lineal devisees so thoroughly, although there may be statutes that give... include... they give an interest to a spouse, for example, over the interests of children, or something like that, that could in some circumstances have that effect, but there have been, and the Court have upheld statutes that have restricted devise to one's children.\nUnder the common law, I believe, you couldn't devise property to an alien, real property, and even if the alien happened to be your child, and this Court has upheld that.\nIn addition, there are in... there are rules that some Indian tribes have that you can't devise... that you can't devise property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [766.356, 791.253, 800.199], "stop_times": [791.253, 800.199, 806.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.356}, "reply_to": "21261__0_048", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_050", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But most of them come up as except... in the main, you can devise your property, but there are these exceptions, and here is in the main you can't, unless you come under the exception of somebody who already has a share of that same parcel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [806.674], "stop_times": [819.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.674}, "reply_to": "21261__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__0_051", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--And I think you really have to look at the unique character of this property interest, the kinds of property interests that we're talking about in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [819.83], "stop_times": [827.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 819.83}, "reply_to": "21261__0_050", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_052", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Why is it unique?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [827.107], "stop_times": [828.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.107}, "reply_to": "21261__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_053", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It's unique because these interests are extremely small fractional interests, a kind of fractional interest that very, very rarely exists outside of Indian law, and that the owners may well in fact have abandoned the property.\nIt's very hard to tell whether they've abandoned the property because the administrative costs of leasing it insofar as it's able to be leased, or doing it with whatever can be done are borne by the United States, and because they're not subject to State taxes, and really one of... what... meanwhile this interest is both... I think it's analogous both to cases where Congress is saying owning this kind of an interest is in itself a kind of a nuisance that has to be abated, and if you don't take State action, you don't take action to abate that nuisance in the course of your lifetime by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [828.018, 840.296], "stop_times": [840.296, 869.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.018}, "reply_to": "21261__0_052", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_054", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It was a nuisance that Congress created by... principally by prohibiting the Indians from deeding this property.\nIsn't that how it all came about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [869.914, 879.25], "stop_times": [879.25, 881.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.914}, "reply_to": "21261__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_055", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [881.353], "stop_times": [882.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.353}, "reply_to": "21261__0_054", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_056", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Weren't there severe limits on the alienation of it by the Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [882.974], "stop_times": [885.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.974}, "reply_to": "21261__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_057", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--There are limits on the alienation of it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [885.564], "stop_times": [887.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.564}, "reply_to": "21261__0_056", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_058", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "So Congress gives this property to the Indians, puts these severe limitations on it which creates this problem of fractionalization, and then comes in and says, because of this problem of fractionalization which we've created, we're going to take it away from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [887.177], "stop_times": [898.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.177}, "reply_to": "21261__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_059", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I'm not sure that it's fair, though, to say that Congress created... the process of fractionalization may have been a byproduct of a number of different factors, one among them are the fact that it's not subject to State taxes, and that the Government bears the cost of administering the property, and thereby it doesn't give anybody an incentive to determine whether this is property that they really want, and really want to do something with, or if this is just abandoned property that they're just going to ignore and pass on to the next generation in equal undivided interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [898.913], "stop_times": [924.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 898.913}, "reply_to": "21261__0_058", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_060", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, I suppose the Government could purchase these small interests, or take them by eminent domain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [924.54], "stop_times": [932.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.54}, "reply_to": "21261__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_061", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [932.604], "stop_times": [934.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.604}, "reply_to": "21261__0_060", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_062", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--paying something, and I guess the Government also could help the tribes do just that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [934.886], "stop_times": [940.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.886}, "reply_to": "21261__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_063", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "That's correct, although the magnitude of the problem... you know, each of these interests... in this case some of the interests are an estimated value of $5, or $10, or $15, but the magnitude of the problem over millions of acres of Indian land, where the ownership is highly fractionated, is very, very substantial, and Congress reasonably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [940.241], "stop_times": [960.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.241}, "reply_to": "21261__0_062", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_064", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But Congress has imposed so many detailed requirements on efforts by the tribes to consolidate.\nMaybe some of those could be eliminated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [960.484, 967.738], "stop_times": [967.738, 970.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.484}, "reply_to": "21261__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_065", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [970.299], "stop_times": [971.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.299}, "reply_to": "21261__0_064", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_066", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--and make it simpler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [971.26], "stop_times": [971.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.26}, "reply_to": "21261__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_067", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Actually, I'm sure there's room for improvement in the statutory schemes here, but in the Indian Land Consolidation Act and some of the other provisions that are right, I think... this is codified at 29 U.S.C. 2206 at 2205, 4, 3... there are some other provisions Congress enacted to enable tribes to take a variety of actions to purchase land or to consolidate interests on the reservation.\nAnd in fact in 2206(c), I think it is, the very section we're talking about, Congress specifically indicated that if a tribe wanted to adopt a code of inheritance that would deal with... that would also deal with this fractionation problem in some other way, that that could be approved by the Secretary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [971.581, 991.383], "stop_times": [991.383, 1006.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.581}, "reply_to": "21261__0_066", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_068", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Mr. Feldman, can I ask you sort of a basic question?\nSupposing Congress gave plenty of notice to the Indians... you know, I suggested that in the Hodel case... say that 20, a statute to take effect 20 years after its date, say, no Indian property may be passed by... at death to heir... to anybody.\nJust, period.\nIt will all escheat to the tribe.\nWould that violate the Takings Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1006.964, 1009.145, 1025.296, 1025.817, 1027.136], "stop_times": [1009.145, 1025.296, 1025.817, 1027.136, 1028.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.964}, "reply_to": "21261__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__0_069", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I'm sorry, that no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1028.768], "stop_times": [1031.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.768}, "reply_to": "21261__0_068", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_070", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Just, all property owned by any member of the tribe shall escheat to the tribe at death, but would not interfere with the owner's right to dispose of it inter vivos at any time during the 20 years.\nWould that violate the Takings--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1031.761, 1045.008], "stop_times": [1045.008, 1046.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.761}, "reply_to": "21261__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__0_071", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think it would under this Court's decision in Hodel, in fact, at least, and insofar as that was based on prior cases, I think it would violate the Takings Clause on that basis as well.\nThere really wasn't... although there really wasn't an alternative for Congress' action that it took in this case, by... section 2206 does two things.\nFirst, it eliminates the right of devise of these very small fractional interests.\nIn doing that, the Court itself in Hodel suggested that that's something that Congress may well want to... may be able to do, and indeed, insofar as the statute has only that effect, it should be held constitutional insofar as it affects people who didn't go to the trouble of making a will to determine who an heir of a particular property should be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1046.481, 1056.114, 1067.894, 1072.497], "stop_times": [1056.114, 1067.894, 1072.497, 1092.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.481}, "reply_to": "21261__0_070", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_072", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Well, does the amended statute prevent descent, I assume without a will, of an interest even where the descent under the circumstances would result in a consolidation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1092.229], "stop_times": [1104.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.229}, "reply_to": "21261__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_073", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It doesn't do that, but if you think about it, it would be a very, very rare case where that will happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1104.997], "stop_times": [1110.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.997}, "reply_to": "21261__0_072", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_074", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It seems to say so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1110.431], "stop_times": [1111.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.431}, "reply_to": "21261__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_075", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1111.042], "stop_times": [1112.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.042}, "reply_to": "21261__0_074", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_076", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It says nothing in this section shall prohibit the devise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1112.281], "stop_times": [1117.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.281}, "reply_to": "21261__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_077", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1117.317], "stop_times": [1117.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1117.317}, "reply_to": "21261__0_076", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_078", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--of such an escheatable fractional interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1117.717], "stop_times": [1120.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.717}, "reply_to": "21261__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_079", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1120.258], "stop_times": [1120.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.258}, "reply_to": "21261__0_078", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_080", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But if there's an intestate succession--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1120.579], "stop_times": [1122.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.579}, "reply_to": "21261__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_081", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "No, I agree with you, I think that it would prevent any descent, that it's... what it's saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1122.309], "stop_times": [1126.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.309}, "reply_to": "21261__0_080", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_082", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Even if it results in a consolidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1126.572], "stop_times": [1128.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.572}, "reply_to": "21261__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__0_083", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right, but it will be a very unusual situation where descent would... descent was what caused the problem, and it would be a very unusual situation where that would result in consolidation, because if somebody who has an interest, passes it to his two, three, four, five, six, however many there are children, they're each going to get a smaller part of that, and even if one of them already owns a very small interest in the property, it's going to be very unlikely that it's going to result in... it's almost certain to result in increased fractionation, and so I don't think Congress had to go that far in order to remedy the problem, and indeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1128.173], "stop_times": [1159.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.173}, "reply_to": "21261__0_082", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_084", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "What do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1159.244], "stop_times": [1160.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.244}, "reply_to": "21261__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__0_085", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I was just going to say that I do think, as I was saying before, that the statute should be... would be constitutional at least insofar as it prohibits descent, and if there is a case like that out there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1160.213], "stop_times": [1169.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1160.213}, "reply_to": "21261__0_084", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_086", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--But Mr. Feldman, isn't that a... I know you asked us to say, at least with respect to descent or further fractionalizing a share by devise, but those people are not before this Court, and we do have these people who were devised shares that were not reduced further by the devise.\nWe can decide that case.\nBut isn't there something about procedural due process that would inhibit us from deciding the cases of people who have not been given notice and an opportunity to be heard that their cases are going to be affected by this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1169.069, 1188.523, 1191.705], "stop_times": [1188.523, 1191.705, 1207.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.069}, "reply_to": "21261__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__0_087", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Yeah... I'm not suggesting the Court should decide any case that's not before it, but I do think... there's two points.\nOne is, we are asking the Court to make clear that this is an as-applied challenge in this case, and that there are these other kinds of cases, including a large number where there's no will at all, and where the decedent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1207.314, 1213.328], "stop_times": [1213.328, 1222.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.314}, "reply_to": "21261__0_086", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_088", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Those could be left open, but I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1222.444], "stop_times": [1224.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.444}, "reply_to": "21261__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__0_089", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Those at least should be left open--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1224.714], "stop_times": [1225.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.714}, "reply_to": "21261__0_088", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_090", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1225.806], "stop_times": [1226.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.806}, "reply_to": "21261__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__0_091", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--and it may well be that the Court's reasoning, although we don't... reasoning... if it were to reach the conclusion that the statute's unconstitutional as applied here, the Court's reasoning may well make clear that in these other contexts it would be constitutional, albeit those cases themselves would be left for another time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1226.096], "stop_times": [1240.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1226.096}, "reply_to": "21261__0_090", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_092", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--May I modify my hypothetical?\nSuppose instead of prohibiting both devise and intestacy, it simply prohibited intestacy.\nNo property of any Indian shall pass by reason of intestacy, but all... if there's no will the property will all escheat to the State... to the tribe, rather.\nDo you think that would be constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1240.436, 1243.378, 1249.222, 1258.277], "stop_times": [1243.378, 1249.222, 1258.277, 1259.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.436}, "reply_to": "21261__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__0_093", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I think it... I suppose it might depend at least in part on what it is that Congress is intending to accomplish by that.\nIf all that Congress is intending--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1259.94, 1267.254], "stop_times": [1267.254, 1268.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.94}, "reply_to": "21261__0_092", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_094", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Intending to consolidate property interests that are small and fractionated in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1268.796], "stop_times": [1272.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.796}, "reply_to": "21261__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__0_095", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1272.629], "stop_times": [1272.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.629}, "reply_to": "21261__0_094", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_096", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--in the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1272.939], "stop_times": [1275.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.939}, "reply_to": "21261__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__0_097", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Well, insofar as it deals with just very small fractionated interests, our argument is that it would be constitutional, but if a statute like that also applied to, for instance, entire interests in the property, then it's hard to see what it would be trying to accomplish, other than just... it wouldn't be remedying any kind of nuisance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1275.13], "stop_times": [1290.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1275.13}, "reply_to": "21261__0_096", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_098", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1290.01], "stop_times": [1290.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.01}, "reply_to": "21261__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_099", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--for the community.\nIt wouldn't be solving any adverse problem that seems to be occurring, and I think in those cases there would be a problem under the Penn Central analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1290.48, 1290.761], "stop_times": [1290.761, 1297.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1290.48}, "reply_to": "21261__0_098", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_100", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--You're saying property you don't care enough to will it to anybody goes back to the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1297.546], "stop_times": [1303.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.546}, "reply_to": "21261__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_101", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, I... it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1303.099], "stop_times": [1303.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.099}, "reply_to": "21261__0_100", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_102", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "We said in Hodel, Justice O'Connor's opinion said that it may be appropriate to minimize further compounding by abolishing the descent of such interest by rules of intestacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1303.83], "stop_times": [1313.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.83}, "reply_to": "21261__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_103", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right, and it's possible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1313.185], "stop_times": [1314.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.185}, "reply_to": "21261__0_102", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_104", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Thereby forcing the owners to formally designate an heir--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1314.437], "stop_times": [1317.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.437}, "reply_to": "21261__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_105", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1317.229], "stop_times": [1317.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1317.229}, "reply_to": "21261__0_104", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_106", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--to prevent escheat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1317.689], "stop_times": [1318.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.689}, "reply_to": "21261__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_107", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It's possible that a statute like that would be constitutional and, indeed, there are other contexts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1318.511], "stop_times": [1322.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.511}, "reply_to": "21261__0_106", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_108", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "That would solve a lot of the problem, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1322.805], "stop_times": [1325.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.805}, "reply_to": "21261__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_109", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--To... it would solve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1325.457], "stop_times": [1327.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.457}, "reply_to": "21261__0_108", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_110", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "And it would focus especially on these little interests that are so insignificant that, you know, the person doesn't care enough--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1327.417], "stop_times": [1334.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.417}, "reply_to": "21261__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_111", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1334.111], "stop_times": [1334.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1334.111}, "reply_to": "21261__0_110", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_112", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--to even mention in a will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1334.642], "stop_times": [1336.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.642}, "reply_to": "21261__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_113", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I don't believe it would... the problem is, I don't believe it would focus on those interests.\nIt would... a statute... if we're talking about a statute that would limit devise of all interests in allotted trust lands, it would sweep far more broadly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1336.395, 1340.326], "stop_times": [1340.326, 1347.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.395}, "reply_to": "21261__0_112", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_114", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Intestate.\nEliminate intestate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1347.922, 1348.814], "stop_times": [1348.814, 1349.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.922}, "reply_to": "21261__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_115", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "All intestate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1349.144], "stop_times": [1349.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.144}, "reply_to": "21261__0_114", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_116", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1349.585], "stop_times": [1349.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.585}, "reply_to": "21261__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_117", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "All intestate descent.\nI think it would focus far more broadly than is necessary or suggested, but I think the Court... there would be authority for that kind of an outcome, if Congress did not act too broadly.\nFor example, in United States v. Locke, and in Texaco v. Short, the Court dealt with cases that involved people who, in order to maintain a very real ownership interest... in this case I think it was mineral leases... they had to take some kind of action like filing a paper or something like that with a recorder of deeds.\nIf that kind of thing were required, if a will were seen as equivalent to taking that kind of action, then I think a statute like that would be constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1349.945, 1350.766, 1363.233, 1380.804], "stop_times": [1350.766, 1363.233, 1380.804, 1388.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.945}, "reply_to": "21261__0_116", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_118", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Then it seems to me if you haven't gone that far, really... if you said that was okay, I don't know why you can't say we're going to insist on inter vivos action in order to protect the value and the interest.\nI'm making you argue the wrong side of the case, I guess.\nI shouldn't do this.\n[Laughter]\nBut if you're going to abolish intestacy, I don't know why... and say you've got to show sufficient interest in the property to identify it in your Last Will and Testament.\nI don't know why you couldn't similarly... if the property owner has plenty of notice, plenty of time to prepare his or her affairs, say you must dispose of it inter vivos in order to preserve the value, and then you can leave the cash to somebody else, because there is a national interest in getting rid of these fractionated interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1388.1, 1397.667, 1400.719, 1401.718, 1402.649, 1410.813], "stop_times": [1397.667, 1400.719, 1401.718, 1402.649, 1410.813, 1426.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.1}, "reply_to": "21261__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__0_119", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes I... I can only answer that I think that it may be that you could do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1426.004], "stop_times": [1430.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.004}, "reply_to": "21261__0_118", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_120", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1430.478], "stop_times": [1431.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.478}, "reply_to": "21261__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__0_121", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--but that what Congress did in this case is much more narrowly tailored to dealing with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1431.017], "stop_times": [1434.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.017}, "reply_to": "21261__0_120", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_122", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--A great many wills don't simply set out parcels of property and do nothing else.\nThey'll devise the residuary estate, everything else I have, which would pick up these fractional interests, so wills wouldn't necessarily pick out this property.\nThe person who writes the will may have no more idea that he has the interest than the person who lets it go by intestate succession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1434.45, 1439.762, 1451.57], "stop_times": [1439.762, 1451.57, 1458.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.45}, "reply_to": "21261__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__0_123", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right.\nIndeed, the will in this case, actually a number, maybe 15 or so of the interests that escheated here were, I think, escheated from someone who just got them as a result of a residuary clause in the will in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1458.645, 1458.956], "stop_times": [1458.956, 1469.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1458.645}, "reply_to": "21261__0_122", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_124", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Are any of the Indian lands in question here ever subject to partition?\nSuppose three or four owners are in a real dispute over what to do with the land, do they have a remedy of partition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1469.542, 1473.916], "stop_times": [1473.916, 1481.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.542}, "reply_to": "21261__0_123", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_125", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Under some circumstances, yes.\nAll I can say is that there's dispute as to whether it can be done... it requires a majority of the ownership interests in order to seek partition, or whether it requires all the owners to agree to partition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1481.15, 1483.083], "stop_times": [1483.083, 1493.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1481.15}, "reply_to": "21261__0_124", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_126", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "And if it does, I suppose that only certain authorized persons at the sale, because it can't be devised to a non-Indian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1493.748], "stop_times": [1498.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.748}, "reply_to": "21261__0_125", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_127", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It can be... right, it can't be.\nThat's right.\nWell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1498.821, 1500.934, 1501.535], "stop_times": [1500.934, 1501.535, 1502.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1498.821}, "reply_to": "21261__0_126", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_128", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Or transferred to a non-Indian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1502.476], "stop_times": [1503.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.476}, "reply_to": "21261__0_127", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_129", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--It can be... if an Indian has an ownership interest in a parcel of land and seeks to take it out of trust status, ordinarily if the person is competent the Secretary agrees to that, and then at that point it can be transferred--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1503.888], "stop_times": [1514.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.888}, "reply_to": "21261__0_128", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_130", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But who would be the bidder at the partition sale, if there are limited... if there are a limited number of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1514.114], "stop_times": [1520.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.114}, "reply_to": "21261__0_129", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_131", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1520.709], "stop_times": [1521.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.709}, "reply_to": "21261__0_130", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_132", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--qualified owners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1521.18], "stop_times": [1521.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.18}, "reply_to": "21261__0_131", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_133", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think... I believe there would be authority even to take it out of trust status, take... to view the, let's say a unanimous application by the owners, to view that as their request to take it out of trust status--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1521.917], "stop_times": [1534.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1521.917}, "reply_to": "21261__0_132", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_134", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, but then it wouldn't be partitioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1534.757], "stop_times": [1536.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.757}, "reply_to": "21261__0_133", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_135", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Well, they'd sell it and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1536.289], "stop_times": [1538.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1536.289}, "reply_to": "21261__0_134", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_136", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "If it's unanimous, you don't need partition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1538.259], "stop_times": [1538.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.259}, "reply_to": "21261__0_135", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21261__0_137", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Well, they'd want to sell it and then it would be partitioned, but I do think that partitioning as a practical matter is not really a solution to the problem, because taking a parcel of land, especially with the size of some of these ownership interests involved, and trying to figure out how fairly to divide it up so the economic value of what you're getting is equal to your ownership interest is extraordinary difficult.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1538.64], "stop_times": [1557.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.64}, "reply_to": "21261__0_136", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_138", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But that's just what happens in the... I mean, outside of the Indian law, isn't that what happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1557.302], "stop_times": [1560.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.302}, "reply_to": "21261__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__0_139", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1560.923], "stop_times": [1561.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1560.923}, "reply_to": "21261__0_138", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_140", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "And moreover, hasn't that stopped the proliferation of these interests?\nIn other words, why can't you do precisely the same thing in respect to the small interests in the indian territory that you do in respect to the small interests in respect to non-Indian territory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1561.574, 1565.087], "stop_times": [1565.087, 1575.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.574}, "reply_to": "21261__0_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__0_141", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1575.313], "stop_times": [1576.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1575.313}, "reply_to": "21261__0_140", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_142", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "You give people the right to partition, or to ask for it, and the person who owns $5 worth of land says, you know, I'll sell it to him for the $5.\nI'm not going to go to court for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1576.024, 1584.208], "stop_times": [1584.208, 1585.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.024}, "reply_to": "21261__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__0_143", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Right.\nI think the problem is that it's very rarely the case outside of the Indian contexts where these very, very small--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1585.53, 1585.91], "stop_times": [1585.91, 1592.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.53}, "reply_to": "21261__0_142", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_144", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "That's because we've had that system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1592.234], "stop_times": [1593.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.234}, "reply_to": "21261__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__0_145", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--The fractions are so small that it gets to be very, very cumbersome to effectively partition, or even to... well, I guess it could be sold, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1593.745], "stop_times": [1603.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.745}, "reply_to": "21261__0_144", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_146", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "No, I thought... my point is I thought that outside the Indian context we find that we don't have this problem because there are these mechanisms in place, and so if you... why couldn't you, instead of taking the thing away, just put the same mechanisms in place?\nI'm not arguing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1603.272, 1618.582], "stop_times": [1618.582, 1620.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.272}, "reply_to": "21261__0_145", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__0_147", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--But you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1620.143], "stop_times": [1620.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1620.143}, "reply_to": "21261__0_146", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_148", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I'm just... what the reason is.\nWhat is the reason why that hasn't happened--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1620.834, 1621.505], "stop_times": [1621.505, 1623.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.834}, "reply_to": "21261__0_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__0_149", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1623.825], "stop_times": [1624.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1623.825}, "reply_to": "21261__0_148", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_150", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--or wouldn't happen, or couldn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1624.737], "stop_times": [1625.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.737}, "reply_to": "21261__0_149", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__0_151", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think the reasons is because in order to partition... I suppose one reason is that it is thought that you don't want to just dispossess all of these Indians of their land because perhaps some owner of a very small interest doesn't... wants to have it partitioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1625.324], "stop_times": [1639.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1625.324}, "reply_to": "21261__0_150", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_152", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, it's one thing, too, for an owner, say, of three-quarters of a tract to buy out fractions from the other quarter, but for someone with 3/100ths interest to start a partition proceeding, you have quite different incentives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1639.445], "stop_times": [1655.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.445}, "reply_to": "21261__0_151", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__0_153", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "That's right, and also the one other thing I'd add is that this land is... the administrative expenses of upkeep of the land are borne by the United States, and it's not subject to State taxes, and therefore you don't have some of the incentives of why owners of land in a non-Indian context that gets fractionated would want to partition it, so you can just deal with those problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1655.595], "stop_times": [1671.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1655.595}, "reply_to": "21261__0_152", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_154", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "All of this just seems to me to say the Government has created an economic wonderland which has caused this problem.\nThe normal market economic incentives that stop fractionalization have been taken away by the Government, and now the Government comes in with this ham-handed approach of simply solving the problem by denying the right to devise, and I don't know why it couldn't solve the problem just as readily by letting the normal incentives of the market come back into the picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1671.065, 1678.389], "stop_times": [1678.389, 1700.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.065}, "reply_to": "21261__0_153", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__0_155", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I suppose the only answer is that because of... it really goes to the whole history of Indian law and all of the purposes that are served by holding the land in trust and maintaining an Indian land base that is a much more complex problem that just saying, let's take the land out of trust or whatever we would have to do and treat this like any other land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1700.946], "stop_times": [1717.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1700.946}, "reply_to": "21261__0_154", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_156", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "No, but let's take one of the mechanisms.\nIt's perfectly true that for these minuscule interests it may be very cumbersome even to get the ball rolling by going into court in the normal course, filing petitions and so on.\nBut the Government can certainly provide a simplified partition scheme, for example, that would, I suppose, just allow an extremely simple filing before an administrative officer with a low filing fee or none at all, and that would be a way of bringing a kind of normal market mechanism adapted to the particular problem that the Government has caused.\nWhy can't the Government do something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1717.004, 1718.657, 1730.675, 1758.043], "stop_times": [1718.657, 1730.675, 1758.043, 1760.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.004}, "reply_to": "21261__0_155", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21261__0_157", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "There... I suppose that there are partition schemes, there are partition regulations that we cite in our brief that are currently applicable to this land that allow partition in some circumstances.\nBut I suppose the problem is that the land, many, many people have attachments to land, especially some of the larger landowners, and they don't necessarily want their land partitioned, and it's important for the Government to keep the land as part of... it's not important for the Government, it's important for the... for Indian policy to have the land maintained in trust for the Indians, and that carries with it a lot of other baggage that you can't just... you can't just discard to deal with this aspect of the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1760.206, 1770.092], "stop_times": [1770.092, 1794.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1760.206}, "reply_to": "21261__0_156", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_158", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Feldman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1794.247], "stop_times": [1795.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.247}, "reply_to": "21261__0_157", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__0_159", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1795.897], "stop_times": [1796.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1795.897}, "reply_to": "21261__0_158", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "21261__0_160", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Mr. Martell, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1796.448], "stop_times": [1797.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.448}, "reply_to": "21261__0_159", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_000", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe're here today to discuss the effects of the amendments on the Hodel decision.\nMr. Youpee left 34 parcels to six of his children, and he left them in such a fashion that each child would be sole owner of the parcel that he left.\nHe pretty much is now put in the position that the plaintiffs were in the Hodel decision.\nThe amended act does not cure the problems pointed out by the Court in the Hodel decision, and it wasn't until 1992 that this... Congress decided to have, again, hearings on the fractionalization problem, and in 1994 the Secretary distributed for comment new amendments that had... the heart of it, of which was a revolving money fund to pay for these interests.\nOne of the problems that remains with the amendments now is that the amendments still try to categorize the land as de minimis by considering only the income that they generate, whereas the Court in Hodel say the proper determination is the land's actual economic value.\nThe economic value here is that $2,100 of these... is what these parcels are worth.\nThat's a significant sum of money, and it's significant in Roosevelt County, which is one of the poorest counties in Montana.\nMr. Youpee's property interests, if they were partitioned, in 10 of those parcels those interests would be between 2 and 6 acres, so as the Court has said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1797.76, 1802.472, 1807.545, 1817.333, 1824.768, 1851.724, 1870.146, 1875.392, 1881.423], "stop_times": [1802.472, 1807.545, 1817.333, 1824.768, 1851.724, 1870.146, 1875.392, 1881.423, 1893.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1797.76}, "reply_to": "21261__0_160", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_001", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Two and 6 acres in each parcel, or total?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1893.224], "stop_times": [1896.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.224}, "reply_to": "21261__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_002", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--When I divided his... the acreage by his interest, in one parcel it was 6 acres, in four other parcels, those were 4-acre tracts, and in three other parcels those tracts were in excess of 2 acres, so a taking even of small land is still a taking.\nUnder the amendments, at 25 U.S.C. 2206(c), it appears that if the tribe wants to have a consolidation program and pay... and... excuse me, a consolidation program and have... add within their code how they're going to treat descent and distribution, and that code disenfranchises nonmember Indians and non-Indians, that they have to pay fair market value for those interests that they get as a tribe.\nThe second problem here is that the option of inter vivos transfers do not cure the taking.\nMr. Youpee has virtually no opportunity to leave his land to his children.\nIt is only through a devise of his land that he would be able to, and that's only if his children are already owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1896.814, 1915.647, 1946.417, 1954.512, 1960.707], "stop_times": [1915.647, 1946.417, 1954.512, 1960.707, 1968.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.814}, "reply_to": "21261__1_001", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_003", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, why would that be, Mr. Martell?\nI would think that if he knows who he might devise it to, which among his children, he might also make an inter vivos transfer to those children, unless he's dependent upon income from the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1968.001, 1970.862], "stop_times": [1970.862, 1982.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1968.001}, "reply_to": "21261__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_004", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "He wasn't dependent on income.\nIt's just such a headache to do it, and to know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1982.33, 1984.962], "stop_times": [1984.962, 1989.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.33}, "reply_to": "21261__1_003", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_005", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, but surely it's every... it's no bigger a headache to devise it inter... or to grant it inter vivos than to leave it by will, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1989.305], "stop_times": [1996.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.305}, "reply_to": "21261__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_006", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Well, it's a tremendous bureaucratic process.\nI mean, if he was to try to transfer his land in his lifetime, it involves the approval of the local agency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [1996.36, 1998.741], "stop_times": [1998.741, 2006.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.36}, "reply_to": "21261__1_005", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_007", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "He would have to go through it if he did it in his lifetime.\nHis children would have to go through it if he did it by will.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2006.816, 2009.417, 2012.35], "stop_times": [2009.417, 2012.35, 2013.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.816}, "reply_to": "21261__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_008", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--The third--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2013.952], "stop_times": [2016.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.952}, "reply_to": "21261__1_007", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_009", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Isn't it true that he did consult the Bureau of Indian Affairs in drafting the will?\nThey did it... isn't that true, that these owners do rely on the Bureau for assistance in their legal affairs and dealing with their property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2016.833, 2021.597], "stop_times": [2021.597, 2028.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.833}, "reply_to": "21261__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_010", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor.\nIn 1981 he went to the regional, the area office in Billings, away from the reservation, and had the chief realty officer draw up his will, and it was retained there, and at no time after 1981 was he ever told that his devises would be ineffective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2028.842, 2029.832], "stop_times": [2029.832, 2046.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.842}, "reply_to": "21261__1_009", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_011", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "There's no explanation of that in the record, is there, why they wouldn't have been advised that the devises didn't comply with the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2046.921], "stop_times": [2054.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.921}, "reply_to": "21261__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_012", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "No.\nIt's just a reality.\nNobody knows about this law, and nobody is told about this law.\nIt's just not happening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2054.507, 2055.268, 2056.378, 2059.07], "stop_times": [2055.268, 2056.378, 2059.07, 2061.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.507}, "reply_to": "21261__1_011", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_013", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes.\nSuppose they had passed... suppose the system were totally different, the administrative system, and what had happened is, every person who has one of these interests got a big piece of paper.\nIn big letters it said, you own a small interest.\nCheck the box below.\nBox 1, at my death I would like it to go to the tribe.\nB, at my death I would like it to go to, fill in the blank, okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2061.313, 2062.101, 2072.32, 2076.06, 2078.083, 2082.054], "stop_times": [2062.101, 2072.32, 2076.06, 2078.083, 2082.054, 2086.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.313}, "reply_to": "21261__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_014", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2086.918], "stop_times": [2087.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.918}, "reply_to": "21261__1_013", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_015", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Now, suppose they got that, and their signature on that, it says, if you check B, proceed to page 3 and sign that, and it happened on page 3 and 2 is all the necessary stuff for an inter vivos transfer, i.e., all the necessary stuff for a trust, and you set up the trust, and then at your death it goes to the beneficiary.\nYou know, all those things were all there.\nSo they'd gotten total notice, they'd gotten exactly how to do it, their wishes would be carried out.\nIt's not that hard to work out.\nThen would this be unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2087.55, 2106.081, 2108.655, 2114.027, 2115.977], "stop_times": [2106.081, 2108.655, 2114.027, 2115.977, 2118.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.55}, "reply_to": "21261__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_016", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I don't think it would be a due process problem, but I think there would still be a problem in that the land is not compensated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2118.679], "stop_times": [2126.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.679}, "reply_to": "21261__1_015", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_017", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well then, why could a State ever, for example, say traditional dower rights are, the wife got one-third of a life estate in the husband's property.\nWe think that's out of date, so we pass a statute that as to the future the wife or husband is to have one-half of the property acquired during marriage.\nWe make the dower States the same as the community property States, into the future.\nCould that never occur--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2126.744, 2135.282, 2144.115, 2148.008], "stop_times": [2135.282, 2144.115, 2148.008, 2150.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.744}, "reply_to": "21261__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_018", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2150.229], "stop_times": [2150.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.229}, "reply_to": "21261__1_017", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_019", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--giving everybody proper notice, giving everybody plenty of chance?\nI don't know.\nI mean, I'm not asking this because I have an answer.\nI'm just trying to figure out what the theory is that underlies the unconstitutionality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2150.96, 2153.933, 2154.764, 2156.423], "stop_times": [2153.933, 2154.764, 2156.423, 2161.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.96}, "reply_to": "21261__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_020", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think the theory is, is that he's being forced to forfeit his land to the tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2161.257], "stop_times": [2167.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.257}, "reply_to": "21261__1_019", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_021", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well you have escheat.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2167.442, 2168.942], "stop_times": [2168.942, 2169.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.442}, "reply_to": "21261__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_022", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2169.323], "stop_times": [2169.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.323}, "reply_to": "21261__1_021", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_023", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--escheat.\nAnd can they never change the escheat law?\nThey say, we think 7 years in our State, gee, that's an awfully long time in today's day and age.\nWe think you have to notify the person who has the bank account that you forgot about within 6 years, otherwise you lose it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2169.763, 2170.084, 2172.095, 2176.806], "stop_times": [2170.084, 2172.095, 2176.806, 2185.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.763}, "reply_to": "21261__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_024", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I think there wouldn't be abandonment if there was an opportunity, if there was a process, you knew about the process, and you chose not to do it.\nThen perhaps the property would be abandoned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2185.292, 2194.198], "stop_times": [2194.198, 2197.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.292}, "reply_to": "21261__1_023", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_025", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It's abandoned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2197.77], "stop_times": [2201.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.77}, "reply_to": "21261__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_026", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But that's... people here don't about the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2201.483], "stop_times": [2203.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2201.483}, "reply_to": "21261__1_025", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_027", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes.\nThat's what I'm trying--\n--Do any of the tribes impose any kind of a property tax on these lands, or are they permitted to under Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2203.263, 2203.664, 2205.356], "stop_times": [2203.664, 2205.356, 2214.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.263}, "reply_to": "21261__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_028", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Not that I know of, Your Honors.\nSome tribes do have consolidation programs, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2214.222, 2215.522], "stop_times": [2215.522, 2218.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.222}, "reply_to": "21261__1_027", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_029", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Because, of course, with non-Indian property there are State and local taxes applicable, and if the owner doesn't pay them for a period of time, there are procedures that the State or county can go through to forfeit the property for nonpayment of taxes.\nMr. Martell, regarding Justice Breyer's question about changing the escheat law, or changing the inheritance laws, I suppose there's a difference, is there not, for purpose of takings law, as to whether you have a general State law or Federal law that is applicable to all property owners versus a law that simply picks out a few property owners, or one class of property.\nFor example, I think we'd have a different question before us if on the one hand the State law said, property escheats in just 2 years instead of 8 throughout the State, versus a law that picks out a particular class of property owners and just says, we're going to make an exception from the normal State law for you, and your property shall escheat more quickly.\nThere might be a takings issue in the latter case when there isn't in the former.\nAren't you relying to some extent on the fact this is not a general, you know, intestate disposition law?\nIt's one targeted at a particular class of property owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2218.584, 2236.305, 2264.165, 2291.571, 2295.024, 2303.512], "stop_times": [2236.305, 2264.165, 2291.571, 2295.024, 2303.512, 2306.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.584}, "reply_to": "21261__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__1_030", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor, and I... you know, I would maintain that that's pretty much the essence of it, because Indians take... took this property under the allotment act with the understanding that they would have these rights to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2306.902], "stop_times": [2319.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.902}, "reply_to": "21261__1_029", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_031", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But the Government has a great deal of authority under the Constitution over the affairs of the Indian tribes.\nI don't think the Federal Government could step in and prescribe a general partition statute that would be contrary to the laws of all of the 50 States, but it does have special authority to deal with Indian property, and certainly that's what it's attempted to do here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2319.419, 2325.644], "stop_times": [2325.644, 2341.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.419}, "reply_to": "21261__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_032", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2341.336], "stop_times": [2342.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.336}, "reply_to": "21261__1_031", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_033", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Well, you concede that?\nThis doesn't apply to all Indian property.\nIt only applies to Indian property that is fractionated the way this is.\nThe only people who are affected are those who hold these small... these small shares.\nAll other Indians can continue to devise or dispose of through intestacy as before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2342.445, 2344.127, 2346.258, 2351.631, 2356.875], "stop_times": [2344.127, 2346.258, 2351.631, 2356.875, 2363.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.445}, "reply_to": "21261__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__1_034", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2363.939], "stop_times": [2365.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.939}, "reply_to": "21261__1_033", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_035", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes, but it does apply to the entire Indian population, and all Indian lands where there is an interest that is undivided and it meets the statutory formula.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2365.94], "stop_times": [2375.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.94}, "reply_to": "21261__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_036", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2375.327], "stop_times": [2376.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.327}, "reply_to": "21261__1_035", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_037", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Maybe we should just talk to each other.\n[Laughter]\nI mean, anyway, you can say that in this case he didn't get enough notice.\nThey didn't send him the paper.\nIt was passed only a few years before he died.\nIt wasn't for the future, and so from your point of view I guess this is somewhat irrelevant, the debate of what would happen under other circumstances.\nWell, but it's... but is it not true that what we have at issue in this case is your particular client's claim?\nWe aren't necessarily deciding that the statute would be valid or invalid as to a host of other applications, isn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2376.188, 2377.848, 2379.51, 2383.152, 2384.493, 2386.895, 2395.35, 2401.603], "stop_times": [2377.848, 2379.51, 2383.152, 2384.493, 2386.895, 2395.35, 2401.603, 2407.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.188}, "reply_to": "21261__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_038", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2407.888], "stop_times": [2408.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.888}, "reply_to": "21261__1_037", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_039", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "You... it's not a class action, or it's not an industry-wide piece of litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2408.709], "stop_times": [2413.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.709}, "reply_to": "21261__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_040", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2413.382], "stop_times": [2413.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.382}, "reply_to": "21261__1_039", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_041", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "You would just have a--\n--We wrestled with this whole thing 10 years ago.\nI thought the issue before us is a much more narrow one, and that is whether, as applied to the... this as-applied challenge Hodel governs or not.\nWhat is it that you say to the Government's contention that this is different from Hodel?\nIt's a hard question as an original matter, and I remember agonizing quite a bit over the decision in Hodel, but there is the decision.\nIt's on the books.\nNow, tell us why this is the same as Hodel rather than, as the Government says, different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2413.842, 2414.884, 2418.514, 2427.543, 2432.636, 2440.74, 2441.36], "stop_times": [2414.884, 2418.514, 2427.543, 2432.636, 2440.74, 2441.36, 2444.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.842}, "reply_to": "21261__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__1_042", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Okay.\nIt's the same as Hodel because Mr. Youpee has no options.\nI mean, his option, his complex... during his lifetime a... you know, a series of complex transfers, and the Court in Hodel said that's... you know, that's not a substitute for the rights that's taken.\nHis right that is taken is, he can't... his land cannot descend, and he cannot leave it to his children, because devise has to be limited to a coowner, and a reality is, as was pointed out before, children don't inherit land at the same time their parents do.\nMost Indians, when they receive land, receive it through inheritance, but most kids do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2444.703, 2445.892, 2448.764, 2460.953, 2477.144], "stop_times": [2445.892, 2448.764, 2460.953, 2477.144, 2482.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.703}, "reply_to": "21261__1_041", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_043", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Mr. Martell, what about the first difference?\nThe Government didn't bring it up at argument, but on the brief they said that the 1984 change had three things in it that weren't there before, and one of them had to do with authorizing tribes to adopt laws that would govern dispositions of escheatable interests.\nHave there been, to your knowledge, any such tribal codes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2482.727, 2485.168, 2502.4], "stop_times": [2485.168, 2502.4, 2507.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.727}, "reply_to": "21261__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__1_044", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nAnything that tribes have done that consolidate, have consolidation programs were before these amendments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2507.032, 2508.574], "stop_times": [2508.574, 2515.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.032}, "reply_to": "21261__1_043", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_045", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "So that significant change turns out still to be undeveloped and unused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2515.569], "stop_times": [2524.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.569}, "reply_to": "21261__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__1_046", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2524.936], "stop_times": [2525.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.936}, "reply_to": "21261__1_045", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_047", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I gather the tribes don't care.\nThe owners of the small, fractionated interests don't care.\nThe only person who cares is the Government, who's saddled with the enormous administrative burden of keeping track of all of these fractionated interests.\nIs that what's going on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2525.807, 2527.707, 2531.32, 2538.345], "stop_times": [2527.707, 2531.32, 2538.345, 2540.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.807}, "reply_to": "21261__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__1_048", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I think that the tribes strategically don't care because they get the land by not making an effort.\nIf they don't pass a consolidation program they still get the land, but I think the people care about the land.\nThat's kind of why we're here.\nI mean, Mr. Youpee wanted his children to have the land of his ancestors, and they wanted that land, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2540.475, 2548.072, 2554.004, 2555.857], "stop_times": [2548.072, 2554.004, 2555.857, 2562.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.475}, "reply_to": "21261__1_047", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_049", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Oh, when I say don't care, I don't mean don't care about the land.\nThey don't care about the fractionating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2562.352, 2564.523], "stop_times": [2564.523, 2565.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.352}, "reply_to": "21261__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__1_050", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--They care about it, but there's such an overwhelming bureaucracy there that it's hard to make headway into it.\nI mean, it... I mean, it would be hard to make headway into 34 parcels if the people that you were talking to weren't receptive to doing it, and that's the reality of it.\nI mean, they don't want to spend the time to help you do a gift deed 34 times, or let you know that perhaps you should do that.\nWe have considered in our argument that under the amendments there is still a problem, as... exactly as there was in Hodel, that for Indians under 18 and those incompetent, that they... they're totally just... are just like the plaintiffs in Hodel, is that devise and descent are totally abrogated for them.\nWe feel that the escheat provision is in fact a categorical taking, because as I mentioned, Mr. Youpee has no options.\nI mean, in the... the operative provisions of the amendments leave him no choice.\nHe could... you know, he could leave it to a coowner, but that will not be his children, and he could do inter vivos transfers, but that's... as the Court said, that's not an effective substitute for losing the right of devise and descent, so in effect his land is transferred to a tribe without his consent.\nWe feel as a regulation that... if you consider these amendments a regulation, that they go too far, again.\nI mean, the stated Government purpose is to stop the fractionization of Indian land, but the underlying purpose that comes out time and again in the legislative history is that the Government wants to save money, and saving money has never been a sufficient reason to allow a taking, and there's no average reciprocity of advantage here.\nI mean, there's no public benefit to Mr. Youpee for his children if the tribes obtain his land interests.\nMr. Youpee's right of descent is a vested right, and compensation should be paid for that right if it is taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2565.882, 2574.771, 2584.334, 2591.851, 2616.305, 2628.573, 2635.088, 2657.631, 2667.419, 2687.972, 2694.998], "stop_times": [2574.771, 2584.334, 2591.851, 2616.305, 2628.573, 2635.088, 2657.631, 2667.419, 2687.972, 2694.998, 2705.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.882}, "reply_to": "21261__1_049", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_051", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But would you contest... suppose all... the only limit was, you can give away what you have, but you can't divide it up into further hands.\nSo you've got this one piece.\nYou can give it to one person, but you can't give it to three people.\nWould that be constitutional, to put that restriction on the ability to devise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2705.403, 2717.763, 2720.063, 2724.317], "stop_times": [2717.763, 2720.063, 2724.317, 2731.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.403}, "reply_to": "21261__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__1_052", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I think it would Your Honor, because his land would not be taken from him, and that's in fact what he did, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2731.22], "stop_times": [2737.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2731.22}, "reply_to": "21261__1_051", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_053", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "What if the Government were to put in some sort of a unitization program like the States have put in a lot of oilfields, where the thing is consolidated into certain minimum tracts and you get a percentage from that, but you don't have the right to deal on your own with it any more.\nWould that be permissible, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2737.866, 2758.418], "stop_times": [2758.418, 2761.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.866}, "reply_to": "21261__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_054", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I think it would be permissible, because you'd still have the identifiable property interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2761.44], "stop_times": [2767.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.44}, "reply_to": "21261__1_053", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_055", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Would you refresh my recollection on the facts of this case?\nThe decedent had several children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2767.675, 2774.77], "stop_times": [2774.77, 2776.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.675}, "reply_to": "21261__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_056", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "He had 10 children, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2776.661], "stop_times": [2778.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.661}, "reply_to": "21261__1_055", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_057", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "So that if the will were given effect, you would have further fractionalization, then, wouldn't you?\nEach would get an undivided tenth of what he had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2778.36, 2782.433], "stop_times": [2782.433, 2785.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.36}, "reply_to": "21261__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_058", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "No, I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nIf the will was allowed to go through, each of his children would only take one interest.\nHis land was not fractionated under his will.\nI mean, if there was a royalty check coming, instead of coming to him it would go to one child.\nThe next parcel, it might go to another child, but it wouldn't go to two children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2785.286, 2787.216, 2795.314, 2797.754, 2803.519], "stop_times": [2787.216, 2795.314, 2797.754, 2803.519, 2807.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.286}, "reply_to": "21261__1_057", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_059", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "In other words, this decedent left his interests in such a way that there was no further fractionalization--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2807.352], "stop_times": [2813.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2807.352}, "reply_to": "21261__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__1_060", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2813.964], "stop_times": [2814.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.964}, "reply_to": "21261__1_059", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_061", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--of the real property interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2814.706], "stop_times": [2815.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.706}, "reply_to": "21261__1_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__1_062", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2815.837], "stop_times": [2816.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.837}, "reply_to": "21261__1_061", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_063", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I don't... would you give me a little more detail?\nExplain how that could be, if he had 10 children and the will just... was it... did he give a partial to each of the 10?\nIs that what he did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2816.708, 2820.689, 2825.861], "stop_times": [2820.689, 2825.861, 2826.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.708}, "reply_to": "21261__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_064", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I guess I've confused it by saying he had 10 children.\nHis other children were taken care of through other devises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2826.432, 2829.024], "stop_times": [2829.024, 2832.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.432}, "reply_to": "21261__1_063", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_065", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Oh, so there's one devise to the one child that's at stake here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2832.747], "stop_times": [2836.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.747}, "reply_to": "21261__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_066", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "There's six children here, but each of them had a specific devise that gave them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2836.009], "stop_times": [2840.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.009}, "reply_to": "21261__1_065", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_067", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "And each in a separate parcel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2840.692], "stop_times": [2842.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.692}, "reply_to": "21261__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_068", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2842.254], "stop_times": [2842.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.254}, "reply_to": "21261__1_067", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_069", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I see.\nOkay.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2842.755, 2843.085, 2843.464], "stop_times": [2843.085, 2843.464, 2844.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.755}, "reply_to": "21261__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_070", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Sorry to be unclear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2844.004], "stop_times": [2845.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.004}, "reply_to": "21261__1_069", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_071", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "And would you clarify for me... this case does not further subdivide the interests, but the Government says even if it did it would be valid.\nIf it further fractionalized the interests--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2845.336, 2861.154], "stop_times": [2861.154, 2868.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.336}, "reply_to": "21261__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__1_072", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2868.01], "stop_times": [2868.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.01}, "reply_to": "21261__1_071", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_073", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--the Government says that would be valid.\nWhat is your position on that?\nCan the Congress prohibit further fractionalization?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2868.761, 2871.372, 2873.333], "stop_times": [2871.372, 2873.333, 2878.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.761}, "reply_to": "21261__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__1_074", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "I don't think they can prohibit it unless they pay for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2878.736], "stop_times": [2882.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2878.736}, "reply_to": "21261__1_073", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_075", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Okay.\nI didn't find that you took a position in your briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2882.699, 2884.59], "stop_times": [2884.59, 2887.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.699}, "reply_to": "21261__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21261__1_076", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2887.883], "stop_times": [2891.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.883}, "reply_to": "21261__1_075", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_077", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Why would there be a payment requirement there?\nI would suppose that precluding further fractionalization was not going to make the land worth less, so you're saying the value would be simply the value of the capacity to fractionize.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2891.065, 2894.928], "stop_times": [2894.928, 2910.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.065}, "reply_to": "21261__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21261__1_078", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I'm not sure, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2910.388], "stop_times": [2913.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.388}, "reply_to": "21261__1_077", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_079", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Mr. Martell, I'm surprised, because I thought you told me that you thought it would be a legitimate restriction for the Government to say to Mr. Youpee or anyone else, you can give each parcel that you have to one person, or to that many different people as you have parcels, but you cannot take that one parcel and turn that parcel into two.\nI thought in answer to my question you said, that's right, that would be the kind of restriction that we wouldn't attack as a taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2913.37, 2936.365], "stop_times": [2936.365, 2944.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.37}, "reply_to": "21261__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__1_080", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2944.519], "stop_times": [2946.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.519}, "reply_to": "21261__1_079", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_081", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "And then you seemed to give a different response to Justice O'Connor.\nI thought you accepted that you can freeze the size of the parcel as they now are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2946.182, 2949.983], "stop_times": [2949.983, 2955.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.182}, "reply_to": "21261__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__1_082", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Okay.\nI guess I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2955.298, 2956.428], "stop_times": [2956.428, 2956.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.298}, "reply_to": "21261__1_081", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_083", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "And no further division, and that would be okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2956.798], "stop_times": [2958.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.798}, "reply_to": "21261__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21261__1_084", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "--I guess I was confused.\nI mean, it seems that as long as he doesn't lose his land, that that would be a legitimate way to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2958.831, 2959.061], "stop_times": [2959.061, 2967.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.831}, "reply_to": "21261__1_083", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_085", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "So I guess that means that a number of applications of this very statute would be permissible, although the one involving your clients would not be, because this statute will prevent that.\nIt prevents further fractionalization, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2967.066, 2979.554], "stop_times": [2979.554, 2981.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.066}, "reply_to": "21261__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21261__1_086", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But I would think it... I guess I'm getting confused.\nI mean, I don't think it would ever be... you know, if you're taking somebody's land and not paying for it, then it's not permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2981.966, 2987.849], "stop_times": [2987.849, 2996.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.966}, "reply_to": "21261__1_085", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_087", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "There are a lot of... there are statutes in different countries that... and that's what I was... this case differs from the last case in that here there is a set of people whom you can leave the property to and a set to whom you cannot leave it to.\nThat's the difference, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [2996.365, 3009.104], "stop_times": [3009.104, 3010.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.365}, "reply_to": "21261__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_088", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3010.504], "stop_times": [3011.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3010.504}, "reply_to": "21261__1_087", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_089", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Okay.\nWell, there are a lot of land law, I think, property law in different countries that do things like that.\nThey say, you can leave... you cannot leave this land, or you cannot leave this part of your estate to anyone but your first child, or to anyone but the children.\nThey already have an interest in it.\nOr you have to leave a certain amount to your wife, or you have... those are traditional, and that's why I was trying to see, is there anything in those cases that... suppose we wanted to move towards some of those kinds of rules.\nI don't know that any State would or wouldn't, but this sounds a little bit like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3011.195, 3011.886, 3017.659, 3028.275, 3030.856, 3043.535], "stop_times": [3011.886, 3017.659, 3028.275, 3030.856, 3043.535, 3047.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.195}, "reply_to": "21261__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_090", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It seems like most of the State laws that deal with... you know, with forced heirs like that are doing it for the benefit of the family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3047.71], "stop_times": [3055.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3047.71}, "reply_to": "21261__1_089", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_091", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right, and here they say, you see the tribe is like your family.\nWe're doing it for the benefit of the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3055.835, 3058.987], "stop_times": [3058.987, 3060.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.835}, "reply_to": "21261__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_092", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "But not for the benefit of Mr. Youpee's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3060.535], "stop_times": [3063.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3060.535}, "reply_to": "21261__1_091", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_093", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "No, and that's also true if you don't like your children.\n[Laughter]\nI suppose if the forced heir was the Nation of France, that might be a different question.\nSome of these Indians whose property would escheat to the tribe are from, in fact, different segments of the tribe, aren't they, that are not on that reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3063.427, 3065.73, 3068.683, 3077.827], "stop_times": [3065.73, 3068.683, 3077.827, 3097.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.427}, "reply_to": "21261__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21261__1_094", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3097.432], "stop_times": [3098.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3097.432}, "reply_to": "21261__1_093", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_095", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Either from a different reservation, or in some cases different tribes, isn't that possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3098.063], "stop_times": [3102.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3098.063}, "reply_to": "21261__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21261__1_096", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Right, Your Honor.\nThere's three reservations involved.\nWe would argue that Mr. Youpee's right of descent is vested because this is an Indian law case, and his right of descent was in... was part of the bundled rights that was understood to be taken to the General Allotment Act, so the General Allotment Act had as its purpose to start the Americanization of Indians, and therefore the right to be... of descent was a vested traditional property right that the Indians understood they had when they took the land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3102.524, 3102.904, 3104.655], "stop_times": [3102.904, 3104.655, 3148.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3102.524}, "reply_to": "21261__1_095", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_097", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "How large an area is the Fort Peck reservation, and how many of the tribe reside on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3148.124], "stop_times": [3158.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.124}, "reply_to": "21261__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_098", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "It's a... within exterior boundaries it's a million acres.\nThe tribal and the Indian ownership is about 51 percent, and there's about 5,000 people, 5,000 Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3158.491, 3164.214], "stop_times": [3164.214, 3170.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3158.491}, "reply_to": "21261__1_097", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_099", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "So if it's a family, it's a rather large family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3170.879], "stop_times": [3177.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.879}, "reply_to": "21261__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21261__1_100", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThank you.\nI've nothing further, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3177.194, 3178.353, 3181.955], "stop_times": [3178.353, 3181.955, 3182.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3177.194}, "reply_to": "21261__1_099", "speaker": "rene_a_martell"}
{"id": "21261__1_101", "conversation_id": "21261", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Martell.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1595", "start_times": [3182.706, 3184.472], "stop_times": [3184.472, 3185.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.706}, "reply_to": "21261__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__0_000", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in No. 95-813, Brad Bennett v. Michael Spear.\nMr. Wilkinson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [0.0, 8.037], "stop_times": [8.037, 9.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__0_001", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case arises from the Ninth Circuit and raises the question whether farmers and irrigation districts that receive water pursuant to Federal contracts have standing to complain when their water supplies are cut, their crops threatened, and their land devalued as a consequence of Government conduct alleged to violate the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [9.598, 13.18], "stop_times": [13.18, 30.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.598}, "reply_to": "20830__0_000", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_002", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We're talking about the granting of a motion to dismiss here, aren't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [30.062], "stop_times": [33.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 30.062}, "reply_to": "20830__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__0_003", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [33.335], "stop_times": [33.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 33.335}, "reply_to": "20830__0_002", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_004", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "So, we're talking about the... how you construe allegations in a complaint basically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [33.615], "stop_times": [38.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 33.615}, "reply_to": "20830__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__0_005", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "In part, that's... yes, absolutely correct.\nAccording to the Ninth Circuit, the answer to the question I posed is no because petitioners' competitive, economic-based interest in the water places them outside a zone of interest protected by the ESA.\nWe believe this ruling goes well beyond the bounds of any standing decision of this Court, and notably, neither the Government nor any amicus attempts to defend it.\nIf prudential considerations apply at all to actions commenced under the citizen suit provision of the ESA, they are more than satisfied by the petitioners in this case.\nTheir water supply contracts and the claims they alleged in their complaint place them well within any zone of interest either protected or regulated by the ESA--\nAnd for the same reason, petitioners also have a right to review under the Administrative Procedure Act since they are persons adversely affected or aggrieved within the meaning of the relevant statute, namely, the ESA.\nFinally, unless the ruling of the Ninth circuit is reversed, we believe there will be at least three farreaching and negative effects from it.\nFirst, there will exist a prudential standing scheme under the ESA that overtly discriminates against economically based plaintiffs.\nSecond, because the courthouse doors will be closed to everyone except environmental plaintiffs, there will be one-sided enforcement of the ESA.\nFinally, the result of that one-sided enforcement we believe will be skewed implementation of the act that continually presses the Government forward to a position of over-regulation instead of the balance sought by Congress when it has committed the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [38.069, 39.919, 52.558, 61.654, 70.741, 79.818, 90.507, 98.892, 106.645, 115.892], "stop_times": [39.919, 52.558, 61.654, 70.741, 79.818, 90.507, 98.892, 106.645, 115.892, 130.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 38.069}, "reply_to": "20830__0_004", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_006", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Mr. Wilkinson--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [130.113], "stop_times": [130.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.113}, "reply_to": "20830__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_007", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [130.461], "stop_times": [131.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 130.461}, "reply_to": "20830__0_006", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_008", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--the Solicitor General in response apparently chooses not to address the merits, but does raise an issue about whether the petitioners have Article III standing and an issue about whether the claims are cognizable under the statutory scheme.\nWere those arguments raised below in response to the motion to dismiss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [131.354, 151.047], "stop_times": [151.047, 157.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.354}, "reply_to": "20830__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_009", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Justice O'Connor, the Article III arguments were raised below.\nHowever, they were not decided by either of the courts below.\nThe cognizability claims in our view were never raised below, nor were they raised in the cert op. And accordingly, in our view rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [157.96, 161.142, 163.666], "stop_times": [161.142, 163.666, 171.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 157.96}, "reply_to": "20830__0_008", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_010", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "You mean in response to the petition on certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [171.049], "stop_times": [174.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.049}, "reply_to": "20830__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_011", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--That's correct, yes.\nAnd consequently, it would be our view that those cognizability issues are not properly before you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [174.452, 175.534], "stop_times": [175.534, 180.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.452}, "reply_to": "20830__0_010", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_012", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And do we have before us today any issue on the APA claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [180.108], "stop_times": [191.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.108}, "reply_to": "20830__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_013", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "The APA arguments as well were not raised below in our view by the Government, and consequently also are not properly before you today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [191.195], "stop_times": [200.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.195}, "reply_to": "20830__0_012", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_014", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Mr. Wilkinson, jurisdictional issues are always properly before us.\nI mean, if there is no standing, we have no jurisdiction over the case.\nWe can surely reach the Article III issue if we want to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [200.661, 205.343, 210.508], "stop_times": [205.343, 210.508, 213.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.661}, "reply_to": "20830__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_015", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Oh, Justice Scalia, yes, I believe you can.\nI'm not intending to say that the Article III issues were not properly raised.\nI believe they were and I believe the Government preserved those issues.\nThere's a question, however, that may arise as to which do you get to first: the prudential issues or the Article III issues.\nOur reading of the decisions of this Court indicate that while preliminary jurisdictional questions may be approached first, certainly before merits issues are to be decided, that there's no decision of this Court which indicates which comes first.\nWe think there are good reasons here for dealing with the prudential questions before you reach the Article III questions.\nThose were the issues resolved by the courts below.\nThose were the issues that were the subject for the... of the petition of writ of certiorari and those were the issues on which certiorari was granted.\nIn addition, those are the issues, the prudential issues, that have split the courts of appeal, and as I think we've indicated in a letter to the Court, that split has only grown since cert was granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [213.169, 215.13, 218.563, 221.695, 229.0, 241.269, 247.604, 250.555, 257.428], "stop_times": [215.13, 218.563, 221.695, 229.0, 241.269, 247.604, 250.555, 257.428, 266.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.169}, "reply_to": "20830__0_014", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_016", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Assuming we agree with you on the prudential issues, would you want us to resolve the Article III issue or remand to have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [266.915], "stop_times": [273.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.915}, "reply_to": "20830__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_017", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We would prefer, if you are with us on the prudential issues, that we are still in this case, that you go forward and try and resolve the Article III issues.\nI think that's particularly appropriate, in fact, in the circumstances in this case because it does arise on motions to dismiss.\nAnd according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, at that stage of the case, the burden for a petitioner attempting to deal with Article III is a more modest one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [273.048, 280.815, 287.76], "stop_times": [280.815, 287.76, 298.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 273.048}, "reply_to": "20830__0_016", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_018", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, now, is the Article III standing issue... does the resolution of that depend at all on who it is the petitioners sued, what agency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [298.527], "stop_times": [310.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.527}, "reply_to": "20830__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_019", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--We don't believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [310.484], "stop_times": [311.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.484}, "reply_to": "20830__0_018", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_020", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Does that enter into the calculus of the Article III standing question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [311.937], "stop_times": [316.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.937}, "reply_to": "20830__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_021", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it doesn't as far as I'm concerned.\nI'm not sure that I fully understand the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [316.21, 318.661], "stop_times": [318.661, 319.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.21}, "reply_to": "20830__0_020", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_022", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, apparently the suit below was not brought against the Secretary who has the final determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [319.942], "stop_times": [332.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.942}, "reply_to": "20830__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_023", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Actually the suit below was brought against the Secretary.\nIt was named... Bruce Babbitt was named as a defendant.\nBruce Babbitt is also, apart from being the Secretary of the Interior, the cabinet official responsible for both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation.\nIt has struck us as somewhat curious, indeed, that the United States would challenge Article III standing on the basis that we had not properly joined the Bureau.\nWe had sued the cabinet official responsible for the Bureau.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [332.923, 335.727, 338.877, 347.305, 355.309], "stop_times": [335.727, 338.877, 347.305, 355.309, 357.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.923}, "reply_to": "20830__0_022", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_024", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "The problem that's bothering me... maybe I'll set it all out... is that suppose I think this isn't ripe, this case.\nThat's the problem.\nIt isn't ripe.\nThere was a report that you say was not properly prepared.\nThe report was to go to the Secretary.\nWhen the Secretary gets it, he might act, he might not act.\nIf the Secretary in fact says the levels of the lake should be higher, your clients are hurt.\nIf the Secretary says they shouldn't be higher and ignores the report or whatever, your clients suffered no harm.\nSo, it sounds to me as if this isn't final agency action.\nWell, when it is final and your client is hurt, you have a case and you bring it.\nHow can I decide in the abstract whether you have standing or not have standing without knowing what the Secretary is going to do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [357.739, 366.185, 366.486, 367.247, 371.39, 373.341, 376.863, 381.456, 387.32, 392.064, 397.126], "stop_times": [366.185, 366.486, 367.247, 371.39, 373.341, 376.863, 381.456, 387.32, 392.064, 397.126, 405.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.739}, "reply_to": "20830__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__0_025", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [405.133], "stop_times": [405.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.133}, "reply_to": "20830__0_024", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_026", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--and without knowing what your basis for attacking the Secretary's action is?\nI assume it would be the Secretary said the level of the lake should be higher.\nThat hurts our client.\nHe based that on a decision of the Wildlife Service or whatever and that decision is no good for the very reasons you're saying now.\nBut how can I decide the standing question abstractly without knowing what your final claim would be when your clients are really about to be hurt because the Secretary says the lake level has to stay up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [405.714, 409.214, 412.757, 414.019, 420.684], "stop_times": [409.214, 412.757, 414.019, 420.684, 431.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.714}, "reply_to": "20830__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__0_027", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Let me deal first with the situation that exists in this case, and then I'll deal with your hypothetical.\nYour hypothetical is not this case, Your Honor, because in this case it was alleged that the Bureau would comply, that the Secretary would authorize the Bureau to comply with the biological opinion.\nAnd in its merits brief, the United States admits that the Bureau indicated that it would comply.\nIn fact, it has complied.\nSo, your hypothetical differs from this case in the sense that it assumes non-compliance when in fact there is compliance.\nBut let me deal with the hypothetical straight up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [431.67, 438.486, 449.411, 455.866, 457.549, 464.093], "stop_times": [438.486, 449.411, 455.866, 457.549, 464.093, 465.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.67}, "reply_to": "20830__0_026", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_028", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Mr. Wilkinson, could you just clarify what you mean by comply?\nYou said the Secretary has complied.\nHas he made an adjustment in the water level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [465.966, 470.119, 472.642], "stop_times": [470.119, 472.642, 475.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.966}, "reply_to": "20830__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20830__0_029", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes, he has, Justice Ginsburg.\nHe has, and as a consequence of that adjustment, we lost 80 percent of our water supply.\nLands were fallowed.\nPeople lost their jobs.\nThe value of property fell from hundreds of dollars per acre to $20 per acre.\nNow, we didn't have an opportunity.\nThis case didn't get far enough for us to raise those issues either on a motion for summary judgment or a trial, but we are prepared to prove every one of those allegations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [475.454, 477.075, 480.337, 482.37, 484.74, 489.925, 491.046], "stop_times": [477.075, 480.337, 482.37, 484.74, 489.925, 491.046, 499.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.454}, "reply_to": "20830__0_028", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_030", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "So, you say the ripeness question is something that needs to be aired in a court of first instance, but that you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [499.381], "stop_times": [508.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.381}, "reply_to": "20830__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20830__0_031", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We believe that we have satisfied in this case already, on the basis of the pleadings before you, the issue of ripeness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [508.198], "stop_times": [515.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.198}, "reply_to": "20830__0_030", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_032", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--It can be contested later in more detail I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [515.664], "stop_times": [519.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.664}, "reply_to": "20830__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_033", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Certainly, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [519.895], "stop_times": [520.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.895}, "reply_to": "20830__0_032", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_034", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "At the summary judgment stage and at the merits stage, even more evidence can be brought in on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [520.186], "stop_times": [525.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.186}, "reply_to": "20830__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_035", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [525.719], "stop_times": [526.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.719}, "reply_to": "20830__0_034", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_036", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But you're saying that at the pleading level, you've done all that's needed at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [526.45], "stop_times": [530.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.45}, "reply_to": "20830__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_037", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [530.403], "stop_times": [530.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.403}, "reply_to": "20830__0_036", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_038", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes, but you just recited some facts that are not included in your pleading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [530.954], "stop_times": [534.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.954}, "reply_to": "20830__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__0_039", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We never had the opportunity to raise those issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [534.314], "stop_times": [538.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.314}, "reply_to": "20830__0_038", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_040", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, but if you want... it just seems to me if you want the issue decided on the complaint as it now stands, I don't see how you can tell us facts that are not in those things you say should be dispositive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [538.959], "stop_times": [547.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.959}, "reply_to": "20830__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__0_041", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "In our complaint... it's page 40 of the petition appendix... we alleged that the restrictions on lake levels imposed in the biological opinion adversely affect plaintiffs by substantially reducing the quantity of available irrigation water.\nThat's the generalized allegation of injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [547.324, 561.806], "stop_times": [561.806, 565.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.324}, "reply_to": "20830__0_040", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_042", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes, but the Government points out there's no allegation that you're going to even lose a gallon of water.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [565.777], "stop_times": [569.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 565.777}, "reply_to": "20830__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__0_043", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [569.439], "stop_times": [570.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.439}, "reply_to": "20830__0_042", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_044", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And theoretically under your pleading, all the harm could be suffered by other water users.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [570.431], "stop_times": [576.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.431}, "reply_to": "20830__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__0_045", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, the Government is not, I'm afraid, being straight with you in terms of how this project operates.\nWe don't know because we haven't gotten the case this far, but the fact is the project operates on a pro rata distribution basis.\nThe project is in fact administered by the petitioner, the irrigation districts.\nAnd what we've got is a situation where it really doesn't matter in effect how the harm or the loss of water is distributed.\nWhat we have is a situation as a result of the biological opinion that whatever amount of water is bestowed by nature, whatever amount of water is left in carryover storage and so forth, whatever amount is there, the biological opinion takes a certain amount of that from all of us and we are left to divide up what remains.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [576.204, 581.187, 588.463, 593.205, 602.021], "stop_times": [581.187, 588.463, 593.205, 602.021, 620.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.204}, "reply_to": "20830__0_044", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_046", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Did you allege that the Secretary accepted the opinion and was proceeding in accordance with the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [620.794], "stop_times": [627.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.794}, "reply_to": "20830__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_047", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [627.409], "stop_times": [627.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.409}, "reply_to": "20830__0_046", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_048", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Is that in your complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [627.679], "stop_times": [628.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.679}, "reply_to": "20830__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_049", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We alleged on... this is at petition appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [628.48], "stop_times": [630.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.48}, "reply_to": "20830__0_048", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_050", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Where and what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [630.632], "stop_times": [630.852], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 630.632}, "reply_to": "20830__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20830__0_051", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--page 32.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [630.852], "stop_times": [631.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.852}, "reply_to": "20830__0_050", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_052", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [631.653], "stop_times": [632.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 631.653}, "reply_to": "20830__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_053", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Petition appendix, page 32.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [632.061], "stop_times": [634.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.061}, "reply_to": "20830__0_052", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_054", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "In the blue brief you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [634.603], "stop_times": [639.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.603}, "reply_to": "20830__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_055", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No, the white one, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [639.637], "stop_times": [640.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.637}, "reply_to": "20830__0_054", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_056", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No, the white.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [640.367], "stop_times": [640.898], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 640.367}, "reply_to": "20830__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20830__0_057", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Right here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [640.898], "stop_times": [642.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.898}, "reply_to": "20830__0_056", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_058", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Okay.\nAt page what?\n32--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [642.079, 642.26, 643.802], "stop_times": [642.26, 643.802, 644.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.079}, "reply_to": "20830__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_059", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "32 of the appendix to that, the very bottom of the appendix page.\nWe alleged on information and belief, that the Bureau of Reclamation will abide by the restrictions imposed by the biological opinion.\nAnd in their merits brief, United States admits that in fact the Bureau of Reclamation made the decision to comply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [644.793, 648.407, 656.011], "stop_times": [648.407, 656.011, 664.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.793}, "reply_to": "20830__0_058", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_060", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, isn't it a general rule too that in... at the motion to dismiss stage, you interpret the allegations of a complaint to support a cause of action, if there's any ambiguity about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [664.318], "stop_times": [677.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.318}, "reply_to": "20830__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__0_061", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "In fact, you assume that they are true I believe at the motion to dismiss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [677.034], "stop_times": [679.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.034}, "reply_to": "20830__0_060", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_062", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, yes, for purposes of deciding any legal question raised by the motion to dismiss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [679.956], "stop_times": [683.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.956}, "reply_to": "20830__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__0_063", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [683.87], "stop_times": [684.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.87}, "reply_to": "20830__0_062", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_064", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I was wondering if you could get back to the hypothetical Justice Breyer posed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [684.2], "stop_times": [687.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.2}, "reply_to": "20830__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__0_065", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I wanted to do that, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [687.933], "stop_times": [688.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 687.933}, "reply_to": "20830__0_064", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_066", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "You were interrupted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [688.264], "stop_times": [689.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 688.264}, "reply_to": "20830__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__0_067", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Let me see if I can recall the hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [689.663], "stop_times": [692.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.663}, "reply_to": "20830__0_066", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_068", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "The basic thing would be that, look, the APA... and I say the statute is similar... says that you can sue to complain about final agency action, and the final agency action in this instance, arguably, is not the action of the Fish and Wildlife Service, but rather the action, let's say, of the Bureau of Reclamation.\nAnd whether you put this sentence in the complaint or didn't put it in the complaint, you are not suing to claim that the action of the Bureau of Reclamation is unlawful.\nWhat you are suing to complain about is that the action of the report sending is unlawful.\nAnd therefore, I wondered if it is ripe in the sense that your complaint does not attack the final agency action, namely, the action of the Bureau of Reclamation which would lower or raise or do something with the water.\nThat was... and I wondered how I could go at the standing question if I believed the hypothetical because standing would depend on what your argument is in respect to the final agency action which you would attack which this complaint seems not to attack.\nThat was--\n--Before you answer that, would you incorporate please--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [692.435, 717.973, 727.87, 733.645, 748.163, 766.416, 766.946], "stop_times": [717.973, 727.87, 733.645, 748.163, 766.416, 766.946, 770.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.435}, "reply_to": "20830__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__0_069", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [770.128], "stop_times": [770.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.128}, "reply_to": "20830__0_068", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_070", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--whether in fact you're relying on the APA as the source of the action or whether you can sue separately under the Endangered Species Act without reference to the final agency action requirement of APA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [770.359], "stop_times": [783.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.359}, "reply_to": "20830__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_071", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Let me answer your question first, Justice O'Connor.\nWe believe we do have independent causes of action under both the Administrative Procedure Act and the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act.\nIn fact, 1540(g)(5) of the Endangered Species Act provides for redundancy of remedy and provides that nothing in the citizen suit provision will preclude a petitioner from using other remedies as well.\nAnd so, the Congress intended there to be a redundancy of remedy.\nJustice Breyer, in response to your question, I believe I've answered it on the facts of this case which are that the Bureau has already agreed to comply, but let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [783.537, 785.8, 793.914, 808.895, 812.875], "stop_times": [785.8, 793.914, 808.895, 812.875, 820.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 783.537}, "reply_to": "20830__0_070", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_072", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "My question, remember--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [820.693], "stop_times": [821.431], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 820.693}, "reply_to": "20830__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20830__0_073", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--deal with the hypothetical as you posed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [821.431], "stop_times": [822.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.431}, "reply_to": "20830__0_072", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_074", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--But you haven't sued the Bureau.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [822.763], "stop_times": [824.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.763}, "reply_to": "20830__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_075", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We sued--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [824.362], "stop_times": [825.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 824.362}, "reply_to": "20830__0_074", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_076", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I mean, in his question is the fact that you have sued the wrong party.\nThe party you have sued has not taken final agency... the final agency action which would affect you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [825.263, 827.535], "stop_times": [827.535, 834.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.263}, "reply_to": "20830__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_077", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Justice Scalia, we sued Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior.\nIf we get a decision against Bruce Babbitt, who is the cabinet Secretary responsible for the Bureau of Reclamation, we think as a practical matter, the Bureau will not differ from a decision which binds the Secretary.\nAnd your decisions do indicate that in resolving issues of finality, you use a doctrine of practicality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [834.359, 838.554, 852.292], "stop_times": [838.554, 852.292, 859.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.359}, "reply_to": "20830__0_076", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_078", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "What is the remedy you seek?\nDo you seek to get more water which would be the remedy that pertains to the final action in question, or do you seek to get a revised report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [859.287, 861.558], "stop_times": [861.558, 871.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.287}, "reply_to": "20830__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_079", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We seek to get the existing report vacated and then revised in accordance with science because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [871.294], "stop_times": [879.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.294}, "reply_to": "20830__0_078", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_080", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But that is not a remedy that will do you any good because the Secretary can look at the revised report and say, I like the other one better.\nThrow away the revised report and come out with the same decision that you're complaining about here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [879.131, 886.857], "stop_times": [886.857, 891.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 879.131}, "reply_to": "20830__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_081", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, if the Secretary is bound by this decision, I'm not sure that that would be the case.\nThe Secretary would presumably have to comply with the decision of the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [891.251, 896.224], "stop_times": [896.224, 899.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.251}, "reply_to": "20830__0_080", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_082", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Which is what?\nWhich is simply that he consider the report, but... that he consider the new report.\nBut he's fully... he's free to reject it, isn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [899.957, 900.578, 903.971], "stop_times": [900.578, 903.971, 907.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.957}, "reply_to": "20830__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__0_083", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No, I don't believe he is in fact, because he can't operate this project without the incidental take statement that was found in the biological opinion.\nThe United States raised the identical argument that they are raising here in a case called Ramsey v. Kantor.\nIt's not cited in any of the briefs because it came down from the Ninth Circuit about 6 weeks ago.\nClearly the Ninth Circuit does not bind you, but we believe their reasoning is persuasive here.\nWhat they said was that when a biological opinion is issued and the biological opinion finds there to be jeopardy, that a reasonable and prudent alternative is developed.\nThe opinion also then includes an incidental take statement.\nThey said the incidental take statement... that part of the biological opinion is the functional equivalent of a permit to operate the project.\nWithout it, you can't operate the project.\nThe Secretary, the Bureau in this case, had no possibility of doing anything other than complying with the biological opinion if it expected to receive immunity from civil, or potentially criminal, prosecution.\nSo, in answer to your hypothetical, Justice Breyer, yes, we believe that the biological opinion was final as of the time that it was issued and that the Bureau in fact did not really have any opportunity as a practical matter... the test you use in determining finality... to do anything other than comply.\nAnd the United States admits in its reply brief that it's very rare that these agencies ever deviate.\nIn fact, they never cite a single example of deviation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [907.444, 914.589, 920.493, 925.057, 929.669, 939.976, 942.527, 951.025, 953.806, 968.276, 985.239, 991.272], "stop_times": [914.589, 920.493, 925.057, 929.669, 939.976, 942.527, 951.025, 953.806, 968.276, 985.239, 991.272, 993.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.444}, "reply_to": "20830__0_082", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_084", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's a very interesting answer, and really you're saying that these reports are like environmental impact statements because environmental impact statements are preliminary to final agency action, but they are final because of the intent of an environmental impact statement which is to stop the machinery.\nThe problem with that answer is that all this hasn't been argued at all because at first blush it doesn't appear that they're the same as environmental impact statements since they aren't designed to stop the machinery of the bureaucracy from gearing up.\nSo, I find that an interesting and important response, but I just haven't seen it fully argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [993.693, 1009.355, 1021.561], "stop_times": [1009.355, 1021.561, 1027.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.693}, "reply_to": "20830__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__0_085", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, we would, I guess, disagree that it's tantamount to environmental impact statement which is essentially--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1027.624], "stop_times": [1032.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.624}, "reply_to": "20830__0_084", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_086", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I mean in the sense that it's final by itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1032.258], "stop_times": [1034.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.258}, "reply_to": "20830__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__0_087", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--This is much more of an operative document in the sense that as a practical matter, the test again that you use, you cannot operate this project without the incidental take statement in the biological opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1034.4], "stop_times": [1044.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1034.4}, "reply_to": "20830__0_086", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_088", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Mr. Wilkinson, may I--\n--Suppose that the Bureau of Reclamation said we have had a 3-year drought in the Pacific Northwest and we're not going to be making any releases from the Clear Lake Gerber reservoir even if we have abundant rainfall for 2 more years.\nWould you then have standing?\nAnd your injury is for the next 2 years let's say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1044.156, 1045.198, 1063.137, 1065.4], "stop_times": [1045.198, 1063.137, 1065.4, 1069.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1044.156}, "reply_to": "20830__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20830__0_089", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We hold contracts with the United States for water from this project.\nIf the Bureau's determination or the Secretary's determination in that circumstance was believed to be arbitrary and capricious and we would then bring a lawsuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1069.572, 1075.529], "stop_times": [1075.529, 1085.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.572}, "reply_to": "20830__0_088", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_090", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No, no.\nI'm assuming that he has good grounds not to release the water.\nHe doesn't have much water.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1085.407, 1085.858, 1089.41], "stop_times": [1085.858, 1089.41, 1090.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.407}, "reply_to": "20830__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__0_091", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--I believe that in that instance we are certainly within the zone of interest regulated by the Bureau.\nWe are injured by the action.\nIt's traceable to the Secretary, the Bureau's decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1090.372, 1095.565, 1097.435], "stop_times": [1095.565, 1097.435, 1101.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.372}, "reply_to": "20830__0_090", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_092", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No, no.\nI... maybe my hypothetical is inept.\nI'm assuming that the Secretary is acting within his proper discretion based on the drought conditions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1101.549, 1101.769, 1103.78], "stop_times": [1101.769, 1103.78, 1112.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1101.549}, "reply_to": "20830__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__0_093", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Oh, all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1112.775], "stop_times": [1113.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.775}, "reply_to": "20830__0_092", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_094", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Do you still have a cause of action against the Secretary and the Fish and Wildlife Service for the improper preparation of this report?\nThe Secretary in my hypothetical also has this report.\nHe has two reasons for not giving the water.\nOne is what the Fish and Wildlife Service says.\nThe other is he doesn't have any water anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1113.306, 1123.044, 1125.755, 1127.358, 1129.398], "stop_times": [1123.044, 1125.755, 1127.358, 1129.398, 1130.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.306}, "reply_to": "20830__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__0_095", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I guess there's a question that arises whether the plaintiff is injured by the action of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the action of the Secretary in that circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1130.61], "stop_times": [1140.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.61}, "reply_to": "20830__0_094", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_096", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "There has to be... in other words, there has to be some redressability.\nFootnote 7 of Lujan I think doesn't completely say that redressability is irrelevant, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1140.755, 1145.24], "stop_times": [1145.24, 1152.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.755}, "reply_to": "20830__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__0_097", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "It doesn't say it's irrelevant.\nIt does say that procedural rights are special and that normal standards for redressability and immediacy do not apply.\nNow, if we look at footnote 7, the example used in footnote 7 of the Defenders decision involved the construction of a dam next to a property owner's land, and the issue was whether the property owner could, in that circumstance, compel production of an environmental impact statement.\nWe think the circumstances here are very similar in the sense that we are also raising procedural violations.\nThis project is in our back yard.\nIt is critical to the operation of our farms and our businesses, and we have we believe a right to go forward on procedural arguments and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1152.232, 1153.274, 1160.069, 1174.428, 1180.833, 1182.996], "stop_times": [1153.274, 1160.069, 1174.428, 1180.833, 1182.996, 1192.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1152.232}, "reply_to": "20830__0_096", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_098", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, counsel--\n--And I take it you're saying that there's a likelihood, a reasonable possibility, that the Fish and Wildlife report will be dispositive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1192.8, 1193.071], "stop_times": [1193.071, 1200.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.8}, "reply_to": "20830__0_097", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__0_099", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--In the hypothetical that you have posed, it may or may not be.\nIn our situation it absolutely is dispositive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1200.995, 1205.89], "stop_times": [1205.89, 1208.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.995}, "reply_to": "20830__0_098", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_100", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, counsel--\n--Well, why is it dispositive?\nWhy--\n--Yes.\nI'm concerned about your suit is brought under the Endangered Species Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1208.542, 1209.413, 1210.365, 1210.575, 1210.856], "stop_times": [1209.413, 1210.365, 1210.575, 1210.856, 1218.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.542}, "reply_to": "20830__0_099", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_101", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And the APA as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1218.011], "stop_times": [1219.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1218.011}, "reply_to": "20830__0_100", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_102", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "As an alternative you said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1219.141], "stop_times": [1221.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1219.141}, "reply_to": "20830__0_101", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_103", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1221.381], "stop_times": [1221.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1221.381}, "reply_to": "20830__0_102", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_104", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But under the Endangered Species Act, would that have anything at all to do with a reduction of water based on drought conditions?\nIt wouldn't.\nThat isn't an action under the ESA.\nIt's an action to save endangered species, and that's what you're complaining about.\nHow does a drought and a reduction in water by the Secretary or the Government have anything to do with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1221.682, 1229.399, 1230.988, 1233.321, 1240.086], "stop_times": [1229.399, 1230.988, 1233.321, 1240.086, 1245.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.682}, "reply_to": "20830__0_103", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_105", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, it doesn't have anything to do with our case.\nThat's I suppose the problem with the hypothetical.\nOur case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1245.261, 1249.004, 1251.406], "stop_times": [1249.004, 1251.406, 1252.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.261}, "reply_to": "20830__0_104", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_106", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Does it have anything to do at all with the Endangered Species Act if you're complaining about a change in water level because of absence of water due to no rain?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1252.135], "stop_times": [1261.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.135}, "reply_to": "20830__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__0_107", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--That's not what we are complaining about, Justice O'Connor, is not an absence or a minimum lake level established to protect against drought.\nWhat we're dealing with in this situation was a determination by the Fish and Wildlife Service that these fish required certain minimum lake levels in order to continue to exist.\nWe don't believe there's any science behind that decision.\nThe drought had very little to do, in fact, with this opinion.\nThis is not a situation where if these irrigation releases had continued, the reservoirs would simply run out of water.\nThat wasn't the situation at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1261.191, 1269.058, 1278.853, 1282.435, 1287.19, 1293.512], "stop_times": [1269.058, 1278.853, 1282.435, 1287.19, 1293.512, 1294.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.191}, "reply_to": "20830__0_106", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_108", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But you think there has to be some proximity, some redressability, some causation between the injury you allege, i.e., lack of receipt of the water, and the procedural default that you're alleging under the Endangered Species Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1294.634], "stop_times": [1312.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.634}, "reply_to": "20830__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__0_109", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Justice Kennedy, we believe there is that connection in this case.\nThe biological opinion is the thing which becomes the operating scheme, if you will, for the project.\nThe biological opinion is not based on the existence of a drought.\nIt's based upon a determination by the Fish and Wildlife Service that certain amounts of water are necessary for the well-being of these fish.\nThe problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1312.094, 1315.497, 1321.223, 1325.915, 1332.52], "stop_times": [1315.497, 1321.223, 1325.915, 1332.52, 1333.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.094}, "reply_to": "20830__0_108", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_110", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Mr. Wilkinson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1333.292], "stop_times": [1333.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.292}, "reply_to": "20830__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20830__0_111", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--we have with that is there's no science behind that determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1333.962], "stop_times": [1336.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.962}, "reply_to": "20830__0_110", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_112", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "How wedded are you to attacking the Fish and Wildlife report per se?\nIn other words, you were cut off at the pass essentially, and when I heard the question about why didn't you sue the Bureau of Reclamation, well, that's an eminently fixable lack, if it is a lack at all.\nAnd similarly, you could amend your complaint to say, yes, we're getting at the report through the acceptance of it by the Bureau of Reclamation.\nSo, I'm trying to determine whether we're just dealing with a pleading that may not be appropriate and could be amended or whether there's some reason why you must zero in directly on the Fish and Wildlife Service report rather than reach it through the Bureau of Reclamation acceptance of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1336.394, 1341.997, 1356.285, 1367.522], "stop_times": [1341.997, 1356.285, 1367.522, 1388.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.394}, "reply_to": "20830__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20830__0_113", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "If the decision of the Ninth Circuit were to be reversed and this case remanded to the district court for further proceedings, it would be our intention, Justice Ginsburg, to amend the complaint to name the Bureau.\nThere's no reason not to I suppose in these circumstances.\nWe don't believe it's necessary, but if this Court concludes to the contrary that Article III or finality or ripeness considerations require that the Bureau be named, I can assure you the Bureau would be named.\nThere is not any kind of policy reason I suppose for not naming the Bureau here.\nWe felt we had named the people that had violated the act, the people who had determined that these minimum reservoir levels were necessary for the fish, and that was enough.\nIf... and I believe you're absolutely correct that this is an eminently fixable problem, if indeed it's a problem at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1388.377, 1398.253, 1403.406, 1415.107, 1422.463, 1436.384], "stop_times": [1398.253, 1403.406, 1415.107, 1422.463, 1436.384, 1444.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1388.377}, "reply_to": "20830__0_112", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_114", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Mr. Wilkinson, I think I understand your probability argument.\nLet me just carry the redressability point one step further.\nAssume that in fact there were a determination that the report was as defective as you say and therefore would not be a proper basis for the Secretary's action as the ultimate official responsible for BOR.\nIs there any reason in law why the Secretary could not at that point say simply, not that I'm worried about unusual drought conditions?\nI'm simply worried about the fish, and common sense tells me that having more water in the reservoirs is going to be better for the fish and be far less likely to lead to their extinction than less water in the reservoirs.\nSo, report or no report, for purposes of protecting the fish, I'm simply going to keep the water level up and do exactly what I've done before.\nIs there any legal reason... or exactly what the BOR has done before.\nIs there any legal reason that the Secretary could not do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1444.862, 1448.284, 1451.278, 1465.036, 1473.591, 1485.61, 1492.836, 1497.11], "stop_times": [1448.284, 1451.278, 1465.036, 1473.591, 1485.61, 1492.836, 1497.11, 1499.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.862}, "reply_to": "20830__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_115", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there is, and the legal reason is that the Endangered Species Act requires that these determinations, including the one you've described, be based on science, not speculation, not conjecture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1499.631], "stop_times": [1510.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1499.631}, "reply_to": "20830__0_114", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_116", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, but you would have a separate action in that case I understand against the Secretary, but the... would the Secretary be violating... perhaps I should have... should rephrase my question.\nWould the Secretary be violating any procedural norm other than needing a scientific basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1510.118, 1521.135], "stop_times": [1521.135, 1527.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.118}, "reply_to": "20830__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_117", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, he'd be violating section 7 of the act because that act requires that biological opinions be based on science.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1527.429], "stop_times": [1532.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1527.429}, "reply_to": "20830__0_116", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_118", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But does he have to have a biological opinion?\nIn other words, does he have to make this reference to the Fish and Wildlife Service?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1532.983, 1535.124], "stop_times": [1535.124, 1540.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.983}, "reply_to": "20830__0_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_119", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "The biological opinion is the result of the consultation and that is the document that concludes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1540.15], "stop_times": [1542.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1540.15}, "reply_to": "20830__0_118", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_120", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But is the consultation required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1542.4], "stop_times": [1544.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.4}, "reply_to": "20830__0_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_121", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1544.329], "stop_times": [1546.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1544.329}, "reply_to": "20830__0_120", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_122", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Does he have an option not to consult in these circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1546.052], "stop_times": [1548.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.052}, "reply_to": "20830__0_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_123", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "If consultation is... well, what happens is that a biological assessment is developed.\nA consultation is sought by the action agency, if you will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1548.573, 1553.017], "stop_times": [1553.017, 1556.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1548.573}, "reply_to": "20830__0_122", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_124", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Okay, but let's assume he doesn't seek it and he simply says, I don't need the Fish and Wildlife Service to tell me that more water is better for the fish.\nWould he be violating any procedural norm of the act except, as you say, for failing to have a more systematically justified basis for his action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1556.41, 1563.465], "stop_times": [1563.465, 1575.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.41}, "reply_to": "20830__0_123", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_125", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, that of course is not this case, but I presume if there were no consultation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1575.932], "stop_times": [1580.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1575.932}, "reply_to": "20830__0_124", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_126", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No, but it goes to redressability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1580.046], "stop_times": [1581.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.046}, "reply_to": "20830__0_125", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_127", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--But it does only in the sense that we're talking about actions under the Endangered Species Act.\nThe Secretary might have the option to develop recommended conservation measures.\nThose measures, however, are not binding on agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation.\nAnd since they're not binding, the Bureau has already told us what they would be willing to do and it didn't involve minimum reservoir levels.\nSo, I think that if we vacate the biological opinion here, there would be no basis for the Bureau, given what it has already said, to impose a minimum reservoir level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1581.045, 1587.419, 1592.033, 1596.735, 1603.49], "stop_times": [1587.419, 1592.033, 1596.735, 1603.49, 1611.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1581.045}, "reply_to": "20830__0_126", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_128", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "So, you're saying that this is an Endangered Species Act suit and the fact that there has been a reference in effect sets the stage for what redressability means in this circumstance.\nAnd given the fact that there has been a reference, there has been a report, necessarily if the report, in effect, is required to be withdrawn, you will get relief.\nThe Secretary may turn around tomorrow morning and do something else that you don't like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1611.716, 1624.776, 1634.843], "stop_times": [1624.776, 1634.843, 1638.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.716}, "reply_to": "20830__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_129", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1638.416], "stop_times": [1638.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1638.416}, "reply_to": "20830__0_128", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_130", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--but you'll get relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1638.617], "stop_times": [1639.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.617}, "reply_to": "20830__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__0_131", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We will be restored to the priority that we had initially.\nI think I would like to reserve whatever time I have remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1639.237, 1641.871], "stop_times": [1641.871, 1644.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1639.237}, "reply_to": "20830__0_130", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__0_132", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Very well, Mr. Wilkinson.\nMr. Kneedler, we'll hear from you.\nMr. Kneedler, there are two questions presented in the petition for certiorari.\nOne is whether the standing under the citizen suit provision of the ESA has a zone of interest test, and if it does, is it a one-sided test.\nI wasn't able to tell from the Government's brief what the Government's response was to either of those questions.\nI hope you'll tell us during your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1644.102, 1645.672, 1647.445, 1652.717, 1663.306, 1668.698], "stop_times": [1645.672, 1647.445, 1652.717, 1663.306, 1668.698, 1670.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.102}, "reply_to": "20830__0_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__1_000", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes.\nLet me answer that from the outset.\nThe zone of interest test or formulation, as this Court said in the Clarke decision, is ultimately traceable as a gloss on the Administrative Procedure Act when there... for determining when there's a cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act.\nAt least that's where it originated.\nSo, it's ultimately a question of statutory interpretation.\nIn our view the proper approach to whether there is a cause of action under the Endangered Species Act citizen suit provision in this case is also a question of statutory interpretation, not by reference to unanchored questions of zone of interest, but by reference to the specific text of the citizen suit provision that we have at issue here.\nAnd as to that, we say that there is... the only cognizable claims under the citizen suit provisions are things for violations of the act, and as we explain in our brief, violations of the act refer to on-the-ground activities that could be engaged in by a private person or by a Federal agency with on-the-ground responsibilities equally.\nIn other words, the citizen suit provision for actions against any person, including the United States, includes situations in which the United States, like any person, might be taking on-the-ground activities that would adversely affect a species.\nIn our view it does not provide an avenue for judicial review of ordinary administrative action of a regulatory nature.\nIt provides for a citizen suit against those who are regulated, not the agency that is regulating.\nThe APA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1670.75, 1670.95, 1671.939, 1685.019, 1686.919, 1690.023, 1708.624, 1729.448, 1743.71, 1751.577, 1757.229], "stop_times": [1670.95, 1671.939, 1685.019, 1686.919, 1690.023, 1708.624, 1729.448, 1743.71, 1751.577, 1757.229, 1757.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.75}, "reply_to": "20830__0_132", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_001", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But even if that were true, the Administrative Procedure Act would provide for a suit against Government action, action that couldn't be taken by private individuals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1757.87], "stop_times": [1769.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.87}, "reply_to": "20830__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_002", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--That... that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1769.177], "stop_times": [1769.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.177}, "reply_to": "20830__1_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_003", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--but can be taken by Government so long as the individual is within the zone of interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1769.418], "stop_times": [1773.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.418}, "reply_to": "20830__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_004", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1773.8], "stop_times": [1774.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.8}, "reply_to": "20830__1_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_005", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And if the statute requires economic considerations to be taken into account, a person who would be favored by taking them into account is certainly within the zone of interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1774.18], "stop_times": [1783.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.18}, "reply_to": "20830__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_006", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes, but that would be a suit under the APA.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1783.437, 1786.378], "stop_times": [1786.378, 1786.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.437}, "reply_to": "20830__1_005", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_007", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Which is not eliminated by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1786.949], "stop_times": [1788.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.949}, "reply_to": "20830__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_008", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Right.\nNo.\nIn fact, the final subsection of the Endangered Species citizen suit provision here preserves other causes of action.\nSo, let me be clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1788.551, 1790.052, 1790.262, 1796.325], "stop_times": [1790.052, 1790.262, 1796.325, 1797.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.551}, "reply_to": "20830__1_007", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_009", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--But in short, you under the Endangered Species Act, although without talking about zone of interest, reach really the same conclusion as the Ninth Circuit, namely, that this is an act that works only one way for those who are protecting the endangered species and not for economic interests that are injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1797.717], "stop_times": [1814.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.717}, "reply_to": "20830__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_010", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's... violations are categorized as things that harm the species.\nThat's consistent with citizen suit provisions generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1814.738, 1822.334], "stop_times": [1822.334, 1825.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.738}, "reply_to": "20830__1_009", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_011", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Excuse me.\nYou're saying the substantive provisions of the act only operate one way, but the procedural provisions of the act, those that limit the types of action that the Government can take, those provisions are subject to the APA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1825.366, 1825.607], "stop_times": [1825.607, 1837.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.366}, "reply_to": "20830__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_012", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, yes.\nI mean, there are two... the Government when it is... if the Government is operating a reclamation project or building a dam that may harm a species, in that situation it is analogous to a private party who may also be engaged in on-the-ground activities.\nIf it... when the Government is operating as regulator, then we think the APA is the normal cause of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1837.944, 1839.216, 1851.084], "stop_times": [1839.216, 1851.084, 1857.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1837.944}, "reply_to": "20830__1_011", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_013", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, I don't understand.\nSuppose that they brought the suit the way I was suggesting it would be brought.\nThere is an action taken by the Bureau of Reclamation to keep the lake level up.\nThat deprives my clients of X million square feet of water which they have a contract for and would otherwise get.\nAll right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1857.789, 1858.019, 1862.922, 1867.836, 1874.341], "stop_times": [1858.019, 1862.922, 1867.836, 1874.341, 1874.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.789}, "reply_to": "20830__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_014", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1874.739], "stop_times": [1875.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.739}, "reply_to": "20830__1_013", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_015", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "The reason that it is illegal, says the plaintiff, is because they received a report that was not prepared as the statute requires; i.e., it did not use the best scientific commercial and... scientific and commercial data available.\nTherefore, it violated section 706 of the ESA.\nAre you saying that they would not be able to pursue such a suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1875.079, 1892.671, 1897.346], "stop_times": [1892.671, 1897.346, 1900.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.079}, "reply_to": "20830__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_016", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "They would bring a suit against the action agency, not against the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they would have that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1900.718], "stop_times": [1906.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.718}, "reply_to": "20830__1_015", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_017", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No.\nThat's right.\nThey would bring it against the Secretary, this time saying that the Secretary's action in keeping up the lake level is unlawful for the reason that the report did not correspond with what the statute requires.\nNow, are you saying that that suit could not be brought for some reason of standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1906.822, 1907.033, 1907.343, 1922.222], "stop_times": [1907.033, 1907.343, 1922.222, 1927.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.822}, "reply_to": "20830__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_018", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--No.\nNo.\nIn that situation the suit could be brought against the Bureau of Reclamation.\nBut let me just clarify--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1927.227, 1927.437, 1927.697, 1931.42], "stop_times": [1927.437, 1927.697, 1931.42, 1932.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1927.227}, "reply_to": "20830__1_017", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_019", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "They would name the Secretary.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1932.492, 1933.941], "stop_times": [1933.941, 1934.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.492}, "reply_to": "20830__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_020", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--They would name who was ever responsible for operating the project on the ground, not whoever gave the advice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1934.372], "stop_times": [1938.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.372}, "reply_to": "20830__1_019", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_021", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Could the suit be brought under the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1938.956], "stop_times": [1943.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.956}, "reply_to": "20830__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_022", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No.\nIn our view in this situation it would be brought under the APA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1943.699, 1943.919], "stop_times": [1943.919, 1946.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.699}, "reply_to": "20830__1_021", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_023", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "What is it in the Endangered Species Act that limits the ability to bring the suit that we're hypothesizing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1946.44], "stop_times": [1953.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.44}, "reply_to": "20830__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_024", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Because again in our view the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act like citizen suit... other citizen suit provisions are designed to allow private persons or the Government as the plaintiff to sue whoever might be causing pollution or harming a species.\nThat is the origin of the citizen suit provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1953.745, 1971.046], "stop_times": [1971.046, 1972.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.745}, "reply_to": "20830__1_023", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_025", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But it doesn't say that.\nWhat is in the statute that leads you to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1972.939, 1973.559], "stop_times": [1973.559, 1975.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.939}, "reply_to": "20830__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_026", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "It's the word violation because the word violation in our view and enforcing the act, which is another word that the citizen suit provision uses, suggests law enforcement against people who are taking actions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1975.591], "stop_times": [1990.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1975.591}, "reply_to": "20830__1_025", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_027", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Could we consider the language of the statute?\n1540(g)(1) says, any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf to enjoin any person, including the United States and any other Government agency, who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter.\nAnd section 1533(b)(2) says, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact and so on.\nAnd here they've sued the Secretary, and that's precisely what they say wasn't done.\nAnd that section appears to be alleged to have been violated.\nWhy doesn't it fall under that citizen suit provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [1990.64, 1993.261, 2010.585, 2025.903, 2030.097, 2035.109], "stop_times": [1993.261, 2010.585, 2025.903, 2030.097, 2035.109, 2038.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.64}, "reply_to": "20830__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__1_028", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, there are a number of provisions... a number of aspects of the citizen suit provision which we think cut strongly the other way.\nIf I may.\nSubparagraphs (b) and (c) specifically... on page 2a----", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2038.722, 2047.067, 2048.079], "stop_times": [2047.067, 2048.079, 2052.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.722}, "reply_to": "20830__1_027", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_029", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Where are you reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2052.654], "stop_times": [2052.844], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.654}, "reply_to": "20830__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20830__1_030", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Beginning on page 2a of the appendix to our brief, we have the entire citizen suit provision set out.\nSection 7(a)(2) which imposes duties on action agencies is on the preceding page.\nSeven... the citizen suit provision on page 2a in paragraph (a) says, provides for a suit to enjoin any person, including the United States or a governmental agency.\nParagraphs (b) and (c) talk about suits against the Secretary.\n(b) and (c) are both for actions against the Secretary in his administrative responsibilities under the act.\nThe first one were some interim provisions in paragraph (b), and in paragraph (c) the only provision of the citizen suit provision that refers to section 4 of the act does it in a very precise way against the Secretary where there's alleged failure to perform a mandatory duty under the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2052.844, 2058.679, 2065.663, 2077.031, 2081.634, 2087.879], "stop_times": [2058.679, 2065.663, 2077.031, 2081.634, 2087.879, 2102.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.844}, "reply_to": "20830__1_029", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_031", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "(c) was added 8 years later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2102.44], "stop_times": [2104.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.44}, "reply_to": "20830__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_032", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "It was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2104.04], "stop_times": [2104.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.04}, "reply_to": "20830__1_031", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_033", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Where are you reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2104.471], "stop_times": [2105.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.471}, "reply_to": "20830__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__1_034", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But (b) was in the original act and referred to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2105.482], "stop_times": [2107.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.482}, "reply_to": "20830__1_033", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_035", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "We have an act in which redundancy clearly is not a sin, and your argument basically is a redundancy kind of argument.\nAnd I'm not sure that we should accept the redundancy premise as appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2107.683, 2115.089], "stop_times": [2115.089, 2118.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.683}, "reply_to": "20830__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__1_036", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, it's not just a question of redundancy.\nIt's a question that Congress used different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2118.893, 2120.465], "stop_times": [2120.465, 2122.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.893}, "reply_to": "20830__1_035", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_037", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, redundancy plus violation, but I mean, your... one of your arguments is that on Justice O'Connor's suggested reading, you wouldn't need (c) there.\nAnd it seems to me that this is an act in which redundancy doesn't cut much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2122.538, 2130.683], "stop_times": [2130.683, 2134.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.538}, "reply_to": "20830__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20830__1_038", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, it's not just the redundancy that... let me make several other points, if I may.\nIt's the fact that Congress used different terminology.\nWhen it was referring to the person who might be committing on-the-ground violations just like the private person, it used the word agency or United States.\nWhen it was referring to the Secretary acting in his regulatory capacity, it used the word Secretary.\nAnd back on page 1a where... which is the operative provision that the petitioners say was violated here, it says that each Federal agency shall in consultation and with the assistance of the Secretary make sure that its actions don't cause jeopardy.\nSo, even in that section as well, the Congress distinguished between agencies that take on-the-ground activities and their duty to avoid jeopardy.\nAnd this duty is imposed on the action agency, the Bureau of Reclamation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2134.296, 2139.819, 2142.261, 2149.917, 2155.342, 2170.921, 2178.818], "stop_times": [2139.819, 2142.261, 2149.917, 2155.342, 2170.921, 2178.818, 2182.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.296}, "reply_to": "20830__1_037", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_039", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Suppose that the Bureau of Reclamation said, we're not going to be releasing any water for a couple years, and the Fish and Wildlife Service said, in reliance on that, we're not going prepare a biological report.\nWould that be a violation of the act?\nAnd an endangered species has been identified, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2182.501, 2193.379, 2194.871], "stop_times": [2193.379, 2194.871, 2198.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.501}, "reply_to": "20830__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_040", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Not in itself.\nI mean, what would... if the operating agency, even in that situation, thought that some aspect of its operation might affect the species, it is supposed to trigger... it is supposed to request consultation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2198.725, 2202.495], "stop_times": [2202.495, 2213.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.725}, "reply_to": "20830__1_039", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_041", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But you don't think there would be standing for someone to at least test the Fish and Wildlife Service's refusal to prepare a biological report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2213.685], "stop_times": [2221.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.685}, "reply_to": "20830__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_042", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, in that situation there might well be an action under the APA, 706, paragraph 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2221.649], "stop_times": [2225.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.649}, "reply_to": "20830__1_041", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_043", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No.\nLet's talk about the Endangered Species Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2225.522, 2225.713], "stop_times": [2225.713, 2227.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.522}, "reply_to": "20830__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_044", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I think there would not be, no, again for the reason that that... first of all, that's not final agency action, and it's part of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2227.263], "stop_times": [2234.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.263}, "reply_to": "20830__1_043", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_045", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2234.218], "stop_times": [2234.439], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.218}, "reply_to": "20830__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20830__1_046", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--and the Secretary's administration of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2234.439], "stop_times": [2236.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.439}, "reply_to": "20830__1_045", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_047", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No, I'm not talking about final agency.\nI'm talking about whether or not there's a suit under the Endangered Species Act citizen suit provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2236.658, 2237.439], "stop_times": [2237.439, 2241.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.658}, "reply_to": "20830__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_048", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2241.082], "stop_times": [2241.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.082}, "reply_to": "20830__1_047", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_049", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--when the Fish and Wildlife Service says, despite the fact we've identified an endangered species, we're not going to file a biological report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2241.533], "stop_times": [2246.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.533}, "reply_to": "20830__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_050", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I believe there would not be a cause of action under the citizen suit provision for that because, again, that goes to the administration of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2246.728], "stop_times": [2255.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.728}, "reply_to": "20830__1_049", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_051", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "There's no violation of the act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2255.374], "stop_times": [2256.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.374}, "reply_to": "20830__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_052", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "There's not a violation that's enforceable under the citizen suit provision.\nI mean, there may be a failure to perform a... an obligation that the Secretary has, but again paragraph (c) of the citizen suit provision provides for suits against the Secretary to compel him to perform mandatory duties only in specific circumstances under section 4 of the act where there are certain time limitations and listing determinations, but the sort of... we think the clear implication of that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2256.363, 2260.097], "stop_times": [2260.097, 2284.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.363}, "reply_to": "20830__1_051", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_053", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I'm quite amazed that the Fish and Wildlife Service could refuse to perform its duties under the act and not have a suit.\nAnd, of course, the reason you don't want to admit that it does is because then you can't distinguish that between a suit brought by the plaintiffs who are positioned as the plaintiffs here are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2284.032, 2289.295], "stop_times": [2289.295, 2299.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2284.032}, "reply_to": "20830__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_054", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--No, well, we're not saying there's no suit.\nAgain, the APA would provide... where it's a question of administering the act, the APA is the usual way in which a plaintiff challenges a regulatory agency's administration of the act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2299.293, 2301.086], "stop_times": [2301.086, 2310.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.293}, "reply_to": "20830__1_053", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_055", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's right, but it's not exclusive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2310.623], "stop_times": [2312.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.623}, "reply_to": "20830__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__1_056", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2312.976], "stop_times": [2313.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2312.976}, "reply_to": "20830__1_055", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_057", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "There may be a right of action under the ESA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2313.365], "stop_times": [2316.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.365}, "reply_to": "20830__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__1_058", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Right.\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2316.025, 2316.266], "stop_times": [2316.266, 2316.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.025}, "reply_to": "20830__1_057", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_059", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--apart from APA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2316.466], "stop_times": [2317.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.466}, "reply_to": "20830__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20830__1_060", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "My only point goes to the question of whether the plaintiffs would be left remedyless.\nAnd our entire submission in this case is not to try to keep resource users out of court.\nWe think... we do, however, think it's important to have an orderly process about how such suits are brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2317.618, 2320.819, 2326.484], "stop_times": [2320.819, 2326.484, 2332.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.618}, "reply_to": "20830__1_059", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_061", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, may I interrupt?\nBecause I'm still interested in the answer to the question the Chief Justice asked at the very beginning about the questions presented in the... in this case.\nAnd as I understand your argument... I may be wrong... you would answer both of the questions presented by the petition differently than the Ninth Circuit did.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2332.4, 2333.86, 2340.715, 2349.15], "stop_times": [2333.86, 2340.715, 2349.15, 2350.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.4}, "reply_to": "20830__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_062", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "On the zone of interest, we would answer it differently in the sense that we would not use the phrase, zone of interest.\nWe agree with its conclusion on the ground that the citizen suit provision itself is narrowed to... is confined to situations where there... where what the defendant is doing would be harming the species.\nIt doesn't answer the question by reference to generalized zone of interest.\nIt answers the question in terms of what's a violation that is cognizable under the act.\nAnd, I mean, that is our central submission in this case.\nAnd it... one related point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2350.351, 2356.716, 2368.474, 2371.956, 2376.561, 2380.804], "stop_times": [2356.716, 2368.474, 2371.956, 2376.561, 2380.804, 2382.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.351}, "reply_to": "20830__1_061", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_063", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Do you endorse the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2382.865], "stop_times": [2385.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.865}, "reply_to": "20830__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_064", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Not... we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2385.717], "stop_times": [2388.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.717}, "reply_to": "20830__1_063", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_065", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "They have a one-way... it's slightly differently articulated, but it's also a one-way construction of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2388.418], "stop_times": [2394.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.418}, "reply_to": "20830__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_066", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, with all respect, I think one-way is an unfair characterization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2394.031], "stop_times": [2398.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.031}, "reply_to": "20830__1_065", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_067", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, if we can characterize it, the Ninth Circuit says one-way, then yours is also one-way, is not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2398.873], "stop_times": [2403.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.873}, "reply_to": "20830__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_068", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "It's one-way in the sense that, yes, the citizen suit is designed to advance the purposes of species protection just like this Court in Gwaltney says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2403.498], "stop_times": [2413.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.498}, "reply_to": "20830__1_067", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_069", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But it also, Mr. Kneedler, has very specific protections for the resource user.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2413.135], "stop_times": [2418.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.135}, "reply_to": "20830__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_070", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2418.218], "stop_times": [2419.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.218}, "reply_to": "20830__1_069", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_071", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And you just read that out of the act and remit them to their remedies under the APA where, I tend to agree with you, there may not be final action under the APA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2419.338], "stop_times": [2427.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.338}, "reply_to": "20830__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_072", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes, but let me also say if... even if the citizen suit provision were applicable to administration of the act rather than on-the-ground activities, we think it would be extraordinary for Congress in that situation to have departed from the normal rules for judicial review of agency action and specifically the final agency action point.\nAnd this ties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2427.675, 2446.495], "stop_times": [2446.495, 2446.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.675}, "reply_to": "20830__1_071", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_073", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But citizen suits generally depart from the traditional rules, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2446.895], "stop_times": [2451.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.895}, "reply_to": "20830__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__1_074", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, they do in a sense, but that can be overstated.\nFor example, the petitioners in this case specifically endorse the proposition that this Court stated in the Seaclammers case, that the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act, which is the foundation for this citizen suit provision, was designed to allow a right of action where that would be true under Sierra Club v. Morton.\nWell, in fact, the Sierra Club v. Morton was a suit under section 10 of the APA.\nIt specifically discussed the zone of interest test and said that the plaintiffs there, even though they're environmental... even though they were environmental interests being advanced, were within that zone of interest.\nIt was not a repudiation of the zone of interest test but an application of it.\nSo, when you have this citizen suit provision building on Sierra Club v. Morton, its principal thrust was that environmental interests are a sufficient basis for bringing a suit.\nBut there's no... particularly against that background, there's no suggestion that the citizen suit provision, even if it were applicable to suits against agencies and their administration of the act, was intended to depart from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2451.99, 2454.942, 2473.574, 2478.188, 2488.244, 2491.667, 2502.656], "stop_times": [2454.942, 2473.574, 2478.188, 2488.244, 2491.667, 2502.656, 2512.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.99}, "reply_to": "20830__1_073", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_075", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But you're saying the citizen suit... just to oversimplify a little bit, you're saying the citizen suit provision is a narrower remedy than the remedy under the APA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2512.793], "stop_times": [2520.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.793}, "reply_to": "20830__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_076", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Yes.\nIt addresses... and again, it's not designed for... it's not... it may allow broader standing where it applies, but it has a narrow application and the application is very much consistent with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2520.397, 2520.627], "stop_times": [2520.627, 2531.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.397}, "reply_to": "20830__1_075", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_077", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Is one-way.\nAnd Congress can write a one-way statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2531.966, 2532.655], "stop_times": [2532.655, 2534.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.966}, "reply_to": "20830__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_078", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2534.057], "stop_times": [2534.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.057}, "reply_to": "20830__1_077", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_079", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--if it wants, I presume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2534.257], "stop_times": [2535.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.257}, "reply_to": "20830__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_080", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "It can.\nAnd it was addressing a harm that any person, including the United States, might engage in not the special expertise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2535.018, 2535.718], "stop_times": [2535.718, 2542.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.018}, "reply_to": "20830__1_079", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_081", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But your position is that the citizen suit provision just changes that one aspect of the APA which deals with zone of interests and only as to certain people, namely, those who are complaining about environmental harm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2542.042], "stop_times": [2555.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.042}, "reply_to": "20830__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_082", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2555.533], "stop_times": [2557.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.533}, "reply_to": "20830__1_081", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_083", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And the APA contains a provision, doesn't it, although I think it's rarely cited, that it shall not be superseded except... unless explicitly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2557.022], "stop_times": [2567.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.022}, "reply_to": "20830__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_084", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2567.31], "stop_times": [2568.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.31}, "reply_to": "20830__1_083", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_085", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "So, all of the other provisions would certainly continue to apply, at least where there's no direct conflict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2568.041], "stop_times": [2572.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.041}, "reply_to": "20830__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_086", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's right.\nI'd like to make one other point that ties in here.\nThe petitioners in their reply brief had suggested that this Court resolve the Article III standing question, and we argued in our brief that there is no causation and redressability for much the same reason we've talked about, that they sued the wrong agency, sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for its advice rather than the Bureau of Reclamation for what it actually did.\nThat ties directly into our final agency action point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2572.933, 2573.274, 2575.988, 2594.281], "stop_times": [2573.274, 2575.988, 2594.281, 2597.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.933}, "reply_to": "20830__1_085", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_087", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "They claimed in their complaint that there was causality, and this was dismissed without any further investigation.\nThey said that there was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2597.413, 2604.238], "stop_times": [2604.238, 2605.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.413}, "reply_to": "20830__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_088", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2605.75], "stop_times": [2605.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.75}, "reply_to": "20830__1_087", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_089", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Upon information and belief, they said that he would follow it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2605.97], "stop_times": [2608.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2605.97}, "reply_to": "20830__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_090", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Our point is not one of fact.\nIt's one of law, and it ties directly into our final agency action point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2608.852, 2610.424], "stop_times": [2610.424, 2613.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.852}, "reply_to": "20830__1_089", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_091", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, excuse me.\nI don't understand that.\nCausality is a question of fact, not of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2613.596, 2613.796, 2614.768], "stop_times": [2613.796, 2614.768, 2617.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.596}, "reply_to": "20830__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_092", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, I think it's a mixed question.\nIn the opinion for the plurality in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife where redressability was discussed, the four-Justice plurality in that part of the opinion focused on the fact that the action taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service in interpreting the regulation or stating when consultation was necessary was not binding on the other agency, the action agency.\nAnd for that reason, there was an absence of redressability.\nAnd that was not a factual question in our view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2617.071, 2619.984, 2643.609, 2646.443], "stop_times": [2619.984, 2643.609, 2646.443, 2649.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.071}, "reply_to": "20830__1_091", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_093", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But there was no allegation in that complaint.\nI don't even remember whether Lujan came up at the pleading stage.\nIt was at the summary judgment stage rather than pleading?\nWhich is quite different.\nAnd there was no allegation in Lujan that there was this causality, that the agency had determined to follow this report.\nThat would have made it a totally different ball game.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2649.026, 2650.928, 2654.181, 2657.885, 2658.786, 2666.031], "stop_times": [2650.928, 2654.181, 2657.885, 2658.786, 2666.031, 2667.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.026}, "reply_to": "20830__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_094", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But let... if I may make the other half of the argument I'm making is the problems with that, exactly how close a connection there has to be, are completely taken care of if the Court simply adheres to the normal final agency action rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2667.892], "stop_times": [2681.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.892}, "reply_to": "20830__1_093", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_095", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, but if... let's assume we disagree with you with reference to your one-way interpretation of the Endangered Species Act.\nAnd incidentally, I think we should be very cautious about receiving an argument that destroys the usual neutrality that we think underlies the rule of law in this country.\nBut you're arguing for this one-way provision.\nNow, let's assume that we disagree with you upon that.\nIsn't there a likelihood... a likelihood, a very real likelihood... there of economic injury based on the Fish and Wildlife Service report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2681.579, 2690.307, 2702.954, 2705.147, 2708.93], "stop_times": [2690.307, 2702.954, 2705.147, 2708.93, 2718.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.579}, "reply_to": "20830__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_096", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "As a practical matter, there may well be.\nThat's not our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2718.424, 2721.018], "stop_times": [2721.018, 2722.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.424}, "reply_to": "20830__1_095", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_097", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But isn't that really the core of the inquiry we make under redressability when we're determining Article III standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2722.968], "stop_times": [2732.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.968}, "reply_to": "20830__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_098", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, I think not.\nI think where there is an intervening action by a third party, as there was in Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare or in this Court's decision in Franklin where there's intervening action by the President, it's not sufficient.\nIn fact, in Franklin there had never been an instance in which the President had failed to follow the recommendation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2732.616, 2734.075, 2746.524], "stop_times": [2734.075, 2746.524, 2752.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2732.616}, "reply_to": "20830__1_097", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_099", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No, but we said there was Article III standing in Franklin.\nWe found there was no final agency action, but we said there was Article III standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2752.529, 2754.821], "stop_times": [2754.821, 2758.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.529}, "reply_to": "20830__1_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_100", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--On the... only on the constitutional question, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2758.631], "stop_times": [2760.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.631}, "reply_to": "20830__1_099", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_101", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But that's what we're talking about.\nYou keep wanting to talk about the APA.\nI'm talking about the Endangered Species Act.\nAs I take it, your point is that a FTC staff recommendation does not become final agency action simply because the commission itself always follows it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2760.964, 2762.806, 2764.438, 2766.101], "stop_times": [2762.806, 2764.438, 2766.101, 2777.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.964}, "reply_to": "20830__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_102", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--That's exactly correct.\nFor... to use another example in the internal operations of the Government, if the Secretary of another Department asks the Attorney General for a legal opinion and the Attorney General writes a legal opinion, I think it's safe to say that almost invariably, if not invariably, the other agency would follow it.\nBut that doesn't mean that the suit would lie against the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2777.338, 2779.2, 2794.819], "stop_times": [2779.2, 2794.819, 2797.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.338}, "reply_to": "20830__1_101", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_103", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But I'm still not certain--\n--Suppose the agency has taken the action, as is alleged here.\nIt is alleged that the agency is proceeding according to this report.\nOnce it has, is it not proper to question under the APA the adequacy of the factual bases on which the agency took that action, including in this case the report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2797.6, 2798.221, 2801.245, 2804.718], "stop_times": [2798.221, 2801.245, 2804.718, 2817.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.6}, "reply_to": "20830__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_104", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Absolutely, in the suit against the action agency.\nThe advice... the recommendation becomes part of the record that the Bureau of Reclamation acts upon, but at that point it doesn't make the recommendation final agency action.\nThe recommendation remains a recommendation and gets acted upon, along with whatever else the Bureau of Reclamation may have in its files that would influence the way in which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2817.487, 2820.098, 2830.185], "stop_times": [2820.098, 2830.185, 2842.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2817.487}, "reply_to": "20830__1_103", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_105", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I see that part.\nThe part that I'm finding difficult to follow is let's imagine my suit.\nI sue the Bureau of Reclamation.\nThat's the ground agency.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2842.023, 2842.822, 2848.626, 2851.589, 2853.322], "stop_times": [2842.822, 2848.626, 2851.589, 2853.322, 2853.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.023}, "reply_to": "20830__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_106", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2853.592], "stop_times": [2853.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.592}, "reply_to": "20830__1_105", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_107", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And the reason I sue them is because they issued an order to keep the water up.\nThat's a final action.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2853.903, 2859.879, 2861.53], "stop_times": [2859.879, 2861.53, 2861.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.903}, "reply_to": "20830__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_108", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2861.83], "stop_times": [2862.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.83}, "reply_to": "20830__1_107", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_109", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And I allege in my Endangered Species Act complaint as a person who is asking for an injunction or the setting aside of this final agency order by another Government person.\nThe judge says, why is it illegal?\nAnd I say, the reason that it's illegal is because it didn't comply with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA because it did not rest upon the, quote, best scientific and commercial data available.\nNow, there.\nI have standing.\nI'm hurt.\nI'm complaining about a final action, and I have a reason that under the law was not complied with.\nNow, are you saying I cannot bring that action, and if not, why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2862.091, 2873.268, 2876.188, 2889.997, 2890.849, 2891.9, 2892.528, 2900.515], "stop_times": [2873.268, 2876.188, 2889.997, 2890.849, 2891.9, 2892.528, 2900.515, 2905.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.091}, "reply_to": "20830__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_110", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Okay.\nThere are two situations in which you might sue the action agency.\nIf the action agency is... if the Bureau of Reclamation reduced the water and it might have harmed the species, there's unquestionably a cause of action under the citizen suit provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2905.087, 2905.337, 2909.501], "stop_times": [2905.337, 2909.501, 2919.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.087}, "reply_to": "20830__1_109", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_111", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Raised the water.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2919.328], "stop_times": [2919.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2919.328}, "reply_to": "20830__1_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_112", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "If the water is raised, there's no general proposition in the Endangered Species Act that requires the action agency to take only the minimum amount of action necessary in order to protect the endangered species.\nIt could, not just for endangered species concerns or because it wanted to add... have an extra layer of caution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2919.528, 2932.477], "stop_times": [2932.477, 2938.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2919.528}, "reply_to": "20830__1_111", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_113", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Why did they put in those words, best scientific and commercial data?\nBecause they could have said raise the water for any reason you want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2938.582, 2942.486], "stop_times": [2942.486, 2945.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.582}, "reply_to": "20830__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_114", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--The background of that provision when it was enacted in '79 indicates that that was put in there so that the agency would not feel it had to hold up doing anything at all until it had perfect information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2945.978], "stop_times": [2957.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.978}, "reply_to": "20830__1_113", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_115", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Just like the EPA.\nEven though you get a wonderful environmental report, the agency isn't bound by the conclusion of that report so long as it has been done properly.\nIt's free to proceed on its best judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2957.548, 2960.36, 2971.018], "stop_times": [2960.36, 2971.018, 2973.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.548}, "reply_to": "20830__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_116", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2973.981], "stop_times": [2974.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2973.981}, "reply_to": "20830__1_115", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_117", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And you're saying that's the same with this biological report here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2974.311], "stop_times": [2976.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.311}, "reply_to": "20830__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_118", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--That's exactly right.\nThe Bureau of Reclamation may have other evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2976.802, 2978.242], "stop_times": [2978.242, 2980.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.802}, "reply_to": "20830__1_117", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_119", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "So, you are saying it's just like an environmental impact statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2980.315], "stop_times": [2983.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.315}, "reply_to": "20830__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__1_120", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2983.397], "stop_times": [2985.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2983.397}, "reply_to": "20830__1_119", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_121", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "In other words, the agency must get it before it acts, but it may totally ignore it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2985.157], "stop_times": [2990.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.157}, "reply_to": "20830__1_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__1_122", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2990.45], "stop_times": [2991.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2990.45}, "reply_to": "20830__1_121", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_123", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Does that make any sense?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2991.231, 2993.172], "stop_times": [2993.172, 2994.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.231}, "reply_to": "20830__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__1_124", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--The sense of the act is that the... and experience shows that the action agency relies upon the biological opinion.\nMost action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [2994.343, 3004.161], "stop_times": [3004.161, 3005.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.343}, "reply_to": "20830__1_123", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_125", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But they don't have to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3005.022], "stop_times": [3005.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.022}, "reply_to": "20830__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__1_126", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--They don't, and that's our point.\nThey don't legally have to.\nAnd in fact, they may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3005.783, 3007.025, 3008.435], "stop_times": [3007.025, 3008.435, 3009.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.783}, "reply_to": "20830__1_125", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_127", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But they have to get one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3009.837], "stop_times": [3011.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3009.837}, "reply_to": "20830__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_128", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--They have to get one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3011.127], "stop_times": [3011.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.127}, "reply_to": "20830__1_127", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_129", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "They have to get a good one just as an agency has to get an environmental impact statement, and if it hasn't gotten a good one, if it has gotten one that's been done on the cheap or one that's a sham, they're in violation of the act.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3011.457, 3020.854], "stop_times": [3020.854, 3021.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.457}, "reply_to": "20830__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_130", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No.\nThe action agency simply has to consult.\nThe duty to prepare a comprehensive biological opinion is a duty owed by the consulting agency to the action agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3021.064, 3021.394, 3024.355], "stop_times": [3021.394, 3024.355, 3033.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3021.064}, "reply_to": "20830__1_129", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_131", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes.\nThat's the Fish and Wildlife Service, and that's the one agency you say that can't be sued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3033.053, 3033.401], "stop_times": [3033.401, 3036.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.053}, "reply_to": "20830__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_132", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, but that's... when you have a question of internal deliberations between two Government agencies and a statute that tells an agency, before you take certain action, talk to the Attorney General, it would be odd to say you can sue the Attorney General because of the advice that he gave to the action agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3036.774], "stop_times": [3052.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.774}, "reply_to": "20830__1_131", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_133", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Let me ask you this just as a proposition of administrative law, and I guess it would be under either the APA or the Endangered Species Act.\nSuppose that the Bureau of Reclamation gets the biological report from the Fish and Wildlife Service.\nCould it not say that we're not sure that it took into account the best scientific evidence, but we think it's reasonably close, and in our best judgment it's an adequate report?\nCan it say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3052.144, 3059.13, 3065.034, 3077.66], "stop_times": [3059.13, 3065.034, 3077.66, 3078.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.144}, "reply_to": "20830__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_134", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3078.261], "stop_times": [3078.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.261}, "reply_to": "20830__1_133", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_135", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "If it says that, then if an aggrieved person under the APA feels that the act... feels that the report is inadequate, does he sue the Bureau of Reclamation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3078.662], "stop_times": [3091.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.662}, "reply_to": "20830__1_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_136", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Yes, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3091.11], "stop_times": [3092.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3091.11}, "reply_to": "20830__1_135", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_137", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And what does he allege?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3092.032], "stop_times": [3093.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.032}, "reply_to": "20830__1_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20830__1_138", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--He alleges that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, and that's the standard under the APA or the ESA.\nThe same substantive standard of review applies.\nHe would say that the decision of the Bureau of Reclamation was arbitrary and capricious because it was not adequately supported by the administrative record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3093.932, 3099.077, 3101.138], "stop_times": [3099.077, 3101.138, 3109.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3093.932}, "reply_to": "20830__1_137", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_139", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "And there's no way anybody can get an accurate biological report.\nNobody can compel this agency to give an adequate biological report is what you're saying.\nNobody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3109.493, 3112.785, 3117.389], "stop_times": [3112.785, 3117.389, 3118.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3109.493}, "reply_to": "20830__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_140", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I think no private person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3118.378], "stop_times": [3119.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.378}, "reply_to": "20830__1_139", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_141", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No private person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3119.51], "stop_times": [3120.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.51}, "reply_to": "20830__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_142", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I believe that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3120.301], "stop_times": [3120.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3120.301}, "reply_to": "20830__1_141", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_143", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Just the Secretary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3120.601], "stop_times": [3121.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.601}, "reply_to": "20830__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_144", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--I believe that's correct, but what... the way... let me retreat from that just to this extent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3121.172], "stop_times": [3127.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3121.172}, "reply_to": "20830__1_143", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_145", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "I hope you will.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3127.228, 3127.617], "stop_times": [3127.617, 3129.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.228}, "reply_to": "20830__1_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_146", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "What would be done is that the plaintiff would sue the Bureau of Reclamation and said... and say, you proceeded without an adequate basis.\nAnd if the allegation was you proceeded with a report that was... that didn't rise to the minimum necessary to be a biological opinion under section 7, you have to set aside your agency action and you, Bureau of Reclamation, can't proceed unless you get a more complete biological opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3129.159, 3136.304], "stop_times": [3136.304, 3154.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.159}, "reply_to": "20830__1_145", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_147", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "It's just the way it works with an environmental impact statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3154.957], "stop_times": [3157.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3154.957}, "reply_to": "20830__1_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_148", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "That's exactly right, but the suit is not directly against the Fish and Wildlife Service.\nIt's still always a suit set aside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3157.11, 3160.0], "stop_times": [3160.0, 3162.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.11}, "reply_to": "20830__1_147", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_149", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Well, this one isn't either.\nThis one isn't either.\nI mean, this one is against the Secretary, which includes everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3162.112, 3162.383, 3163.305], "stop_times": [3162.383, 3163.305, 3165.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3162.112}, "reply_to": "20830__1_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_150", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Yes, but the Secretary was only sued in his capacity to... as the person making jeopardy determinations.\nHe was not sued in his capacity in running the Bureau of Reclamation.\nAnd the relief sought was to withdraw the biological opinion, not to have the Secretary take other action with respect to the raising or lowering of water.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3165.865, 3171.92, 3176.063], "stop_times": [3171.92, 3176.063, 3185.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.865}, "reply_to": "20830__1_149", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_151", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But you're saying withdrawing the biological opinion is indeed relief that can be sought.\nIf you say you proceeded without an adequate biological opinion, you say you can get a judgment requiring the Secretary to get a proper biological opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3185.59, 3189.06], "stop_times": [3189.06, 3196.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3185.59}, "reply_to": "20830__1_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__1_152", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "No.\nTechnically what you would get is a judgment saying you can't go forward with the action unless you get an adequate biological opinion.\nIt would be full and complete relief because the Secretary would have to proceed on the basis of something else.\nBut I'd like to tie our position too into something Justice Kennedy was asking about, the interrelationship of the water situation in the area to the Endangered Species Act concerns.\nThere can also be questions of the contract rights that these plaintiffs have.\nAll of that ties into the standing question.\nAll of that ties into the substantive right of what contract rights they have, what Bureau of Reclamation statutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3196.646, 3196.857, 3202.873, 3208.569, 3217.853, 3221.546, 3224.147], "stop_times": [3196.857, 3202.873, 3208.569, 3217.853, 3221.546, 3224.147, 3229.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.646}, "reply_to": "20830__1_151", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_153", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "What about footnote 7 in Lujan which seems to indicate that standing requirements are somewhat relaxed when it's a procedural attack?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3229.721], "stop_times": [3240.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.721}, "reply_to": "20830__1_152", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_154", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, in that situation we think you still have to be alleging a concrete injury to yourself and you have to be alleging that the... it at least has to be true that if you... in the sort of suit I was describing to Justice Scalia, if you set aside the agency action, to have the procedural measure taken.\nThat would be adequate Article III standing.\nWe're not suggesting to the contrary.\nOur point here has been on causation and redressability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3240.289, 3255.981, 3258.142, 3260.355], "stop_times": [3255.981, 3258.142, 3260.355, 3262.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3240.289}, "reply_to": "20830__1_153", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_155", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "What about the word arguably?\nDo you remember the word arguably?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3262.725, 3264.767], "stop_times": [3264.767, 3266.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3262.725}, "reply_to": "20830__1_154", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_156", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "In the zone of interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3266.92], "stop_times": [3267.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3266.92}, "reply_to": "20830__1_155", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_157", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "In data processing.\nRight.\nWhen we go through all this, isn't it at least arguable that that scientific data provision and so forth covers... isn't their claim at least arguable in that respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3267.391, 3268.402, 3268.873], "stop_times": [3268.402, 3268.873, 3280.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.391}, "reply_to": "20830__1_156", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20830__1_158", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "It may be, but again we think in this situation if they're claiming that the Bureau of Reclamation is not giving them enough water, that arises directly under the reclamation laws and their contracts.\nAnd they can say that... when the Bureau says our defense is the biological opinion and other information we have, then they could say, well, that's not an adequate biological report because it doesn't have the best scientific evidence in it.\nSo, we're not saying that they can't make arguments about scientific adequacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3280.0, 3289.215, 3302.714], "stop_times": [3289.215, 3302.714, 3305.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3280.0}, "reply_to": "20830__1_157", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_159", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But footnote 7 of Lujan talks about redressability.\nYou answered my question and said, oh, well, we're talking about redressability.\nFootnote 7 says the standards are relaxed even with reference to redressability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3305.826, 3309.4, 3312.472], "stop_times": [3309.4, 3312.472, 3316.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.826}, "reply_to": "20830__1_158", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_160", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "But it is always I think necessary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3316.745], "stop_times": [3319.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3316.745}, "reply_to": "20830__1_159", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_161", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "So, it seems to me not a proper argument to say, well, I'm talking about redressability.\nThat's what it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3319.927, 3322.469], "stop_times": [3322.469, 3322.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3319.927}, "reply_to": "20830__1_160", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20830__1_162", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--Well, in the EIS situation, for example, the harm is redressed if the dam is going forward and your claim is there's an inadequate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3322.8], "stop_times": [3331.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3322.8}, "reply_to": "20830__1_161", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20830__1_163", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "--I think you've answered the question, Mr. Kneedler.\nMr. Wilkinson, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3331.134, 3333.745], "stop_times": [3333.745, 3336.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.134}, "reply_to": "20830__1_162", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20830__2_000", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nSimply put, Congress made no distinction between environmental plaintiffs and resource user plaintiffs when it provided for citizen suit review and APA review.\nIt simply used the term, any person.\nAll we are asking this Court to do is follow the plain language of the statute.\nIf you do that, it renders completely unnecessary this arcane, artificial review process that the Government is proposing where you have to sue an agency that didn't propose the opinion, didn't have the expertise, and may in fact disagree with it internally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3336.279, 3336.839, 3345.256, 3347.407, 3351.141], "stop_times": [3336.839, 3345.256, 3347.407, 3351.141, 3366.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3336.279}, "reply_to": "20830__1_163", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__2_001", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "You mean the archaic procedure that's used everywhere else in the Government.\nRight?\n[Laughter]\nExcept in this one statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3366.499, 3369.55, 3370.11, 3371.412], "stop_times": [3369.55, 3370.11, 3371.412, 3372.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.499}, "reply_to": "20830__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20830__2_002", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Not in this statute, Your Honor, it isn't used.\nThe opinion that was issued in this case was more than just a legal opinion.\nIt was in fact an operating plan for the project.\nThe Bureau--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3372.964, 3376.407, 3380.771, 3382.644], "stop_times": [3376.407, 3380.771, 3382.644, 3383.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3372.964}, "reply_to": "20830__2_001", "speaker": "gregory_k_wilkinson"}
{"id": "20830__2_003", "conversation_id": "20830", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-813", "start_times": [3383.234, 3384.226], "stop_times": [3384.226, 3386.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3383.234}, "reply_to": "20830__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__0_000", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1441, Linda J. Blessing v. Cathy Freestone.\nMr. Delaney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [0.0, 9.226], "stop_times": [9.226, 11.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__0_001", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nCongress enacted title IV-D pursuant to its Spending Clause powers.\nThat meant, under Pennhurst, that Congress had to unambiguously notify the States of any consequences of their accepting Federal funds so that the States could make an informed choice about whether to participate in that program, and under this Court's decisions in Suter, Congress could provide that notice to the States by unambiguously conferring rights in title IV-D that would be privately enforceable.\nHere, Congress has neither unambiguously conferred any rights upon respondents, nor unambiguously notified the States that title IV-D can be enforced privately by over 18 million title IV-D applicants.\nIndeed, title IV-D says just the opposite, because when Congress offered the title IV-D partnership agreement to the States, it unambiguously deposited all enforcement authority in the Secretary of Health and Human Services.\nCongress told the States unambiguously that the Secretary would enforce title IV-D, that the Secretary would apply a substantial compliance standard on a systemwide basis rather than an individual case-by-case basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [11.149, 13.601, 17.434, 40.769, 53.776, 65.653], "stop_times": [13.601, 17.434, 40.769, 53.776, 65.653, 78.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.149}, "reply_to": "20795__0_000", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_002", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, what was sought here in the complaint was something based on the substantial compliance requirement, was it not, in the complaint?\nThis was a broad complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [78.623, 88.009], "stop_times": [88.009, 89.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 78.623}, "reply_to": "20795__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_003", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [89.429], "stop_times": [91.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 89.429}, "reply_to": "20795__0_002", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_004", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "There are, however, some provisions in the statute here that are very specific.\nFor instance, provisions that for, if the State is going to collect money for non-AFDC parents, that it will pay the money over to those parents very specifically and within certain time limits.\nNow, that's a pretty specific requirement, is it not?\nDo you say that no parent for whom the State has collected money under that provision would have a right to ask the State to pay it over if it were withheld?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [91.961, 98.796, 117.288, 120.19], "stop_times": [98.796, 117.288, 120.19, 130.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.961}, "reply_to": "20795__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_005", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Justice O'Connor, that is an important difference here in this case, and that is, once the State actually receives the money, then the individuals would have a right, a property interest in getting that money if the State is wrongfully withholding it, but that is not a statutory right.\nThat then becomes a constitutional right in their property.\nThey don't need to move forward--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [130.545, 146.516, 148.858], "stop_times": [146.516, 148.858, 150.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 130.545}, "reply_to": "20795__0_004", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_006", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, it might also be a statutory right.\nIn any event, you would find at least some provisions are specific enough that by some route they could be enforced, would you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [150.17, 152.411], "stop_times": [152.411, 160.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.17}, "reply_to": "20795__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_007", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--No, ma'am, not through the title IV-D itself.\nAs we envision title IV-D, it's a funding mechanism.\nThe States gave up some of its rights in terms of domestic relations to the Federal Government in exchange for the money, so it's a contract between the sovereign interests, and what's happening here is we have the Federal Government coming in and trying to run part of the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [160.966, 164.429, 167.471], "stop_times": [164.429, 167.471, 184.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 160.966}, "reply_to": "20795__0_006", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_008", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I would think some of the specific provisions might well fall within cases that we have decided previously giving individuals some rights, but this complaint was not based on any such specific request, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [184.511], "stop_times": [198.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 184.511}, "reply_to": "20795__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_009", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No.\nThis was a very broad--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [198.6, 199.371], "stop_times": [199.371, 200.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.6}, "reply_to": "20795__0_008", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_010", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Now, in Arizona's brief here you seem to want us to address some other issues like the overruling of Maine v. Thiboutot, and some Eleventh Amendment arguments that were not raised in the cert petition.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [200.453, 218.453], "stop_times": [218.453, 219.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.453}, "reply_to": "20795__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_011", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--We have raised those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [219.024], "stop_times": [220.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.024}, "reply_to": "20795__0_010", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_012", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Why should we get into those?\nI mean, you didn't come here with cert petition questions identifying those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [220.536, 221.766], "stop_times": [221.766, 225.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.536}, "reply_to": "20795__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_013", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--We did not specifically, but we think that they are subsumed within the question presented, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [225.648], "stop_times": [231.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 225.648}, "reply_to": "20795__0_012", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_014", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Fairly subsumed, so that people all around the country would understand you were going to be here arguing the overruling of Maine v. Thiboutot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [231.582], "stop_times": [238.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.582}, "reply_to": "20795__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_015", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Yes, ma'am, and indeed the respondents, when they opposed our cert petition, said that we were doing just that, and that our petition loudly echoed that type of activity, and they have fully briefed the case.\nWe think that this case presents an excellent vehicle for the Court to reexamine Maine v. Thiboutot, but we don't come here today saying that that's the only way we can win.\nWe can set that argument aside, and we win on the fact that title IV-D does not unamiguously notify the States that there is any enforceable right in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [238.548, 252.916, 261.812], "stop_times": [252.916, 261.812, 272.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.548}, "reply_to": "20795__0_014", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_016", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But Mr. Delaney, that hasn't been the approach when 1983 is there.\nThis is not a Cort v. Ash case.\nThis is a 1983.\nMaine v. Thiboutot says there is a right to enforce laws of the United States, and in connection with the question that Justice O'Connor asked you, I think you responded that there would be a claim... suppose the State collected the money and simply didn't turn it over.\nYou acknowledge there would be such a claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [272.6, 277.863, 280.455, 282.855, 303.529], "stop_times": [277.863, 280.455, 282.855, 303.529, 305.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.6}, "reply_to": "20795__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__0_017", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--We believe that there would be a claim under either State law grounds or constitutional grounds in the property interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [305.853], "stop_times": [311.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.853}, "reply_to": "20795__0_016", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_018", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But what about a case where the parent was located, the noncustodial parent, and had a job, and the State simply refused to do anything about a wage implementation order?\nWould that also... well, would it be enforceable or not in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [311.115, 325.604], "stop_times": [325.604, 331.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.115}, "reply_to": "20795__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__0_019", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No, ma'am, it would not be enforceable under title IV-D, because title IV-D again is a funding mechanism, and it's a funding relationship, and in order for the court... or in order for the parents to come in and say that they have an enforceable right, we need to make sure that they have one.\nHere, there is no conferral of that right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [331.148, 350.559], "stop_times": [350.559, 353.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.148}, "reply_to": "20795__0_018", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_020", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "So your view is it's either all or nothing, so that there's no claim possible under IV-D no matter how specific?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [353.193], "stop_times": [363.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.193}, "reply_to": "20795__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__0_021", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "And... correct, and in terms of the substantial compliance standard that Congress has laid out in title IV-D, again that gets back to the funding mechanism, when you have this funding relationship and Congress says in order to continue getting funds you have to perform at a substantial compliance standard on a system-wide basis.\nAnd it used to be when IV-D was first enacted that it was full compliance in 1975, and it continued that way until 1984, and Congress saw that no State had ever been able to comply at a full compliance standard, so Congress ratcheted it down from full compliance down to substantial compliance, and in the process notified the States that you didn't have to deliver service in each and every case, and that's the way that the Secretary also enforces it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [363.509, 383.262], "stop_times": [383.262, 406.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.509}, "reply_to": "20795__0_020", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_022", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, it notified the States that it wouldn't take its enforcement measures such as reducing, what is it, the IV-A money or whatever, as a result of something less than a failure, or substantial compliance, but it doesn't follow from that that there is no individual right if in a particular case there is individual crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [406.696], "stop_times": [432.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.696}, "reply_to": "20795__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_023", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, in fact we think that it does follow that way, Your Honor, because Congress has developed a very comprehensive scheme in title IV-D.\nYou mentioned the fact that we would be losing title IV-A funds.\nThe rationale there is Congress wanted to have title IV-D operating full bore, at full speed, doing all that it could for the masses that it was designed to try to take care of, and in the process of then pulling off on an individual case-by-case basis various lawsuits we're... again, we have over 18 million title IV-D applicants across the Nation, and it will cripple the program if you allow these individuals to then come in and try to enforce this on a case-by-case basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [432.054, 441.311, 444.052], "stop_times": [441.311, 444.052, 472.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.054}, "reply_to": "20795__0_022", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_024", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I thought your point is it wasn't the deal, that the States when they went in thought that all they had to do was make a good faith effort and achieve substantial compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [472.72], "stop_times": [481.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.72}, "reply_to": "20795__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__0_025", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [481.395, 482.817], "stop_times": [482.817, 483.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.395}, "reply_to": "20795__0_024", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_026", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "And if they have to achieve total compliance, at least insofar as being liable to individual suits is concerned, it's quite a different program they're buying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [483.716], "stop_times": [492.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.716}, "reply_to": "20795__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__0_027", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--It would radically change, Your Honor... just as you are suggesting it was radically change the agreement that we had entered into with the Federal Government.\nThe Federal Government came in and told us again that we would have to comply on a substantial compliance standard on a system-wide basis, that if we didn't we would have liquidated damages in the form of specific liquidated penalties against us, but again they would be assessed against title IV-A as opposed to title IV-D.\nWe were told that the Secretary would then have the discretion to waive those liquidated damages when appropriate, and we could then go in and negotiate with the Secretary.\nThere were other mechanisms available for us to go in and in essence say, this isn't the time to be enforcing the terms this rigorously.\nBut again, we were told that we had an agreement, and it was given to us in very unambiguous terms exactly how it would be enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [492.192, 498.376, 516.368, 525.444, 534.7], "stop_times": [498.376, 516.368, 525.444, 534.7, 543.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.192}, "reply_to": "20795__0_026", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_028", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, the Federal Government has not yet suspended Arizona from the benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [543.286], "stop_times": [550.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.286}, "reply_to": "20795__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_029", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Your Honor, in fact the Secretary has found that Arizona is in substantial compliance.\nIn 1984 she came out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [550.092, 555.254], "stop_times": [555.254, 557.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 550.092}, "reply_to": "20795__0_028", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_030", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "That's a surprising finding, in light of Arizona's recalcitrance in carrying out its program and its apparent inability to handle these matters.\nI mean, it has been a dismal sort of a performance there in Arizona, but nonetheless, the Federal Government has not withdrawn the funding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [557.345, 565.862], "stop_times": [565.862, 573.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.345}, "reply_to": "20795__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__0_031", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Correct.\nArizona has not had anything withheld beyond the... it was almost $1 million.\nWe did have that penalty assessed against us in the early nineties.\nIn terms--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [573.686, 574.507, 581.26, 583.963], "stop_times": [574.507, 581.26, 583.963, 584.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.686}, "reply_to": "20795__0_030", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_032", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Has the Federal Government... excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [584.724], "stop_times": [586.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.724}, "reply_to": "20795__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__0_033", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--In terms of Justice O'Connor's statement Arizona has done an abysmal job, as the complaint lays out, in 1988 Maricopa County, with no notice to the State, bailed out of the title IV-D program, and it dumped over two-thirds of all of the cases in title IV-D upon the State.\nThe State then had to scramble to try to start meeting those obligations.\nAnd then in 1991... again, the Secretary then came out and found that we were out of substantial compliance, did the audit, and then was coming in annually to do new audits to see where we were, did assess penalties of almost a million dollars, and then found under a subsequent audit than Arizona has now achieved substantial compliance.\nAnd, indeed, as we lay out in some of our briefing materials, Arizona's now receiving national awards, and it's the number one State in terms of improvements for collections over the last 4 years, so Arizona has turned things around and in large part because of the comprehensive mechanism that Congress has laid out, which is to get our attention, and it did when we got that million-dollar penalty assessed against us, but then to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [586.236, 601.713, 605.277, 623.61], "stop_times": [601.713, 605.277, 623.61, 646.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.236}, "reply_to": "20795__0_032", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_034", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Did the Federal Government intervene in the district court action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [646.483], "stop_times": [649.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.483}, "reply_to": "20795__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__0_035", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--No, sir, not in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [649.825], "stop_times": [651.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 649.825}, "reply_to": "20795__0_034", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_036", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "There was a letter that said in 1992 Arizona was found in substantial compliance.\nHas there been anything from the Federal Government since then evaluating this program's compliance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [651.596, 660.873], "stop_times": [660.873, 667.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.596}, "reply_to": "20795__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__0_037", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Your Honor, that was actually a letter in 1994 based on the latest audit, that Arizona is in substantial compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [667.077], "stop_times": [676.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.077}, "reply_to": "20795__0_036", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_038", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But it was as of 1992, was it not, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [676.483], "stop_times": [678.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.483}, "reply_to": "20795__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__0_039", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "It was based on a 1992 audit, and no, there is not a subsequent audit that has taken place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [678.984], "stop_times": [682.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.984}, "reply_to": "20795__0_038", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_040", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Do I assume correctly that you would agree that if the agreement between the National Government and the State of Arizona, it had a clause in it providing that Maine v. Thiboutot would be applicable in the relationship between Arizona and the welfare recipients, that then the agreement would be sufficiently unambiguous and they would have the private rights of action to compel your enforcement, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [682.948], "stop_times": [711.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.948}, "reply_to": "20795__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_041", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "If it was that specific in the statute, yes, but it is not in this particular statute, and there are all sorts of mechanisms that I've already identified showing that it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [711.486], "stop_times": [720.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.486}, "reply_to": "20795__0_040", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_042", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Do you also take the position that, regardless of how clear the general law might be... for example, Maine v. Thiboutot law... indicating that the welfare recipients would have an action for enforcement, that still there would be no action cognizable unless the agreement between the Federal Government and the States expressly referred to that unambiguous law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [720.381], "stop_times": [745.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.381}, "reply_to": "20795__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_043", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "We believe that that is what is required under this Court's decisions in Suter, and in Pennhurst, that in the Spending Clause context the States have to be put on notice what the consequences of their agreement or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [745.971], "stop_times": [757.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.971}, "reply_to": "20795__0_042", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_044", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Right, but the notice must be within the four corners of the agreement.\nThe notice cannot be notice by virtue of general but unambiguous law if it is not specifically referred to in the agreement.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [757.236, 760.408, 768.453], "stop_times": [760.408, 768.453, 769.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 757.236}, "reply_to": "20795__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_045", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nThat is our position, that it does need to be spelled out within the confines of the funding mechanism statute so that the States are on notice what it is that they're going to be exposed to.\nAnd again, the problem that we face as States is that there are two different lines of authority out there.\nwe have the Pennhurst-Suter line that talks in terms of the Spending Clause and the fact that there are significant federalism concerns here when you have contracts between two different sovereigns, and then we have the Wright-Wilder case, line of cases that suggest to the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [769.004, 769.673, 779.891, 787.187], "stop_times": [769.673, 779.891, 787.187, 803.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 769.004}, "reply_to": "20795__0_044", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_046", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But isn't... I haven't looked at Pennhurst recently, but wasn't it the problem in Pennhurst that the State didn't know for sure what its obligation was, not... the question wasn't whether there was a remedy if there were a clear obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [803.356], "stop_times": [813.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.356}, "reply_to": "20795__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_047", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "They... the problem there was that the States were not on notice what was required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [813.033], "stop_times": [819.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 813.033}, "reply_to": "20795__0_046", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_048", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [819.167], "stop_times": [819.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.167}, "reply_to": "20795__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_049", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [819.978], "stop_times": [820.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 819.978}, "reply_to": "20795__0_048", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_050", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But here you're on notice about what's required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [820.136], "stop_times": [821.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 820.136}, "reply_to": "20795__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_051", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No.\nWe're not on notice about what the consequences are.\nWe would put--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [821.819, 822.53, 824.961], "stop_times": [822.53, 824.961, 825.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.819}, "reply_to": "20795__0_050", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_052", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "By that you mean you're not on notice as to whether or not somebody can sue you if you fail to do what's required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [825.912], "stop_times": [829.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.912}, "reply_to": "20795__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_053", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Yes, sir, and we believe that is a very significant difference, because if we're being told that we're going to be penalized by the Secretary and the Secretary alone, then we can deal with that, but to then have 18 million different individuals who can then walk in and demand enforcement is something completely different.\nWe were never told that they had enforceable rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [829.573, 847.355], "stop_times": [847.355, 850.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.573}, "reply_to": "20795__0_052", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_054", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "It seems to me that you're... even under your acknowledgement you're potentially liable to 18 million individuals if you don't give them the money that's coming to them.\nYou've said that yourself, but you say they just have to sue not in Federal court but in State court for their own property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [850.186, 856.561], "stop_times": [856.561, 863.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 850.186}, "reply_to": "20795__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_055", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "If I did, Your Honor, I misspoke.\nThese individuals do not have any enforceable rights.\nOur contract is with the Federal Government.\nOur obligations flow to the Secretary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [863.135, 864.856, 867.09, 869.06], "stop_times": [864.856, 867.09, 869.06, 871.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.135}, "reply_to": "20795__0_054", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_056", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I thought in answer to Justice O'Connor you said that if money was owing to a particular individual they could sue for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [871.431], "stop_times": [876.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.431}, "reply_to": "20795__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_057", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But that's different.\nWhen there's money that we have actually received from a third party and we are holding that money, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [876.623, 878.296], "stop_times": [878.296, 882.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.623}, "reply_to": "20795__0_056", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_058", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Aren't there 18 million people for whom that could happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [882.788], "stop_times": [885.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.788}, "reply_to": "20795__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_059", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--If we are able to collect, but again, Nation-wide the collection rate is only 18 percent because of the significant problems in child support enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [885.599], "stop_times": [895.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.599}, "reply_to": "20795__0_058", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_060", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "What apart from... let's leave aside the question of the collection activity that we're talking about.\nWhat if the State of Arizona simply withheld, under the prior AFDC scheme simply withheld a payment due?\nCould the individual bring a claim for that payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [895.607, 900.91, 910.827], "stop_times": [900.91, 910.827, 913.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.607}, "reply_to": "20795__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_061", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "We don't believe they could under title IV-D, no, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [913.99], "stop_times": [916.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.99}, "reply_to": "20795__0_060", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_062", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "How would they do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [916.771], "stop_times": [918.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.771}, "reply_to": "20795__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_063", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "If Arizona withheld the... if we collected the moneys?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [918.701], "stop_times": [923.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 918.701}, "reply_to": "20795__0_062", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_064", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No.\nI don't know exactly what the AFDC formula is, but whatever the AFDC formula is, if there were a single parent with two children, and they were entitled to X dollars a month, and the State did not distribute the X dollars, could the parent and the children bring a claim against the State for the money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [923.654, 924.155], "stop_times": [924.155, 943.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.654}, "reply_to": "20795__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_065", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No, sir.\nNo.\nNo longer, because in the 1996 Reconciliation Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [943.038, 943.997, 944.468], "stop_times": [943.997, 944.468, 947.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.038}, "reply_to": "20795__0_064", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_066", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No, I... under the prior AFDC scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [947.12], "stop_times": [949.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.12}, "reply_to": "20795__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_067", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Under the prior AFDC scheme I believe so, under Thiboutot, but that is different than our scheme, where we have this agreement.\nAgain, it's a funding mechanism, and there's not direct dollars--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [949.383, 955.766], "stop_times": [955.766, 960.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.383}, "reply_to": "20795__0_066", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_068", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No, but what is there... I'm sorry, but what is there in the AFDC law or in the agreement between the State and the National Government with respect to the administration of the AFDC scheme that gives them, or perhaps in your terms puts the State on clear notice that the individual recipients could bring an individual claim for the money in the case that I posit, which is not present with respect to the action before us here?\nWhat in the agreement is different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [960.249, 987.688], "stop_times": [987.688, 989.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.249}, "reply_to": "20795__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_069", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Justice Souter, I'm not as familiar with the AFDC case law or statute, just as you are not, but the significant difference is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [989.889], "stop_times": [1000.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 989.889}, "reply_to": "20795__0_068", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_070", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "We're evenly matched.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1000.086], "stop_times": [1001.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.086}, "reply_to": "20795__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_071", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--We're evenly matched.\n[Laughter]\nI wish that were the case.\nIn--\nIn terms of the difference, though, there is a very significant difference.\nIn title IV-A with AFDC, under the old system you had direct dollars, they were quantifiable, that if you went through and you met the specific standards of the day you could then have an entitlement to that.\nUnder title IV-D you're talking about services, not dollars.\nYou're talking about something that's not quantifiable, something that is much more amorphous, and in title IV-D the difference is instead of having a direct one-on-one relationship, we as the State have to go out and try to locate an absent parent, have to establish paternity for Joe or John or Paul or Ringo, who may be in various different States, so we have to issue subpoenas to try to track them down.\nIt's a very different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1001.114, 1005.969, 1003.606, 1004.757, 1008.641, 1012.321, 1027.182, 1031.405, 1051.518], "stop_times": [1005.969, 1003.606, 1004.757, 1008.641, 1012.321, 1027.182, 1031.405, 1051.518, 1053.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.114}, "reply_to": "20795__0_070", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_072", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, that might very well go to the question whether you had fulfilled your obligation in an individual instance to try to collect, but I don't know that it would support a distinction in principle between the two cases.\nTake an example... in fact, I guess it's already been mentioned... in which the parent with the support responsibility is more or less standing on the sidewalk outside the State welfare office.\nAll they've got to do is serve him with a document and haul him into court, and the State simply says, we don't want to.\nWe're busy.\nWe have other things to do.\nThere, it seems to me the State's obligation is just as clear and definite as it is in the instance of the obligation to pay money, and I'm having difficulty drawing the distinction in principle between those two sets of circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1053.058, 1065.297, 1077.906, 1086.009, 1086.851, 1088.273], "stop_times": [1065.297, 1077.906, 1086.009, 1086.851, 1088.273, 1105.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.058}, "reply_to": "20795__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_073", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--And a lot of that falls back, Your Honor, to the issue of what the States were told, and we were told that we would have to substantially comply in order to get our funds, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1105.003], "stop_times": [1114.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.003}, "reply_to": "20795__0_072", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_074", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "So I think you're saying... I'm sorry, but may I interrupt you with this question: I think you're saying not so much that you weren't put on notice that you would have this obligation, but that the substantial compliance requirement in effect puts you on notice that you didn't have it.\nIn other words, I think you're arguing that the substantial compliance condition says, we don't worry about individual cases.\nYour only obligation is an obligation in the mass, as it were.\nIs that your argument, that it's kind of like a defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1114.0, 1129.831, 1138.246, 1143.068], "stop_times": [1129.831, 1138.246, 1143.068, 1146.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.0}, "reply_to": "20795__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__0_075", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, that is a way of looking at us, at our argument, which is we were told that we wouldn't have to do it on a comprehensive system, and we were told not only in... with... in terms of substantial compliance.\nWe were told in section 658, that would then reward us with incentives if we did better than had been anticipated.\nAs the Court found in Pennhurst, the fact that there are incentives show that there cannot be any mandatory obligations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1146.291, 1158.74, 1164.313], "stop_times": [1158.74, 1164.313, 1170.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1146.291}, "reply_to": "20795__0_074", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_076", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Mr. Delaney, in comparing the two, the direct benefit to the IV-A money, isn't there something like for social security benefits that there's an administrative route that you have to go first, and then if you're turned down, then you have further judicial review?\nIs there nothing like that for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1170.357, 1190.362], "stop_times": [1190.362, 1192.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.357}, "reply_to": "20795__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__0_077", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "There is nothing in IV-D that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1192.423], "stop_times": [1195.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.423}, "reply_to": "20795__0_076", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_078", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--And in IV-A... I'm trying to get back to Justice Souter's question, when he said well, what if you were entitled to AFDC benefits and the State didn't pay them, under the old regime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1195.875], "stop_times": [1210.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.875}, "reply_to": "20795__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__0_079", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Again, that's different than what we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1210.084], "stop_times": [1213.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.084}, "reply_to": "20795__0_078", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_080", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "And it seems to me that most benefit systems like that you have to make an application, get turned down, go through the administrative mill, and then end up in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1213.927], "stop_times": [1222.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.927}, "reply_to": "20795__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__0_081", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Right, and again the key phrase there is a benefit program.\nThat is different than title IV-D, which is... concerns services that the State is providing based on an agreement that we have with the Federal Government.\nAnd it's different because again on... we're being told that we're going to be measured with substantial compliance, with incentives, with the paternity establishment, for example, and the statute itself says that we will comply if we get anywhere between 45 and 90 percent establishment of paternity.\nThat's not 100 percent.\nWe're not being told by our Federal partner in this that we have to reach 100 percent anywhere.\nWe're being told--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1222.372, 1226.013, 1234.641, 1254.002, 1255.304, 1259.926], "stop_times": [1226.013, 1234.641, 1254.002, 1255.304, 1259.926, 1260.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.372}, "reply_to": "20795__0_080", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_082", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "What about the payments?\nWhat about the... perhaps the statute's changed so much that I don't know which version I'm dealing with, and so I might just be referring to an old statute, but this... the words I have in the red brief at the end seem to talk about IV-D.\nAnd then there's something, 42 U.S.C. 64, that says a State plan for child and spousal support must, on page 9a it says, provide that amounts collected as support shall be distributed as provided in section 657, and then section 657, which wasn't actually in the brief, seems to have, like, eight paragraphs which say rather specifically who gets what money, and then it seems like 654(b) says the State disbursement unit shall distribute all amounts payable under 657(a) within 2 business days.\nSo it seemed like there was a lot of rather specific requirements saying exactly how many dollars different people would receive, some of them being AFDC people and some of them being non-AFDC people, and I think Justice O'Connor's original question, which I thought Justice Stevens was getting at too, is doesn't at least that part of the statute create a private right, or create a 1983 action that would require the State to pay the money, the specific dollars that it must pay to the people who are entitled to those dollars?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1260.988, 1261.566, 1278.039, 1316.484], "stop_times": [1261.566, 1278.039, 1316.484, 1350.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1260.988}, "reply_to": "20795__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__0_083", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Your Honor, if we have actually received the moneys and we're holding the moneys and we don't distribute, then yes, we could be sued if we're wrongfully withholding it, but we could be sued not under title--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1350.395], "stop_times": [1363.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.395}, "reply_to": "20795__0_082", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_084", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, I would be amazed if the Constitution says you have to pay within 2 business days, as this statute does.\nI would be amazed if the Constitution has the same requirements as to how much money you can deduct for expenses or not as this statute does.\nSo are you saying that this statute does not at least give that right, the right that the very specific provisions as to actual dollars that the State would have, are you saying that this statute does not give that right to a person who is entitled to those dollars?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1363.134, 1369.348, 1378.514], "stop_times": [1369.348, 1378.514, 1397.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.134}, "reply_to": "20795__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__0_085", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Your Honor, in terms... getting back to substantial compliance, or whether we have been in substantial compliance, we don't know yet--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1397.225], "stop_times": [1403.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.225}, "reply_to": "20795__0_084", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_086", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I'm not talking about substantial compliance, you realize.\nMy question is, is it your view that the statute does not give that right to those very dollars with the specific expense deductions, the specific time periods, to the particular plaintiffs who are entitled to those dollars?\nThat was my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1403.81, 1405.843, 1419.691], "stop_times": [1405.843, 1419.691, 1420.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.81}, "reply_to": "20795__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__0_087", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--At first glance, yes.\nHowever, getting back to substantial compliance, the Secretary will be promulgating regulations saying how she is going to measure substantial compliance.\nThere are other provisions in the statute that talks about having to do certain things.\nThe Secretary has promulgated regulations and said that those time lines can be waived, those time lines can be treated differently if you collect the moneys within the audit period, and so the whole substantial compliance thing does come back in in terms of measuring whether there would be an individual right there or not, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1420.84, 1422.232, 1430.407, 1434.521], "stop_times": [1422.232, 1430.407, 1434.521, 1453.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.84}, "reply_to": "20795__0_086", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_088", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Could I follow up on that for a minute?\nSupposing you have the hypothetical situation Justice Breyer described.\nYou've got some money collected there, and you're in substantial compliance with the statute.\nYou have that money sitting there, and a plaintiff who wanted that money sued you in State court, said we want that money turned over to us.\nCould you defend on the ground that we don't have to because we're in substantial compliance with the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1453.425, 1455.204, 1459.167, 1462.941, 1470.136], "stop_times": [1455.204, 1459.167, 1462.941, 1470.136, 1474.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.425}, "reply_to": "20795__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_089", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nAgain, if we actually had the money, I don't think that we could.\nI think that we would have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1474.949, 1475.948, 1479.591], "stop_times": [1475.948, 1479.591, 1480.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.949}, "reply_to": "20795__0_088", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_090", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well then, why is substantial compliance a defense to a Federal cause of action if it's not a defense to a State cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1480.692], "stop_times": [1486.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.692}, "reply_to": "20795__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_091", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--The chief concern we have... and again, this whole line of questions has gone off on the issue of actually holding the moneys, and we think that that's a different situation because we actually have property that we are holding of someone else's.\nThat's distinguishable from the broad range of the rest of title IV-D.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1486.446, 1501.476], "stop_times": [1501.476, 1504.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1486.446}, "reply_to": "20795__0_090", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_092", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "The complaint would not argue that there's been a violation of any obligation under the act.\nThe complaint would simply say, you have my money, right?\nIt's a State law cause of action for money improperly withheld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1504.588, 1510.933, 1514.633], "stop_times": [1510.933, 1514.633, 1517.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.588}, "reply_to": "20795__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__0_093", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Exactly, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1517.536], "stop_times": [1519.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.536}, "reply_to": "20795__0_092", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_094", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "When did title to that money pass to the individual?\nIsn't there just a Federal duty to turn over an amount of money collected?\nYou say it suddenly became the idnvidual's property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1519.028, 1521.639, 1526.211], "stop_times": [1521.639, 1526.211, 1529.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.028}, "reply_to": "20795__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20795__0_095", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Well, actually, it's done pursuant to a court order, and the court order tells the individual that they have to pay.\nThen the State is sitting there as a repository, so it's really just enforcing that current court order, that we are then holding that individual's money, that we then turn it over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1529.794, 1536.279], "stop_times": [1536.279, 1545.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1529.794}, "reply_to": "20795__0_094", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_096", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "What relief was prayed for here by the plaintiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1545.044], "stop_times": [1548.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.044}, "reply_to": "20795__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__0_097", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Sweeping relief, in that they asked for an order that Arizona be ordered to achieve as well as sustain substantial compliance.\nAgain, the Secretary has already found that we are in substantial compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1548.277, 1558.682], "stop_times": [1558.682, 1561.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1548.277}, "reply_to": "20795__0_096", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_098", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "So it wasn't just a request that money held by you be turned over to individual plaintiffs, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1561.634], "stop_times": [1566.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.634}, "reply_to": "20795__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__0_099", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No.\nNo, it was not at all, Your Honor.\nIt had to do with much more broader scope, saying that we have to be held in substantial compliance, and again the Secretary has already found that we're in substantial compliance, and the Secretary's brief today tells us that that is not a right that the individuals can be enforcing.\nYour Honor, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1566.79, 1567.949, 1569.261, 1583.61], "stop_times": [1567.949, 1569.261, 1583.61, 1585.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1566.79}, "reply_to": "20795__0_098", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__0_100", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Very well, Mr. Delaney.\nMs. Berzon, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1585.319, 1587.162], "stop_times": [1587.162, 1589.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.319}, "reply_to": "20795__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__1_000", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to begin by clarifying the complaint.\nThe complaint in paragraph 143 on pages 36 and 37 of the Joint Appendix spells out the particular provisions of the statute and regulations that are being complained of here.\nThey include the collect and using the parent locator service which is specifically mandated by the statute, refusal to collect in the manner that is specifically required by the statute, refusal to carry out paternity determinations in the manner required by the statute, and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1589.623, 1602.683, 1607.145, 1622.475], "stop_times": [1602.683, 1607.145, 1622.475, 1643.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1589.623}, "reply_to": "20795__0_100", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_001", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But the--\n--What relief was requested?\nWas the counsel wrong--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1643.94, 1644.879, 1646.021], "stop_times": [1644.879, 1646.021, 1647.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.94}, "reply_to": "20795__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__1_002", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "The relief that was requested was double.\nOn page 42 there was first relief entering... asking that declaratory judgment be entered determining that the operation of Arizona's title IV-D program violates controlling substantive provisions of Federal law creating rights in plaintiffs, and those provisions are the mandatory, specific, and individual provisions that are in this statute and the implementing regulations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1647.06, 1649.333], "stop_times": [1649.333, 1670.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.06}, "reply_to": "20795__1_001", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_003", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Well, it didn't say that at all.\nIt went on to ask for grant permanent and as necessary and appropriate interlocutory injunctions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1670.765, 1672.668], "stop_times": [1672.668, 1679.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.765}, "reply_to": "20795__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__1_004", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1679.601], "stop_times": [1680.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1679.601}, "reply_to": "20795__1_003", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_005", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--prohibiting continued adherence to the aforesaid pattern and practices, and requiring affirmative measures sufficient to achieve as well as sustain substantial compliance with Federal law throughout all programmatic operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1680.122], "stop_times": [1695.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.122}, "reply_to": "20795__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__1_006", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "That's right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1695.283], "stop_times": [1696.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.283}, "reply_to": "20795__1_005", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_007", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Your answer really wasn't very careful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1696.184], "stop_times": [1698.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.184}, "reply_to": "20795__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__1_008", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I was about to get to that.\nI'm sorry.\nI was just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1698.915, 1700.444, 1700.895], "stop_times": [1700.444, 1700.895, 1701.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.915}, "reply_to": "20795__1_007", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_009", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I hope you will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1701.426], "stop_times": [1702.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.426}, "reply_to": "20795__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__1_010", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I certainly will, and what I was going to say about... I said it was double, and I was getting to the double part.\nThe double part was a request for an injunction of that kind.\nHowever, that is simply the prayer for relief.\nThe Ninth Circuit did not reach any remedial question.\nThe substance of the complaint is with respect to the specific enforceable provisions, and I would suggest that if this case was found to state a cause of action under 1983 and remanded the question of relief and whether that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1702.187, 1707.32, 1711.523, 1713.314, 1716.436], "stop_times": [1707.32, 1711.523, 1713.314, 1716.436, 1731.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.187}, "reply_to": "20795__1_009", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_011", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "What is your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1731.696], "stop_times": [1732.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.696}, "reply_to": "20795__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__1_012", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--injunction is proper is one that the Court could determine at that point, or the Court could determine now that isn't proper, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1732.676], "stop_times": [1737.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1732.676}, "reply_to": "20795__1_011", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_013", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--What is your best--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1737.791], "stop_times": [1738.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.791}, "reply_to": "20795__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__1_014", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--that is not the substance or the core of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1738.63], "stop_times": [1740.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.63}, "reply_to": "20795__1_013", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_015", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--What is your best authority for the proposition that this suit, which in effect asks for an ongoing regulatory scheme to be implemented by the State of Arizona is not barred by Ex parte Young?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1740.052], "stop_times": [1753.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.052}, "reply_to": "20795__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__1_016", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "The best authority is Edelman v. Jordan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1753.399], "stop_times": [1756.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1753.399}, "reply_to": "20795__1_015", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_017", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1756.253], "stop_times": [1756.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.253}, "reply_to": "20795__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__1_018", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Edelman v. Jordan.\nThat case is almost on all fours with this one.\nIt was a case in which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1756.712, 1758.064, 1760.836], "stop_times": [1758.064, 1760.836, 1762.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.712}, "reply_to": "20795__1_017", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_019", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, Edelman v. Jordan required that a notice be sent out.\nThis requires ongoing supervision of a State administrative scheme.\nI think that's quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1762.536, 1765.517, 1770.542], "stop_times": [1765.517, 1770.542, 1771.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.536}, "reply_to": "20795__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__1_020", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I did not understand that Edelman v. Jordan required that a notice went out.\nLater, in Koren v. Jordan, it was determined that notice of relief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1771.802, 1775.705], "stop_times": [1775.705, 1779.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.802}, "reply_to": "20795__1_019", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_021", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Oh, yes, Edelman was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1779.228], "stop_times": [1781.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.228}, "reply_to": "20795__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__1_022", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Edelman was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1781.228], "stop_times": [1782.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.228}, "reply_to": "20795__1_021", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_023", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Was for retroactive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1782.29], "stop_times": [1783.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.29}, "reply_to": "20795__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20795__1_024", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--At that time was assuming that the statute was still in effect.\nAt the time of Koren that statute had been reversed, but at the time of Edelman the statute was in effect, and Edelman understood that what the... that the ongoing injunction was going to remain in effect, that the problem was with retroactive relief, but that an injunction to continue to comply with the statute was quite at the core of what Ex parte Young is about, and the case is really indistinguishable from this one.\nIt is like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1783.449, 1786.3, 1808.296], "stop_times": [1786.3, 1808.296, 1808.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.449}, "reply_to": "20795__1_023", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_025", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Well, this case looks to me very much, frankly, as though the respondents were just asking the Federal court to step into the shoes of the Secretary at the Federal level and compel substantial compliance with the act, just as the Secretary's obligation would be, and to have the Federal court take over the entire administration of this IV-D act, and I never read that act as contemplating such a broad role for the Federal court--\nNow, that's not to say there may not be certain individual provisions in the act that are specific enough that could require enforcement, as has been discussed already, but the notion that the Federal court could be asked to come in and just take over the whole idea of whether there is substantial compliance in all its details, supervise it, struck me as going beyond any case that this case had ever handed down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1808.827, 1840.427], "stop_times": [1840.427, 1868.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.827}, "reply_to": "20795__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__1_026", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--At this juncture the issue in this case, as I understand it, is simply whether there are any enforceable rights of the particular kinds that are alleged here, and I commend again section 143, which really spells out what they are under 1983.\nThe relief available I think is really quite a separate question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1868.454, 1883.016], "stop_times": [1883.016, 1886.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1868.454}, "reply_to": "20795__1_025", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_027", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Ms. Berzon, I'm happy to talk about the individual rights rather than the whole program.\nSuppose you have a Federal statute that, let's say, provides for broadcast licenses, and the claim is that the license has been improperly denied.\nThe personsuing under 1983, however, is not the person who would have gotten the license, but rather a hot dog stand across the street from the person who would have gotten the license, who claims that he lost a lot of business, that had the license been issued here, there would have been a lot more traffic and so forth.\nWould that person have a cause of action under 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1886.767, 1891.902, 1902.899, 1919.388], "stop_times": [1891.902, 1902.899, 1919.388, 1922.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.767}, "reply_to": "20795__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_028", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I don't think he would, and I don't think that this bears any resemblance to that.\nHere we have a statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1922.811, 1925.963], "stop_times": [1925.963, 1926.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.811}, "reply_to": "20795__1_027", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_029", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Now, wait.\nSo you acknowledge that some exercise must be indulged in in deciding what is a right, deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities.\nNot everyone who is adversely affected by the failure to act has a right, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1926.974, 1927.533, 1936.799], "stop_times": [1927.533, 1936.799, 1943.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.974}, "reply_to": "20795__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_030", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--This Court's cases make that quite clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1943.765], "stop_times": [1945.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.765}, "reply_to": "20795__1_029", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_031", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--So we ask the question here, when 1983 was enacted, would these people be deemed to have rights?\nNow, a brief by an amicus suggests that at the time 1983 was enacted, under contract law third party beneficiaries of a contract between two people would not be able to sue in order to enforce the rights promised to the third party beneficiary, and that's the situation you have here.\nIt's a contract between the Federal Government and the States.\nThe States agree as part of that contract to render certain benefits, services to your clients.\nYour clients are suing as third party beneficiaries.\nAs I read the law at the time of 1983, third party beneficiaries had no right, no right to sue, just like the hot dog stand owner wouldn't have any right to sue today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1945.355, 1951.268, 1973.454, 1975.945, 1983.011, 1986.672], "stop_times": [1951.268, 1973.454, 1975.945, 1983.011, 1986.672, 1997.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.355}, "reply_to": "20795__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_032", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "First of all, this Court has really crossed that bridge a long time ago, beginning with King v. Smith, Rosado v. Wyman, Edelman v. Jordan, Thiboutot itself, Wilder, Wright and so on.\nAll of those cases have exactly the structure of this one.\nThey are cases in which the... there is a Spending Clause statute in which the State in return, and I should say here for a large amount of money from the Federal Government in a situation in which States that do their job actually come out with a net surplus, have agreed to provide specified rights, and this Court in Bennett v. Kentucky Department of Education--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [1997.1, 2008.787, 2012.21], "stop_times": [2008.787, 2012.21, 2036.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1997.1}, "reply_to": "20795__1_031", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_033", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Was this argument made in those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2036.326], "stop_times": [2037.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.326}, "reply_to": "20795__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_034", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2037.305], "stop_times": [2037.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.305}, "reply_to": "20795__1_033", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_035", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Was this argument made and rejected in those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2037.836], "stop_times": [2039.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.836}, "reply_to": "20795__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_036", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I don't know whether the third party beneficiary argument was made, but certainly the argument that the only enforcement mechanism available is that within the statute and not the one that specifically expressly provided by 1983 was made, but I would also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2039.876], "stop_times": [2056.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.876}, "reply_to": "20795__1_035", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_037", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Was there not some consideration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2056.168], "stop_times": [2056.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.168}, "reply_to": "20795__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_038", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2056.869], "stop_times": [2057.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.869}, "reply_to": "20795__1_037", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_039", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Was there not some consideration coming from the third party beneficiary in some of those casess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2057.568], "stop_times": [2061.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.568}, "reply_to": "20795__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_040", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I would say that there was probably a lot less than there is here, and here we have a situation in which the individuals have cognizable rights to the support, and what the statute is doing is assisting them providing services in obtaining the support, and I'd like to say in comment to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2061.831], "stop_times": [2077.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.831}, "reply_to": "20795__1_039", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_041", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Ms. Berzon, there's an anomaly, isn't there, in that at least the Government is insisting that substantial compliance is none of the business of the beneficiaries.\nThat's simply between the Secretary and the State.\nBut your position seems to be, or the Secretary's position seems to be that you can enforce full compliance.\nSeventy-five percent of collections won't do.\nYou can insist on full compliance.\nDoing it in 3 days instead of 2 days won't do.\nNow, isn't... how does one rationalize giving the beneficiaries a right to full compliance when all that the Secretary can insist on is substantial compliance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2077.632, 2087.938, 2091.161, 2100.298, 2109.394, 2106.762, 2112.074], "stop_times": [2087.938, 2091.161, 2100.298, 2109.394, 2106.762, 2112.074, 2125.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.632}, "reply_to": "20795__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__1_042", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Actually, it isn't true that that's all the Secretary can insist upon.\nThe structure of this statute includes title IV-A and title IV-D.\nTitle IV-A is the financial assistance provisions, which used to be AFDC and it's presently temporary assistance to needy families.\nIt is in that section and that section alone that the substantial compliance language appears, and it appears in order to delineate a special draconian penalty which says that if there is really, really noncompliance with the statute, not only is the money that's being spent for IV-D at issue, but other money, separate money, money that is not being spent for this program but for a different one is going to be docked as well.\nIn other words, it's a... really it's a separate and draconian penalty.\nSubstantial compliance does not appear in IV-D.\nIV-D is... all of the requirements set out in IV-D are mandatory, specific, universal, run to each child, every child, all children--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2125.933, 2129.045, 2134.389, 2142.455, 2168.111, 2171.453, 2175.197], "stop_times": [2129.045, 2134.389, 2142.455, 2168.111, 2171.453, 2175.197, 2184.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.933}, "reply_to": "20795__1_041", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_043", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "So then what was the letter following the audit that says you are now in substantial compliance not with everything in the world but with IV-D?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2184.822], "stop_times": [2192.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.822}, "reply_to": "20795__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__1_044", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--The letter that... first of all, I believe, and perhaps the Solicitor General can clarify this, that it was not universal in any event.\nIt was only the specific issues that were determined not to be in substantial compliance earlier.\nThere is no determination at all that at this moment Arizona is in substantial compliance and, indeed, despite the representations that were made earlier, Arizona is dead last among the States with respect to the efficiency of their collections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2192.687, 2202.503, 2207.427], "stop_times": [2202.503, 2207.427, 2220.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.687}, "reply_to": "20795__1_043", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_045", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I don't unfortunately have that particular brief with me, but I'm fairly certain that there was a broad statement that Arizona... we are pleased to tell you that Arizona is in substantial compliance with the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2220.185], "stop_times": [2234.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.185}, "reply_to": "20795__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__1_046", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But in any event, what I was going to go on to say is that the statute as read against Bell v. New Jersey, which has very similar provisions with regard to funding, would permit the Secretary to, for example, recoup misspent money and the regulations... with regard to IV-D money now, on a full compliance level.\nAnd this Court in Bennett v. Kentucky Department of Education specifically rejected a very similar argument that would have read substantial compliance in a penalty provision into the liability or obligations of the statute as a whole, and it rejected that and said it isn't true.\nIt only applies to the particular penalties as to which the substantial compliance language appears, and it does not delineate the obligation when the obligation itself is stated in a mandatory and not limited fashion.\nSo the substantial compliance issue here is largely a red herring.\nIt deals with a very specific penalty.\nIt does not deal with the Secretary's rights as to IV-D money, and it does not deal with the beneficiary's rights as to IV-D money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2234.813, 2258.61, 2276.032, 2289.2, 2295.345, 2297.586], "stop_times": [2258.61, 2276.032, 2289.2, 2295.345, 2297.586, 2304.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.813}, "reply_to": "20795__1_045", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_047", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Why do you think that's more draconian than the relief you ask for in this complaint?\nI mean, I'm not... if I were the State administrator I'm not sure that the cutting... that the monetary penalty from the Federal Government, or the cutting off of Federal Government funds, would be any worse than being subjected to a suit that demands, in effect, every individual get what the act requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2304.201, 2308.054], "stop_times": [2308.054, 2327.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.201}, "reply_to": "20795__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_048", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Again, I would like to suggest that the case at this juncture is not about relief.\nIt's about whether there is a cause of action under 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2327.936, 2332.208], "stop_times": [2332.208, 2335.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.936}, "reply_to": "20795__1_047", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_049", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I understand that, but I'm just questioning your assertion that the substantial compliance provision only applies to some draconian relief.\nIt seems to me that to insist that the State comply with every jot and tiddle of this law with respect to every person who is benefited by the contract with the Federal Government is itself pretty draconian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2335.5, 2344.396], "stop_times": [2344.396, 2356.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.5}, "reply_to": "20795__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_050", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "My argument was simply that the statute in terms makes it only available... only applicable to the relief, and that Bennett v. Kentucky Department of Education makes clear that when that's the case it applies to what it applies to and not to other provisions that do not in terms speak in other than mandatory, specific, and universal terms which the various provisions here do, and I'd like to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2356.994], "stop_times": [2381.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.994}, "reply_to": "20795__1_049", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_051", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "How could I find out which provisions you're talking about?\nMy particular problem is, suppose I thought that some of these provisions... I take it in 654, where there are 24 listed obligations, suppose I thought that some of them Congress did mean to be mandatory in the sense that they might fall within 1983, but others of them Congress didn't.\nWhat should I do here?\nIt doesn't seem to me that the parties have argued it out provision by provision.\nI didn't even know what particular provisions you'd be talking about specifically, so what... I'm quite puzzled.\nIf I thought that perhaps some but not others, what's the proper disposition of the case, and how do I know which are which?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2381.241, 2383.932, 2403.954, 2406.316, 2410.309, 2418.314], "stop_times": [2383.932, 2403.954, 2406.316, 2410.309, 2418.314, 2425.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.241}, "reply_to": "20795__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__1_052", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--The... again, the complaint is quite specific about what provisions it's complaining about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2425.17], "stop_times": [2432.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.17}, "reply_to": "20795__1_051", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_053", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "It mostly said regulations.\nIt mostly cited reguations.\nIt didn't cite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2432.873, 2434.736, 2436.105], "stop_times": [2434.736, 2436.105, 2436.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.873}, "reply_to": "20795__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__1_054", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "It mostly cites regulations, but those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2436.867], "stop_times": [2437.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.867}, "reply_to": "20795__1_053", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_055", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--So which... where do I find out which provisions of the statute you're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2437.858], "stop_times": [2441.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.858}, "reply_to": "20795__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__1_056", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Primarily the provisions of the statute that we're talking about are the ones that derive from 654(4), which is the provision that says that each child is to be provided services with regard to location, paternity, establishment of child support orders, modification, and collection, and then there are various provisions in this statute and in the regulations that spin out exactly what that means, as well as provisions in the statute which spell out the fact that the regulations are binding on the States, and that the Secretary is to issue these very specific timing regulations, which he did do.\nSo I would suggest that what we need to focus on here is the substance of the complaint, and that the relief prayed for is really quite beside the point at this juncture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2441.648, 2482.607], "stop_times": [2482.607, 2496.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2441.648}, "reply_to": "20795__1_055", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_057", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, can you give us at least an example of, if you're right that there is a claim that there is a private right, of relief that would be beyond question within the ordinary judicial realm?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2496.286], "stop_times": [2512.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.286}, "reply_to": "20795__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__1_058", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I think the relief, and I... we say this in our brief, given the very specificity of the statute and the implementing regulations, it's really not difficult.\nThe relief is, comply with them.\nThat's the relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2512.896, 2520.802, 2523.093], "stop_times": [2520.802, 2523.093, 2524.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.896}, "reply_to": "20795__1_057", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_059", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Then how does a judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2524.164], "stop_times": [2524.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.164}, "reply_to": "20795__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__1_060", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "As to the particular... I mean, obviously the person has to have standing as to whatever they're complaining about, and therefore, for example, Ms. Freestone's problem was that they were not withholding wages from her husband in the way that the statute requires, and the relief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2524.604], "stop_times": [2540.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.604}, "reply_to": "20795__1_059", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_061", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--So the direction would then be, go after her husband, and that would be the relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2540.145], "stop_times": [2543.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.145}, "reply_to": "20795__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__1_062", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Yes, and this case was pled as a class action and has been certified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2543.266], "stop_times": [2547.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2543.266}, "reply_to": "20795__1_061", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_063", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But what about, as there are many people similarly situated and we can't identify them all because we don't have the records, go after all defaulting parents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2547.679], "stop_times": [2554.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.679}, "reply_to": "20795__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__1_064", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--If there was a properly certified class action and if it were proven that there was an overall pattern of not doing so after a trial, then ordinary equitable principles would apply.\nNow, the Ninth Circuit again was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2554.654, 2567.373], "stop_times": [2567.373, 2568.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2554.654}, "reply_to": "20795__1_063", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_065", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "You said, Ms. Berzon, as the statute requires.\nTechnically the statute here doesn't require anything, does it, unless the State enters into a contract.\nThe State says... what it says is, if you agree to do this, the Federal Government agrees to do the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2568.982, 2571.714, 2577.988], "stop_times": [2571.714, 2577.988, 2582.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.982}, "reply_to": "20795__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_066", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--That's true, but the State has, and this Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2582.843], "stop_times": [2586.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2582.843}, "reply_to": "20795__1_065", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_067", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "The State has agreed, so the issue is whether the State's breaking its word with the Federal Government gives the right to people who are not parties to that contract to come in and complain about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2586.404], "stop_times": [2597.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.404}, "reply_to": "20795__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_068", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Once again, this Court, starting with Rosado v. Wyman, has dealt with this problem and in Rosado and a series of later cases has suggested the nature of relief which might be available here would be conditioned on the State continuing to take the money.\nIf the State at any point decided to opt out the money the requirements would no longer apply.\nAgain, this has been thrashed out, it's been determined, and the cases are there, so any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2597.113, 2611.29, 2615.345], "stop_times": [2611.29, 2615.345, 2622.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.113}, "reply_to": "20795__1_067", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_069", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I don't agree that it's been--\n--Were those class actions?\nWas Rosado a class action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2622.779, 2623.72, 2624.238], "stop_times": [2623.72, 2624.238, 2626.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.779}, "reply_to": "20795__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__1_070", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I believe Rosado was a class action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2626.051], "stop_times": [2628.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2626.051}, "reply_to": "20795__1_069", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_071", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Isn't... you spoke of general equitable principles of relief applying, and I guess it's not clear to me that they necessarily would, at least I think in the way you intended, because in the usual class action case I think the assumption that we make going into court is that there is no one in effect who is going to act on behalf of the class except these particular plaintiffs who are suing on behalf of the class.\nBut that's not so in a case like this, because here we have a Federal agency which presumably is in business to do precisely what the class relief is requesting, and that is to look at the big picture and to sort of take the mega enforcement action, so I would have thought that even on general equitable principles the only relief that it would be appropriate for a court to decree as opposed to leaving it to the National Government to demand would be the specific relief of those who claim that they have a particular entitlement quite apart from whatever in the main the State's failure or success may be, which is the business of the National Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2628.432, 2652.849], "stop_times": [2652.849, 2697.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.432}, "reply_to": "20795__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__1_072", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Again, this Court's cases have never drawn that distinction.\nMany of the cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2697.497, 2700.13], "stop_times": [2700.13, 2701.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.497}, "reply_to": "20795__1_071", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_073", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Why shouldn't we draw the distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2701.111], "stop_times": [2702.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.111}, "reply_to": "20795__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__1_074", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--under the Social Security Act have been class actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2702.42], "stop_times": [2703.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.42}, "reply_to": "20795__1_073", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_075", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Why shouldn't we draw the distinction?\nIn other words, why should a court in effect take over an obligation which has been pretty clearly delineated to be that of the Secretary here, as opposed to doing what courts usually do in nonclass action cases where there's nobody to act on behalf of a class if the court and the plaintiffs don't, and that is simply to provide the specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2703.512, 2705.412], "stop_times": [2705.412, 2730.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.512}, "reply_to": "20795__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__1_076", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I guess because it would be difficult to find... certainly it would be difficult to find any exception in 1983 which would preclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2730.86], "stop_times": [2738.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.86}, "reply_to": "20795__1_075", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_077", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Well, 1983 doesn't say anything one way or the other.\n1983 provides in effect jurisdiction to provide equitable relief, and the question that I'm raising is really one of equitable relief principles and that is, when you have somebody who in effect can do the work of the class action, i.e., the Secretary, why should a court do anything other than do the work that the Secretary cannot do well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2738.624, 2742.157], "stop_times": [2742.157, 2764.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.624}, "reply_to": "20795__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20795__1_078", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I guess because the individuals in question who are class representatives, if they can prove a classwide relief, are simply doing what a class action proposes.\nNow, again I'd like to reiterate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2764.541, 2776.549], "stop_times": [2776.549, 2778.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.541}, "reply_to": "20795__1_077", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_079", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Ms. Berzon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2778.922], "stop_times": [2780.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.922}, "reply_to": "20795__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__1_080", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2780.703], "stop_times": [2781.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2780.703}, "reply_to": "20795__1_079", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20795__1_081", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Your time has expired.\nMs. Millett, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2781.294, 2781.794], "stop_times": [2781.794, 2784.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.294}, "reply_to": "20795__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__2_000", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nBefore I make my points, I would like to clarify Arizona's status with respect to substantial compliance.\nIt is incorrect to say that we have found them in substantial compliance in their overall operations.\nThe 1994 letter to which Justice Ginsburg referred states only that we have found them in substantial... and this is at page 1 of the reply to the cert petition, that appendix.\nThe program has achieved substantial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2784.596, 2799.646, 2805.42, 2812.024, 2822.903], "stop_times": [2799.646, 2805.42, 2812.024, 2822.903, 2825.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2784.596}, "reply_to": "20795__1_081", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_001", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Where are you reading from, Ms. Millett?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2825.993], "stop_times": [2826.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.993}, "reply_to": "20795__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__2_002", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nIt's the reply to... the cert reply, at the cert stage, appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2826.804, 2827.095], "stop_times": [2827.095, 2832.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2826.804}, "reply_to": "20795__2_001", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_003", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Reply by whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2832.869], "stop_times": [2834.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.869}, "reply_to": "20795__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__2_004", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--The reply by Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2834.311], "stop_times": [2836.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2834.311}, "reply_to": "20795__2_003", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_005", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Whose reply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2836.562], "stop_times": [2836.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.562}, "reply_to": "20795__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__2_006", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Their cert petition reply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2836.982], "stop_times": [2838.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2836.982}, "reply_to": "20795__2_005", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_007", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Arizona's?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2838.191], "stop_times": [2838.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2838.191}, "reply_to": "20795__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__2_008", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Yes.\nThey filed... the reply at the cert page, and app 1... at app 1 the letter states that the program has achieved substantial compliance with the unmet criteria cited in our March 1992 penalty notice.\nThere's no broad finding of substantial compliance, and in fact we have not made that yet.\nWe do not know what... I'm not suggesting this has happened by Arizona.\nWe don't know.\nAs I said, we have investigated, but it would... it's not uncommon in these circumstances for agencies to focus on... State agencies to focus on the unmet criteria, and then that takes resources away from another one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2838.562, 2838.842, 2855.254, 2860.917, 2864.768, 2865.469], "stop_times": [2838.842, 2855.254, 2860.917, 2864.768, 2865.469, 2875.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2838.562}, "reply_to": "20795__2_007", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_009", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Ms. Millett, as to the criterion, the Government's brief said something about three different kinds of provisions.\nThey said, there are some that are not judicially enforceable at all, some that are judicially enforceable, and some that are not judicially enforceable to the same degree as others, so you laid out those three categories but you didn't fill any of them.\nSo looking at this, the dozens and dozens of quite specific requirements, how does a court say which ones are not judicially enforceable at all, which ones are fully judicially enforceable, and which ones are judicially enforceable somewhat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2875.507, 2882.521, 2901.403], "stop_times": [2882.521, 2901.403, 2918.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.507}, "reply_to": "20795__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__2_010", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I think you have to look at the plain language of the statute and the regulations.\nParts of the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2918.054, 2923.009], "stop_times": [2923.009, 2924.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2918.054}, "reply_to": "20795__2_009", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_011", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Well, you've looked at them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2924.058], "stop_times": [2924.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.058}, "reply_to": "20795__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__2_012", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2924.9], "stop_times": [2925.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2924.9}, "reply_to": "20795__2_011", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_013", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "So can you give--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2925.32], "stop_times": [2925.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.32}, "reply_to": "20795__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__2_014", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2925.901], "stop_times": [2926.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2925.901}, "reply_to": "20795__2_013", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_015", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Since you set out those categories, can you fill them for us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2926.6], "stop_times": [2929.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.6}, "reply_to": "20795__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__2_016", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Certainly.\nExamples of the types of things we just don't think are judicially enforceable at all because they don't create rights are some of the sort of macroadministrative mechanisms under the statute, things such as, we discussed the substantial compliance requirement, which is just a penalty provision that we administer, the existence of a computer system writ large.\nThe general scheme for operating, the tools for operating this are not the types of things that would be judicially enforceable because they do not run to individuals as rights.\nSpecific things that are judicially enforceable, just in the statute itself... the regulations we think creates many, many more, but the statute itself talks about, as Justice O'Connor already mentioned, the requirement the States distribute proceeds collected in a specific manner and under the new act between certain specific times frames is a specific enforceable right that runs to the individual.\nIt's their money, and Congress has said you have a right to get it in a certain amount of time, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2929.233, 2929.731, 2947.743, 2957.06, 2982.096], "stop_times": [2929.731, 2947.743, 2957.06, 2982.096, 2985.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2929.233}, "reply_to": "20795__2_015", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_017", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Congress hasn't said that.\nIt's not really a right.\nIf the State had chosen not to go into this program nobody would have any rights to anything here.\nIf there is any entitlement to it, it is through the contract between the State and the Federal Government, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2985.818, 2986.679, 2988.181, 2992.082], "stop_times": [2986.679, 2988.181, 2992.082, 2997.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.818}, "reply_to": "20795__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__2_018", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2997.957], "stop_times": [2999.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2997.957}, "reply_to": "20795__2_017", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_019", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "It's too misleading to refer to it casually as a right.\nIt may be a right, or it may not be a right, and that's part of the issue.\nIt arises out of this contract, and that's what makes it difficult to decide these Government grant and benefit program cases, as distinguished from those cases in which the Federal Government does create rights.\nAutomatically it says the States must do this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [2999.429, 3003.072, 3006.171, 3017.269], "stop_times": [3003.072, 3006.171, 3017.269, 3019.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.429}, "reply_to": "20795__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__2_020", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Well, some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3019.25], "stop_times": [3020.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3019.25}, "reply_to": "20795__2_019", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_021", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Then you have a 1983 right, and it's easy to talk cavalierly about rights, but every time you say right, I... you know, I think that's really what's at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3020.011], "stop_times": [3030.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.011}, "reply_to": "20795__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20795__2_022", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Sometimes Congress creates things that are recognized as rights outside the contract context, such as a Clean Water Act, a Clean Air Act, that don't apply to States until they choose to enter into an activity that is covered.\nThis would be the same way.\nYes, if no one gets into this program, although all 50 States are, there are no rights, but once you get in you are bound by the Federal law that you have voluntarily chosen to submit to and been paid substantially to comply with.\nThis Court's decisions, previous decisions involving these types of contract cooperative relationships have all recognized that once you're in we can decide whether or not the Federal law you have now agreed to comply with creates rights, and we believe that to underscore this with respect to the Social Security Act, Congress acted after this Court's decision in Suter and passed 42 U.S.C. section 132a-2, and that underscored Congress' intent that under 1983 this type of relationship, once it's entered into, can create rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3030.317, 3042.315, 3043.627, 3056.365], "stop_times": [3042.315, 3043.627, 3056.365, 3089.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3030.317}, "reply_to": "20795__2_021", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_023", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Yes, but there may be very few socalled privately enforceable rights here because the statutory scheme is one that essentially wants the States to be involved in a program to substantially carry out the Federal vision, and to be involved in substantially trying to help people collect child support, but clearly it's not going to be effective in every case.\nThere are deadbeats who are never going to be located or who don't have the money.\nYou can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, and you've never going to get it, and Congress surely didn't contemplate here that for most of these provisions that there are individual rights which the statute never contemplated the State would be required to carry out in every single case.\nIt was seeking broadly substantial compliance.\nThere may be some individual exceptions within the act, such as where money has in fact been collected and not paid over, but I think those might be few and far between.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3089.316, 3118.504, 3124.041, 3145.111, 3148.104], "stop_times": [3118.504, 3124.041, 3145.111, 3148.104, 3158.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3089.316}, "reply_to": "20795__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20795__2_024", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Your Honor, we would disagree.\nCongress wants full compliance.\nThe fact that it has a penalty provision in IV-A and not in IV-D, in IV-A, in terms of substantial compliance is no different.\nThe old AFDC program had a substantial compliance penalty provision, too.\nThey concede that that was enforceable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3158.062, 3160.022, 3162.315, 3169.779, 3174.25], "stop_times": [3160.022, 3162.315, 3169.779, 3174.25, 3176.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3158.062}, "reply_to": "20795__2_023", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_025", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Does the Secretary have authority to do anything other than those draconian things, either suspend payment or dock payments?\nCould the Secretary seek the kind of relief these plaintiffs are seeking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3176.393, 3183.258], "stop_times": [3183.258, 3188.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.393}, "reply_to": "20795__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__2_026", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "We think that the Secretary and the United States generally has the same right under a contract as any other party to seek specific performance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3188.292], "stop_times": [3195.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3188.292}, "reply_to": "20795__2_025", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_027", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "And how about the Secretary herself?\nSuppose that... we have a letter talking about 1992, written in 1994.\nSuppose the plaintiffs say the real problem is the Secretary.\nShe is just letting the States get away with murder, so we want to sue the Secretary for insufficiently monitoring this program, not simply in Arizona.\nThere may be States that are much worse than Arizona.\nHow about that?\nWould there be a claim?\nWhat is the Government's position?\nCould the Secretary be sued for abysmal lack of enforcement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3195.906, 3197.758, 3203.951, 3208.335, 3219.019, 3222.672, 3223.113, 3224.475, 3227.467], "stop_times": [3197.758, 3203.951, 3208.335, 3219.019, 3222.672, 3223.113, 3224.475, 3227.467, 3232.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.906}, "reply_to": "20795__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__2_028", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I think that you would have... a plaintiff would have serious standing problems that sound a lot like Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, where they were trying to sue the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to change a rule which would then require... supposedly require hospitals to change their conduct which then might result in benefits to the plaintiffs.\nThat would be the same sort of attenuated scenario.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3232.669, 3250.221], "stop_times": [3250.221, 3252.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3232.669}, "reply_to": "20795__2_027", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_029", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I don't see that, because here the Secretary can take away they money.\nThere the question was, how would the hospitals respond?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3252.813, 3257.446], "stop_times": [3257.446, 3260.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3252.813}, "reply_to": "20795__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__2_030", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "We could take away the money.\nAs a second tier we also think that our audit and penalty things are committed to agency discretion so there would be a second problem beyond that, and there's nothing in the statute that would allow a court to determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3260.598, 3262.94], "stop_times": [3262.94, 3272.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3260.598}, "reply_to": "20795__2_029", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_031", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "So your answer is that there would be... there is standing against the State Department of Welfare but there would be no standing against the Secretary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3272.767], "stop_times": [3280.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.767}, "reply_to": "20795__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20795__2_032", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Right, because the person that... because what they want is services, and we don't deliver the services, and this was the same problem again in Simon.\nYou need to sue the person who can give you what you want, to make it very simple.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3280.712, 3286.756], "stop_times": [3286.756, 3290.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3280.712}, "reply_to": "20795__2_031", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_033", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Can I ask about... I just have one question in this case which stems from your idea that some of these are enforceable and others are not.\nThat's why I wanted to find out which one they're talking about, and they say they're talking about 654(4) primarily, and if I look at that, that provision says that the State has to promise it will undertake to establish the paternity of the child, and that the State will undertake to secure support for the child.\nNow, those are the two provisions.\nIt seems to me those are awfully vague and general.\nSo now... I'm sure that's what they'll say.\nI want to know what is it that leads you to think that those words that I just quote are meant to give a specifically enforceable right to an individual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3290.567, 3296.661, 3316.365, 3318.576, 3320.677, 3323.538], "stop_times": [3296.661, 3316.365, 3318.576, 3320.677, 3323.538, 3332.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3290.567}, "reply_to": "20795__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__2_034", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "I think it's those words in combination with others.\nWe don't think that every single stage of paternity or support services is enforceable.\nYou have to look at the statute regs and see if it spells it out.\nLet me give you an example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3332.004, 3334.538, 3339.76, 3342.842], "stop_times": [3334.538, 3339.76, 3342.842, 3343.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3332.004}, "reply_to": "20795__2_033", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_035", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "The regs?\nYou mean you're saying the regs are what are enforceable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3343.783, 3344.302], "stop_times": [3344.302, 3346.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.783}, "reply_to": "20795__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__2_036", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "No.\nThere's statutory provisions and regulations both.\nLet me... I can give you a couple of examples of statutory provisions in the... that might affect these plaintiffs.\nFirst of all, there's the distribution one that's already been discussed.\nSection 654(8) requires that when someone seeks location services--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3346.723, 3347.214, 3349.745, 3354.479, 3357.642], "stop_times": [3347.214, 3349.745, 3354.479, 3357.642, 3363.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3346.723}, "reply_to": "20795__2_035", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_037", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3363.335], "stop_times": [3363.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.335}, "reply_to": "20795__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__2_038", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--you must use a Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3363.826], "stop_times": [3365.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3363.826}, "reply_to": "20795__2_037", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_039", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Okay, I got... I understand your point now.\nBut then what am I supposed to do if I think you have made the... I'm not sure about 654(4) and I don't feel they've argued that specifically.\nMaybe you have.\nBut what do I... what am I supposed to do if I think some were not argued, particularly not 654(4), with enough detail for me to decide?\nSome you may be right on.\nOthers you may be not.\nWhat am I supposed to do with this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3365.066, 3366.528, 3375.064, 3376.286, 3383.769, 3385.959, 3387.622], "stop_times": [3366.528, 3375.064, 3376.286, 3383.769, 3385.959, 3387.622, 3389.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3365.066}, "reply_to": "20795__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__2_040", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I believe a remand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3389.372], "stop_times": [3391.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3389.372}, "reply_to": "20795__2_039", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_041", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3391.205], "stop_times": [3391.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3391.205}, "reply_to": "20795__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__2_042", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--I believe a remand would be appropriate.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3391.575, 3393.015], "stop_times": [3393.015, 3394.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3391.575}, "reply_to": "20795__2_041", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20795__2_043", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Millett.\nMr. Delaney, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3394.077, 3396.067], "stop_times": [3396.067, 3399.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3394.077}, "reply_to": "20795__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__3_000", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI have just three quick points.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3399.32, 3400.372], "stop_times": [3400.372, 3401.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3399.32}, "reply_to": "20795__2_043", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__3_001", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "You'd better hurry up and make them.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3401.32, 3403.413], "stop_times": [3403.413, 3404.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.32}, "reply_to": "20795__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__3_002", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Ms. Berzon was talking about looking at the substance of the complaint.\nIf you look at paragraph 132(t), they complain about the extraordinary staff personnel shortages as the paramount cause of noncompliance with IV-D requirements.\nThen at 133, paragraph 133, they complain that Linda Blessing lacks the authority to direct the legal work of the AG's office, and at 134 they complain about the fact that title IV-D at the State level incurs problems with clerks in the Superior Court.\nWhat they're asking for here is not a structural injunction.\nThey're asking for a restructural injunction because they want a Federal judge to come in and tell Arizona how to redo its State government activities, and as the SG's representative just said, you need to sue the person who can grant the relief.\nLinda Blessing cannot redo what the Arizona legislature's budgetary concerns are.\nLinda Blessing cannot go out and reconfigure the lines of Arizona State government so that she can control the AG's office, and she cannot go out and rewrite Arizona government in terms of having to make the counties comply.\nSo it really boils down to, what's a Federal court going to do here?\nIs it going to duplicate what the Secretary's done, or will it be imposing new duties beyond whatever the Congress has passed?\nMy second point gets to one that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg have raised, which is, how do I know which are which?\nThe SG has just told us, well, we can look at them provision by provision, and some are and some aren't.\nWe have to guess and hope that we come up with the answer.\nWe believe that the Constitution says otherwise.\nThe Spending Clause as this Court has interpreted says that the States have to know unambiguously what is enforceable and what is not.\nWe have to know in advance so that we can make the determination whether we want to accept this agreement or not, and the Constitution requires that it be spelled out by Congress and not by judges who have to guess which ones are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3404.913, 3407.325, 3416.751, 3431.45, 3434.732, 3447.943, 3453.775, 3468.616, 3472.188, 3478.4, 3486.218, 3490.868, 3493.47, 3496.552, 3503.708], "stop_times": [3407.325, 3416.751, 3431.45, 3434.732, 3447.943, 3453.775, 3468.616, 3472.188, 3478.4, 3486.218, 3490.868, 3493.47, 3496.552, 3503.708, 3516.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3404.913}, "reply_to": "20795__3_001", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__3_003", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "But their argument will be, when I look at 644(4) and look at all the regs, I'll discover it's very, very specific, and if it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3516.147], "stop_times": [3522.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3516.147}, "reply_to": "20795__3_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20795__3_004", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "--Again, we think that that should be something that they do across the street rather than out at the various district courts or even at State courts to be guessing, well, this one looks like it is, and this one looks like it isn't.\nInstead of having a Nation-wide uniform system we're going to wind up with a judge in Phoenix looking at something different than one in Massachusetts and saying that the same provision is or is not enforceable.\nCongress should be doing that.\nAnd my final point, just racing through here, Justice Ginsburg, you had asked a question about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3522.97, 3535.408, 3546.324, 3547.746], "stop_times": [3535.408, 3546.324, 3547.746, 3555.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3522.97}, "reply_to": "20795__3_003", "speaker": "c_tim_delaney"}
{"id": "20795__3_005", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Delaney.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3555.23, 3557.842], "stop_times": [3557.842, 3559.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3555.23}, "reply_to": "20795__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20795__3_006", "conversation_id": "20795", "text": "Two out of three ain't bad.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1441", "start_times": [3559.425, 3560.442], "stop_times": [3560.442, 3561.227], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3559.425}, "reply_to": "20795__3_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21028__0_000", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1100, Board of the County Commissioners... the spectators are admonished, do not talk until you get out of the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nWe'll hear argument now in Number 95-1100, the Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Jill Brown.\nMr. Jefferson, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [0.0, 14.061, 15.653, 21.678], "stop_times": [14.061, 15.653, 21.678, 39.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__0_001", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma, are required by statute to levy and collect nearly $900,000 in taxes to satisfy the judgment in this case.\nThe taxpayers might reasonably inquire how they became liable to pay such damages to the respondents.\nThe answer cannot readily be found in any decision of this Court, rather derives from an unprecedented extension of municipal liability contained in the decision of the Fifth Circuit.\nThe Fifth Circuit says Bryan County is liable under section 1983 because its sheriff employed his nephew, who subsequently was held to have used excessive force during the course of an investigatory stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [39.499, 42.421, 51.567, 57.011, 68.268], "stop_times": [42.421, 51.567, 57.011, 68.268, 81.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 39.499}, "reply_to": "21028__0_000", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_002", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mr. Jefferson, would you just straighten me out on how much money is at stake?\nI thought that apart from $100,000 the rest of the award against the county sticks because it's just based on State law negligence?\nWasn't that... that the State has consented, or the county is liable for ordinary negligence under State law, no civil right thing.\nSo we're talking about only $100,000 of the award.\nIs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [81.116, 87.591, 98.237, 104.883, 108.285], "stop_times": [87.591, 98.237, 104.883, 108.285, 109.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.116}, "reply_to": "21028__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__0_003", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No, Your Honor, I think that's incorrect.\nThe judgment against the county was for the violation of civil rights, and in fact the Fifth Circuit didn't reach the question of negligence.\nThat issues remain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [109.324, 110.546, 118.429], "stop_times": [110.546, 118.429, 120.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.324}, "reply_to": "21028__0_002", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_004", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--That's what the jury... wasn't this a jury trial, and didn't they have a set of interrogatories that they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [120.561], "stop_times": [120.561], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 120.561}, "reply_to": "21028__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21028__0_005", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Your Honor, if you'll look at the judgment, the judgment that's in the appendix to the petition for cert..\nThe judgment itself awards damages jointly and severally against the county and against the officer for somewhere near 800,000.\nMy figure of $900,000--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [120.561, 126.945, 144.066], "stop_times": [126.945, 144.066, 144.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.561}, "reply_to": "21028__0_004", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_006", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Yes, but look at 42(a), and the only two items that seem to be related to the 1983 exclusively are (k) and (l).\nThe jury answered yes to interrogatory 8 and 9, do you find that the county was negligent, and the same thing in interrogatory 9.\nThere were State law negligence claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [144.998, 152.982, 168.031], "stop_times": [152.982, 168.031, 170.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.998}, "reply_to": "21028__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__0_007", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [170.174], "stop_times": [171.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.174}, "reply_to": "21028__0_006", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_008", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--given to the jury, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [171.494], "stop_times": [172.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.494}, "reply_to": "21028__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__0_009", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [172.125], "stop_times": [173.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.125}, "reply_to": "21028__0_008", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_010", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Do your arguments here depend on the amount of jury verdict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [173.106], "stop_times": [176.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.106}, "reply_to": "21028__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__0_011", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "They do not.\nThey do not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [176.609, 176.939], "stop_times": [176.939, 177.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.609}, "reply_to": "21028__0_010", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_012", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [177.628], "stop_times": [177.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.628}, "reply_to": "21028__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__0_013", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "They do not depend on the amount, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [177.979], "stop_times": [180.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.979}, "reply_to": "21028__0_012", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_014", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But you... in the opening you made a statement about how much was at stake, and I just wanted to point out that it seems to me that most of this is plain old ordinary negligence under State law, and we're only talking about part of the award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [180.102], "stop_times": [191.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.102}, "reply_to": "21028__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__0_015", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--I appreciate that, Justice Ginsburg.\nWhat the Fifth Circuit found was that because the nephew pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and other misdemeanor offenses before he was hired, the Fifth Circuit held that the Sheriff was precluded from hiring him in the first place.\nIn its 2 to 1 opinion, the court then held that the sheriff's decision actually caused the injury suffered by the respondent at the hands of the nephew.\nWe contend the Fifth Circuit is wrong on several fronts.\nIn the first place, Bryan County never adopted an official policy of employing unqualified applicants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [191.816, 193.419, 207.247, 215.372, 218.236], "stop_times": [193.419, 207.247, 215.372, 218.236, 224.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.816}, "reply_to": "21028__0_014", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_016", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "What instructions on causation were given here, and what should have been given, and did the county preserve any objection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [224.708], "stop_times": [234.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.708}, "reply_to": "21028__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__0_017", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe instructions are contained in 124(a) through 132(a) of the Joint Appendix.\nThe instruction on causation was the standard deliberate indifference instruction that this Court has derived from Canton and other cases.\nThe objections were clear.\nThe objections were that there is no policy in this case of hiring unqualified applicants, there is no policy of hiring one individual officer, and that as a matter of law the case ought not to be submitted to the jury.\nWe moved for summary judgment.\nWe moved for a directed verdict.\nWe renewed the directed verdict.\nWe moved for JNOV, or a motion for judgment both before and after the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [234.294, 235.146, 240.74, 249.736, 251.596, 263.915, 265.427, 266.887, 268.209], "stop_times": [235.146, 240.74, 249.736, 251.596, 263.915, 265.427, 266.887, 268.209, 272.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.294}, "reply_to": "21028__0_016", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_018", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Do you think that perhaps the jury under these instructions could have based liability on a finding of just but-for causation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [272.39], "stop_times": [281.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.39}, "reply_to": "21028__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__0_019", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Exactly, Your Honor.\nI think that that is what they found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [281.697, 282.388], "stop_times": [282.388, 284.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.697}, "reply_to": "21028__0_018", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_020", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And has this Court approved that approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [284.148], "stop_times": [286.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 284.148}, "reply_to": "21028__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__0_021", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It has not.\nIt has not approved that approach, and in fact the causation has to be much more highly regulated than a but-for causation under Canton, under Tuttle, under every single case that this Court has decided in the section 1983 context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [286.528, 287.019], "stop_times": [287.019, 300.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.528}, "reply_to": "21028__0_020", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_022", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mr. Jefferson, could we go back to the question of policy, and you have said the county doesn't have a policy here, and I guess more exactly the sheriff doesn't have a policy here of hiring unqualified or violence-prone applicants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [300.96], "stop_times": [313.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.96}, "reply_to": "21028__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_023", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [313.717], "stop_times": [314.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.717}, "reply_to": "21028__0_022", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_024", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It makes perfect sense to distinguish between policy and implementation, or failure to implement the policy, when the policy is made by one person or body and it's being carried out by another one.\nIf the county commissioners were setting this policy and they said, investigate the applicants carefully and don't hire ones with criminal records indicating violence, and somebody like the sheriff, for whatever reason, failed to follow it, we would say one instance does not convert that instance into county policy.\nIt's only when the policymakers know that it's not being carried out and they do nothing about it that we can say they become deliberately indifferent to it, and so on.\nThe trouble is, here we have a different situation.\nThe policy is being made by the sheriff himself, and on the one hand we'll assume that the sheriff has traditionally had a general policy of investigating applicants and not hiring those with criminal records indicating violence, but we also have to face the fact that it was the sheriff himself who said, in effect, I didn't even bother to finish reading the criminal record.\nI didn't care.\nWhen the policymaker himself does not follow that policy, why don't we judge the policymaker based on that one instance, rather than saying, oh, well, we'll wait and see if he does it several times before we attribute a change of policy to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [314.678, 329.709, 353.453, 362.41, 366.121, 391.93, 393.239], "stop_times": [329.709, 353.453, 362.41, 366.121, 391.93, 393.239, 412.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.678}, "reply_to": "21028__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_025", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I think there are several answers to that question.\nMaybe even not the first in order of priority is, compare what happened in this case to what happened in Pembaur, where again the county prosecutor there made one decision and the Court held in a plurality opinion that was enough to establish liability of the county.\nThat decision to go in without a warrant and arrest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [412.212, 416.173, 432.476], "stop_times": [416.173, 432.476, 436.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.212}, "reply_to": "21028__0_024", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_026", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Because it was a deliberate decision in that case, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [436.856], "stop_times": [439.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.856}, "reply_to": "21028__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_027", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--It was a deliberate decision, that's correct, Your Honor, just like in our case a deliberate decision to hire Stacy Burns, no question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [439.049], "stop_times": [444.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 439.049}, "reply_to": "21028__0_026", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_028", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And a deliberate decision not to even finish reading the criminal record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [444.403], "stop_times": [448.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.403}, "reply_to": "21028__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_029", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Or negligence, a negligent... a negligent failure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [448.316], "stop_times": [452.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.316}, "reply_to": "21028__0_028", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_030", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, do we have the option to characterize it as negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [452.277], "stop_times": [454.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 452.277}, "reply_to": "21028__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_031", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--I think we can speculate that that's what it is.\nI think the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [454.388, 457.54], "stop_times": [457.54, 458.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 454.388}, "reply_to": "21028__0_030", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_032", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "What was the standard put to the jury?\nDid they have to find that there was deliberate indifference, and if they found that there was, then we can't call it negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [458.071, 460.334], "stop_times": [460.334, 467.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.071}, "reply_to": "21028__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_033", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--They had to find that it was deliberate indifference, but the facts of the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [467.618], "stop_times": [471.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.618}, "reply_to": "21028__0_032", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_034", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "So why doesn't that put it in the same class with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [471.812], "stop_times": [473.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.812}, "reply_to": "21028__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_035", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Because the facts of the case are as consistent... when you look at the facts, they're as consistent with either finding negligence, failure to use ordinary care, or, Your Honors, even a finding that he was pursuing his own personal interest in hiring... employing his nephew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [473.561], "stop_times": [487.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.561}, "reply_to": "21028__0_034", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_036", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Yes, but the jury did find deliberate indifference, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [487.25], "stop_times": [488.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.25}, "reply_to": "21028__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_037", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "You're correct, Your Honor, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [488.171], "stop_times": [489.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.171}, "reply_to": "21028__0_036", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_038", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "So that the fact... we have to take the facts as they come to us, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [489.273], "stop_times": [492.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.273}, "reply_to": "21028__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_039", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--And I'm offering the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [492.605], "stop_times": [493.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.605}, "reply_to": "21028__0_038", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_040", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I don't know why we would recharacterize them, and if we don't recharacterize them, why aren't we in a Pembaur situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [493.845], "stop_times": [500.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.845}, "reply_to": "21028__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_041", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Justice Souter, the other answer to that question is, in Pembaur it was a governmental purpose that this county prosecutor was furthering.\nI think the answer here is, we don't know what the purpose was, and I don't think, just because the jury found that there was deliberate indifference here that you're... this Court is bound to that opinion, when... when there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [500.4, 511.296], "stop_times": [511.296, 524.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.4}, "reply_to": "21028__0_040", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_042", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mr. Jefferson--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [524.745], "stop_times": [525.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.745}, "reply_to": "21028__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_043", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [525.665], "stop_times": [526.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.665}, "reply_to": "21028__0_042", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_044", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--We're talking about policy.\nThe word policy isn't in the statute, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [526.456, 527.337], "stop_times": [527.337, 529.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.456}, "reply_to": "21028__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_045", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No, it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [529.227], "stop_times": [529.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.227}, "reply_to": "21028__0_044", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_046", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I mean, that's just sort of a shorthand that we've used, and maybe in a close case we should stop using it.\nThe statute doesn't require a policy, it requires a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.\nNow, maybe a single act may establish a policy, but it's hard to see how a single act can establish a custom or usage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [529.978, 535.442, 542.808], "stop_times": [535.442, 542.808, 549.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.978}, "reply_to": "21028__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_047", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I think that's exactly correct, Your Honor, and this raises... this case raises the question in Pembaur which I don't think was fully resolved, and Chief Justice Rehnquist, you'll recall this.\nIs it the case that every time someone who is designated policymaker makes a decision, no matter what is is, that he's making policy for the county?\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [549.661, 561.669, 572.846], "stop_times": [561.669, 572.846, 573.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.661}, "reply_to": "21028__0_046", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_048", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Isn't the answer to that clearly no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [573.767], "stop_times": [575.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.767}, "reply_to": "21028__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_049", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [575.467], "stop_times": [576.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.467}, "reply_to": "21028__0_048", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_050", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But whether he is or whether he isn't depends on whether the action is essentially a negligent action or whether it's an intentional one.\nIf I was just careless... if, you know, the coffee was boiling over and I forgot to come back and finish reading the record of the applicant, sure, negligence.\nBut if, in fact, I simply said here's this record, I don't know what's in it, I'm not even going to bother to finish reading it, I suppose that's intentional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [576.278, 584.566, 593.903], "stop_times": [584.566, 593.903, 606.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 576.278}, "reply_to": "21028__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_051", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Even if he had read it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [606.468], "stop_times": [607.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.468}, "reply_to": "21028__0_050", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_052", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Isn't that what it turns on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [607.289], "stop_times": [608.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.289}, "reply_to": "21028__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_053", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--I think... I think not, Your Honor, but even if he had read what was in the record... and this is a very central point here, and it's not an easy one to make based on these facts, but I think the analysis has to be this way.\nEven if he had read that record, he was authorized to put this person on the force under the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [608.13, 621.709], "stop_times": [621.709, 628.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.13}, "reply_to": "21028__0_052", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_054", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, he may have been authorized by State law, but there would be a question of whether it was constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [628.223], "stop_times": [632.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.223}, "reply_to": "21028__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_055", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I disagree with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [632.876], "stop_times": [634.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.876}, "reply_to": "21028__0_054", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_056", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [634.158], "stop_times": [634.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.158}, "reply_to": "21028__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_057", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Because there's nothing in the Constitution or in any opinion of this court that I'm aware of that says that it is unconstitutional to hire somebody who has a background of misdemeanor arrests.\nIf... and/or conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [634.488, 648.306], "stop_times": [648.306, 650.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.488}, "reply_to": "21028__0_056", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_058", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No, I mean, we are... our standards are not that specific, but we do have a standard of... which we've been characterizing as deliberate indifference, and I would suppose that it could be found to be within the scope of deliberate indifference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [650.457], "stop_times": [662.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 650.457}, "reply_to": "21028__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_059", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, I disagree, and I think that that is a policy question for the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [662.214], "stop_times": [666.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.214}, "reply_to": "21028__0_058", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_060", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, Mr. Jefferson, even if there's a finding here of deliberate indifference, does that mean that the jury does not have to evaluate whether that single act of deliberate indifference caused the respondent's injuries?\nI don't think they were asked to decide that.\nIt was a theory that, well, this employee was hired, and therefore there had to be causation, because if he hadn't been hired, this accident wouldn't have occurred, and isn't something more required than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [666.868, 685.631, 688.143], "stop_times": [685.631, 688.143, 703.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.868}, "reply_to": "21028__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__0_061", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI mean, there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [703.702, 704.543], "stop_times": [704.543, 705.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.702}, "reply_to": "21028__0_060", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_062", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Even if there was deliberate indifference in a single act of hiring, it seems to me an act that no law required or prohibited the hiring of someone with misdemeanor convictions, and--\n--Isn't it true, Mr. Jefferson, that the jury specifically found that the inadequate hiring directly caused the plaintiff's injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [705.575, 720.434], "stop_times": [720.434, 726.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.575}, "reply_to": "21028__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__0_063", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--It did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [726.077], "stop_times": [726.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.077}, "reply_to": "21028__0_062", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_064", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes.\nSo there was a finding on causation direct--\n--In a but-for sense.\nBut there's no... but-for is not used in the instruction, is it?\nBut it could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [726.448, 726.916, 729.079, 730.238, 732.8], "stop_times": [726.916, 729.079, 730.238, 732.8, 733.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.448}, "reply_to": "21028__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_065", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But that's the only evidence of it, Your Honor.\nI mean, it's only a but-for... the evidence behind this jury's verdict is only in a but-for and a vicarious sense, that there's a causative link of any kind between the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [733.471, 734.973], "stop_times": [734.973, 744.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.471}, "reply_to": "21028__0_064", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_066", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, is your principal argument that there was inadequate evidence to support the judgment?\nThen we don't have to wrestle with the question of whether a single incident could constitute a policy, if that's the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [744.888, 747.703], "stop_times": [747.703, 753.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.888}, "reply_to": "21028__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_067", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--I believe that that is our position.\nThe evidence doesn't support--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [753.246, 757.397], "stop_times": [757.397, 758.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.246}, "reply_to": "21028__0_066", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_068", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "We could basically set the judgment aside for inadequate evidence.\nOn the single incident point, is it the county's position that if the sheriff had before him a record that showed us not just misdemeanor... you of course say that's a minor record, but had a record before him of a series of felonies and violent behavior, and just an extremely obvious danger putting the officer on the street, that that still could not constitute a basis for liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [758.559, 761.11], "stop_times": [761.11, 784.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.559}, "reply_to": "21028__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_069", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--I think you have to be very careful, Your Honor, when we're talking about what is really a negligent hiring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [784.255], "stop_times": [788.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.255}, "reply_to": "21028__0_068", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_070", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I'm assuming that the record is so clear that any competent sheriff would have recognized a serious danger to the public by letting this man be hired as a police officer.\nThat still would not justify liability, as I understand your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [788.957, 801.135], "stop_times": [801.135, 804.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.957}, "reply_to": "21028__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_071", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It would not.\nIt would not be unconstitutional to hire him, and I'll support that with a case that Your Honor wrote for a unanimous Court, the Collins v. Harker Heights case.\nThere was clear evidence there.\nIt's under the Due Process Clause, and I understand that's a different amendment that we're talking about, but there was clear evidence there that sending this person down into the sewer was going to result in death.\nI mean, that's what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [804.437, 805.008, 812.722, 814.364, 825.042], "stop_times": [805.008, 812.722, 814.364, 825.042, 825.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.437}, "reply_to": "21028__0_070", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_072", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "We held there was no constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [825.923], "stop_times": [827.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.923}, "reply_to": "21028__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_073", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--That's exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [827.903], "stop_times": [828.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.903}, "reply_to": "21028__0_072", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_074", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I thought the assumption in this case was that the officer who had been hired did commit a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [828.714], "stop_times": [836.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.714}, "reply_to": "21028__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_075", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But you would have to find here that the county violated the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [836.619], "stop_times": [840.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.619}, "reply_to": "21028__0_074", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_076", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, and my question is, if it had been as foreseeable as my hypothetical suggested, you would still say no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [840.502], "stop_times": [845.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.502}, "reply_to": "21028__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_077", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I would say no, and I give as an answer, Your Honor, Collins v. Harker Heights.\nIn that, you stated the Due Process Clause is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions, and that's correct.\nI mean, there are States that have lesser standards than Oklahoma's does, there are States that have more severe standards, but nothing about any of those standards in and of themselves shows that the standard is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [845.875, 850.178, 858.243], "stop_times": [850.178, 858.243, 871.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.875}, "reply_to": "21028__0_076", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_078", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mr. Jefferson, you put Pembaur in one box because that involved a direction by the prosecutor, go do it, so the causation problem that Justice O'Connor brought up here didn't exist there, but you also had in your brief something about a category of dangerous practices, and I was not clear on what would fit that category.\nIt wasn't something, a direct command like shoot him, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [871.852, 898.458], "stop_times": [898.458, 904.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.852}, "reply_to": "21028__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__0_079", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [904.653], "stop_times": [905.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.653}, "reply_to": "21028__0_078", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_080", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--what is a dangerous practice that might make the municipality liable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [905.174], "stop_times": [908.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.174}, "reply_to": "21028__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__0_081", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--I had in mind something like Canton, where a dangerous practice would be putting people out on the police force, for example, with no training in the use of deadly weapons.\nThat could be enough to make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [908.686, 919.223], "stop_times": [919.223, 922.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.686}, "reply_to": "21028__0_080", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_082", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "One person?\nSuppose it's done just once.\nWould you acknowledge that that would be enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [922.395, 922.796, 923.866], "stop_times": [922.796, 923.866, 925.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.395}, "reply_to": "21028__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_083", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Under Canton, I would acknowledge it would, under Canton, yes, for that training sort of idea, but for hiring... for hiring, the Court has been clear for generations now that there is no respondeat superior liability, and we're talking about holding the county here liable for a hiring decision, not just a standard, but one particular decision that is geared toward one particular person.\nI think it's very critical to note that the jury's question in this case said, do you find that in the case of Stacy Burns, only him, that there was an inadequate hiring by the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [925.676, 953.857], "stop_times": [953.857, 966.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.676}, "reply_to": "21028__0_082", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_084", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "What you're saying, I take it, is that if we start saying that one particular instance like this of a deviation from a regular rule is itself a policy, then you're back to respondeat superior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [966.553], "stop_times": [978.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.553}, "reply_to": "21028__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__0_085", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes, and strict liability, because there are thousands upon thousands of personnel decisions being made every day.\nSome of them are not good decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [978.281, 984.365], "stop_times": [984.365, 986.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.281}, "reply_to": "21028__0_084", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_086", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, they wouldn't be the same as respondeat superior, because under respondeat superior you wouldn't even have to look at the hiring at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [986.796], "stop_times": [993.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.796}, "reply_to": "21028__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_087", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, that's what you'd be saying in effect, that it doesn't matter, you don't really have to look at the hiring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [993.001], "stop_times": [997.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.001}, "reply_to": "21028__0_086", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_088", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "If you did respondeat superior, but if you look at the hiring and say that you looked at... that he hired somebody who was obviously going to go out and commit violent acts, that's another step in the chain, that it would not be enough... I mean, you wouldn't need to even look at that under respondeat superior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [997.164], "stop_times": [1010.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 997.164}, "reply_to": "21028__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_089", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But the first step in the chain would be, is the hiring itself unconstitutional.\nCan this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1010.183, 1015.126], "stop_times": [1015.126, 1015.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.183}, "reply_to": "21028__0_088", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_090", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Why do you keep--\n--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1015.947, 1016.496], "stop_times": [1016.496, 1016.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.947}, "reply_to": "21028__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_091", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1016.917], "stop_times": [1017.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.917}, "reply_to": "21028__0_090", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_092", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Does the hiring cause a constitutional violation?\nThat's the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1017.377, 1019.557], "stop_times": [1019.557, 1020.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.377}, "reply_to": "21028__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_093", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, but if it were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1020.158], "stop_times": [1021.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.158}, "reply_to": "21028__0_092", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_094", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And here you admit that there was a constitutional violation, you admit but-for causation, but you say it's not sufficiently direct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1021.861], "stop_times": [1027.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.861}, "reply_to": "21028__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21028__0_095", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but when we're talking about causation and your... the Court's opinions in this area are not crystal clear on this.\nDeliberate indifference is not a standard in and of itself.\nIt has causation elements to it, and you have to show that when the decision was made, if it's hiring or training, that almost the Court... the county had in mind that this violation is going to occur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1027.615, 1035.68, 1038.31], "stop_times": [1035.68, 1038.31, 1051.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.615}, "reply_to": "21028__0_094", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_096", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, you're saying, then, that one deliberately indifferent act, even by the policymaker, is never going to be enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1051.948], "stop_times": [1058.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1051.948}, "reply_to": "21028__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_097", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It is not enough in the context of this case, because the deliberate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1058.564], "stop_times": [1062.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.564}, "reply_to": "21028__0_096", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_098", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, why would it ever be enough, on your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1062.868], "stop_times": [1064.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.868}, "reply_to": "21028__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_099", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1064.277], "stop_times": [1064.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1064.277}, "reply_to": "21028__0_098", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_100", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I thought you were saying, all right, if the policymaker says, I intend, or it is my purpose that the constitutional violation will occur, one instance would be enough, but you're saying that in deliberate indifference cases it's not... I think you're saying that in deliberate indifference cases it's not enough, because you can never establish the direct causal connection by one instance of deliberate indifference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1064.848], "stop_times": [1093.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.848}, "reply_to": "21028__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_101", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--I'll--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1093.075], "stop_times": [1093.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.075}, "reply_to": "21028__0_100", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_102", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Isn't that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1093.466], "stop_times": [1093.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.466}, "reply_to": "21028__0_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_103", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--I'll give you an example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1093.617], "stop_times": [1094.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.617}, "reply_to": "21028__0_102", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_104", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No, isn't... do I get your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1094.087], "stop_times": [1095.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.087}, "reply_to": "21028__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_105", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--No, no, no, you do not.\nYou do not, because I do believe that there would be an extreme case which we probably will never see where one instance would be enough, and that would be where someone like Bryan County had a report in front of them, the psychological examination... there's no question of Burns passed it here, but had a report in front of them that said this person had a psychopathic disorder.\nHe has... he is going to... by a psychiatrist.\nHe is going to commit excessive force, criminal acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1095.419, 1096.528, 1116.042, 1119.074], "stop_times": [1096.528, 1116.042, 1119.074, 1122.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1095.419}, "reply_to": "21028__0_104", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_106", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But that's like Justice Stevens' example, isn't it, and I thought your answer to Justice Stevens was, no, that wouldn't be enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1122.146], "stop_times": [1126.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.146}, "reply_to": "21028__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_107", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens was asking me whether someone with a felony record.\nI think that's a very dangerous--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1126.558, 1130.331], "stop_times": [1130.331, 1131.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.558}, "reply_to": "21028__0_106", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_108", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes, but his said the felony record was so bad, as he characterized it, that any reasonable person would say that if you put the officer in a position to use force, he's going to misuse it, and you said no, that still wouldn't be enough, and I don't see why it should be any difference if you have a report that the individual's a psychopath.\nThe probable result is the same in each instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1131.673, 1146.691], "stop_times": [1146.691, 1149.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.673}, "reply_to": "21028__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_109", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Granted, Your Honor, if... there could be a situation like that that's extreme.\nWhy Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1149.713, 1154.578], "stop_times": [1154.578, 1156.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.713}, "reply_to": "21028__0_108", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_110", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I don't understand this whole line of concession.\nI thought you were basing your argument upon the distinction between what happens once and what is... what can be called a policy, but the extremeness of the negligence, whether it's indifference or gross negligence or whatever, certainly has no bearing upon that principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1156.147, 1158.768], "stop_times": [1158.768, 1178.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.147}, "reply_to": "21028__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_111", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Your Honor, I agree... my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1178.333], "stop_times": [1179.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.333}, "reply_to": "21028__0_110", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_112", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "So you should have to say, it seems to me, that even if he had psychiatric evaluation that said that this fellow was a serial killer, it... you would have a cause of action against the individual who hired, but not against the city.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1179.223], "stop_times": [1193.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.223}, "reply_to": "21028__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_113", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--My concession is based only on your decision in Canton, which recognized the ability--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1193.534], "stop_times": [1200.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1193.534}, "reply_to": "21028__0_112", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_114", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Which suggests that your argument is contrary to our precedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1200.246], "stop_times": [1203.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.246}, "reply_to": "21028__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_115", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, no, Your Honor.\nWhat I'm saying is that the examples of Justice Stevens' and Justice Souter's are almost never going to happen.\nThe example in the footnote in Canton about putting people out on the police force without training them in the use of deadly weapons, that is quite an extreme example, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1203.378, 1205.531, 1213.165], "stop_times": [1205.531, 1213.165, 1223.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.378}, "reply_to": "21028__0_114", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_116", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No, but would one person do?\nYou contend that... you maintain that failure to train one person would be enough.\nThat is a policy.\nBut hiring one bad person is not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1223.541, 1224.583, 1230.066, 1231.118], "stop_times": [1224.583, 1230.066, 1231.118, 1233.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.541}, "reply_to": "21028__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_117", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Failure to train one person under Canton is not enough unless the link is so direct that no person could ever... it's the functional equivalent of the city telling that one person go out and commit excessive force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1233.649], "stop_times": [1248.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.649}, "reply_to": "21028__0_116", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_118", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Who actually will pay the judgment here if in fact you win and the judgment is only against the sheriff personally?\nI just wonder, in other words, does your client have an insurance policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1248.659, 1256.694], "stop_times": [1256.694, 1262.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.659}, "reply_to": "21028__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_119", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It has no insurance policy.\nIn fact, it's going to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1262.156, 1264.129], "stop_times": [1264.129, 1264.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.156}, "reply_to": "21028__0_118", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_120", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, is it in the habit when there are judgments against individual police officers or others to pay those judgments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1264.688], "stop_times": [1272.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.688}, "reply_to": "21028__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_121", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Your Honor, there is not anything in the record, and I cannot tell you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1272.314], "stop_times": [1275.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.314}, "reply_to": "21028__0_120", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_122", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Have you ever heard, if you've looked into this generally, of cities or municipalities that don't have some kind of policy or custom of paying these judgments for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1275.818], "stop_times": [1284.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.818}, "reply_to": "21028__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_123", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1284.352], "stop_times": [1284.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1284.352}, "reply_to": "21028__0_122", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_124", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Are there many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1284.573], "stop_times": [1285.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.573}, "reply_to": "21028__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_125", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes, I believe there are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1285.394], "stop_times": [1286.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.394}, "reply_to": "21028__0_124", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_126", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And how do the plaintiffs recover in those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1286.983], "stop_times": [1289.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.983}, "reply_to": "21028__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_127", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "The plaintiffs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1289.324], "stop_times": [1290.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.324}, "reply_to": "21028__0_126", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_128", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Are policemen independently wealthy that they can pay these things?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1290.065], "stop_times": [1292.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.065}, "reply_to": "21028__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_129", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Sometimes there is no recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1292.958], "stop_times": [1294.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.958}, "reply_to": "21028__0_128", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_130", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And then how can the policy of the statute be vindicated if, in fact, the judgments... the defendants are judgment-proof, by and large?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1294.36], "stop_times": [1301.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.36}, "reply_to": "21028__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_131", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "You can't get around the intent to vindicate the statute by holding a county liable for something it did not do, even if the officer cannot pay the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1301.433], "stop_times": [1310.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.433}, "reply_to": "21028__0_130", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_132", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Under Monell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1310.419], "stop_times": [1311.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.419}, "reply_to": "21028__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_133", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Under Monell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1311.21], "stop_times": [1312.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.21}, "reply_to": "21028__0_132", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_134", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1312.081], "stop_times": [1312.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.081}, "reply_to": "21028__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__0_135", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1312.41], "stop_times": [1313.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.41}, "reply_to": "21028__0_134", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_136", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Suppose in this case that the sheriff made a notation in the file, I am hiring this man as a matter of policy, will not check background for college offenses.\nWould the case be different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1313.822, 1326.48], "stop_times": [1326.48, 1328.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.822}, "reply_to": "21028__0_135", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__0_137", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Not if it's not a more generalized policy than that, than that one case, no.\nWe would still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1328.681, 1334.114], "stop_times": [1334.114, 1335.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.681}, "reply_to": "21028__0_136", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_138", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "In other words, even though he says it's a policy, it's not a policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1335.226], "stop_times": [1337.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.226}, "reply_to": "21028__0_137", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__0_139", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--That's right.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1337.076, 1337.547], "stop_times": [1337.547, 1338.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.076}, "reply_to": "21028__0_138", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_140", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I suppose that would be some evidence that the policy they claim to follow was not followed, but the real policy was to hire people regardless of, you know, any felony record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1338.038], "stop_times": [1349.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.038}, "reply_to": "21028__0_139", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__0_141", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It would be a closer case, and maybe, you know, perhaps you would get to a jury on it, but the evidence in this case is, in every single instance, every hiring decision made by this sheriff, every other time, adequate background investigation.\nThe Fifth Circuit found that as well.\nThere was one deviation from this consistently good policy, and that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1349.245, 1362.113, 1363.774], "stop_times": [1362.113, 1363.774, 1369.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.245}, "reply_to": "21028__0_140", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_142", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And it was for a relative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1369.377], "stop_times": [1370.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.377}, "reply_to": "21028__0_141", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__0_143", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--For a relative, for hiring a nephew, and that's my point, Your Honor, that the explanation for this hiring is, in my view, as consistent with the fact that he hired just to promote his nephew--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1370.108], "stop_times": [1383.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1370.108}, "reply_to": "21028__0_142", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_144", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, why isn't that a policy of hiring relatives without adequate background checks?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1383.446], "stop_times": [1386.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.446}, "reply_to": "21028__0_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_145", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, if it were a policy, that would be correct, but it's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1386.699], "stop_times": [1390.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1386.699}, "reply_to": "21028__0_144", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_146", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, I don't see how it gets you anything, I really don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1390.311], "stop_times": [1391.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.311}, "reply_to": "21028__0_145", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__0_147", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I guess the point on that, Your Honor, is, whether or not it's an official policy, that is not the end of the question for the Court.\nI don't think it's an official policy because it's a one-time deviation from a policy which could be consistent with negligence and not established policy for the county.\nThe causation is lacking here as a matter of law.\nIf the Court were to find that there was causation in this case, then you look at the statutes at the end of the amicus brief for the National League of Cities, and look at all the statutes that allow hiring people with this sort of record, those would have to go out the door, or at least, if you hold that way, then there's going to be liability in each and every case for every single hiring decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1391.871, 1402.569, 1412.595, 1415.757], "stop_times": [1402.569, 1412.595, 1415.757, 1437.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.871}, "reply_to": "21028__0_146", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_148", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "What's the standard you want us to adopt in order to reach your conclusion?\nDo you want us to just make a judgment on this record, or are you suggesting that there's a legal standard here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1437.422, 1441.354], "stop_times": [1441.354, 1447.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1437.422}, "reply_to": "21028__0_147", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__0_149", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I think the legal standard, and I would put this for your consideration, is that in a negligent hiring context the Court is going to maintain its consistent position since Monroe v. Pape and beyond that there is no liability for respondeat superior, for simply hiring an individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1447.138], "stop_times": [1469.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.138}, "reply_to": "21028__0_148", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_150", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And suppose its an ax murderer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1469.453], "stop_times": [1471.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.453}, "reply_to": "21028__0_149", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__0_151", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "If it's an ax murderer, that, even in itself... and that's my distinction, Justice Souter.\nIt... an ax... it's not unconstitutional to hire an ax murderer in itself.\nNow, that's an extreme position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1471.814, 1476.438, 1481.54], "stop_times": [1476.438, 1481.54, 1483.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.814}, "reply_to": "21028__0_150", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_152", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But that is... you keep coming back to this concept of unconstitutional hiring, and isn't the proper concept an act which results in or causes an unconstitutional injury?\nWell, it's a policy which results in or causes, not an act.\nWell, act or policy, depending on how we analyze it, but it's not the hiring decision that is unconstitutional.\nIt is the hiring decision as part of a causal chain that results in an unconstitutional injury, and our question is, does that hiring decision... can one hiring decision, if it's intentional, qualify as the first step in that chain, or does it have to be part of a more generalized practice or policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1483.062, 1497.001, 1501.633, 1509.741], "stop_times": [1497.001, 1501.633, 1509.741, 1527.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.062}, "reply_to": "21028__0_151", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_153", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It cannot be the starting point, unless you're to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1527.94], "stop_times": [1531.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1527.94}, "reply_to": "21028__0_152", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_154", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No, but I mean, the point here is it's not that you characterize step one as being per se unconstitutional.\nYou characterize the whole chain of events as having an unconstitutional result, isn't that fair?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1531.663, 1538.749], "stop_times": [1538.749, 1543.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.663}, "reply_to": "21028__0_153", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_155", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, no.\nThe... because the first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1543.431, 1546.193], "stop_times": [1546.193, 1547.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.431}, "reply_to": "21028__0_154", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_156", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, I could have a policy, I suppose, that I will in fact hire ax murderers, but if I never hire an ax murderer, there is an... if no ax murderers apply, and I never hire one, there's never going to be a constitutional injury, so we won't be concerned about it.\nWe're only concerned when the whole chain is filled in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1547.735, 1569.477], "stop_times": [1569.477, 1572.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.735}, "reply_to": "21028__0_155", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_157", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--But if Your Honor's correct then the Federal courts in every case or controversy have the right to look behind personnel standards that everyone agrees are... that States implement that every one agrees are not constitutionally infirm themselves.\nThey can go behind it in every instance.\nSo if Your Honor is correct there that you don't first look at whether the hiring decision itself is constitutional, then what you're doing is saying Federal courts are able to intrude on an area that has been, at least, and even under Collins, your case, the prerogative of the State government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1572.44, 1587.95, 1589.42], "stop_times": [1587.95, 1589.42, 1607.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1572.44}, "reply_to": "21028__0_156", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_158", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, the argu--\n--To say that the... you have a policy of unconstitutional hiring I think is mistaken.\nThe constitutional violation is done by the person who actually inflicts the injury on the person who's the plaintiff, and the question of whether you can recover against the county or not is whether the county has the policy... I don't think you refer to the policy as the policy of unconstitutional hiring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1607.281, 1607.882, 1614.357], "stop_times": [1607.882, 1614.357, 1631.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1607.281}, "reply_to": "21028__0_157", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__0_159", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I agree with that proposition, Your Honor.\nThe... but the federalism question is still at play because if the Court were to rule in this case to affirm the case, then the question becomes, do all these hiring standards, these personnel standards that we have, and all of the States around the country, and they're all different, or many are different, are they enough to create a jury question every single time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1631.127, 1634.37], "stop_times": [1634.37, 1656.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1631.127}, "reply_to": "21028__0_158", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_160", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Oh, but I think--\n--No, but that's not true, because in this case it's been conceded, the case is argued to us on the assumption that the sheriff is the policymaker.\nIt's just as if the board of supervisors debated this, or whatever the governing board is in Oklahoma, debated this entire issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1656.516, 1657.157, 1664.0], "stop_times": [1657.157, 1664.0, 1670.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.516}, "reply_to": "21028__0_159", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__0_161", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But... yes, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1670.083], "stop_times": [1672.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1670.083}, "reply_to": "21028__0_160", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_162", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And said that after due deliberation we think that this is a good hire.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1672.084], "stop_times": [1675.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.084}, "reply_to": "21028__0_161", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__0_163", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--And what I'm saying is, let's say it was.\nLet's say he really had looked at the record and said I want to hire him anyway.\nThat is authorized by State law.\nThat hiring decision would be authorized by State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1675.108, 1677.289, 1679.841, 1682.602], "stop_times": [1677.289, 1679.841, 1682.602, 1685.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.108}, "reply_to": "21028__0_162", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_164", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, but that's not this case, and if this case were decided against you it would not open any such door, because this case proceeds not only on the assumption that the sheriff is the policymaker, it proceeds on the assumption, as I understand the jury instructions, that he was deliberately indifferent to this kind of result when he made his hiring decision.\nThat does not open the door to looking behind every particular act of hiring, no matter what the governmental policy is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1685.614, 1704.755], "stop_times": [1704.755, 1711.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.614}, "reply_to": "21028__0_163", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_165", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, I believe it does, because of the way the case was submitted to the jury.\nIt wasn't just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1711.661, 1716.215], "stop_times": [1716.215, 1717.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1711.661}, "reply_to": "21028__0_164", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_166", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It was submitted on a deliberate indifference theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1717.395], "stop_times": [1719.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.395}, "reply_to": "21028__0_165", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__0_167", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Deliberate indifference with respect to one particular employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1719.675], "stop_times": [1722.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1719.675}, "reply_to": "21028__0_166", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "21028__0_168", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jefferson.\nMr. Serr, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1722.359, 1724.951], "stop_times": [1724.951, 1727.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.359}, "reply_to": "21028__0_167", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_000", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nFirst, I'd like to respond to Justice O'Connor's concern that this case turns in but-for... on but-for causation.\nThat's simply not true.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1727.191, 1738.408, 1743.581, 1744.713], "stop_times": [1738.408, 1743.581, 1744.713, 1745.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1727.191}, "reply_to": "21028__0_168", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_001", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But it could.\nThe jury could have reached a verdict on but-for causation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1745.103, 1745.624], "stop_times": [1745.624, 1749.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1745.103}, "reply_to": "21028__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_002", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Absolutely not, because the instructions came right out of the Canton case.\nThe instructions required a finding of direct cause, and in the verdict form required a finding of proximate cause.\nThis doesn't turn on but-for causation.\nI don't know how one defines proximate cause any clearer than saying direct cause.\nDirect cause, closely related to, affirmative link, moving forth, are the terms that this Court has employed to refer to the causation requirement.\nBut Canton specifically says closely related to.\nThat's direct.\nThat's direct causation.\nThat is a common way for judges to refer to proximate cause.\nAnd moreover, as a matter of law, the evidence here was not insufficient to establish that direct cause, because what we had here was precisely the constitutional deprivation that was predicted by the red flags that were up at the time that the county hired Sheriff Burns.\nIf... sorry, Officer Burns.\nIf Officer Burns had gone out and enforced the law in a racially discriminatory manner, there's no causation.\nIf Officer Burns had gone out and committed a sexual assault of a juvenile detainee, there's no causation.\nThe link between the deliberate indifference and the constitutional deprivation just doesn't match up.\nBut here, the deprivation that occurred, the excessive use of force, was precisely the deprivation that was endangered, that was ignored when the sheriff ignored the red flags that were there right at the time of hiring.\nJustice Scalia, I'm glad you referred to the statute, because it seems to me that the word policy is... that they're trying to use the word policy against us, and that's what I would say.\nThe word policy isn't in the statute.\nThe statute says every person who... and a municipality can be a person so long as the municipality itself is doing the acting.\nEvery person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, that has been interpreted by this Court as doing nothing more, nothing less than saying that the person must act under color of State law, State action as this Court has interpreted in the Lugar v. Edmondson case.\nI don't know how a sheriff can act for the county and not be acting under color of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1749.786, 1752.577, 1758.081, 1759.924, 1764.826, 1772.232, 1774.643, 1775.474, 1776.494, 1780.557, 1796.028, 1798.349, 1803.672, 1809.937, 1814.862, 1828.771, 1841.068, 1842.748, 1850.535, 1866.244], "stop_times": [1752.577, 1758.081, 1759.924, 1764.826, 1772.232, 1774.643, 1775.474, 1776.494, 1780.557, 1796.028, 1798.349, 1803.672, 1809.937, 1814.862, 1828.771, 1841.068, 1842.748, 1850.535, 1866.244, 1871.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1749.786}, "reply_to": "21028__1_001", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_003", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It doesn't say State action.\nIt... State action has to be reflected in a statute, ordinance, regulation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1871.8, 1872.541], "stop_times": [1872.541, 1876.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.8}, "reply_to": "21028__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_004", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1876.805], "stop_times": [1877.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.805}, "reply_to": "21028__1_003", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_005", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--custom, or usage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1877.376], "stop_times": [1878.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.376}, "reply_to": "21028__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_006", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Your Honor, the statutes of Oklahoma clearly provide that the sheriff is the final decisionmaker on matters of employing deputies.\nThey serve... in the Oklahoma Revised Statutes, Chapter 19, section 547, those deputies serve at the pleasure of the sheriff.\nPrior to 1979, boards of county commissioners in Oklahoma had final approval authority over deputies.\nSince a 1979 change in the law, that's not true.\nThe sheriff, they serve at the pleasure of the sheriff.\nThe sheriff--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1878.195, 1885.932, 1893.705, 1900.38, 1904.233, 1907.065], "stop_times": [1885.932, 1893.705, 1900.38, 1904.233, 1907.065, 1907.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.195}, "reply_to": "21028__1_005", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_007", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "That may be true, but was it under color of that statute?\nDid that statute authorize hiring of unqualified police officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1907.824, 1910.505], "stop_times": [1910.505, 1916.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.824}, "reply_to": "21028__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_008", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--This Court has never interpreted section 1983, as Justice Souter indicated, to require that the action by the municipality be facially unconstitutional.\nThis Court has already decided that in Canton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1916.69, 1925.065], "stop_times": [1925.065, 1927.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.69}, "reply_to": "21028__1_007", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_009", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But we also decided in Monell that a municipality could not be held liable unless there were a policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1927.228], "stop_times": [1933.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.228}, "reply_to": "21028__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_010", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And this Court in Pembaur looked back on Monell and interpreted Monell as... Monell wanted to preclude respondeat superior.\nLiability of municipalities must be premised on acts of the municipality itself, not merely on acts of subordinate employees.\nPembaur took a very common sense view of how municipal power is exercised.\nIt's often vested in individuals such as sheriffs who have final county authority to make policy, to make decisions that bind the county.\nThe sheriff was the alter ego of the county.\nThe sheriff was the county when acting in matters within the sphere of his authority, and the sphere of his authority clearly allowed him to make decisions as to who can wear the badge and who may not wear the badge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1933.89, 1941.136, 1949.271, 1953.265, 1962.542, 1964.672], "stop_times": [1941.136, 1949.271, 1953.265, 1962.542, 1964.672, 1975.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.89}, "reply_to": "21028__1_009", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_011", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Oh, yes, he personally would have been acting under color of a statute, or of a law, but when you try to place liability on the municipality for the municipality's failure to have higher standards for the recruitment of police officers, you have to refer to something else.\nYou have to refer to some custom or usage, or call it a policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1975.587, 1993.059], "stop_times": [1993.059, 1996.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.587}, "reply_to": "21028__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_012", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "That's not what this Court said in Pembaur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1996.832], "stop_times": [1999.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.832}, "reply_to": "21028__1_011", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_013", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, that's certainly what we said in Monell.\nAre you questioning our decision in Monell?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [1999.324, 2001.317], "stop_times": [2001.317, 2004.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.324}, "reply_to": "21028__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_014", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I am not questioning your decision in Monell.\nI agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2004.797, 2006.109], "stop_times": [2006.109, 2006.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.797}, "reply_to": "21028__1_013", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_015", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, but then, you see, your argument so far, as I interpret it, is a strictly respondeat superior argument.\nMonell says respondeat superior doesn't work when you're seeking to hold the city liable.\nYou must have something other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2006.75, 2013.455, 2019.857], "stop_times": [2013.455, 2019.857, 2021.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.75}, "reply_to": "21028__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__1_016", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2021.859], "stop_times": [2023.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2021.859}, "reply_to": "21028__1_015", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_017", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--than respondeat superior, and we're asking whether or not you... and you seem to disagree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2023.579], "stop_times": [2030.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.579}, "reply_to": "21028__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__1_018", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--No.\nYour Honor, subordinate employees, a county is not liable for the acts of subordinate employees such as the officer using the excessive force.\nPembaur recognized, however, that official municipal power, the municipal... a county cannot literally pick itself up off the map and go out and commit a constitutional tort on someone.\nA county can only act through human beings.\nSometimes a county acts officially through boards, through legislative boards.\nSometimes a county acts officially through executive officers.\nThe question under Monell, as this Court later explained in Pembaur, is, who is doing the acting?\nIs the municipality itself doing the acting, rather than being held liable based only on the actions of some subordinate employee who doesn't have the authority, who doesn't have the power to bind the county?\nThe sheriff here was a final policymaker, an executive decisionmaker.\nMatters of hiring and training officers under State law were exclusively within his control.\nThe county could not act on these matters other than through the sheriff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2030.375, 2030.756, 2037.909, 2048.916, 2051.049, 2055.44, 2058.661, 2063.936, 2075.155, 2079.034, 2085.601], "stop_times": [2030.756, 2037.909, 2048.916, 2051.049, 2055.44, 2058.661, 2063.936, 2075.155, 2079.034, 2085.601, 2089.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.375}, "reply_to": "21028__1_017", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_019", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mr. Serr, I assume that you would win this point if we analyzed the case in either of these two ways.\nThe first alternative is, we could say that regardless of what the announced policy is, if the policymaker, in this case the sheriff, intentionally, consciously, deliberately follows a different rule in a given case, that that is in fact a change of policy, and therefore we come within Monell.\nOr we could say, even though the stated policy remains the same, when the policymaker itself or himself acts contrary to it, that is, in fact, the act of the county--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2089.643, 2095.027, 2117.871], "stop_times": [2095.027, 2117.871, 2134.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.643}, "reply_to": "21028__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__1_020", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "When there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2134.522], "stop_times": [2135.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.522}, "reply_to": "21028__1_019", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_021", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--because the county can act in no other way, and we don't require multiple instances because there's no question of attributing this act to the ultimately... ultimate policymaker.\nHe's doing it.\nNow, we could come out your way on this point if we follow either one of those analyses.\nDoes it matter to you which one we follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2135.042, 2144.348, 2145.39, 2150.603], "stop_times": [2144.348, 2145.39, 2150.603, 2152.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.042}, "reply_to": "21028__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__1_022", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--It matters to me whether you come out in our favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2152.423], "stop_times": [2156.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.423}, "reply_to": "21028__1_021", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_023", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I realize that.\n[Laughter] But how about those two avenues, road A, road B.\nDoes it make any difference to your case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2156.527, 2157.719, 2158.01], "stop_times": [2157.719, 2158.01, 2164.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.527}, "reply_to": "21028__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__1_024", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "What was road A again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2164.203], "stop_times": [2165.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.203}, "reply_to": "21028__1_023", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_025", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Road A is that when the policymaker intentionally acts contrary to the stated policy, that action establishes a new policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2165.083], "stop_times": [2174.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.083}, "reply_to": "21028__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__1_026", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Sure.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2174.61, 2174.94], "stop_times": [2174.94, 2175.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.61}, "reply_to": "21028__1_025", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_027", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "So it still falls within--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2175.511], "stop_times": [2176.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.511}, "reply_to": "21028__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__1_028", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--We would agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2176.69], "stop_times": [2177.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.69}, "reply_to": "21028__1_027", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_029", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--All right.\nDoes it matter whether we take that analysis or the second one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2177.08, 2177.552], "stop_times": [2177.552, 2180.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.08}, "reply_to": "21028__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__1_030", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "We win under either of those analyses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2180.322], "stop_times": [2182.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.322}, "reply_to": "21028__1_029", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_031", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No, but does it have any implications for your case other than winning or losing?\nIn other words, does it--\n--What's the second one again?\nI forgot the second one by now.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2182.152, 2185.786, 2186.617, 2187.806, 2188.968], "stop_times": [2185.786, 2186.617, 2187.806, 2188.968, 2189.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.152}, "reply_to": "21028__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21028__1_032", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Other... under either one of those roads, I think we win in this case.\nI would submit that the bottom line is whether liability is being premised on the acts or omissions of the municipality itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2189.358, 2194.241], "stop_times": [2194.241, 2201.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.358}, "reply_to": "21028__1_031", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_033", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "The difficulty that I'm having with this, frankly, is if you take either of those lines, what... it would end up with the cities being held responsible for the actions of their higher level employees even when those higher level employees are really going against the preexisting policy or just making a mistake, or just being negligent or grossly negligent.\nWhat reason... and maybe they should be held liable for that, but how can you hold them liable for the higher action employees but not the policeman who, after all, is going out in the course of duty and also making a mistake, and using too much force, and breaking a door down when he shouldn't, and either thinking that I'm just making a mistake or being indifferent, et cetera.\nWhy should it be the one that they have to pay and not the other?\nMaybe they should pay both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2201.537, 2224.682, 2246.847, 2249.229], "stop_times": [2224.682, 2246.847, 2249.229, 2250.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.537}, "reply_to": "21028__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__1_034", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, for one thing, liability can only be premised on deliberate indifference.\nIt's not merely negligence or gross negligence.\nDeliberate indifference is, as explained by this Court in Farmer v. Brannon, that is a very high standard.\nThat is equated with criminal recklessness.\nWhen the person that is vested with ultimate... when the ultimate vessel of county power on a particular matter makes an affirmative, conscious exercise of that power, then the county has acted.\nNow, that doesn't open up counties to broad form liability.\nThat's the way it's been done, really, since Pembaur, since Canton.\nIt's very difficult to prove deliberate indifference.\nThere are very few hiring claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2250.819, 2256.082, 2257.794, 2263.317, 2265.938, 2277.095, 2280.518, 2284.321, 2288.122], "stop_times": [2256.082, 2257.794, 2263.317, 2265.938, 2277.095, 2280.518, 2284.321, 2288.122, 2290.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.819}, "reply_to": "21028__1_033", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_035", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mr. Serr, don't you recognize any difference between a prosecutor who says, go seize that evidence illegally, and a city that says we're going to put guns in the hands of police officers and not train them in its use--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2290.385], "stop_times": [2307.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.385}, "reply_to": "21028__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__1_036", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2307.566], "stop_times": [2308.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.566}, "reply_to": "21028__1_035", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_037", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--and this case, where the record shows assault, but it turns out to have been an incident on a college campus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2308.217], "stop_times": [2315.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.217}, "reply_to": "21028__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__1_038", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "This Court in Canton looked at the language of section 1983 and decided that section 1983 admits of no distinctions between actions of the municipality that directly authorize or command constitutional violations or actions that just are deliberately indifferent and directly cause constitutional violations.\nThe language of section 1983 does not include words like intent, or directly authorize, or command.\nCanton's already done that.\nThe action does not have to be unconstitutional.\nThe municipal action does not have to directly authorize violations of the constitutional rights.\nThe municipal action just has to directly cause the violation, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2315.17, 2333.754, 2339.246, 2340.658, 2343.199, 2347.45], "stop_times": [2333.754, 2339.246, 2340.658, 2343.199, 2347.45, 2351.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2315.17}, "reply_to": "21028__1_037", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_039", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, I'm talking about that causation requirement, because it seems to me that it was a lot closer in Canton than it is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2351.144], "stop_times": [2357.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.144}, "reply_to": "21028__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__1_040", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--You mean in Pembaur?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2357.378], "stop_times": [2358.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.378}, "reply_to": "21028__1_039", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_041", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But... well, certainly in Pembaur.\nThere it was, go do it, and in Canton was putting a dangerous weapon in the hand of an untrained person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2358.359, 2360.581], "stop_times": [2360.581, 2366.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.359}, "reply_to": "21028__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__1_042", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Okay.\nWell, Canton actually involved police officers that failed to discern a severe emotional disturbance in an arrestee, and the Court said, well, there was no notice of any need... of any obvious need to train in that matter, but Canton did recognize that there are certain recurring situations that police officers to a moral certainty will face, such as decisions regarding the use of force, clear constitutional duties in recurrent situations regarding the use of force... Do I use force?\nHow much force do I use?\nHow do I apply that force +/?\nsuch that counties are inherently on notice that that is the job description of a police officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2366.815, 2367.045, 2394.551, 2395.492, 2397.243], "stop_times": [2367.045, 2394.551, 2395.492, 2397.243, 2402.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.815}, "reply_to": "21028__1_041", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_043", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, that was the allegation here, the use of excessive force that turned on that, and yet the instruction given on deliberate indifference, as I understand it, required the jury to assess whether it was so obvious that Sheriff Moore's decision would lead to violations, plural, of constitutional rights, plural.\nNow, doesn't Canton at least suggest that we require a jury to conclude that the violation of a discrete and identifiable right, here the right to be free from excessive force used, would be obvious and here, how do we know, under that instruction, that the jury wasn't just thinking, well, with that misdemeanor record probably some right would be violated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2402.328, 2423.652], "stop_times": [2423.652, 2450.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2402.328}, "reply_to": "21028__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_044", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, deliberate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2450.36], "stop_times": [2450.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.36}, "reply_to": "21028__1_043", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_045", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "How is it focused here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2450.839], "stop_times": [2452.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.839}, "reply_to": "21028__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_046", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Your Honor, the deliberate indifference instruction came right out of the language in the majority opinion in Canton that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2452.201], "stop_times": [2458.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.201}, "reply_to": "21028__1_045", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_047", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well--\n--Be that as it may, maybe that hadn't been thought through, or it wasn't pressed as a point.\nHere, it becomes key, and it seems to me it left it very open.\nI mean, you can say in every case that a constitutional deprivation by the officer who's hired wouldn't have occurred if the employee hadn't been hired, and what is there in the instructions that makes clear that isn't the basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2458.175, 2458.515, 2462.496, 2468.289], "stop_times": [2458.515, 2462.496, 2468.289, 2485.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.175}, "reply_to": "21028__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_048", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, that was precisely the problem faced by this Court in Canton with respect to failure-to-train cases, that it would be easy for a plaintiff to manufacture a situation of respondeat superior: if you had only trained the officers in Canton to recognize severe emotional disturbance, this wouldn't have happened.\nAnd that's why the Court responded in Canton in order to eliminate respondeat superior with the deliberate indifferent standard, that the decisions by the municipality itself must be so inadequate in light of the specific duties assigned to officers as to amount to deliberate disregard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2485.433, 2500.952], "stop_times": [2500.952, 2515.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2485.433}, "reply_to": "21028__1_047", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_049", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But these instructions nowhere focused on precisely what it was that was going to be the basis of the liability.\nExcessive force, and not leaving it plural, so that it was open to them to think well, gee, he might be a careless driver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2515.342, 2521.835], "stop_times": [2521.835, 2529.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.342}, "reply_to": "21028__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_050", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "The instructions focused the jury on the training and the hiring of Stacy Burns, and the constitutional right that was at issue here, as the jury knew, well knew, was excessive force, violations of Fourth Amendment rights, and the deliberate indifference must, that's true, directly cause the deprivation.\nI can't imagine a case where there is a closer affirmative link or causal connection between the red flags present at hiring--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2529.892, 2549.884], "stop_times": [2549.884, 2556.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2529.892}, "reply_to": "21028__1_049", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_051", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2556.789], "stop_times": [2556.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.789}, "reply_to": "21028__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_052", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--and the deprivation that occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2556.878], "stop_times": [2558.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.878}, "reply_to": "21028__1_051", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_053", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--perhaps you could have offered instructions that would have clarified it, but under the instructions that were given, I don't see why it wasn't open to the jury to base it on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2558.24], "stop_times": [2567.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.24}, "reply_to": "21028__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_054", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Your Honor, I suppose it's always possible for the judge to give more specific instructions, to spell it all out.\nThere was no objection here by petitioner's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2567.385, 2575.111], "stop_times": [2575.111, 2577.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.385}, "reply_to": "21028__1_053", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_055", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, you're the plaintiff.\nI mean, it's... you represented the plaintiff, so it's up to the plaintiff to offer appropriate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2577.033, 2577.551], "stop_times": [2577.551, 2583.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.033}, "reply_to": "21028__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_056", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--We think these instructions do the trick under Canton.\nThe judge looked at Canton.\nWe looked at Canton.\nThese instructions do the trick under Canton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2583.485, 2585.359, 2587.338, 2588.029], "stop_times": [2585.359, 2587.338, 2588.029, 2589.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.485}, "reply_to": "21028__1_055", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_057", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, do you think Canton supports the proposition that deliberate indifference is the standard with respect... across the board, or just with omissions by... it seemed to me that Canton was more talking about omissions to do something on the part of the supervisor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2589.629], "stop_times": [2605.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.629}, "reply_to": "21028__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_058", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, we would certainly assert that it can't be more difficult to prove municipal liability for omissions than for affirmative exercises of municipal power, that if deliberate indifference supports municipal liability for omissions, for failures to act when the notice is there, when the notice is apparent, that certainly that deliberate indifference model supports municipal liability for affirmative exercises of official municipal power so long as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2605.521], "stop_times": [2630.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.521}, "reply_to": "21028__1_057", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_059", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "What there existed in Canton was a training program.\nThe opinion repeatedly discusses the training program, and the training program did not include training in this particular type of skill, and that was the issue.\nWe don't have here a hiring program.\nI mean, that seems to me the central difference in this case.\nYou have a one-shot hiring by somebody who does have policymaking authority, but it would be very difficult to write an opinion in this case referring to the hiring program of the municipality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2630.546, 2634.329, 2643.225, 2645.635, 2649.148], "stop_times": [2634.329, 2643.225, 2645.635, 2649.148, 2660.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2630.546}, "reply_to": "21028__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_060", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Your Honor, there is no requirement of a program.\nAgain, that I think is taking a nonstatutory term, policy, out of context and interpreting it in such a way that goes well beyond Monell's rejection of respondeat superior and would result in actually shielding municipalities from fault when a plaintiff can demonstrate, as plaintiff did here, that the fault clearly lies at the municipality's doorstep.\nCanton explained... in the very description of the deliberate indifference standard in Canton it says, in light of the duties assigned to specific officers.\nThere doesn't have to be deliberate indifference across the board.\nThere's never going to be deliberate indifference across the board.\nEven if a county decided not to train anyone, some of those officers are probably going to have been well trained by other counties.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2660.356, 2664.079, 2683.713, 2692.636, 2694.929, 2697.11, 2703.976], "stop_times": [2664.079, 2683.713, 2692.636, 2694.929, 2697.11, 2703.976, 2704.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.356}, "reply_to": "21028__1_059", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_061", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But why insist on... if what you say is true, why insist on going up to the level of the policymaker anyway, then?\nWhy not just take the individual officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2704.415, 2711.329], "stop_times": [2711.329, 2715.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.415}, "reply_to": "21028__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_062", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Because in order to avoid respondeat superior, liability must flow from the acts or omissions of the municipality itself and not merely from the deprivations committed by the low-level employee.\nThe single incident standing alone, the excessive force standing alone does not by itself put liability on the municipality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2715.272, 2726.95], "stop_times": [2726.95, 2735.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2715.272}, "reply_to": "21028__1_061", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_063", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Unless it's committed by somebody high enough up in the municipal hiring--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2735.666], "stop_times": [2737.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.666}, "reply_to": "21028__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_064", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No.\nIt has to be caused by official municipal action, which has been defined in Pembaur.\nThat municipal action must be done in deliberate disregard to a constitutional deprivation, Canton, and there must be a direct causal connection, again Canton, between that deliberately indifferent, official municipal exercise of power and the constitutional deprivation that in fact results, and we have all that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2737.777, 2738.017, 2742.619], "stop_times": [2738.017, 2742.619, 2758.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.777}, "reply_to": "21028__1_063", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_065", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Can I ask about that?\nA minor factual question would be helpful.\nOn page 114 of the appendix I take it is the heart of what the sheriff did that was wrong.\nHe ran the driving record down with the Oklahoma police authorities.\nThe Oklahoma police authorities gave him a piece of paper called a rap sheet.\nIf he'd looked at that rap sheet he would have seen that this individual did some other bad things and he never checked on them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2758.92, 2760.38, 2762.603, 2768.267, 2772.318, 2776.712], "stop_times": [2760.38, 2762.603, 2768.267, 2772.318, 2776.712, 2782.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.92}, "reply_to": "21028__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__1_066", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Recently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2782.737], "stop_times": [2783.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.737}, "reply_to": "21028__1_065", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_067", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2783.188], "stop_times": [2783.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.188}, "reply_to": "21028__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__1_068", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Recent bad things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2783.768], "stop_times": [2784.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.768}, "reply_to": "21028__1_067", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_069", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Right, but then... so I thought what would be relevant, I'd like to look at the piece of paper that the sheriff had in his hand so that I could make a judgment, perhaps, at a great distance, about what he should have done, or what the jury thought he should have done.\nIs that piece of paper in the record?\nI can't find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2784.446, 2795.933, 2797.475], "stop_times": [2795.933, 2797.475, 2798.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.446}, "reply_to": "21028__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__1_070", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It is in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2798.156], "stop_times": [2799.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.156}, "reply_to": "21028__1_069", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_071", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "All right, well, your associate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2799.617], "stop_times": [2802.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.617}, "reply_to": "21028__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__1_072", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Actually, it's not in those volumes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2802.779], "stop_times": [2805.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.779}, "reply_to": "21028__1_071", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_073", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, can you supply it to the clerk afterwards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2805.15], "stop_times": [2808.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.15}, "reply_to": "21028__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_074", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Yes.\nBut it was a lengthy record.\nIt showed several instances of assaultive behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2808.121, 2808.562, 2810.944], "stop_times": [2808.562, 2810.944, 2814.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.121}, "reply_to": "21028__1_073", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_075", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I just wanted to look at the piece of paper that the sheriff looked at when he supposedly, in your view, made a mistake of not going further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2814.076], "stop_times": [2820.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.076}, "reply_to": "21028__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21028__1_076", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Mm-hmm, and we would submit that that's also a jury question, that the length of that, how red the red flag was... was it just pink, or was it real red?\nThe jury in this case apparently decided that that was a very red flag that was highly predictive of this particular type of deprivation, the excessive force.\nYou know, deliberate indifference, Farmer v. Brandon, that's criminal recklessness.\nYou don't have to do much.\nOnce you have notice of the likely, of the high likelihood of a particular constitutional deprivation, you don't have to do much.\nYou just have to pay attention.\nYou just have to make a little bit of an effort.\nThat effort can be flawed.\nIt can be a negligent effort.\nIt can be a grossly negligent effort.\nYou just have to do something.\nThere was nothing done here.\nThere was no effort.\nThe only effort on hiring that's present in the record is, we ran his record.\nWe got his rap sheet.\nBut then they didn't read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2820.381, 2831.366, 2840.085, 2845.938, 2847.008, 2852.441, 2853.802, 2856.926, 2858.275, 2859.517, 2860.716, 2861.937, 2864.229, 2864.94, 2869.881, 2870.743], "stop_times": [2831.366, 2840.085, 2845.938, 2847.008, 2852.441, 2853.802, 2856.926, 2858.275, 2859.517, 2860.716, 2861.937, 2864.229, 2864.94, 2869.881, 2870.743, 2871.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.381}, "reply_to": "21028__1_075", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_077", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Why, in the face of a custom or usage in the past of checking on records, why should this single deviation violate that statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2871.724], "stop_times": [2885.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.724}, "reply_to": "21028__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21028__1_078", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Because the deviation was a conscious, deliberate decision made by the ultimate vessel of county authority on a matter within his sphere of policymaking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2885.613], "stop_times": [2893.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.613}, "reply_to": "21028__1_077", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_079", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Why does that make it a policy, a single departure for a relative?\nSo he simply wasn't following the policy in that instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2893.728, 2897.241], "stop_times": [2897.241, 2901.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.728}, "reply_to": "21028__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_080", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Well, again, that goes back to Monell and what Monell meant by the use of the word policy.\nThat term, policy, in Monell was juxtaposed with the rejection of respondeat superior.\nThat... when the Court rejected respondeat superior they said, the acts must be the acts of the municipality itself.\nMonell recognized and Pembaur recognized that municipalities must act through human beings, and sometimes those human beings aren't on boards passing laws that take the form of standard operating procedure.\nSometimes those individuals who are vested with the... the ultimate vessels of county power are singular executive individuals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2901.604, 2907.088, 2912.471, 2920.335, 2934.504], "stop_times": [2907.088, 2912.471, 2920.335, 2934.504, 2942.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.604}, "reply_to": "21028__1_079", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_081", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, what if the supervisors in this case, so there'd be no question of a single... what if the supervisors had said, we always check out the records of people we're going to hire, but in this case it's the chairman's nephew, so we're going to depart in this case.\nNow, does that become a policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2942.151, 2958.87], "stop_times": [2958.87, 2961.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.151}, "reply_to": "21028__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_082", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, if you take that line of thinking far enough, every political subdivision in the country... counties, cities, school districts... they all get to deliberately, knowingly hire one bad apple.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2961.662], "stop_times": [2976.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2961.662}, "reply_to": "21028__1_081", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_083", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, if you take your thinking far enough you're right back to respondeat superior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2976.573], "stop_times": [2980.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.573}, "reply_to": "21028__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_084", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "No.\nMy thinking is that deliberate indifference is the key.\nCriminal recklessness is the key, criminal recklessness by the municipality itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2980.205, 2981.086, 2983.207], "stop_times": [2981.086, 2983.207, 2987.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.205}, "reply_to": "21028__1_083", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_085", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, you know, if you're talking about what you find in the statute, where do you find criminal recklessness in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2987.451], "stop_times": [2992.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.451}, "reply_to": "21028__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_086", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Well, in the Canton case, and I guess this traces back to Justice O'Connor's opinion in Kibbe, there was a concern by this Court about what to do with those policies that are not facially unconstitutional, or those policies, actions of a municipality that do not directly authorize constitutional deprivation, the failure to train cases, the bad hiring cases, and Justice O'Connor articulated in her opinion in Kibbe that the reason we need a deliberate indifference requirement is to satisfy that causation requirement in the statute.\nThere was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [2992.794, 3024.356], "stop_times": [3024.356, 3025.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.794}, "reply_to": "21028__1_085", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_087", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "In answer to the Chief Justice's question in the hypothetical that he put you where they hire the nephew, was that a policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3025.175], "stop_times": [3031.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.175}, "reply_to": "21028__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__1_088", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Absolutely.\nAs that term has been used by Monell and interpreted by this Court in Pembaur, that was a policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3031.9, 3033.42], "stop_times": [3033.42, 3038.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3031.9}, "reply_to": "21028__1_087", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_089", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "And then if they... suppose they said, we're too busy today and we're just not going to check the references, would that be a policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3038.285], "stop_times": [3049.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.285}, "reply_to": "21028__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21028__1_090", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "That would be negligence, perhaps grossly negligent.\nThat would not be an actionable decision by the municipality under Canton.\nCanton requires criminal recklessness.\nCanton says that when you've got deliberate indifference, deliberate disregard of constitutional rights, then you have a policy as that term was used by Monell, so long as that deliberate indifference is attributable to the county itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3049.09, 3053.054, 3057.475, 3060.057], "stop_times": [3053.054, 3057.475, 3060.057, 3074.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3049.09}, "reply_to": "21028__1_089", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_091", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "I don't see how the state of mind of the actor can make something a policy.\nIn other words, a policy is a practice that's followed in an... you know, thick and thin, that sort of thing.\nYou have a departure, and whether it's a negligent departure or a deliberately indifferent departure, it's still... one swallow doesn't make a summer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3074.777, 3078.881, 3085.695], "stop_times": [3078.881, 3085.695, 3094.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.777}, "reply_to": "21028__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_092", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "The majority in Pembaur actually reported several dictionary definitions of policy in a footnote, and those dictionary definitions of policy even refer to a single decision.\nWhen my dean goes out to collect money from alums and he has to make a decision as to, do we ask this guy for a million bucks now or do we wait a few years and ask him for 3 million bucks, he refers to that as a policy decision.\nI made a policy decision to ask for the million bucks now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3094.661, 3107.209, 3119.156], "stop_times": [3107.209, 3119.156, 3122.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3094.661}, "reply_to": "21028__1_091", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_093", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But let's go back to Justice Souter's question, because here there is a policy over a 6, 7 year period of being careful about who is hired to be a police officer.\nThat's the policy, and we have one... does the deviation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3122.499, 3130.953], "stop_times": [3130.953, 3135.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.499}, "reply_to": "21028__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__1_094", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3135.027], "stop_times": [3135.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.027}, "reply_to": "21028__1_093", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_095", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--from the policy become in itself a policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3135.347], "stop_times": [3137.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.347}, "reply_to": "21028__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21028__1_096", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--The Court spoke directly to that in Canton, that when you have genuinely adequate municipal decisionmaking, the fact that one person negligently slips through the cracks or accidently slips through the cracks, no problem, but if that one person deliberately, indifferently, criminally, recklessly slips through the cracks, then you've got a problem under Canton.\nRarely will the predictors be there.\nRarely will the red flags be there at the time of hiring.\nThere aren't many winning hiring cases.\nYou don't need to worry about that, because rarely are the red flags there at the time of hiring that are particularly predictive of the specific constitutional deprivation.\nThe only situations that I've seen in the lower--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3137.448, 3157.321, 3166.977, 3169.849, 3171.611, 3179.256], "stop_times": [3157.321, 3166.977, 3169.849, 3171.611, 3179.256, 3182.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3137.448}, "reply_to": "21028__1_095", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_097", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It's a lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3182.368], "stop_times": [3182.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.368}, "reply_to": "21028__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_098", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3182.758], "stop_times": [3183.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3182.758}, "reply_to": "21028__1_097", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_099", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "But it's a lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3183.459], "stop_times": [3184.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.459}, "reply_to": "21028__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_100", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It's a lawsuit.\nThe only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3184.088, 3185.551], "stop_times": [3185.551, 3186.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3184.088}, "reply_to": "21028__1_099", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_101", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "It may be cheaper to... you know, to settle than to litigate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3186.85], "stop_times": [3189.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3186.85}, "reply_to": "21028__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21028__1_102", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Sometimes, Your Honor, the job description and the applicant behavior, the preemployment applicant behavior known to the county decisionmakers just doesn't match the job description.\nYou don't put child molesters in a first grade classroom.\nYou don't make them janitors at the elementary school.\nMaybe groundskeepers at the high school, maybe an assistant to the tax collector.\nThe same thing here.\nThe job description of a police officer, as this Court recognized in Canton, as Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion noted in Canton, police officers are expected, by the nature of their job, to face recurring situations where there are clear constitutional duties regarding the use of force.\nThose recurring situations often involve stressful, tense confrontations with citizens.\nThat's the job description.\nYou don't hire individuals... some persons are unfit.\nRecent, lengthy, lawless disrespect for law and order, immature, occasional violent behavior is a red flag.\nIt is highly predictive of the constitutional deprivation that in fact occurred.\nAgain, if you've got a different constitutional deprivation, enforcing the law in a racially discriminatory manner, you don't have the causal link, but we've got all that.\nWe've got the red flag.\nWe... also, I think the lack of hiring suits speaks well of the municipal policymakers in this country, that normally when they see that red flag they don't hire, or if they hire, they take some corrective measures subsequent to hiring, but... and again, that's all the deliberate indifference standard requires of persons to do.\nThe Federal district courts, Justice Scalia, have not been reluctant to grant summary judgment to counties if the county comes up with the least bit of summary judgment proof that they made an effort, that they paid attention.\nThis record in this case is devoid of that paying attention.\nWe ran his record, but then we didn't read it, but he had no felonies, as it turned out.\nThat was the brunt of their case on the hiring.\nWith respect to the bad training, in the face of expert testimony that there was no formal departmental training, that the training was nonexistent in the county, the only thing they came up with was, well, he rode with grandpa a few times in the squad car and grandpa... in the terms of... in its testimony, pointed out the do's and don'ts of what to do, things to look for with the drunk drivers, possible causes, possible reasons to pull people over, and things of that nature.\nThey didn't... the county didn't produce evidence of one single, solitary representative of the county that took Stacy Burns, despite Stacy Burns' lengthy preemployment record of behavior including violence, they didn't point to one county official that took him aside and said, son, let me tell you about the use of force.\nYou're going to be facing situations where you need to use force.\nHere's when you can, here's when you can't.\nThe record is devoid of that.\nAnd I'd like to point out that I think there's a blatant misstatement of the record on page 5 of petitioner's brief here claiming that Calclazier, which was grandpa, and Howell gave Burns general instructions on law enforcement, particular instruction on how to detect drunk drivers, on proper procedures to conduct an investigatory stop, and on methods of placing a suspect under the officer's custody and control.\nThat last, methods of placing a suspect under the officer's custody and control, the transcript cite, 580, simply doesn't bear that out.\nNo one told him about the use of force.\nNow, that's deliberate indifference, and it's going to be a rare case, a case like ours, where you can meet all those standards.\nThis is... in conclusion, I think this is a case ultimately about accountability, accountability of police officers on the street, which is enforced largely through the Fourth Amendment, accountability on the part of those ultimate policymakers that decide who to put on the street, yet in a Fourth Amendment arena, under Michigan v. Sitz, which is the drunk driving roadblock case, under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3189.812, 3200.11, 3204.004, 3206.013, 3209.646, 3211.106, 3225.675, 3232.781, 3234.582, 3237.184, 3245.2, 3249.231, 3257.698, 3258.657, 3277.692, 3288.417, 3292.38, 3297.403, 3299.864, 3332.195, 3348.237, 3351.549, 3353.31, 3355.29, 3376.864, 3383.299, 3385.682, 3393.247], "stop_times": [3200.11, 3204.004, 3206.013, 3209.646, 3211.106, 3225.675, 3232.781, 3234.582, 3237.184, 3245.2, 3249.231, 3257.698, 3258.657, 3277.692, 3288.417, 3292.38, 3297.403, 3299.864, 3332.195, 3348.237, 3351.549, 3353.31, 3355.29, 3376.864, 3383.299, 3385.682, 3393.247, 3419.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3189.812}, "reply_to": "21028__1_101", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_103", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Serr.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3419.222], "stop_times": [3419.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.222}, "reply_to": "21028__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21028__1_104", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3419.953], "stop_times": [3420.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3419.953}, "reply_to": "21028__1_103", "speaker": "brian_serr"}
{"id": "21028__1_105", "conversation_id": "21028", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1100", "start_times": [3420.875], "stop_times": [3422.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3420.875}, "reply_to": "21028__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__0_000", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-79, Sandra Jean Dale Boggs v. Thomas F. Boggs, et al.--\nMrs. Livaudais.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [0.0, 9.858], "stop_times": [9.858, 56.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__0_001", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nERISA is a comprehensive Federal program designed to ensure that employees and their beneficiaries receive their retirement benefits.\nIt is also designed to be applied uniformly throughout the country so that employees in other parts... all parts of the country are treated equally.\nHow does ERISA accomplish this goal?\nBy preemption.\nAdditionally, Congress has created a list of statutory beneficiaries who are entitled to receive benefits under these retirement plans.\nOnly ERISA-designated statutory beneficiaries are included in the list, and only those beneficiaries are permitted to receive benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [56.778, 59.609, 68.375, 80.193, 82.917, 84.207, 96.285], "stop_times": [59.609, 68.375, 80.193, 82.917, 84.207, 96.285, 107.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 56.778}, "reply_to": "19903__0_000", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_002", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, doesn't your position raise a significant takings issue right off the bat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [107.761], "stop_times": [115.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 107.761}, "reply_to": "19903__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_003", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [115.047], "stop_times": [115.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 115.047}, "reply_to": "19903__0_002", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_004", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Because a State recognizes a community property interest in something like a husband's retirement plan or other assets that he has acquired during the marriage by virtue of his efforts, that law creates... a community property law would create a property right in the spouse to half of whatever that asset is, and along comes an ERISA law later... after this marriage, the first marriage had been in existence and she had an interest there, along comes ERISA.\nYou say it preempts it, even though that would be a taking of her interest.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [115.816, 155.293, 160.318], "stop_times": [155.293, 160.318, 160.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.816}, "reply_to": "19903__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_005", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI don't believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [160.446, 162.238], "stop_times": [162.238, 163.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 160.446}, "reply_to": "19903__0_004", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_006", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "What's wrong with that analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [163.528], "stop_times": [165.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 163.528}, "reply_to": "19903__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_007", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, there are two problems.\nIn the first place, this Court has said on several occasions, including Wissner v. Wissner, that the Federal program does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [165.09, 167.241], "stop_times": [167.241, 181.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.09}, "reply_to": "19903__0_006", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_008", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But that was a statute that had gone into effect and no one claimed that there was a prior thing that was affected by the statute.\nHere, this fellow started working in 1949, and ERISA comes along in 1975.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [181.0, 189.494], "stop_times": [189.494, 195.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.0}, "reply_to": "19903__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__0_009", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "This... well, at the time that ERISA comes along it preempts State law, the State community property law, so that it is inapplicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [195.658], "stop_times": [207.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 195.658}, "reply_to": "19903__0_008", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_010", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, I... I'm not sure that's right, but even if it were, it would constitute a taking of the wife's interest acquired to that date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [207.907], "stop_times": [218.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.907}, "reply_to": "19903__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_011", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Acquired to that date.\nWell, the wife's interest that's acquired to that date is similar to putting money into a trust.\nWhen she puts this money into the trust, she becomes... if she lives long enough she becomes a surviving spouse and is entitled to benefits as a beneficiary.\nERISA speaks in terms of beneficiaries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [218.606, 220.806, 228.52, 240.919], "stop_times": [220.806, 228.52, 240.919, 244.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.606}, "reply_to": "19903__0_010", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_012", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, under community property law in Louisiana she owned half of whatever he made from 1949 till ERISA at least was passed, and ERISA, even if you give it effect, can't take that without giving her compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [244.011], "stop_times": [261.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.011}, "reply_to": "19903__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_013", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Her compensation was the anticipation of the benefits she would have received had she become... had she lived long enough to receive them coming out of the back end of the... a retirement program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [261.884], "stop_times": [276.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.884}, "reply_to": "19903__0_012", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_014", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes, but the Government can't simply substitute one piece of property for another piece of property without them being somehow equal.\nHer share would simply disappear under your view in 1975, although it had existed from 1949 on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [276.482, 283.537], "stop_times": [283.537, 292.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.482}, "reply_to": "19903__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__0_015", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Her anticipated benefits were... she received through the Federal program.\nThat was the basis in the Wissner case that said that the retroactivity in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [292.802, 299.277], "stop_times": [299.277, 305.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.802}, "reply_to": "19903__0_014", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_016", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes, but that was a Government life insurance policy.\nThat wasn't private property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [305.52, 307.801], "stop_times": [307.801, 309.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.52}, "reply_to": "19903__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__0_017", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, to the extent that the benefits she would receive as a... had she lived to participate in the retirement benefits are so much greater, and fuels... it's really tax dollars.\nThe tax exemptions and the tax deferrals fuel the ERISA engine that creates the wealth that creates the much greater benefits at the end than she would expect to receive just by investing some portion of her--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [309.223, 325.634], "stop_times": [325.634, 340.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.223}, "reply_to": "19903__0_016", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_018", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "What she would get by outliving her husband isn't what troubles me.\nIt seems to me that's like having an ownership in a lottery ticket, and by the time the event occurs that brings ERISA into it the lottery has been run and the ticket is a loser.\nIt's worthless at that point.\nSo also, it's worthless here once she dies.\nSo it's not her survivor benefits that concern me, but isn't she entitled... isn't she entitled to the... half of all the benefits that the husband receives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [340.985, 343.886, 357.807, 358.966, 361.578], "stop_times": [343.886, 357.807, 358.966, 361.578, 374.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.985}, "reply_to": "19903__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__0_019", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Not... no.\nShe is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [374.527, 376.657], "stop_times": [376.657, 377.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.527}, "reply_to": "19903__0_018", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_020", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "In a community property State, isn't his entitlement to the retirement benefits really an entitlement that's half hers, and that does continue, whether she dies or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [377.809], "stop_times": [389.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.809}, "reply_to": "19903__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__0_021", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--She's entitled, as a... as the wife of the participant during retirement she would receive benefits and would enjoy the retirement benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [389.606], "stop_times": [403.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.606}, "reply_to": "19903__0_020", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_022", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Justice Scalia is completely capable of protecting his own question, but it seems to me that he's asking you--\n--Go, Tony, I--\n--He thinks that he... I thought that he was asking the question as a matter of Louisiana community property law, and then you tell us what ERISA provides, but as a matter of Louisiana community property law, is Justice Scalia not correct that the wife has an interest in the pension fund which, I take it, would have to be valued if the community is dissolved by divorce and, under... although I was surprised to find this, I understand the premise of the case is that this is subject to bequest under Louisiana law.\nThat's the premise that we take the case on, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [403.255, 409.319, 409.84, 446.803], "stop_times": [409.319, 409.84, 446.803, 449.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.255}, "reply_to": "19903__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19903__0_023", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I think so, yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [449.515], "stop_times": [452.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.515}, "reply_to": "19903__0_022", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_024", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, is it the case, then, if there had been no ERISA at all, would the first wife have had something to bequeath by will?\nDo you agree that she would have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [452.496, 462.744], "stop_times": [462.744, 464.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 452.496}, "reply_to": "19903__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__0_025", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [464.454], "stop_times": [464.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 464.454}, "reply_to": "19903__0_024", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_026", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So that premise is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [464.765], "stop_times": [465.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.765}, "reply_to": "19903__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__0_027", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [465.937], "stop_times": [466.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.937}, "reply_to": "19903__0_026", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_028", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I find that troubling, but what I'm not clear on is whether I have to reach that particular trouble.\nHas anyone raised the issue of a taking in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [466.547, 473.8], "stop_times": [473.8, 479.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.547}, "reply_to": "19903__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__0_029", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No, they haven't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [479.244], "stop_times": [479.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.244}, "reply_to": "19903__0_028", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_030", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "May I also ask in that... does the record tell us when the husband's pension benefits vested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [479.945], "stop_times": [485.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.945}, "reply_to": "19903__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__0_031", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No, I... well, I can't answer that.\nI really don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [485.498, 489.502], "stop_times": [489.502, 490.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.498}, "reply_to": "19903__0_030", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_032", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I couldn't find it myself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [490.811], "stop_times": [492.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.811}, "reply_to": "19903__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__0_033", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But it really wasn't considered to be important.\nIt vested during the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [492.814, 496.057], "stop_times": [496.057, 497.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.814}, "reply_to": "19903__0_032", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_034", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But it would... of course, it would be important if you're claiming there was a taking of vested benefits.\nYou'd have to know when they vested and whether they vested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [497.366, 501.801], "stop_times": [501.801, 504.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.366}, "reply_to": "19903__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__0_035", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--They vested during his first marriage to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [504.922], "stop_times": [506.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 504.922}, "reply_to": "19903__0_034", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_036", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But surely they didn't vest in 1949, when he first started paying in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [506.822], "stop_times": [511.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 506.822}, "reply_to": "19903__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__0_037", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [511.066], "stop_times": [511.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.066}, "reply_to": "19903__0_036", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_038", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No.\nWell, if there is a takings problem in the case, though, isn't that a reason for interpreting ERISA so that it doesn't raise that problem by saying that there isn't the sort of preemption that you're arguing for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [511.245, 511.685], "stop_times": [511.685, 523.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.245}, "reply_to": "19903__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__0_039", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, the result there is that if that... if you reach that and you say that there is no preemption, then State law in effect redefines who the beneficiaries of ERISA are, because if you say that there is no preemption of the community property law, then the nonparticipant spouse becomes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [523.332], "stop_times": [544.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.332}, "reply_to": "19903__0_038", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_040", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, not at all.\nThere's a statutory argument here to be addressed if we wish, I guess, and that's whether there was any alienation here at all under the statutory provision in ERISA.\nIf Dorothy's estate, if she had a community property interest in part of what was distributed to Isaac by virtue of Louisiana law, when she dies, why doesn't that interest, whatever it is, just continue to exist as part of her estate, and once there is a distribution, why doesn't her estate stand in her former shoes and say part of that is mine, and she... that isn't an alienation under ERISA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [544.627, 545.879, 559.777], "stop_times": [545.879, 559.777, 595.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.627}, "reply_to": "19903__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_041", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--But the... well, you have to start with the premise that she has a property interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [595.681], "stop_times": [604.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.681}, "reply_to": "19903__0_040", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_042", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [604.136], "stop_times": [604.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.136}, "reply_to": "19903__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_043", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--in the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [604.817], "stop_times": [605.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 604.817}, "reply_to": "19903__0_042", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_044", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [605.138], "stop_times": [606.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.138}, "reply_to": "19903__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_045", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Because without a property interest in the plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [606.498], "stop_times": [608.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.498}, "reply_to": "19903__0_044", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_046", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Under Louisiana law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [608.35], "stop_times": [608.54], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 608.35}, "reply_to": "19903__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19903__0_047", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--she can't have a property interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [608.54], "stop_times": [610.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.54}, "reply_to": "19903__0_046", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_048", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But she doesn't interfere with anything.\nJust at the time of his death her interest still remains, and it passes to her estate.\nThere's no alienation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [610.281, 611.302, 618.806], "stop_times": [611.302, 618.806, 620.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.281}, "reply_to": "19903__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_049", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, under the facts of this case what you say may be true, but that would not be true had she not bequeathed her... an interest to... had she not used the usufruct provisions of Louisiana law, because at the time she died, and then her husband remarried, the... he would have lost his statutory usufruct and therefore those... the sons would have been in a position to claim their benefits, or claim their interest in their father's... their mother's estate against their father's benefits and therefore he would... in effect, the participant would have, in effect, lost half of his benefits in that instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [620.797], "stop_times": [667.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.797}, "reply_to": "19903__0_048", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_050", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, you focus a lot on the 1984 amendments to ERISA, but I thought that Dorothy Boggs died in 1979, so how could that affect it?\nHow could that... how could the 1984 amendments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [667.038, 678.215], "stop_times": [678.215, 680.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.038}, "reply_to": "19903__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_051", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "He didn't retire--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [680.986], "stop_times": [681.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.986}, "reply_to": "19903__0_050", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_052", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--construe what the law was at the time she died?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [681.948], "stop_times": [685.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.948}, "reply_to": "19903__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_053", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, he didn't retire until 1985, at which point the 1984 amendments applied and the selection or the choice to take the joint survivor's annuity was exercised.\nHad he died--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [685.2, 699.93], "stop_times": [699.93, 701.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.2}, "reply_to": "19903__0_052", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_054", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Now, he also got some lump sum settlement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [701.52], "stop_times": [704.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.52}, "reply_to": "19903__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_055", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [704.092], "stop_times": [704.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.092}, "reply_to": "19903__0_054", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_056", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And some stock as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [704.803], "stop_times": [706.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.803}, "reply_to": "19903__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_057", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "At the time he retired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [706.075], "stop_times": [708.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.075}, "reply_to": "19903__0_056", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_058", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Uh-huh.\nWhat is the lump sum?\nI mean, think just of the lump sum.\nSmith dies.\nHe gets... let's say he's got $200,000 in a lump sum from his employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [708.075, 708.465, 710.256, 712.366, 714.9], "stop_times": [708.465, 710.256, 712.366, 714.9, 720.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.075}, "reply_to": "19903__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_059", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [720.033], "stop_times": [720.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.033}, "reply_to": "19903__0_058", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_060", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "His will says the $200,000 goes to a Martian, or it goes to Smith, or it goes to Jones, goes to anybody.\nERISA doesn't stop that, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [720.814, 727.467], "stop_times": [727.467, 729.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.814}, "reply_to": "19903__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_061", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes, well... yes, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [729.229], "stop_times": [731.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.229}, "reply_to": "19903__0_060", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_062", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "ERISA says I can't take--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [731.651], "stop_times": [732.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.651}, "reply_to": "19903__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_063", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [732.722], "stop_times": [732.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.722}, "reply_to": "19903__0_062", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_064", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--$200,000 I got out of my pension plan which I happened to put in the bank and leave it to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [732.902], "stop_times": [736.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.902}, "reply_to": "19903__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_065", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Oh, you could... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [736.082], "stop_times": [737.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.082}, "reply_to": "19903__0_064", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_066", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--anybody I want?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [737.193], "stop_times": [737.524], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 737.193}, "reply_to": "19903__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19903__0_067", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I'm sorry.\nHe had rolled it over into a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [737.524, 738.876], "stop_times": [738.876, 740.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.524}, "reply_to": "19903__0_066", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_068", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I'm not saying what happened here.\nI'm trying to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [740.138, 741.257], "stop_times": [741.257, 742.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.138}, "reply_to": "19903__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_069", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--If it was in his bank account or in a coffee can in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [742.038], "stop_times": [744.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.038}, "reply_to": "19903__0_068", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_070", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--No, I just say this, I write a will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [744.93], "stop_times": [746.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.93}, "reply_to": "19903__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_071", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--he could leave it to anyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [746.412], "stop_times": [746.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.412}, "reply_to": "19903__0_070", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_072", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--I write a will, and my will says, the money I get in a lump sum from my pension fund, when I die I would like that will to go to John Black, all right.\nI can do that, can't I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [746.861, 758.748], "stop_times": [758.748, 760.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.861}, "reply_to": "19903__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_073", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [760.25], "stop_times": [760.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.25}, "reply_to": "19903__0_072", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_074", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And can I leave it to my wife?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [760.541], "stop_times": [762.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.541}, "reply_to": "19903__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_075", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "You can leave it to your wife.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [762.35], "stop_times": [763.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.35}, "reply_to": "19903__0_074", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_076", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes, and if the State law says that this money has to go to John Black or to my wife, is there any problem with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [763.712], "stop_times": [770.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.712}, "reply_to": "19903__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_077", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [770.045], "stop_times": [771.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.045}, "reply_to": "19903__0_076", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_078", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No.\nAnd if State law says when you die the reason that it has to go to your wife is because she had a community property interest, is that any different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [771.367, 771.748], "stop_times": [771.748, 779.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.367}, "reply_to": "19903__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_079", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [779.362], "stop_times": [781.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.362}, "reply_to": "19903__0_078", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_080", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No.\nThen if that's no different, and if the wife, knowing that she gets it, happens to write a piece of paper in advance that says when I die, that money will go to my children, is that a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [781.025, 781.355], "stop_times": [781.355, 790.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.025}, "reply_to": "19903__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_081", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, the problem is that it's not hers to leave--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [790.421], "stop_times": [793.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.421}, "reply_to": "19903__0_080", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_082", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Oh, no, no.\nShe says, if I get this money when my husband dies, because State law gave it to me.\nI will then give it to my children.\nIs that a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [793.731, 794.041, 800.165, 801.957], "stop_times": [794.041, 800.165, 801.957, 802.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.731}, "reply_to": "19903__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_083", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--No, it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [802.728], "stop_times": [803.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.728}, "reply_to": "19903__0_082", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_084", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "All right, then how is that different from this case as to the $200,000, except for the rollover into the IRA, which is separate, which I think has nothing to do with it?\nBut except for the rollover into the IRA, how is that different from this case as to the money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [803.067, 810.393], "stop_times": [810.393, 815.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.067}, "reply_to": "19903__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_085", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, when the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [815.265], "stop_times": [819.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 815.265}, "reply_to": "19903__0_084", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_086", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I mean, I don't want to have mixed you up with all the questions, but as I'm seeing it, all this is is a State law called a community property law that says what will happen on the death of the husband to the money that was a fixed sum that came into the possession of the wife because of State law community property, and she later on left it by will but she didn't, because there was another State law... or whatever, but to somebody else.\nMaybe the SG will answer that question, because I... and if the answer depends on the IRA, that, I think, had to do with tax purposes.\nI don't see whether you put it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [819.709, 845.936, 854.792], "stop_times": [845.936, 854.792, 856.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.709}, "reply_to": "19903__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_087", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [856.062], "stop_times": [856.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.062}, "reply_to": "19903__0_086", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_088", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--but that's what I'm thinking and I'd like to get a response from that either from you or from the SG.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [856.443], "stop_times": [860.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.443}, "reply_to": "19903__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__0_089", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, the... ERISA preempts the designation, or sets out who the beneficiaries are of the property.\nThe participant is the beneficiary, the first beneficiary.\nHis nonparticipant spouse has no... under ERISA has no rights in the plan during the life of the participant.\nOur--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [860.056, 870.334, 874.825, 885.21], "stop_times": [870.334, 874.825, 885.21, 886.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.056}, "reply_to": "19903__0_088", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_090", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But she would if she divorced him, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [886.732], "stop_times": [890.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.732}, "reply_to": "19903__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__0_091", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, but State court could, under the QDRO, give her rights in it.\nShe does not automatically have rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [890.305, 896.209], "stop_times": [896.209, 898.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.305}, "reply_to": "19903__0_090", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_092", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes, but Judge Fletcher said one of the many anomalies in this case is, you take a woman who under State law is a coowner, and she stays a coowner.\nIf before she dies, predeceasing her husband, she divorces him, then her coownership can be realized and she can pass it on to her children.\nBut if she should stay with him till her last breath, then her coownership vanishes, and I suppose Judge Fletcher was saying, if there is another construction that's reasonable, we ought to apply that, rather than one that leads to this very odd result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [898.6, 912.95, 925.238], "stop_times": [912.95, 925.238, 944.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.6}, "reply_to": "19903__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__0_093", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Except that the results is that under that... under Judge Fletcher's construction she basically would have the surviving participant who has anticipated receiving these benefits and has contributed to them thinking that he is going to retire, he suddenly has to divide his benefits with people who are not retirees.\nGranted, they... and they're not necessarily his children.\nThey could... it could be a charity to whom she may have left this money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [944.219, 969.897, 972.348], "stop_times": [969.897, 972.348, 976.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.219}, "reply_to": "19903__0_092", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_094", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Ms. Livaudais, could I ask you, regarding Justice Breyer's question, do you acknowledge that the only effect of a community property law is to say how the husband's property goes when he dies, which seemed to me to be the hypothesis of Justice Breyer's question?\nDoesn't the community property law make it her property immediately, before the husband dies, so it isn't a question of the husband getting all the money at the end and State law just saying where the husband's property goes.\nYour contention is that it is... or the community property law says that it is her property.\nHalf of it is hers at the outset.\nShe doesn't get half at his death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [976.111, 996.785, 1012.396, 1018.508, 1021.57], "stop_times": [996.785, 1012.396, 1018.508, 1021.57, 1023.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.111}, "reply_to": "19903__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__0_095", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No, but it... but my contention is that ERISA preempts the application of that community property law from the moment that ERISA was passed, and therefore ERISA dictates that these benefits are different.\nThey are special property.\nThey are not governed by the State property laws, whether community property or any other kind of State property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1023.373, 1036.871, 1039.034], "stop_times": [1036.871, 1039.034, 1045.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.373}, "reply_to": "19903__0_094", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_096", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Mrs. Livaudais, do I understand this to be the practical consequence of your position: for more and more older people, the pension, if it's not the principal asset, but certainly a principal asset, and so to the extent of that pension, the Federal Government has done away essentially with the community regime, and is there anything specific in the statute, or... that suggests that Congress really was trying to undo, destroy the community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1045.605], "stop_times": [1085.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.605}, "reply_to": "19903__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__0_097", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Congress was very clear on the people who Congress wanted to receive the benefits.\nThat was the participant and the participant surviving supouse.\nThe purpose is to assure that these people in their older age are supported and are not... it supplements their social security and they are not dependent on the State for additional support, and that is the purpose behind any... in ERISA.\nAnd therefore, in order to make sure that the benefits are confined to the people who are the employee and the employee's surviving spouse... the QDRO's not concerned in that.\nOnly the people who are named in the statute as beneficiaries are entitled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1085.232, 1092.897, 1095.909, 1115.692, 1129.732], "stop_times": [1092.897, 1095.909, 1115.692, 1129.732, 1135.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1085.232}, "reply_to": "19903__0_096", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_098", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But this is so peculiar, because here is an example of a couple who were married for many, many years, until the first wife died, and under community property law in Louisiana she had a half interest in all that.\nThat's acknowledged.\nAnd how is it that we would construe ERISA to preempt that, when this may well be the major asset of the couple, indeed their only greatest asset from all those years of work, and you want us to say that Congress just intended to wipe that out, to take it, even if it's a taking, and I think this is a remarkable construction that you're asking us to give this law.\nIn ERISA's preemption clause this Court has been careful, has it not, to protect the role of traditional State provisions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1135.876, 1150.944, 1151.975, 1180.964], "stop_times": [1150.944, 1151.975, 1180.964, 1191.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.876}, "reply_to": "19903__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__0_099", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Except when it related to the act, did damage to the act.\nThe purpose in... thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1191.322, 1197.326], "stop_times": [1197.326, 1201.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.322}, "reply_to": "19903__0_098", "speaker": "marian_m_livaudais"}
{"id": "19903__0_100", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Livaudais.\nMr. Wolfson, we'll hear from you.\nMr. Wolfson, does the Government recognize any difference between the two kinds of things involved here, one being an annuity and the other being a lump sum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1201.39, 1203.172, 1205.954], "stop_times": [1203.172, 1205.954, 1223.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.39}, "reply_to": "19903__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__1_000", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes.\nWell, Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nWe believe that the interests in both are preempted, and we start... I'd like to start with ERISA's broad... broad but common sense preemption clause, the relate-to.\nIn our view really the ownership of plan assets is the issue here, and nothing could relate to a plan more than the basic question of who owns the assets in... who owns the assets in the plan, and that's a... that is what the application of State community property law to an ERISA plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1223.705, 1224.745, 1226.926, 1236.723], "stop_times": [1224.745, 1226.926, 1236.723, 1255.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1223.705}, "reply_to": "19903__0_100", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_001", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But under that, do you... there's been a taking here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1255.186], "stop_times": [1258.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.186}, "reply_to": "19903__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_002", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1258.768], "stop_times": [1259.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1258.768}, "reply_to": "19903__1_001", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_003", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--and we normally would avoid resting on some constitutional ground if we can possibly construe the statute some other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1259.487], "stop_times": [1268.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.487}, "reply_to": "19903__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_004", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, obviously we disagree that there's a taking here, and I'd like to address that first.\nAnd the first thing is, what the first Mrs. Boggs... one has to look to what the first Mrs. Boggs' property interest in the plan would have been before 1974, because it's only pre-'74 where the taking problem might arise, and what she really had was an inchoate or contingent interest in the right to control benefits that she would have received from the plan once Mr. Boggs retired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1268.456, 1273.929], "stop_times": [1273.929, 1300.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1268.456}, "reply_to": "19903__1_003", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_005", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's not my understanding.\nWhat if the benefits had vested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1300.375, 1302.518], "stop_times": [1302.518, 1304.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1300.375}, "reply_to": "19903__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__1_006", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, we don't know whether the benefits had vested, but even if the benefits had vested, Justice Stevens, I think in effect the only thing that has been removed from her property interest here is the right to make a testamentary distribution of those benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1304.669], "stop_times": [1320.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1304.669}, "reply_to": "19903__1_005", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_007", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "She had a right under Louisiana law, I presume, if it's like most community... to prevent any expenditures in fraud of the community.\nThere are all sorts of ancillary provisions in community property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1320.7, 1330.756], "stop_times": [1330.756, 1333.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.7}, "reply_to": "19903__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__1_008", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "One would... I mean, one would also have to consider the plan to see that... those might have provided her with some protections also, but what she can't do as a result of ERISA here is pass on her interest to her children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1333.767], "stop_times": [1346.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1333.767}, "reply_to": "19903__1_007", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_009", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Which is certainly one stick in a bundle of rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1346.717], "stop_times": [1349.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.717}, "reply_to": "19903__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__1_010", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "It is one, but I don't think that the removal of that right amounts to a taking, because, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1349.639], "stop_times": [1355.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1349.639}, "reply_to": "19903__1_009", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_011", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, let's just say no will.\nShe died.\nShe has an estate left, and subsequently he dies.\nNow, her estate surely is entitled to half.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1355.292, 1357.513, 1358.805, 1365.399], "stop_times": [1357.513, 1358.805, 1365.399, 1368.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.292}, "reply_to": "19903__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_012", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--But what Louisiana could have passed... I mean, by hypothesis Louisiana could have passed a law that said no, when she died her interest had to go to her husband.\nThat was the terminable interest rule that has existed in other community property States.\nIt could have enacted that, and the effect of that would have been to say, although she might have had a community property interest in her plan assets, you know, or have expected to receive half of them when he retired, and assuming she was alive when he retired, she would have had to hand over everything to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1368.342, 1377.345, 1381.489], "stop_times": [1377.345, 1381.489, 1396.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1368.342}, "reply_to": "19903__1_011", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_013", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But that's not Louisiana law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1396.46], "stop_times": [1398.03], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.46}, "reply_to": "19903__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19903__1_014", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But Louisiana could have passed that law, and I think that is really the effect of what ERISA did in her situation.\nThat is to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1398.03, 1405.034], "stop_times": [1405.034, 1405.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1398.03}, "reply_to": "19903__1_013", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_015", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I'm not so sure I'm willing to say Louisiana could have done that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1405.575], "stop_times": [1408.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.575}, "reply_to": "19903__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_016", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--I guess although it certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1408.527], "stop_times": [1411.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1408.527}, "reply_to": "19903__1_015", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_017", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "We've got these Indian claims, for instance, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1411.439], "stop_times": [1416.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.439}, "reply_to": "19903__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_018", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1416.542], "stop_times": [1416.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1416.542}, "reply_to": "19903__1_017", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_019", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Federal efforts to prevent further fractionalization.\nBut this Court in earlier cases has certainly recognized a property interest in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1416.872, 1420.465], "stop_times": [1420.465, 1426.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.872}, "reply_to": "19903__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_020", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes.\nI think that... I mean, obviously in those cases what we have argued is that in light of the Court's prior decisions the Government couldn't take away her right to make any distribution at all of any interest she might have had, but here, what it does is, it... what ERISA did would be to transfer her community interest to her husband, which she might well have done anyway to gain the benefit of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1426.388, 1426.949], "stop_times": [1426.949, 1448.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1426.388}, "reply_to": "19903__1_019", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_021", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Yes, but she didn't do it, and the State didn't pass the law, and is it fair to say this, that if we assume that in fact there has been a taking to the extent suggested--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1448.822], "stop_times": [1461.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.822}, "reply_to": "19903__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__1_022", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1461.171], "stop_times": [1462.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1461.171}, "reply_to": "19903__1_021", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_023", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--your argument still... pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1462.801], "stop_times": [1464.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.801}, "reply_to": "19903__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__1_024", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--It hasn't been suggested in the lower courts, and hasn't been raised, and we don't know to what extent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1464.003], "stop_times": [1469.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1464.003}, "reply_to": "19903__1_023", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_025", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Right, but it's being raised here I think in aid of the question how should we construe or how should we apply as vague a preemption provision as relates-to, and I thought from your brief that you in effect would address that question by saying, you really don't have a real issue of how to construe the vagueness of relates-to.\nBecause even if there weren't a preemption clause in this statute, you've got good old garden variety conflict preemption here as between what ERISA provides for surviving spouses and what community property law, at least as we are suggesting it, could be construed would otherwise provide, and you've got to face the fact, I think you would say, that there is that conflict preemption.\nAm I being fair to your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1469.616, 1495.443, 1519.909], "stop_times": [1495.443, 1519.909, 1523.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.616}, "reply_to": "19903__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__1_026", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--I think certainly there is a direct conflict with the provision for the survivor annuity for the... that is, ERISA itself says a surviving spouse... as a matter of Federal law, a surviving spouse is entitled to receive a survivor annuity unless she has elected to waive that benefit, assuming there is a surviving spouse and unless she has elected to waive that benefit beforehand by a notarized statement, and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1523.041], "stop_times": [1548.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1523.041}, "reply_to": "19903__1_025", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_027", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And you say that cannot be construed to be a survivor's annuity based upon whatever may be left under State law.\nYou're saying that has got to be determined in relation to either the contributions or the defined benefit of the plan, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1548.149, 1557.025], "stop_times": [1557.025, 1564.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.149}, "reply_to": "19903__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__1_028", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes, and in fact when the... when Congress enacted the survivor annuity, and it... it really, I think really when Congress enacted the REA it really sort of addressed directly the situation of spouses' rights and plan benefits and occupied the field, if you will, but it said it has to be actuarially determined under certain rules which would relate to the annuity that the participant would have had if he'd only been... if only he had been around.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1564.168], "stop_times": [1589.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1564.168}, "reply_to": "19903__1_027", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_029", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1589.436], "stop_times": [1589.975], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.436}, "reply_to": "19903__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19903__1_030", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So it set up a Federal rule for determining how the survivor annuity is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1589.975], "stop_times": [1594.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1589.975}, "reply_to": "19903__1_029", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_031", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well--\n--No--\n--the lower courts now, before the 1984 amendments, had construed the statute not to make such a preemption.\nThis Court hadn't ruled on it.\nBut then Congress got busy and said, wow, we've created a problem here, let's look at it, and they passed this so-called domestic relations order notion hoping to avoid just what you're talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1594.86, 1595.06, 1595.568, 1603.815, 1605.865], "stop_times": [1595.06, 1595.568, 1603.815, 1605.865, 1618.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.86}, "reply_to": "19903__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_032", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, I think that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1618.724], "stop_times": [1620.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1618.724}, "reply_to": "19903__1_031", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_033", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--and to address the problem of the first spouse--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1620.045], "stop_times": [1623.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.045}, "reply_to": "19903__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_034", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Yes, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1623.066], "stop_times": [1623.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1623.066}, "reply_to": "19903__1_033", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_035", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--or the dependent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1623.467], "stop_times": [1625.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.467}, "reply_to": "19903__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_036", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--But what I would suggest is that when Congress enacted the domestic relations order it looked directly at the very compelling situation of the first spouse who would have been expecting to look to be supported by the spouse, or to share in those benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1625.137], "stop_times": [1641.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1625.137}, "reply_to": "19903__1_035", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_037", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, we might even shoe-horn this into that domestic relations order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1641.299], "stop_times": [1645.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.299}, "reply_to": "19903__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_038", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1645.87], "stop_times": [1646.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1645.87}, "reply_to": "19903__1_037", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_039", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "It says if it's made pursuant to a State domestic relations law, including a community property law, and it says that any court in the State can issue an order that is qualified under this plan.\nIt doesn't limit it to some specialized family court, or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1646.071, 1665.385], "stop_times": [1665.385, 1671.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.071}, "reply_to": "19903__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_040", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, I think when Congress said domestic relations law, including community property law, it might have done that for two reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1671.149], "stop_times": [1678.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1671.149}, "reply_to": "19903__1_039", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_041", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, and it also defined ultimate payee for these purposes as any spouse, former spouse, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1678.353], "stop_times": [1684.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.353}, "reply_to": "19903__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_042", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--If that spouse has a domestic relations order that's been qualified, but there are two reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1684.867], "stop_times": [1690.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1684.867}, "reply_to": "19903__1_041", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_043", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Could a probate court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1690.259], "stop_times": [1692.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.259}, "reply_to": "19903__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_044", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--No.\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1692.242, 1692.542], "stop_times": [1692.542, 1693.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1692.242}, "reply_to": "19903__1_043", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_045", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--be such a court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1693.182], "stop_times": [1693.863], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.182}, "reply_to": "19903__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19903__1_046", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1693.863], "stop_times": [1694.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1693.863}, "reply_to": "19903__1_045", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_047", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, it says any court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1694.173], "stop_times": [1695.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.173}, "reply_to": "19903__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_048", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "It says any court applying domestic relations law, which is the law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1695.054], "stop_times": [1698.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1695.054}, "reply_to": "19903__1_047", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_049", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Includes community property law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1698.306], "stop_times": [1699.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.306}, "reply_to": "19903__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_050", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Yes, but the reason why I think Congress did that... I think there are two.\nFirst, in some States domestic relations law is in a separate... you know, in Louisiana, in fact, it's in a separate section of the code than community property law.\nDomestic relations law would normally be thought of in terms of support as child support and alimony, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1699.195, 1702.778, 1712.656], "stop_times": [1702.778, 1712.656, 1718.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1699.195}, "reply_to": "19903__1_049", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_051", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I'm just looking at the provisions of the 1984 amendments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1718.119], "stop_times": [1722.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.119}, "reply_to": "19903__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_052", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--But when you put them together--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1722.163], "stop_times": [1723.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1722.163}, "reply_to": "19903__1_051", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_053", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And I think you could even shoe-horn this into that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1723.031], "stop_times": [1725.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.031}, "reply_to": "19903__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__1_054", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--I don't think so, because when you put them together, I think what Congress was trying to consider was the law that would be applied in domestic relations proceedings, specifically legal separation proceedings and dissolution of a marriage, and child support proceedings, and it wanted to be sure that the courts could consider the community property law, and there's a specific... could have been a specific reason for that.\nIn Hisquierdo and some other cases, the Court had looked at statutes that allowed division of benefits to enforce alimony orders but not community property orders.\nI believe in Hisquierdo the railroad retirement benefit statute specifically had an exception to the antialienation clause for alimony but not for community property, so Congress was removing the doubt that the State court, when it was enacting a domestic relations order, could make an equitable distribution of the property by considering among other things any right that might possibly have been said to arise under State law by virtue of the community property regime and not limited to alimony.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1725.165, 1746.116, 1759.927, 1788.825], "stop_times": [1746.116, 1759.927, 1788.825, 1789.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1725.165}, "reply_to": "19903__1_053", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "19903__1_055", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wolfson.\nMr. Deano, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1789.556, 1791.586], "stop_times": [1791.586, 1794.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.556}, "reply_to": "19903__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__2_000", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe case from the Fifth Circuit which we're seeking to uphold is a simple case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1794.478, 1807.909], "stop_times": [1807.909, 1812.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.478}, "reply_to": "19903__1_055", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_001", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I'd like to ask you a question, but I'm afraid you're going to agree with me.\nBut maybe you won't, which would be lucky, and that is, I'm thinking of these as two separate things.\nOne is the annuity, and the second is everything else, just plain dollars.\nNow, the annuity, it seems to me you run into a big problem of rather specific provisions that say how annuities are supposed to be set up, but as to the other, you're just going to say no.\nI mean, I don't see what the conflict with ERISA is to leave the $200,000 to your wife, or to your cousin, and if this all happens through community property law, why is that any different than if it were the law of wills, and even if community property governs property during life, so what?\nI mean, I don't understand... maybe you could explain what their argument against that is and what your reply is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1812.089, 1815.763, 1822.408, 1828.182, 1841.232, 1858.903], "stop_times": [1815.763, 1822.408, 1828.182, 1841.232, 1858.903, 1864.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.089}, "reply_to": "19903__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_002", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "First of all, with regard to the lump sum payments, clearly the antialienation provisions, once they've been paid out of the plan, don't apply, and there's a whole line of jurisprudence that sets that out.\nBut what's I think very important conceptually to understand, and this Court has spoken to that in the Mackey case and also in the Fort Halifax case, is there's a distinct difference between State laws that deal with benefits and those that deal with plans, and that the preemption clause is not designed to preempt State laws that deal with benefits, and that makes sense.\nIf you preempted the law that dealt with benefits, you could never get to defined rights, because those laws would have been preempted, so you couldn't have a QDRO.\nEverything would end up in Federal court if you preempted the laws.\nSo the remedy to deal with laws that are troubling, State laws that are troubling, are the antialienation provisions, and some cases have said that you preempt laws through the antialienation provisions, which doesn't make a lot of sense either, and I hope that I'm answering your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1864.236, 1879.447, 1905.583, 1913.858, 1917.15], "stop_times": [1879.447, 1905.583, 1913.858, 1917.15, 1938.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.236}, "reply_to": "19903__2_001", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_003", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Your part, the part that you want to answer directly is the other part, I guess, which is 29 U.S.C. 1055 has, like, about 15, or 10, or 5 specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1938.024], "stop_times": [1947.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.024}, "reply_to": "19903__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_004", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1947.451], "stop_times": [1947.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.451}, "reply_to": "19903__2_003", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_005", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--things that are supposed to happen to these pensions, and that, why doesn't that preempt community relations... community property law insofar as it's to the contrary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1947.902], "stop_times": [1959.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.902}, "reply_to": "19903__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_006", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--I think Justice O'Connor drew a point that I think is very salient to that, and that is whether or not a probate order should be defined, or should be able to be qualified as a QDRO, and it's very interesting, I think, to take a look at the antialienation provision in 1056.\nThe general antialienation provision in 1056 pre-REA 1984 was held not to affect property interests, marital property interests.\nThen there was an additional sentence that was put in, and was held to that, and it's a much narrower antialienation protection, and what it says is... and I'm quoting from section (d) in paragraph... in (3), that this alienation shall apply to the creation, assignment, recognition of a right, a benefit which is payable with respect to a participant pursuant to a domestic relations order.\nSo one of two things happens here.\nEither the right, which is... certainly was designed to apply to community property inheritance rights which were not contained in the previous general antialienation... the right, in order to be prohibited through the antialienation provision, must be one that is derived pursuant to a domestic relations order.\nSo one of two things happens.\nEither a probate order is a domestic relations order, in which case that antialienation provision would apply but so would the exception of a QDRO, which requires two things, that it be an anti--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [1959.97, 1982.142, 1993.99, 2030.255, 2032.979, 2056.013, 2058.304], "stop_times": [1982.142, 1993.99, 2030.255, 2032.979, 2056.013, 2058.304, 2070.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.97}, "reply_to": "19903__2_005", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_007", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "What I was thinking of is, I think there's a provision that says you have an annuity, and your employer gives you an annuity.\nLet's say it's $2,000 a month.\nThere's going to have to be a provision in there that if you die your present wife gets at least $1,000 a month.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2070.443, 2075.607, 2077.849, 2082.82], "stop_times": [2075.607, 2077.849, 2082.82, 2083.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.443}, "reply_to": "19903__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_008", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2083.531], "stop_times": [2084.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.531}, "reply_to": "19903__2_007", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_009", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "All right.\nIf that says that specifically in the statute, if there's a community property law that says, sorry, your present wife doesn't get $1,000 a month, rather, that $1,000 a month, which is all that's left of the annuity, goes to the first wife, that would seem like a direct conflict.\nWhy isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2084.922, 2085.181, 2101.023], "stop_times": [2085.181, 2101.023, 2101.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.922}, "reply_to": "19903__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_010", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Because this Court has decided that those types of conflicts are treated in the context of the antialienation provisions, not the preemption provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2101.694], "stop_times": [2112.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.694}, "reply_to": "19903__2_009", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_011", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well then, why?\nThen tell me, because I don't know this area that well.\nIt sounds to me as if the statute says that your pension has to provide an annuity of $2,000 to Breyer until... as long as he's alive, and then $1,000 to his present wife.\nThe community property law says, sorry, the first wife gets the $1,000.\nThat sounds like a direct conflict under basic principles of preemption law, and I'd like to know why it isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2112.3, 2113.001, 2114.471, 2126.641, 2131.554], "stop_times": [2113.001, 2114.471, 2126.641, 2131.554, 2139.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.3}, "reply_to": "19903__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_012", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Because the provision that provides for the annuity is a directive to a plan to provide for that annuity in its plan.\nIt's a directive to administrators to draft a plan that creates this type of function, so if we began to say, plans drafted by administrators can preempt State law, we wade into very dangerous territory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2139.889, 2151.126], "stop_times": [2151.126, 2167.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.889}, "reply_to": "19903__2_011", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_013", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So Congress doesn't care what the result is.\nIt just wants... it just insists that the administrators draw up a certain scheme and it's okay if the States adopt their laws in such a way that the scheme doesn't produce any particular result.\nAll Congress wants is the abstract ideal of an administrative plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2167.525, 2169.507, 2181.486], "stop_times": [2169.507, 2181.486, 2184.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.525}, "reply_to": "19903__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_014", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2184.979], "stop_times": [2185.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.979}, "reply_to": "19903__2_013", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_015", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That doesn't seem to make any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2185.537], "stop_times": [2186.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.537}, "reply_to": "19903__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_016", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--No.\nWhat Congress was looking for is that a plan will have to operate first in the context of State laws, but also with the power of its antialienation provisions to operate within State law, so that the antialienation provisions are the power with regard to State laws that deal with benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2186.448, 2187.58], "stop_times": [2187.58, 2206.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.448}, "reply_to": "19903__2_015", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_017", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Is the $1,000 annuity that Justice Breyer was asking you about, is that at issue here?\nI thought that was not at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2206.841, 2211.546], "stop_times": [2211.546, 2212.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.841}, "reply_to": "19903__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_018", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That is a part of the claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2212.976], "stop_times": [2215.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.976}, "reply_to": "19903__2_017", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_019", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "She's not claiming that she gets the later wife's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2215.117], "stop_times": [2219.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.117}, "reply_to": "19903__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_020", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That has been set out as part of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2219.611], "stop_times": [2222.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.611}, "reply_to": "19903__2_019", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_021", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--annuity, is she?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2222.413], "stop_times": [2223.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.413}, "reply_to": "19903__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_022", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That is set out, has been set out as part of the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2223.374], "stop_times": [2225.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.374}, "reply_to": "19903__2_021", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_023", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "A piece of it.\nPart of it, not all of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2225.785, 2226.597], "stop_times": [2226.597, 2227.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.785}, "reply_to": "19903__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_024", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Oh, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2227.034], "stop_times": [2227.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.034}, "reply_to": "19903__2_023", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_025", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Part of it, not all of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2227.365], "stop_times": [2229.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.365}, "reply_to": "19903__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_026", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--It's an insignificant portion of the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2229.037], "stop_times": [2230.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2229.037}, "reply_to": "19903__2_025", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_027", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I had thought that the brief said that that was not the issue at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2230.087], "stop_times": [2235.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.087}, "reply_to": "19903__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_028", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I'd also like to just note--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2235.022], "stop_times": [2237.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.022}, "reply_to": "19903__2_027", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_029", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, is it?\nIt is part of the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2237.453, 2237.764], "stop_times": [2237.764, 2238.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.453}, "reply_to": "19903__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_030", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2238.463], "stop_times": [2239.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.463}, "reply_to": "19903__2_029", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_031", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "There is a claim for a portion of the annuity payments going to the second wife?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2239.264], "stop_times": [2244.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.264}, "reply_to": "19903__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_032", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's correct, and before I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2244.426], "stop_times": [2245.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.426}, "reply_to": "19903__2_031", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_033", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No longer a claim.\nYou prevailed on it, in fact, in the Fifth Circuit, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2245.487, 2246.368], "stop_times": [2246.368, 2249.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.487}, "reply_to": "19903__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__2_034", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2249.7], "stop_times": [2250.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2249.7}, "reply_to": "19903__2_033", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_035", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "In the Fifth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2250.279], "stop_times": [2251.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.279}, "reply_to": "19903__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__2_036", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2251.5], "stop_times": [2252.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.5}, "reply_to": "19903__2_035", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_037", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--didn't you succeed on the claim, and the claim included not only the lump sum amounts, a piece of those, but also a piece of the survivor's annuity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2252.292], "stop_times": [2262.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.292}, "reply_to": "19903__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__2_038", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Which... that's correct, and to maybe make that somewhat more understood, under Louisiana law what is actually the claim is accounting for a usufruct, meaning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2262.588], "stop_times": [2272.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.588}, "reply_to": "19903__2_037", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_039", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "From the three sons, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2272.525], "stop_times": [2274.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.525}, "reply_to": "19903__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__2_040", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--accounting for the use of the property.\nNot necessarily that property itself, but what you're calling upon, and the right is an account for the use of the property during the life of the user.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2274.306, 2275.217], "stop_times": [2275.217, 2284.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.306}, "reply_to": "19903__2_039", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_041", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes, but the result of it would be that the current wife, who's getting something like $1,800 a month, or something like that, that she would in fact have to pay over a piece of that, whatever is the... it could be reduced to a lump sum, but a piece of her monthly benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2284.753], "stop_times": [2303.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2284.753}, "reply_to": "19903__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__2_042", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's correct, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2303.036], "stop_times": [2304.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2303.036}, "reply_to": "19903__2_041", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_043", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "What kind of a plan was this?\nWhere does this survivor's annuity come from?\nDid payments come from Isaac during his life that went into a specific fund, and it was that fund that's used to pay out the survivor benefits, or is it some other kind of plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2304.245, 2306.657, 2309.959], "stop_times": [2306.657, 2309.959, 2322.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.245}, "reply_to": "19903__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_044", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--It's my understanding that the total pension benefits, meaning life insurance policies, meaning lump sums and this annuity, were provided over the life of the entire employment of Isaac and during that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2322.438], "stop_times": [2339.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.438}, "reply_to": "19903__2_043", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_045", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Not out of any specific fund that matched, dollar for dollar, what he put in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2339.468], "stop_times": [2344.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.468}, "reply_to": "19903__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_046", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2344.423], "stop_times": [2346.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.423}, "reply_to": "19903__2_045", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_047", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "What if Isaac had died before his retirement and without having remarried?\nWould his heirs have received anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2346.804, 2355.97], "stop_times": [2355.97, 2359.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.804}, "reply_to": "19903__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_048", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "If Isaac... under Louisiana law, if Isaac--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2359.494], "stop_times": [2362.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.494}, "reply_to": "19903__2_047", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_049", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "He hadn't remarried.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2362.874], "stop_times": [2363.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.874}, "reply_to": "19903__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_050", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--If he had not remarried--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2363.604], "stop_times": [2364.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.604}, "reply_to": "19903__2_049", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_051", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And he died before any survivor's annuity had been paid, what would happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2364.636], "stop_times": [2370.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.636}, "reply_to": "19903__2_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_052", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--The heirs of Dorothy would have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2370.119], "stop_times": [2374.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.119}, "reply_to": "19903__2_051", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_053", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "His heirs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2374.751], "stop_times": [2375.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.751}, "reply_to": "19903__2_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_054", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--And his heirs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2375.672], "stop_times": [2376.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.672}, "reply_to": "19903__2_053", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_055", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Would his heirs get anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2376.293], "stop_times": [2377.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.293}, "reply_to": "19903__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_056", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "His heirs would inherit his property, his part of the community property.\nAny separate property owe an accounting to the heirs of Dorothy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2377.224, 2380.805], "stop_times": [2380.805, 2384.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2377.224}, "reply_to": "19903__2_055", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_057", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Would they be entitled, if they were not dependent children, to any portion of the survivor's annuity in that circumstance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2384.328], "stop_times": [2392.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.328}, "reply_to": "19903__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_058", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "If Isaac... oh, had Dorothy survived?\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2392.032, 2398.177], "stop_times": [2398.177, 2398.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.032}, "reply_to": "19903__2_057", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_059", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No.\nShe's gone, he's gone.\nThere's no survivor.\nThere are no survivors except adult children.\nWhat happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2398.748, 2399.288, 2401.419, 2402.801, 2405.963], "stop_times": [2399.288, 2401.419, 2402.801, 2405.963, 2407.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.748}, "reply_to": "19903__2_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_060", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, I don't believe under the plan there would be any survivor's annuity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2407.094], "stop_times": [2408.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.094}, "reply_to": "19903__2_059", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_061", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Of course not, and--\n--No.\nBut that's the puzzlement about this case.\nThat's been the puzzle.\nHow can the first wife claim the annuity that wouldn't have existed if the first wife hadn't died?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2408.824, 2410.844, 2411.025, 2412.946, 2414.008], "stop_times": [2410.844, 2411.025, 2412.946, 2414.008, 2421.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.824}, "reply_to": "19903__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_062", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Because that annuity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2421.391], "stop_times": [2422.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.391}, "reply_to": "19903__2_061", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_063", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I mean, had he not remarried there would have been no annuity.\nAt the time she died, that was it.\nThe right to an annuity comes about later because he remarries, and now the first wife, who at the time of her death had no claim, gets a right to the second wife's annuity.\nIt seems very strange to me.\nI can't imagine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2422.884, 2425.664, 2428.366, 2439.523, 2440.975], "stop_times": [2425.664, 2428.366, 2439.523, 2440.975, 2441.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.884}, "reply_to": "19903__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_064", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That right, that annuity was paid for first of all with community funds, and also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2441.546], "stop_times": [2447.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2441.546}, "reply_to": "19903__2_063", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_065", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Well, but you just told me they weren't traceable.\nYou know, this is a real puzzle to figure out, and if you acknowledge in the circumstances I ask about that, oh, well, then there wouldn't be a survivor's annuity, I'm not sure that that creates a problem then when the first wife died.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2447.509, 2449.37], "stop_times": [2449.37, 2463.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.509}, "reply_to": "19903__2_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_066", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Perhaps I misunderstood your question with regard to a fund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2463.101], "stop_times": [2464.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.101}, "reply_to": "19903__2_065", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_067", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, I--\n--I thought the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2464.881, 2465.332], "stop_times": [2465.332, 2468.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.881}, "reply_to": "19903__2_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_068", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "If the money was paid from community funds--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2468.023], "stop_times": [2470.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.023}, "reply_to": "19903__2_067", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_069", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Why couldn't I think that what was bought with the community funds was, as I described it earlier, a lottery ticket?\nThe wife has a chance.\nIf she outlives the husband, she has a right to this annuity, but at the time of her death, the lottery was over.\nShe had lost.\nThere's nothing left to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2470.154, 2477.37, 2479.261, 2484.614, 2485.385], "stop_times": [2477.37, 2479.261, 2484.614, 2485.385, 2486.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.154}, "reply_to": "19903__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_070", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Because... and the answer to that question is because she has a certain claim, certainly on the benefits that her husband--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2486.634], "stop_times": [2492.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.634}, "reply_to": "19903__2_069", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_071", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's the other part of the case.\nI acknowledge that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2492.998, 2495.5], "stop_times": [2495.5, 2496.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.998}, "reply_to": "19903__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_072", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2496.501], "stop_times": [2496.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.501}, "reply_to": "19903__2_071", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_073", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's a different part, the husband's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2496.792], "stop_times": [2498.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.792}, "reply_to": "19903__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_074", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And those benefits were reduced due to this... due to this annuity, so that the community funds not only paid for the survivor's annuity, but the other funds that she would otherwise have a claim upon, which were the funds that were received by her husband, were reduced in order to purchase this annuity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2498.201], "stop_times": [2518.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.201}, "reply_to": "19903__2_073", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_075", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--So there's this right as a matter of State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2518.456], "stop_times": [2520.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.456}, "reply_to": "19903__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_076", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2520.227], "stop_times": [2521.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.227}, "reply_to": "19903__2_075", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_077", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That as a matter of State law, husband and wife 1 work together for 30 years, build up a million dollars in an IRA, or in some kind of a retirement account with a pension, and at the end, eventually wife 1 is long... is gone, but eventually that million is used to buy an annuity which says, $2,000 a month to husband, on husband's death, $1,000 a month to wife 2.\nYou are saying under the law of Louisiana, since that $1 million which paid for the annuity was jointly built up during their community, wife 1 is entitled to one-half the proceeds of that eventually, or some share of that.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2521.448, 2546.774, 2562.105], "stop_times": [2546.774, 2562.105, 2562.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.448}, "reply_to": "19903__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_078", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And also, that's correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2562.716], "stop_times": [2565.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2562.716}, "reply_to": "19903__2_077", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_079", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And that is the State law of Louisiana, and my question was, why, in fact, doesn't this particular provision that says half has to go to wife 2 trump that, and your answer was what it was.\nIs that where we are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2565.047, 2574.132], "stop_times": [2574.132, 2574.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.047}, "reply_to": "19903__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19903__2_080", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2574.793], "stop_times": [2575.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.793}, "reply_to": "19903__2_079", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_081", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2575.893], "stop_times": [2576.293], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.893}, "reply_to": "19903__2_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19903__2_082", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And the answer is that the State laws dealing with benefits, and it's been held, are not preempted but they have to deal with the antialienation provisions in ERISA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2576.293], "stop_times": [2587.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.293}, "reply_to": "19903__2_081", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_083", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Can you explain that to me further, because that's the point... I wanted to come back to that.\nI don't understand your argument about the significance of the antialienation provision if we assume a conflict which would otherwise give rise to a preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2587.16, 2590.563], "stop_times": [2590.563, 2600.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.16}, "reply_to": "19903__2_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__2_084", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "This Court has stated that, first of all, the State laws that deal with benefits, and this is in Fort Halifax v. Coyne, are not preempted.\nThey have to... and that's been followed in a line of jurisprudence with Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers and other cases, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2600.751, 2613.048], "stop_times": [2613.048, 2620.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2600.751}, "reply_to": "19903__2_083", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_085", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So you're saying there's no conflict preemption under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2620.732], "stop_times": [2623.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.732}, "reply_to": "19903__2_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__2_086", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--No.\nWhat I'm saying is that when there is a conflict, preemption is not the remedy.\nPreemption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2623.875, 2624.065, 2627.417], "stop_times": [2624.065, 2627.417, 2628.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.875}, "reply_to": "19903__2_085", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_087", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2628.318], "stop_times": [2628.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.318}, "reply_to": "19903__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__2_088", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--has not... has been rendered not the remedy for a conflict or troubling situation with State laws, State laws dealings with benefits as opposed to State laws dealing with benefit plans.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2628.719, 2643.357], "stop_times": [2643.357, 2644.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2628.719}, "reply_to": "19903__2_087", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_089", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "What is the remedy, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2644.589], "stop_times": [2646.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.589}, "reply_to": "19903__2_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_090", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--The remedy is the antialienation provisions in ERISA, and this Court has reasoned that if the law, the State laws first of all were preempted there would be no need for the antialienation provisions, and so the fact that the antialienation provisions are there are certainly an indication that the State laws that deal with benefits are not preempted, and that line of cases has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2646.77], "stop_times": [2672.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2646.77}, "reply_to": "19903__2_089", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_091", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Why isn't there... now, I'm sorry, this is probably a very stupid question, but why isn't the antialienation provision explicable in terms of rights under the ERISA plan as distinct from rights under State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2672.017], "stop_times": [2683.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.017}, "reply_to": "19903__2_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19903__2_092", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--The... this... the speakings of this Court in the case of Mackey, and also because of the congressional... the screening congressional intent prior to the enactment of the REA act indicated it is not... it is not Congress' intent to preempt State laws dealing with marital property rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2683.707], "stop_times": [2704.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.707}, "reply_to": "19903__2_091", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_093", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2704.989], "stop_times": [2705.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.989}, "reply_to": "19903__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_094", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2705.489], "stop_times": [2706.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2705.489}, "reply_to": "19903__2_093", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_095", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Are you through with your answer?\nI don't want to interrupt you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2706.581, 2707.913], "stop_times": [2707.913, 2708.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.581}, "reply_to": "19903__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_096", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--And so that that combination, and the fact that if you begin to preempt State laws, for instance you'd never be able to get to an exception to the antialienation provision, for instance, a QDRO, because the laws that would be the basis for the QDRO would be preempted.\nSo that the remedy is not preemption, it's dealing with the antialienation provisions.\nAnd to answer more specifically your question, the Court reasoned that the preemption is not the useless... would not be the useless one, as opposed to the antialienation definition of a QDRO, because it was Congress' intent to show that any preemption of domestic rights or domestic laws was not the intent, and therefore they put that into the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2708.081, 2727.365, 2736.571], "stop_times": [2727.365, 2736.571, 2761.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.081}, "reply_to": "19903__2_095", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_097", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "May I ask you three very brief questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2761.907], "stop_times": [2763.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.907}, "reply_to": "19903__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_098", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2763.907], "stop_times": [2764.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2763.907}, "reply_to": "19903__2_097", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_099", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "One, does the record contain the plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2764.338], "stop_times": [2766.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2764.338}, "reply_to": "19903__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_100", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "To my knowledge, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2766.841], "stop_times": [2769.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2766.841}, "reply_to": "19903__2_099", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_101", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I couldn't find it.\nAnd 2, do you know that when your... when the first wife's... do you know when the husband's rights in the plan vested?\nDoes the record tell us the answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2769.751, 2770.342, 2778.336], "stop_times": [2770.342, 2778.336, 2779.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.751}, "reply_to": "19903__2_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_102", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "The record... first of all, the record indicates in a stipulation of facts that the rights had vested, and I also wanted to point out that the issues of a taking was raised and argued in the district court level, argued in... also argued in the Fifth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2779.638], "stop_times": [2795.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2779.638}, "reply_to": "19903__2_101", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_103", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Had vested when?\nWhen?\nJustice Stevens asked you when?\nYes.\nDoes the record tell us when the husband's rights vested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2795.359, 2796.498, 2797.219, 2798.301, 2798.691], "stop_times": [2796.498, 2797.219, 2798.301, 2798.691, 2803.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.359}, "reply_to": "19903__2_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_104", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "To my knowledge the record does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2803.845], "stop_times": [2805.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2803.845}, "reply_to": "19903__2_103", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_105", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "It does not.\nAnd... but I... the other... you have answered my third question.\nI was going to ask you whether the takings issue had been raised, and you did argue that in the district court and in the court of appeals, and the court of appeals didn't address it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2805.215, 2805.685, 2807.458], "stop_times": [2805.685, 2807.458, 2814.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.215}, "reply_to": "19903__2_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_106", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2814.271], "stop_times": [2814.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.271}, "reply_to": "19903__2_105", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_107", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--When you say they had vested, had vested when, by when?\nBy today?\nBy the time of the husband's death?\nBy the time of the wife's death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2814.861, 2819.505, 2820.815, 2822.548], "stop_times": [2819.505, 2820.815, 2822.548, 2823.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.861}, "reply_to": "19903__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_108", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "They had vested at the time of the wife's death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2823.957], "stop_times": [2825.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2823.957}, "reply_to": "19903__2_107", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_109", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Of the first wife's death?\nWhich was '79.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2825.698, 2826.779], "stop_times": [2826.779, 2827.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.698}, "reply_to": "19903__2_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_110", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2827.751], "stop_times": [2828.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2827.751}, "reply_to": "19903__2_109", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_111", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Have there been cases in Louisiana where the Louisiana legislature has passed laws changing the rights of spouses in community property, saying that what was once raw expectancy is now vested, and have those... and if that has happened, have any of those under State law been challenged as takings, or retroactive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2828.62], "stop_times": [2853.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.62}, "reply_to": "19903__2_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19903__2_112", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "To my knowledge, the only changes in community property laws that have come about have been where the parties have been able to agree to make those changes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2853.447], "stop_times": [2860.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.447}, "reply_to": "19903__2_111", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_113", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--May I... I want to clarify one thing on the takings issue.\nDid you argue that there was a taking in 1974 when the statute was enacted, or when did you say the taking took place?\nWhat was your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2860.95, 2864.353, 2873.088], "stop_times": [2864.353, 2873.088, 2873.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2860.95}, "reply_to": "19903__2_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_114", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I believe the argument was first of all that there was a takings... one in '74--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2873.89], "stop_times": [2879.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2873.89}, "reply_to": "19903__2_113", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_115", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "You did argue that there was a takings in '74.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2879.633], "stop_times": [2882.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.633}, "reply_to": "19903__2_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_116", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--And there was one... it was taken--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2882.095], "stop_times": [2882.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2882.095}, "reply_to": "19903__2_115", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_117", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So you must have argued that there had been a vesting prior to '74, but there's no finding to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2882.716], "stop_times": [2887.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.716}, "reply_to": "19903__2_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19903__2_118", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Right, but also a taking in that the probate order was rendered in this matter in 1980, 4 years before the enactment of the REA act, and there's discretion that the... in section 302 that allows orders that don't meet the qualifications of a QDRO to be excepted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2887.768], "stop_times": [2911.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.768}, "reply_to": "19903__2_117", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_119", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2911.115], "stop_times": [2911.974], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.115}, "reply_to": "19903__2_118", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19903__2_120", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And that is another point as to why antialienation provisions are not allowed to preempt State laws, because they're drafted by plan administrators that do have discretion in the drafting of those plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2911.974], "stop_times": [2927.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.974}, "reply_to": "19903__2_119", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_121", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Is it--\n--The Fifth Circuit interpreted the statute in such a way that there was no takings problem.\nIt held for you down the line.\nBut one of the arguments that was raised on the other side about the Federal interest is, sparing the plan from being burdened with all these peculiarities of usufruct and forced heirship and all that, and we're also been told by one of the briefs that there are peripatetic workers who walk in and out of community property States, and the whole thing would be a nightmare for administration, so how do you respond to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2927.324, 2928.005, 2935.369, 2938.181], "stop_times": [2928.005, 2935.369, 2938.181, 2968.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.324}, "reply_to": "19903__2_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19903__2_122", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "I think the accounting problem is somewhat of a bogus issue in that the administrator just deals with the judgment that's presented to them, and the rights that are contained in the judgment.\nAn administrator is never called upon to do... to touch a calculator with regard to those types of problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2968.271, 2981.762], "stop_times": [2981.762, 2990.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.271}, "reply_to": "19903__2_121", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_123", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Of course, the administrator would have to comply under present law since '84 with a qualified domestic relations order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [2990.907], "stop_times": [3000.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.907}, "reply_to": "19903__2_122", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_124", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3000.863], "stop_times": [3001.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.863}, "reply_to": "19903__2_123", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_125", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "If this is not a qualified domestic relations order, then where does that leave you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3001.724], "stop_times": [3007.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.724}, "reply_to": "19903__2_124", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_126", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, under the amendments to the REA act, if it's not a qualified domestic relations order, it doesn't come under the enhanced antialienation sanctions that existed before.\nI mean, that existed in the enactment of the REA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3007.267, 3019.766], "stop_times": [3019.766, 3022.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.267}, "reply_to": "19903__2_125", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_127", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3022.23], "stop_times": [3022.878], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.23}, "reply_to": "19903__2_126", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19903__2_128", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "It follows under the old ones in which it was allowed.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3022.878, 3025.572], "stop_times": [3025.572, 3025.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.878}, "reply_to": "19903__2_127", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_129", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Could Dorothy have given her interest directly to the sons during the... before the retirement of Isaac?\nCould she have signed a deed of gift to her sons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3025.94, 3042.101], "stop_times": [3042.101, 3046.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.94}, "reply_to": "19903__2_128", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_130", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3046.353], "stop_times": [3046.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.353}, "reply_to": "19903__2_129", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_131", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Of her interest, to the extent she had one, to her sons?\nAnd if so, would that require the pension administrator to abide by that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3046.723, 3051.037], "stop_times": [3051.037, 3060.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.723}, "reply_to": "19903__2_130", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_132", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "If it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3060.104], "stop_times": [3061.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3060.104}, "reply_to": "19903__2_131", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_133", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Will that possibly be an alienation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3061.694], "stop_times": [3063.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.694}, "reply_to": "19903__2_132", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_134", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--If it was to a benefit that was payable, it possibly could be an antialienation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3063.647], "stop_times": [3072.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3063.647}, "reply_to": "19903__2_133", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_135", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, wait a minute.\nUnder the statute it would be payable, a certain amount to the husband, and thereafter a certain amount to the then surviving wife, if there was one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3072.132, 3072.382], "stop_times": [3072.382, 3083.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.132}, "reply_to": "19903__2_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_136", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Keep in mind that the funds for the most part that we're talking about in this matter had left the plan 10 years ago, for the most part, and no administrator will ever have to deal with any of the things with regard to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3083.519], "stop_times": [3100.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3083.519}, "reply_to": "19903__2_135", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_137", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But you didn't answer my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3100.73], "stop_times": [3101.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3100.73}, "reply_to": "19903__2_136", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_138", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "With regard to a transfer, it would be just a written donation that would be handed to an administrator.\nIt would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3101.511, 3108.995], "stop_times": [3108.995, 3110.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3101.511}, "reply_to": "19903__2_137", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_139", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Deed of gift to children, copy to administrator?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3110.377], "stop_times": [3113.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.377}, "reply_to": "19903__2_138", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_140", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Right.\nMy... I believe that that could be considered a non--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3113.229, 3113.51], "stop_times": [3113.51, 3118.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3113.229}, "reply_to": "19903__2_139", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_141", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "An alienation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3118.512], "stop_times": [3120.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.512}, "reply_to": "19903__2_140", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_142", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--An alienation if it was to one that was payable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3120.442], "stop_times": [3122.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3120.442}, "reply_to": "19903__2_141", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_143", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well then, why isn't a contemporary testamentary provision an alienation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3122.865], "stop_times": [3127.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.865}, "reply_to": "19903__2_142", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_144", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Because first of all this was not a testamentary alienation.\nThis happened under operation of Louisiana law.\nThis was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3127.266, 3132.051, 3133.922], "stop_times": [3132.051, 3133.922, 3134.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3127.266}, "reply_to": "19903__2_143", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_145", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No will here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3134.863], "stop_times": [3136.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.863}, "reply_to": "19903__2_144", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_146", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--There was a will, but the children's names were not mentioned in the will at all.\nThey were forced heirs, and it happened as an operation of law, so she didn't make... as opposed to the example that you gave, she did not make a transfer, and that has been... an alienation has been defined as a will of transfer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3136.143, 3140.137], "stop_times": [3140.137, 3153.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3136.143}, "reply_to": "19903__2_145", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_147", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So according to you, in this situation there was no alienation at all during the existence of the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3153.086], "stop_times": [3159.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.086}, "reply_to": "19903__2_146", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_148", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "There was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3159.97], "stop_times": [3160.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.97}, "reply_to": "19903__2_147", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_149", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Because Isaac had retired, and he got whatever he got, and what she did arose... what happened arose by virtue of Louisiana law after the benefits had been distributed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3160.7], "stop_times": [3174.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.7}, "reply_to": "19903__2_148", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19903__2_150", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--That's correct.\nLet me touch just a little bit more on the concept--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3174.72, 3174.888], "stop_times": [3174.888, 3184.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.72}, "reply_to": "19903__2_149", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_151", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, before you go on, two questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3184.255], "stop_times": [3187.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.255}, "reply_to": "19903__2_150", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_152", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3187.508], "stop_times": [3187.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3187.508}, "reply_to": "19903__2_151", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_153", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "One, would you explain for us what happened to the lump sum that was alienated, or that was distributed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3187.888], "stop_times": [3193.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.888}, "reply_to": "19903__2_152", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_154", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "The lump sum was rolled over into an IRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3193.422], "stop_times": [3197.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3193.422}, "reply_to": "19903__2_153", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_155", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Now, did he have options to... was the money given to him, and did he then put it in an IRA, or was it within the terms of the plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3197.966], "stop_times": [3206.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.966}, "reply_to": "19903__2_154", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_156", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "It's my understanding that he took the... they came into his ownership and then he rolled it over into an IRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3206.45], "stop_times": [3213.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3206.45}, "reply_to": "19903__2_155", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_157", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Okay.\nOne other question.\nLet's say that Isaac, that his wife pre... she passed away in 1979, that he was quite grieved, and did not remarry, and assume that the gift that Justice O'Connor spoke about was made to the kids, or it was passed on as it was in this case, but Isaac did not remarry.\nWhat would the children get in those circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3213.076, 3213.634, 3215.226, 3240.461], "stop_times": [3213.634, 3215.226, 3240.461, 3245.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.076}, "reply_to": "19903__2_156", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_158", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "First they would have had... they would have received property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3245.544], "stop_times": [3248.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.544}, "reply_to": "19903__2_157", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_159", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, let's just... from the plan.\nThat's all I'm interested in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3248.877, 3251.959], "stop_times": [3251.959, 3252.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.877}, "reply_to": "19903__2_158", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_160", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3252.95], "stop_times": [3253.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3252.95}, "reply_to": "19903__2_159", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_161", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Under this plan, what would they get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3253.221], "stop_times": [3258.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.221}, "reply_to": "19903__2_160", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_162", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "They would not at that moment get anything, but they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3258.003], "stop_times": [3261.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.003}, "reply_to": "19903__2_161", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_163", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "No, when he died.\nLet's say everything is exactly the same as it is now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3261.386, 3262.357], "stop_times": [3262.357, 3267.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.386}, "reply_to": "19903__2_162", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_164", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3267.68], "stop_times": [3267.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.68}, "reply_to": "19903__2_163", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_165", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Except, he doesn't remarry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3267.941], "stop_times": [3269.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.941}, "reply_to": "19903__2_164", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_166", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Okay.\nThe only thing... he doesn't get... they do not get a thing from the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3269.931, 3270.252], "stop_times": [3270.252, 3274.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3269.931}, "reply_to": "19903__2_165", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_167", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "What about the $150,000?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3274.576], "stop_times": [3277.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.576}, "reply_to": "19903__2_166", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_168", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3277.107], "stop_times": [3277.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3277.107}, "reply_to": "19903__2_167", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_169", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So the $150,000 you treat separately.\nLet's say that's... we have to assume that went to a bank account or something.\nIs that accurate?\nSo the lump... there's a difference between the lump sum and the stock as opposed to the survivor's annuity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3277.518, 3281.218, 3284.02, 3285.482], "stop_times": [3281.218, 3284.02, 3285.482, 3294.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.518}, "reply_to": "19903__2_168", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_170", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That's correct.\nThe consideration for the survivor's annuity, however, was the reduced retirement moneys paid to Isaac during the remainder... upon his retirement, for which he purchased this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3294.418, 3295.539], "stop_times": [3295.539, 3307.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.418}, "reply_to": "19903__2_169", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_171", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, but that's the deal.\nThat's just like the husband and wife agreeing to sell a piece of... sell an automobile for a boat.\nI mean, you don't value what the wife gets on the basis of the boat.\nIf they went into the deal and traded the one for the other, it's gone, and what you have is what's in front of you, so it doesn't seem to me to say, well, they got this money only because they took less of something else... that was what they bought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3307.706, 3308.868, 3315.242, 3318.915], "stop_times": [3308.868, 3315.242, 3318.915, 3330.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.706}, "reply_to": "19903__2_170", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19903__2_172", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Except there was something there at this moment, Your Honor.\nI mean, it would be like presuming there wasn't something there when in fact there was something there.\nI would just like to close by mentioning again that the remedy on State laws that confuse or are troubling to Federal concepts with regard to ERISA is not preemption, that it comes under the antialienation provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3330.792, 3333.922, 3338.817], "stop_times": [3333.922, 3338.817, 3360.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3330.792}, "reply_to": "19903__2_171", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_173", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, I'm sorry to interrupt you.\nDo you have a better argument for the lump sum than you do for the annuity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3360.052, 3362.922], "stop_times": [3362.922, 3366.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.052}, "reply_to": "19903__2_172", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_174", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "My argument with regard to the lump sum is the antialienation provisions do not apply once they've left the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3366.325], "stop_times": [3373.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3366.325}, "reply_to": "19903__2_173", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_175", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "But do you have a better argument for the lump sum than the annuity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3373.579], "stop_times": [3376.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.579}, "reply_to": "19903__2_174", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_176", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Yes.\nThe argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3376.651, 3378.422], "stop_times": [3378.422, 3380.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3376.651}, "reply_to": "19903__2_175", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_177", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Justice Thomas is asking you to weigh the two arguments, which do you think is the better one, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3380.494], "stop_times": [3385.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3380.494}, "reply_to": "19903__2_176", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__2_178", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Oh, I would find that there are... there is equal authority from this Court for both of them.\nProbably the occasion has risen more with regard to the antialienation protections following after the benefits leave the plan.\nThat doctrine may be more grounded--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3385.497, 3395.275, 3405.099], "stop_times": [3395.275, 3405.099, 3409.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3385.497}, "reply_to": "19903__2_177", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_179", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well, I think where you're losing me... I'm sorry to interrupt, but where you're losing me is, if he had not remarried, what is there to give away?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3409.853], "stop_times": [3417.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3409.853}, "reply_to": "19903__2_178", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_180", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--There is nothing to give away, but he would have received more benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3417.217], "stop_times": [3423.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3417.217}, "reply_to": "19903__2_179", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_181", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3423.111], "stop_times": [3424.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.111}, "reply_to": "19903__2_180", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_182", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "So that his estate would have been larger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3424.073], "stop_times": [3427.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3424.073}, "reply_to": "19903__2_181", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_183", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Suppose he gambled.\nSuppose he decided to go to the river boats and just feed the slot machines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3427.484, 3429.615], "stop_times": [3429.615, 3433.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.484}, "reply_to": "19903__2_182", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_184", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That would not have diminished how much funds he had used during this lifetime that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3433.569], "stop_times": [3441.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3433.569}, "reply_to": "19903__2_183", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_185", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "It would not have increased the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3441.894], "stop_times": [3444.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3441.894}, "reply_to": "19903__2_184", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_186", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--No, but it would have increased the amount of funds of other people that he would have had use of.\nHe would have received more money from the plan over his lifetime, which was money partially of other people, and he would have had more money that he would have used of other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3444.125, 3449.388], "stop_times": [3449.388, 3462.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3444.125}, "reply_to": "19903__2_185", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_187", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Okay, let's say he did not remarry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3462.387], "stop_times": [3465.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3462.387}, "reply_to": "19903__2_186", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_188", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3465.269], "stop_times": [3466.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3465.269}, "reply_to": "19903__2_187", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_189", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "And he decided to... for the few years he was single, he was so grieved, he was so full of grief that he gambled a lot.\nNow, what is it in the estate that they get more of?\nI don't understand... I just don't understand your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3466.03, 3472.664, 3476.035], "stop_times": [3472.664, 3476.035, 3478.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3466.03}, "reply_to": "19903__2_188", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_190", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3478.579], "stop_times": [3479.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3478.579}, "reply_to": "19903__2_189", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_191", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "That he... there is no annuity.\nThe only annuity available is for the survivor benefits.\nThere is no survivor because he never rem rried, so what is it for the children to get?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3479.157, 3481.46, 3485.512], "stop_times": [3481.46, 3485.512, 3490.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3479.157}, "reply_to": "19903__2_190", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_192", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--The rights that the children get is the right to account for their money that was being used--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3490.417], "stop_times": [3498.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3490.417}, "reply_to": "19903__2_191", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_193", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "They didn't have any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3498.412], "stop_times": [3499.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3498.412}, "reply_to": "19903__2_192", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "19903__2_194", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "--They did have money.\nThere was money that came in during his lifetime which would have been a greater amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3499.033, 3501.163], "stop_times": [3501.163, 3505.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3499.033}, "reply_to": "19903__2_193", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_195", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Deano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3505.357], "stop_times": [3506.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3505.357}, "reply_to": "19903__2_194", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__2_196", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3506.609], "stop_times": [3507.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3506.609}, "reply_to": "19903__2_195", "speaker": "edward_j_deano_jr"}
{"id": "19903__2_197", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3507.04], "stop_times": [3508.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.04}, "reply_to": "19903__2_196", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19903__2_198", "conversation_id": "19903", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Tuesday, January 21st at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-79", "start_times": [3508.201], "stop_times": [3515.177], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3508.201}, "reply_to": "19903__2_197", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20669__0_000", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-6133, William Bracy v. Richard B. Gramley.\nMr. Levy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [0.0, 10.772], "stop_times": [10.772, 50.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_001", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn support of our discovery request in the district court, we presented evidence that former Judge Thomas Maloney systematically disregarded his oath of office in favor of his self-interest.\nHe accepted bribes to fix murder cases.\nHe had a prior history before he ascended to the bench as an attorney who fixed cases, and who had ties to organized crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [50.663, 53.182, 69.625, 72.594], "stop_times": [53.182, 69.625, 72.594, 80.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.663}, "reply_to": "20669__0_000", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_002", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, would your case be any weaker if he had never accepted... never given bribes when he was an attorney and simply had accepted them when he was a judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [80.499], "stop_times": [90.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.499}, "reply_to": "20669__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_003", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "It would not be any weaker, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [90.474], "stop_times": [92.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 90.474}, "reply_to": "20669__0_002", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_004", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Then why do you mention the attorney business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [92.824], "stop_times": [95.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.824}, "reply_to": "20669__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_005", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "It seems to me, Mr. Chief Justice, that it's relative to the character of the person who is assumed to regard his oath and office and be fair in my client's case, a factor, I think, that the district court would want to take into consideration in determining whether or not there was a due process violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [95.176], "stop_times": [116.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.176}, "reply_to": "20669__0_004", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_006", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well--\n--What standard are you arguing for here as a matter of constitutional law?\nDo you think it's necessary to show that the... Judge Maloney made some request, either by inference or expressly, in this case, or do you think it's only necessary to show that he made it in other cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [116.422, 116.622, 121.243], "stop_times": [116.622, 121.243, 134.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 116.422}, "reply_to": "20669__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_007", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I think the standard, Mr. Chief Justice, as this Court indicated in Murchison, is probability of unfairness in this case.\nWe believe that the presentation that we made to the district court was sufficient to demonstrate that, but if this Court decides that that's not sufficient, or a district... or a court decides that's not sufficient, we're certainly in a position to go forward and demonstrate more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [134.134, 141.407], "stop_times": [141.407, 158.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.134}, "reply_to": "20669__0_006", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_008", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, when you say probability of unfairness, you're saying that if you can show in some other cases that he asked for a bribe, or that perhaps he suggested if you didn't give him a bribe he would be very tough on you, that would be enough, without showing anything in this particular case?\nYou can answer that yes or no, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [158.166, 177.294], "stop_times": [177.294, 180.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.166}, "reply_to": "20669__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_009", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "No, Your Honor, if I may explain, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [180.412], "stop_times": [183.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.412}, "reply_to": "20669__0_008", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_010", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Yes, certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [183.364], "stop_times": [184.247], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 183.364}, "reply_to": "20669__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20669__0_011", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I think all of this Court's analysis of this issue has always looked to the biasing influence itself, and whether it was sufficiently strong.\nIf the biasing influence, which in this case was corruption, has been deemed to be sufficiently severe, this Court has always presumed prejudice and has not looked to the question of whether or not the judge in a particular case was actually biased towards the particular defendant.\nHowever, if actual bias were the standard, which we maintain it isn't, we believe that we may be able to show that if we're given access to the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [184.247, 194.22, 211.847], "stop_times": [194.22, 211.847, 222.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.247}, "reply_to": "20669__0_010", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_012", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "You... I suppose you would show that by something said to one of your client's lawyers by the judge during his trial.\nI would think you'd be able to get that now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [222.286, 229.956], "stop_times": [229.956, 232.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 222.286}, "reply_to": "20669__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_013", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "We may... we think that we could show that for what... for example as to what Judge Maloney may have said to the accomplices, who were Government witnesses, at the time, who were involved in the bribe-taking process at the same time that my client's case was tried.\nWe may be able to explore the possibility that there was a corrupt relationship between Judge Maloney and the person that he appointed to be my client's attorney.\nWe believe that we may be able to show examples of instances where Judge Maloney was corrupt in other cases in which he didn't receive bribes.\nWe believe that, as the Government sensing memorandum in the Maloney case indicated, we believe that we may be able to show a lot of corruption going on right at the same time as Mr. Bracy's trial, so that Judge Maloney would have had to have leaned in favor of the State just to be generally impartial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [232.072, 248.198, 257.637, 267.243], "stop_times": [248.198, 257.637, 267.243, 284.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.072}, "reply_to": "20669__0_012", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_014", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr. Levy, I'm not sure what the scope of your concession was.\nDid you, in response to the Chief Justice, acknowledge that before you can proceed with further discovery you must establish a probability of unfairness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [284.454, 288.156], "stop_times": [288.156, 298.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 284.454}, "reply_to": "20669__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_015", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "No, I don't... I'm sorry, I misspoke, Justice Scalia.\nThank you.\nI think that we... before I can proceed with discovery we have to show something more than bare allegations, as I understand this Court's interpretation of Habeas Rule 6(e).\nCertainly in this case I maintain that we did show something more than bare allegations.\nWe showed quite a bit.\nWe think the showing was sufficient to allow us to proceed forward.\nThe judicial corruption, at least in my estimation, is worse than the type of situations that this Court has previously held to be a sufficient biasing influence.\nIt's worse than direct pecuniary interest.\nIt's worse than a judge who may be the subject of personal insults.\nIt's worse than a judge who's somehow receiving income from the process, or is part of the process which is benefiting from a conviction.\nAt least in those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [298.862, 302.249, 302.966, 312.538, 316.926, 318.492, 321.793, 335.172, 338.458, 342.66, 351.866], "stop_times": [302.249, 302.966, 312.538, 316.926, 318.492, 321.793, 335.172, 338.458, 342.66, 351.866, 352.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.862}, "reply_to": "20669__0_014", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_016", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, Mr. Levy, I think we need to focus on two things here.\nOne, what is the substantive standard that would entitle you to relief at the end of the day, and secondly, and most importantly for your case, what is the standard for showing good cause under the rule to get discovery?\nYou have to deal with both those things and I think distinguish between them, and I'm not sure you are.\nI'm just hearing a lot of generalizations about corruption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [352.316, 356.586, 375.631, 382.301], "stop_times": [356.586, 375.631, 382.301, 385.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.316}, "reply_to": "20669__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20669__0_017", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Thank you, Justice O'Connor.\nThe substantive standard is well-established in the Murchison case.\nIt's probability of unfairness.\nThe good cause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [385.603, 387.369, 390.871, 394.073], "stop_times": [387.369, 390.871, 394.073, 395.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.603}, "reply_to": "20669__0_016", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_018", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Substantive standard for what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [395.523], "stop_times": [397.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.523}, "reply_to": "20669__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_019", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--For judicial bias.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [397.441], "stop_times": [397.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.441}, "reply_to": "20669__0_018", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_020", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "For ultimate relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [397.441], "stop_times": [399.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.441}, "reply_to": "20669__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_021", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Ultimate relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [399.274], "stop_times": [399.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.274}, "reply_to": "20669__0_020", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_022", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Ultimate relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [399.841], "stop_times": [400.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.841}, "reply_to": "20669__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_023", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "The standard under 6(a) is, if... may be... it demonstrated sufficient facts to indicate that the petitioner may be entitled to relief under the substantive standard, we maintain that we've already got enough to satisfy the substantive standard, but certainly at least we've shown good cause that we may be able... entitled to relief.\nThere's no exact formulation, Justice O'Connor, but presumably it... we have... in order to get discovery we would have to show something less than what we would be required to show in order to be able to obtain ultimate relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [400.643, 424.674], "stop_times": [424.674, 439.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.643}, "reply_to": "20669__0_022", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_024", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, in assessing the probability of bias, am I supposed to make some judgment as to whether it's likely that a judge who has committed himself to a course of bribery is... in a case where no bribe has been offered or requested, is going to be pro-Government?\nAm I supposed to assume that that is a likelihood, based on human nature or something?\nHow might I make this determination of probability of bias?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [439.101, 458.063, 463.632], "stop_times": [458.063, 463.632, 469.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.101}, "reply_to": "20669__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_025", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "There... based upon this Court's past decisions, those types of assumptions have been made.\nFor example, in the contempt cases, where the defendant or a party is insulting the judge, this Court in the past has made an assumption that that type of direct personal on attack... personal attack on the judge will be so disquieting to the judicial person that he or she will be unfair, so I think at a certain threshold that type of assumption is drawn.\nHowever, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [469.036, 476.107, 500.49], "stop_times": [476.107, 500.49, 500.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.036}, "reply_to": "20669__0_024", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_026", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I think can... we have some experience with that that justifies that conclusion, but in this case you're saying once on the take the judge can never be trusted to be unbiased.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [500.49], "stop_times": [513.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.49}, "reply_to": "20669__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_027", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--It certainly would seem that somebody has so little concern for the oath that he's going to take bribes to fix murder cases is probably less of a reliable person to be deemed to be a good judge than somebody who's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [513.214], "stop_times": [527.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.214}, "reply_to": "20669__0_026", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_028", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, not a good judge.\nHe's a biased judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [527.973, 529.223], "stop_times": [529.223, 529.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.973}, "reply_to": "20669__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_029", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Or a fair judge.\nSomebody who's got a past track record of unfairness, I think it's fair to make an assumption that that person isn't going to be fair, and that seems to me to be a much more compelling assumption than somebody who may simply have had his or her feelings hurt by a party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [529.639, 530.923], "stop_times": [530.923, 545.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.639}, "reply_to": "20669__0_028", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_030", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, then your position is that you've got enough evidence really right now, I suppose.\nThe man did take bribes, and... in other cases, and therefore you say the permissible inference is that he's unfair in all cases.\nIt doesn't... that doesn't seem logical to me, but it seems to me that's your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [545.483, 550.969, 559.675], "stop_times": [550.969, 559.675, 563.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.483}, "reply_to": "20669__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_031", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "My position, Mr. Chief Justice, is that we do have enough evidence right now, but if the Court decides that we need to show more, I think there's a whole wealth of information out there, and we can show more.\nAnswering Justice Kennedy's question, I think that it's more than an inference about the... how the person will behave.\nIt's a... if you will, it's a structural defect.\nThe judge is the captain of the ship in any judicial proceeding.\nHe or she is the rudder.\nIf the person is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [563.043, 575.851, 583.29, 586.658, 590.86, 592.562], "stop_times": [575.851, 583.29, 586.658, 590.86, 592.562, 594.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.043}, "reply_to": "20669__0_030", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_032", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "So any time a judge has taken one bribe, all his decisions have to be set aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [594.029], "stop_times": [598.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.029}, "reply_to": "20669__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_033", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--That is the inference.\nIt seems to me this is the type of... certainly the magnitude of bribery that's involved with Judge Maloney is pretty much, in my estimation at least, analogous to a rudderless ship.\nYou simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [598.05, 600.45, 611.541], "stop_times": [600.45, 611.541, 612.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.05}, "reply_to": "20669__0_032", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_034", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But what about Justice Kennedy's particular question?\nWhat if a judge has taken one bribe, and has sat there for 15 years?\nAll of his cases go down the drain under due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [612.174, 615.076, 619.297], "stop_times": [615.076, 619.297, 622.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.174}, "reply_to": "20669__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_035", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--As I understand the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [622.848], "stop_times": [624.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 622.848}, "reply_to": "20669__0_034", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_036", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Can you answer the question yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [624.848], "stop_times": [626.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.848}, "reply_to": "20669__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_037", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [626.216], "stop_times": [627.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.216}, "reply_to": "20669__0_036", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_038", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But Mr. Levy, I thought you were saying--\n--This judge has handled... this judge has handled 6,000-some criminal cases, as I understand it, and by your standard they're all out the window, and I guess there are a number of other judges that were also convicted in this Chicago area who had had similar experiences, so we're talking about a lot of cases.\nDo you have a fallback position from that in--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [627.733, 629.649, 651.848, 654.8], "stop_times": [629.649, 651.848, 654.8, 656.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.733}, "reply_to": "20669__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__0_039", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "My fallback position is the dissent in the Murchis... or in Ward v. Monroeville, which is that it's a fact-specific analysis.\nYou have to look at the particular circumstances.\nCertainly, this case may be different than the case where the judge took a single bribe in his or her career years ago and you take it on a case-by-case basis.\nWe submit that the facts of this case are so egregious and so aggravated, there was a whole lot--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [656.416, 663.906, 666.274, 678.599], "stop_times": [663.906, 666.274, 678.599, 685.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.416}, "reply_to": "20669__0_038", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_040", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr. Levy, could you clarify for us, of the 6,000 figure, does that include all guilty pleas, for example, the 6,000 cases?\nDo you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [685.586, 692.056], "stop_times": [692.056, 693.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.586}, "reply_to": "20669__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__0_041", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I'm sure that some of them involved guilty pleas.\nSome of them were minor matters.\nI think in numerous instances there's nothing pending--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [693.472, 696.757, 698.207], "stop_times": [696.757, 698.207, 700.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.472}, "reply_to": "20669__0_040", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_042", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, would your position require that the guilty plea convictions be set aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [700.809], "stop_times": [704.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.809}, "reply_to": "20669__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__0_043", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Any situation... no, not the guilty plea.\nThat's non... predominantly nondiscretionary, but in any situation where a court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [704.328, 707.53], "stop_times": [707.53, 712.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.328}, "reply_to": "20669__0_042", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_044", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "So maybe in most of the jurisdictions the guilty pleas represent 90 or 95 percent of the convictions, so maybe a lot of these were not trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [712.748], "stop_times": [719.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.748}, "reply_to": "20669__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__0_045", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [719.504], "stop_times": [720.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 719.504}, "reply_to": "20669__0_044", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_046", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Yes.\nWell, are there other... I mean, obviously what was concerning the lower court is that there are quite a few judges in Greylord who were dishonest, and there are tens of thousands, perhaps, of cases of criminals who are convicted, and they're worried about releasing them and saying they're all going to have new trials, since the evidence will have disappeared, and so suddenly they will go free.\nAll right, that's what was concerning the lower court.\nNow, what we're looking for to consider is, are there lines short of releasing all those people that make some sense in terms of the fairness of the situation?\nYou say case by case, but what are we looking for case by case?\nAre there characteristics?\nOne might be whether they pleaded guilty or not.\nAre there others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [720.17, 720.586, 740.833, 743.433, 754.324, 758.459, 760.644, 763.18], "stop_times": [720.586, 740.833, 743.433, 754.324, 758.459, 760.644, 763.18, 764.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.17}, "reply_to": "20669__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20669__0_047", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "This Court's cases on judicial bias have never discussed a per se rule.\nWhat they've talked about is degrees of bias and whether or not the biasing influence is sufficient so that the appellate court can say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [764.346, 772.85], "stop_times": [772.85, 781.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 764.346}, "reply_to": "20669__0_046", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_048", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I'm not thinking of what the cases have held.\nI'm thinking of what, in your experience, would make sense as a line.\nIs there anything short of releasing, let's say, all those who didn't plead guilty, or are there other considerations that would segregate those which are the most likely to be unfair from every criminal case, at least every one without a guilty plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [781.356, 783.308, 787.775], "stop_times": [783.308, 787.775, 804.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.356}, "reply_to": "20669__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20669__0_049", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Well, certainly one consideration would be the imposition of the death penalty.\nAnother consideration would be the extent to which the judicial officer made discretionary rulings which potentially affected the outcome of the case.\nAnother consideration would simply be the nature of the biasing influence, a fact-specific determination of whether or not in a particular case the biasing influence was so severe that the appellate court can say with some... or the reviewing court can say with some confidence that there was a probability of unfairness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [804.804, 809.356, 820.73], "stop_times": [809.356, 820.73, 842.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.804}, "reply_to": "20669__0_048", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_050", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr. Levy, you're-- --You know, I can imagine... I can imagine cases where it... the case has gone to a jury trial, and there's no provable fault in the instructions given to the jury, and there was no single evidentiary ruling that could be said to be improper in any way, and why should that case be upset, even though the judge turns out to have been a very bad actor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [842.059], "stop_times": [867.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.059}, "reply_to": "20669__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20669__0_051", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "With all due respect, Justice O'Connor, it seems difficult to me to imagine a situation in a serious criminal matter where the judge is not making discretionary rulings all along the way which might in some fashion have an impact on the outcome of the case, or even if there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [867.857], "stop_times": [886.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.857}, "reply_to": "20669__0_050", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_052", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But suppose we assume that those were correct, and that they were within the discretion of an honest judge of absolute probity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [886.985], "stop_times": [896.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.985}, "reply_to": "20669__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_053", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Even if we assume that they're correct, Justice Kennedy, we cannot assume, particularly under these circumstances, that the judge did not take his or her self-interest into consideration in deciding how she... how he or she might make these discretionary rulings, and that's really the problem.\nIf you simply look at the correctness of the rulings that the judge made, then you insulate a whole category of judicial bias from appellate court scrutiny, because surely judges can influence or impact the outcome of cases without appearing to abuse their discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [896.79, 916.602], "stop_times": [916.602, 934.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.79}, "reply_to": "20669__0_052", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_054", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr.... I'm sorry.\nI didn't mean to cut off your sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [934.496, 936.248], "stop_times": [936.248, 937.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.496}, "reply_to": "20669__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_055", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "That's fine, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [937.615], "stop_times": [938.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.615}, "reply_to": "20669__0_054", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_056", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "There's one answer that you are not giving to Justice Breyer's questions that I thought you were going to give, and I had intended, actually, to raise this with opposing counsel, but let me raise it with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [938.617], "stop_times": [950.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 938.617}, "reply_to": "20669__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20669__0_057", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [950.525], "stop_times": [951.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.525}, "reply_to": "20669__0_056", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_058", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I would have thought that you would have argued that one way to narrow the category down was to look for evidence that raised a particular inference of bias at the time of the trial in question, at the time of... your client was tried, as opposed simply to a general shotgun corruption approach pervasive throughout the judge's entire tenure.\nAnd I thought that you had such an argument here, because I... and this is where I want you to correct me if I'm wrong.\nI thought the record indicated that in a case that was tried after yours a bribe had been solicited and... or agreed upon prior to the trial of your case, so that it would be a very good reason for supposing that the judge would say, I'm going to dump the case that follows this one, and therefore it's important to me, if I'm not getting a bribe here, to come down hard on the State's side so that I will look good here and hence not appear too peculiar there.\nDo you... is... are the facts such that you could make that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [951.108, 974.373, 980.175, 1016.366], "stop_times": [974.373, 980.175, 1016.366, 1020.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.108}, "reply_to": "20669__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20669__0_059", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Justice Souter, I think that the facts are even more compelling.\nI think the evidence would show that the bribe negotiations for the Lenny Chow case, which was a $100,000 fix to acquit three murder defendants, was going on at the same time as my client's trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1020.502, 1024.888], "stop_times": [1024.888, 1039.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.502}, "reply_to": "20669__0_058", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_060", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But you don't need any discovery to find that out, and that's... I'm very confused by your presentation, because you seem to be dealing with an absolute here, and yet the only question presented is whether you've shown enough to be entitled to discovery, so what would you discover that isn't on the public record?\nI mean, now we have... the transcript of Maloney's trial is a public record.\nWhat... if you're successful here, what discovery would you pursue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1039.213, 1057.36, 1062.562], "stop_times": [1057.36, 1062.562, 1067.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.213}, "reply_to": "20669__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__0_061", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "On the assumption that we have to show more than what we've already shown, and that we have to point to specific instances which may raise inferences of bias, I believe that we may be able to show that there was more than simply a temporal connection between my client's case and the Lenny Chow case, the murder bribe case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1067.899], "stop_times": [1091.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.899}, "reply_to": "20669__0_060", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_062", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, can you be concrete?\nWhose depositions would you take?\nWhat evidence... because the only question before us is whether you're entitled to discovery or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1091.747, 1093.116, 1095.433], "stop_times": [1093.116, 1095.433, 1101.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.747}, "reply_to": "20669__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__0_063", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--It appears, Justice Ginsburg, in this case... and I'm not saying that the record shows it now, but I think there's at least some suggestion of this in the record, that Judge Maloney appointed an attorney who was a former associate of his with the understanding that this attorney would not object to the timing of the Bracy case... in other words, would announce that he would agree to go to trial in a month on a triple homicide case, followed by another triple homicide case... just so that the Bracy case could take place before the Chow case and the Bracy case would then be camouflage for the bribe negotiations in the Chow case.\nI believe that if we're given an opportunity for discovery we can show that.\nI think that that would simply... that would do more than simply raise an inference of bias.\nI think that would show actual bias in this particular case.\nIf that's what we're required to show if given the fair opportunity, we're prepared to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1101.218, 1145.33, 1149.568, 1153.77, 1157.321], "stop_times": [1145.33, 1149.568, 1153.77, 1157.321, 1163.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1101.218}, "reply_to": "20669__0_062", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_064", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "So you would take the deposition of the attorney that had been appointed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1163.327], "stop_times": [1165.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.327}, "reply_to": "20669__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__0_065", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I would take the deposition of the attorney, I would take the deposition of Judge Maloney, I would take the deposition of the gentleman who assisted Judge Maloney with the bribe, the persons who were accomplices, who were Government witnesses at the time of the Maloney criminal trial, persons who are not likely to be available to us or cooperate with us, or give us meaningful answers, unless they're given a subpoena and forced to sit down and answer questions under oath in a formal discovery process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1165.343], "stop_times": [1190.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.343}, "reply_to": "20669__0_064", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_066", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr. Levy, let's get back to the precise issue that you have to establish.\nYou have to show that you may be able to prove a probability of bias.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1190.727, 1195.845], "stop_times": [1195.845, 1202.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.727}, "reply_to": "20669__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_067", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1202.099], "stop_times": [1202.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.099}, "reply_to": "20669__0_066", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_068", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "You may be able to prove probability.\nIt seems to me that your case rests upon several assumptions that I don't think are necessarily self-evident, number 1 that a judge who takes bribes in order to provide lenient treatment to some criminal defendants will provide harsher treatment to those from whom he does not take bribes.\nThat doesn't strike me as self-evident.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1202.765, 1205.051, 1228.547], "stop_times": [1205.051, 1228.547, 1230.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.765}, "reply_to": "20669__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_069", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1230.016], "stop_times": [1231.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.016}, "reply_to": "20669__0_068", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_070", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "In fact, I... you know, it seems to me just the opposite, that a judge who is on the take in some cases would look worse and would perhaps seem to be taking bribes if he were, you know, a hanging judge in most cases but in some cases all of a sudden comes out with, you know, real bleeding heart rulings.\nI don't know why that isn't a more plausible assumption of human behavior than the one you want us to believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1231.618, 1255.734], "stop_times": [1255.734, 1264.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.618}, "reply_to": "20669__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_071", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--The assumption that I'm asking this Court to draw, Justice Scalia, is not so much that as the assumption that persons who are dishonest on numerous occasions are likely to be dishonest and self-interested and disregard their oath of office in other occasions... it's difficult for me to tell the Court without--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1264.089], "stop_times": [1287.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1264.089}, "reply_to": "20669__0_070", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_072", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "So you should get discovery if this man were cheating on his wife, for example?\nDoesn't there have to be a close connection between the dishonesty in question and the dishonesty that you claim disfavored your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1287.435, 1292.506], "stop_times": [1292.506, 1299.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.435}, "reply_to": "20669__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_073", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--The close connection is that in judicial proceedings, when Judge Maloney took an oath to be fair, he wasn't, and I think it's certainly a fair and logical inference to draw from that that he would be dishonest or self-interested--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1299.595], "stop_times": [1314.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.595}, "reply_to": "20669__0_072", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_074", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I don't think so.\nMr. Levy, isn't your answer-- --It seems to me that he's likely to... the fact that he is dishonest when he's given money does not seem to me to render it self-evident that he's going to be dishonest when he's not given money.\nMr. Levy, isn't your... a point you're overlooking is, he has to get himself reelected, and if he's a bleeding heart in every case he's not going to be reelected in Cook County.\n[Laughter]\nWasn't it part of this record that this judge did have a reputation for being tough on crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1314.272, 1314.888, 1327.362, 1334.933, 1335.551], "stop_times": [1314.888, 1327.362, 1334.933, 1335.551, 1340.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.272}, "reply_to": "20669__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_075", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--He had a reputation as a law-and-order judge.\nMy other, I think fair assumption from what we know about Judge Maloney, Justice Scalia, is that somebody in that situation is going to be paranoid or concerned that he or she might be discovered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1340.186, 1343.221], "stop_times": [1343.221, 1356.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.186}, "reply_to": "20669__0_074", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_076", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr. Levy, is there any doubt about Judge Maloney's sex?\nYou keep saying he or she, but I think he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1356.38, 1359.666], "stop_times": [1359.666, 1362.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.38}, "reply_to": "20669__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__0_077", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I'm... excuse me.\n[Laughter]\nI was speaking in general terms.\nThank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nJudge Maloney is going to be paranoid or concerned that he's going to be under investigation by the State's Attorney's Office or the U.S. Attorney's Office, and I think a reasonable and fair assumption is that he's going to do things in other cases to take the heat off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1362.534, 1364.117, 1364.517, 1366.069, 1367.986], "stop_times": [1364.117, 1364.517, 1366.069, 1367.986, 1383.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1362.534}, "reply_to": "20669__0_076", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_078", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Whatever the--\n--I, my point is exact... if I were taking a bribe, I would be very careful not to be a hanging judge in 90 percent of the cases and all of a sudden come up with this utterly inexplicable bleeding heart ruling.\nIt seems to me that would call more attention to me than the opposite.\nI--\n--Is that what you're going to do discovery to find out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1383.53, 1384.047, 1395.171, 1398.706, 1399.523], "stop_times": [1384.047, 1395.171, 1398.706, 1399.523, 1402.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.53}, "reply_to": "20669__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__0_079", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "The purpose of the discovery is to find out whether or not he... there is a likelihood in Mr. Bracy's case that he, Judge Maloney, made decisions on the basis of things other than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1402.289], "stop_times": [1413.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.289}, "reply_to": "20669__0_078", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_080", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1413.931], "stop_times": [1414.366], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1413.931}, "reply_to": "20669__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20669__0_081", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--facts of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1414.366], "stop_times": [1414.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.366}, "reply_to": "20669__0_080", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_082", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I mean, are you intending... you have a proposed discovery.\nYou have proposed discovery.\nDo you intend to ask people who know the judge, or perhaps the judge himself, whether he either said or thought one theory or the opposite theory, whether he either said or thought, I think I'll be a little tougher in some of these criminal cases.\nIt's important to me to get a reputation for being tough, because I get more money that way, or some words that could give rise to that inference, or the opposite, which Justice Scalia suggests could well be the case.\nDo you plan discovery to find out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1414.366, 1417.166, 1418.484, 1434.91, 1446.884], "stop_times": [1417.166, 1418.484, 1434.91, 1446.884, 1448.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.366}, "reply_to": "20669__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20669__0_083", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Certainly, Justice Breyer, in keeping with the idea that this is a fact-specific determination, what we would do is, we would ask the witnesses what was his attitude, what was his demeanor, what was his--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1448.586], "stop_times": [1459.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.586}, "reply_to": "20669__0_082", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_084", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Now, is one of those witnesses Swano, Mr. Swano?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1459.608], "stop_times": [1463.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.608}, "reply_to": "20669__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_085", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Mr. Swano--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1463.929], "stop_times": [1464.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.929}, "reply_to": "20669__0_084", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_086", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Do I have his name correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1464.646], "stop_times": [1465.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.646}, "reply_to": "20669__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_087", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, it's Mr. Swano, who is the attorney who gave the bribes in most of these cases, including--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1465.912], "stop_times": [1472.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1465.912}, "reply_to": "20669__0_086", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_088", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Is he one of the key witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1472.716], "stop_times": [1474.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.716}, "reply_to": "20669__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_089", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--He is, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1474.768], "stop_times": [1475.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.768}, "reply_to": "20669__0_088", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_090", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well now, you had his testimony, and as I recall the timing, Judge Hart had made his ruling, but you had Swano's testimony immediately thereafter, or the evidence about Swano?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1475.952], "stop_times": [1488.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.952}, "reply_to": "20669__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_091", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Swano's testimony in the Maloney case, which focused more narrowly on the issues in the criminal trial, would have been available to us after the proceedings were concluded, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1488.611], "stop_times": [1501.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.611}, "reply_to": "20669__0_090", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_092", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Did you move to reopen, or more to reconsider before Judge Hart?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1501.919], "stop_times": [1505.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.919}, "reply_to": "20669__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_093", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1505.287], "stop_times": [1505.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.287}, "reply_to": "20669__0_092", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_094", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Why did you not do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1505.971], "stop_times": [1507.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.971}, "reply_to": "20669__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_095", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "We felt we'd made a sufficient showing.\nAt the time, we felt that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1507.004, 1508.989], "stop_times": [1508.989, 1510.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.004}, "reply_to": "20669__0_094", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_096", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well then, why are you asking us for extraordinary relief so that you can bring to Judge Hart's attention something you didn't bring to his attention during the time period when you were permitted to do so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1510.775], "stop_times": [1523.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.775}, "reply_to": "20669__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_097", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--The relief that we're asking is not access to the material, Justice Kennedy, that was publicly available, which may or may not have bearing on the precise question that the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1523.665], "stop_times": [1535.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1523.665}, "reply_to": "20669__0_096", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_098", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, but if his testimony is so critical that you want us to reverse Judge Hart, it's a little difficult for you to ask us to do that when you didn't bring it to his attention when you could have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1535.64], "stop_times": [1546.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.64}, "reply_to": "20669__0_097", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__0_099", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--That which we could have brought to Justice Hart's attention, Justice Kennedy, is not the same thing as what we're asking for.\nWhat we're asking for this Court to do is precisely what we asked Judge Hart to do and he said he wouldn't, which was an opportunity to depose these people to ask them the precise questions that Justice Breyer posed and Justice Scalia posed, which is, how did Judge Maloney feel about the cases where he wasn't bribed, and was there a relationship in terms of Judge Maloney's attitude between the cases where he was bribed and the cases where he wasn't bribed, and that information wasn't publicly available then, isn't publicly available now, and the only way that we're going to be able to get at it is through the discovery process, formal discovery process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1546.198, 1555.637], "stop_times": [1555.637, 1597.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1546.198}, "reply_to": "20669__0_098", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_100", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr. Levy, may I just ask you a fact about Bracy?\nAt some place in the record it says he's also under a death sentence in Arizona.\nIs that being challenged?\nI'm just wondering how--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1597.631, 1601.749, 1605.836, 1607.302], "stop_times": [1601.749, 1605.836, 1607.302, 1608.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.631}, "reply_to": "20669__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__0_101", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "That's being challenged, Justice Ginsburg.\nThere are proceedings now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.\nIf I may, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1608.188, 1610.354, 1615.675], "stop_times": [1610.354, 1615.675, 1617.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1608.188}, "reply_to": "20669__0_100", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__0_102", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Levy.\nMs. Preiner, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1617.71, 1620.162], "stop_times": [1620.162, 1622.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.71}, "reply_to": "20669__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__1_000", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Due Process Clause entitles a defendant to a fair trial.\nIn the context of the issues of this case, that question comes down to whether or not this defendant was tried by a judge who had a direct interest in the outcome of his case.\nIt is our contention that this petitioner received a fair trial from a judge and a jury.\nThe evidence against him was strong, and is not challenged here.\nThe judge's legal rulings have been reviewed twice by the Illinois supreme court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1622.012, 1631.518, 1634.839, 1644.128, 1648.746, 1651.698], "stop_times": [1631.518, 1634.839, 1644.128, 1648.746, 1651.698, 1654.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1622.012}, "reply_to": "20669__0_102", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_001", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "May I ask kind of a basic question, Ms. Preiner?\nSupposing instead of a judge who's accused of bribery and so forth, this man had been tried by an accountant or a law clerk or somebody else who was not properly elected to office and was not a lawyer, and so forth, but you look at the record and he got a fair trial.\nWould that be subject to setting aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1654.514, 1656.85, 1670.326], "stop_times": [1656.85, 1670.326, 1672.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.514}, "reply_to": "20669__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_002", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I believe it would be, Your Honor.\nI believe that that at minimum you are entitled to a trial by a judge and a jury.\nIf we have an imposter as the judge, I believe that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1672.944, 1675.313, 1679.515], "stop_times": [1675.313, 1679.515, 1682.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1672.944}, "reply_to": "20669__1_001", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_003", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "And so the question is whether he had a judge here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1682.633], "stop_times": [1684.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.633}, "reply_to": "20669__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_004", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Whether he had... yes, a duly elected judge, and he was tried by the judge and a jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1684.169], "stop_times": [1690.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1684.169}, "reply_to": "20669__1_003", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_005", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Do you think it's better to be tried by a corrupt judge then by an accountant, for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1690.239], "stop_times": [1694.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.239}, "reply_to": "20669__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_006", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I suppose it depends on the accountant, but--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1694.541, 1697.493], "stop_times": [1697.493, 1699.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.541}, "reply_to": "20669__1_005", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_007", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "No, but under your answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1699.262], "stop_times": [1700.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.262}, "reply_to": "20669__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_008", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But we would assume--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1700.029], "stop_times": [1700.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1700.029}, "reply_to": "20669__1_007", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_009", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--all accountants, we'd set it aside, even the most brilliant, fair-minded, honest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1700.029], "stop_times": [1704.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.029}, "reply_to": "20669__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_010", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Well, I... certainly no slur meant on accountants, or judges, but yes, we would assume that since the people have elected a certain person to sit in judgment on his fellows, that it would be his obligation, and we haven't done that for any accountants, so they would not be within that category that we trust with these decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1704.331], "stop_times": [1726.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.331}, "reply_to": "20669__1_009", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_011", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Well, I suppose you haven't had a trial, in the ordinary sense, if it's been done before a kangaroo court.\nThere's just been no trial in the accepted sense, and the question of whether you had a fair trial is different from the question of whether you had a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1726.16, 1731.564], "stop_times": [1731.564, 1738.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.16}, "reply_to": "20669__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__1_012", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1738.654], "stop_times": [1739.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.654}, "reply_to": "20669__1_011", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_013", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "And of course, that's the issue here.\nWhen the judge is corrupt, have you had a trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1739.204, 1743.122], "stop_times": [1743.122, 1745.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.204}, "reply_to": "20669__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_014", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, I believe... yes, and I think that he has had a trial here, and he hasn't shown that the judge was corrupt in his case.\nI think that's the distinguishing factor here.\nWhat counsel would have you assume is, all he has to show is that this judge once took a bribe, or took a bribe in another case, and that any case that he ever ruled on from that point on can no longer stand because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1745.391, 1753.58, 1756.116], "stop_times": [1753.58, 1756.116, 1768.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.391}, "reply_to": "20669__1_013", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_015", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But there's more in this record.\nThere is evidence, as I remember it, according to the court of appeals opinion, that there was a case where he convicted in a case where the evidence indicated he normally would have acquitted, and did so in order to enhance his reputation as a tough judge.\nIsn't there evidence of that kind in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1768.756, 1769.923, 1781.731], "stop_times": [1769.923, 1781.731, 1783.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.756}, "reply_to": "20669__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_016", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I believe that that's reading that evidence too broadly.\nYou do have statements from another convicted lawyer who said that he had a case in front of this judge that he believed should have been a not guilty verdict, and that the judge in fact convicted his client, and he took that as a message to him that he needed to pay the judge money in order to get an acquittal.\nNow, that's one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1783.214, 1786.449, 1802.727], "stop_times": [1786.449, 1802.727, 1803.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.214}, "reply_to": "20669__1_015", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_017", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Hadn't a bribe been invited or solicited in that case?\nI thought that was part of the scenario.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1803.194, 1807.062], "stop_times": [1807.062, 1808.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.194}, "reply_to": "20669__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__1_018", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I don't know... I don't know that a bribe had been solicited in particularly that case, but clearly this lawyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1808.412], "stop_times": [1813.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1808.412}, "reply_to": "20669__1_017", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_019", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But this lawyer had previously come up with bribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1813.797], "stop_times": [1816.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.797}, "reply_to": "20669__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__1_020", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--He had a history of engaging in that business practice with this judge, and furthermore, we only have this lawyer's word for it, that it would have been an acquittal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1816.463], "stop_times": [1824.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.463}, "reply_to": "20669__1_019", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_021", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Was it a bench trial or a jury trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1824.153], "stop_times": [1826.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.153}, "reply_to": "20669__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__1_022", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "That was a bench trial.\nWhat the petitioner here is asking you to do, essentially, is to grant him the writ.\nI mean, his request... as he has just admitted here in oral argument, his request for discovery--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1826.355, 1827.171, 1837.027], "stop_times": [1827.171, 1837.027, 1840.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.355}, "reply_to": "20669__1_021", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_023", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, I think you, like the petitioner, need to be careful about what we're being asked to do here.\nI thought this issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to discovery under the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1840.979, 1847.816], "stop_times": [1847.816, 1854.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.979}, "reply_to": "20669__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20669__1_024", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1854.839], "stop_times": [1854.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.839}, "reply_to": "20669__1_023", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_025", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "There was good cause for discovery to take depositions of the judge and the attorney that was appointed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1854.839], "stop_times": [1863.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.839}, "reply_to": "20669__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20669__1_026", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--And that is my understanding of the issue that the Court framed, and that is certainly the issue that we briefed, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1863.695], "stop_times": [1867.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.695}, "reply_to": "20669__1_025", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_027", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "So what we have to decide is what would amount to good cause, and what would be an abuse of discretion for denying discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1867.813], "stop_times": [1876.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.813}, "reply_to": "20669__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20669__1_028", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Clearly, I agree with that, Your Honor.\nI was just commenting that counsel this morning was saying he believes he's actually proven enough to get the writ.\nHe believes not only has he shown good cause for discovery, he believes that he has shown that he should be granted the writ for his client here.\nIt's our position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1876.836, 1878.538, 1885.208, 1891.928], "stop_times": [1878.538, 1885.208, 1891.928, 1893.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.836}, "reply_to": "20669__1_027", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_029", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "What should be our ruling on the substantive basis for relief in a case where it is shown that the judge did have the modus operandi of being very tough in those cases where there was no bribe in order to facilitate taking bribes in the other cases?\nWhat should be the ruling there in a challenge by someone who's been convicted in a case where there's no bribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1893.63, 1913.026], "stop_times": [1913.026, 1921.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.63}, "reply_to": "20669__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_030", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I believe that if he could show that there was a modus operandi whereby the judge was ruling more harshly against defendants in order to cover his bribe-taking, or in order to balance his win-loss statistics, then I believe that he would be able to show actual bias in his case.\nHe hasn't been able to do that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1921.632, 1938.993], "stop_times": [1938.993, 1940.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.632}, "reply_to": "20669__1_029", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_031", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But he wants discovery for that very purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1940.945], "stop_times": [1942.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.945}, "reply_to": "20669__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__1_032", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But Your Honor, in order to even bring the habeas petition to the Court and ask for discovery, he has to show that there is at least some basis for his claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1942.895], "stop_times": [1952.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.895}, "reply_to": "20669__1_031", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_033", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, he has Swano's testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1952.669], "stop_times": [1954.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.669}, "reply_to": "20669__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_034", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "He... actually, he doesn't have Swano's testimony.\nHe didn't really support this request or this petition for writ with anything to the Court.\nAs you pointed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1954.186, 1957.971, 1963.692], "stop_times": [1957.971, 1963.692, 1964.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.186}, "reply_to": "20669__1_033", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_035", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "You're not claiming that the... or maybe you are claiming that the writ is subject to dismissal right now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1964.358], "stop_times": [1970.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.358}, "reply_to": "20669__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20669__1_036", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I believe that if what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1970.762], "stop_times": [1973.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.762}, "reply_to": "20669__1_035", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_037", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "That the petition for writ is subject to dismissal right now.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1973.048, 1975.381], "stop_times": [1975.381, 1976.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.048}, "reply_to": "20669__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20669__1_038", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I believe that it was properly... it was subject to dismissal by the court below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1976.233], "stop_times": [1980.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.233}, "reply_to": "20669__1_037", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_039", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Maloney was on trial.\nThere was no... one of the problems was, he couldn't get anything out while the judge was on trial.\nAs I understand it, that trial was over after the hearing on the habeas in the district court, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1980.368, 1982.654, 1990.425], "stop_times": [1982.654, 1990.425, 1998.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.368}, "reply_to": "20669__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__1_040", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I believe that the transcript was unavailable.\nI believe that the judge's trial was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [1998.663, 2001.115], "stop_times": [2001.115, 2003.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.663}, "reply_to": "20669__1_039", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_041", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, the transcript was what he needed to say, look at this testimony that we have from Swano in this record.\nIf I can get a chance to depose him, I can get even more.\nWasn't that the idea?\nThat's what I thought the question presented was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2003.531, 2010.887, 2015.439, 2017.391], "stop_times": [2010.887, 2015.439, 2017.391, 2019.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.531}, "reply_to": "20669__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__1_042", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I think that that is certainly something that he could have argued.\nWhat he did argue, though was, what I'd like to do is conduct a survey of the judge's win-loss record, and the court said, you could have done that without any kind of discovery, and he said, and then what I'd like to do is look at Judge Maloney's trial and try to get some idea of what evidence there might be against him, and the court said, well now at this point you could have done that, too, without discovery.\nSo all you're left with is that he wants to depose some people.\nHe didn't bring to the court that he had talked to the defendant's lawyer at trial.\nHe hasn't talked to any other witnesses.\nHe hasn't... he hasn't done anything to show that there might be some basis that will ultimately disclose that there was bias in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2019.41, 2022.778, 2042.442, 2046.144, 2049.862, 2051.714], "stop_times": [2022.778, 2042.442, 2046.144, 2049.862, 2051.714, 2058.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.41}, "reply_to": "20669__1_041", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_043", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, what about the argument which has at least been brooded about here this morning that if a trial in which there was no known bribery is sandwiched between trials in which there was bribery, or was conducted at a time when bribes were being solicited and arranged in other cases, there is good reason to believe, certainly in the elected system that Justice Stevens alluded to, that it would be in a judge's interest to look tough in a case in which he could be tough at no cost to himself without losing a bribe, and that that would be a reasonable basis for saying that discovery may uncover evidence that would substantiate the claim here.\nWould that not be a reasonable basis for at least taking discovery to some step?\nI don't know how far it might go, but discovery is structured.\nWouldn't that be a reasonable basis for making a start under the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2058.952, 2110.669, 2116.656, 2119.525], "stop_times": [2110.669, 2116.656, 2119.525, 2123.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.952}, "reply_to": "20669__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_044", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "With all due respect, Your Honor, that's nothing more than speculation.\nThat's nothing more than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2123.477, 2127.012], "stop_times": [2127.012, 2127.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.477}, "reply_to": "20669__1_043", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_045", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, it's not speculation.\nI mean, it seems to me that it's a statement of one reasonable possibility.\nAnother reasonable possibility is the one that Justice Scalia referred to, and that is, this fellow wouldn't want to call attention to the oddity of his rulings.\nHe would want to look a little soft if he could.\nThat would be a reasonable basis, too.\nBut you start discovery not by deciding between one or the other of those theories.\nYou start discovery by determining whether there is a reasonable basis for saying that discovery may lead to evidence that would tend to prove the probability that this particular petitioner would have to prove.\nWhy hasn't he made that showing on the kind of argument that I've made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2127.946, 2129.248, 2133.466, 2141.889, 2145.174, 2147.043, 2152.494, 2165.421], "stop_times": [2129.248, 2133.466, 2141.889, 2145.174, 2147.043, 2152.494, 2165.421, 2169.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.946}, "reply_to": "20669__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_046", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Because I believe that what we have here then is just a range of speculation.\nYou can speculate that the judge was more harsh in these cases.\nYou can speculate that he was more lenient in these cases.\nYou could speculate that if he was being unfair in one case, he balances that off by being extremely fair in another case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2169.539, 2174.443, 2177.812, 2180.514], "stop_times": [2174.443, 2177.812, 2180.514, 2185.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.539}, "reply_to": "20669__1_045", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_047", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "So you're saying that neither Justice Scalia's view nor the view that I've been suggesting is even reasonable.\nEach is mere speculation, and could never be the basis for taking even a first step in discovery.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2185.649, 2191.636, 2197.107], "stop_times": [2191.636, 2197.107, 2197.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.649}, "reply_to": "20669__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_048", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I believe they're all reasonable.\nThey're all reasonable speculation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2197.873, 2199.057], "stop_times": [2199.057, 2199.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.873}, "reply_to": "20669__1_047", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_049", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, if they're reasonable, then we're beyond the point of mere speculation.\nYes. You can't define speculation as being a choice between one of two probabilities.\nOr do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2199.74, 2202.842, 2207.81], "stop_times": [2202.842, 2207.81, 2209.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.74}, "reply_to": "20669__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_050", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I suppose speculation would be among a range of probabilities.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2209.746, 2214.198], "stop_times": [2214.198, 2215.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.746}, "reply_to": "20669__1_049", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_051", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Of course, this isn't like a lot of requests for discovery where it's totally a fishing expedition.\nYou don't have anything to go on.\nYou just want to prowl around and find something.\nWe at least start with established facts that this judge took bribes in a significant number of cases at roughly the same time as he tried this case, so you're starting off with some factual basis for saying we ought to take a little harder look at the whole situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2215.833, 2220.554, 2221.554, 2223.187], "stop_times": [2220.554, 2221.554, 2223.187, 2237.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.833}, "reply_to": "20669__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_052", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Actually, with all due respect, Your Honor, I disagree.\nI think this is a fishing expedition.\nIt's nothing more than that.\nHe can't show any bias by this judge against him in his case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2237.079, 2239.931, 2241.967, 2243.267], "stop_times": [2239.931, 2241.967, 2243.267, 2246.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.079}, "reply_to": "20669__1_051", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_053", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Well, what about the allegation that the trial was set to precede the trial where the bribe was taking place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2246.252], "stop_times": [2253.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.252}, "reply_to": "20669__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_054", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Frankly, Judge, this is the first time I've heard that claim made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2253.441], "stop_times": [2255.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.441}, "reply_to": "20669__1_053", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_055", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "That's the first time you've heard that?\nIs Judge Maloney... by the way, has Judge Maloney conceded that he took bribes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2255.857, 2257.309], "stop_times": [2257.309, 2262.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.857}, "reply_to": "20669__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_056", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "He never has.\nHe has never admitted any guilt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2262.297, 2263.08], "stop_times": [2263.08, 2264.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.297}, "reply_to": "20669__1_055", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_057", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Has he... was he tried, or did he... he didn't plead guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2264.647], "stop_times": [2267.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.647}, "reply_to": "20669__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20669__1_058", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "He did not plead guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2267.599], "stop_times": [2268.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.599}, "reply_to": "20669__1_057", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_059", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "And he has been convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2268.382], "stop_times": [2269.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.382}, "reply_to": "20669__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20669__1_060", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "He has been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2269.382], "stop_times": [2270.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.382}, "reply_to": "20669__1_059", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_061", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "So it wouldn't do any good to ask him any of these questions.\n[Laughter]\nThe allegation that this trial was set before the other one, this is the... it's not contained in any of the arguments in the briefs, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2270.099, 2272.467, 2275.669], "stop_times": [2272.467, 2275.669, 2282.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2270.099}, "reply_to": "20669__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20669__1_062", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I believe that the record will reflect on what date this trial occurred, and beyond that I don't think anyone has ever suggested that there was a specific reason for timing with respect to the trial date here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2282.739], "stop_times": [2294.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2282.739}, "reply_to": "20669__1_061", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_063", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--If this case, if Bracy's trial was set before the other trial, would... for that purpose, would that automatically show bias that would entitle the petitioner to relief here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2294.297], "stop_times": [2309.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.297}, "reply_to": "20669__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_064", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I don't believe that that would be sufficient to show that there was bias in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2309.89], "stop_times": [2312.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.89}, "reply_to": "20669__1_063", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_065", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "You do believe that it would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2312.473], "stop_times": [2312.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.473}, "reply_to": "20669__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_066", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2312.889], "stop_times": [2313.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2312.889}, "reply_to": "20669__1_065", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_067", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "If you were to go as far as... your opposing counsel says that an attorney was appointed for this person who would agree to a triple capital trial within a month, when in fact he should have wanted a much longer time to prepare.\nI mean, you say that's raised for the first time now, and you may well be right, but if that were somehow made out at the appropriate point, that would surely be a basis of discovery for that attorney, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2313.706, 2329.649], "stop_times": [2329.649, 2341.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.706}, "reply_to": "20669__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__1_068", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I don't believe that he has... I don't believe that there's ever been any suggestion that this attorney was engaged in that... that he didn't properly prepare for this case, or that he agreed to some short time period for the setting of this trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2341.373], "stop_times": [2358.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.373}, "reply_to": "20669__1_067", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_069", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Yes, but that would be a ruling in this case that was made on grounds of bias and prejudice and for corruption.\nYou say it's a harmless... a harmless ruling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2358.935, 2366.605], "stop_times": [2366.605, 2368.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.935}, "reply_to": "20669__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_070", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "No.\nI don't believe that it would have been made for that purpose, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2368.355, 2368.988], "stop_times": [2368.988, 2371.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.355}, "reply_to": "20669__1_069", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_071", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But let's assume that the trial is set in order to advance a conspiracy to take bribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2371.94], "stop_times": [2380.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.94}, "reply_to": "20669__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_072", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Then, absolutely that would be evidence of bias in this case.\nIf we are assuming--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2380.594, 2384.962], "stop_times": [2384.962, 2385.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.594}, "reply_to": "20669__1_071", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_073", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "And that would be grounds for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2385.212], "stop_times": [2386.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.212}, "reply_to": "20669__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_074", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--that there's a conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2386.445], "stop_times": [2387.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2386.445}, "reply_to": "20669__1_073", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_075", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--upsetting the conviction, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2387.295], "stop_times": [2388.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.295}, "reply_to": "20669__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__1_076", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I believe that would be.\nI would like to emphasize again that the evidence in this case was extremely strong against this defendant, and it was tried to a jury, and there has been no showing before the Illinois supreme court or in front of the District Court of the Seventh Circuit that the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2388.747, 2389.697], "stop_times": [2389.697, 2407.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.747}, "reply_to": "20669__1_075", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_077", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Yes, but you're not going to argue that we apply harmless error... if there's proof of this guy was corrupt in this very case and made some rulings because he was bribed, you wouldn't say that there's harmless error there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2407.742], "stop_times": [2418.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.742}, "reply_to": "20669__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_078", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I would never say that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2418.93], "stop_times": [2419.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.93}, "reply_to": "20669__1_077", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_079", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "No.\nAnd no matter how strong the evidence of guilt may have been, didn't this jury also make the death determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2419.263, 2419.713], "stop_times": [2419.713, 2431.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.263}, "reply_to": "20669__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__1_080", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "They did.\nUnder the circumstances of this case and the competing interest in balancing the finality of the judgment and the defendant or the petitioner's interest in not being improperly confined, we submit that he had to show more in order to require the court... in order to show good cause why he should be allowed to explore all of these actions that he suggests here today he would have liked to explore.\nAnd with all due respect, we believe that he could have... he could have done some of these things that he is asking the Court for permission to do, and I believe the court thought that, too.\nThey thought simply that he hadn't done his homework before he came to the Court with this request for discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2431.404, 2432.054, 2459.238, 2467.577], "stop_times": [2432.054, 2459.238, 2467.577, 2472.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.404}, "reply_to": "20669__1_079", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_081", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Counsel, before you finish, would you comment at all on whether you think there's any significance to the amicus brief filed by not only some distinguished Illinois lawyers, but former prosecutors and former U.S. attorneys, suggesting discovery is appropriate in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2472.398], "stop_times": [2486.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.398}, "reply_to": "20669__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_082", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "I sympathize, and certainly the Attorney General sympathizes also with those lawyers and their perception that there is a taint on the judicial system in Illinois because of the scandal, of the Greylord scandal.\nHowever, that is not a sufficient basis to upset a valid legal conviction in this case involving a defendant who was clearly guilty--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2486.538, 2502.0], "stop_times": [2502.0, 2512.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.538}, "reply_to": "20669__1_081", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_083", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "No, but just to bring back the point Justice O'Connor raised, we're really not... we don't really have to decide that.\nWe just have to decide whether the situation is sufficiently serious that it demands the fullest possible investigation before we decide what kind of rule should be adopted in a case like this, because there... it's perfectly obvious that something might be learned by discovery that sheds light on the whole problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2512.039, 2518.609], "stop_times": [2518.609, 2534.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.039}, "reply_to": "20669__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_084", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2534.952], "stop_times": [2536.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.952}, "reply_to": "20669__1_083", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_085", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Because the problem goes beyond this one case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2536.135], "stop_times": [2538.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.135}, "reply_to": "20669__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_086", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--I'm not entirely sure that anything will be learned by discovery in this case.\nI don't believe that there's been any showing that there is anything out there to be learned by these various methods that he asks to employ.\nWe believe that he has to show some basis, some evidence on each one of the essential elements of his claim before he can get discovery, and we don't believe that he has done that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2538.57, 2542.122, 2549.676], "stop_times": [2542.122, 2549.676, 2558.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.57}, "reply_to": "20669__1_085", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_087", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "What would be enough, in your view?\nWhat would be enough?\nYou... he did show some things.\nYou said they weren't enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2558.615, 2564.317, 2566.702, 2568.471], "stop_times": [2564.317, 2566.702, 2568.471, 2569.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.615}, "reply_to": "20669__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__1_088", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "For example, Your Honor, if he could say, I did an inventory of all the trial court's rulings in this case, and out of 187 rulings that he made, 180 of them went in favor of the State, and here's why they were wrong.\nIf he could have said, for example, this was a bench trial, and all the rulings went against my client.\nIf he could have said something like, I have talked to Mr. McDonald, the lawyer who represented Mr. Bracy, and he tells me that, you know, this really wasn't a fair trial.\nHe really thought something was going on here.\nIf he could have brought something like that to the court to provide some basis for believing that there would be proof of actual bias in this case, but there is nothing like that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2569.554, 2580.862, 2587.183, 2596.288, 2598.038], "stop_times": [2580.862, 2587.183, 2596.288, 2598.038, 2607.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.554}, "reply_to": "20669__1_087", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_089", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Ms. Preiner, I'm... the brief that was referred to signed by former prosecutors, these people are former prosecutors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2607.66], "stop_times": [2617.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.66}, "reply_to": "20669__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__1_090", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Former prosecutors, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2617.717], "stop_times": [2619.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.717}, "reply_to": "20669__1_089", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_091", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "They practice criminal law now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2619.117], "stop_times": [2620.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.117}, "reply_to": "20669__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__1_092", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Some of them do, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2620.486], "stop_times": [2622.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2620.486}, "reply_to": "20669__1_091", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_093", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Usually on behalf of defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2622.219], "stop_times": [2623.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.219}, "reply_to": "20669__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20669__1_094", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Almost exclusively on behalf of defendants.\nYour Honors, our point... and Justice O'Connor, as you've pointed out, the question here is a discovery issue.\nWe believe that counsel has not made a sufficient showing for good cause for discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2623.521, 2626.639, 2636.329], "stop_times": [2626.639, 2636.329, 2640.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.521}, "reply_to": "20669__1_093", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_095", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Going back to the amicus brief, it does include a fair number of lawyers who do not practice on behalf of criminal defendants, such as former Governor Thompson--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2640.881, 2648.887], "stop_times": [2648.887, 2649.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.881}, "reply_to": "20669__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_096", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "It includes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2649.287], "stop_times": [2649.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2649.287}, "reply_to": "20669__1_095", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_097", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Former Justice Seymour Simon... there are quite a few in there who are not representing defendants now, is that not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2649.287], "stop_times": [2653.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.287}, "reply_to": "20669__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20669__1_098", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--And many law school professors and people from all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2653.739], "stop_times": [2656.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.739}, "reply_to": "20669__1_097", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_099", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "So it's not almost exclusively.\nYou really want to modify that statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2656.941, 2659.024], "stop_times": [2659.024, 2660.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.941}, "reply_to": "20669__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20669__1_100", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--Well, the lawyers who are criminal defense lawyers on there are lawyers who represent criminal defendants.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2660.79, 2668.046], "stop_times": [2668.046, 2669.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.79}, "reply_to": "20669__1_099", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_101", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2669.796], "stop_times": [2670.229], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.796}, "reply_to": "20669__1_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20669__1_102", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Many of those lawyers have a varied practice, and I'm sure that they represent many noncriminal defendants, too, but there are a fair number of defense lawyers on there.\nYour Honors, we simply believe that he has not made the showing that he needed to make to show good cause for discovery in this case.\nWe believe that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that request.\nWe believe that the Seventh Circuit appropriately affirmed that.\nWe would ask this Court to uphold that decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2670.229, 2680.204, 2688.458, 2692.762, 2695.38], "stop_times": [2680.204, 2688.458, 2692.762, 2695.38, 2697.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.229}, "reply_to": "20669__1_101", "speaker": "barbara_a_preiner"}
{"id": "20669__1_103", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Preiner.\nMr. Levy, you have 2 minutes remaining.\nMr. Levy, could you comment on the observation that the timing of the trial, the early setting, is the first time, and your description of that, the first time that this has come up is in... here in this argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2697.33, 2698.916, 2701.283], "stop_times": [2698.916, 2701.283, 2714.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.33}, "reply_to": "20669__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__2_000", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "This is a... it's a permutation on a previous argument, Justice Kennedy.\nThis is based upon the record.\nIt's not based upon anything that counsel didn't have available, or if I might simply indicate what the argument... but no, I've not... to answer the Court's question squarely, I have not made this exact same argument on a previous occasion, but it is supported by the record.\nAnd the basis in the record is that Robert McDonald was appointed in the middle of June 1981.\nSeveral weeks after he was appointed, he announced that he was ready to go to trial in July of 1981--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2714.341, 2717.96, 2719.529, 2735.705, 2741.942], "stop_times": [2717.96, 2719.529, 2735.705, 2741.942, 2749.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2714.341}, "reply_to": "20669__1_103", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__2_001", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "But all of this was before Judge Hart, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2749.846], "stop_times": [2751.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.846}, "reply_to": "20669__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20669__2_002", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "--It was.\nHe announced that he was ready to go to trial in July of 1981.\nOn July 20, which is the first day of Mr. Bracy's trial, the State announced that it intended to introduce the evidence of the Arizona murder case as aggravation evidence in the event that there was a conviction on the homicide charge, and although another attorney who represented a codefendant Mr. Hooper asked for a continuance because he needed more opportunity to prepare, Mr. McDonald didn't say a thing.\nAnd the additional fact that I would throw into the equation there is simply there is some suggestion in the record that was before Judge Hart that there was a professional... a previous professional connection sometime between Mr. McDonald and former Judge Maloney, and that, to me at least, raises questions as to whether or not there was some kind of fix as to the timing of the trial.\nIf I may conclude, Chief Judge Posner in his majority opinion in the Seventh Circuit... and I would respectfully call the Court's attention to the top of page 82 of the joint appendix... said, we are, it is true, speculating about the likely impact of Mr. Maloney's corruption on the rulings that he made at the trial of these petitioners.\nWe also... may I finish?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2751.898, 2753.664, 2756.949, 2785.116, 2805.93, 2827.276], "stop_times": [2753.664, 2756.949, 2785.116, 2805.93, 2827.276, 2829.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2751.898}, "reply_to": "20669__2_001", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20669__2_003", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "No.\nYour time has expired.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2829.645, 2830.178, 2832.111], "stop_times": [2830.178, 2832.111, 2833.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.645}, "reply_to": "20669__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20669__2_004", "conversation_id": "20669", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6133", "start_times": [2833.294], "stop_times": [2833.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2833.294}, "reply_to": "20669__2_003", "speaker": "gilbert_h_levy"}
{"id": "20775__0_000", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-789, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction and Michael Arceo.\nMr. Rea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [0.0, 11.18], "stop_times": [11.18, 13.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__0_001", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nCalifornia seeks reversal of Dillingham because our California law does not relate to ERISA plans.\nEven if it did, the relationship is one which is under another Federal statute and regulation, the Fitzgerald Act, which ERISA may not modify and impair.\nI would like to begin with the second argument, because it allows me to talk about the practical effects on apprenticeship of the Dillingham rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [13.18, 16.482, 23.947, 32.893], "stop_times": [16.482, 23.947, 32.893, 39.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.18}, "reply_to": "20775__0_000", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_002", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But before you do that, could you tell me, counsel, it seemed to be conceded by both sides, certainly by Dillingham, that this is a plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [39.679], "stop_times": [50.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 39.679}, "reply_to": "20775__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__0_003", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "The answer, Justice Kennedy, depends on which this.\nThe plan set up by the NESTU union and the employers was an apprenticeship plan under ERISA, and then at the point it got approved it became a registered apprenticeship plan under the Fitzgerald Act.\nHave I answered your question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [50.105, 54.188, 68.488], "stop_times": [54.188, 68.488, 69.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.105}, "reply_to": "20775__0_002", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_004", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, are there apprenticeship programs that are clearly not ERISA plans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [69.708], "stop_times": [74.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 69.708}, "reply_to": "20775__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__0_005", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [74.913], "stop_times": [75.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 74.913}, "reply_to": "20775__0_004", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_006", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And do those exist, or is this... is that just a hypothetical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [75.723], "stop_times": [79.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 75.723}, "reply_to": "20775__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__0_007", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, that's not a hypothetical.\nOf course, the State doesn't know much about them if they don't come to us for registration.\nOne of the... well, there are a couple of answers in this record.\nOne of the research studies by the Bureau of Apprenticeship Training estimated that about half of apprenticeship going on was not registered.\nSecondly, historic under the Solicitor... under the Department of Labor Regulations any unfunded apprenticeship plan is not covered by ERISA.\nAnd finally, historically, apprenticeship was around a long time before ERISA and before there were any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [79.916, 81.698, 86.832, 90.954, 100.069, 111.647], "stop_times": [81.698, 86.832, 90.954, 100.069, 111.647, 118.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 79.916}, "reply_to": "20775__0_006", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_008", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, let me just ask this further question.\nAre there approved and registered--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [118.672, 120.913], "stop_times": [120.913, 125.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.672}, "reply_to": "20775__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__0_009", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [125.448], "stop_times": [125.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.448}, "reply_to": "20775__0_008", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_010", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--apprentice programs that are not ERISA plans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [125.618], "stop_times": [128.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.618}, "reply_to": "20775__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__0_011", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe are... our law is indifferent as to whether they're covered by ERISA, and the Fitzgerald Act has nothing to say about the areas of ERISA concern, funding, money in or money out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [128.012, 129.011], "stop_times": [129.011, 140.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 128.012}, "reply_to": "20775__0_010", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_012", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But those are the ones that you meant by unfunded?\nYou spoke of unfunded plans a moment ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [140.798, 143.4], "stop_times": [143.4, 146.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.798}, "reply_to": "20775__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__0_013", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes.\nThe Secretary of Labor's definition, we use unfunded as shorthand, and our law... if someone comes to us and wants to register a plan or have an apprentice work on public works we don't inquire whether they're ERISA-covered or not.\nWe'll approve him if they meet the Fitzgerald Act standards, which we've incorporated in our State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [146.053, 146.282, 159.14], "stop_times": [146.282, 159.14, 164.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.053}, "reply_to": "20775__0_012", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_014", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "What do you mean by unfunded again?\nWould you clarify that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [164.444, 166.016], "stop_times": [166.016, 167.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.444}, "reply_to": "20775__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__0_015", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "That there is no trust fund or arrangement by which the employer or a group of employers put in money and then use that to pay for the operation of the training.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [167.005], "stop_times": [179.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 167.005}, "reply_to": "20775__0_014", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_016", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Is it easier to get certification if you do have funding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [179.073], "stop_times": [183.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.073}, "reply_to": "20775__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__0_017", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "We frankly don't care.\nI mean, historically these plans, certainly the history of the Fitzgerald Act, these plans were being organized during the Depression, when everybody had more time than money, and single employer plans, typically there's no reason, because apprenticeship is so closely associated with work, to go to the trouble of setting up a fund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [183.317, 184.348], "stop_times": [184.348, 203.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.317}, "reply_to": "20775__0_016", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_018", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, thank you.\nThat was, I thought, a preliminary that helps me before you address the points you were going to address.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [203.993, 204.484], "stop_times": [204.484, 208.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.993}, "reply_to": "20775__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__0_019", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "One of the reasons, Justice Kennedy, why it's not... we've asked ourselves the same question.\nWe can't tell how many funded plans there are because we never asked the question in the registration process.\nThe effects of the Ninth Circuit rule that States really have no business insisting that those paid as apprentices under our public works be registered apprentices would modify and impair the Fitzgerald Act, because that act directs the Secretary of Labor to promote standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [208.838, 212.929, 219.204], "stop_times": [212.929, 219.204, 243.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.838}, "reply_to": "20775__0_018", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_020", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But the Fitzgerald Act is, you know, I think precatory, isn't it, kind of a feel-good type of thing that doesn't really impose any specific legal requirements on anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [243.349], "stop_times": [252.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.349}, "reply_to": "20775__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__0_021", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--It doesn't impose specific legal requirements, Chief Justice, because it's a voluntary act, but it's not merely precatory either.\nIt directs the Secretary to promote and invites... and under that act he invites the States into a partnership.\nIf the Fitzgerald Act merely said, registered apprenticeship is a good and wonderful thing, and that's the policy of the United States, I'd be constrained to agree with you, but it doesn't.\nIt directs the Secretary to promote, and the history shows that they promote and formulate standards, and this particular definition of apprenticeship at issue here through the Fitzgerald Act and through the regulations we rely on both the act, which is somewhat general, and the rather long tail of regulations which have followed from it.\nWe rely on both of those for our Savings Clause argument because it covers Federal law and regulations under those laws.\nThe problem that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [252.235, 261.661, 268.387, 279.453, 301.178, 307.763], "stop_times": [261.661, 268.387, 279.453, 301.178, 307.763, 310.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.235}, "reply_to": "20775__0_020", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_022", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Is the California law applicable here?\nDoes it operate just as an incentive for people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [310.885, 315.567], "stop_times": [315.567, 319.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.885}, "reply_to": "20775__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_023", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Yes, it operates as an incentive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [319.881], "stop_times": [322.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.881}, "reply_to": "20775__0_022", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_024", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Is it... does it do any more than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [322.663], "stop_times": [324.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.663}, "reply_to": "20775__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_025", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes.\nIt's an incentive to those out there who have a training plan which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [324.814, 325.405], "stop_times": [325.405, 330.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.814}, "reply_to": "20775__0_024", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_026", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [330.9], "stop_times": [331.161], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 330.9}, "reply_to": "20775__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20775__0_027", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--sort of organized but not approved to come up to the Fitzgerald Act standards because then they'll be able to not only do our work, but they'll be able to do Davis-Bacon work, but it's also in our interest to do it, and the States owns these buildings, in this case a jail.\nWe're very, very concerned with the competence of the people who do this particular one, and who do our jails in the future.\nWe want to have a skilled workforce available even for such things as wiring.\nIt's our... and the standards under the Fitzgerald Act address those concerns very directly, because they say that the people who will be brought on as apprentices will have a commitment of at least 2,000 hours... this is not just something tinkered together for the plan... that they'll have related and supplemental instructions so that they'll have some theory behind what they're doing, that they'll be... most importantly to us, there'll be a fixed ratio of journey-level persons to apprentices, so you don't have two foremen and 35 people named as apprentices--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [331.161, 346.288, 355.405, 359.588], "stop_times": [346.288, 355.405, 359.588, 389.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.161}, "reply_to": "20775__0_026", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_028", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, your response surprises me a little.\nI would have thought you might take the position that it is just an incentive, and therefore there's no occasion for preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [389.26, 390.589], "stop_times": [390.589, 398.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.26}, "reply_to": "20775__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_029", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [398.143], "stop_times": [399.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 398.143}, "reply_to": "20775__0_028", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_030", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And yet you're trying to respond some other way.\nI'm baffled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [399.055, 402.006], "stop_times": [402.006, 403.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.055}, "reply_to": "20775__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_031", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, the question is from who... I guess I'm responding from the point of view of the State.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [403.907, 407.59], "stop_times": [407.59, 408.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.907}, "reply_to": "20775__0_030", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_032", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, from the point of view of the State you want to say it's not preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [408.712], "stop_times": [412.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.712}, "reply_to": "20775__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_033", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [412.723], "stop_times": [413.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.723}, "reply_to": "20775__0_032", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_034", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "The California law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [413.193], "stop_times": [413.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 413.193}, "reply_to": "20775__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_035", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But from the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [413.914], "stop_times": [414.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.914}, "reply_to": "20775__0_034", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_036", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And one way to say it is, look, this is just an incentive that we have for people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [414.375], "stop_times": [419.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.375}, "reply_to": "20775__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_037", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, it's true that it is an incentive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [419.37], "stop_times": [420.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.37}, "reply_to": "20775__0_036", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_038", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "You don't have to abide by it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [420.928], "stop_times": [421.209], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 420.928}, "reply_to": "20775__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20775__0_039", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--No one is required to either bid on public works or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [421.209], "stop_times": [424.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.209}, "reply_to": "20775__0_038", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_040", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [424.902], "stop_times": [425.143], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 424.902}, "reply_to": "20775__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20775__0_041", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--or to use--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [425.143], "stop_times": [425.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 425.143}, "reply_to": "20775__0_040", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_042", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [425.734], "stop_times": [426.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.734}, "reply_to": "20775__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_043", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--And if they want to use unregistered apprentices they have to pay them at the journey rate.\nFrom our point of view it's a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.\nIt addresses a lot of concerns.\nFrom the contractor's point of view, or even if there's an apprenticeship plan back there, ERISA-covered or not, it is just an incentive.\nIt's not an order.\nThere is no law in California, or as far as I know in any other State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [426.171, 429.714, 434.128, 435.868, 443.845, 445.265], "stop_times": [429.714, 434.128, 435.868, 443.845, 445.265, 449.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.171}, "reply_to": "20775__0_042", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_044", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But your response to me was, oh, no, it's not an incentive, it's something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [449.067], "stop_times": [452.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.067}, "reply_to": "20775__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_045", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "It's an... it's both an... from our point of view, it's a quality guarantee.\nFrom the point of view of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [452.88, 457.504], "stop_times": [457.504, 460.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.88}, "reply_to": "20775__0_044", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_046", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "For anyone who opts to follow it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [460.016], "stop_times": [463.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.016}, "reply_to": "20775__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_047", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--To do it, yes.\nBut from the point of view of an ERISA... of an apprenticeship plan, ERISA-covered or not, it is merely an incentive, and if the preemption analysis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [463.559, 463.999], "stop_times": [463.999, 472.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.559}, "reply_to": "20775__0_046", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_048", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But counsel, how do you deal with why we're here, because Dillingham said we are having funds, our funds are being withheld from us.\nThat's coercive, not... it's not that you can do this if you like, but if you don't do it you won't get paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [472.365, 480.209], "stop_times": [480.209, 487.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.365}, "reply_to": "20775__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__0_049", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--The coercive aspect is in the prevailing wage law.\nWe set a prevail... like most, almost the majority of the States we set a prevailing wage for public works for various reasons, and if you misclassify or mispay someone, we will make you pay the difference in a small penalty.\nThat is coercive, as here.\nThe reason apprenticeship is involved is because when caught with this mispayment the contractor's response was, oh, these are apprentices, so meeting apprenticeship standards is voluntary, but when you get caught fooling us about who the apprentices are, we'll apply the prevailing wage law, as here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [487.254, 490.878, 505.246, 506.748], "stop_times": [490.878, 505.246, 506.748, 524.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.254}, "reply_to": "20775__0_048", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_050", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "You are not... going back to Justice Kennedy's question you are not agreeing with the AFL-CIO position that the training program is different from the provision, the financial arrangement for gaining the training, so that the training program itself, as distinguished from how one pays for it, is not under ERISA.\nYou seem not to... you and the Government both seem to reject that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [524.66, 553.408], "stop_times": [553.408, 560.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.66}, "reply_to": "20775__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__0_051", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [560.544], "stop_times": [561.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.544}, "reply_to": "20775__0_050", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_052", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [561.713], "stop_times": [563.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.713}, "reply_to": "20775__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__0_053", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "The reason we're taking that position is because, although it provides a neat answer in this case, it addresses more... it addresses larger issues of ERISA jurisprudence than we need to answer, particularly because you'd have the same question about funded-unfunded in day-care centers and legal services plans and we think we've bitten off enough without trying to answer those.\nThe funding-un... nonfunded distinction in the Department of Labor's definition seems to us to make sense in apprenticeship, without trying to make a broader rule, because apprentice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [563.546, 589.903], "stop_times": [589.903, 604.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.546}, "reply_to": "20775__0_052", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_054", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, didn't this Court speak to the issue in part in Massachusetts v. Morash, holding that a State law impacting solely benefits may relate to an ERISA plan, if they're financed by a separate fund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [604.832], "stop_times": [617.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.832}, "reply_to": "20775__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_055", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Yes, and vacation fund is fairly close to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [617.912], "stop_times": [622.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.912}, "reply_to": "20775__0_054", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_056", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And that would be pretty much contrary to the AFL-CIO view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [622.617], "stop_times": [626.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.617}, "reply_to": "20775__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_057", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [626.379, 627.47], "stop_times": [627.47, 627.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.379}, "reply_to": "20775__0_056", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_058", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I thought we'd spoken to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [627.861], "stop_times": [629.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.861}, "reply_to": "20775__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__0_059", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, you hadn't spoken to apprenticeship and the verbal formulation of apprenticeship is a little different.\nI mean, we're not saying that the AFL-CIO's argument is impossible based on pure language it's certainly possible.\nIt just doesn't have any legislative history or serve to explain other sections, and that's why we'd say it's not proven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [629.411, 635.566, 643.592], "stop_times": [635.566, 643.592, 651.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.411}, "reply_to": "20775__0_058", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_060", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Are there other cases that involve services?\nAnd what's peculiar about this, it's like you mention day care.\nIt's not, you get paid a pension or you get provided with a health insurance package, but it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [651.308, 654.212, 657.364], "stop_times": [654.212, 657.364, 665.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.308}, "reply_to": "20775__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__0_061", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "It's ordinary work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [665.061], "stop_times": [666.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.061}, "reply_to": "20775__0_060", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_062", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Is there any other case that addresses that like... the intera--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [666.37], "stop_times": [671.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.37}, "reply_to": "20775__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__0_063", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "There's no other case.\nThe only things in ERISA which are in the list of possible benefits provided by an ERISA-covered arrangement that are similar to this are vacations, because they're so much like ordinary work, but apprenticeship or other training, and other training is clearly covered in the same phrase, are, showing up to work, getting assignments from your supervisor, doing those, learning as you go, and that's why it's so closely tied to work.\nI believe the reasons stated by the Department of Labor and the Federal Register section quoted in the United States brief for using funding was because of the great difficulty in separating out apprenticeship or other training from ordinary work.\nIt's not like the pension that you get after work, or health benefits that you buy in a package and are handed.\nIt's very much integrated, and the only way they really had to keep from federalizing vast areas of American employment law was by saying, well, when it's funded, we'll look at the special ERISA-related problems that funding brings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [671.656, 672.244, 699.863, 716.656, 722.342], "stop_times": [672.244, 699.863, 716.656, 722.342, 736.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.656}, "reply_to": "20775__0_062", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_064", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Because that section 1002.1, when it defines an employee welfare benefit plan, does include in terms apprenticeship or other training programs.\nThere's no way to get around that, is there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [736.87, 749.828], "stop_times": [749.828, 751.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.87}, "reply_to": "20775__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__0_065", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "There's no way to get around that, and certainly we think it deserves the same treatment as the issue of vacations, that there is a definitional problem that this Court recognized in Morash, and you have to resolve it with the purpose of what Congress wanted to cover in benefit provision arrangements, and the Secretary has I think made the best effort at that.\nThe problems that we have in operation of the Dillingham law touch each of the groups mentioned in the Fitzgerald Act.\nAs to the contractors, those who join programs that meet the Federal standards, they invest in their apprentices, and... especially in the early years.\nThat raises their labor costs.\nEvery time that they lose a job to someone like Sound Systems, Inc. who's just using temporary installers and calling them apprentices, that discourages their participation in plans.\nNothing discourages contractors as much as losing bids.\nAs to the apprentices, the second effect on State jobs where the temporary installers work is, those are jobs on which the apprentices and registered programs can't earn any money and can't learn anything.\nThe biggest problem with keeping apprentices working is getting them enough apprentice work.\nThose that drop out are unavailable for a contractor bidding on a Federal jail that needs wiring.\nThose that manage to hang on in spite of not having jobs are just a lot less trained than they would be otherwise.\nThis really discourages the use... shrinking the pool discourages the use of apprentices on Federal projects.\nThe third problem is that having wildly different kinds of work experience called apprenticeship by two different levels of Government, and under the Dillingham rule there will be State apprenticeship, which can be pulling wires and hanging speakers, and somebody telling you to go to school, and then registered apprenticeship, where you, you know, engage and commit to this long course of study.\nThat confuses the private sector that we rely on to make the system work.\nThe contractors, the schools that train apprentices, and people thinking of going into apprenticeship.\nThe fourth bad effect of the Dillingham rule is admittedly a prediction.\nFor nearly 60 years, the States have been willing to engage in this partnership for high quality standards.\nWe use the definition of apprentice, the Federal Davis-Bacon uses it, all of these Federal laws use it, other laws of ours, like minimum wage, use it.\nIf we can't use that definition, if we're forced to take people like temporary installers as our apprentices, the States will give the job back to the Feds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [751.44, 772.183, 784.653, 795.28, 797.322, 809.49, 812.044, 824.351, 828.944, 835.209, 842.612, 848.977, 870.391, 875.424, 882.419, 887.562, 894.237, 903.245], "stop_times": [772.183, 784.653, 795.28, 797.322, 809.49, 812.044, 824.351, 828.944, 835.209, 842.612, 848.977, 870.391, 875.424, 882.419, 887.562, 894.237, 903.245, 912.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.44}, "reply_to": "20775__0_064", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_066", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Mr. Rea, come back to the preemption question.\nI don't understand why the Federal Government cannot continue to cooperate with the States, whether or not this particular law of California is held to be preempted.\nAll that the act requires is that the Secretary of Labor is directed to cooperate with State agencies engaged in the formulation and promotion of standards of apprenticeship.\nIt seems to me California agencies could continue to set forth standards of apprenticeship.\nThe only question is whether California can consistently, with ERISA, enforce those standards by excluding ERISA plan apprentices from State contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [912.098, 914.832, 925.078, 942.899, 948.012], "stop_times": [914.832, 925.078, 942.899, 948.012, 960.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.098}, "reply_to": "20775__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__0_067", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, we're... you've asked two questions, and let me take them in reverse order.\nWe're not excluding ERISA-covered apprentices.\nWe're excluding apprentices who don't meet the Fitzgerald Act standards, and we're indifferent to whether they're ERISA-covered or not.\nBut the problem you've put your finger on is, if we preach to the contractors, the apprentices, the people who own buildings, that the way to go is to meet these high Federal standards of apprenticeship and don't practice what we preach, it's a... preaching is much hindered by hypocrisy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [960.371, 964.194, 966.275, 972.192], "stop_times": [964.194, 966.275, 972.192, 992.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.371}, "reply_to": "20775__0_066", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_068", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, it seems to me you can formulate and promote standards by simply, for instance, prohibiting any company from calling something a, quote apprenticeship program unless it meets certain requirements, which is a good deal short of this.\nThat would promote genuine apprenticeship programs so that somebody doesn't enroll in a program which really doesn't do the job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [992.374, 1007.464], "stop_times": [1007.464, 1013.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.374}, "reply_to": "20775__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__0_069", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I suppose it would, but our interest is not only truth in advertising and promotion but also the State's interest, because... in really getting apprenticeship back for that wage rate, because those are our youth, those are our trainees, and, frankly, that's our jail.\nThe other point I would like to address is, the Dillingham rule really interferes with the interest in uniformity that motivated much of ERISA.\nWhat we have is a rule that makes the definition of apprentice on State public works the same as Federal, and ERISA's theory about the need for uniformity was that uniformity promotes the furtherance of benefits.\nThe Dillingham rule does the opposite, because the sound system apprentices here, for example, could not work on a Davis-Bacon job in California, Oregon, Nevada or anywhere else.\nI would like to reserve the rest of my time if there are no more questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1013.826, 1030.208, 1040.573, 1053.704, 1062.79], "stop_times": [1030.208, 1040.573, 1053.704, 1062.79, 1066.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1013.826}, "reply_to": "20775__0_068", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__0_070", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Very well, Mr. Rea.\nMr. Feldman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1066.053, 1066.704], "stop_times": [1066.704, 1068.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.053}, "reply_to": "20775__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__1_000", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt's the position of the United States that the judgment in this case should be reversed, both because the State's prevailing wage law does not relate to ERISA plans and because, if it did, it would be saved under the section 114040... 1144(d) savings clause.\nWith regard to the relates-to issue, our position is that the general principle is that where a State is regulating an activity, that an employer may carry out through an ERISA plan or may carry out through a non-ERISA plan, and where the State's regulation neither encourages nor discourages, nor prohibits nor requires the employer from doing it by means of the ERISA plan, that the State regulation is not preempted.\nIn that case, it would be most natural to say that the State's regulation relates to the activity at issue, here training programs, and not to ERISA plans.\nNow, in Shaw v. Delta Airlines, if you look at the last few pages, the last issue that the Court dealt with in its opinion in that case concerned a New York State regulation of disability insurance.\nIt was clear that disability insurance could be offered either by an employer through an ERISA plan, or it could be offered through a non-ERISA plan.\nThe Court held that even for those employees who choose to offer it through an ERISA plan, that that doesn't render... they can't thereby immunize themselves from the State's regulation.\nThe State's regulation related to disability laws, not to ERISA plans, and therefore the State could continue to enforce those regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1068.667, 1084.138, 1098.195, 1123.04, 1131.766, 1142.244, 1148.399, 1158.366], "stop_times": [1084.138, 1098.195, 1123.04, 1131.766, 1142.244, 1148.399, 1158.366, 1165.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1068.667}, "reply_to": "20775__0_070", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_001", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Now, this argument requires you to establish, however, that not all apprenticeship programs are ERISA plans.\nIs there some basis for that, other than the funding-nonfunding distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1165.663, 1172.625], "stop_times": [1172.625, 1177.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.663}, "reply_to": "20775__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__1_002", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No.\nI think... well, the basis is this Court's decision in Massachusetts v. Morash, and the Secretary of Labor's regulations on which that was based.\nApprenticeship... apprenticeship, it's not just apprenticeship, it's apprenticeship and other training programs, and those are ubiquitous in the workplace.\nTraining goes on every day at all degrees of formality, from totally informal to very formal programs in every workplace in the country.\nCongress did not intend, when it enacted ERISA, as the Court recognizes in Massachusetts v. Morash, it didn't intend to oust the States from their very traditional jurisdiction over their basic employment relationship.\nThat is, the employer gives money to the employee, and the employee does what the employer tells the employee to do, and if that's get trained, then the employee gets trained.\nIf it's do some work and get some training and go attend some courses, then that's what the employee does.\nERISA was not intended to oust the States from their kind of very basic and traditional regulatory authority over that.\nWhere a fund is introduced, it introduces a separate risk, as this Court said in Morash, and those cases where separate risk is introduced, then ERISA takes effect, and if an employee--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1177.349, 1177.85, 1185.805, 1192.901, 1200.736, 1212.512, 1220.318, 1226.713, 1233.637], "stop_times": [1177.85, 1185.805, 1192.901, 1200.736, 1212.512, 1220.318, 1226.713, 1233.637, 1245.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1177.349}, "reply_to": "20775__1_001", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_003", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "You mean by Federal funding or assistance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1245.144], "stop_times": [1248.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.144}, "reply_to": "20775__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__1_004", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--No.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1248.079, 1248.306], "stop_times": [1248.306, 1248.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1248.079}, "reply_to": "20775__1_003", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_005", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "What are you talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1248.476], "stop_times": [1248.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.476}, "reply_to": "20775__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__1_006", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--No.\nWhat I mean is, where the employer... where it's not just a question of the employer paying the employee money and the employee goes and gets training or does what the employer says to do, but the employer sets aside a fund and says, I'm setting aside this fund for the benefit of the employees to accomplish such-and-such goals, training, so on, maybe with other... in concert with other employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1248.816, 1249.416], "stop_times": [1249.416, 1266.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1248.816}, "reply_to": "20775__1_005", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_007", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But you say if the employer pays out of his own general funds it's not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1266.69], "stop_times": [1270.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.69}, "reply_to": "20775__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__1_008", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "It's not, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1270.971], "stop_times": [1271.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1270.971}, "reply_to": "20775__1_007", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_009", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "What's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1271.592], "stop_times": [1272.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.592}, "reply_to": "20775__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__1_010", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--The difference is that as the Court... that was exactly the difference that the Court relied on in Massachusetts v. Morash, and the difference is, where it's just the... it's impossible to distinguish what's going on from the normal payment of compensation to a worker in return for the worker's normal taking care of his job in the case where the compensation just comes out of the employer's pocket, and moreover--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1272.303], "stop_times": [1292.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1272.303}, "reply_to": "20775__1_009", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_011", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, that's a good idea, but where do you get that out of the language of the statute?\nI mean, are we just giving up on the term relates-to, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1292.105, 1295.489], "stop_times": [1295.489, 1300.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1292.105}, "reply_to": "20775__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__1_012", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--It doesn't... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1300.404], "stop_times": [1302.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1300.404}, "reply_to": "20775__1_011", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_013", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--just devising distinctions that we think are useful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1302.154], "stop_times": [1304.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.154}, "reply_to": "20775__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__1_014", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--No.\nI... actually, I don't think that... it doesn't really have anything to do with relates-to.\nWhat the Court said in Morash was that it has to do with the entire term, plan, fund or program for the purpose of giving vacation benefits.\nSimilarly, in this case it really has to do with the entire meaning of the whole phrase there in section 1002, plan, fund or program for the purpose of providing apprenticeship or other training benefits.\nIt's really the exact... an exact parallel, and let me give an example that's not really that far from this case.\nImagine that a hospital--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1304.357, 1304.597, 1307.9, 1317.036, 1327.994, 1334.119], "stop_times": [1304.597, 1307.9, 1317.036, 1327.994, 1334.119, 1336.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1304.357}, "reply_to": "20775__1_013", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_015", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Excuse me.\nYou're saying, even though they use different terms, plan, fund, or program, if it's an apprenticeship or training program, it also has to be a fund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1336.322, 1337.611], "stop_times": [1337.611, 1348.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.322}, "reply_to": "20775__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__1_016", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--In order to be a... it has... the Secretary of Labor has determined that in order to distinguish between normal workplace, what goes on normally in the workplace and the kind of benefit programs that ERISA was designed to regulate, that the distinction in the case of apprenticeship and other training programs is between funded programs which are benefits of the sort ERISA is intended to regulate and nonfunded programs, which is just the employer hiring the employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1348.832], "stop_times": [1374.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1348.832}, "reply_to": "20775__1_015", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_017", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But the statute refers to programs.\nThat statute refers to apprentice programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1374.697, 1375.777], "stop_times": [1375.777, 1378.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.697}, "reply_to": "20775__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__1_018", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1378.698], "stop_times": [1380.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1378.698}, "reply_to": "20775__1_017", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_019", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "It not only refers to programs, it refers to funds separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1380.441], "stop_times": [1383.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.441}, "reply_to": "20775__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__1_020", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "That's right, but also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1383.292], "stop_times": [1383.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1383.292}, "reply_to": "20775__1_019", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_021", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Fund or program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1383.843], "stop_times": [1384.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.843}, "reply_to": "20775__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__1_022", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--That's right, but also the statute throughout and in the pre... in section 1001 which talks about the purposes of the statute and elsewhere throughout the statute talks... it's quite clear that the statute is directed towards benefits.\nIt's not directed toward just an employer who decides to get... to pay an employee and says go and learn how to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1384.554, 1397.283], "stop_times": [1397.283, 1402.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1384.554}, "reply_to": "20775__1_021", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_023", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But 1002.1 defines employee welfare benefit fund.\nWhere does the Secretary get the statutory authority in that section to make his distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1402.078, 1405.701], "stop_times": [1405.701, 1410.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.078}, "reply_to": "20775__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__1_024", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, the Secretary does have statutory authority in 29 U.S.C. 1135.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1410.473], "stop_times": [1415.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1410.473}, "reply_to": "20775__1_023", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_025", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "What basis in 1002.1 does the Secretary rely on for making that distinction, because it does seem that the definition covers any plan, fund, or program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1415.867], "stop_times": [1426.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.867}, "reply_to": "20775__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__1_026", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "The basis in... the basis is that that term, that entire phrase, plan, fund, or program for the purposes of providing apprenticeship or other training programs itself has to be... that itself... that it's really a definition of that whole term, and I will admit that the distinction between funding and unfunded in this case, as in Massachusetts v. Morash, that that's not something you're going to find in Black's Law Dictionary if you look up any of those individual words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1426.613], "stop_times": [1451.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1426.613}, "reply_to": "20775__1_025", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_027", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Or in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1451.412], "stop_times": [1451.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.412}, "reply_to": "20775__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__1_028", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, but it is.\nIt is, I think, in the statute, because throughout the statute... I mean, if you look at section 1001, if you look up even 1144, what the statute talks about is benefit programs, not the basic employ... payment of wages in return for work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1451.973, 1452.304], "stop_times": [1452.304, 1464.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1451.973}, "reply_to": "20775__1_027", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_029", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Are you saying that you must give a different meaning to the word program in the first part of the clause than in the second part of the clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1464.803], "stop_times": [1472.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.803}, "reply_to": "20775__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20775__1_030", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No.\nI don't think I'm saying that.\nI think I'm saying that the entire clause has to be understood with some limitation.\nIf not, it would take over the entire role of just what goes on in the everyday workplace, and that was not Congress' intent.\nIf you look at the wording throughout the statute where it talks about employee benefit programs, and the example I wanted to give was, if you take a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1472.359, 1474.499, 1476.28, 1480.704, 1488.04], "stop_times": [1474.499, 1476.28, 1480.704, 1488.04, 1494.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1472.359}, "reply_to": "20775__1_029", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_031", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, I didn't mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1494.402], "stop_times": [1495.584], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.402}, "reply_to": "20775__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20775__1_032", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--If you take an internship at a hospital, which is very much like an apprenticeship program, and it's certainly a training program, according to the Ninth Circuit's rule in this case... and an internship could be organized with a separate, as an ERISA plan, and in our view it could be organized as a non-ERISA training program.\nUnder the rule that California... that the Ninth Circuit adopted in this case, the State would be entirely disabled from regulating how many interns... how many doctors you need to supervise interns in a hospital, under what circumstances an intern may... can assist in surgery, all kinds of things like that.\nNow, that perhaps is one extreme case, but that's a training program just like the training program in this case, and the need--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1495.584, 1510.404, 1525.584], "stop_times": [1510.404, 1525.584, 1531.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1495.584}, "reply_to": "20775__1_031", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_033", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Would you agree that if you were simply looking at the phrase, plan, fund, or program, you really couldn't make this argument.\nAnd your argument depends on saying you've got to read the statute whole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1531.287, 1537.822], "stop_times": [1537.822, 1541.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.287}, "reply_to": "20775__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__1_034", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1541.645], "stop_times": [1542.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1541.645}, "reply_to": "20775__1_033", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_035", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And Morash recognized that, and if you don't read it whole this way, in effect you are going to federalize a vast area of State activity which in fact has nothing to do with the... with kind of the gut notion of administering trust funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1542.426], "stop_times": [1556.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.426}, "reply_to": "20775__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__1_036", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "That's exactly right, and if you... in the Morash opinion the Court says, you could construe all vacation plans to be ERISA plans.\nThat was clear.\nYou could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1556.796, 1565.243, 1565.972], "stop_times": [1565.243, 1565.972, 1566.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1556.796}, "reply_to": "20775__1_035", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_037", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Just as you could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1566.542], "stop_times": [1567.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.542}, "reply_to": "20775__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__1_038", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But you have to look at it in the context of the whole statute and what Congress was trying to accomplish here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1567.223], "stop_times": [1571.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1567.223}, "reply_to": "20775__1_037", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_039", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--So if that's so, and... the fact that an employer sets aside a trust fund to buy vacations for his employees does not make all the travel agencies and hotels involved ERISA plans, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1571.928], "stop_times": [1584.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.928}, "reply_to": "20775__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20775__1_040", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1584.526], "stop_times": [1585.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1584.526}, "reply_to": "20775__1_039", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_041", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "All right.\nWhy isn't the same thing true with a trust fund set up to buy apprenticeship programs?\nWhy, in other words, take the other side of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1585.636, 1585.897, 1591.589], "stop_times": [1585.897, 1591.589, 1593.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.636}, "reply_to": "20775__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20775__1_042", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1593.912], "stop_times": [1594.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1593.912}, "reply_to": "20775__1_041", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_043", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Why is it if you do have a trust fund, pension fund, et cet... or ERISA plan set up to fund apprenticeship programs, why does that make the program itself an ERISA program, any more than with vacations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1594.582], "stop_times": [1606.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.582}, "reply_to": "20775__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20775__1_044", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Because... I think because the training program itself as something that the employer has set up is not going to some outside provider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1606.87], "stop_times": [1614.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1606.87}, "reply_to": "20775__1_043", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_045", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, in other words, if the vacation travel agent happens to be somebody who does the employer's vacation planning, the travel business becomes an ERISA program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1614.514], "stop_times": [1624.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.514}, "reply_to": "20775__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20775__1_046", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, I don't think that's right, but I do think that raises a... it would be a slightly different question as why various State regulations of the travel agent wouldn't be preempted, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1624.371], "stop_times": [1634.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1624.371}, "reply_to": "20775__1_045", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_047", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Why isn't it a fairly clear line to say that... oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1634.558], "stop_times": [1636.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.558}, "reply_to": "20775__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20775__1_048", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1636.79], "stop_times": [1638.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1636.79}, "reply_to": "20775__1_047", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20775__1_049", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Feldman.\nMr. Hill, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1638.92, 1640.863], "stop_times": [1640.863, 1642.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.92}, "reply_to": "20775__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__2_000", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIf this Court were to affirm the Ninth Circuit in this case, it would not mean the end of apprenticeship as we know it.\nThe parade of horrors laid out by the State is overstated, and I believe it ignores economic reality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1642.954, 1647.015, 1653.56], "stop_times": [1647.015, 1653.56, 1660.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1642.954}, "reply_to": "20775__1_049", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_001", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, wouldn't it mean that in any case like this, for example, in which the employer in effect wanted to exempt himself from the apprenticeship obligations and the wage differential that that implies, he would have a perfect way to do it simply by agreeing to the apprenticeship scheme as part of his contract, then funding his apprenticeship scheme with a trust fund like this, them claiming on your theory that all of the State regulations on apprenticeships relate to the plan and becoming free of the regulations?\nWhy wouldn't it be a perfect ticket to an exemption from what he had agreed to if he thought in this particular instance it was in his interest to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1660.115, 1694.556], "stop_times": [1694.556, 1703.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.115}, "reply_to": "20775__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_002", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I think there are many ways to take care of those abuses like that.\nI think the first question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1703.472, 1706.915], "stop_times": [1706.915, 1708.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1703.472}, "reply_to": "20775__2_001", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_003", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Under existing law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1708.027], "stop_times": [1709.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.027}, "reply_to": "20775__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_004", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Under existing law.\nI think, for example, the payroll practice regulation deals with a situation where the employer simply agrees to provide training in exchange for payment without establishing any program or plan, and where there is no plan or program, certainly that may fall within the payroll practice regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1709.239, 1709.99], "stop_times": [1709.99, 1728.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.239}, "reply_to": "20775__2_003", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_005", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Would that, then, leave your client in the same position that the client is in if the State prevails here, except that he would be in that position as a result of the enforcement of the different statute, the payroll differential statute as opposed to the apprenticeship scheme under the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1728.332], "stop_times": [1744.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.332}, "reply_to": "20775__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_006", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I think the difference between my client's situation and the one I just outlined is that my client has established a formal plan and program with written standards, with supplemental training, with a wage progression that corresponds to periods of training, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1744.384], "stop_times": [1759.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.384}, "reply_to": "20775__2_005", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_007", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But he's doing it for the purpose, in effect, of honoring State law or State regulation with respect to apprentices which he now says is unenforceable against him because he's funding his obligation by an ERISA plan.\nIsn't that his argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1759.383, 1773.004], "stop_times": [1773.004, 1773.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.383}, "reply_to": "20775__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_008", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, I think the reason that this contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1773.925], "stop_times": [1776.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.925}, "reply_to": "20775__2_007", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_009", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Isn't that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1776.847], "stop_times": [1777.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.847}, "reply_to": "20775__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_010", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I'm not sure... I think the reason that this apprenticeship program was established was that we have this Federal system of creating incentives to comply with apprenticeship programs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1777.598], "stop_times": [1787.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1777.598}, "reply_to": "20775__2_009", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_011", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, but why did your client establish the ERISA plan?\nThe ERISA plan was established to fund, in effect, his apprenticeship obligations, and by virtue of having done it by an ERISA plan he now claims that because of the relating-to language there is a preemption which exempts him from the State law that he established the fund to honor.\nIsn't that his argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1787.874, 1790.368, 1807.631], "stop_times": [1790.368, 1807.631, 1809.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.874}, "reply_to": "20775__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_012", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I think I would put it slightly differently.\nI think the reason this plan was established was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1809.22, 1810.923], "stop_times": [1810.923, 1812.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.22}, "reply_to": "20775__2_011", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_013", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I would, too--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1812.816, 1813.086], "stop_times": [1813.086, 1813.287], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.816}, "reply_to": "20775__2_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20775__2_014", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--to comply with Federal standards.\nThe incentive, the carrot, as it were, under the Federal system of apprenticeship is, you get people to go out and create apprenticeship programs and people want to comply with the Federal Fitzgerald Act standards so that they can bid on Federal public works projects and other Federal projects having a Federal purpose.\nAnd it's this voluntary system created by the Fitzgerald Act that we want people to go out... we want to encourage people to go out and encourage apprenticeship programs and plans, and the carrot is that if you do that, and you comply with the Federal standards, then you can bid work for Federal public works projects, you can pay the apprentice rates on Federal projects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1813.287, 1814.967, 1833.569], "stop_times": [1814.967, 1833.569, 1853.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.287}, "reply_to": "20775__2_013", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_015", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes, and he does all that, and after he's done it, for whatever reason, he says, this isn't such a hot idea.\nI don't think I want to honor the apprentice journeyman wage differential for whatever reason, and I can get out of it by claiming an ERISA preemption.\nThat may not be such a great thing for me in the long run, but at least it gets me out of the situation that I'm in now that I don't like.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1853.645, 1859.628, 1870.167], "stop_times": [1859.628, 1870.167, 1876.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.645}, "reply_to": "20775__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_016", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I don't think that happened in this particular case, because we had the program and the plan in effect.\nThe standards were in place, as conceded by Mr. Rea, when the work was being performed.\nWe had a little difficulty create... getting the supplemental instruction set up, so the plan was in place when the work was being performed, and the apprentices were being paid in accordance with the plan.\nThey were being paid in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, and all that happened in this case was that we didn't get the approval from the State until some later point in time, but my client was, I believe, in all respects complying with the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1876.24, 1881.806, 1886.128, 1897.966], "stop_times": [1881.806, 1886.128, 1897.966, 1911.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.24}, "reply_to": "20775__2_015", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_017", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But you would be in the same position if the reason you hadn't gotten the approval from the State was, or if the reason for the withholding in this case was that you simply hadn't followed the plan.\nYou'd be in the same position you're in right now, and you would be claiming preemption, and for that reason you would be claiming the illegality of withholding the wages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1911.807, 1921.723], "stop_times": [1921.723, 1929.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.807}, "reply_to": "20775__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_018", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, if we had not followed the plan, that I think would create a whole different set of problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1929.089], "stop_times": [1934.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1929.089}, "reply_to": "20775__2_017", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_019", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, but I'm saying if you win this case that's the option that you're going to have, or that others... I don't mean that your client is going to do it, but that's an option that other contractors would have.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1934.993, 1944.5], "stop_times": [1944.5, 1945.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.993}, "reply_to": "20775__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__2_020", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I think there are several safeguards in place.\nYou have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1945.601, 1948.476], "stop_times": [1948.476, 1948.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.601}, "reply_to": "20775__2_019", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_021", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Before you tell me about the safeguards--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1948.987], "stop_times": [1951.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.987}, "reply_to": "20775__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_022", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1951.0], "stop_times": [1951.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.0}, "reply_to": "20775__2_021", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_023", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--as a general proposition that is correct, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1951.488], "stop_times": [1953.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.488}, "reply_to": "20775__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_024", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I don't think that is... I don't think that affirming this case is really going to open the floodgates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1953.681], "stop_times": [1959.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.681}, "reply_to": "20775__2_023", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_025", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, but of course it's correct, what he said.\nNot whether it's going to open the floodgates, but is it correct?\nIt seems to me it is.\nIsn't your response that you could create such a hypothetical with respect to any provision that could be preempted by ERISA?\nYou could always create a hypothetical that somebody does not want to abide by the State law in question, which would be preempted, need only set up an ERISA plan.\nIsn't that your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1959.335, 1961.558, 1963.809, 1964.5, 1970.544, 1980.091], "stop_times": [1961.558, 1963.809, 1964.5, 1970.544, 1980.091, 1980.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.335}, "reply_to": "20775__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__2_026", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I think my answer is yes, as long as you set up an apprenticeship plan that meets the ERISA standard, and that may be very different from the State standard of what an apprenticeship training program ought to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1980.802], "stop_times": [1991.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.802}, "reply_to": "20775__2_025", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_027", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But does ERISA have any standards for the training program as distinguished from the funding of it?\nDoes it have standards for the quality of the trainers, the number of hours, the... ERISA doesn't regulate training, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [1991.059, 1996.603], "stop_times": [1996.603, 2006.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.059}, "reply_to": "20775__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_028", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, ERISA does not regulate training because I think ERISA really leaves it to employers to... it doesn't set a minimum set of benefits, so it's really up to the employers to create their own diverse set of training programs.\nThe real safeguards in Federal law are the Fitzgerald Act regulations which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2006.32, 2020.749], "stop_times": [2020.749, 2025.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.32}, "reply_to": "20775__2_027", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_029", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But they... the State regulated training of apprentices long before there was a Fitzgerald Act, and it's very old kind of State regulation, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2025.132], "stop_times": [2034.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.132}, "reply_to": "20775__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_030", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, it... certainly within the last 30 or 40 years there was some regulation of apprenticeship, but it's this conjunction of regulation of apprenticeship and prevailing wage legislation that has only come into existence within the last 20, 30 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2034.289], "stop_times": [2051.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.289}, "reply_to": "20775__2_029", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_031", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "The definitions section mentions along with apprentice programs day-care centers and prepaid legal services.\nTraining programs and day-care centers, the fact that it's an ERISA program wouldn't mean that the quality standards imposed on day care by the State are removed, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2051.63, 2062.094], "stop_times": [2062.094, 2076.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.63}, "reply_to": "20775__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_032", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "That's a hard question.\nI don't think it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2076.027, 2080.237], "stop_times": [2080.237, 2081.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2076.027}, "reply_to": "20775__2_031", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_033", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well then, that's what... I'm struggling with this statute that lists them in a row, training programs, day-care centers, prepaid legal services, and at least it seems incredible to me to believe that you could set up a day-care center and escape all the State regulations, quality controls on that, if you put it under the head of ERISA, so why should it be different for training?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2081.991], "stop_times": [2102.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.991}, "reply_to": "20775__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_034", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I guess one of the things that's different about apprenticeship is that we have this system, this voluntary system that the Federal Fitzgerald Act regulations set up the standards that one must meet in order to gain Federal approval, and I think it's that.\nIt's the incentive of complying with that system that makes this case... makes apprenticeship unique among employee welfare benefit plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2102.473, 2117.283], "stop_times": [2117.283, 2127.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.473}, "reply_to": "20775__2_033", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_035", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Why isn't it easier to make a different kind of classification and in effect respond to the problem that Justice Scalia raised that in theory you could oust any State regulation by forming an ERISA plan?\nAnd the answer to the classification I have in mind is, if the ERISA plan is in fact funding what is a requirement of a traditional area of State regulation, which I dare say apprenticeship is, the regulation of day-care centers is, and so on, just as the regulation of hospital rates could be, then the fact that there is an ERISA plan does not so connect the plan to the area of regulation as to require preemption.\nWhy isn't that the answer here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2127.98, 2142.748, 2178.562], "stop_times": [2142.748, 2178.562, 2180.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.98}, "reply_to": "20775__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_036", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I guess my response to that is that the connection in a case like this is that the employers have set up a plan and a program that... with a detailed set of standards and wage progressions, and what the State is attempting to do is to regulate that and tell the employers they may not comply with the plan that they have set up, and once that plan has been interfered with in that way, you are interfering with the congressional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2180.645], "stop_times": [2209.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.645}, "reply_to": "20775__2_035", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_037", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, but you're not interfering with the plan if the object of the plan is to fund whatever you are required or permitted to do by or consistent with the traditional State regulation.\nIt seems to me that your argument is circular, and both Justice Ginsburg's question and my question are basically saying, there's got to be a limit to what is connected to or related, and that limit is established by looking for certain areas of traditional State regulation, and if the effect on the ERISA plan is incidental to that regulation, as it would be when a plan is set up simply to fund the regulation, then you don't have preemption.\nWhy isn't that the answer?\nWhy isn't that the key to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2209.623, 2220.992, 2252.01, 2253.472], "stop_times": [2220.992, 2252.01, 2253.472, 2255.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.623}, "reply_to": "20775__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_038", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I think there are a couple of responses.\nFirst of all, as I read the cases, if ERISA preemption is express, as I believe it is in this case, then we don't need--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2255.054, 2256.356], "stop_times": [2256.356, 2264.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.054}, "reply_to": "20775__2_037", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_039", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, how can you say it's express in this case unless you... maybe you do... say that there cannot be such a thing as an unfunded plan which does not fall under ERISA?\nI take it that is your position.\nEvery plan, even unfunded plans, is an ERISA plan within the meaning of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2264.613, 2274.368, 2277.001], "stop_times": [2274.368, 2277.001, 2280.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.613}, "reply_to": "20775__2_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_040", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I... well, I think my position, although you may not need to reach this in order to get a result in this case, my position is that every plan or program to create apprenticeship is covered by ERISA whether it's funded or unfunded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2280.614], "stop_times": [2291.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.614}, "reply_to": "20775__2_039", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_041", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Right.\nThat's what I meant, and don't you have trouble under Morash?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2291.841, 2292.011], "stop_times": [2292.011, 2294.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.841}, "reply_to": "20775__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_042", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I don't believe I have trouble under Morash.\nAs I read that case it was limited to the situation where a single employer was paying vacation out of its own general assets, and I believe the Court said that we would have a different situation if a group of employers had set up a separate trust fund to pay vacation benefits for a larger group of employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2294.733, 2297.427], "stop_times": [2297.427, 2317.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.733}, "reply_to": "20775__2_041", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_043", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But under your analysis, as I understand it, you could have a single employer setting up a... an apprentice program with its own standards.\nThat would be an ERISA plan, and it would preempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2317.219, 2324.094], "stop_times": [2324.094, 2326.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.219}, "reply_to": "20775__2_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_044", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I believe that's possible as long--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2326.675], "stop_times": [2329.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.675}, "reply_to": "20775__2_043", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_045", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "That's your... I think that's your theory, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2329.159], "stop_times": [2329.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.159}, "reply_to": "20775__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_046", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--That is my theory.\nAs long as there is a genuine plan or program and not something that's simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2329.897, 2330.288], "stop_times": [2330.288, 2335.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.897}, "reply_to": "20775__2_045", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_047", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, it's genuine.\nIt just provides standards that differ from those that California and the Secretary of Labor would require.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2335.593, 2336.633], "stop_times": [2336.633, 2341.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.593}, "reply_to": "20775__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_048", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--That's right, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2341.478], "stop_times": [2342.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.478}, "reply_to": "20775__2_047", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_049", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And it still would preempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2342.249], "stop_times": [2342.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.249}, "reply_to": "20775__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_050", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I... that is my theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2342.868], "stop_times": [2344.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.868}, "reply_to": "20775__2_049", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_051", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes.\nWhat would be the reason for Congress wanting to regulate under ERISA an unfunded apprenticeship plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2344.17, 2344.48], "stop_times": [2344.48, 2351.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.17}, "reply_to": "20775__2_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__2_052", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I think that we can imagine an unfunded... I guess in Morash I think the Court dealt with by saying that where there is a risk different than simply the risk of employment, and one can imagine a apprenticeship program or plan which has detailed standards, detailed training requirements and those sorts of things which happens to be unfunded, and I believe that the congressional intent is to regulate those sorts of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2351.115], "stop_times": [2379.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.115}, "reply_to": "20775__2_051", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_053", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, wasn't Congress' concern in ERISA, granted, you repair to the statute to determine that in the first instance, the insolvency and failure to put together enough financing for these various plans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2379.302], "stop_times": [2391.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.302}, "reply_to": "20775__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__2_054", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I think that is one of the risks that we are concerned about when you have these multiemployer funded plans.\nYou also have the risk of, or have the concerns with the administration of detailed plans, and I think that risk, the desire for administrative integrity, would attach to some unfunded plans.\nDisclosure requirements can apply to unfunded plans as well as funded plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2391.962, 2398.943, 2415.095], "stop_times": [2398.943, 2415.095, 2420.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.962}, "reply_to": "20775__2_053", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_055", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "What would you disclose about an unfunded plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2420.899], "stop_times": [2424.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.899}, "reply_to": "20775__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__2_056", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, there may be very limited disclosure requirements, but you may have to disclose who is administering the plan, what the relationships of those people are to the participating employers, what the standards are, how one gets training, what kinds of things, what a person must do to complete the apprenticeship, so the disclosure may be limited, but there may be some disclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2424.472], "stop_times": [2449.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.472}, "reply_to": "20775__2_055", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_057", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Mr. Hill, you heard counsel for the State say that there are without question unfunded plans out there.\nThey don't happen to have the number.\nBut I take it, then, you're willing to accept the consequence that if you're right, ERISA regulation is due for a potentially very significant expansion, because they're not... ERISA isn't regulating any of these plans now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2449.637, 2457.164, 2458.556], "stop_times": [2457.164, 2458.556, 2473.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.637}, "reply_to": "20775__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_058", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "The logical extension of my position is that ERISA will protect many different varieties of training and apprenticeship programs, other than the type of program we have here before... in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2473.594], "stop_times": [2484.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.594}, "reply_to": "20775__2_057", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_059", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "So you're... I mean, ERISA has not been doing what it should have been doing on your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2484.662], "stop_times": [2487.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.662}, "reply_to": "20775__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_060", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And... I think that's partly correct.\nI would agree with that, and I would say that this is inherent in the structure of ERISA and the Fitzgerald Act, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2487.223, 2488.642], "stop_times": [2488.642, 2496.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.223}, "reply_to": "20775__2_059", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_061", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "What about a training program that the employer would offer, say, that we need to have a healthy workforce so we're going to have this gym facility, this health club, and that's... and then could they then say because it's under ERISA we want to be relieved of all these State requirements that... these safety, and enough space, and all that, we don't have to worry about that because it's an ERISA plan and its State regulation is preempted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2496.289], "stop_times": [2526.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.289}, "reply_to": "20775__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_062", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, this sounds very close to what the Department of Labor is attempting to prevent through their payroll practice regulation, because if a single employer just says, I'm going to establish a health plan, and I pay for it out of my general assets--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2526.69], "stop_times": [2539.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.69}, "reply_to": "20775__2_061", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_063", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, let's say a group of employers do it.\nThey get together and they say, we're going to have this facility, and all our workers will use it, and we're going to fund it out of a plan, and so State, please don't tell us about how much space we need between machines, and the quality of what... the equipment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2539.48, 2540.561], "stop_times": [2540.561, 2555.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.48}, "reply_to": "20775__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_064", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--That is a difficult question, I concede, because if you take that to the logical extent, I suppose a program, a plan could be created for that purpose, and it's probably unlikely to happen in the real world because employers don't want to go--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2555.931], "stop_times": [2572.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.931}, "reply_to": "20775__2_063", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_065", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But it could happen, certainly, with the day care, which is in that same string.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2572.133], "stop_times": [2576.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.133}, "reply_to": "20775__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_066", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I think that is to some extent a risk, and I think it's perhaps inherent in Congress'--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2576.096], "stop_times": [2583.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.096}, "reply_to": "20775__2_065", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_067", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "How about legal services?\nThey're all together, and if you're saying that they can't touch training because it's under an ERISA plan, and it's listed right in the statute as such, but so are these other things, so why would training be more untouchable than a day-care center, prepaid legal services--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2583.851, 2585.891], "stop_times": [2585.891, 2606.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.851}, "reply_to": "20775__2_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_068", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2606.605], "stop_times": [2607.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.605}, "reply_to": "20775__2_067", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_069", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--my health club?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2607.146], "stop_times": [2607.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.146}, "reply_to": "20775__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_070", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I'm not sure I can draw that line.\nI suppose that in the real world employers are much more likely to join together to create apprenticeship and training programs than they are to join together to create health clubs or legal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2607.867, 2609.349], "stop_times": [2609.349, 2622.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.867}, "reply_to": "20775__2_069", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_071", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Day-care centers is not so unusual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2622.439], "stop_times": [2624.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.439}, "reply_to": "20775__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_072", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2624.3], "stop_times": [2625.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2624.3}, "reply_to": "20775__2_071", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_073", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But the only problem I have with that argument, you say it's the same whether it's a single employer or a multiemployer under your reading of the statute, and if you read it literally, you're dead right.\nI mean, we said that in the vacation case, but we say you can't read this statute literally.\nIt just doesn't make any sense.\nThat's the problem.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2625.431, 2634.958, 2638.4, 2639.77, 2641.292], "stop_times": [2634.958, 2638.4, 2639.77, 2641.292, 2641.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.431}, "reply_to": "20775__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_074", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2641.623], "stop_times": [2641.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.623}, "reply_to": "20775__2_073", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_075", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "It could... this... any employer could preempt all the health regulations for day care, a whole host of State regulations, if you read everything literally.\nBut you're saying, well, maybe we don't have to read it literally when we get to day-care centers, but then why do we have to read it literally with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2641.733, 2649.53], "stop_times": [2649.53, 2655.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.733}, "reply_to": "20775__2_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_076", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2655.874], "stop_times": [2656.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2655.874}, "reply_to": "20775__2_075", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_077", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--apprentice programs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2656.403], "stop_times": [2657.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.403}, "reply_to": "20775__2_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_078", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I concede that's a problem, and I think it is possible to decide this case in my favor without reaching this larger issue of what... how far ERISA applies to apprenticeship programs, because this, in fact, was a multiemployer-funded apprenticeship program, and perhaps the decision can be limited to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2657.405], "stop_times": [2675.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.405}, "reply_to": "20775__2_077", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_079", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, how?\nI mean, why wouldn't it be quite arbitrary on your theory to limit it to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2675.947, 2676.738], "stop_times": [2676.738, 2680.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.947}, "reply_to": "20775__2_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_080", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2680.221], "stop_times": [2681.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.221}, "reply_to": "20775__2_079", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_081", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Just as it seems to me it would be equally arbitrary to... in answer to Justice Ginsburg to say that we'll draw the line before ERISA gets to the day-care centers.\nIf we accept your theory, we... you know, we've got to go the whole hog.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2681.771, 2692.45], "stop_times": [2692.45, 2696.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.771}, "reply_to": "20775__2_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_082", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--And I think what I'm suggesting is that in this particular case it may not be necessary to draw that line.\nThere may be a future case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2696.691, 2701.265], "stop_times": [2701.265, 2702.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.691}, "reply_to": "20775__2_081", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_083", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, but how?\nHow do we do it, because it seems to me the answer to Justice Ginsburg's question on day-care centers is inevitable.\nAs I understand you correctly, the answer to Justice Stevens' question, even when you get to the single employer schemes, is inevitable.\nHow are we going to draw this line that you want us to draw?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2702.276, 2702.527, 2708.49, 2715.986], "stop_times": [2702.527, 2708.49, 2715.986, 2718.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.276}, "reply_to": "20775__2_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_084", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I feel it's a difficult line because ERISA does not define that line, the regulations do not define that line, and my best response is that in this particular case virtually all the parties, save and except the AFL-CIO, have conceded that this particular apprenticeship program is governed by ERISA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2718.65], "stop_times": [2737.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.65}, "reply_to": "20775__2_083", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_085", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, some of the Government's argument is based on the distinction between funded and unfunded and, of course, if... you would win, I take it, if we adopted that approach because your client's plan was separately funded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2737.962], "stop_times": [2755.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.962}, "reply_to": "20775__2_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__2_086", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "It was indeed, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2755.092], "stop_times": [2757.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.092}, "reply_to": "20775__2_085", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_087", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "If--\n--It was separately funded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2757.443, 2758.274], "stop_times": [2758.274, 2760.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.443}, "reply_to": "20775__2_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__2_088", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes.\nThe employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2760.946, 2761.717], "stop_times": [2761.717, 2763.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.946}, "reply_to": "20775__2_087", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_089", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And yet the Government's position is that because of that, there is no preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2763.039], "stop_times": [2770.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.039}, "reply_to": "20775__2_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__2_090", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I frankly have a difficult time kind of understanding the logical... logic of that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2770.653], "stop_times": [2777.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.653}, "reply_to": "20775__2_089", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_091", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I guess they rely in part on this Court's holding in Morash and in part on the Secretary of Labor's regulations and determinations, is that right?\nThat's how they draw the line--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2777.839, 2790.806], "stop_times": [2790.806, 2792.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.839}, "reply_to": "20775__2_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__2_092", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I believe that's their position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2792.648], "stop_times": [2793.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2792.648}, "reply_to": "20775__2_091", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_093", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--between funded and unfunded.\nNow, how do you respond to the reliance on the Secretary's regulations and the Morash decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2793.739, 2794.631], "stop_times": [2794.631, 2803.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.739}, "reply_to": "20775__2_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__2_094", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, I think my first response is that this was... the regulation itself, the payroll practice regulation is limited to provisions of training out of an employer's general assets, and we don't have that situation here because we have payments into a separate trust fund and that fund is part and parcel of the larger program.\nI think the second distinction between this and the Morash case is that Morash was limited to payments by a single employer out of its general assets.\nWe have a large group of employers in this particular case.\nAnd in response to the larger argument made by the Government, it is that once you concede that this particular apprenticeship program is governed by ERISA, then I believe the logical conclusion is that California's law relates to that plan because it is regulating how those apprentices are going to be paid and trained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2803.537, 2822.481, 2832.399, 2836.403], "stop_times": [2822.481, 2832.399, 2836.403, 2857.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2803.537}, "reply_to": "20775__2_093", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_095", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "So at bottom you say the statute, the ERISA statute itself does not permit drawing that distinction that the Government would draw.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2857.987], "stop_times": [2866.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.987}, "reply_to": "20775__2_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20775__2_096", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2866.823], "stop_times": [2867.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2866.823}, "reply_to": "20775__2_095", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_097", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "All right.\nLet's assume that you're right and we don't draw that distinction.\nLet me then go to the last part of your answer to Justice O'Connor and say that it then follows that the preemption is going to occur.\nWhy does it follow that preemption is going to occur, whether we're talking about funded or unfunded plans?\nWhy does it follow that preemption is going to occur if we are nonetheless concededly in an area of traditional State regulation which we have already held it is assumed that Congress did not intend to obliterate under the guise of ERISA?\nWhy does the preemption follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2867.294, 2868.046, 2871.659, 2879.616, 2884.921, 2903.173], "stop_times": [2868.046, 2871.659, 2879.616, 2884.921, 2903.173, 2904.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2867.294}, "reply_to": "20775__2_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_098", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I have several responses to that.\nOne is, where we have express preemption I don't think we need to get into the question of what is traditional State regulation.\nI think beyond that we need to look at the express language of the Fitzgerald Act regulations, because that goes to the question of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2904.715, 2907.156, 2913.22], "stop_times": [2907.156, 2913.22, 2920.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.715}, "reply_to": "20775__2_097", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_099", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But without leaving out the Fitzgerald Act, it's the related to.\nIt was in your colloquy before with Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2920.846, 2923.999], "stop_times": [2923.999, 2928.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.846}, "reply_to": "20775__2_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_100", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2928.303], "stop_times": [2928.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.303}, "reply_to": "20775__2_099", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_101", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "So let's forget about, it's a plan.\nIt's an ERISA plan.\nIs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2928.813, 2930.554, 2931.495], "stop_times": [2930.554, 2931.495, 2932.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2928.813}, "reply_to": "20775__2_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20775__2_102", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--I think there are several additional responses in that regard.\nI think the California statute specifically refers to apprenticeship plans, and it... that's one.\nIt attempts to regulate the substantive content of apprenticeship plans by dictating how much employers can pay people, how much... and how training is to be provided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2932.637, 2935.669, 2942.804], "stop_times": [2935.669, 2942.804, 2951.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.637}, "reply_to": "20775__2_101", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_103", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Well, then it seems to me that you're saying that there will be no end to related to, that if... that no State law is ever going to survive, whether it is a subject of traditional State regulation or not.\nThe same conclusion, it seems to me, would have to follow, for example... assuming there were no distinction between funded or unfunded plans, the same conclusion would have to follow with respect to hospital rate regulations, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2951.999, 2969.902], "stop_times": [2969.902, 2985.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2951.999}, "reply_to": "20775__2_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_104", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, I didn't read the Traveler's decision that way.\nI think this really goes to the question of what you intended by that decision.\nI read that to be a fairly limited decision which applies to a specific classes of cases where ERISA preemption is not obvious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [2985.063, 2990.745, 2995.18], "stop_times": [2990.745, 2995.18, 3003.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.063}, "reply_to": "20775__2_103", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_105", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But I think your... the only point that I'm trying to make is, or that I'm trying to understand is that I think your theory of preemption does not accord any significance to the fact that some areas of State regulation which do not regulate trust funds as such are traditional areas of State regulation which Congress presumably did not intend to preempt, and I think your argument assumes that that really is not a distinction that we can make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3003.254], "stop_times": [3033.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.254}, "reply_to": "20775__2_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20775__2_106", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I think it's very difficult to make that distinction, given the express language of ERISA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3033.564], "stop_times": [3038.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.564}, "reply_to": "20775__2_105", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_107", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "May I ask another question?\nThis case deals with the character of the training and the compensation, whether you can pay the apprentice less than the prevailing wage and all.\nSupposing we had a safety-related problem that a... that the State required wearing helmets on the construction jobs or something for apprentices, and the ERISA plan said no such thing should be required, would the preemption apply to such regulations as well, in your view, as well as economic--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3038.327, 3040.911, 3047.175], "stop_times": [3040.911, 3047.175, 3064.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.327}, "reply_to": "20775__2_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_108", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I don't think it necessarily would apply because that wouldn't be inconsistent with what the apprenticeship program provides.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3064.195], "stop_times": [3070.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.195}, "reply_to": "20775__2_107", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_109", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--No, but they say... the group of employers drafted an apprenticeship program that said they shall wear a different kind of safety gear, less protective of the employee that the State regulation required.\nWould that preempt the State regulation, and if not, why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3070.798, 3081.126], "stop_times": [3081.126, 3083.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.798}, "reply_to": "20775__2_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_110", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, that's certainly a more difficult question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3083.687], "stop_times": [3086.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3083.687}, "reply_to": "20775__2_109", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_111", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "It's really the same question, I think.\nIt's safety instead of money.\nThat's the difference.\nAnd I don't know why if you preempt the prevailing wage rate you don't preempt everything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3086.079, 3088.473, 3090.202, 3090.863], "stop_times": [3088.473, 3090.202, 3090.863, 3095.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.079}, "reply_to": "20775__2_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_112", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "And I suppose the only difference about safety is that that is really not an integral part of ordinary apprenticeship programs, but I'm not sure that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3095.957], "stop_times": [3104.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.957}, "reply_to": "20775__2_111", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_113", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No, but I don't know why it couldn't be.\nThey couldn't say they'd have to, you know, take special care with people who are unfamiliar with the hazards of the workplace, and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3104.1, 3105.112], "stop_times": [3105.112, 3111.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.1}, "reply_to": "20775__2_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_114", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--It is possible that apprenticeship programs will have safety standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3111.186], "stop_times": [3115.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3111.186}, "reply_to": "20775__2_113", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_115", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Does the California regulation in question here deal at all with the way the apprenticeship plan is funded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3115.14], "stop_times": [3122.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.14}, "reply_to": "20775__2_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__2_116", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I don't believe that the labor code provision makes any distinction between funded or unfunded plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3122.283], "stop_times": [3129.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3122.283}, "reply_to": "20775__2_115", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_117", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But I mean, does it attempt to regulate the funding itself, the way the employer pays in, or the kind of reports he has to make in connection with what he pays in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3129.408], "stop_times": [3139.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.408}, "reply_to": "20775__2_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__2_118", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "I don't believe there is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3139.113], "stop_times": [3140.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3139.113}, "reply_to": "20775__2_117", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_119", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Might not that be a possible distinction, that if the State regulation doesn't deal with the funding aspect, then perhaps it doesn't relate to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3140.455], "stop_times": [3149.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3140.455}, "reply_to": "20775__2_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__2_120", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Well, again, if... regardless of whether we have a funded or unfunded plan, if the State is telling the apprenticeship program they can't comply with their own standards, in our view there is preemption, and I think that's what happened in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3149.12], "stop_times": [3166.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3149.12}, "reply_to": "20775__2_119", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_121", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "But why doesn't that help--\n--You wouldn't let the State decide, for example, that employers shall not... shall not have vacation plans other than a certain type, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3166.852, 3168.024], "stop_times": [3168.024, 3179.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.852}, "reply_to": "20775__2_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20775__2_122", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No.\nI believe that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3179.672, 3180.48], "stop_times": [3180.48, 3181.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3179.672}, "reply_to": "20775__2_121", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_123", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Don't you think that would be preempted by ERISA, and that doesn't relate to the funding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3181.461], "stop_times": [3184.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.461}, "reply_to": "20775__2_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__2_124", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Once you get to the point that a vacation plan is covered by ERISA as opposed to being a Morash-type payroll practice, then yes, that is my position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3184.483], "stop_times": [3193.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3184.483}, "reply_to": "20775__2_123", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_125", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Can... why doesn't it help to cut through the morass just what the Chief Justice said, which is, we make a basic distinction between the funding mechanism, which is the heart of ERISA, and that which the funds are used to buy, and once you get into the second category, the question of whether a State statute relates to ERISA depends.\nIt all depends.\nIf it's pensions, that's just money that's being paid out, and it would be harder for the State to survive.\nIf it's day-care centers, or vacations, that's at the other extreme, very, very distant, and this seems more like the other extreme.\nBut that basic distinction, why isn't that really the key to this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3193.279, 3215.044, 3215.625, 3221.061, 3228.624], "stop_times": [3215.044, 3215.625, 3221.061, 3228.624, 3232.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.279}, "reply_to": "20775__2_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20775__2_126", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "My best response to that is that the statute does not make that distinction between the funded... the funding aspects of an apprenticeship program and all the other aspects of the program.\nI think that requires a judicial gloss on the statute which just isn't apparent from the explicit words of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3232.136, 3241.932], "stop_times": [3241.932, 3250.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3232.136}, "reply_to": "20775__2_125", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_127", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Of course, you could have said the same thing about Morash.\nYou don't challenge Morash, do you?\nYou don't ask us to reexamine that case, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3250.817, 3253.191, 3256.384], "stop_times": [3253.191, 3256.384, 3258.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.817}, "reply_to": "20775__2_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_128", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "No.\nI... my position is this is a different case because it involves many employers, it's a funded program--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3258.426, 3258.777], "stop_times": [3258.777, 3264.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.426}, "reply_to": "20775__2_127", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_129", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Yes, and involves pension... I mean, apprentice rather than vacation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3264.671], "stop_times": [3267.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.671}, "reply_to": "20775__2_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20775__2_130", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--And I believe it is possible to limit this decision to funded apprenticeship programs like we have in this particular case, although that is not the position that I'm advocating here.\nNevertheless, that may be a way of deciding the case.\nIn conclusion, I think the point that... about ERISA and the Fitzgerald Act is that it creates a voluntary system for promoting apprenticeship.\nEmployers are encouraged to create apprenticeship programs with the carrot of being able to participate in Federal public works projects.\nWhen the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3267.673, 3282.162, 3285.615, 3296.923, 3305.528], "stop_times": [3282.162, 3285.615, 3296.923, 3305.528, 3306.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.673}, "reply_to": "20775__2_129", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_131", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "You could call it that, or you could call it the stick of not being able to participate in public works projects.\nI mean, that's... whether it's a carrot or a stick is surely in the eye of the beholder, don't you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3306.49, 3311.335], "stop_times": [3311.335, 3315.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.49}, "reply_to": "20775__2_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20775__2_132", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3315.597], "stop_times": [3317.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3315.597}, "reply_to": "20775__2_131", "speaker": "richard_n_hill"}
{"id": "20775__2_133", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hill.\nMr. Rea, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3317.029, 3319.209], "stop_times": [3319.209, 3322.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.029}, "reply_to": "20775__2_132", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20775__3_000", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Then I think I have one point and one suggestion.\nThe one point was, counsel referred to their plan as a genuine plan or program, and certainly after they got their act together and they found that school in February, we did approve the program.\nWork went on between October and February without it.\nBut ERISA under the case of Donovan v. Dillingham permits preemption if you just have a plan that's covered by ERISA.\nIt doesn't have to comply with anything, and I can write an ERISA plan under the Donovan case with intended beneficiaries, no particular amount of funding, intended training, in about 5 minutes.\nThere's no guarantee that things would come up as well as they finally did in this case.\nThe suggestion was on the issue on which you were pursuing the Solicitor, which is, what's the sense of this funded-unfunded distinction?\nObviously, I can't speak for the Secretary of Labor, but it seems to me that a logical line is this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3322.051, 3325.644, 3337.251, 3341.585, 3349.782, 3362.992, 3366.765, 3376.841], "stop_times": [3325.644, 3337.251, 3341.585, 3349.782, 3362.992, 3366.765, 3376.841, 3382.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3322.051}, "reply_to": "20775__2_133", "speaker": "john_m_rea"}
{"id": "20775__3_001", "conversation_id": "20775", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rea.\nYour time has expired.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-789", "start_times": [3382.506, 3383.716, 3385.149], "stop_times": [3383.716, 3385.149, 3388.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.506}, "reply_to": "20775__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20844__0_000", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 94-1988, Camp Newfound Owatonna, Inc. v. the Town of Harrison, Maine.\nMr. Dempsey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [0.0, 10.989], "stop_times": [10.989, 18.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20844__0_001", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe question that is raised in this case is whether a particular provision in a Maine statute dealing with property tax exemptions for charitable organizations is or is not constitutional.\nThe challenge to the statute is laid upon the commerce Clause in its dormant or negative aspect, that is, without the existence of any relevant congressional action under the proviso a charity that is otherwise entitled to receive the exemption is denied that exemption if, to use the words of the statute, it is conducted or operated principally for the benefit of persons who are not residents of Maine.\nNow, the petitioner is such a charity.\nIt was denied the exemption on those grounds, and that really is the core of the case.\nNow, the remaining facts are simple.\nThey're not contested.\nI can summarize them quite swiftly.\nThe matter was disposed of on summary judgment below.\nThe petitioner is a Maine corporation.\nIts only activity is to conduct a summer camp for children in the town that is now Harrison that is the respondent in this case.\nIt is dedicated to serving Christian Science families.\nThere are not a great many Christian Science families in the State of Maine, and accordingly it recruits and advertises outside the State broadly, and it serves principally people, children who are not residents of the State of Maine.\nIndeed, during the three tax years in question about 95 percent of the campers that were served at the camp came to the camp from other States, States other than Maine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [18.083, 24.576, 37.356, 65.874, 69.195, 75.501, 76.8, 77.742, 79.354, 81.905, 85.756, 95.633, 99.487, 114.176], "stop_times": [24.576, 37.356, 65.874, 69.195, 75.501, 76.8, 77.742, 79.354, 81.905, 85.756, 95.633, 99.487, 114.176, 125.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 18.083}, "reply_to": "20844__0_000", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_002", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Why should the taxpayers of Maine subsidize charity to people outside of Maine?\nI don't know why they should be compelled to do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [125.453, 130.074], "stop_times": [130.074, 133.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.453}, "reply_to": "20844__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_003", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, they're not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [133.398], "stop_times": [134.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.398}, "reply_to": "20844__0_002", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_004", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--by the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [134.179], "stop_times": [135.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 134.179}, "reply_to": "20844__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_005", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Surely.\nThe purpose, Justice Scalia, which is asserted... and let me go directly to that.\nThe purpose that is asserted to be the purpose on the face of this statute is a quite reasonable purpose.\nIt is to confine the dedication of the resources of the State, of the community, to the benefit in these particular areas of residence of that State.\nNow, that purpose is as legitimate as the purposes that were served in the waste disposal cases that you've had before you, the purposes of encouraging private industry, all the purposes that are listed in the opinion of the courts in Chemical Waste, for example.\nThere's nothing at all sinister about the purpose.\nThe question, as in almost all of these cases, is whether or not the means that were adopted to achieve that purpose impacted improperly upon interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [135.18, 135.571, 142.683, 148.117, 156.384, 175.707, 178.347], "stop_times": [135.571, 142.683, 148.117, 156.384, 175.707, 178.347, 191.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.18}, "reply_to": "20844__0_004", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_006", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Do those other cases... those other cases don't involve as proximately as this one does the... in effect the expenditure of State money.\nIt seems to me that this... that is, the granting of a tax deduction to charities, it's just like giving charities the State money.\nI don't know that those other States involve... those other cases involve that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [191.935, 202.845, 211.029], "stop_times": [202.845, 211.029, 214.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.935}, "reply_to": "20844__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_007", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [214.743], "stop_times": [215.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.743}, "reply_to": "20844__0_006", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_008", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "It seems to me this is closer to the situation in which the State is a market participant, and the State chooses to purchase its goods only from in-State companies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [215.263], "stop_times": [225.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 215.263}, "reply_to": "20844__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_009", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [225.498], "stop_times": [226.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 225.498}, "reply_to": "20844__0_008", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_010", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Which it's entitled to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [226.099], "stop_times": [227.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.099}, "reply_to": "20844__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_011", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Let me try to address that question in the two aspects in which I understand it.\nIn terms of its being a... the equivalent of a tax expenditure, your first point, that, as I believe you yourself have indicated in your concurring opinion in the West Lynn Creamery case, is true of all exemption and credit cases, and the Court, as you pointed out, has always regarded tax exemptions and credits as being the equivalent of taxes themselves.\nSo that if you take a case that I think is closely on point, the Darnell case, involving a property tax again, exemption upon lumber that was produced in the State that was involved, an exemption for that lumber but not for others, that amounts to a tax expenditure, or, if you wish, a subsidy.\nIn the Bacchus case, the exemptions that were granted there to the liquors that were produced in the State of Hawaii were in fact tax expenditures on behalf of those people, of those manufacturers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [227.468, 233.623, 258.541, 278.362], "stop_times": [233.623, 258.541, 278.362, 292.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.468}, "reply_to": "20844__0_010", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_012", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, logically there's... it's hard to see a difference between a tax exemption and a direct subsidy, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [292.351], "stop_times": [299.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.351}, "reply_to": "20844__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20844__0_013", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "That's precisely what I'm trying to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [299.487], "stop_times": [301.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 299.487}, "reply_to": "20844__0_012", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_014", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But you say the Court has drawn that distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [301.567], "stop_times": [303.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.567}, "reply_to": "20844__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20844__0_015", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I'm sorry, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [303.54], "stop_times": [304.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 303.54}, "reply_to": "20844__0_014", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_016", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But you say the Court has treated them differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [304.73], "stop_times": [307.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.73}, "reply_to": "20844__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20844__0_017", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "This Court has treated them the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [307.551], "stop_times": [309.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.551}, "reply_to": "20844__0_016", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_018", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I mean, what if it were a direct subsidy of cash to a Maine charity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [309.804], "stop_times": [314.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.804}, "reply_to": "20844__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20844__0_019", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [314.806], "stop_times": [315.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.806}, "reply_to": "20844__0_018", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_020", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--based on how many Maine residents were served by the charity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [315.447], "stop_times": [319.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.447}, "reply_to": "20844__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20844__0_021", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [319.399], "stop_times": [319.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.399}, "reply_to": "20844__0_020", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_022", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Would that be all right for Maine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [319.93], "stop_times": [322.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.93}, "reply_to": "20844__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20844__0_023", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "That's a very interesting question.\nLet me try to move into it more gradually, if you will, and I want to come back to the market participation question that Justice Scalia raised, because these are really the dual, dual justifications that the State advances in this case.\nEither it's like market subsidy... market participation, or it's like subsidy, or both.\nLet me just preliminarily, though, note a problem with that argument.\nThe State, as you know, is not here.\nThe State participated... it intervened as a defendant in the trial court, but when it lost it did not pursue its appeal to the Maine law court, and it has not taken advantage of its opportunity to participate in this proceeding, so the defense of the State statute is left to the town of Harrison.\nExcuse me, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [322.411, 324.134, 337.791, 342.574, 347.208, 349.028, 365.45], "stop_times": [324.134, 337.791, 342.574, 347.208, 349.028, 365.45, 366.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.411}, "reply_to": "20844__0_022", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_024", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "That's because the tax goes to the county, not the State, this real property tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [366.62], "stop_times": [372.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.62}, "reply_to": "20844__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_025", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--I... yes, I'm sure that's right, but... in terms of fact, but the reason for the State's participating at the trial court level and not appealing is a matter that I am in no position to comment on at all.\nThere may be precedent for that in this Court, but I've not seen a case in which a State statute has been attacked as unconstitutional in which the State participated in the... at the trial court level and then abandoned the case coming before you, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [372.083, 384.872], "stop_times": [384.872, 398.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.083}, "reply_to": "20844__0_024", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_026", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But the tax... the tax in this case was the town's tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [398.6], "stop_times": [403.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.6}, "reply_to": "20844__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_027", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Town's tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [403.074], "stop_times": [403.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.074}, "reply_to": "20844__0_026", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_028", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--that was authorized by State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [403.785], "stop_times": [404.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.785}, "reply_to": "20844__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_029", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes.\nYes, correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nYes, so you could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [404.855, 405.396, 406.577], "stop_times": [405.396, 406.577, 407.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.855}, "reply_to": "20844__0_028", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_030", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And while you were outlining the, is it like a subsidy, is it like a participant in the market, it's... is it at all relevant that real estate... taxes on real estate go back a pretty long way, and I thought that the original... that that thought had little to do with commerce, but had to do very much with the public service that the charity, or most traditionally the church, was supplying for the local community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [407.787], "stop_times": [437.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.787}, "reply_to": "20844__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_031", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [437.326], "stop_times": [437.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.326}, "reply_to": "20844__0_030", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_032", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And not some notion of worldwide benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [437.856], "stop_times": [441.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.856}, "reply_to": "20844__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_033", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, I... let me make sure that I understand your question correctly, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [441.5], "stop_times": [448.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.5}, "reply_to": "20844__0_032", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_034", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I'm asking you to... whether this... we can say real estate taxes originate... exemptions from real estate taxes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [448.234], "stop_times": [456.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.234}, "reply_to": "20844__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_035", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [456.079], "stop_times": [456.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.079}, "reply_to": "20844__0_034", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_036", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--you don't tax the church property... from something that had to do with benefiting locals, and that's why we... that's why these exemptions from the real estate... real estate doesn't move from one State to another like lumber does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [456.49], "stop_times": [472.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.49}, "reply_to": "20844__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_037", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [472.889], "stop_times": [473.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.889}, "reply_to": "20844__0_036", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_038", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Is there something special about real estate where an exemption from the tax might be supportable in that area and not in others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [473.53], "stop_times": [482.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.53}, "reply_to": "20844__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_039", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, let me put it this way.\nIf you were to take that view and distinguish between the real estate and personal property taxes, for example, because after all personal property does move, then you would have an awkward situation here, because part of this tax was personal property, and part was realty.\nMy first point is that that makes an awkward distinction in this particular case, as it would in any case.\nMy second response would be that, consider Darnell.\nThat was a personal property tax on lumber that was brought into the State from another State, the exemption being given to lumber that was produced in the State of Tennessee.\nNow, if they could escape the effect of Darnell simply by transforming the form of the tax, they could then levy the tax on the real property, the warehouse in which the lumber was stored.\nNow, I'm suggesting that if that kind of an exception is made, it would open the door to all kinds of manipulation of taxes in order to take advantage of that single loophole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [482.075, 484.707, 498.097, 504.011, 507.054, 519.001, 531.229], "stop_times": [484.707, 498.097, 504.011, 507.054, 519.001, 531.229, 542.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.075}, "reply_to": "20844__0_038", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_040", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Not if it's limited to charity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [542.877], "stop_times": [544.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.877}, "reply_to": "20844__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_041", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Now... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [544.376], "stop_times": [546.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.376}, "reply_to": "20844__0_040", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_042", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Before you can decide that there's been discrimination against out-of-State commerce, you have to decide that you're dealing with two taxpayers who are similarly situated, and why isn't it entirely reasonable to say that they are not similarly situated where a charitable... where this deduction is at issue where one of the taxpayer provides charity to the citizens of Maine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [546.127], "stop_times": [573.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.127}, "reply_to": "20844__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_043", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [573.996], "stop_times": [574.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.996}, "reply_to": "20844__0_042", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_044", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--and the other one does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [574.417], "stop_times": [575.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.417}, "reply_to": "20844__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_045", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.\nWell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [575.977, 576.688], "stop_times": [576.688, 577.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.977}, "reply_to": "20844__0_044", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_046", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Why are they similarly situated?\nI don't think you can run that argument in the normal commercial case where all you can say is that one is an outlander, the other one isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [577.098, 578.6], "stop_times": [578.6, 585.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.098}, "reply_to": "20844__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_047", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--All right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [585.944], "stop_times": [586.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.944}, "reply_to": "20844__0_046", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_048", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But here one is giving something--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [586.435], "stop_times": [587.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 586.435}, "reply_to": "20844__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_049", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [587.785], "stop_times": [588.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.785}, "reply_to": "20844__0_048", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_050", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--gratis to the citizens of Maine.\nWhy doesn't that make that taxpayer different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [588.466, 591.198], "stop_times": [591.198, 594.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.466}, "reply_to": "20844__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_051", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I understand... I understand, Justice Scalia, the force of that reaction to the case.\nNow, let me try to catch up with the strands of questions that I have, because they're all related, and I don't want to lose track of any one of them.\nLet me go to the church support by property tax, because that's in a way related to the very last question you asked, Justice Scalia.\nI suggest to you that... and the market dominant, market participation and the subsidy issue.\nI suggest that if the State were here, it would be very, very reluctant to make the market participation or subsidy argument.\nThere are in every State... I'm sure there are statutes, exemption statutes for church property.\nNow, if, as the respondent argues, what the State is doing here by virtue of market participation is somehow purchasing camping services for the benefit of its residents, or subsidizing the camps for the benefit of its residents, then, by parity of reasoning, it is somehow purchasing religious services from the churches.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [594.22, 597.792, 604.537, 611.45, 616.805, 624.57, 630.905], "stop_times": [597.792, 604.537, 611.45, 616.805, 624.57, 630.905, 653.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.22}, "reply_to": "20844__0_050", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_052", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No, but isn't the answer to that that it's purchasing a great number of other things, too, and for that reason it doesn't fall afoul... I mean, it's purchasing all sorts of secular benefits on the same ground for that reason it doesn't fall afoul of establishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [653.738], "stop_times": [667.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.738}, "reply_to": "20844__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__0_053", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Oh, I'm sure it doesn't fall afoul of establishment, Justice Souter, but the reason it doesn't is because it's not market participation.\nThe State, as Justice Scalia, as in the New Energy-Limbach case, the State here is not purchasing anything from anyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [667.928, 675.514], "stop_times": [675.514, 684.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.928}, "reply_to": "20844__0_052", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_054", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I don't think the argument is that the State is a market participant.\nI was just arguing that by analogy to the reason we think market participation is okay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [684.289, 688.313], "stop_times": [688.313, 694.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.289}, "reply_to": "20844__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_055", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [694.036], "stop_times": [694.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.036}, "reply_to": "20844__0_054", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_056", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--and you can discriminate against your out-of-State citizens when you're a market participant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [694.715], "stop_times": [699.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 694.715}, "reply_to": "20844__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_057", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [699.259], "stop_times": [700.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.259}, "reply_to": "20844__0_056", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_058", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--so also you can do it in this situation, where you're dealing with someone who is providing a... you know, a service gratis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [700.368], "stop_times": [708.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.368}, "reply_to": "20844__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_059", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "A service gratis, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [708.506], "stop_times": [709.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.506}, "reply_to": "20844__0_058", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_060", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [709.375], "stop_times": [709.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 709.375}, "reply_to": "20844__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_061", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "All right, well let me address... but just before I forget, Justice O'Connor, on the subsidy question, of course, the subsidy defense does not have the same quality of imprimatur from this Court as yet as the market participation test does, but as I've indicated, for my purposes I'm perfectly wiling to assume, arguendo, that any sort of a subsidy is immune from the dormant Commerce Clause just... because this just isn't subsidy, that's all.\nIt's, as in Limbach, it's a tax, as Justice Scalia said.\nIt's the primeval function of the Government in laying and collecting taxes.\nNow, what is suggested is that... and I really thought from the start that this is the way in which this case might develop.\nIt really hasn't developed this way until right now, and that is to suggest that there is some sort of an exception for charities that is analogous to the market participation, or the subsidy of that, indeed, as an exception.\nNow, the respondent abstains from making that argument.\nThat doesn't mean that it's not a good argument, but I point out that we did say at the outset well, let's consider, this issue, and the respondent says no, we're not trying to draw that distinction.\nI think myself that the respondent is correct in doing that, because it seems to me it can't possibly... or shouldn't, anyway, make a difference whether you're dealing with a nonprofit or a profit.\nLet me just start at that sort of primitive... on that primitive basis.\nNonprofits in this country, and that's what we're talking about, are big business in every sense of the word, except that they don't make a profit.\nIn terms of their employment, in their purchases, in their interstate commerce that they affect, they are big business.\nNow, instead of taking camps for a moment... but they're in business.\nThey're in business in the State of Maine, as Justice Souter, I'm sure, is aware.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [709.996, 737.283, 741.107, 745.318, 753.604, 767.924, 771.745, 781.222, 794.442, 798.113, 805.779, 811.362, 818.896], "stop_times": [737.283, 741.107, 745.318, 753.604, 767.924, 771.745, 781.222, 794.442, 798.113, 805.779, 811.362, 818.896, 822.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.996}, "reply_to": "20844__0_060", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_062", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Before you go too far down that road--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [822.369], "stop_times": [823.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.369}, "reply_to": "20844__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_063", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [823.801], "stop_times": [824.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.801}, "reply_to": "20844__0_062", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_064", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--as I understand this law, it doesn't apply to all nonprofits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [824.62], "stop_times": [829.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.62}, "reply_to": "20844__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_065", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [829.545], "stop_times": [830.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.545}, "reply_to": "20844__0_064", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_066", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "It applies to only those... they have to sell their services for no more than $30 a week, isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [830.244], "stop_times": [837.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.244}, "reply_to": "20844__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_067", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No.\nWell, yes.\nExcuse me.\nNo, you're quite right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [837.369, 837.81, 839.93, 841.142], "stop_times": [837.81, 839.93, 841.142, 841.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.369}, "reply_to": "20844__0_066", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_068", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Do you know any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [841.743], "stop_times": [842.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.743}, "reply_to": "20844__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_069", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "If they have a modest charge then they get a modest exemption, but if they charge more than $30 then they lose the exemption entirely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [842.732], "stop_times": [848.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.732}, "reply_to": "20844__0_068", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_070", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Then they lose the exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [848.695], "stop_times": [849.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.695}, "reply_to": "20844__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_071", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [849.236], "stop_times": [849.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.236}, "reply_to": "20844__0_070", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_072", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Now, do you know anybody that can possibly run a camp for $30 a week without giving a lot of that away for free?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [849.897], "stop_times": [859.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.897}, "reply_to": "20844__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_073", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [859.863], "stop_times": [862.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.863}, "reply_to": "20844__0_072", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_074", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So you're not just talking about \"nonprofits\", you're talking in every case under this law about companies who are giving away stuff free to residents of Maine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [862.227], "stop_times": [870.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.227}, "reply_to": "20844__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_075", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--No, we're talking about nonprofits here who serve primarily citizens of Maine whom they charge $1,000 a week, who get the exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [870.732], "stop_times": [878.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.732}, "reply_to": "20844__0_074", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_076", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "That applies only to when they're serving out-of-State people, and it's $30.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [878.016], "stop_times": [885.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.016}, "reply_to": "20844__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_077", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "If they're serving primarily or principally Maine citizens, then they may charge $1,000 or $2,000, and they get the exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [885.561], "stop_times": [893.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.561}, "reply_to": "20844__0_076", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_078", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I see, and the $30 applies only to out-of-Staters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [893.906], "stop_times": [897.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.906}, "reply_to": "20844__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_079", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No.\nIf you serve primarily out-of-State citizens but only charge $30 a week, then you lose only part of your exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [897.579, 898.107], "stop_times": [898.107, 905.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.579}, "reply_to": "20844__0_078", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_080", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [905.083], "stop_times": [906.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.083}, "reply_to": "20844__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_081", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [906.224], "stop_times": [907.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.224}, "reply_to": "20844__0_080", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_082", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Fifty thousand, which might not be the lion's share of the tax anyway, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [907.505], "stop_times": [913.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.505}, "reply_to": "20844__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_083", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--The... oh, the tax in this... if you're asking about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [913.999], "stop_times": [917.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.999}, "reply_to": "20844__0_082", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_084", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, it depends on what is the value of the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [917.622], "stop_times": [920.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.622}, "reply_to": "20844__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_085", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--What is the value of the property.\nIn this case, the tax in each of the tax years in question averaged about $22,000, so it does depend entirely on the... so what you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [920.614, 921.516], "stop_times": [921.516, 930.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.614}, "reply_to": "20844__0_084", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_086", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I'm glad you clarified that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [930.562], "stop_times": [931.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.562}, "reply_to": "20844__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_087", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Yes.\nSo what you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [931.324, 931.714], "stop_times": [931.714, 932.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 931.324}, "reply_to": "20844__0_086", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_088", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So we really are talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [932.285], "stop_times": [932.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.285}, "reply_to": "20844__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_089", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Right.\nYou have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [932.776, 933.186], "stop_times": [933.186, 933.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.776}, "reply_to": "20844__0_088", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_090", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--just about charitable organizations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [933.324], "stop_times": [934.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.324}, "reply_to": "20844__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_091", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--a protected relationship with the State, nursing homes, camps, some of which are... many of which are nonprofit, but they are in competition directly with these charities, so-called charities, and these people lose the exemption, and they lose the exemption because they serve too many people from out of State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [934.355], "stop_times": [950.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.355}, "reply_to": "20844__0_090", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_092", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Would a hospital lose its exemption if it took a lot of out-of-State patients?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [950.396], "stop_times": [954.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.396}, "reply_to": "20844__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__0_093", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "The hospitals are not covered by this provision of the statute, Justice Stevens, and I should point that out.\nThis proviso applies only to the... now, I'm saying that without really being certain, and I'm going to consult, when I sit down with my colleague, Mr. Dale from... because what we have in the State of Maine, and it's not my field, goodness knows, is a statutory system in which a number of different categories fall under different provisions.\nSo that, for example, Bates and Bowden and Colby, who serve, certainly, more nonresidents than they do residents, don't... are not subject to this proviso because that provision of the statute does not burden with this proviso, so it's only this section which deals with so-called benevolent and charitable organizations, a catchall, but does identify with particularity some types, camps, nursing homes, boarding homes, and mental health treatment facilities of communities, and then whatever else falls within the catchall, and I've got to get the answer as to whether hospitals do or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [954.248, 960.512, 979.065], "stop_times": [960.512, 979.065, 1014.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 954.248}, "reply_to": "20844__0_092", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_094", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, at least you've given me the answer for a mental institution.\nIf they took too many out-of-State patients they would lose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1014.578, 1016.208], "stop_times": [1016.208, 1019.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.578}, "reply_to": "20844__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__0_095", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Mental... community mental treatment centers, so it would not be a mental hospital.\nBut take a nursing home.\nNow, nursing homes, obviously, there are private, there are profit-making nursing homes, there are nonprofit nursing homes.\nIf you're on... close to the border of whatever State you're close to the border of and you serve more than half... now, the division as to what is principally and what is not has not been made, but let's say it's more than half people from the other State, you lose your exemption, and you're in competition with those other nonprofit nursing homes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1019.31, 1022.864, 1024.065, 1029.897], "stop_times": [1022.864, 1024.065, 1029.897, 1048.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1019.31}, "reply_to": "20844__0_094", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_096", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--And that's true--\n--If it were pro rata, would you have the same... would you have a constitutional objection?\nSuppose it said to the extent that you serve people from out of State you don't get the exemption, but to the extent that you serve, so in your case you could get 5 percent exemption because you have 5 percent from in-State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1048.201, 1049.433, 1052.224], "stop_times": [1049.433, 1052.224, 1068.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.201}, "reply_to": "20844__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_097", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No.\nMy argument would be the same, because my argument has to do, when they're getting to interstate commerce, you can approach that problem in different ways, as I indicate.\nWe focused on the impact on interstate commerce because of Edwards v. California and a long line of cases bringing it within the affirmative and the dormant Commerce Clause interstate transportation and the effect of statutes on it, but the effect would be there anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1068.604, 1068.944, 1075.749], "stop_times": [1068.944, 1075.749, 1090.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1068.604}, "reply_to": "20844__0_096", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_098", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, what is the effect, the harm that you're complaining about?\nCan you be precise about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1090.609, 1094.632], "stop_times": [1094.632, 1096.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.609}, "reply_to": "20844__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_099", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes.\nWell, what you have here is a plain incentive to these organizations to limit the number of nonresidents that they serve.\nNow, they can do that in order to get the tax exemption if they're close to the edge.\nThey can do it by... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1096.513, 1096.773, 1105.439, 1109.954], "stop_times": [1096.773, 1105.439, 1109.954, 1111.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.513}, "reply_to": "20844__0_098", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_100", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But your camp isn't even within that range.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1111.643], "stop_times": [1116.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.643}, "reply_to": "20844__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_101", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "We're not close.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1116.117], "stop_times": [1116.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.117}, "reply_to": "20844__0_100", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_102", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I mean, you describe some things, this will give camps like yours an incentive to take people only from in the State, but it's... your camp can't operate... that's not what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1116.487], "stop_times": [1129.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.487}, "reply_to": "20844__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_103", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Not without a massive conversion to Christian Science in the State.\nWe're in great difficulty, yes.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1129.425, 1132.386, 1134.309], "stop_times": [1132.386, 1134.309, 1135.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1129.425}, "reply_to": "20844__0_102", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_104", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So it's not going to have that impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1135.078], "stop_times": [1138.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.078}, "reply_to": "20844__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_105", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "It is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1138.471], "stop_times": [1138.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.471}, "reply_to": "20844__0_104", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_106", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "What is the impact that you have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1138.892], "stop_times": [1140.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.892}, "reply_to": "20844__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_107", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "All right... but I don't want to leave that, because I think the statute is attacked on its face, and surely you must contemplate in judging the probable impact of the statute situations in which by imposing a quota, or imposing a differential fee schedule, a camp, or a nursing home, or whatever, could qualify, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1140.674], "stop_times": [1159.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.674}, "reply_to": "20844__0_106", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_108", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Do we know, in fact, that there is any such camp in the entire State of Maine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1159.404], "stop_times": [1163.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.404}, "reply_to": "20844__0_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_109", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1163.618], "stop_times": [1164.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.618}, "reply_to": "20844__0_108", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_110", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--where there would be that... they say, gee, we're pretty close to the 50 percent mark so we have to serve in-State people not out-of-State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1164.079], "stop_times": [1170.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.079}, "reply_to": "20844__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_111", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--No.\nThe record does not disclose... the record... all that the record shows is that there are some camps that qualify for the exemption and some that don't, and that's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1170.751, 1171.062], "stop_times": [1171.062, 1178.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.751}, "reply_to": "20844__0_110", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_112", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "What if the statute granted a charitable exemption only to charities domiciled or headquartered in the State of Maine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1178.559], "stop_times": [1186.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.559}, "reply_to": "20844__0_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20844__0_113", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Absolutely, without any question in my judgment that is perfectly all right, and indeed, I think it is natural, normal, to be expected, proper, in every way reasonable for a State to say we're not going to grant a charitable property tax exemption unless this charity is here, doing work to benefit the people of this State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1186.703], "stop_times": [1207.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1186.703}, "reply_to": "20844__0_112", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_114", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, why?\nI don't have any problem with that at all.\nI mean, you can be there without doing work to benefit the people of the State.\nYour domicile can be there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1207.076, 1207.837, 1208.806, 1211.919], "stop_times": [1207.837, 1208.806, 1211.919, 1213.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.076}, "reply_to": "20844__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_115", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1213.1], "stop_times": [1213.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.1}, "reply_to": "20844__0_114", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_116", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--and all of your charity can be expended in Bangladesh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1213.551], "stop_times": [1215.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.551}, "reply_to": "20844__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_117", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right, but I'm going beyond that, beyond the Chief Justice's question, in saying I think it's also proper to say that the charity must perform charitable services in the State.\nNow, we don't... that question isn't here.\nThis camp is open to everybody in the State of Maine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1215.912, 1224.938, 1227.059], "stop_times": [1224.938, 1227.059, 1230.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1215.912}, "reply_to": "20844__0_116", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_118", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But that's a different question than, you can be domiciled in the State, have all of your operations in the State, but everybody you serve is from out of State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1230.562], "stop_times": [1237.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.562}, "reply_to": "20844__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_119", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--That could well be, and all that I'm suggesting is that a requirement that a charity expend... if this is the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1237.176], "stop_times": [1246.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.176}, "reply_to": "20844__0_118", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_120", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But the Chief's question... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1246.723], "stop_times": [1248.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1246.723}, "reply_to": "20844__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_121", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--not only be domiciled there but spend money in the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1248.446], "stop_times": [1248.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1248.446}, "reply_to": "20844__0_120", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_122", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Mr. Dempsey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1248.806], "stop_times": [1250.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.806}, "reply_to": "20844__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_123", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1250.216], "stop_times": [1250.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1250.216}, "reply_to": "20844__0_122", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_124", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--I thought the Chief's question was, suppose the Maine law was, charities who are domiciled in this State are exempt from real property taxes in this State.\nI thought you answered that that would... you gave an unequivocal, that would be okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1250.537, 1259.001], "stop_times": [1259.001, 1263.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.537}, "reply_to": "20844__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_125", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Absolutely, in my judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1263.803], "stop_times": [1264.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.803}, "reply_to": "20844__0_124", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_126", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So what... so let's take a charity situated in Maine, operating only in Maine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1264.994], "stop_times": [1270.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.994}, "reply_to": "20844__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_127", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1270.328], "stop_times": [1270.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.328}, "reply_to": "20844__0_126", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_128", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--but serving only children from India.\nYour answer is that that would get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1270.799, 1272.701], "stop_times": [1272.701, 1277.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.799}, "reply_to": "20844__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_129", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1277.955], "stop_times": [1278.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.955}, "reply_to": "20844__0_128", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_130", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--That would be constitutional.\nI mean, there would be no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1278.943, 1280.386], "stop_times": [1280.386, 1282.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.943}, "reply_to": "20844__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_131", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Would be unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1282.095], "stop_times": [1283.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.095}, "reply_to": "20844__0_130", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_132", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1283.157], "stop_times": [1284.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.157}, "reply_to": "20844__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_133", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1284.447], "stop_times": [1284.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1284.447}, "reply_to": "20844__0_132", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_134", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "It serves only people from out of State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1284.928], "stop_times": [1289.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.928}, "reply_to": "20844__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_135", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1289.412], "stop_times": [1290.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.412}, "reply_to": "20844__0_134", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_136", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "There wouldn't be any complainant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1290.521], "stop_times": [1292.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.521}, "reply_to": "20844__0_135", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_137", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Let me see if I can... this is a question, of course, I considered as soon as I started on this case.\nWhat happens to a State that wants to make sure that a charity that gets an exemption does something for the people of the State, and... excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1292.784, 1297.717], "stop_times": [1297.717, 1308.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.784}, "reply_to": "20844__0_136", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_138", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "How does it do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1308.703], "stop_times": [1309.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.703}, "reply_to": "20844__0_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_139", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, it's been my view, and there's no case law on this that I know of, but it's been my view that it is appropriate and proper for a State to say not only must the corporation be a Maine corporation, which this statute does require, but that it's got to do something in the State of Maine.\nNow, some of my amicus curiae friends would not agree with me on that issue, you know, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1309.554, 1327.607], "stop_times": [1327.607, 1333.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.554}, "reply_to": "20844__0_138", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_140", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Can we get back to the question of how people situated as your client is, how they're harmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1333.12], "stop_times": [1341.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.12}, "reply_to": "20844__0_139", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_141", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1341.935], "stop_times": [1342.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.935}, "reply_to": "20844__0_140", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_142", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Because we've already established that at least for this category of camp they're not going to change the composition of the people who come to them, and we don't know whether any such entities that would decide to take--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1342.326], "stop_times": [1358.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.326}, "reply_to": "20844__0_141", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_143", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1358.706], "stop_times": [1360.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1358.706}, "reply_to": "20844__0_142", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_144", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--We just don't know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1360.028], "stop_times": [1360.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.028}, "reply_to": "20844__0_143", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_145", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1360.479], "stop_times": [1360.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.479}, "reply_to": "20844__0_144", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_146", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So what is... what other harm are you complaining about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1360.919], "stop_times": [1365.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.919}, "reply_to": "20844__0_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_147", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1365.03], "stop_times": [1365.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1365.03}, "reply_to": "20844__0_146", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_148", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "You're complaining about the tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1365.881], "stop_times": [1367.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.881}, "reply_to": "20844__0_147", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_149", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Complaining about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1367.833], "stop_times": [1368.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.833}, "reply_to": "20844__0_148", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_150", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "You're out of pocket, I suppose is your big complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1368.864], "stop_times": [1372.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1368.864}, "reply_to": "20844__0_149", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_151", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Well, but I mean, that's right, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1372.016], "stop_times": [1372.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.016}, "reply_to": "20844__0_150", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_152", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes, but you can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1372.995], "stop_times": [1374.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.995}, "reply_to": "20844__0_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_153", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "In other words, we are suffering a financial loss, and what the record does show is that part of that is passed on to the campers and part of it detracts from the ability of the camp to perform certain services.\nThat's the other line of interstate commerce approach to this problem that one could take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1374.056, 1385.082], "stop_times": [1385.082, 1391.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1374.056}, "reply_to": "20844__0_152", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_154", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--But if you're just complaining about, there's this tax and you don't like to pay it, suppose Maine has a higher sales tax than other States, and it could cost you more to operate in Maine because of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1391.828], "stop_times": [1403.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.828}, "reply_to": "20844__0_153", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_155", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No, but if... if the sales tax or the real estate tax or any tax is imposed upon an organization because it serves too many people from out of the State... a hotel, a motel, any kind of a service... a grocery store.\nBecause it serves too many people from out of the State, that involves a competitive relationship between those organizations and organizations that get the exemption within the State, and that's a financial burden that disadvantages them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1403.004, 1417.865], "stop_times": [1417.865, 1431.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1403.004}, "reply_to": "20844__0_154", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_156", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But you're not competing with charities that serve Maine people.\nThat's not... I don't see the competitive situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1431.464, 1436.848], "stop_times": [1436.848, 1441.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.464}, "reply_to": "20844__0_155", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_157", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1441.409], "stop_times": [1442.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.409}, "reply_to": "20844__0_156", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_158", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Because you just started out by saying, no, we wouldn't change... our camp is for Christian Scientists from all over the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1442.721], "stop_times": [1449.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.721}, "reply_to": "20844__0_157", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__0_159", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--No, but just... now, that point has been made by the law court that we're not really in competition with anybody else because we serve just Christian Scientists.\nNow, that argument has, it seems to me, a rather unfortunate ring to it, but taking that... and ignoring that, the fact is that other camps are in the State of Maine and they're open to Christian Scientists, Science families, so that we're competing for that group.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1449.257, 1457.201], "stop_times": [1457.201, 1475.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1449.257}, "reply_to": "20844__0_158", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_160", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "You're competing to give away money, not to make a profit.\nIt's unreal to talk about competing to give away money.\nI can give away more money than you can.\nAre you hurt if someone else gives away more money than you're giving away?\nI don't understand that.\nThat is not competition to my mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1475.043, 1477.433, 1481.618, 1482.947, 1486.59, 1487.932], "stop_times": [1477.433, 1481.618, 1482.947, 1486.59, 1487.932, 1489.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.043}, "reply_to": "20844__0_159", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_161", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Justice Scalia, nonprofits are nursing homes... just looking at the way that nursing homes operate, or any kind of a treatment facility, any kind of nonprofits, they are in competition for contributions, they are in competition to build up their staffs, they're in... you've got the evidence of their competition every day in the mails.\nThey are in relation one to the other in competition, and they are affecting interstate commerce.\nAnd I don't want to leave the point that you made, Justice Ginsburg, without noting again that this statute is being attacked on its face, and Justice O'Connor, the question you raise about kind of a graduated subsidy to me is a very difficult question.\nI will just say that.\nI think that clearly the State could have done what it wanted to do here by eliminating the tax exemptions and providing vouchers to the citizens of the State to use however they want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1489.973, 1510.836, 1517.21, 1532.749, 1534.191], "stop_times": [1510.836, 1517.21, 1532.749, 1534.191, 1544.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1489.973}, "reply_to": "20844__0_160", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_162", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Could it do it by saying every organization, that every charitable organization that serves the citizens of this State gets a $1 deduction from its income tax each time it serves a citizen of the State?\nCould it do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1544.616, 1556.076], "stop_times": [1556.076, 1556.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.616}, "reply_to": "20844__0_161", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_163", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No, I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1556.935], "stop_times": [1557.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1556.935}, "reply_to": "20844__0_162", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_164", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I think it could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1557.797], "stop_times": [1559.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.797}, "reply_to": "20844__0_163", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__0_165", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1559.477], "stop_times": [1560.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1559.477}, "reply_to": "20844__0_164", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_166", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, as I understand, your argument is, even if you lose on this point about the parity of competition, your argument, as I understand it, is essentially the same, because you say, number 1 you can't draw a charitable versus for-profit distinction because in fact they are both businesses in a given place, and number 2, even apart from competition, you are discouraging interstate activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1560.688], "stop_times": [1584.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.688}, "reply_to": "20844__0_165", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__0_167", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1584.395], "stop_times": [1585.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1584.395}, "reply_to": "20844__0_166", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_168", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And that's the essence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1585.125], "stop_times": [1586.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.125}, "reply_to": "20844__0_167", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__0_169", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Exactly.\nThat is the essence of the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1586.104, 1586.915], "stop_times": [1586.915, 1587.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.104}, "reply_to": "20844__0_168", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_170", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Yes.\nCan you tell me, what is the philosophy that allows you to concede, in the voucher hypothetical, there would be no Commerce Clause violation?\nWhat is the basis for the distinction between that case and this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1587.947, 1588.678, 1598.092], "stop_times": [1588.678, 1598.092, 1602.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.947}, "reply_to": "20844__0_169", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20844__0_171", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "In that case, with each citizen armed with a voucher to go wherever, there would be no incentive on the part of any camp to limit its service to non-State people.\nThere just wouldn't, that's all, so that aspect of the case just disappears in the context of a voucher system.\nIn the context of a subsidy system that's graduated to out-of-State service, then you're getting to the edge, it seems to me, of where the Court has been moving in terms of validating subsidies.\nA flat subsidy would be okay.\nThat kind of a subsidy I think there's a question about.\nI would like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1602.295, 1613.133, 1618.986, 1630.664, 1633.736, 1636.847], "stop_times": [1613.133, 1618.986, 1630.664, 1633.736, 1636.847, 1638.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1602.295}, "reply_to": "20844__0_170", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__0_172", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Very well, Mr. Dempsey.\nMr. Plouffe, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1638.849, 1639.83], "stop_times": [1639.83, 1642.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.849}, "reply_to": "20844__0_171", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20844__1_000", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nBefore addressing in detail the three arguments in my brief which I use to support the conclusion or the results achieved by the Maine law court, I want to address two fundamental points which I think should be addressed at the outset.\nThe first one is that there is no Federal constitutional right for a nonprofit organization to receive a tax exemption from local property taxes.\nThe second fundamental point is that State legislatures have great latitude in deciding who should be tax exempt and who should not be tax exempt.\nThis is especially true, I believe, when we are talking about taxation from real estate tax, or exemption from real estate taxes which really are a quintessentially local matter.\nI would suggest to you that that discretion of State legislatures extends to being able to determine what benefit Maine residents in this case are to achieve... are to receive in return for this tax exemption.\nIn response to the amici in this case, who, from reading their briefs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1642.591, 1647.226, 1658.794, 1667.558, 1677.233, 1687.321, 1702.201], "stop_times": [1647.226, 1658.794, 1667.558, 1677.233, 1687.321, 1702.201, 1708.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1642.591}, "reply_to": "20844__0_172", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_001", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "You're asserting that, unlike other tax exemptions, this is a quid pro quo type of tax exemption.\nThey're giving this one because the State is getting something gratis from these organizations, and that distinguishes it from other tax exemptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1708.044, 1713.908], "stop_times": [1713.908, 1721.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.044}, "reply_to": "20844__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_002", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Fundamentally, Justice Scalia, that is one of my arguments, that this is like the market participant exemption in Hughes v. Alexandria' Scrap and the Massachusetts Council case involving the City of Boston.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1721.362], "stop_times": [1733.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1721.362}, "reply_to": "20844__1_001", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_003", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So it's like, for example, we give a special exemption to our farmers, only to our local farmers because they keep the land green and they in addition provide employment, and they maintain the State as primarily agricultural.\nI mean, is that a justification--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1733.1, 1751.612], "stop_times": [1751.612, 1753.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.1}, "reply_to": "20844__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20844__1_004", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Justice Breyer, this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1753.125], "stop_times": [1754.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1753.125}, "reply_to": "20844__1_003", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_005", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--for discriminating against out-of-State farmers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1754.914], "stop_times": [1756.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.914}, "reply_to": "20844__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20844__1_006", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--This actually is quite unlike that kind of a subsidy or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1756.787], "stop_times": [1760.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.787}, "reply_to": "20844__1_005", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_007", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Oh, I understand that.\nI understand that.\nMy question really is, if we're going to start looking to local benefits as a basis for discriminating against out-of-State travel or commerce, what road are we going down?\nDoesn't that erode most of the Court's jurisprudence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1760.328, 1761.24, 1761.72, 1772.727], "stop_times": [1761.24, 1761.72, 1772.727, 1775.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.328}, "reply_to": "20844__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20844__1_008", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--I don't think so when we're talking about exemptions for charities, and the reasons are these.\nFirst, what is being returned by the charity to the people are in the nature of governmental services, services that the Government otherwise would provide.\nFeeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1775.408, 1780.401, 1790.899], "stop_times": [1780.401, 1790.899, 1794.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.408}, "reply_to": "20844__1_007", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_009", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And that means, then, that in fact the hungry in other States, the children who want to travel to the local hospital across State lines, the people who want to travel across State lines to get an education, all of the different people out of State that want to use commerce to take advantage in-State... you see, I'm saying, so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1794.982], "stop_times": [1816.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.982}, "reply_to": "20844__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20844__1_010", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1816.505], "stop_times": [1817.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.505}, "reply_to": "20844__1_009", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_011", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Or weekend canoeing at Camp Okefenokee.\nI don't know that a State would provide that if a charity wouldn't provide it.\nDon't those people use commerce?\nAren't they discriminated against just like the out-of-State farmer?\nWhat actually is the distinction that arises out of the fact that it's a charity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1817.236, 1820.068, 1823.33, 1829.153, 1832.686], "stop_times": [1820.068, 1823.33, 1829.153, 1832.686, 1836.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.236}, "reply_to": "20844__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_012", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Well, the second distinction is that the other exemptions that are addressed by this Court... for example, in West Lynn Creamery, there were two problems with that.\nOne, it was intended to give a competitive advantage.\nThere really is no competitive advantage here, and secondly, the tax that was collected--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1836.978, 1845.383, 1847.707], "stop_times": [1845.383, 1847.707, 1852.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.978}, "reply_to": "20844__1_011", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_013", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, why is there no competitive advantage?\nSuppose they get an identical camp that just has 95 percent of its residents are children from Maine.\nWhy isn't there a competitive advantage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1852.029, 1853.411, 1860.984], "stop_times": [1853.411, 1860.984, 1862.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.029}, "reply_to": "20844__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_014", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Well, of course, the fundamental discrimination that we draw is between for-profit camps and nonprofit camps that receive an exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1862.306], "stop_times": [1869.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.306}, "reply_to": "20844__1_013", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_015", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But they're competing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1869.358], "stop_times": [1870.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.358}, "reply_to": "20844__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_016", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "There's also competition there, Justice Stevens, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1870.67], "stop_times": [1872.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.67}, "reply_to": "20844__1_015", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_017", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But let me... I just want to challenge you on your no competitive advantage.\nYou have two nonprofit camps.\nOne has 55 percent Maine children there, and one has 35 percent Maine.\nDoesn't one have a competitive advantage if it gets an exemption and the other does not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1872.862, 1876.595, 1878.945, 1883.928], "stop_times": [1876.595, 1878.945, 1883.928, 1887.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.862}, "reply_to": "20844__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_018", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Well, part of the answer I think is, what is the competition?\nIs it to dispense more charity, to feed more homeless... more homeless people, or to shelter more homeless people?\nI really don't look at that in terms of competition.\nIn a case like, situation like this, one camp--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1887.792, 1891.435, 1897.028, 1900.431], "stop_times": [1891.435, 1897.028, 1900.431, 1903.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.792}, "reply_to": "20844__1_017", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_019", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Actually, you dispense more charity by losing more money, I assume.\nWell, of course there are universities which are charitable in some respects, anyway, and they say that each education they give out costs more than the student pays.\nNonetheless, they compete for students.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1903.473, 1906.455, 1919.302], "stop_times": [1906.455, 1919.302, 1921.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.473}, "reply_to": "20844__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_020", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Of course, universities in Maine are under a separate section of the statute and this provision we're talking about which, primarily, benefits doesn't apply to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1921.635], "stop_times": [1929.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.635}, "reply_to": "20844__1_019", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_021", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes, but they can be under this section of the statute if you win the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1929.76], "stop_times": [1932.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.76}, "reply_to": "20844__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_022", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "If the State legislature were to so determine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1932.932], "stop_times": [1935.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.932}, "reply_to": "20844__1_021", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_023", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Right.\nIf you win this case, the State legislature, or whoever makes these decisions in Maine, can say, Bates, Colby, et cetera, are all going to be fully taxed if they have this high proportion of out-of-Staters, isn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1935.533, 1936.034], "stop_times": [1936.034, 1949.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.533}, "reply_to": "20844__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_024", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, we haven't done that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1949.112], "stop_times": [1950.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.112}, "reply_to": "20844__1_023", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_025", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No, but you can, can't you, if you win this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1950.403], "stop_times": [1952.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.403}, "reply_to": "20844__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_026", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "It's legislative discretion.\nCould a legislature do it, and to the amici I would say, legislators could choose to tax colleges and universities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1952.593, 1954.814], "stop_times": [1954.814, 1959.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.593}, "reply_to": "20844__1_025", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_027", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "That's not so scary.\nI mean, the legislatures right now, no matter how we come out on this case, could simply eliminate the tax deduction for public... for private universities and choose to subsidize, give some of the in-State tax money to those in-State universities that have a majority of in-State students.\nThey can do that, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1959.96, 1961.94, 1978.3], "stop_times": [1961.94, 1978.3, 1979.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.96}, "reply_to": "20844__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_028", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "They could do that, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1979.171], "stop_times": [1980.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1979.171}, "reply_to": "20844__1_027", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_029", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So this horrible can come about no matter how we come out in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1980.724], "stop_times": [1983.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.724}, "reply_to": "20844__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_030", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "There is no constitutional right to a tax exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1983.976], "stop_times": [1986.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.976}, "reply_to": "20844__1_029", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_031", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No, but they couldn't give the subsidy to a church camp, could they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1986.528], "stop_times": [1990.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.528}, "reply_to": "20844__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_032", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Ah.\nThat's the Walz question, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1990.899, 1993.43], "stop_times": [1993.43, 1994.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1990.899}, "reply_to": "20844__1_031", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_033", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1994.722], "stop_times": [1995.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.722}, "reply_to": "20844__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_034", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And I would like to address the Walz question because that has been brought up in the reply brief.\nThe... Justice Burger's opinion in Walz, Chief Justice Burger's opinion in Walz specifically avoided focusing on the secular good works that churches do as the rationale for granting them an exemption.\nHe focused rather upon the history of how we have treated churches and religious organizations in this country since its founding, and before that, how England treated them, and he also focused upon wanting to avoid the entanglement between Government and the churches that could come about.\nIf we did tax them and they didn't pay their taxes, we might have to foreclose on their property.\nJustice Douglas, dissenting, to another view.\nHe said, this is over some secular good works.\nTo get to the issue made in the... by the camps, or the petitioner in their brief, this Court actually, I think, dealt with the problem that is raised by the subsidy to the churches in Regan v. Taxation With Representation, when then Justice Rehnquist, now Chief Justice Rehnquist, wrote that in fact exemptions... this was under a case involving a 501(c)(3) exemption, and the petitioner felt that they were being discriminated against because they engaged in lobbying activities, and under 501(c)(3) could not be granted that status so contributions to the petitioner were not tax deductible.\nAnd Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote first that the exemption is really the equivalent of a subsidy or even a cash grant... those are the words that were used, cash grant... and that really the Government has no obligation to subsidize the First Amendment activities in that case of the petitioner.\nAnd in a footnote, the Chief Justice acknowledged Walz, and did not find it to be at variance with this case with Regan, where they were dealing with clearly secular matters, so I think the Court has addressed the problem that has been brought up by the petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [1995.263, 1999.444, 2011.373, 2026.813, 2030.376, 2034.456, 2036.359, 2075.534, 2097.692], "stop_times": [1999.444, 2011.373, 2026.813, 2030.376, 2034.456, 2036.359, 2075.534, 2097.692, 2116.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.263}, "reply_to": "20844__1_033", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_035", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Mr. Plouffe, what is the cut off for being... serving... for qualifying for this exemption?\nYou have to serve dominantly Maine residents, but what is it, 50 percent?\nWhat is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2116.952, 2123.888, 2129.08], "stop_times": [2123.888, 2129.08, 2131.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.952}, "reply_to": "20844__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__1_036", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the statute says principally benefits, and throughout the course of this litigation we have treated this as being 51 percent.\nWith respect to the other sections of the statute that have been raised, if I could take this opportunity to do that, hospitals are... hospitals licensed by the Maine Department of Human Services are in a separate section of the statute that doesn't apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2131.042, 2139.779], "stop_times": [2139.779, 2151.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2131.042}, "reply_to": "20844__1_035", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_037", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Let me stay where the division is, because do I understand the statute to work this way: we have two camps, say, for the blind.\nOne serves 50 residents of Maine and it's exempt from this tax.\nThe other serves 50 residents of Maine and 50 residents from elsewhere in the United States.\nIt doesn't get the exemption, yet it's providing the same services.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2151.51, 2159.884, 2166.088, 2173.001], "stop_times": [2159.884, 2166.088, 2173.001, 2177.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.51}, "reply_to": "20844__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__1_038", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "That would be up to the local assessor, who acts as an agent of the State, to determine whether or not the 50-50 meets the test of principally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2177.085], "stop_times": [2187.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.085}, "reply_to": "20844__1_037", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_039", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, let's make it 60-40 so we won't run into that problem, 40 percent from Maine, 60 percent from outside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2187.12], "stop_times": [2192.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.12}, "reply_to": "20844__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__1_040", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2192.365], "stop_times": [2192.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.365}, "reply_to": "20844__1_039", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_041", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No exemption at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2192.994], "stop_times": [2194.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.994}, "reply_to": "20844__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__1_042", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--That would be true if... if the nonexempt entity chose to be insular, not to provide any other services to the surrounding people, and that's one of the problems in this case.\nIf the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2194.125, 2206.644], "stop_times": [2206.644, 2208.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2194.125}, "reply_to": "20844__1_041", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_043", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I'm not sure I... it's a camp for the blind, and it serves the same number of Maine people as the camp that serves only Maine people, but it's a larger camp so it also takes in a lot of people from out of State, so it's rendering exactly the same benefits to the State of Maine, but it's also including these other people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2208.845], "stop_times": [2231.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.845}, "reply_to": "20844__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__1_044", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Let me answer your question directly.\nUnder... if that is all that camp did in terms of dispensing charity, then the answer is yes, it would not get the tax exemption and the other camp would, even though they both serve the blind.\nBut the point I wanted to make is, when read carefully, this statute doesn't focus on the residency of the campers, or in your hypothetical the residency of the blind people.\nThe statute focuses on how the charity spends its money, and certainly in the case of the summer camp they're usually going to spend their money just on the kids who pay the money, the tuition money, but they could choose to do things like open their beautiful beach to the people of Harrison, and that would be a benefit to Maine people that could be included in the computation of, do they principally benefit Maine people, but they don't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2231.799, 2233.702, 2242.567, 2253.284], "stop_times": [2233.702, 2242.567, 2253.284, 2281.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2231.799}, "reply_to": "20844__1_043", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_045", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "But a camp that served just Maine residents would not have to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2281.444], "stop_times": [2285.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.444}, "reply_to": "20844__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20844__1_046", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "A camp, because they would already be serving Maine people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2285.354], "stop_times": [2289.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.354}, "reply_to": "20844__1_045", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_047", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "So you're right back to where you started.\nThere's a discrimination between in-State and out-of-State campers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2289.649, 2292.19], "stop_times": [2292.19, 2294.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.649}, "reply_to": "20844__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20844__1_048", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--There's discrimination drawn, Justice Kennedy, based on the benefit to Maine people or no benefit to Maine people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2294.941], "stop_times": [2302.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.941}, "reply_to": "20844__1_047", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_049", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "How long has this law been in effect?\nIt seems to me it's more trouble than it's worth.\nMy goodness.\n[Laughter]\nComputing... how do you value the use of a beach, for example?\nHas this thing been around a long time?\nI mean, I see endless litigation over this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2302.505, 2303.887, 2306.569, 2307.67, 2308.5, 2311.932, 2314.233], "stop_times": [2303.887, 2306.569, 2307.67, 2308.5, 2311.932, 2314.233, 2317.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.505}, "reply_to": "20844__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_050", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--The provision that we are arguing about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2317.026], "stop_times": [2320.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.026}, "reply_to": "20844__1_049", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_051", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Maybe we should strike it down for foolishness or something.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2320.267, 2323.088], "stop_times": [2323.088, 2326.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.267}, "reply_to": "20844__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_052", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--The provision that we're arguing about was enacted in 1957.\nIt was upheld by the Maine supreme court in 1963, in a case that was decided on Fourteenth Amendment ground, in which the law court said, we don't think that it's irrational or unreasonable for the State of Maine... and this is peculiar to charities... for the State of Maine to require that its people get something in return... in return for this forgiveness of taxes, and that was a Fourteenth Amendment case.\nThis Court, when it visited this issue before in WHYY, Inc., a similar issue, only that one was the State of incorporation of the charity, used a Fourteenth Amendment analysis, and there was dicta in WHYY, Inc. to suggest... and I admit that it is only dicta... to suggest that, had the facts been as they are here today, that may have been okay under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nNow, the petitioner raised the Fourteenth Amendment claims in this case below, and the law court ruled against the petitioner, so did the superior court, and they chose not to appeal that Fourteenth Amendment decision to this Court, apparently agreeing that the statute does pass the Fourteenth Amendment test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2326.061, 2328.732, 2352.648, 2375.014], "stop_times": [2328.732, 2352.648, 2375.014, 2392.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.061}, "reply_to": "20844__1_051", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_053", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, I think you... we accept the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is a much more lenient standard of review on these matters of economic regulation than the Commerce Clause.\nI mean, that's a given under our jurisprudence today.\nThat's why the other Darnell case got over... in effect overruled or rewritten in the Carolina Tax case last year.\nI mean, the standards are distinctly different, so the fact that you may pass muster under the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't get you over the line on the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2392.595, 2401.032, 2402.991, 2412.828], "stop_times": [2401.032, 2402.991, 2412.828, 2419.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.595}, "reply_to": "20844__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_054", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I understand, Your Honor, that the Court can and in this case is looking at this under the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2419.643], "stop_times": [2426.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.643}, "reply_to": "20844__1_053", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_055", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And in looking at it, what test do we apply?\nIt appears to be facially discriminatory against interstate commerce, so it may be a tougher standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2426.028, 2429.779], "stop_times": [2429.779, 2438.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.028}, "reply_to": "20844__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20844__1_056", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "If we choose not to use something like the market participant exception, and therefore apply the dormant Commerce Clause to it, then the question is, is it, per se, a flexible approach, and the law court chose the flexible approach.\nLooking at the per se question, I think there are three things we need to look at: the statute, the statutory language, and then if it survives that, the effects of the statute, actual effects, and incurred effects.\nAnd the statute itself, as I said before, I think focuses on the benefits that are provided by the corporation and not by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2438.886, 2452.565, 2466.013], "stop_times": [2452.565, 2466.013, 2477.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.886}, "reply_to": "20844__1_055", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_057", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, but if you concede that even nonprofit organizations can engage in interstate commerce you can certainly look at this, let's say, in the nursing home context as being facially discriminatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2477.351], "stop_times": [2491.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.351}, "reply_to": "20844__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20844__1_058", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--I respectfully disagree, Justice O'Connor.\nOn its face it's a tax, or an exemption from a tax on real estate, number one.\nWe've never considered real estate under the Commerce Clause here before.\nNumber 2, it looks at the identity of the people who are benefited, not the identity of the people who cross the State lines.\nAnd so I don't think that there is facial discrimination.\nAnd number 3, as the law court said, it treats all Maine camps the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2491.058, 2494.621, 2500.465, 2503.177, 2509.18, 2512.973], "stop_times": [2494.621, 2500.465, 2503.177, 2509.18, 2512.973, 2517.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.058}, "reply_to": "20844__1_057", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_059", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "May I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2517.626], "stop_times": [2518.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2517.626}, "reply_to": "20844__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_060", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "There's the target.\nYou can go out and meet the target if you want the exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2518.377, 2519.308], "stop_times": [2519.308, 2521.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2518.377}, "reply_to": "20844__1_059", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_061", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Do you think the people benefited do not include the church that runs the camp?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2521.41], "stop_times": [2526.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.41}, "reply_to": "20844__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_062", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I'm not sure that I understand the question, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2526.674], "stop_times": [2535.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.674}, "reply_to": "20844__1_061", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_063", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, you say... you look at the people benefited, and I just suggest one of the people benefited would be whatever the charity it is that gets the benefit of an exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2535.477], "stop_times": [2542.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.477}, "reply_to": "20844__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_064", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "The Christian Science Church in Boston, for example, the church is actually owned by a separate Maine corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2542.874], "stop_times": [2550.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.874}, "reply_to": "20844__1_063", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_065", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And supposing it... just focus on the church for a minute.\nSupposing the church is near the State line and over half the people came from out of State, would the church... would you say that the church should not get its exemption because the people benefiting from the exemption are the people that cross State lines?\nIt seems to me the principal beneficiary of the exemption is the church itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2550.368, 2555.102, 2567.95], "stop_times": [2555.102, 2567.95, 2571.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.368}, "reply_to": "20844__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_066", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, again, I think that under Walz churches are treated differently by the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2571.221], "stop_times": [2575.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.221}, "reply_to": "20844__1_065", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_067", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And we have a church here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2575.184], "stop_times": [2577.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.184}, "reply_to": "20844__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_068", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2577.505], "stop_times": [2578.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.505}, "reply_to": "20844__1_067", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_069", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "We have a religious organization here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2578.406], "stop_times": [2580.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.406}, "reply_to": "20844__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_070", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "We have a nonprofit Maine corporation that is not itself a church.\nChurches are treated differently under the Maine statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2580.177, 2584.41], "stop_times": [2584.41, 2587.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2580.177}, "reply_to": "20844__1_069", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_071", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2587.733], "stop_times": [2588.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.733}, "reply_to": "20844__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_072", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--and the 50 percent just doesn't apply.\nIt's a nonprofit Maine corporation.\nThey have an affiliation somehow, and I'm not exactly sure how, with the Christian Science Church that do allow only Christian Science children in, and I believe that at some point during the day they review the tenets of the Christian Science faith, but it is not a church.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2588.474, 2589.583, 2590.995], "stop_times": [2589.583, 2590.995, 2606.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.474}, "reply_to": "20844__1_071", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_073", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I see, but let me ask one other... you place so much emphasis on the fact that it's a real estate tax.\nIf it were not a charity, you would not contend, I do not suppose, that in a commercial context that the State could discriminate... have a tax exemption for businesses that sold only to Maine customers and no tax exemption for those that sold out-of-State customers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2606.494, 2611.438], "stop_times": [2611.438, 2627.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.494}, "reply_to": "20844__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_074", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I think I have a couple of responses to that, Justice Stevens.\nOne, I think it would fail Fourteenth Amendment analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2627.468, 2630.349], "stop_times": [2630.349, 2635.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2627.468}, "reply_to": "20844__1_073", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_075", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, under... just confine our analysis to the Commerce Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2635.494], "stop_times": [2638.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.494}, "reply_to": "20844__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_076", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--and would have under Green Acre B'hai, which is the main case.\nUnder the Commerce Clause, I suggest that because it is a... the implications of it being exempted from a tax of real estate is that it would fall under the flexible approach, but would fail under the flexible approach because there would be no legitimate State interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2638.207, 2640.177], "stop_times": [2640.177, 2652.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2638.207}, "reply_to": "20844__1_075", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_077", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Well, the interest would be to encourage local commerce, encourage transactions within the State, encourage the local economy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2652.214], "stop_times": [2657.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.214}, "reply_to": "20844__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_078", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I do not think that that would survive.\nJust--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2657.598, 2661.531], "stop_times": [2661.531, 2662.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.598}, "reply_to": "20844__1_077", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_079", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, supposing there were two camps, not charitable camps but just for-profit camps.\nOne served out-of-State, and the other served local, and they say, we won't... we'll give a tax exemption to those serving the local people.\nWould that have the same justification as this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2662.601, 2668.975, 2675.28], "stop_times": [2668.975, 2675.28, 2677.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.601}, "reply_to": "20844__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_080", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--I don't think it would.\nMaybe the charity is becoming involved in my thinking, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2677.4, 2680.643], "stop_times": [2680.643, 2682.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.4}, "reply_to": "20844__1_079", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_081", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Sure it would.\nI'm just suggesting that the charity is critical to your argument, and you seem to... and I don't think your real estate argument can stand without coupling it with your charitable argument, but I'm not sure what your position is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2682.934, 2684.106], "stop_times": [2684.106, 2695.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2682.934}, "reply_to": "20844__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_082", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--I... again, if it's real estate, then I don't think it's facial, that it's an indirect effect on interstate commerce, and because it's indirect, you look at it under the flexible approach, but I think it would fail under the flexible approach because it would not... I can't conceive of a legitimate state interest, for example, in the motel situation that's raised in the reply brief.\nI can't think of a legitimate State interest for taxing a motel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2695.502, 2714.596], "stop_times": [2714.596, 2718.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.502}, "reply_to": "20844__1_081", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_083", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Providing cheaper housing for local residents.\nGive them a cheaper rate at the hotels, if people have marginal income.\nThere's certainly a State interest in having people sleep indoors at night.\nOf course, you could make all of those same arguments against the market participation exception we've created.\nYou can say it's the same thing.\nThe State is simply trying to give its own citizens an advantage over out-of-State.\nWe've made an exception there, and we've made an exception in the subsidy area, and the issue is whether we should make an exception for charities, whether that also is a distinctive situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2718.038, 2719.589, 2723.212, 2727.503, 2735.309, 2736.95, 2741.774], "stop_times": [2719.589, 2723.212, 2727.503, 2735.309, 2736.95, 2741.774, 2757.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.038}, "reply_to": "20844__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20844__1_084", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--And again, under Regan... Regan, I'm sorry... this Court has clearly characterized charitable exemptions as cash grant subsidies.\nThe amici here say they're subsidies, and they are from the general fund of the Town of Harrison.\nThis tax goes into the general fund to pay for municipal services, police protection, fire protection, roads, and the very services that ironically benefit the petitioner, yet they don't want to pay the tax.\nBut the point of the general fund is the language in West Lynn Creamery seemed to be very interested in the fact that any subsidy had to come out of a general fund.\nThis is a broad-based tax.\nAll of the people in the Town of Harrison have to pay this tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2757.964, 2768.132, 2773.073, 2788.675, 2798.329, 2799.411], "stop_times": [2768.132, 2773.073, 2788.675, 2798.329, 2799.411, 2802.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.964}, "reply_to": "20844__1_083", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_085", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Mr. Plouffe, could you... going back to Justice Stevens' hypothetical, could you explain to me why it is in the case of the two profit-making corporations as to which a distinction is made the discrimination would not have been facial?\nYou said it would not have been.\nYou said it would get the, as you put it, the flexible approach, and I don't see why.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2802.544, 2817.452, 2818.822], "stop_times": [2817.452, 2818.822, 2822.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2802.544}, "reply_to": "20844__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_086", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I think because we're talking about real estate, and we have never applied the Commerce Clause to the taxation of real estate which doesn't move across State lines, that effects that a tax on real estate, or an exemption from a tax on real estate have on interstate commerce are indirect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2822.766], "stop_times": [2837.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2822.766}, "reply_to": "20844__1_085", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_087", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Why the fact that real estate doesn't move across State lines?\nWhy is that significant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2837.826, 2839.717], "stop_times": [2839.717, 2841.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.826}, "reply_to": "20844__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_088", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, the language of the positive Commerce Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2841.84], "stop_times": [2844.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.84}, "reply_to": "20844__1_087", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_089", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I mean, interstate commerce is going to be affected whether you're doing it through a real estate tax or any other form of taxation.\nWhy should it matter that the specific race that is taxed happens to be itself nonambulatory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2844.511, 2851.644], "stop_times": [2851.644, 2861.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.511}, "reply_to": "20844__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_090", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Perhaps I have a narrow view of the dormant Commerce Clause, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2861.992], "stop_times": [2866.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.992}, "reply_to": "20844__1_089", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_091", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Isn't it the effect on interstate commerce that we're concerned with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2866.173], "stop_times": [2868.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.173}, "reply_to": "20844__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_092", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--We are, but the question becomes, is it per se a flexible one.\nI'm saying there isn't a... there could be in the hypothetical an effect on interstate commerce, but that it would be indirect and not subject to the per se rule, and I would also add that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2868.977, 2872.768], "stop_times": [2872.768, 2885.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.977}, "reply_to": "20844__1_091", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_093", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Directness and indirectness hasn't got anything to do with the fact that it's real estate that's being taxed, number 1, and number 2, I don't know where the direct-indirect distinction comes from.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2885.207], "stop_times": [2894.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.207}, "reply_to": "20844__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_094", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--Well, I think that the tax on real estate may or may not be incorporated into the charge made by the for-profit organization.\nThere are other ways that they could handle that.\nIf the competitive marketplace said, gee, we just can't pass on this tax and stay in business, we'll find other ways to deal with this in the marketplace, for example, reducing staff, or reducing overhead, those types of things, it's very indirect before it gets to the consumer.\nAnd the other issue about the hypothetical is whether or not we are going to treat consumers as articles of commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2894.733, 2901.826, 2903.148, 2920.099], "stop_times": [2901.826, 2903.148, 2920.099, 2928.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.733}, "reply_to": "20844__1_093", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_095", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, nobody is arguing that you're going to treat consumers as articles of commerce.\nThe argument is that interstate commerce... that is to say, the movement of people back and forth, the provision of services to people from out of the taxing State... is going to be affected.\nTheir argument isn't... they don't make the argument that the campers are articles of interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2928.945, 2933.168, 2944.607], "stop_times": [2933.168, 2944.607, 2950.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2928.945}, "reply_to": "20844__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_096", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, they... I think they did in their first brief.\nLet's put that aside.\nThey certainly do make it in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2950.499, 2952.63, 2953.442], "stop_times": [2952.63, 2953.442, 2954.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.499}, "reply_to": "20844__1_095", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_097", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "It escaped me, but it's clear in any event that they have abandoned any such attempt if they ever made it, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2954.663], "stop_times": [2962.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.663}, "reply_to": "20844__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_098", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--They certainly have not abandoned the attempt to say that the travel of these campers across State lines is protected by the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2962.287], "stop_times": [2969.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.287}, "reply_to": "20844__1_097", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_099", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Well, I... are you challenging that assumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2969.293], "stop_times": [2972.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.293}, "reply_to": "20844__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_100", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I certainly am attesting that... challenging that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2972.405], "stop_times": [2975.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2972.405}, "reply_to": "20844__1_099", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_101", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Interstate travel is not protected under the Commerce Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2975.357], "stop_times": [2977.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.357}, "reply_to": "20844__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_102", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I don't read Heart of Atlanta or Edwards for the proposition put forth by the petitioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2977.608], "stop_times": [2983.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2977.608}, "reply_to": "20844__1_101", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_103", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Do you think that interstate travel has an effect on interstate commerce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2983.733], "stop_times": [2989.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.733}, "reply_to": "20844__1_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_104", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I think the provision of interstate travel by bus companies, for example, does.\nI think that salesmen who travel across--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2989.786, 2994.798], "stop_times": [2994.798, 2997.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.786}, "reply_to": "20844__1_103", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_105", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Wouldn't these campers perhaps arrive in Maine by bus, or by plane, or by train, or some such means?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [2997.209], "stop_times": [3002.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.209}, "reply_to": "20844__1_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_106", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--But we're not taxing the plane or the bus or the train.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3002.295], "stop_times": [3004.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3002.295}, "reply_to": "20844__1_105", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_107", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "No, but we're asking whether interstate commerce is affected, and if it's affected by bus travel, then I suppose this is a case in which it's affected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3004.716], "stop_times": [3013.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3004.716}, "reply_to": "20844__1_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20844__1_108", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "And I'm suggesting that it would be an indirect effect and subject to the flexible approach, but I still do not read those two cases for the proposition for which they want them to stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3013.762], "stop_times": [3024.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.762}, "reply_to": "20844__1_107", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_109", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "How broadly do you take charities outside the dormant Commerce Clause?\nI know your position here is that charitable exemptions, real property tax exemptions shouldn't be analyzed in interstate commerce, and you've given several reasons for that, but are you saying that nonprofits and whatever exemptions the legislature, State legislature chooses to give to them is ever and always, because they're nonprofits it falls outside the range of the Commerce Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3024.168, 3032.903], "stop_times": [3032.903, 3063.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.168}, "reply_to": "20844__1_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__1_110", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "My argument goes so far as to cover an exemption from income taxes, which was the case in Regan, Federal income taxes, excise taxes, if they would pay... having occasion to pay them, and sales taxes.\nWe exempt them from sales taxes and income taxes and property taxes in the State of Maine, and if they are going to challenge the impact, how the lines are drawn by the legislature in granting those exemptions, then my argument would say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3063.645, 3076.541], "stop_times": [3076.541, 3090.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3063.645}, "reply_to": "20844__1_109", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_111", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Do we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3090.762], "stop_times": [3091.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.762}, "reply_to": "20844__1_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20844__1_112", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--that it's under market participation, because in each one of those cases the State is asking something in return.\nWe may think that it's provincialism on the part of the State of Maine to write its statute this way, but I don't think that's the question.\nThe question is whether or not the State legislature in Maine can do this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3091.942, 3097.626, 3104.622], "stop_times": [3097.626, 3104.622, 3107.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3091.942}, "reply_to": "20844__1_111", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_113", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "--We would never think of accusing the State of Maine of provincialism.\n[Laughter]\nThe... do you know of any case of ours that involves a Commerce Clause challenge to real estate taxes?\nWhat cases of ours... or exemptions to real estate taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3107.623, 3113.887, 3114.738, 3123.164], "stop_times": [3113.887, 3114.738, 3123.164, 3127.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3107.623}, "reply_to": "20844__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_114", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I have found none, Your Honor.\nI... The WHYY case is as close as I could come.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3127.034, 3128.787], "stop_times": [3128.787, 3134.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3127.034}, "reply_to": "20844__1_113", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_115", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "That's very interesting.\nDoes it produce a sort of discrimination against out-of-State... an out-of-State church, for example, to give a tax exemption to any church that owns real estate, they're exempt from the real estate tax, but if you're an out-of-State church, of course, and happen to be located in a State that taxes church real estate, you're at a commercial disadvantage, I suppose, if you consider the attracting of parishioners as commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3134.0, 3134.691], "stop_times": [3134.691, 3163.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.0}, "reply_to": "20844__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20844__1_116", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I have great difficulty considering the attraction of parishioners as commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3163.88], "stop_times": [3168.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3163.88}, "reply_to": "20844__1_115", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_117", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Garnering a collection plate.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3168.201, 3169.323], "stop_times": [3169.323, 3170.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.201}, "reply_to": "20844__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20844__1_118", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "I would say that WHYY in this Court did strike down the distinction based on the domicile of the corporation, and that was a real estate tax, and that was a charity, but it was determined under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe Commerce Clause was not mentioned at all.\nIf there are no other questions, I thank the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3170.685, 3186.094, 3188.377], "stop_times": [3186.094, 3188.377, 3192.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3170.685}, "reply_to": "20844__1_117", "speaker": "william_l_plouffe"}
{"id": "20844__1_119", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Plouffe.\nMr. Dempsey, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3192.158, 3193.519], "stop_times": [3193.519, 3195.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.158}, "reply_to": "20844__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20844__2_000", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI just have two comments.\nThe... one of the questions that Justice Scalia raised in terms of how old this statute is raises another question, and also your last question about property taxes, and that is, why hasn't this Court ever seen a case like this before, and the short answer is that legislatures have not passed statutes like this before.\nNow, there have been scores, thousands of statutes that we don't know anything about, but we have examined, and the respondent has, the statutes on the books.\nWe have discovered one in the State of Michigan that can be considered comparable.\nThe respondent has turned up three more.\nWe deny that they're comparable.\nBut in any case, if this statute is not absolutely unique, it is almost unique, and that says something, because the policy of the Commerce Clause doesn't have to do just with economics, it has to do with interstate comity, and we suggest that this unbroken, almost unbroken pattern of behavior by the legislatures says something about how the States feel to meet the demands of interstate comity.\nNow, the last point is Justice Connor's comment and Justice Scalia's comment, I hope it goes without saying, because I didn't say it, that our case is rooted in the basic premise that this statute is facially discriminatory against interstate commerce.\nJustice Scalia, I think you're absolutely... I started with this notion in the petition of certiorari.\nIf you apply all the ordinary canons that this Court has established over the years dealing with these cases, the other side has got to lose, in my judgment.\nThe only way out is to create an exception for... I wouldn't say charities, nonprofit organizations comparable to the market participation or the subsidy charity.\nNow, we've advanced all the reasons that we think that that would be an unwise move on the part of the Court, but that really I think is the issue.\nMr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3195.58, 3198.371, 3199.803, 3216.314, 3223.339, 3227.4, 3229.483, 3231.754, 3254.038, 3268.988, 3275.191, 3284.678, 3294.335, 3301.479], "stop_times": [3198.371, 3199.803, 3216.314, 3223.339, 3227.4, 3229.483, 3231.754, 3254.038, 3268.988, 3275.191, 3284.678, 3294.335, 3301.479, 3302.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3195.58}, "reply_to": "20844__1_119", "speaker": "william_h_dempsey"}
{"id": "20844__2_001", "conversation_id": "20844", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dempsey.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1988", "start_times": [3302.971, 3304.221], "stop_times": [3304.221, 3305.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.971}, "reply_to": "20844__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__0_000", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 95-1263, Caterpillar, Inc. v. James David Lewis.\nMr. Geller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [0.0, 8.618], "stop_times": [8.618, 9.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__0_001", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court in this case, not because of any error in the district court proceedings, and not because the district court lacked jurisdiction to try this case, but solely because the district... the case was not within Federal diversity jurisdiction at the time that the case was removed from State court.\nBecause this ruling conflicts with prior decisions of this Court and makes no sense from the standpoint of judicial economy, we've asked the Court to grant review.\nNow, the facts that are necessary to understand the legal issue are these.\nThe plaintiff, James Lewis, was injured while operating a bulldozer manufactured by Caterpillar and serviced by Whayne Supply Company.\nHe brought suit in Kentucky State court against Caterpillar and Whayne Supply alleging a number of tort claims.\nLiberty Mutual Insurance Group which had paid Lewis worker's compensation benefits intervened as a plaintiff to protect its subrogation rights and brought virtually identical tort claims against Caterpillar and Whayne Supply.\nNow, at the time the complaint was filed, the case was not removable to Federal court because both plaintiff Lewis and defendant Whayne Supply were citizens of Kentucky, so there wasn't complete diversity of citizenship.\nSeveral months later, however, Caterpillar's counsel learned that Lewis had settled his claim with Whayne Supply, the non-diverse defendant, and Caterpillar thereupon removed the case to Federal court in Kentucky.\nLewis moved to remand the case, making the single argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.\nLewis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [9.79, 13.913, 35.097, 43.683, 48.315, 56.811, 63.055, 76.585, 89.131, 102.01, 107.534], "stop_times": [13.913, 35.097, 43.683, 48.315, 56.811, 63.055, 76.585, 89.131, 102.01, 107.534, 108.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.79}, "reply_to": "20228__0_000", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_002", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "He was right at that point, was he not, because Whayne was still in the litigation.\nSo, when the motion was made to remand to State court, there was not complete diversity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [108.565, 112.696], "stop_times": [112.696, 118.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.565}, "reply_to": "20228__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_003", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [118.052], "stop_times": [118.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.052}, "reply_to": "20228__0_002", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_004", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--and the case should have been remanded.\nIs that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [118.259, 119.811], "stop_times": [119.811, 120.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.259}, "reply_to": "20228__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_005", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That was obviously a disputed issue, but as the case comes to this Court, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [120.452], "stop_times": [124.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.452}, "reply_to": "20228__0_004", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_006", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, I think we have to assume this, and he made a timely objection.\nHe preserved his objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [124.825, 129.268], "stop_times": [129.268, 130.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 124.825}, "reply_to": "20228__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_007", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "He made a motion to remand.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [130.459, 132.491], "stop_times": [132.491, 133.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 130.459}, "reply_to": "20228__0_006", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_008", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [133.07], "stop_times": [133.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.07}, "reply_to": "20228__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_009", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [133.551], "stop_times": [134.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.551}, "reply_to": "20228__0_008", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_010", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And I don't know if it's all that clear whether an interlocutory appeal would ever lie at that point, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [134.142], "stop_times": [142.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 134.142}, "reply_to": "20228__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_011", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "From the denial of the motion to remand?\nThe Sixth Circuit and other circuits have allowed appeals in that circumstance.\nWe don't rely heavily on that in this case, but there are many cases that have allowed appeals in that circumstance, including some cases in the Sixth Circuit that we cited in our brief.\nBut it would be a discretionary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [142.837, 144.617, 147.989, 156.264], "stop_times": [144.617, 147.989, 156.264, 157.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.837}, "reply_to": "20228__0_010", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_012", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But in any event, presumably having made the objection and motion in a timely fashion, it should be reserved for review on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [157.315], "stop_times": [166.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.315}, "reply_to": "20228__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_013", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--If the error had not been cured, I think there would be an argument that the issue should be reserved for appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [166.391], "stop_times": [173.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.391}, "reply_to": "20228__0_012", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_014", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, but of course the claim is that there was prejudice here because of different rules on what evidence can come in and because of the non-unanimous jury in Kentucky and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [173.257], "stop_times": [185.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.257}, "reply_to": "20228__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_015", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [185.764], "stop_times": [186.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.764}, "reply_to": "20228__0_014", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_016", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Do you think any of those procedural rules at the State level could ever amount to prejudice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [186.205], "stop_times": [192.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 186.205}, "reply_to": "20228__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_017", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, if the error had been objected to and not cured, which is not our case, I think there is an argument that the issue might be reserved to be argued on appeal from a final judgment, and if the error is consequential, could lead to a reversal.\nThat is not this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [192.728, 210.2], "stop_times": [210.2, 211.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 192.728}, "reply_to": "20228__0_016", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_018", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, but we take the case in the posture that there was an error when it wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [211.312], "stop_times": [216.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.312}, "reply_to": "20228__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_019", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, the error--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [216.806], "stop_times": [217.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 216.806}, "reply_to": "20228__0_018", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_020", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--sent to State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [217.907], "stop_times": [218.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.907}, "reply_to": "20228__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_021", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--The error, Justice O'Connor, was simply in removing at a time when there wasn't diversity jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [218.615], "stop_times": [223.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.615}, "reply_to": "20228__0_020", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_022", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [223.861], "stop_times": [224.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.861}, "reply_to": "20228__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_023", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "It's just like this Court's case, as I hope to discuss in a few minutes, of Finn where the identical error occurred, and yet the Court said, as I'll explain, that the rule is even though that error may have occurred, if jurisdiction exists at the time of judgment in the district court, that's not... there's no ground to reverse on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [224.121], "stop_times": [240.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.121}, "reply_to": "20228__0_022", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_024", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But, Mr. Geller, is it not true this case has an unusual feature?\nIf I understand the facts correctly, you removed very close to the 1-year limit for removal in a diversity case, and if you had waited until Whayne was dismissed, at the point at which you had complete diversity, it would have been too late for you to remove.\nSo, but for the removal, the wrongful removal when there was not complete diversity, you never could have gotten into the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [240.39, 242.902, 261.635], "stop_times": [242.902, 261.635, 270.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.39}, "reply_to": "20228__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_025", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, that's true, but there are a number of responses.\nTo begin with, Justice Ginsburg, we did remove prior to the 1-year period.\nThere's no dispute about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [270.641, 273.343, 276.794], "stop_times": [273.343, 276.794, 278.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.641}, "reply_to": "20228__0_024", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_026", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes, but there was no diversity then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [278.796], "stop_times": [279.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.796}, "reply_to": "20228__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_027", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, I understand that.\nThere may be a separate question, one the... once the case is in Federal court whether it should have been remanded for lack of diversity, but there's no dispute that the 1-year period was satisfied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [279.917, 280.228], "stop_times": [280.228, 288.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 279.917}, "reply_to": "20228__0_026", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_028", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [288.242], "stop_times": [288.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.242}, "reply_to": "20228__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_029", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And secondly, that objection was never made in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [288.522], "stop_times": [293.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.522}, "reply_to": "20228__0_028", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_030", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "The objection that was made was that there was not complete diversity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [293.996], "stop_times": [298.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.996}, "reply_to": "20228__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_031", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That was the only objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [298.278], "stop_times": [299.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.278}, "reply_to": "20228__0_030", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_032", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That was a well-taken objection and you recognized that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [299.75], "stop_times": [301.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.75}, "reply_to": "20228__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_033", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [301.75], "stop_times": [301.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.75}, "reply_to": "20228__0_032", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_034", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--you must accept that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [301.961], "stop_times": [303.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.961}, "reply_to": "20228__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_035", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [303.292], "stop_times": [304.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 303.292}, "reply_to": "20228__0_034", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_036", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--for purposes of posture we're in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [304.341], "stop_times": [305.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.341}, "reply_to": "20228__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_037", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [305.753], "stop_times": [306.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.753}, "reply_to": "20228__0_036", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_038", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "My point is simply that if you had waited until Whayne was dismissed from the action, it would have been too late for you to remove.\nIs that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [306.124, 314.249], "stop_times": [314.249, 317.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.124}, "reply_to": "20228__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_039", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [317.07], "stop_times": [317.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.07}, "reply_to": "20228__0_038", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_040", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "One other point I was glad to hear you say in your argument is that you were not relying on the failure to take an interlocutory appeal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [317.991], "stop_times": [326.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.991}, "reply_to": "20228__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_041", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, we're not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [326.146], "stop_times": [326.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 326.146}, "reply_to": "20228__0_040", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_042", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--from the refusal to remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [326.857], "stop_times": [327.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.857}, "reply_to": "20228__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_043", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--We're not arguing a waiver in that sense.\nWe're not arguing that the Lewis' case would any... be any better today if he had tried to take an interlocutory appeal and 1292(b) certification had not been granted.\nWhat we do say, what a number of lower courts have said, is that these are the sorts of errors that should be resolved prior to trial.\nHe had the opportunity.\nHe had one more step to take prior to trial in which, if it had been successful, would have gotten this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [327.939, 330.27, 339.525, 345.5, 346.739], "stop_times": [330.27, 339.525, 345.5, 346.739, 351.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.939}, "reply_to": "20228__0_042", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_044", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But I find that an extraordinary argument, if you're making that, because 1292(b) is an exception to the very firm final judgment rule, and people aren't penalized for failing to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [351.334], "stop_times": [364.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.334}, "reply_to": "20228__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_045", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, not... it's not a question of penalizing anyone, Justice Ginsburg.\nWe're simply saying that that was a remedy available to Lewis that he didn't pursue.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [364.311, 366.474, 370.686], "stop_times": [366.474, 370.686, 371.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.311}, "reply_to": "20228__0_044", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_046", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, it's my... if 1292 was not something that any litigant must use... and it's my understanding that it is not... then, as Justice O'Connor pointed out, a timely objection was made and that objection is preserved for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [371.337], "stop_times": [385.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.337}, "reply_to": "20228__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_047", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [385.645], "stop_times": [386.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.645}, "reply_to": "20228__0_046", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_048", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--appeal after final judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [386.056], "stop_times": [387.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.056}, "reply_to": "20228__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_049", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--The only objection that was made in the motion to remand, Justice Ginsburg, was that there wasn't diversity jurisdiction.\nIt's precisely like this Court's Finn case, which I hope to discuss in a minute.\nAnd in Finn, this Court held... and it has been the rule for 50 years... that even if there wasn't jurisdiction at the time the case was removed from State to Federal court, if jurisdiction subsequently attaches during the trial, that's the end of the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [387.368, 392.53, 395.944], "stop_times": [392.53, 395.944, 407.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.368}, "reply_to": "20228__0_048", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_050", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Suppose in this case that the removal had been after 1 year, or suppose a hypothetical case, removed after 1 year.\nAnd the district judge for some reason said, well, that statute is discretionary.\nHe's just wrong and doesn't remove it.\nCan that ever be cured?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [407.211, 415.706, 419.539, 420.727], "stop_times": [415.706, 419.539, 420.727, 422.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.211}, "reply_to": "20228__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_051", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, first of all, that wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [422.45], "stop_times": [425.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.45}, "reply_to": "20228__0_050", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_052", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Let's assume complete diversity at all times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [425.412], "stop_times": [426.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.412}, "reply_to": "20228__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_053", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Right.\nIt would be a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [426.902, 427.423], "stop_times": [427.423, 428.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.902}, "reply_to": "20228__0_052", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_054", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But you just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [428.034], "stop_times": [428.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.034}, "reply_to": "20228__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_055", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--There would be a statutory error.\nIt would be in the nature of filing a suit after the statute of limitations had expired.\nIf it would have... if that objection had been preserved and if the error had never been cured or could not be cured, it is something that perhaps would lead to a reversal on appeal.\nIt's not something--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [428.584, 429.393, 432.977, 441.452], "stop_times": [429.393, 432.977, 441.452, 442.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.584}, "reply_to": "20228__0_054", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_056", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Why should that lead to a reversal on appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [442.503], "stop_times": [444.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.503}, "reply_to": "20228__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_057", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [444.544], "stop_times": [444.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.544}, "reply_to": "20228__0_056", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_058", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "It seems to me the equities there are much different.\nThere there's diversity at all times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [444.864, 446.978], "stop_times": [446.978, 448.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.864}, "reply_to": "20228__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_059", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [448.206], "stop_times": [449.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.206}, "reply_to": "20228__0_058", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_060", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "In your case the judgment is saved only because something happens toward the end.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [449.957], "stop_times": [454.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.957}, "reply_to": "20228__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_061", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--In that case, though, there would be a statutory error, and the question would be, is the statutory error something that should lead to a reversal on appeal?\nWe don't have a statutory error here.\nThe only error that's complained... that was complained of in the motion to remand was the lack of diversity jurisdiction at the time the case was filed.\nNo separate statutory violation was alleged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [454.672, 461.796, 463.657, 471.442], "stop_times": [461.796, 463.657, 471.442, 474.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 454.672}, "reply_to": "20228__0_060", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_062", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, if that objection was well taken... and it was... if it had been... if the district judge had recognized all the circumstances in the case, why isn't that statutory?\nDiversity is statutory in large part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [474.483, 486.271], "stop_times": [486.271, 489.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.483}, "reply_to": "20228__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_063", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, the only requirement of the removal statute that would be implicated is that there be diversity jurisdiction or some other ground of Federal jurisdiction at the time the case is removed, but it's not a separate requirement of the removal statute.\nIt's a requirement of 1332.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [489.003, 500.54], "stop_times": [500.54, 502.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.003}, "reply_to": "20228__0_062", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_064", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I would think that your argument is not that it's statutory versus non-statutory, but rather that it's curable versus... or rather, that its noncurable versus curable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [502.473], "stop_times": [512.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.473}, "reply_to": "20228__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_065", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Right.\nIt would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [512.126, 512.508], "stop_times": [512.508, 512.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.126}, "reply_to": "20228__0_064", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_066", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "If you're late, you're late and there's no way that it can ever be made up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [512.969], "stop_times": [516.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.969}, "reply_to": "20228__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_067", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--There would still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [516.731], "stop_times": [517.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 516.731}, "reply_to": "20228__0_066", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_068", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Whereas, if there is no diversity, that can be altered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [517.222], "stop_times": [520.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 517.222}, "reply_to": "20228__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_069", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, that's right.\nAnd there may be some statutory errors that are curable, and even if they're not curable, Justice Scalia, they may be harmless errors.\nI mean, there are a number of reasons why you wouldn't want to reverse a Federal judgment even though some error may have occurred at some earlier part... point in time, but we're not dealing with an error that's not curable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [520.225, 520.785, 525.738], "stop_times": [520.785, 525.738, 535.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 520.225}, "reply_to": "20228__0_068", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_070", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I know the case isn't before us, but do you have a conclusion as to what the rule should be if the removal is, say, a day... a week after the 1-year period of trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [535.924], "stop_times": [544.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.924}, "reply_to": "20228__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_071", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.\nI guess our position would be that these sorts of errors should be the subject of a motion to remand in the district court, and that's where the plaintiff's remedy is.\nPresumably in 99 percent of all cases, the district court will grant those motions if they deserve to be granted.\nIf they are not granted, if the opportunity to seek an interlocutory appeal is not taken, if the case then goes to judgment in Federal court and it's a perfectly valid judgment in all other respects, I think there's a strong argument that that judgment should not be reversed because of that error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [544.599, 544.939, 553.335, 558.459], "stop_times": [544.939, 553.335, 558.459, 573.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.599}, "reply_to": "20228__0_070", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_072", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "So, what you're saying is that these matters basically are to be left to the district courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [573.09], "stop_times": [576.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.09}, "reply_to": "20228__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20228__0_073", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I think that these... this may be a category of error in which the plaintiff's remedy, even if it's not cured, would be with the district judge and you wouldn't want to reverse a Federal judgment based on them.\nBut I have to repeat again because it seems to me so critical to this case that we're dealing here with an error that... not a statutory error and was completely cured and seems to us to be on all fours with the Finn case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [576.782, 587.037], "stop_times": [587.037, 597.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.782}, "reply_to": "20228__0_072", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_074", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, Mr. Geller, what wasn't completely cured was that there was a removal at a time when there was no statutory right to a removal.\nWhat you're asking us, I think if I get you right, is pretend that this case had been filed anew in the Federal court before the trial.\nThis was... once Whayne was dropped out, there was complete diversity, and I could understand an argument that says take the case at that point.\nBut I cannot understand an argument that says 1292(b), you didn't use that, so you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [597.025, 605.149, 614.446, 622.35], "stop_times": [605.149, 614.446, 622.35, 628.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.025}, "reply_to": "20228__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_075", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, we're not relying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [628.394], "stop_times": [629.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.394}, "reply_to": "20228__0_074", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_076", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--so you're losing out on something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [629.415], "stop_times": [630.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.415}, "reply_to": "20228__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_077", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Excuse me.\nI'm sorry.\nWe're not relying, as I suggested earlier, on the failure to take a 1292(b) appeal here except to suggest that, in answer to Justice Kennedy's question, these are the sorts of errors that should be resolved prior to trial.\nThis is one more way in which he could have resolved it prior to trial and he didn't pursue it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [630.126, 630.605, 631.016, 641.755], "stop_times": [630.605, 631.016, 641.755, 645.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.126}, "reply_to": "20228__0_076", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_078", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "What you are assuming, it seems to me, and might have said to Justice Ginsburg is that although the statutory error in one sense exists forever, the only real interest that is at stake here is an Article III jurisdictional interest.\nAnd if an Article III jurisdictional interest gets cured, then the statutory error becomes de minimis, and given the interests in economy and so on, it isn't worth reversing.\nIsn't that the nub of what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [645.455, 661.757, 673.444], "stop_times": [661.757, 673.444, 675.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 645.455}, "reply_to": "20228__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__0_079", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That would be the nub of what we're saying if there was in fact a statutory error here, but there wasn't.\nI have to repeat.\nI'll try to come to this later on.\nThe removal petition was filed prior to the 1-year period of the statute, so there wasn't a statutory error here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [675.324, 678.797, 679.478, 681.359], "stop_times": [678.797, 679.478, 681.359, 689.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.324}, "reply_to": "20228__0_078", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_080", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "There was an error in removing the case when there wasn't complete diversity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [689.103], "stop_times": [693.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.103}, "reply_to": "20228__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_081", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That was the only error, the jurisdictional error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [693.116], "stop_times": [695.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.116}, "reply_to": "20228__0_080", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_082", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And the district court... if we could just peel away what should not be in the dispute and then argue from there.\nThe case was removed at a time when there was no right to remove it because there was no complete diversity.\nThere was a motion to remand and that motion to remand was incorrectly denied because a nondiverse party was still in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [695.128, 701.792, 707.495], "stop_times": [701.792, 707.495, 715.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.128}, "reply_to": "20228__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_083", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [715.533], "stop_times": [715.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.533}, "reply_to": "20228__0_082", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_084", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "If we could just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [715.84], "stop_times": [716.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.84}, "reply_to": "20228__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_085", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [716.491], "stop_times": [716.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.491}, "reply_to": "20228__0_084", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_086", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--say that that's a given--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [716.942], "stop_times": [717.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.942}, "reply_to": "20228__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_087", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--That's the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [717.913], "stop_times": [718.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.913}, "reply_to": "20228__0_086", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_088", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--and go on from there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [718.284], "stop_times": [718.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.284}, "reply_to": "20228__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_089", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.\nAnd that's precisely right, Justice Ginsburg, but it seems to me all of those things could have been said and more said in the Finn case.\nThis Court's decision in American Fire & Casualty v. Finn involved precisely the same situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [718.692, 718.962, 727.398], "stop_times": [718.962, 727.398, 733.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.692}, "reply_to": "20228__0_088", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_090", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "With one exception.\nThe 1-year period for removal was not on the scene at the time of Finn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [733.813, 734.845], "stop_times": [734.845, 740.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.813}, "reply_to": "20228__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_091", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "It wasn't but... I'll say it one last time and then we can... that 1-year provision was not violated in this case.\nThe removal petition was filed less than a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [740.347, 745.72], "stop_times": [745.72, 749.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.347}, "reply_to": "20228__0_090", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_092", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Mr. Geller, then I will say it one more time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [749.483], "stop_times": [750.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.483}, "reply_to": "20228__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_093", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Okay.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [750.494, 750.905], "stop_times": [750.905, 751.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.494}, "reply_to": "20228__0_092", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_094", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "If you had waited until it was proper to remove, you could not have removed because the 1-year period would have run.\nIf you had done it right, if you followed the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [751.514, 760.821], "stop_times": [760.821, 763.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.514}, "reply_to": "20228__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_095", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [763.412], "stop_times": [763.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.412}, "reply_to": "20228__0_094", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_096", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--and didn't try to remove until you had complete diversity, you could not have removed because the one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [763.722], "stop_times": [769.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.722}, "reply_to": "20228__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_097", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [769.987], "stop_times": [770.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 769.987}, "reply_to": "20228__0_096", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_098", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--And the difference in Finn is that 1-year provision was not part of the law at the time of Finn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [770.228], "stop_times": [775.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.228}, "reply_to": "20228__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_099", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, first of all, even assuming there was this distinct statutory error, apart from the jurisdiction error, it's not an error that the plaintiff has ever alleged or preserved until his merits brief in this Court.\nHe didn't allege it in the court of appeals.\nHe didn't allege it in the response to the rehearing petition in the court of appeals.\nHe didn't allege it in his brief in opposition in this Court.\nSo, the very first time we're hearing about this 1-year provision is in the merits brief in this Court now.\nSo, I... we have really two arguments.\nOne is, his argument was never preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [775.27, 789.919, 791.952, 794.954, 796.754, 801.436, 803.249], "stop_times": [789.919, 791.952, 794.954, 796.754, 801.436, 803.249, 805.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.27}, "reply_to": "20228__0_098", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_100", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Was it raised in the brief in opposition to certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [805.159], "stop_times": [808.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.159}, "reply_to": "20228__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__0_101", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "No.\nNo, it wasn't, Mr. Chief Justice.\nFirst time we see this 1-year argument is in the merits brief in this Court.\nWe don't think it's preserved.\nBut secondly, the 1-year provision was put in the statute like a statute of limitations.\nIt simply says you have to file the removal petition within a year.\nThat... I think it's undisputed that that requirement was satisfied here.\nTake a case like Newman-Green which is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [808.683, 808.943, 810.062, 813.695, 814.626, 819.549, 822.761, 827.335], "stop_times": [808.943, 810.062, 813.695, 814.626, 819.549, 822.761, 827.335, 830.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.683}, "reply_to": "20228__0_100", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_102", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes, it was satisfied here and there's no doubt about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [830.657], "stop_times": [833.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.657}, "reply_to": "20228__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_103", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Yes.\nSo, there wasn't a statutory error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [833.259, 833.549], "stop_times": [833.549, 834.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.259}, "reply_to": "20228__0_102", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_104", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But the point I'm making is that if you had not removed at a time when there wasn't complete diversity, you could have not have removed later.\nThat's... and that's part of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [834.869, 843.634], "stop_times": [843.634, 845.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.869}, "reply_to": "20228__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_105", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I accept that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [845.605], "stop_times": [845.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.605}, "reply_to": "20228__0_104", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_106", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--the scene and I don't think it's genuinely arguable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [845.906], "stop_times": [848.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.906}, "reply_to": "20228__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_107", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Fine.\nI agree.\nIn any event, this case we think is precisely like Finn where the Court stated a rule, which it repeated more recently in Grubbs, that even if there was no Federal jurisdiction at the time that a case was removed from State to Federal court, the judgment should not be reversed on appeal if in fact Federal jurisdiction was present at the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [848.349, 849.078, 849.879], "stop_times": [849.078, 849.879, 868.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.349}, "reply_to": "20228__0_106", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_108", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "You don't mean it's precisely like the Finn case.\nIt's precisely like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [868.883, 871.915], "stop_times": [871.915, 872.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.883}, "reply_to": "20228__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__0_109", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Like the rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [872.833], "stop_times": [873.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.833}, "reply_to": "20228__0_108", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_110", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--the way you interpret a sentence in the Finn opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [873.464], "stop_times": [875.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.464}, "reply_to": "20228__0_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__0_111", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, except what happened in Finn, Justice Stevens, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [875.167], "stop_times": [878.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 875.167}, "reply_to": "20228__0_110", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_112", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And you should be relying on the cases that sentence cites, except they all went the other way.\nThey all were cases where the defendant was not allowed to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [878.399, 882.13], "stop_times": [882.13, 885.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.399}, "reply_to": "20228__0_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__0_113", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, there are a lot of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [885.272], "stop_times": [886.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.272}, "reply_to": "20228__0_112", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_114", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--take advantage of the error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [886.394], "stop_times": [888.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.394}, "reply_to": "20228__0_113", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__0_115", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--The rule announced in Finn... it's true that in Finn the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [888.345], "stop_times": [891.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 888.345}, "reply_to": "20228__0_114", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_116", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "You're relying on a sentence in Finn, not the holding in Finn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [891.597], "stop_times": [894.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.597}, "reply_to": "20228__0_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__0_117", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, I believe we can debate whether it's the holding.\nIt was the rule of law announced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [894.769, 896.81], "stop_times": [896.81, 898.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.769}, "reply_to": "20228__0_116", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_118", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "It's certainly not the holding because the case went the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [898.202], "stop_times": [899.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.202}, "reply_to": "20228__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__0_119", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, but what happened in Finn is that the Court also said, of course, on remand this problem can be cured by dismissing the non-diverse defendant, and that is of course precisely what happened on remand in Finn.\nThe plaintiff made a motion to dismiss the non-diverse defendant.\nThe court of appeals granted the motion, reinstated the verdict for the plaintiff, even though there was no diversity at the time that case had originally gotten into Federal Court, and reinstated the verdict for the plaintiff, and then this Court denied certiorari.\nSo, what actually happened in Finn was that the rule that we're relying on here which was announced by the Court in Finn was applied, and the verdict... the judgment of the Federal court was not thrown out.\nIn fact, the judgment for the plaintiff was sustained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [899.442, 911.789, 915.082, 926.73, 936.988], "stop_times": [911.789, 915.082, 926.73, 936.988, 939.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.442}, "reply_to": "20228__0_118", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_120", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Mr. Geller, do you see a difference between a plaintiff who prevails in such a case, the plaintiff not having brought the case to the Federal court, and the defendant... the plaintiff was the one who was resisting removal because the plaintiff doesn't remove.\nA defendant does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [939.819, 954.689], "stop_times": [954.689, 955.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.819}, "reply_to": "20228__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_121", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [955.32], "stop_times": [955.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.32}, "reply_to": "20228__0_120", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_122", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And when a defendant removes and the removal... there was no basis for the removal at the time?\nIsn't that a difference in the situation of the plaintiff who is... doesn't want to be in Federal court but is stuck there because the defendant dragged the plaintiff there?\nPlaintiff can hang on to the plaintiff's verdict, but that you're not going to allow a defendant who wrongfully removed to profit from that wrongful removal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [955.487, 962.664, 972.32], "stop_times": [962.664, 972.32, 982.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.487}, "reply_to": "20228__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_123", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "The rule announced in Finn doesn't draw the distinction between the plaintiff or the defendant, and notions of consent or waiver or things like that seem to have no relevance, it seems to us, when the defect is a jurisdictional defect.\nThe court either has jurisdiction or it doesn't.\nNow, in this respect a very significant case I think is this Court's decision in Newman-Green, which is less than a decade old, a decision that the plaintiff relegates to a footnote and says there's no relevance.\nBut it seems to me it's precisely on point in view of the thought that Your Honor is expressing.\nNewman-Green is a case in which the plaintiff filed suit in Federal court alleging diversity of citizenship.\nThere was in fact no diversity of citizenship.\nThat case shouldn't have been in Federal court.\nNonetheless, the plaintiff recovered a large judgment.\nWhen the case got to the court of appeals, the jurisdictional error was discovered, and what happened, though, is not that the case was thrown out of Federal court, but that the error was remedied on appeal.\nAnd this Court sanctioned that, saying the non-diverse defendant could simply be dismissed from the case on appeal, and in fact that's what happened.\nThe judgment for the plaintiff was instated.\nThat was a case where the defendant didn't ask to be in Federal court.\nHe was erroneously dragged into Federal court, and yet a judgment for the plaintiff was sustained by dismissing the non-diverse defendant.\nSo, it seems to me that's a complete response to the suggestion that the jurisdictional rule should depend upon whether it's the plaintiff or the defendant that may have made the error or who--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [982.697, 994.884, 996.754, 1007.753, 1011.785, 1018.59, 1021.222, 1022.924, 1026.818, 1038.775, 1046.549, 1048.752, 1051.634, 1060.329], "stop_times": [994.884, 996.754, 1007.753, 1011.785, 1018.59, 1021.222, 1022.924, 1026.818, 1038.775, 1046.549, 1048.752, 1051.634, 1060.329, 1069.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 982.697}, "reply_to": "20228__0_122", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_124", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I don't see that because the plaintiff has a choice of forum.\nA plaintiff suing two defendants can drop one of them at any time and perfect the diversity.\nIsn't there a provision that says you can cure a jurisdictional defect even in the court of appeals?\nIsn't there a provision that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1069.326, 1073.368, 1082.564, 1086.706], "stop_times": [1073.368, 1082.564, 1086.706, 1088.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.326}, "reply_to": "20228__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_125", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, this Court relied on rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1088.787], "stop_times": [1091.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.787}, "reply_to": "20228__0_124", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_126", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, is there not a provision in title 28 to that effect, that you can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1091.068], "stop_times": [1093.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.068}, "reply_to": "20228__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_127", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1093.212], "stop_times": [1094.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.212}, "reply_to": "20228__0_126", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_128", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--you can cure it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1094.561], "stop_times": [1094.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.561}, "reply_to": "20228__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_129", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "This Court didn't cite any provision.\nIt relied on rule 21.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1094.992, 1096.143], "stop_times": [1096.143, 1097.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.992}, "reply_to": "20228__0_128", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_130", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, I don't remember the number of it, but I think you will find that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1097.103], "stop_times": [1099.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.103}, "reply_to": "20228__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_131", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1099.955], "stop_times": [1100.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.955}, "reply_to": "20228__0_130", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_132", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--there is such a provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1100.345], "stop_times": [1101.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.345}, "reply_to": "20228__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_133", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1101.196], "stop_times": [1102.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1101.196}, "reply_to": "20228__0_132", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_134", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "In any event, it's the plaintiff... isn't there this difference, Mr. Geller?\nThe... our system gives plaintiff the initial choice of forum, and here is a plaintiff in our case who chose a State court, got dragged out of that State court and into a Federal court.\nThere is a difference I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1102.258, 1106.299, 1118.638], "stop_times": [1106.299, 1118.638, 1120.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.258}, "reply_to": "20228__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_135", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, it's true that the plaintiff has the initial choice of forum but that doesn't trump every other rule.\nIt's also true under the statutes that the defendant, when he sued in a state other than his own... and there's diversity of citizenship... has the right to remove that case to Federal court.\nNow, as this case was actually tried, there was diversity of citizenship.\nThe defendant was an out-of-state defendant, and therefore it was appropriate for this case to be tried in Federal court.\nSo, in any event, our position is this case is in fact precisely like Finn, a case that's been... was decided 50 years ago, has been applied in dozens and dozens of court of appeals cases since, and as stated without qualification in the leading treatises, that even though there may not have been jurisdiction when the case was removed to Federal court, if jurisdiction attaches subsequently prior to trial, then the judgment should not be reversed on appeal, even if in fact Federal jurisdiction was not present at the time of trial... at the time of removal.\nNow, there's no question that that black letter rule was fully satisfied in this case.\nAt the time of the 6-day jury trial and at the time judgment was entered for Caterpillar, the case was plainly within the Federal court's diversity jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1120.889, 1126.942, 1136.459, 1140.002, 1145.476, 1175.335, 1179.776], "stop_times": [1126.942, 1136.459, 1140.002, 1145.476, 1175.335, 1179.776, 1189.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.889}, "reply_to": "20228__0_134", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_136", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Mr. Geller, on your reasoning it wouldn't have mattered even if there was no diversity jurisdiction during trial.\nSo long as it had attached by the time of judgment, that would be enough.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1189.183, 1193.247, 1196.82], "stop_times": [1193.247, 1196.82, 1197.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.183}, "reply_to": "20228__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__0_137", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, Finn talks about both.\nYou know, I don't know what would happen in the situation where there was no diversity jurisdiction at the time of trial, but there was between... you know, jurisdiction attached between trial and judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1197.288, 1198.8], "stop_times": [1198.8, 1207.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1197.288}, "reply_to": "20228__0_136", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_138", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, if it can be cured after appeal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1207.104], "stop_times": [1209.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.104}, "reply_to": "20228__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__0_139", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "It would seem that if it could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1209.976], "stop_times": [1211.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.976}, "reply_to": "20228__0_138", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_140", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--then I would suppose it would follow that if it was cured, let's say, after trial but at some point prior to a remand on appeal, it would be enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1211.208], "stop_times": [1219.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.208}, "reply_to": "20228__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__0_141", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--I think that's right, Justice Souter.\nIn Finn itself, it was cured on remand to the court of appeals.\nSo, I think that's right.\nBut the rule announced in Finn is that there has to be jurisdiction at the time of trial and there was in this case, which is our only point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1219.002, 1220.044, 1223.527, 1224.258], "stop_times": [1220.044, 1223.527, 1224.258, 1231.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.002}, "reply_to": "20228__0_140", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_142", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "So, if the... if you do take the position that so long as it's cured even after trial but before judgment, does it follow that any of the claims of harm here, if we should get to a harmful error analysis, really would be beside the point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1231.394], "stop_times": [1248.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.394}, "reply_to": "20228__0_141", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__0_143", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "The Court has not engaged in any harmful error analysis in any of these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1248.704], "stop_times": [1253.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1248.704}, "reply_to": "20228__0_142", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_144", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And it would be inappropriate on your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1253.249], "stop_times": [1254.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.249}, "reply_to": "20228__0_143", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__0_145", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1254.35], "stop_times": [1254.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.35}, "reply_to": "20228__0_144", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_146", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1254.58], "stop_times": [1254.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.58}, "reply_to": "20228__0_145", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__0_147", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.\nThat's right because this is a case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1254.981, 1255.362], "stop_times": [1255.362, 1256.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.981}, "reply_to": "20228__0_146", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_148", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Although you admitted in response to my question that some errors could be prejudicial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1256.972], "stop_times": [1261.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.972}, "reply_to": "20228__0_147", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_149", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1261.266], "stop_times": [1262.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.266}, "reply_to": "20228__0_148", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_150", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That's what I asked you, and that means that there are some situations that would permit the conducting of a harmless error analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1262.827], "stop_times": [1270.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.827}, "reply_to": "20228__0_149", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20228__0_151", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Well, I don't think in this situation the Court has ever done that.\nIn Finn it didn't ask would the case have come out differently in State court.\nIn Newman-Green, which is perhaps a better example, where the Court didn't ask should this... would the defendant have been... was the defendant prejudiced by being in district... Federal district court because that was a case that should have been brought in State court.\nIt didn't ask those questions.\nIt was simply enough as a matter of judicial economy and administration.\nIt was a perfectly fair Federal judgment entered at a time when there was jurisdiction, and the Court said we're simply not going to reverse that sort of a judgment, you know, because of an error that was cured or error that could be cured at this stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1270.372, 1273.554, 1277.635, 1289.563, 1290.845, 1294.736], "stop_times": [1273.554, 1277.635, 1289.563, 1290.845, 1294.736, 1306.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.372}, "reply_to": "20228__0_150", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_152", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Mr. Geller, wouldn't 28 U.S.C. 1653 take care of your Newman-Green case, which you say is just like that one?\nThat says defective allegations of jurisdiction... and it's the plaintiff who alleges jurisdiction in that case... may be cured upon terms in trial or appellate court.\nSo, the plaintiff says, here's my allegation of jurisdiction.\nIt was defective.\nI'm now amending it.\nThat applies to 16... to plaintiff's case.\nIt wouldn't apply to a defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1306.564, 1313.069, 1322.615, 1325.107, 1325.677, 1327.21, 1330.13], "stop_times": [1313.069, 1322.615, 1325.107, 1325.677, 1327.21, 1330.13, 1331.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.564}, "reply_to": "20228__0_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_153", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, the Court in Newman-Green rejected reliance on section 1653 is recollection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1331.572], "stop_times": [1336.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.572}, "reply_to": "20228__0_152", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_154", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Oh.\nI thought you told me that there was only the rule in the case and there was nothing in title 28.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1336.353, 1336.844], "stop_times": [1336.844, 1340.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.353}, "reply_to": "20228__0_153", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__0_155", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I said rule 21.\nThat's right because the Court unanimously--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1340.658, 1342.067], "stop_times": [1342.067, 1343.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.658}, "reply_to": "20228__0_154", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_156", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "1653 applies only to allegations in jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1343.72], "stop_times": [1346.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.72}, "reply_to": "20228__0_155", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_157", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Allegations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1346.782], "stop_times": [1346.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.782}, "reply_to": "20228__0_156", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_158", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Defective allegations of jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1346.992], "stop_times": [1348.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.992}, "reply_to": "20228__0_157", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_159", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1348.442], "stop_times": [1348.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.442}, "reply_to": "20228__0_158", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_160", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1348.663], "stop_times": [1349.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1348.663}, "reply_to": "20228__0_159", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_161", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1349.474], "stop_times": [1349.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.474}, "reply_to": "20228__0_160", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_162", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Not defective jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1349.844], "stop_times": [1350.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.844}, "reply_to": "20228__0_161", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_163", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Right, exactly.\nThat's what the Court held in Newman-Green.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1350.924, 1351.404], "stop_times": [1351.404, 1352.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.924}, "reply_to": "20228__0_162", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_164", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "It was the basis for Justice Kennedy's dissent, as a matter of fact, in Newman-Green, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1352.606], "stop_times": [1355.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.606}, "reply_to": "20228__0_163", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_165", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, the debate, as I recollect, in Newman-Green between the majority and the dissent was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1355.026], "stop_times": [1359.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1355.026}, "reply_to": "20228__0_164", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_166", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "The dissent was since Congress felt it necessary to explicitly provide for amending even a defective allegation of jurisdiction, it would seem clear that defective jurisdiction cannot be amended, there being no statute providing for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1359.598], "stop_times": [1378.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.598}, "reply_to": "20228__0_165", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_167", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--That was the position of the dissent in Newman-Green.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1378.863], "stop_times": [1381.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.863}, "reply_to": "20228__0_166", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_168", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "It was a pretty good position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1381.794], "stop_times": [1382.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.794}, "reply_to": "20228__0_167", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__0_169", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "It was an excellent dissent, Justice Scalia.\n[Laughter]\nBut I believe seven Justices disagreed with it.\nNow, our position is that this Court needn't go any further than that in resolving this case.\nThe Sixth Circuit was plainly wrong we believe in reversing the judgment below for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it's undisputed that diversity jurisdiction existed at the time of trial and at the time of judgment and existed on appeal, exists today in this case.\nThis Court should apply its settled precedents to reverse the court of appeals judgment and to send the case back for consideration of the rest of plaintiff's arguments on appeal.\nI just want to make one last point and then hopefully reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal just in response to Justice Ginsburg's comments.\nThe plaintiff has made no effort in this Court to defend the Sixth Circuit's decision, no effort at all to defend the Sixth Circuit's jurisdictional rationale presumably discovering that it is inconsistent with Finn and Grubbs and Newman-Green and that line of cases in this Court.\nInstead, his brief conjures up a completely different statutory argument.\nI've tried to suggest in response to some of the questions these arguments were never made below.\nNo lower court has ever found any violation of the removal statute in this case.\nSo, we think even if there were merit to these statutory arguments, which there isn't, it's really far too late in the day for the respondent to be bringing up new statutory arguments and asking the Court to affirm on those grounds.\nThis case is, we think, precisely governed by the Finn line of cases.\nAnd if the Court has no further questions, I'll reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1382.605, 1384.848, 1385.059, 1388.909, 1395.515, 1408.683, 1416.488, 1424.923, 1440.375, 1445.736, 1451.661, 1456.585, 1468.431, 1471.844], "stop_times": [1384.848, 1385.059, 1388.909, 1395.515, 1408.683, 1416.488, 1424.923, 1440.375, 1445.736, 1451.661, 1456.585, 1468.431, 1471.844, 1474.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.605}, "reply_to": "20228__0_168", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__0_170", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Very well, Mr. Geller.\nMr. Stayton, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1474.927, 1476.008], "stop_times": [1476.008, 1478.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.927}, "reply_to": "20228__0_169", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_000", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe petitioner today asks this Court to find the removal was proper, for subject matter jurisdiction did not exist at the time of removal and in fact did not exist until 3 years after the 1-year time limitation for removal under 1446(b) had expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1478.74, 1482.182], "stop_times": [1482.182, 1498.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1478.74}, "reply_to": "20228__0_170", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_001", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "As far as that latter point goes, when we granted certiorari in the case, we didn't know that that was an issue, and I doubt whether we would have granted certiorari to decide an issue that is so narrow; that is to say, if you remove within the time period, but that removal is invalid, can a later remedying of the jurisdictional defect preserve the judgment.\nThat's a very narrow question.\nHow many cases are there going to be where this occurs?\nSo, you raise this new point now after the case is in front of us and are asking us to decide a very, very narrow case.\nI thought we were going to decide the much broader case of whether when the removal... whether done before or after the 1-year limitation is applied, when that removal is wrong and the trial court doesn't realize it, and the case proceeds to judgment, the judgment is nonetheless to be sustained.\nBut you're asking us to decide a very narrow case now, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1498.501, 1529.832, 1531.713, 1534.095, 1541.22, 1557.95], "stop_times": [1529.832, 1531.713, 1534.095, 1541.22, 1557.95, 1560.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.501}, "reply_to": "20228__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__1_002", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1560.643], "stop_times": [1561.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1560.643}, "reply_to": "20228__1_001", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_003", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Why didn't you do that when the petition was filed instead of now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1561.704], "stop_times": [1563.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.704}, "reply_to": "20228__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__1_004", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I guess as a practical matter I don't do a whole lot of work in Federal court and wasn't intimately aware of the removal statute.\nI think the 1-year limitation is tied in with the argument that was raised by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1563.975, 1573.982], "stop_times": [1573.982, 1579.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.975}, "reply_to": "20228__1_003", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_005", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Are you familiar with our rule 15, Mr. Stayton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1579.154], "stop_times": [1581.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.154}, "reply_to": "20228__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_006", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1581.516], "stop_times": [1581.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1581.516}, "reply_to": "20228__1_005", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_007", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And that if you don't raise it in the brief in opposition, it will be deemed waived... it may be deemed waived?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1581.916], "stop_times": [1587.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.916}, "reply_to": "20228__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_008", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1587.53], "stop_times": [1587.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.53}, "reply_to": "20228__1_007", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_009", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, what's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1587.981], "stop_times": [1589.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.981}, "reply_to": "20228__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_010", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "My response to that, Your Honor, if you want to follow that argument, then the argument of the petitioner is also raised.\nThe petitioner never raised its argument that it's making here today under Grubbs and Finn until the petition for rehearing was filed in the Sixth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1589.37, 1594.245], "stop_times": [1594.245, 1601.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1589.37}, "reply_to": "20228__1_009", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_011", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But the... did the court of appeals make any response other than just a denial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1601.979], "stop_times": [1607.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.979}, "reply_to": "20228__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_012", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1607.562], "stop_times": [1608.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.562}, "reply_to": "20228__1_011", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_013", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But the rule 15 deals with our own treatment of a case, not with what the court of appeals may have said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1608.493], "stop_times": [1615.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.493}, "reply_to": "20228__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_014", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1615.639], "stop_times": [1616.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.639}, "reply_to": "20228__1_013", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_015", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And as you agree, I take it, if you don't raise something like that in a brief in opposition, we may be taking a case, as Justice Scalia says, which has something that will prevent us from reaching the issue that the petitioner presents.\nAnd it's your obligation to point that out to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1616.257, 1631.047], "stop_times": [1631.047, 1633.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.257}, "reply_to": "20228__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_016", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but this Court also held in Hanson v. Denckla that in cases such as... or in arguments such as the petitioner has made, that if it fails to make that argument in the court below, it also waives that argument before this Court.\nThe removal statutes are clear that subject matter jurisdiction must be present at the time of removal.\nToday I ask this Court to adhere to its long history of strict statutory construction in the removal area.\nFor over 100 years, this Court has held that there must be subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal.\nIn addition, this Court has consistently held that the removal statute is to be strictly construed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1633.88, 1644.498, 1651.66, 1657.066, 1664.38], "stop_times": [1644.498, 1651.66, 1657.066, 1664.38, 1669.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1633.88}, "reply_to": "20228__1_015", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_017", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Mr. Stayton, how far do you carry that?\nSuppose your client had won instead of lost in the district court and then the defendant had said just what you're saying now, ah, but there was never any subject matter jurisdiction, so we have to wipe it all out, remand the case to the State court.\nWould you be saying, yes, that's right?\nThere was never any subject matter jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1669.793, 1674.338, 1689.418, 1692.439], "stop_times": [1674.338, 1689.418, 1692.439, 1694.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.793}, "reply_to": "20228__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__1_018", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, I think in that case, since the defendant has the... made the election to have the case removed to Federal court, it would have waived its argument that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1694.21], "stop_times": [1701.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.21}, "reply_to": "20228__1_017", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_019", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But subject matter jurisdiction is something the court has to raise on its own motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1701.683], "stop_times": [1705.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.683}, "reply_to": "20228__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__1_020", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nOf course, 1447 states that if subject matter jurisdiction... if at any time before judgment subject matter jurisdiction is found not to exist, then it will be remanded.\nIn this case, the argument that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist was raised prior to the time of judgment.\nAnd I think 1447 would predominate on that argument, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1705.226, 1706.388, 1716.945, 1723.389], "stop_times": [1706.388, 1716.945, 1723.389, 1727.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.226}, "reply_to": "20228__1_019", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_021", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "What... on the assumption that the court had raised it, would you be standing here saying, you're right, you got to wipe it all out, send it back, try it in another court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1727.512], "stop_times": [1736.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.512}, "reply_to": "20228__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__1_022", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, no, Your Honor.\nI believe if the defendant had elected to choose the forum by removing it to Federal court, then they would be bound by the district court judgments, Your Honor.\nCongress has repeatedly sought to restrict Federal jurisdiction rather than expanding such.\nThis is particularly exemplified in the present case where Congress in 1988 placed a 1-year limitation under 1446(b) on removal of cases.\nThis statute was enacted to avoid interference and disruption where significant progress had been made in the State case, as in this case.\nThe statutes are clear as to jurisdiction.\nUnder 1332 there must be diversity at the time of removal, and this Court has held as far back as 1806 in Strawbridge that complete diversity is required.\nUnder 1446, the parties have 30 days to remove after receipt of a paper showing jurisdiction exists, but no more than 1 year after the suit is filed.\nIn the present case, diversity jurisdiction did not exist until 4 years after the suit was filed.\nAfter removal, the respondent timely filed a motion to remand under 1447.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1736.728, 1737.489, 1748.187, 1755.12, 1763.446, 1771.252, 1774.294, 1783.5, 1792.986, 1799.299], "stop_times": [1737.489, 1748.187, 1755.12, 1763.446, 1771.252, 1774.294, 1783.5, 1792.986, 1799.299, 1804.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1736.728}, "reply_to": "20228__1_021", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_023", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Mr. Stayton, let me... this case seems to me almost an a fortiori case of Newman-Green in this respect.\nNewman-Green did not involve the removal provisions we're talking about here, and in the area of removal, Congress has displayed in the statutory scheme, it seems to me, the determination that bygones will be bygones.\nWe don't want to appeal this removal decision.\nIsn't it the case that if the district court improperly denies removal and sends it back, appeal does not lie from that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1804.725, 1814.44, 1836.535, 1838.616], "stop_times": [1814.44, 1836.535, 1838.616, 1846.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.725}, "reply_to": "20228__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__1_024", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1846.039], "stop_times": [1847.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.039}, "reply_to": "20228__1_023", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_025", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Doesn't that indicate that Congress wants this, more than the normal suit that's involved in Newman-Green, to be an area where this matter is taken care of at the district court?\nYes, they'll get it wrong sometimes, but it's not an important enough matter that if they've gotten it wrong, we want to review it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1847.261, 1856.718], "stop_times": [1856.718, 1863.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.261}, "reply_to": "20228__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__1_026", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I don't agree, Your Honor, because in 1447 the Court specifically stated that if subject matter jurisdiction is noted to be absent at any time before final judgment, then the case shall be remanded, which I believe makes a mandatory requirement upon the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1863.133], "stop_times": [1876.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.133}, "reply_to": "20228__1_025", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_027", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But that... but that's of necessity.\nYou cannot render a judgment when you have no jurisdiction.\nBut assuming jurisdiction exists, it seems to me the scheme is one in which bygones are bygones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1876.85, 1878.961, 1882.984], "stop_times": [1878.961, 1882.984, 1888.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.85}, "reply_to": "20228__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20228__1_028", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--I don't agree, Your Honor, because 1447 specifically states that the case shall be remanded if there's no subject matter jurisdiction, as happened in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1888.458], "stop_times": [1896.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.458}, "reply_to": "20228__1_027", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_029", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But you're not suggesting that would happen even without a motion to remand, are you?\nI mean, Grubbs certainly covers that, that in the absence of objection, if there's jurisdiction at the time of judgment, that's the way... that's sustained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1896.783, 1902.446], "stop_times": [1902.446, 1911.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.783}, "reply_to": "20228__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_030", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nOf course, Grubbs has an important difference.\nI think Grubbs is consistent with 1447.\nIn Grubbs there was no objection, and in fact, no one noticed that there was not jurisdiction until after judgment.\nSo, I believe that is consistent with 1447 since 1447 specifically states that prior to the time of final judgment, if the court notes that there's no subject matter jurisdiction, it shall be remanded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1911.733, 1912.774, 1915.216, 1917.197, 1923.33], "stop_times": [1912.774, 1915.216, 1917.197, 1923.33, 1935.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1911.733}, "reply_to": "20228__1_029", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_031", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "You did make a timely motion to remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1935.368], "stop_times": [1939.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.368}, "reply_to": "20228__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__1_032", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nWithin 30 days I filed a motion to remand, and I also filed, while it's not provided for the statute, an objection to removal.\nSo, yes, I did file a timely motion for remand, Your Honor.\nThat was provided for in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1939.021, 1940.471, 1946.137, 1948.959], "stop_times": [1940.471, 1946.137, 1948.959, 1950.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.021}, "reply_to": "20228__1_031", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_033", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "And it may be that Congress wanted cases remanded to the State court to be left there, but didn't have the same attitude about keeping a case in the Federal court that shouldn't be there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1950.428], "stop_times": [1961.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.428}, "reply_to": "20228__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20228__1_034", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I believe you may be correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1961.575], "stop_times": [1963.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.575}, "reply_to": "20228__1_033", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_035", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But if that is so, and it appears to be so, why should that be?\nIn other words, what would... what do you think the congressional policy might be to support that difference in treatment depending on whether the remand motion is granted improperly or denied improperly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1963.217, 1967.999], "stop_times": [1967.999, 1978.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.217}, "reply_to": "20228__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__1_036", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "In my opinion, the Congress has recognized the rights of the States to determine their own matters.\nCongress has to recognize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1978.027, 1984.853], "stop_times": [1984.853, 1987.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.027}, "reply_to": "20228__1_035", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_037", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, but this isn't a matter of the rights of States.\nIt's a matter of a determination by a Federal court.\nAnd why does one determination which is erroneous get a different treatment from the converse determination which is erroneous?\nI mean, what do you think the congressional policy is supporting that difference in treatment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [1987.203, 1989.644, 1992.487, 2000.581], "stop_times": [1989.644, 1992.487, 2000.581, 2004.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.203}, "reply_to": "20228__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__1_038", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--I don't know if I understand your question completely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2004.624], "stop_times": [2006.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.624}, "reply_to": "20228__1_037", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_039", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, if the remand motion is granted, there's no appeal.\nIf the remand motion is denied and is in error, there can be appeal.\nIt might be a discretionary appeal immediately, and in any case if the party wishes to appeal, feels the same way after judgment, there can be an appeal then, at least in theory.\nWhy do you think that difference in treatment has been provided by the statutory scheme?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2006.786, 2013.52, 2018.113, 2032.762], "stop_times": [2013.52, 2018.113, 2032.762, 2038.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.786}, "reply_to": "20228__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__1_040", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, I believe it must be a balancing act of Congress with regard to the right of the Federal judiciary versus the State judiciary, Your Honor.\nAnd this... the Congress has recognized, by imposing the 1-year limitation on removal, that we want to avoid interfering with cases that have progressed in State court through a substantial amount of work, as in this case.\nIn this case there had been an extensive amount of discovery in the State court.\nWe had had various hearings with the court.\nIn fact, the case had proceeded far enough--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2038.105, 2045.231, 2058.219, 2061.56, 2064.482], "stop_times": [2045.231, 2058.219, 2061.56, 2064.482, 2067.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.105}, "reply_to": "20228__1_039", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_041", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "No, but you can't even get an interlocutory appeal in the case... in the instance in which it's... the remand motion is improperly granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2067.434], "stop_times": [2074.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2067.434}, "reply_to": "20228__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__1_042", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2074.36], "stop_times": [2074.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.36}, "reply_to": "20228__1_041", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_043", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Don't you think the distinction and that one good argument might be for the disparity of treatment is that what Congress was really concerned about was the fear that a Federal court might he exercising Article III... or be purporting to exercise jurisdiction when it had no Article III diversity jurisdiction and that that's the reason for the diversity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2074.991], "stop_times": [2096.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.991}, "reply_to": "20228__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__1_044", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "You may be correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2096.902], "stop_times": [2098.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.902}, "reply_to": "20228__1_043", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_045", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "But if that is correct, then doesn't it follow that if that Article III jurisdictional problem is cured before judgment, that there should not be a reversal on appeal for the fact alone that prior to judgment at some time there was an Article III problem?\nIn other words, you lose on that.\nIf that's the policy, don't you lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2098.034, 2115.456, 2117.188], "stop_times": [2115.456, 2117.188, 2119.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.034}, "reply_to": "20228__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20228__1_046", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, I think we have to go back to the statute itself which specifically states that if there's no subject matter jurisdiction prior to judgment, the case shall be remanded.\nAnd, of course, as I've stated, this Court has consistently held for over 100 years that the statutes are to be strictly construed.\nSo, I would submit that as the reason why Congress has elected to have this case remanded where there is no subject matter jurisdiction.\nOf course, I would also point out that non-appealability is not limited to jurisdictional errors, but is... but applies to all errors which are made at trial as normally a... any error at trial merges with the final judgment under 1291.\nThis Court has consistently held through the years that one appeals from the final judgment rather than filing an interlocutory appeal which this Court has held is an exceptional remedy.\nThe petitioner would have you believe that allowing the judgment to stand where the case was improperly removed was harmless error, but such is not correct.\nThere were several advantages to the respondent being in State court versus Federal.\nOne of the most important was that... one of my most important pieces of evidence was excluded in the Federal court due to the differences of the Federal Rules of Evidence and interpretation of those by the Sixth Circuit versus Kentucky law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2119.081, 2126.494, 2133.44, 2141.314, 2160.037, 2170.784, 2179.161, 2184.163], "stop_times": [2126.494, 2133.44, 2141.314, 2160.037, 2170.784, 2179.161, 2184.163, 2197.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.081}, "reply_to": "20228__1_045", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_047", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Mr. Stayton, would you agree that if the 1-year period had not run and therefore you would presume... by the time there was complete diversity and you would, therefore, presume that the defendant would have made a new removal motion within the 1-year period, that then the error would be harmless?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2197.501], "stop_times": [2216.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.501}, "reply_to": "20228__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__1_048", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Saying if diversity had existed prior to the 1-year limitation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2216.725], "stop_times": [2220.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.725}, "reply_to": "20228__1_047", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_049", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2220.505], "stop_times": [2220.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.505}, "reply_to": "20228__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__1_050", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes, in that case clearly there would have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2220.735], "stop_times": [2222.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.735}, "reply_to": "20228__1_049", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_051", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "So, the 1-year problem in the case really goes to the harmless error argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2222.277], "stop_times": [2228.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.277}, "reply_to": "20228__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20228__1_052", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "--To a large extent, Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2228.953], "stop_times": [2232.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2228.953}, "reply_to": "20228__1_051", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_053", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "You then disagree with the court of appeals' reasoning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2232.045], "stop_times": [2235.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.045}, "reply_to": "20228__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_054", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2235.315], "stop_times": [2236.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.315}, "reply_to": "20228__1_053", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_055", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "I take it then you don't agree or support the reasoning used by the court of appeals to decide this case in your favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2236.878], "stop_times": [2244.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.878}, "reply_to": "20228__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_056", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Well, no.\nThe court of appeals ruled that there was no subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal.\nSo, I agree that that was correct.\nSince there was no subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, then that could not be cured as the... at a later time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2244.382, 2245.002, 2249.346, 2251.657], "stop_times": [2245.002, 2249.346, 2251.657, 2258.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.382}, "reply_to": "20228__1_055", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_057", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "So, you do agree with the court of appeals reasoning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2258.272], "stop_times": [2260.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.272}, "reply_to": "20228__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__1_058", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Yes, I agree that they were correct in finding that the case should have been remanded due to the fact that there was no subject matter jurisdiction at time of removal.\nThe petitioner argues that Newman-Green v. Alfonzo-Larrain would allow the judgment to stand under a harmless error theory, but that is not applicable here.\nFirst of all, Newman-Green does not deal with removal.\nNewman-Green deals with two specific areas.\nFirst, the question of 28 U.S.C. 1653, as has been noted today, provides that the court of appeals could amend defective allegations of jurisdiction but not defects in jurisdiction.\nAnd, second, the court of appeals ruled that they could dismiss a dispensable party under rule 21 rather than remanding to the district court for the district court to do so.\nSo, in looking at Newman-Green, it would be my position that Newman-Green does not have any bearing upon the matter at bar as it has nothing to do with removal but merely addresses the interpretation of a statute of Congress and a rule of civil procedure.\nIn summary, with regard to this argument, I would submit that the rule of this Court has been clear that the statutes of Congress are to be strictly interpreted, and I would ask this Court today to strictly construe the statutes and ask that the judgment of the Sixth Circuit be affirmed and this matter be remanded to the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2260.812, 2267.308, 2279.266, 2283.327, 2285.808, 2299.529, 2312.255, 2328.518], "stop_times": [2267.308, 2279.266, 2283.327, 2285.808, 2299.529, 2312.255, 2328.518, 2348.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.812}, "reply_to": "20228__1_057", "speaker": "leonard_j_stayton"}
{"id": "20228__1_059", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stayton.\nMr. Geller, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2348.43, 2351.151], "stop_times": [2351.151, 2353.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.43}, "reply_to": "20228__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20228__2_000", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Just two short things, Mr. Chief Justice.\nFirst, the suggestion has been made that Caterpillar didn't make this argument until its rehearing petition in the court of appeals.\nThat's simply not true.\nApparently during the oral argument in the Sixth Circuit, some question arose as to what would happen if the jurisdictional error was cured, and Caterpillar on September 28th, 1995, after the oral argument but before the Sixth Circuit decided this case, sent up a post-argument letter which cited Grubbs, cited lower court cases like Able v. Upjohn which cited Finn.\nSo, all of these cases were before the Sixth Circuit, in addition to this argument being before the Sixth Circuit, prior to the Sixth Circuit's decision in this case.\nSecond, let me just say one last thing about this 1-year provision in addition to the fact that it wasn't violated here and in addition to the fact that this argument has never been preserved.\nThe purpose of the 1-year provision... Congress put the 1-year limit in the statute a few years ago in order to prevent the delays and disruptions that occur when a case is rested out of one court system and put in another court system after a lot of work has been done on a case in the first court system.\nThat's why the 1-year provision is in there, to prevent diversity removals after a case has progressed quite a while in State court.\nYet, that's the precisely the evil that would occur here if the plaintiff's argument prevailed because it would mean that a case that has been essentially completed in Federal court would have to start all over again from scratch in State court and be retried there.\nSo, the plaintiff's argument... not only is it inconsistent with the language of the 1-year provision, since the removal occurred here prior to a year, it's plainly inconsistent with Congress' policy in putting the 1-year provision in the statute to acquire a case that's gone to verdict in Federal court to be tried again from scratch in State court, even though there was no error in the Federal proceedings.\nSo, we would ask that the decision and the judgment of the court of appeals be reversed and that the plaintiff be allowed to raise whatever other arguments he had on appeal in the Sixth Circuit.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2353.554, 2356.905, 2362.468, 2363.279, 2384.654, 2391.858, 2401.094, 2416.374, 2422.308, 2435.878, 2453.57, 2461.144], "stop_times": [2356.905, 2362.468, 2363.279, 2384.654, 2391.858, 2401.094, 2416.374, 2422.308, 2435.878, 2453.57, 2461.144, 2461.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2353.554}, "reply_to": "20228__1_059", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20228__2_001", "conversation_id": "20228", "text": "Very well, Mr. Geller.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1263", "start_times": [2461.885, 2463.016], "stop_times": [2463.016, 2464.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.885}, "reply_to": "20228__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_000", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-126, Walker Chandler v. Zell D. Miller, Governor of Georgia.\nMr. Chandler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [0.0, 9.918], "stop_times": [9.918, 11.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_001", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn 1990 the State of Georgia adopted a law requiring drug testing of all members of the State government, State employees.\nAlmost as an afterthought, it adopted a law requiring drug testing as a condition of employment or candidacy for candidates for public office.\nThe first of those laws was struck down in the lower courts.\nThis law was brought forward before this Court by me and my co-plaintiff, who ran for office in 1994.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [11.13, 15.05, 26.797, 38.845, 43.39], "stop_times": [15.05, 26.797, 38.845, 43.39, 53.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.13}, "reply_to": "20978__0_000", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_002", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chandler--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [53.826], "stop_times": [54.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 53.826}, "reply_to": "20978__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_003", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [54.447], "stop_times": [54.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 54.447}, "reply_to": "20978__0_002", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_004", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--you say that the petitioners ran for office in '94, and in the petition you brought here there's no assertion that any of the petitioners plan to run again in the future, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [54.727], "stop_times": [74.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 54.727}, "reply_to": "20978__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_005", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Not in the... as I recall, not in the actual pleadings in the lower court.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [74.869, 80.663], "stop_times": [80.663, 81.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 74.869}, "reply_to": "20978__0_004", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_006", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No.\nSo how would we have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [81.044, 81.324], "stop_times": [81.324, 83.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.044}, "reply_to": "20978__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_007", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe this case would not be moot, because it would be capable of repetition and yet evading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [83.706], "stop_times": [94.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 83.706}, "reply_to": "20978__0_006", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_008", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, how would it be if none of the petitioners plan to run again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [94.745], "stop_times": [98.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 94.745}, "reply_to": "20978__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_009", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Your Honor, I plan to run again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [98.796], "stop_times": [101.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 98.796}, "reply_to": "20978__0_008", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_010", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But that was not stated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [101.568], "stop_times": [103.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 101.568}, "reply_to": "20978__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_011", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That was not stated below.\nAlso, Justice O'Connor, I... my candidacy and the candidacy of all Libertarian Party members is premised on the concepts of limited government and freedom from unconstitutional searches and seizures among all the other liberties reserved to the people by the Founding Fathers, and in that respect I would think that OCGA 21-2-140 is violative of the interests of all candidates, whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [103.391, 104.941], "stop_times": [104.941, 137.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.391}, "reply_to": "20978__0_010", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_012", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Well, that's a merits argument, certainly, but normally we would look to see if there's some situation in a case like this of being capable of repetition and avoiding any review, and normally we would look to see some avowal that yes, indeed, these petitioners or at least one of them intends to run again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [137.571], "stop_times": [162.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.571}, "reply_to": "20978__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_013", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Yes, I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [162.528], "stop_times": [164.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.528}, "reply_to": "20978__0_012", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_014", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And you didn't seek to bring this on behalf of a class of candidates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [164.519], "stop_times": [170.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.519}, "reply_to": "20978__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_015", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No, sir, Your Honor, I did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [170.293], "stop_times": [172.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.293}, "reply_to": "20978__0_014", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_016", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chandler--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [172.644], "stop_times": [173.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.644}, "reply_to": "20978__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_017", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [173.746], "stop_times": [174.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 173.746}, "reply_to": "20978__0_016", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_018", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I'm wondering why, if you want to raise this issue, you don't have to refuse to take the drug test, rather than go ahead and take it and get on the ballot and then challenge it later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [174.627], "stop_times": [186.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.627}, "reply_to": "20978__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_019", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Your Honor, we filed this action prior to submitting to the test, prior to qualification by having this little piece of paper that certified us as being drug-free.\nWe were the nominees of our party.\nWe had an obligation to take forward the message of our party, the other messages of our party in the electoral process, so we essentially had no choice but to submit... unwillingly, perhaps, but to submit to this State-ordered search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [186.055, 197.792, 199.652], "stop_times": [197.792, 199.652, 213.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.055}, "reply_to": "20978__0_018", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_020", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "When did you file the suit, before the election or after the election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [213.34], "stop_times": [216.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 213.34}, "reply_to": "20978__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_021", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Before the election, Your Honor, in May of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [216.903], "stop_times": [218.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 216.903}, "reply_to": "20978__0_020", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_022", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So at that time there's no doubt that the case was not moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [218.986], "stop_times": [222.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.986}, "reply_to": "20978__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_023", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [222.106], "stop_times": [222.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 222.106}, "reply_to": "20978__0_022", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_024", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "At that time it was very much alive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [222.937], "stop_times": [225.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 222.937}, "reply_to": "20978__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_025", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [225.078], "stop_times": [225.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 225.078}, "reply_to": "20978__0_024", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_026", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So the complaint is that you... what, that you didn't amend your complaint in order to assert repetition after the election?\nHave we ever required that, amending a complaint in a suit that originally was not moot in order to aver that mootness has not occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [225.588, 233.836], "stop_times": [233.836, 242.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.588}, "reply_to": "20978__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_027", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I don't know, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [242.759], "stop_times": [244.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.759}, "reply_to": "20978__0_026", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_028", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I don't recall we've ever required that.\nAnyway, as an officer of the court, you represent to us that you intend to run again, that this issue will arise again if the Georgia law stands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [244.291, 246.392], "stop_times": [246.392, 253.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.291}, "reply_to": "20978__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_029", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, sir.\nWe search in vain the cases that this Court has handed down which deal with suspicionless searches to find where any blanket search of this nature, this magnitude, and lacking any showing of any compelling State interest, has been granted by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [253.197, 253.758], "stop_times": [253.758, 275.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 253.197}, "reply_to": "20978__0_028", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_030", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Suppose that a State agency said, in the interests of all of our employees, everyone once a year must take a physical exam.\nWe don't want to know the results.\nAll we want you to do is to say that you've gone to a doctor, any doctor you want, for a physical examination.\nIs that a search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [275.682, 283.237, 284.607, 290.281], "stop_times": [283.237, 284.607, 290.281, 291.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.682}, "reply_to": "20978__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_031", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I would think that would be a search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [291.012], "stop_times": [296.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 291.012}, "reply_to": "20978__0_030", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_032", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "When does a search arise, when you go into the doctor's office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [296.185], "stop_times": [299.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.185}, "reply_to": "20978__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_033", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I would think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [299.487], "stop_times": [303.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 299.487}, "reply_to": "20978__0_032", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_034", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Even though the results are disclosed only to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [303.59], "stop_times": [305.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.59}, "reply_to": "20978__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_035", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I would think that it would be a search, because if the result of that search is that you can no longer serve in that agency, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [305.661], "stop_times": [314.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.661}, "reply_to": "20978__0_034", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_036", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No, no.\nNo, the agency says, we don't care what the medical exam discloses.\nWe just, in the interests of our employees we want you to be examined once a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [314.347, 314.707, 319.579], "stop_times": [314.707, 319.579, 322.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.347}, "reply_to": "20978__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_037", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Well, I would think, Your Honor, that's... with all due respect, that's not before the Court, and... but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [322.841], "stop_times": [329.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.841}, "reply_to": "20978__0_036", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_038", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, there are a lot of things that are not before the Court that are going to be before the Court based on this opinion, and so we have to write an opinion that covers more than your particular case because we're interested in the general principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [329.897], "stop_times": [341.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.897}, "reply_to": "20978__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_039", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [341.034, 341.695], "stop_times": [341.695, 342.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.034}, "reply_to": "20978__0_038", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_040", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So I'm asking why this is a search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [342.296], "stop_times": [344.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.296}, "reply_to": "20978__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_041", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I would think that it would be a search if, as a result of that search, a person could lose employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [344.026], "stop_times": [350.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.026}, "reply_to": "20978__0_040", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_042", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That's not my hypothetical.\nAll you have to do is go to the doctor and just certify that you've had a physical exam once a year at a doctor of your choice.\nThe agency says we want to do this in the interests of our employees, and that may well... we can play with the hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [350.471, 352.532, 360.087], "stop_times": [352.532, 360.087, 367.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 350.471}, "reply_to": "20978__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_043", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [367.251], "stop_times": [367.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.251}, "reply_to": "20978__0_042", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_044", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The agency pays for it, or whatever.\nWhy is that a search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [367.622, 368.994], "stop_times": [368.994, 370.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.622}, "reply_to": "20978__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_045", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I would think it would be a search under the principles of... that were announced in Schermberger, which drew a distinction between bodily searches--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [370.223], "stop_times": [383.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.223}, "reply_to": "20978__0_044", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_046", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That is to say, Schmerber?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [383.333], "stop_times": [384.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.333}, "reply_to": "20978__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_047", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [384.893], "stop_times": [385.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 384.893}, "reply_to": "20978__0_046", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_048", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, there the... involuntarily a needle was inserted in the... with the patient by a doctor who was not of his choice at a time that was not of his choice.\nHe had... he was there, on the gurney, in custody.\nBut that's quite different, it seems to me, from just saying go to a doctor once a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [385.684, 400.272, 403.985], "stop_times": [400.272, 403.985, 408.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.684}, "reply_to": "20978__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_049", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It may well be, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [408.648], "stop_times": [411.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.648}, "reply_to": "20978__0_048", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_050", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It may well be?\nYou think... I assume this physical exam requires a strip, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [411.79, 412.451], "stop_times": [412.451, 418.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 411.79}, "reply_to": "20978__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_051", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [418.155], "stop_times": [418.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 418.155}, "reply_to": "20978__0_050", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_052", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And you're saying that that's not a search, requiring you to go to somebody else and strip down and have that person examine your body?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [418.906], "stop_times": [426.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.906}, "reply_to": "20978__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_053", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [426.029], "stop_times": [426.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.029}, "reply_to": "20978__0_052", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_054", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "What possibly could be a search if that's not a search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [426.53], "stop_times": [429.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 426.53}, "reply_to": "20978__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_055", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [429.044], "stop_times": [429.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.044}, "reply_to": "20978__0_054", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_056", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I mean, you might want to argue about whether it's an unreasonable search, but you don't have any doubt it's a search, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [429.973], "stop_times": [435.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.973}, "reply_to": "20978__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_057", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No, sir, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [435.827], "stop_times": [436.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.827}, "reply_to": "20978__0_056", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_058", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chandler, would you have any problem if what the State did instead of requiring a drug test within 30 days of filing your nominating petition is require every candidate for the State office to file an affidavit certifying that the candidate is not now and has not in the past used or ingested illegal narcotic drugs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [436.508], "stop_times": [470.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.508}, "reply_to": "20978__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_059", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I would object to that, Your Honor, because that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [470.729], "stop_times": [474.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.729}, "reply_to": "20978__0_058", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_060", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "There's no search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [474.121], "stop_times": [475.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.121}, "reply_to": "20978__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_061", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--There is no search, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [475.073], "stop_times": [476.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.073}, "reply_to": "20978__0_060", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_062", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It certainly wouldn't... you wouldn't be here on the basis that you are here today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [476.533], "stop_times": [480.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.533}, "reply_to": "20978__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_063", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--That would be true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [480.896], "stop_times": [482.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.896}, "reply_to": "20978__0_062", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_064", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And a State has wide latitude, does it not, to define qualifications for State office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [482.365], "stop_times": [489.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.365}, "reply_to": "20978__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_065", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, so long as those... so long as they do not violate people's constitutional protections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [489.482], "stop_times": [496.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.482}, "reply_to": "20978__0_064", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_066", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And what constitutional protection would be violated by requiring such an affidavit, that to be a candidate for State office you certify that you're not a drug abuser?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [496.985], "stop_times": [507.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.985}, "reply_to": "20978__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_067", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Or never have been in your hypothetical, Your Honor.\nYou asked if I would object, and I would object not on a constitutional grounds--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [507.243, 511.227], "stop_times": [511.227, 516.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.243}, "reply_to": "20978__0_066", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_068", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I'm asking on what constitutional basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [516.941], "stop_times": [519.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.941}, "reply_to": "20978__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_069", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor, I fail to know of a constitutional basis that that might fit within that hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [519.741], "stop_times": [526.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.741}, "reply_to": "20978__0_068", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_070", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You just wouldn't like it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [526.945], "stop_times": [528.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.945}, "reply_to": "20978__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_071", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think that it might have some implication for free... free speech implications under the First Amendment, Your Honor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [528.277, 529.579], "stop_times": [529.579, 536.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.277}, "reply_to": "20978__0_070", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_072", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, if you had to take an oath that you have never been disloyal to the Government of the United States, of a State, or you've never been a member of, say, the Socialist Party, then you might have an objection under a different amendment than the one you're claiming, but you are claiming the Fourth Amendment, and you are doing it in relation to a bodily intrusion.\nThe Fourth Amendment puts on the same line as the security of one's person the security of one's papers.\nWould you then question the requirement that if you run for office you must do a complete financial disclosure which will involve disclosing papers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [536.014, 563.703, 571.957], "stop_times": [563.703, 571.957, 586.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.014}, "reply_to": "20978__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__0_073", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I think that there the Court has drawn distinctions in the past between bodily searches and financial disclosure.\nI did not object in this case to financial disclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [586.096, 597.943], "stop_times": [597.943, 603.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.096}, "reply_to": "20978__0_072", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_074", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But the Fourth Amendment does say persons, houses, papers, so why would you say that it's all right to demand papers but not have anything to do with the person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [603.049], "stop_times": [615.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.049}, "reply_to": "20978__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__0_075", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Because I think there is a strong, compelling privacy interest in the person that goes far beyond the compelling... any compelling interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [615.726], "stop_times": [626.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.726}, "reply_to": "20978__0_074", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_076", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Where do you get that from in the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [626.395], "stop_times": [629.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.395}, "reply_to": "20978__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__0_077", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I do not know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [629.376], "stop_times": [635.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.376}, "reply_to": "20978__0_076", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_078", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, isn't--\n--And is it the personal interest in not having to strip and have needles inserted, or is it the personal interest in not disclosing the results, because if it's the latter, then your case is perhaps more difficult.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [635.24, 635.87], "stop_times": [635.87, 651.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.24}, "reply_to": "20978__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_079", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I think it's the former, Your Honor.\nIt's the actual giving up of bodily fluids, the insertion of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [651.129, 652.812], "stop_times": [652.812, 657.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 651.129}, "reply_to": "20978__0_078", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_080", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So you think most people would think that that's more of an invasion of privacy, just going to the doctor once a year, than having to disclose all of your financial records, all of your holding, all of your poverty or all of your wealth, as the case may be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [657.294], "stop_times": [669.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.294}, "reply_to": "20978__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_081", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--There is a big distinction in this case, Your Honor, and that is that if I disclose my wealth I cannot be kept off the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [669.551], "stop_times": [676.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.551}, "reply_to": "20978__0_080", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_082", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chandler, every invasion of privacy is not a search, is it?\nAre you willing to equate every invasion of privacy with a search?\nI mean, would you consider it a search if, instead of having someone examine you physically to decide whether you have cocaine in your body, you are required to disclose whether you have cocaine in your body?\nI mean, that may be an invasion of privacy, but is it a search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [676.206, 679.558, 684.481, 698.069], "stop_times": [679.558, 684.481, 698.069, 701.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.206}, "reply_to": "20978__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_083", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes sir, I would deem it a search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [701.272], "stop_times": [703.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.272}, "reply_to": "20978__0_082", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_084", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You think it's a search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [703.973], "stop_times": [704.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.973}, "reply_to": "20978__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_085", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [704.775], "stop_times": [705.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.775}, "reply_to": "20978__0_084", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_086", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So when I ask you, you know, are you a drug addict, I'm searching you?\nWords have no meaning if we're going to talk like that.\nWhy--\n--You just told me it wasn't, so which answer are you giving?\nYou answered to me that no, it wouldn't be a Fourth Amendment search, but I'd object, and now you tell Justice Scalia, yes, it's a search.\nNow, which answer do you want to abide by here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [705.395, 709.647, 712.708, 714.721, 718.024, 726.109], "stop_times": [709.647, 712.708, 714.721, 718.024, 726.109, 730.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.395}, "reply_to": "20978__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_087", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I'm sorry, Justice O'Connor, I'm not exactly sure of the contradiction that I've voiced here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [730.102], "stop_times": [735.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.102}, "reply_to": "20978__0_086", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_088", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chandler, going back to Justice Ginsburg's question, assuming that you had actually to disclose papers, produce papers as distinct simply from producing information, so that there really were... in the same sense that we're talking with here, there really were a search involved, I take it that your answer would... I take it that your answer to the question would not necessarily be the same as your position here, because the governmental interests involved are different.\nYou might or might not think the Government had a sufficient interest in requiring that kind of production from its political candidates, but at least the Government's justification, what we would look to to decide whether it was reasonable or not would, I take it, in your view be different from the weight of the government's justification in this case.\nIs that a fair way to characterize your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [735.966, 773.299, 796.584], "stop_times": [773.299, 796.584, 799.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.966}, "reply_to": "20978__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__0_089", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think that would be a fair way to characterize it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [799.466, 799.846], "stop_times": [799.846, 801.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.466}, "reply_to": "20978__0_088", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_090", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And your real argument before us, I take it, doesn't go to the scope of what is or is not a search, but the scope of what is permissible on the grounds that the government does have a justification which is sufficiently weighty to make that search a reasonable one.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [801.897, 819.619], "stop_times": [819.619, 821.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.897}, "reply_to": "20978__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__0_091", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, I certainly felt like it was a... that a financial search or a financial disclosure was a more reasonable government requirement than a drug test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [821.232], "stop_times": [832.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.232}, "reply_to": "20978__0_090", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_092", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "All right, and what is your reason for saying that this particular search is not a reasonable one?\nWhat's the nub of your attack on the government's justification?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [832.569, 837.28], "stop_times": [837.28, 841.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.569}, "reply_to": "20978__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__0_093", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "First, there is no real evidence of a real problem.\nThere... this... the searches which have been allowed by this Court have always been narrowly limited to certain areas... the front line in the war on drugs, drug interdiction, the use of firearms, the train accidents, things where a real problem or a real potentiality has been shown, and not mere hypotheticals.\nAnd so the essence of this case is that this is just yet another attempt at expansion of governmental power over people for a very symbolic purpose, which is put on the State of Georgia.\nIt's not a test that's designed to keep drug abusers out of office.\nIt's a blanket search, carried out for symbolic purposes to... in my opinion to show that the General Assembly of Georgia is against drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [841.473, 846.456, 874.236, 891.757, 896.189], "stop_times": [846.456, 874.236, 891.757, 896.189, 907.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.473}, "reply_to": "20978__0_092", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_094", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chandler, at the outset of your argument you mentioned that there was a... the statute originally applied to all State employees, and that that was held invalid.\nWas that by Georgia courts or a Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [907.496, 916.355], "stop_times": [916.355, 918.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.496}, "reply_to": "20978__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__0_095", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Federal court, but that was a companion statute, not this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [918.945], "stop_times": [922.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 918.945}, "reply_to": "20978__0_094", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_096", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I understand, but who held it unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [922.177], "stop_times": [924.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.177}, "reply_to": "20978__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__0_097", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The district court in Atlanta.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [924.539], "stop_times": [925.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.539}, "reply_to": "20978__0_096", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_098", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "A State district court, or a Federal district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [925.938], "stop_times": [928.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.938}, "reply_to": "20978__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__0_099", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "A Federal district court, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [928.79], "stop_times": [929.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 928.79}, "reply_to": "20978__0_098", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_100", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Was that case appealed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [929.511], "stop_times": [930.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.511}, "reply_to": "20978__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__0_101", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I don't know, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [930.672], "stop_times": [931.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.672}, "reply_to": "20978__0_100", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_102", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "When was that?\nIs it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [931.992, 934.123], "stop_times": [934.123, 934.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.992}, "reply_to": "20978__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__0_103", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That was in 1990.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [934.323], "stop_times": [936.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.323}, "reply_to": "20978__0_102", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_104", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--1990.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [936.026], "stop_times": [936.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.026}, "reply_to": "20978__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__0_105", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [936.777], "stop_times": [937.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.777}, "reply_to": "20978__0_104", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_106", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [937.335], "stop_times": [938.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.335}, "reply_to": "20978__0_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__0_107", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "This... a very similar case was brought in the district court.\nthis district... Harmon v. Thornburgh was also decided in the district court level in 1990, where the Justice Department wished to test, have blanket tests of all Justice Department attorneys, and that was held by the court at that time, the district court, to be not within the parameters announced by this court in Skinner and Von Raab.\nCertiorari was sought in that case by the Government and was denied.\nI consider this case to be almost exactly in line with that particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [938.367, 942.09, 967.606, 972.711], "stop_times": [942.09, 967.606, 972.711, 977.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.367}, "reply_to": "20978__0_106", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_108", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, the statute here, Mr. Chandler, does single out certain high-ranking State offices, and I think... I would think you're in a position... you ran for what, lieutenant governor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [977.113], "stop_times": [992.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.113}, "reply_to": "20978__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_109", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [992.243], "stop_times": [992.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.243}, "reply_to": "20978__0_108", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_110", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You're in a position to challenge the requirement for lieutenant governor.\nI don't know that you're in a position to challenge requirements for other offices which you didn't seek, and certainly, don't you think there is an argument on behalf of the State that the people have a right to have a lieutenant governor who is, free of drug use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [992.804, 997.236], "stop_times": [997.236, 1015.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.804}, "reply_to": "20978__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_111", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "First, Your Honor, the... my coplaintiff, Sharon Harris, ran for commissioner of agriculture.\nSecondly, there was never any showing that drug abuse or drug use in high offices or any other offices in Georgia has been any kind of a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1015.207, 1021.802], "stop_times": [1021.802, 1029.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.207}, "reply_to": "20978__0_110", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_112", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, Georgia, then you feel can't adopt a prophylactic rule that says we want to make sure it doesn't become a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1029.286], "stop_times": [1036.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.286}, "reply_to": "20978__0_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_113", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No, sir, I do not think they can.\nI think that a potential problem, a hypothetical, potential problem is not a real problem and is therefore a symbolic problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1036.943, 1038.862], "stop_times": [1038.862, 1046.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.943}, "reply_to": "20978__0_112", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_114", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "What if the Georgia statute, instead of reading the way it does, had said everybody has to take this drug test but anybody can get on the ballot.\nAll you have to do is announce the results of your drug test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1046.807, 1056.745], "stop_times": [1056.745, 1059.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1046.807}, "reply_to": "20978__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_115", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Your Honor, that might be more permissible in my opinion, because then it would at least leave it to the voters to decide whether they want to choose a person who submits to a test, who passes a test--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1059.777], "stop_times": [1070.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.777}, "reply_to": "20978__0_114", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_116", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1070.593], "stop_times": [1070.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.593}, "reply_to": "20978__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_117", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--or who refuses a test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1070.844], "stop_times": [1072.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1070.844}, "reply_to": "20978__0_116", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_118", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I thought you were complaining about the search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1072.156], "stop_times": [1074.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.156}, "reply_to": "20978__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_119", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1074.496], "stop_times": [1074.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.496}, "reply_to": "20978__0_118", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_120", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The search would be exactly the same in that situation, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1074.707], "stop_times": [1076.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.707}, "reply_to": "20978__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_121", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1076.86], "stop_times": [1077.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.86}, "reply_to": "20978__0_120", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_122", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So how would it be any better?\nI mean, if your real objection is the search, your answer should be, you know, no, it's just as bad.\nI think he's capable of answering himself.\nWell, but he's not capable, perhaps, of perceiving whether what he's objecting to is the search, Chief Justice.\nIf... maybe you're not objecting to the search, then.\nYou have some other problem than the search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1077.01, 1079.131, 1083.813, 1085.946, 1090.739, 1094.021], "stop_times": [1079.131, 1083.813, 1085.946, 1090.739, 1094.021, 1096.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.01}, "reply_to": "20978__0_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_123", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I certainly object to the search as a prerequisite to being... to ballot placement, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1096.311], "stop_times": [1101.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.311}, "reply_to": "20978__0_122", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_124", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, isn't there a search in this other case?\nBut you don't object to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1101.494, 1103.006], "stop_times": [1103.006, 1104.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1101.494}, "reply_to": "20978__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_125", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "In which other case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1104.426], "stop_times": [1106.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.426}, "reply_to": "20978__0_124", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_126", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "In the case the Chief Justice put to you, where you had to undergo the same search, but you could run whether it came out positive or negative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1106.169], "stop_times": [1113.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.169}, "reply_to": "20978__0_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_127", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, I'm just saying that there's... that that would not... I think it's for the people of Georgia to decide whether or not you can be on the ballot, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1113.703], "stop_times": [1120.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.703}, "reply_to": "20978__0_126", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_128", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I'm sorry, I just don't understand, given that your objection is to the search--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1120.008], "stop_times": [1124.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.008}, "reply_to": "20978__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_129", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1124.542], "stop_times": [1124.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.542}, "reply_to": "20978__0_128", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_130", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--why you would not... if it is to the search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1124.97], "stop_times": [1127.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.97}, "reply_to": "20978__0_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_131", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1127.254], "stop_times": [1127.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.254}, "reply_to": "20978__0_130", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_132", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Maybe it's not.\nI don't understand why you would not find the Chief Justice's hypothetical just as bad as the one that you confront.\nYou can't run unless you get searched.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1127.444, 1128.093, 1133.338], "stop_times": [1128.093, 1133.338, 1135.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.444}, "reply_to": "20978__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__0_133", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, obviously, Your Honor, I have objected to the search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1135.569], "stop_times": [1140.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1135.569}, "reply_to": "20978__0_132", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_134", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Or take another example.\nNo testing before, but the moment you are elected to office, you must have a test and you must repeat it annually.\nWould you object to that?\nThen the voters make their choice without any requirement of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1140.571, 1142.273, 1151.667, 1153.429], "stop_times": [1142.273, 1151.667, 1153.429, 1158.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.571}, "reply_to": "20978__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__0_135", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I would object to that because, Justice Ginsburg, there's no showing that there is a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1158.803], "stop_times": [1166.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.803}, "reply_to": "20978__0_134", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_136", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Well then, how does that differ from in between the time that you're on the ballot and the time that you're elected?\nWhat is the difference in my situation, in the question that I pose and the one that Justice Scalia posed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1166.677, 1173.262], "stop_times": [1173.262, 1180.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.677}, "reply_to": "20978__0_135", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__0_137", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I believe this Court has held, at least since the Carroll case in 1925, that blanket searches are intolerable, and that that would just be a blanket search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1180.207], "stop_times": [1191.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1180.207}, "reply_to": "20978__0_136", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_138", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And would that be the same if every employee was required to get a physical examination once a year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1191.865], "stop_times": [1196.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.865}, "reply_to": "20978__0_137", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_139", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes, sir, I believe it would be.\nIt would be a blanket search required by government, and I think a blanket search of people to determine whether or not they're using drugs, or whether or not they have a terminal illness, or whether or not they have a genetic defect, or a blood-borne disease... we have to look at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1196.928, 1198.59], "stop_times": [1198.59, 1216.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.928}, "reply_to": "20978__0_138", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_140", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And that's because you object to the intrusion of going into the doctor's office, not the disclosure of the result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1216.91], "stop_times": [1223.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.91}, "reply_to": "20978__0_139", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_141", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Insofar as that intrusion is forced upon me by the State, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1223.896], "stop_times": [1228.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1223.896}, "reply_to": "20978__0_140", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_142", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chandler, I guess the test under the Fourth Amendment is whether the search is reasonable.\nNow, does it enter into the balance of whether it's reasonable at all if it were shown that the virtually universal experience of private employers is to require an annual physical of employees, or to require a periodic drug testing?\nDoes that affect the balance when we look at a State-ordered search or not?\nDoes it affect what's reasonable, the general practice in the private community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1228.989, 1237.453, 1258.457, 1264.842], "stop_times": [1237.453, 1258.457, 1264.842, 1269.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.989}, "reply_to": "20978__0_141", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__0_143", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I do not think so, Justice O'Connor, because there's a difference between the contractual relationship between employee and an employer and the political relationship between the government and candidates, and people who wish to be a part of that government.\nThat would be my answer to that question, Your Honor, but it may not address the point that you're concerned with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1269.706, 1287.406], "stop_times": [1287.406, 1293.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1269.706}, "reply_to": "20978__0_142", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_144", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You'd have no problem with the law saying... or maybe you do, but if a high official, say the Governor, uses drugs, he is immediately disqualified from office, illegal drugs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1293.481], "stop_times": [1306.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.481}, "reply_to": "20978__0_143", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_145", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Your Honor, for one thing, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1306.55], "stop_times": [1308.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.55}, "reply_to": "20978__0_144", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_146", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Would you have a problem with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1308.881], "stop_times": [1310.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.881}, "reply_to": "20978__0_145", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_147", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I would even have a problem with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1310.052], "stop_times": [1311.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.052}, "reply_to": "20978__0_146", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_148", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1311.122], "stop_times": [1311.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.122}, "reply_to": "20978__0_147", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_149", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "For one thing, that presupposes that the person that's in the high office has broken the laws of the State of Georgia.\nThe person could have, for example, been in a jurisdiction or another country where such drug use was not even illegal.\nTherefore, he would not have broken the laws under the State of Georgia.\nIt is a shifting majority decides what is legal and illegal.\nWe see tobacco, for example, approaching illegality in this country, or portions thereof.\nThat introduces the novel idea that a citizen of a State is subject to the jurisdiction of that State no matter where in the world he or she might go, and that is an element--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1311.412, 1318.808, 1326.993, 1329.915, 1333.948, 1338.69], "stop_times": [1318.808, 1326.993, 1329.915, 1333.948, 1338.69, 1353.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.412}, "reply_to": "20978__0_148", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_150", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You think drug use is irrelevant to the abilities and the qualifications of a public officeholder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1353.56], "stop_times": [1364.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.56}, "reply_to": "20978__0_149", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_151", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Your Honor, I would think that that would be a matter of a question of how long ago was it, the frequency of use--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1364.276], "stop_times": [1370.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1364.276}, "reply_to": "20978__0_150", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_152", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Let's just suppose, during his term of office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1370.932], "stop_times": [1373.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.932}, "reply_to": "20978__0_151", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20978__0_153", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--During his term of office, Your Honor, again it might be a question of frequency.\nIt might be a question of which drugs are being talked about.\nIt might be... there might be any number of questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1373.583, 1380.027, 1382.008], "stop_times": [1380.027, 1382.008, 1384.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.583}, "reply_to": "20978__0_152", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_154", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "If they're illegal drugs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1384.451], "stop_times": [1385.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.451}, "reply_to": "20978__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_155", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1385.45], "stop_times": [1385.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.45}, "reply_to": "20978__0_154", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_156", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--would you distinguish between illegal drugs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1385.801], "stop_times": [1389.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.801}, "reply_to": "20978__0_155", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__0_157", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Your Honor, we would like always for our elected officials to be people who obey the law.\nHowever, when the Founding Fathers set forth the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions against illegal searches, I think they realized that people would be doing things that were illegal, and the answer that they sought, the answer that they would not allow would be blanket, suspicionless searches.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1389.173, 1395.058], "stop_times": [1395.058, 1412.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.173}, "reply_to": "20978__0_156", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_158", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But Mr. Chandler, I think the issue that's been raised is at least so far not an issue of search, as such, but an issue of substantive qualification.\nDo you think there is anything unconstitutional about a State law provision to the effect that an officeholder who commits a crime... let's make it easy, a crime in the State, under State law, forfeits his office?\nIs that unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1412.829, 1424.115, 1442.999], "stop_times": [1424.115, 1442.999, 1445.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.829}, "reply_to": "20978__0_157", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__0_159", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I do not think that would be unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1445.35], "stop_times": [1449.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1445.35}, "reply_to": "20978__0_158", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_160", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1449.174], "stop_times": [1449.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.174}, "reply_to": "20978__0_159", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__0_161", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "One of the issues here is, are there adequate protections that the people and the governments have to answer these questions?\nI think there are already adequate protections in normal law enforcement, in the electoral process itself when people can be weeded out.\nNothing prevents a... an opponent of a politician in an election process to hold out his piece of paper saying he's been tested and then challenge his opponent to be tested.\nNothing would prevent that sort of buffoonery, and there's also the adequate protection of a free press and public scrutiny.\nPeople live their whole lives, and they should be judged, perhaps, by the things that they do and the things that they say, and not by the products of their bodies.\nI would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1449.464, 1460.922, 1469.436, 1480.383, 1491.801, 1501.337], "stop_times": [1460.922, 1469.436, 1480.383, 1491.801, 1501.337, 1505.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1449.464}, "reply_to": "20978__0_160", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__0_162", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Very well, Mr. Chandler.\nMs. Guilday, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1505.858, 1507.09], "stop_times": [1507.09, 1510.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.858}, "reply_to": "20978__0_161", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_000", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis Court has established in Skinner, Von Raab, and Acton the test which permits drug testing in various contexts.\nThe State of Georgia is not here today to challenge that test in any way or to ask for any extensions of that test.\nWhat we are asking the Court to do is to take the balancing of that test and apply it in a Tenth Amendment context, in the elections context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1510.172, 1519.689, 1528.027, 1533.74], "stop_times": [1519.689, 1528.027, 1533.74, 1542.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1510.172}, "reply_to": "20978__0_162", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_001", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Does Georgia think this case is moot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1542.485], "stop_times": [1543.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.485}, "reply_to": "20978__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_002", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Georgia thinks that the injunctive relief that Mr. Chandler and the co-petitioner sought with respect to the 1994 election is certainly moot.\nThe complaint also included a demand for, and the district court also recognized that the complaint also included a demand for declaratory judgment as to the merits, the constitutional merit of that statute, so to that extent, no, we do not think the case is moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1543.795, 1553.933], "stop_times": [1553.933, 1568.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1543.795}, "reply_to": "20978__1_001", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_003", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Even in the absence of... that the petitioners would seek office in the future, and in the absence of a class action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1568.532], "stop_times": [1579.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.532}, "reply_to": "20978__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_004", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Justice O'Connor, we would admit that that question is close.\nWe read closely this Court's opinion in Storer, Norman, Meyer v. Grant, and the Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, all of which were elections cases.\nThere were various factual contexts in those cases, and in many, or in some at least, the facts were similar, where the electior was over and there was no statement that the particular candidates intended to run for office in the future.\nNonetheless, this Court held that because it was an elections context and the issues were likely to come before the Court again, that... I'm not sure which way to read the Court, either.\nIt was not moot, and so we will hear it, or it is moot, but even though it is moot we are going to consider it because it is an elections context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1579.769, 1584.152, 1592.239, 1603.857, 1613.781], "stop_times": [1584.152, 1592.239, 1603.857, 1613.781, 1622.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1579.769}, "reply_to": "20978__1_003", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_005", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I hope we didn't say that.\n[Laughter]\nI mean, if it is moot, how would we have Article III jurisdiction at all?\nThat's jurisdictional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1622.76, 1623.558, 1623.768, 1629.022], "stop_times": [1623.558, 1623.768, 1629.022, 1630.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.76}, "reply_to": "20978__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_006", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1630.294], "stop_times": [1631.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1630.294}, "reply_to": "20978__1_005", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_007", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "How could we say, even if it's moot we have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1631.095], "stop_times": [1635.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.095}, "reply_to": "20978__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_008", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--If it is not... if it is moot, the Court does not have jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1635.747], "stop_times": [1639.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1635.747}, "reply_to": "20978__1_007", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_009", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You said that's what we have said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1639.19], "stop_times": [1641.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.19}, "reply_to": "20978__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_010", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "To be truthful, my reading of those cases makes it unclear as to what the Court was saying in each particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1641.541], "stop_times": [1649.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.541}, "reply_to": "20978__1_009", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_011", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Do you think it's a pleading question, Ms Guilday, that whether a case is moot or not depends on what has been pleaded, as opposed to what exists?\nSuppose he pleaded that he would run again but you could demonstrate that he has no intention of running again, wouldn't the case be moot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1649.265, 1656.791], "stop_times": [1656.791, 1663.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.265}, "reply_to": "20978__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_012", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Your question asked whether it was a pleading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1663.854], "stop_times": [1668.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1663.854}, "reply_to": "20978__1_011", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_013", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I mean, it seems to me it's moot if he has no intention of running again.\nIf he intends to run again and you accept that he... do you deny that he intends to run again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1668.107, 1672.89], "stop_times": [1672.89, 1677.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.107}, "reply_to": "20978__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_014", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--No, we do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1677.374], "stop_times": [1678.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.374}, "reply_to": "20978__1_013", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_015", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It seems to me the case is not moot.\nThere is such a case where the person said he was not going to run again and this Court did hold it moot.\nI forgot the name of it.\nBut there are other temporal things, like residency to qualify to vote, or pregnancy, that inevitably are going to be over for that particular individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1678.055, 1678.814, 1685.76, 1687.1], "stop_times": [1678.814, 1685.76, 1687.1, 1698.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.055}, "reply_to": "20978__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_016", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That is correct, but in the elections context, whether this particular candidate decides to run again, certainly there will be other candidates who may make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1698.979], "stop_times": [1706.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.979}, "reply_to": "20978__1_015", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_017", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But he didn't ask for a class action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1706.994], "stop_times": [1709.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.994}, "reply_to": "20978__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__1_018", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--He did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1709.124], "stop_times": [1709.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.124}, "reply_to": "20978__1_017", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_019", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And he has represented in Court today that he does intend to run again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1709.926], "stop_times": [1714.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1709.926}, "reply_to": "20978__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__1_020", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1714.568], "stop_times": [1715.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1714.568}, "reply_to": "20978__1_019", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_021", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So if it's a pleading defect, it's a curable one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1715.689], "stop_times": [1719.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.689}, "reply_to": "20978__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__1_022", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Correct, and that was going to be my response to Justice Scalia's question.\nIf it is a pleading defect, the fact that Georgia comes in and proves that he's not going to run again, then it's no longer a pleading.\nThen it's evidentiary.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1719.142, 1722.525, 1729.718, 1730.729], "stop_times": [1722.525, 1729.718, 1730.729, 1731.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1719.142}, "reply_to": "20978__1_021", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_023", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So how does this work?\nI mean, if a case is moot, and then the parties come to this Court and they tell us something, a fact, make a factual statement that would mean it wasn't moot, are we just supposed to say, all right, now we treat the amendment as... the complaint as if it were amended?\nI mean, how does this work?\nI mean, there might be a lot of moot cases that people could file statements and say, well, we would like here to say a few things we didn't say in the district court which will make them not moot.\nAre we now supposed to treat all these cases as if they weren't?\nI mean, how does it work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1731.12, 1732.79, 1750.372, 1751.954, 1762.379, 1765.942], "stop_times": [1732.79, 1750.372, 1751.954, 1762.379, 1765.942, 1766.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.12}, "reply_to": "20978__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_024", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--It works, Your Honor, in fact that Mr. Chandler and the other petitioners pled in their complaint, or they requested in their complaint for declaratory relief as well as relief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1766.964], "stop_times": [1778.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.964}, "reply_to": "20978__1_023", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_025", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I don't see why that matters if it isn't a class action, and if there's no claim that he is going to run again.\nI mean, a lot of people would like declaratory relief on a lot of theoretical questions that they have, very interesting questions of law, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1778.39, 1786.105], "stop_times": [1786.105, 1795.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.39}, "reply_to": "20978__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_026", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--This Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1795.261], "stop_times": [1797.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1795.261}, "reply_to": "20978__1_025", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_027", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--how does this all work?\nI don't think it's just enough to come in and say, I would like some declaratory relief here in the absence of a showing that you have some plaintiff to whom it makes a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1797.052, 1797.983], "stop_times": [1797.983, 1807.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.052}, "reply_to": "20978__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_028", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--This Court has responded to that very argument in the series of cases that I've just cited, which are in the elections context.\nThey have not required to my reading of those cases any actual allegational proof that the particular candidate who is the plaintiff in that particular case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1807.5, 1814.783], "stop_times": [1814.783, 1823.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.5}, "reply_to": "20978__1_027", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_029", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Isn't it a class action on behalf of other people who are clearly going to run?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1823.258], "stop_times": [1827.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.258}, "reply_to": "20978__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_030", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I do not believe that all of those were class actions.\nI may be wrong in that, but I do not believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1827.853, 1830.665], "stop_times": [1830.665, 1831.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.853}, "reply_to": "20978__1_029", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_031", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Ms. Guilday, as I understand it, when this complaint was filed he didn't have to assert that he intended to run again because the election had not yet occurred.\nThere was clearly no mootness when the complaint was filed.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1831.836, 1841.781, 1845.243], "stop_times": [1841.781, 1845.243, 1846.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.836}, "reply_to": "20978__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_032", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--That is absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1846.025], "stop_times": [1846.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.025}, "reply_to": "20978__1_031", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_033", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So the only issue is whether he had some obligation after the election to amend the complaint.\nNow, is there some obligation?\nDid the State, after the election, move to dismiss on the basis of mootness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1846.936, 1852.328, 1854.28], "stop_times": [1852.328, 1854.28, 1859.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.936}, "reply_to": "20978__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_034", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Because we believed that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1859.322], "stop_times": [1861.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.322}, "reply_to": "20978__1_033", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_035", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Did the State do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1861.214], "stop_times": [1862.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.214}, "reply_to": "20978__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_036", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--No, it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1862.154], "stop_times": [1862.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.154}, "reply_to": "20978__1_035", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_037", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So why would he amend his complaint?\nDid the court ask him to amend, to come forward to show that what was originally clearly not moot is now moot?\nDid the court make any such request?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1862.754, 1865.267, 1872.671], "stop_times": [1865.267, 1872.671, 1874.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.754}, "reply_to": "20978__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_038", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1874.582], "stop_times": [1875.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.582}, "reply_to": "20978__1_037", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_039", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I can't imagine why he would have amended his complaint, no one having raised this issue.\nAnd Justice Scalia will correct me on this if I am mis-citing 1653, but it does say that defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended in a trial or appellate court, so--\n--Thank you for the law, Justice Ginsburg.\n[Laughter]\nMs. Guilday, may I ask you whether there is any place in the record in this case where we might find evidence of some particular or special need in Georgia for a suspicionless general search program for candidates for office in Georgia?\nIs there any place where, in this record, we might find that, oh, there have been a number of officeholders, State officeholders in Georgia who have turned out to have drug problems?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1875.162, 1879.837, 1891.955, 1893.865, 1894.075, 1923.845], "stop_times": [1879.837, 1891.955, 1893.865, 1894.075, 1923.845, 1936.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.162}, "reply_to": "20978__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_040", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--There is no such record evidence in this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1936.755], "stop_times": [1940.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.755}, "reply_to": "20978__1_039", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_041", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Was any offered by the State and rejected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1940.075], "stop_times": [1943.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.075}, "reply_to": "20978__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_042", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe reason there was not... and I'm not sure at what stage you're talking about.\nAt the time the legislature passed this statute, Georgia law has consistently held from the beginning that in Georgia the statute itself evidences the legislative history.\nThere is no recording of any committee hearings, of any floor debate, anything like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1943.488, 1944.529, 1947.802, 1962.11], "stop_times": [1944.529, 1947.802, 1962.11, 1967.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.488}, "reply_to": "20978__1_041", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_043", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Is there any indication anywhere in this record that Georgia has a particular problem here with State officeholders being drug abusers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1967.042], "stop_times": [1977.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.042}, "reply_to": "20978__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_044", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No, there is no such evidence, Your Honor, and there is no... to be frank, there is no such problem as we sit here today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1977.31], "stop_times": [1982.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.31}, "reply_to": "20978__1_043", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_045", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Has this Court, in dealing with suspicionless searches, looked to what special needs there might be that would be an indication that a suspicionless... a blanket, suspicionless search would be appropriate?\nIsn't that what we've looked to?\nIs there a special need for the government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [1982.744, 2002.607, 2004.269], "stop_times": [2002.607, 2004.269, 2006.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.744}, "reply_to": "20978__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_046", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I think the question as to whether there is a special--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2006.823], "stop_times": [2009.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.823}, "reply_to": "20978__1_045", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_047", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Have we looked to that, or not?\nVon Raab or other cases on which you rely, has this Court looked at a special need by the government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2009.585, 2011.195], "stop_times": [2011.195, 2020.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.585}, "reply_to": "20978__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_048", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2020.991], "stop_times": [2021.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.991}, "reply_to": "20978__1_047", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_049", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--for a suspicionless search program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2021.552], "stop_times": [2023.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.552}, "reply_to": "20978__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_050", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Absolutely, the Court has looked at special need.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2023.153], "stop_times": [2024.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.153}, "reply_to": "20978__1_049", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_051", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Okay.\nSo what is the need Georgia asserts here that is special?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2024.972, 2025.152], "stop_times": [2025.152, 2029.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.972}, "reply_to": "20978__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_052", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The special need that Georgia asserts is that in Georgia the elected officials that are included in this statute are by constitution trustees and servants of the public.\nThey are, by that constitutional provision, held to a much higher standard than is the ordinary citizen.\nThey are, in fact, fiduciaries to the public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2029.226, 2040.703, 2046.818], "stop_times": [2040.703, 2046.818, 2049.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.226}, "reply_to": "20978__1_051", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_053", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Could Georgia require, instead of a physical search, an affidavit of a proposed candidate that that candidate is not now and has not been in the past a drug abuser, or user of illegal drugs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2049.509], "stop_times": [2067.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.509}, "reply_to": "20978__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_054", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That requirement would raise issues involving the Fifth Amendment.\nObviously, the opposite side of that is a compelled statement as to whether or not I use drugs.\nSecondly, this statute does not ask the candidate to say that I use illegal drugs.\nAll it does is say the negative of that, that on this particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2067.44, 2072.464, 2078.888, 2088.054], "stop_times": [2072.464, 2078.888, 2088.054, 2092.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2067.44}, "reply_to": "20978__1_053", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_055", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And you think a State could not ask a candidate to make some affidavit or certification regarding illegal drug use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2092.079], "stop_times": [2100.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.079}, "reply_to": "20978__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_056", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I believe it could not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2100.163], "stop_times": [2101.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2100.163}, "reply_to": "20978__1_055", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_057", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Even if the State offers criminal immunity for making that statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2101.084], "stop_times": [2106.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.084}, "reply_to": "20978__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_058", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That would then raise questions as to Federal law, would that State immunity affect any Federal drug enforcement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2106.237], "stop_times": [2115.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.237}, "reply_to": "20978__1_057", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_059", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "What is your reason for saying that the State could not require an affidavit that you had not used illegal drugs as a candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2115.623], "stop_times": [2126.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.623}, "reply_to": "20978__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_060", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I think the question would, one, put in... it would be more intrusive and be more violative of the First Amendment rights of the individual to say, I have or have not in my past used illegal drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2126.079], "stop_times": [2140.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.079}, "reply_to": "20978__1_059", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_061", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "What First Amendment right is violated there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2140.449], "stop_times": [2143.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.449}, "reply_to": "20978__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_062", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The compelled... the State is compelling him to make a statement which he may or may not want to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2143.821], "stop_times": [2153.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.821}, "reply_to": "20978__1_061", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_063", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, what if the State were to require a candidate to file an affidavit saying that he had complied with the financial disclosure laws of the State, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2153.718], "stop_times": [2164.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.718}, "reply_to": "20978__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_064", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I think the State does require that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2164.484], "stop_times": [2166.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.484}, "reply_to": "20978__1_063", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_065", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--And would that, too, be a violation of the First Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2166.087], "stop_times": [2170.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.087}, "reply_to": "20978__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_066", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2170.218], "stop_times": [2170.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.218}, "reply_to": "20978__1_065", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_067", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Why is one different from the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2170.879], "stop_times": [2172.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.879}, "reply_to": "20978__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_068", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The difference is, this Court has upheld the validity of the financial disclosure laws in several cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2172.802], "stop_times": [2179.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.802}, "reply_to": "20978__1_067", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_069", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But we've never upheld the validity of drug laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2179.886], "stop_times": [2182.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.886}, "reply_to": "20978__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_070", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You've upheld the validity of drug laws.\nYou have not upheld the validity of a affidavit... you have not addressed the issue, to my knowledge, of an affidavit saying I have or have not used drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2182.777, 2185.399], "stop_times": [2185.399, 2194.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.777}, "reply_to": "20978__1_069", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_071", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But why isn't the First Amendment issue, if there is one, the same in each case?\nIn each case perhaps a candidate is unwilling to make that statement, and yet nonetheless the State requires it of him before he goes on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2194.664, 2198.647], "stop_times": [2198.647, 2207.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.664}, "reply_to": "20978__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_072", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The issue in the First Amendment is, how intrusive is that of the First Amendment right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2207.343], "stop_times": [2212.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.343}, "reply_to": "20978__1_071", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_073", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So it's more intrusive to find out that a person has violated the drug laws than they've violated the financial disclosure laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2212.877], "stop_times": [2219.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.877}, "reply_to": "20978__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_074", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The Georgia statute does not require a citizen to state that he has violated the drug law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2219.85], "stop_times": [2225.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.85}, "reply_to": "20978__1_073", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_075", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No, but this is a hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2225.276], "stop_times": [2228.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.276}, "reply_to": "20978__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_076", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "As to an affidavit saying I have not violated the drug laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2228.428], "stop_times": [2235.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2228.428}, "reply_to": "20978__1_075", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_077", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2235.711], "stop_times": [2235.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.711}, "reply_to": "20978__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_078", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I still think that is more intrusive, because it is covering a larger period of time than is a drug test on one specific day that discloses only the presence of five specific drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2235.981], "stop_times": [2246.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.981}, "reply_to": "20978__1_077", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_079", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "May I ask in that connection whether it would be constitutional or not to require an affidavit?\nAt least it would not be a search, whereas I think you would agree that this test does involve a search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2246.768, 2253.473], "stop_times": [2253.473, 2259.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.768}, "reply_to": "20978__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_080", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "This Court has established that it is a search, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2259.337], "stop_times": [2262.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.337}, "reply_to": "20978__1_079", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_081", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Now, similarly we go into the financial disclosure area and say an affidavit describing one's finances would not be a search, but do you think under the reasoning you're advancing in this case that Georgia could constitutionally require every candidate for public office to say not only what his finances are but say, you may examine all of my private papers in order to be sure I haven't committed a violation of law in the past, and you'd get a full picture of my finances.\nSo instead of a financial disclosure statement, we just say, you may search my papers, all of my private papers to try and find out if I've been guilty of any wrongdoing.\nWould that be permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2262.509, 2289.516, 2298.523], "stop_times": [2289.516, 2298.523, 2300.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.509}, "reply_to": "20978__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_082", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--That would not be permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2300.123], "stop_times": [2301.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.123}, "reply_to": "20978__1_081", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_083", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Why not, because it would probably weed out the unqualified candidates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2301.254], "stop_times": [2304.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.254}, "reply_to": "20978__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_084", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The test comes down again to balancing how intrusive is the nature of that infringement on First Amendment rights versus how intrusive is it in the Fourth Amendment context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2304.597], "stop_times": [2313.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.597}, "reply_to": "20978__1_083", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_085", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You'd rather have your papers searched than your body searched?\nI don't... I'm not sure that that's... as far as intrusiveness is concerned--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2313.622, 2316.384], "stop_times": [2316.384, 2321.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.622}, "reply_to": "20978__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_086", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I'm not sure it's a question of which I would rather.\nThis Court has held in the financial disclosure area that there are limits on what those statutes can require.\nThey have not gotten so far... this Court and other courts have not gone so far to require a full production of income tax records, which would reveal a variety of information... you know, how many times I've gone to the doctor, how many businesses I own, or what... all of the other financial transactions I might have had.\nQuestions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2321.717, 2324.048, 2330.173, 2347.314], "stop_times": [2324.048, 2330.173, 2347.314, 2348.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.717}, "reply_to": "20978__1_085", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_087", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Well, I suppose there are Federal laws that say income tax returns are not open to examination by third parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2348.947], "stop_times": [2357.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.947}, "reply_to": "20978__1_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_088", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--That's the point I'm making, that to compel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2357.832], "stop_times": [2360.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.832}, "reply_to": "20978__1_087", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_089", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But there's no Federal law, is there, saying that a State may not require a proposed candidate to make certain certifications or affidavits before being a candidate?\nThere's no Federal law about that, is there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2360.403, 2374.622], "stop_times": [2374.622, 2378.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.403}, "reply_to": "20978__1_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_090", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--There's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2378.805], "stop_times": [2379.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.805}, "reply_to": "20978__1_089", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_091", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--restricting the qualifications that a State may set for its elected officials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2379.254], "stop_times": [2386.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.254}, "reply_to": "20978__1_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_092", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--The same constraints that apply in this case, and that is the First Amendment, how in the elections context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2386.8], "stop_times": [2392.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2386.8}, "reply_to": "20978__1_091", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_093", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You think the First Amendment is violated by seeking... by a State requiring an affidavit of a potential candidate disclosing all criminal offenses of which the candidate has been convicted in the past?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2392.864], "stop_times": [2408.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.864}, "reply_to": "20978__1_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_094", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Perhaps we should look at the Tenth Amendment.\nThe Tenth Amendment says that a candidate restriction or a ballot restriction is constitutionally valid if it is a reasonable and nonarbitrarily intrusive restriction upon the individual's fundamental rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2408.235, 2410.566], "stop_times": [2410.566, 2425.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.235}, "reply_to": "20978__1_093", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_095", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, I wouldn't have thought you could derive all of that from the Tenth Amendment.\nIt doesn't say anything about ballot restrictions that I know of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2425.146, 2429.708], "stop_times": [2429.708, 2434.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2425.146}, "reply_to": "20978__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__1_096", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "This Court has used the Tenth Amendment to authorize the States to control their own elections, to regulate their own elections.\nOf course, within those constraints--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2434.412, 2442.498], "stop_times": [2442.498, 2444.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.412}, "reply_to": "20978__1_095", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_097", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So you take the position that a State cannot ask... make it a requirement for a candidate for State office to file an affidavit disclosing criminal offenses of which that proposed candidate has been convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2444.578], "stop_times": [2459.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.578}, "reply_to": "20978__1_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_098", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--No, I do not take that position because criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2459.317], "stop_times": [2462.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.317}, "reply_to": "20978__1_097", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_099", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You just did in response to my question, so what is your answer?\nCan a State do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2462.239, 2466.323], "stop_times": [2466.323, 2467.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.239}, "reply_to": "20978__1_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_100", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--My answer is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2467.615], "stop_times": [2468.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.615}, "reply_to": "20978__1_099", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_101", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2468.844], "stop_times": [2469.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.844}, "reply_to": "20978__1_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_102", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Yes, if it is otherwise constitutional.\nYour question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2469.615, 2473.388], "stop_times": [2473.388, 2475.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2469.615}, "reply_to": "20978__1_101", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_103", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, what other constitutional issues does that raise?\nThese are matters of public record.\nIs it some constitutional violation to require an affidavit on some matter of public record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2475.89, 2480.012, 2482.185], "stop_times": [2480.012, 2482.185, 2489.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.89}, "reply_to": "20978__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_104", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2489.238], "stop_times": [2489.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.238}, "reply_to": "20978__1_103", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_105", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--on a proposed candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2489.729], "stop_times": [2490.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.729}, "reply_to": "20978__1_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20978__1_106", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No, and that was going to be my answer.\nNo.\nCriminal convictions are matters of public record in most States.\nIn some States they are not.\nAnd so no, that would not be a restriction that impinges the Constitution in any way.\nHowever, the financial disclosure statements, because of the privacy interest that that intrudes, yes, does touch upon constitutional issues, and at that point this Court has called... has made limits on what information can be revealed.\nIt's not an across-the-board, open all your papers up to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2490.9, 2492.389, 2492.649, 2495.721, 2496.773, 2503.606, 2516.776], "stop_times": [2492.389, 2492.649, 2495.721, 2496.773, 2503.606, 2516.776, 2520.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.9}, "reply_to": "20978__1_105", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_107", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Can you... have you finished your answer to Justice O'Connor?\nCan you... can I get you back to the Fourth Amendment?\nThat's the part of this case that I'm most interested in, because it does raise a Fourth Amendment issue.\nDo you agree that if the State required, as a condition for running for office, that the candidate must allow a representative of the State to make... or, say, a certified public accountant of his own choosing to make a thorough examination of all his financial papers, including his income tax returns... I don't think there's any Federal statute that says he can't make his income tax returns available if he wants to... that that would violate the Fourth Amendment?\nDo you think it would or would not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2520.008, 2522.76, 2524.831, 2529.114, 2555.001], "stop_times": [2522.76, 2524.831, 2529.114, 2555.001, 2556.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.008}, "reply_to": "20978__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_108", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I'm sorry, your hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2556.162], "stop_times": [2557.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.162}, "reply_to": "20978__1_107", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_109", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "My hypothetical is, the State requires not just a financial disclosure affidavit, but an opening up of the candidate's records for examination by a representative of the election commission, or whatever it is, to find out if this man may have committed some crimes or done a lot of bad things that the electorate would like to know about, such as possibly buying and selling drugs from time to time, which might be revealed by his financial records.\nIn order to accomplish that goal, could they require that sort of a general requirement of candidates?\nReveal your financial papers.\nWe don't want to trust your word that you did or did not do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2557.403, 2581.099, 2587.644, 2589.434], "stop_times": [2581.099, 2587.644, 2589.434, 2592.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.403}, "reply_to": "20978__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_110", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--It comes back to the same balancing test, and that is, how invasive are those... is that restriction, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2592.466], "stop_times": [2599.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.466}, "reply_to": "20978__1_109", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_111", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "They're invasive in that they reveal everything that's in writing in your private files about your correspondence with people and your financial transactions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2599.832], "stop_times": [2609.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.832}, "reply_to": "20978__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_112", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I think that requirement would require the candidate to disclose much more information than would be permitted under the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2609.297], "stop_times": [2618.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.297}, "reply_to": "20978__1_111", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_113", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Do you think it would violate... that statute would violate the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2618.373], "stop_times": [2621.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.373}, "reply_to": "20978__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_114", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2621.655], "stop_times": [2622.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.655}, "reply_to": "20978__1_113", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_115", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And your reason for saying, this is different, is that the search is less intrusive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2622.146], "stop_times": [2627.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.146}, "reply_to": "20978__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_116", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Exactly, just as this Court has held in Skinner, Von Raab, and Acton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2627.028], "stop_times": [2630.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2627.028}, "reply_to": "20978__1_115", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_117", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Because it is a body search as opposed to a paper search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2630.091], "stop_times": [2633.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2630.091}, "reply_to": "20978__1_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_118", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I don't think the distinction is body versus paper.\nI think the distinction is what information is disclosed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2633.343, 2636.367], "stop_times": [2636.367, 2639.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.343}, "reply_to": "20978__1_117", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_119", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, what about a case... let's take a building search.\nI suppose the State has just as much interest in assuring itself that its candidates and its officers are not drug possessors and drug dealers as it has in assuring them that they are at least not current drug users.\nWould it violate the Fourth Amendment to require a candidate to open his house to a search by some private investigatory agency which would then certify after the search that no drugs were found there?\nWould that violate the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2639.166, 2642.919, 2659.699, 2677.193], "stop_times": [2642.919, 2659.699, 2677.193, 2679.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.166}, "reply_to": "20978__1_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_120", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I believe it certainly would violate the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2679.294], "stop_times": [2680.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2679.294}, "reply_to": "20978__1_119", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_121", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And why is opening the house less intrusive than opening the body?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2680.804], "stop_times": [2686.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.804}, "reply_to": "20978__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_122", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The difference is in the information that is disclosed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2686.137], "stop_times": [2691.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2686.137}, "reply_to": "20978__1_121", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_123", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, the information in the one case says there are no drug residues in the body, and the information in the other case is, there are no drugs in the house.\nWhy is there a significant distinction between those two disclosures?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2691.062, 2701.738], "stop_times": [2701.738, 2706.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.062}, "reply_to": "20978__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_124", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "There's two distinctions.\nIn the Georgia statute, yes, we require the candidate to submit the urine sample.\nThe information comes back only to him.\nThat is, whether or not there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2706.873, 2707.731, 2714.787, 2716.998], "stop_times": [2707.731, 2714.787, 2716.998, 2718.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2706.873}, "reply_to": "20978__1_123", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_125", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And he then has to pass it on... and I guess I was assuming... maybe I didn't state it carefully enough, but I was assuming that in my example he would have to pass on the certification from the private investigatory agency.\nIn each case the candidate could withhold the certification and be disqualified.\nAssuming that, is there any distinction in principle or practice between the degree of intrusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2718.841, 2733.17, 2738.543], "stop_times": [2733.17, 2738.543, 2746.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.841}, "reply_to": "20978__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_126", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--The private investigatory agency has learned a substantial amount of information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2746.937], "stop_times": [2751.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.937}, "reply_to": "20978__1_125", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_127", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, so does the laboratory or the tester in the case of the bodily search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2751.399], "stop_times": [2757.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.399}, "reply_to": "20978__1_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_128", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The tester learns only the presence of those five drugs.\nAny other individual that walks into a candidate's home or to my home learns everything about me, and I think that's the distinction, the amount of information that's disclosed by the required test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2757.043, 2760.376], "stop_times": [2760.376, 2770.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.043}, "reply_to": "20978__1_127", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_129", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Or the amount of what is searched also.\nIsn't that relevant also?\nI mean, wouldn't your answer be different if the test in question, even though it only came up with those five drugs, is a test that required a full body search, body cavity search and everything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2770.934, 2773.606, 2775.038], "stop_times": [2773.606, 2775.038, 2785.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.934}, "reply_to": "20978__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_130", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That's absolutely true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2785.143], "stop_times": [2786.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.143}, "reply_to": "20978__1_129", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_131", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Your point here is this is just a urinalysis.\nThat's all that's involved.\nHow does this test work, actually?\nLike... I don't see how... I'm not totally familiar with how the statute works.\nIt sounds as if it tells a candidate, well, in some 30-day period of your choosing go in and get a drug test.\nIs that what it does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2786.164, 2788.435, 2789.376, 2791.367, 2795.999, 2801.913], "stop_times": [2788.435, 2789.376, 2791.367, 2795.999, 2801.913, 2802.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.164}, "reply_to": "20978__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__1_132", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Not within some 30 days of your choosing, 30 days within the qualifying deadlines for the particular office that you were running for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2802.725], "stop_times": [2810.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.725}, "reply_to": "20978__1_131", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_133", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Is it a deadline, or is it when he files?\nI mean, it's usually... say the deadline's September 30.\nSuppose he files the preceding June 30.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2810.109, 2813.09, 2815.932], "stop_times": [2813.09, 2815.932, 2818.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.109}, "reply_to": "20978__1_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_134", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "No.\nThis statute says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2818.665, 2819.176], "stop_times": [2819.176, 2820.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.665}, "reply_to": "20978__1_133", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_135", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It has to be... in other words, the deadline's September 30.\nIt has to be in the month of September.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2820.497, 2822.866], "stop_times": [2822.866, 2824.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.497}, "reply_to": "20978__1_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_136", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--The particular offices that are involved in the statute have particular times for qualifying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2824.238], "stop_times": [2829.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.238}, "reply_to": "20978__1_135", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_137", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "So you have to be 30 days previous to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2829.962], "stop_times": [2832.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.962}, "reply_to": "20978__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_138", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2832.553], "stop_times": [2832.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.553}, "reply_to": "20978__1_137", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_139", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "You find one day where you go in and you're drug-free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2832.924], "stop_times": [2834.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.924}, "reply_to": "20978__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_140", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2834.965], "stop_times": [2837.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.965}, "reply_to": "20978__1_139", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_141", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "All right, so how's that supposed to prove anything?\nI mean, I guess the greatest druggie in the world could go in and find a day when he was drug-free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2837.696, 2839.557], "stop_times": [2839.557, 2844.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.696}, "reply_to": "20978__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_142", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "As this Court held in Von Raab, perhaps the greatest druggie in the world could not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2844.582], "stop_times": [2847.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.582}, "reply_to": "20978__1_141", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_143", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Is that right?\nThat's what I don't know.\nI mean, how... what are the facts?\nThat is, if a person does take drugs, is it impossible to find a day in a 30-day period when he's free of drugs and would pass the test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2847.924, 2849.205, 2850.116, 2852.299], "stop_times": [2849.205, 2850.116, 2852.299, 2861.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.924}, "reply_to": "20978__1_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_144", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2861.984], "stop_times": [2863.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.984}, "reply_to": "20978__1_143", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_145", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Suppose he stays off drugs for a month preceding, or 2 months preceding the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2863.546], "stop_times": [2868.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2863.546}, "reply_to": "20978__1_144", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_146", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--If that particular individual can do that, yes, you're right, when he goes in for his drug test, his drug test is going to become positive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2868.99], "stop_times": [2874.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.99}, "reply_to": "20978__1_145", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_147", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "How long in advance of the test do you have to stay off drugs if a moderate drug user, before the moderate drug user is drug-free on the day of the test?\nIs 3 weeks good enough?\nIs 4 weeks good enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2874.713, 2883.469, 2884.871], "stop_times": [2883.469, 2884.871, 2886.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2874.713}, "reply_to": "20978__1_146", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_148", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--The cases before this Court have cited expert testimony giving a range of from 22 days until a month before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2886.24], "stop_times": [2893.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.24}, "reply_to": "20978__1_147", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_149", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "All right.\nSo I mean, what is the statute doing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2893.266, 2893.737], "stop_times": [2893.737, 2896.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.266}, "reply_to": "20978__1_148", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_150", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It's doing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2896.338], "stop_times": [2897.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.338}, "reply_to": "20978__1_149", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_151", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Is it simply... what is the theory behind the statute other than making a political statement?\nIs it that there are some people who want to run for office who find it impossible to refrain from drugs for 22 days prior to their voluntarily going in and taking the test?\nI mean, what is the theory of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2897.119, 2901.942, 2913.007], "stop_times": [2901.942, 2913.007, 2915.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.119}, "reply_to": "20978__1_150", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_152", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I think that is one purpose, to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2915.558], "stop_times": [2918.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.558}, "reply_to": "20978__1_151", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_153", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Is that an important purpose, a purpose that we find those people in society who are not able to stay off drugs for 22 days and therefore... is that the basic idea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2918.082], "stop_times": [2930.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.082}, "reply_to": "20978__1_152", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_154", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--That is not the primary reason, no.\nIt is a reason that this Court in Von Raab found to be significant.\nIn our case, the primary purpose we would offer this Court for this statute is that the information that a negative drug test gives to the public about the individual candidate is significant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2930.869, 2933.072, 2936.072], "stop_times": [2933.072, 2936.072, 2949.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.869}, "reply_to": "20978__1_153", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_155", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Has this Court ever gone into the... I mean, I thought in Vernonia, for example they're like random drug-testing.\nRandom drug-testing, of course, catches people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2949.603, 2955.546], "stop_times": [2955.546, 2958.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.603}, "reply_to": "20978__1_154", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_156", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2958.458], "stop_times": [2959.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.458}, "reply_to": "20978__1_155", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_157", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Have there been cases which are not random drug-testing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2959.329], "stop_times": [2962.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.329}, "reply_to": "20978__1_156", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__1_158", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Von Raab involved pre-employment or pre-promotion testing, one-time basis, of individuals who sought positions in the various categories.\nIt was not random testing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2962.399, 2974.828], "stop_times": [2974.828, 2976.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.399}, "reply_to": "20978__1_157", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_159", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Ms. Guilday, do I understand you correctly that your major reason, Georgia's major reason is symbolic to the extent I think you said they wanted the public... they wanted the people who were in public office to have what it takes to exercise their best judgment.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2976.431, 2996.702], "stop_times": [2996.702, 2997.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.431}, "reply_to": "20978__1_158", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__1_160", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "That is our purpose.\nIt is not our position that that is a solely symbolic purpose.\nIt may have symbolic implications, but because a statute is symbolic, if it's otherwise constitutional, does not render it constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [2997.752, 2999.414, 3004.459], "stop_times": [2999.414, 3004.459, 3011.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2997.752}, "reply_to": "20978__1_159", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_161", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--This is my question, then.\nIf it comes down to, this is not like the random test that's designed to catch people but is in part symbolic, and the State is making a judgment, and then we have a Constitution with the Fourth Amendment in it, if we're choosing between the public perception, the lesson that we want to teach the people, doesn't the constitutional amendment come first, come before the notion that we want people to show that they can exercise their best judgment by being willing to submit to drug testing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3011.413, 3012.945], "stop_times": [3012.945, 3049.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.413}, "reply_to": "20978__1_160", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__1_162", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "My way of answering that question is what I started saying in the beginning.\nThe Fourth Amendment requires the balancing test that this Court used in Skinner, Von Raab, and Acton to determine whether or not a particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3049.807, 3054.422], "stop_times": [3054.422, 3061.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3049.807}, "reply_to": "20978__1_161", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_163", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But my question to you is, then, doesn't the Fourth Amendment always win on that balance unless you have a good reason, a reason beyond, we want to show that these people take tests.\nOne reason is that you would catch people, as was the case in the train engineer, but here that's not the purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3061.404, 3074.654], "stop_times": [3074.654, 3085.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.404}, "reply_to": "20978__1_162", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__1_164", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--The Fourth Amendment always wins out if in that balancing test the government interests are not sufficient to outweigh the privacy interest.\nIt is our position that when you do that test in an elections context in which the people have a right to know anything about a candidate which touches on their qualifications for office--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3085.972, 3093.638], "stop_times": [3093.638, 3104.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3085.972}, "reply_to": "20978__1_163", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_165", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Then go for... once they're in office, and they're going to be in and maybe run for election, so do this periodically?\nCan people have any less... is their interest any less if we're doing this balancing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3104.073, 3110.898], "stop_times": [3110.898, 3117.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.073}, "reply_to": "20978__1_164", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__1_166", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--No, the balancing is no less in that context.\nThe distinction or the reason for not requiring them then primarily are procedural.\nOnce--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3117.603, 3121.164, 3127.348], "stop_times": [3121.164, 3127.348, 3128.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3117.603}, "reply_to": "20978__1_165", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_167", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But you could... as a matter of constitutional law, Georgia could say, annually, or even randomly, everyone in office in this State has to have a drug test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3128.31], "stop_times": [3142.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.31}, "reply_to": "20978__1_166", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__1_168", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Everyone in the category of offices that are included in the statute, yes, I believe Georgia could have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3142.278], "stop_times": [3147.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3142.278}, "reply_to": "20978__1_167", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_169", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But if you rely on the public's right to know everything about the candidate, as I think you described it, it seems to me that that would justify a totally unrestricted search of the house and all private papers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3147.33], "stop_times": [3160.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.33}, "reply_to": "20978__1_168", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_170", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--I said that and I... and that is a quote from one of this Court's cases.\nHowever, obviously the Constitution has to define everything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3160.14, 3163.883], "stop_times": [3163.883, 3168.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3160.14}, "reply_to": "20978__1_169", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_171", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "And the Constitution looks a little more closely at totally suspicionless searches, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3168.926], "stop_times": [3174.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.926}, "reply_to": "20978__1_170", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_172", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3174.279], "stop_times": [3174.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.279}, "reply_to": "20978__1_171", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_173", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Yes.\nI take it... or I took it that part of your argument for the State interest that sort of overcomes the private interest here is based on the Tenth Amendment, and I'm not sure that I understand that argument.\nI mean, I take it you do not argue that the Tenth Amendment in effect gives the State some kind of right or some dispensation from the Fourth Amendment, so what is the Tenth Amendment argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3174.75, 3175.591, 3189.629], "stop_times": [3175.591, 3189.629, 3203.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.75}, "reply_to": "20978__1_172", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__1_174", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "The Tenth Amendment argument is, in this balancing test that's required in the Fourth Amendment, that in the usual context the scales start out even for both sides.\nWhat the Tenth Amendment does is, it tips those scales from the outset on the side of the government because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3203.928, 3215.187], "stop_times": [3215.187, 3221.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3203.928}, "reply_to": "20978__1_173", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_175", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3221.131], "stop_times": [3221.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.131}, "reply_to": "20978__1_174", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_176", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Because the Tenth Amendment in the cases this Court has held in the elections context say, we are going to give great deference to the State's own characterizations of its interest in the elections and in particular in the qualifications of its elected officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3221.332], "stop_times": [3237.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3221.332}, "reply_to": "20978__1_175", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_177", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, there's no question of there being an assertable Tenth Amendment interest there, but there's no question about there being an assertable Tenth Amendment interest to prosecute homicide, but that doesn't affect the balancing that goes on in determining... or that does not affect the Fourth Amendment analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3237.673], "stop_times": [3258.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3237.673}, "reply_to": "20978__1_176", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_178", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I'm not sure I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3258.006], "stop_times": [3259.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.006}, "reply_to": "20978__1_177", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_179", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, I suppose if someone challenged the right of the State to prosecute murder we would say, well, that certainly is not one of those powers that was taken away from the State when the national Constitution was ratified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3259.506], "stop_times": [3274.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.506}, "reply_to": "20978__1_178", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_180", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--That's absolutely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3274.276], "stop_times": [3275.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3274.276}, "reply_to": "20978__1_179", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_181", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I don't see how that would affect the Fourth Amendment analysis when somebody objected to an unreasonable search and seizure that had resulted in evidence that the State wanted to introduce in a homicide case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3275.007], "stop_times": [3288.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.007}, "reply_to": "20978__1_180", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_182", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--The distinction being that the Tenth Amendment and in particular the elections context has repeatedly been given by this Court special consideration.\nIn Gregory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3288.236, 3297.222], "stop_times": [3297.222, 3299.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3288.236}, "reply_to": "20978__1_181", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_183", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, we've said that a great deal of discretion over elections is within the State's power, but that's as far as we've gone, isn't it?\nThank you, Ms. Guilday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3299.544, 3306.958], "stop_times": [3306.958, 3309.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3299.544}, "reply_to": "20978__1_182", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20978__1_184", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3309.89], "stop_times": [3311.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3309.89}, "reply_to": "20978__1_183", "speaker": "patricia_guilday"}
{"id": "20978__1_185", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr. Chandler, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3311.111], "stop_times": [3312.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.111}, "reply_to": "20978__1_184", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__2_000", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "An interesting aspect of the Tenth Amendment question to me is that that the States... that which was not granted to the Federal Government specifically was... the rights not granted to the Federal Government was reserved to the States or the people respectively, and when the States appear to jealously protect their rights, they are not so jealous in protecting the rights that the people reserved unto themselves, and one of those rights is that a citizen should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3312.633], "stop_times": [3344.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3312.633}, "reply_to": "20978__1_185", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__2_001", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Mr Chandler, do you think this case would be stronger for the State if it was random drug-testing?\nDoes that thought comfort you, if they amended this statute to make it random?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3344.273, 3349.278], "stop_times": [3349.278, 3353.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3344.273}, "reply_to": "20978__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__2_002", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "It would not comfort me, Your Honor, and I'm not sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3353.069], "stop_times": [3356.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3353.069}, "reply_to": "20978__2_001", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__2_003", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "This is stronger, isn't it, because it says... basically what she said was that this is the State's interest only in making certain that the really serious drug users who can't stay off drugs for 30 days, which you have to be quite a heavy user, that they want to identify those people, so she said that's a very important interest, identifying these very, very heavy drug users, and against that it's a fairly limited intrusion.\nI think that was her point.\nSo what would your reply be to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3356.511, 3381.639, 3383.469], "stop_times": [3381.639, 3383.469, 3385.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.511}, "reply_to": "20978__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20978__2_004", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--The State might be in a better position if they had some sort of random search system for people who had been elected to office.\nHowever, I think even such a search would violate the principles that have been enunciated by this Court in Skinner, Von Raab, and the Vernonia School District case, because there has to be some nexus between the tests, and there has to be some compelling State interest, and there has to be a showing of, not potential harm, but an actual existing harm.\nI don't know, for example, that they've ever shown that commissioners of agriculture in Georgia have a heavy drug problem, or for that matter lieutenant governors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3385.682, 3394.518, 3416.561], "stop_times": [3394.518, 3416.561, 3423.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3385.682}, "reply_to": "20978__2_003", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__2_005", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Well, what if they show that there was a commission of agriculture in Alabama and a lieutenant governor in Alabama who turned out to drug addicts.\nDoes Georgia have to wait for it to happen in Georgia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3423.356, 3432.473], "stop_times": [3432.473, 3434.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.356}, "reply_to": "20978__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20978__2_006", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I'm not sure, Your Honor, but I would sort of think so.\nI would also just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3434.734, 3438.417], "stop_times": [3438.417, 3441.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3434.734}, "reply_to": "20978__2_005", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__2_007", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "But isn't your real argument they have to wait at least till it happens in Alabama.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3441.009, 3444.881], "stop_times": [3444.881, 3445.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3441.009}, "reply_to": "20978__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20978__2_008", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--A lot of things happen in Alabama that don't happen in Georgia, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3445.081, 3449.182], "stop_times": [3449.182, 3449.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3445.081}, "reply_to": "20978__2_007", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__2_009", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Does the State have to show that he was a worse secretary of agriculture because of that drug habit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3449.372], "stop_times": [3460.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3449.372}, "reply_to": "20978__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__2_010", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I would think so, Your Honor, although arguably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3460.219], "stop_times": [3465.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3460.219}, "reply_to": "20978__2_009", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__2_011", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "I mean, it's supposed to be good for poetry.\nI don't know what it does for--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3465.244, 3467.668, 3469.238], "stop_times": [3467.668, 3469.238, 3469.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3465.244}, "reply_to": "20978__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20978__2_012", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "--And how... and also, Your Honor, how could we argue that drug users would be any worse than the General Assembly Georgia has now.\n[Laughter]\nThere's an old saying down in Georgia that no man's liberty or property is safe as long as it's in session, and 21.2.140 is a perfect example of that, where for the most cavalier of reasons, just pure symbolism, they want to take away people's Fourth Amendment rights, they want to make people stand up and take these tests so as to somehow show that they are... by a piece of paper that they... that's easily avoided that they can be qualified to hold high office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3469.428, 3479.446, 3480.104], "stop_times": [3479.446, 3480.104, 3509.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3469.428}, "reply_to": "20978__2_011", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__2_013", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "One point that you made in your brief was that this is... this test is not very serious because it would catch at best the worst cases, but you certainly wouldn't find more satisfactory a test that was less hard to beat, a test more pervasive, so I didn't understand your point about the lack of effect of this test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3509.104], "stop_times": [3536.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3509.104}, "reply_to": "20978__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20978__2_014", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "This test is even worse because it involves cheap symbolism.\nThe other test would violate the Fourth Amendment protections announced by this Court in Von Raab and the other cases as being suspicionless.\nI would like to just say finally that this all reminds me of what Franklin warned us about, is that people who would give up some of their liberty to get some security will end up with neither liberty nor security.\nAnd we are rapidly approaching a time in this country where there are absolutely no technological limits to what a government can do to make sure that people are obeying its edicts.\nThere will be a possibility of hair testing to show that people can... have used something that the government has declared illegal within the last 6 or 8 months based on where in the hair... the fact that we can force obedience by these people should not necessarily mean that we should do so, especially if what that means is that we have to give up our constitutional rights to do so.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3536.941, 3540.544, 3549.01, 3563.069, 3573.426, 3599.903], "stop_times": [3540.544, 3549.01, 3563.069, 3573.426, 3599.903, 3601.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3536.941}, "reply_to": "20978__2_013", "speaker": "walker_l_chandler"}
{"id": "20978__2_015", "conversation_id": "20978", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chandler.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-126", "start_times": [3601.944, 3603.216], "stop_times": [3603.216, 3605.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3601.944}, "reply_to": "20978__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__0_000", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 94-2074, the City of Boerne v. Flores.\nIs that the correct pronunciation of the city?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [0.0, 9.497], "stop_times": [9.497, 11.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__0_001", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Boerne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [11.79], "stop_times": [12.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.79}, "reply_to": "20726__0_000", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_002", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Boerne.\nThank you.\nMs. Hamilton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [12.301, 12.889, 13.51], "stop_times": [12.889, 13.51, 15.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 12.301}, "reply_to": "20726__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__0_003", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case is not about religious liberty.\nThis case is about Federal power.\nIt is about the ability of the United States Constitution to restrain Congress, the branch most likely to be controlled by interest groups and by opinion polls, from engaging in a hostile takeover of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.\nThe Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed in an emotional and heated response to this Court's determination in Employment Division v. Smith, is a brazen attempt to reinterpret the Free Exercise Clause and to impose that reinterpretation on the courts, on the States, and to shift the balance of power between church and State dramatically in favor of the churches.\nThis is the worst of legislative overreaching, which violates the fundamental structural constitutional guarantees, the separation of powers, Federalism, and separation between church and State.\nThe constitutional bedrock was laid long ago in Marbury v. Madison, where this Court rejected explicitly the notion that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.\nThe Constitution, this Court said, is either superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislation, like other acts, and is alterable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [15.043, 18.425, 21.916, 25.098, 40.108, 61.453, 75.351, 88.781], "stop_times": [18.425, 21.916, 25.098, 40.108, 61.453, 75.351, 88.781, 100.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 15.043}, "reply_to": "20726__0_002", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_004", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Ms. Hamilton--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [100.238], "stop_times": [100.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.238}, "reply_to": "20726__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__0_005", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [100.959], "stop_times": [101.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 100.959}, "reply_to": "20726__0_004", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_006", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--certainly you have to come to grips with the fact that, in situations such as the Voting Rights Act, where this Court had said the meaning of the Constitution was that intentional discrimination violates it but had never applied the so-called effects test, yet Congress passed laws of a prophylactic nature saying that discriminatory effects would be sufficient to create a cause of action for discrimination, and we upheld those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [101.919], "stop_times": [135.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 101.919}, "reply_to": "20726__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__0_007", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [135.842], "stop_times": [136.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.842}, "reply_to": "20726__0_006", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_008", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And there are other similar prophylactic measures, and how do you distinguish those from what Congress now offers in amicus briefing, a rationale that it is a prophylactic measure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [136.342], "stop_times": [148.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 136.342}, "reply_to": "20726__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__0_009", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor, I think the test to understand whether or not section 5 has been appropriately used by Congress is the text of the amendment itself.\nIt states, the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.\nEnforce means, to compel obedience to.\nThe provisions of this article means, constitutional guarantees.\nEvery case in which this Court has upheld prophylactic measures fits that formulation.\nIt has been the enforcement, the compelling of obedience to constitutional guarantees.\nThe religious--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [148.858, 160.145, 166.239, 169.102, 173.666, 180.27, 184.762], "stop_times": [160.145, 166.239, 169.102, 173.666, 180.27, 184.762, 185.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.858}, "reply_to": "20726__0_008", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_010", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, Katzenbach v. Morgan I think went further than that.\nI mean, it said that even though Lassiter had said that literacy tests were okay, now literacy tests were not okay in New York for Puerto Ricans because of what Comgress had said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [185.463, 189.347], "stop_times": [189.347, 201.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.463}, "reply_to": "20726__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__0_011", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, Mr. Chief Justice, Lassiter stated that as a facial matter a particular literacy test was not unconstitutional.\nThe Congress went back and made a factual determination that as they looked out over literacy tests they came to the conclusion that they were almost always evidence of invidious discrimination, and on the basis of that factual determination the Court in Katzenbach v. Morgan upheld Congress' decision to ban literacy tests.\nIt is the difference between the fact-finding capacities of the legislature and this Court's ability to be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [201.572, 211.63, 232.624], "stop_times": [211.63, 232.624, 240.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.572}, "reply_to": "20726__0_010", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_012", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, it's kind of unsatisfactory, really, to think that all you'd get from your argument is at best a notion that we would say Congress had to do a better job of making facts, a factual determination here, and that's kind of an uncomfortable position to be in.\nI'm not sure... I mean, they can always go back and build a bigger record.\nThey had something they were looking at, anecdotal events, where they thought courts in general were not giving sufficient attention to laws by States and others that might impinge on the Free Exercise Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [240.5, 258.612, 261.494], "stop_times": [258.612, 261.494, 281.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.5}, "reply_to": "20726__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__0_013", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor, the difference between the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and all of this Court's section 5 jurisprudence will turn on the meaning of the word appropriate legislation, which section 5 says.\nThere must be some kind of proportional fit between the means and the end to be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [281.066, 293.605], "stop_times": [293.605, 299.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.066}, "reply_to": "20726__0_012", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_014", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, given that, could we go back to Justice O'Connor's original question, which I think was, in effect, why isn't there an obvious analogy between the situation in the Voting Rights Act, section 2, section 5, and the case that we have before us?\nWhy... assuming that the voting rights cases were correctly decided, why doesn't this case follow them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [299.789, 316.059], "stop_times": [316.059, 323.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.789}, "reply_to": "20726__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_015", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Because Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was not aiming to ensure constitutional guarantees under the Free Exercise Clause.\nThe purpose, patent on its face and ripe in the legislative history, was to bring into high level of scrutiny that conduct which was constitutionally appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [323.775, 333.162], "stop_times": [333.162, 344.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.775}, "reply_to": "20726__0_014", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_016", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "So basically it was the candor of Congress which is going to result in the unconstitutionality of this statute in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [344.969], "stop_times": [353.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.969}, "reply_to": "20726__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_017", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Not the candor, Justice Souter, but rather the patent purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [353.325], "stop_times": [359.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.325}, "reply_to": "20726__0_016", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_018", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, candor in expressing the purpose.\nIn other words, I take it, then, your argument would be different if Congress had simply kept its cards closer to its vest and had said, we know that under Smith there is a certain standard but, in fact, to guard against violations that would escape that standard we are going to have a slightly different test.\nThat would have been okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [359.428, 362.618, 386.755], "stop_times": [362.618, 386.755, 388.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.428}, "reply_to": "20726__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_019", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--That still would not pass this Court's section 5 jurisprudence.\nIn the civil rights cases, this Court made clear there must be some colorable evidence of some State wrongdoing that justifies prophylactic activity.\nThere is no evidence in this record to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [388.097, 392.311, 400.526], "stop_times": [392.311, 400.526, 403.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.097}, "reply_to": "20726__0_018", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_020", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "So it's timing, then.\nCongress might do this later on if it could point to specific instances in which, under Smith, something had passed muster, and yet later on it was determined that there really had been a motive to discriminate against religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [403.578, 405.04], "stop_times": [405.04, 419.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.578}, "reply_to": "20726__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_021", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, presumably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [419.949], "stop_times": [420.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.949}, "reply_to": "20726__0_020", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_022", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "They jumped the gun.\nIs that basically it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [420.588, 421.199], "stop_times": [421.199, 422.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.588}, "reply_to": "20726__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_023", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, presumably, if Congress did find specific instances... for example, there was a set of laws that almost always meant there was discrimination against a particular religion... in that particular circumstance, Congress would be acting the way they were acting under the Voting Rights Act cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [422.22], "stop_times": [436.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.22}, "reply_to": "20726__0_022", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_024", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Okay.\nSo basically I guess it does boil down to the fact that the reason there is not an analogy between the voting cases and this one is a factual record.\nCongress did not have a factual record.\nIs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [436.642, 437.571, 447.858, 449.781], "stop_times": [437.571, 447.858, 449.781, 450.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.642}, "reply_to": "20726__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_025", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, in addition, it would have been impossible to have gotten a factual record with respect to every law in the United States, whether passed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [450.081], "stop_times": [457.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.081}, "reply_to": "20726__0_024", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_026", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, does Congress... I assume... I... and that may be so, but I take it your argument is that Congress in effect has to wait.\nIt cannot guard against what it foresees as a difficulty by legislating in advance under section 5.\nIt's got to wait until there has been a proven record of violation for which the standard of this Court is insufficient to guard.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [457.946, 465.002, 471.446, 479.972], "stop_times": [465.002, 471.446, 479.972, 480.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 457.946}, "reply_to": "20726__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_027", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [480.8], "stop_times": [481.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.8}, "reply_to": "20726__0_026", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_028", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "To put a finer point on it, let me ask you this.\nWhen Congress passed some of the voting rights laws, they in effect made a presumption that where there's been a discriminatory effect by a certain law they must... that that bears on intent, and it's likely there was a discriminatory intent.\nSuppose what Congress did here was to prohibit any law that disproportionately affects religious minorities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [481.141, 483.693, 503.567], "stop_times": [483.693, 503.567, 514.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.141}, "reply_to": "20726__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__0_029", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--If Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [514.033], "stop_times": [515.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.033}, "reply_to": "20726__0_028", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_030", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Or religion.\nCould they have done that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [515.315, 515.856], "stop_times": [515.856, 516.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.315}, "reply_to": "20726__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__0_031", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--If Congress had evidence that there were instances where there was discrimination in a particular arena with respect to particular types of religions, Congress certainly could go ahead and do what you're describing, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [516.943], "stop_times": [530.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 516.943}, "reply_to": "20726__0_030", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_032", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It could pass a law that says some State law, for example, that disproportionately affects a religious group would be subject to stricter scrutiny?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [530.913], "stop_times": [544.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.913}, "reply_to": "20726__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__0_033", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I think that's possible.\nIt's... that's certainly not RFRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [544.283, 545.272], "stop_times": [545.272, 547.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.283}, "reply_to": "20726__0_032", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_034", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But you think that's not what was done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [547.004], "stop_times": [549.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 547.004}, "reply_to": "20726__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__0_035", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That is not what was done here.\nThe point here was to eviscerate any proof of discrimination of any kind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [549.105, 550.367], "stop_times": [550.367, 553.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.105}, "reply_to": "20726__0_034", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_036", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Ms. Hamilton, in your brief you say that the Court should lay to rest the substantive power theory, i.e. the notion that Congress may expand the scope of constitutional guarantees.\nI take it you would then opt for a very narrow reading of the opinion in Katzenbach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [553.76, 566.696], "stop_times": [566.696, 572.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.76}, "reply_to": "20726__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__0_037", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.\nI... Katzenbach actually had two implicit readings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [572.129, 572.34], "stop_times": [572.34, 575.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.129}, "reply_to": "20726__0_036", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_038", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [575.492], "stop_times": [575.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.492}, "reply_to": "20726__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__0_039", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I would hold it to the much narrower holding of the fact-finding capacity of Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [575.712], "stop_times": [580.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.712}, "reply_to": "20726__0_038", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_040", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Ms. Hamilton, when Congress wrote this provision that's central here... Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article... and when that was ratified by the States, was it understood that the provisions of this article included the First Amendment?\nI mean, it was clearly understood that it included the Equal Protection Clause, which was at issue in the civil rights cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [580.728, 599.439], "stop_times": [599.439, 607.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.728}, "reply_to": "20726__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__0_041", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It's not at all clear in the legislative history.\nWe do know that the First Amendment's only included at this point under the Fourteenth Amendment by judicial incorporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [607.144, 610.805], "stop_times": [610.805, 617.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.144}, "reply_to": "20726__0_040", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_042", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Which is a development of this century.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [617.29], "stop_times": [619.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.29}, "reply_to": "20726__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__0_043", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [619.881], "stop_times": [620.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.881}, "reply_to": "20726__0_042", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_044", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And, indeed, of the latter two-thirds of this century, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [620.192], "stop_times": [623.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.192}, "reply_to": "20726__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__0_045", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Right.\nThere's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [623.544, 624.125], "stop_times": [624.125, 624.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.544}, "reply_to": "20726__0_044", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_046", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, why isn't that the argument you're making, then, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [624.846], "stop_times": [627.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.846}, "reply_to": "20726__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__0_047", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Oh, we do make that in a footnote in the opening brief.\nThere are so many things to say--\n[Laughter]\n--about RFRA that it's hard to find which one is the most appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [627.909, 630.439, 631.791, 632.162], "stop_times": [630.439, 631.791, 632.162, 636.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.909}, "reply_to": "20726__0_046", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_048", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Yes, but certainly that's a major point, that when Congress has adopted a provision which it... or has proposed for a constitutional amendment a provision that enables Congress to prevent the unequal treatment of any citizen, but especially of blacks, which is what was at issue at the... to convert that into the power of Congress to enforce any provision of the Bill of Rights, isn't that a massive alteration of the original meaning of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [636.356], "stop_times": [661.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.356}, "reply_to": "20726__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__0_049", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It's staggering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [661.07], "stop_times": [661.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.07}, "reply_to": "20726__0_048", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_050", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Ms. Hamilton--\n[Laughter]\nMs. Hamilton, the historical record is not all one way on that point, isn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [661.821, 662.963, 664.095], "stop_times": [662.963, 664.095, 669.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.821}, "reply_to": "20726__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__0_051", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No.\nOne of the problems with the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, I'm sorry to say, is that John Bingham did say several things that contradicted himself several times, but I think it's clear that if you look at the discussions of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding religion, the concerns about religion were not religious liberty per se, they were concerns about discrimination against particular groups on the basis of religion, so the notion that religious liberty per se is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and now there's broad expansive power to enforce, that's certainly not in the legis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [669.588, 670.078], "stop_times": [670.078, 704.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.588}, "reply_to": "20726__0_050", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_052", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Why is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [704.653], "stop_times": [705.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.653}, "reply_to": "20726__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__0_053", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [705.134], "stop_times": [705.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.134}, "reply_to": "20726__0_052", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_054", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Why is it staggering, even under a pre-Fourteenth Amendment view... I mean, sorry, the ancient view that was being described.\n[Laughter]\nWhy, even under that view, is it a staggering thing to say, well, there's certainly some protection in due process liberty of people's religious freedom, and Congress finds that when you have laws that significantly affect that freedom, they should be looked at very closely to make certain there's good reason for not making an exception.\nI mean, if you just heard it just like that, you'd think that's a... not an unreasonable or a staggering thing to say as a way of enforcing the protection that was originally in that word liberty, whether then or now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [705.802, 716.451, 716.952, 741.786], "stop_times": [716.451, 716.952, 741.786, 755.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.802}, "reply_to": "20726__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__0_055", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [755.677], "stop_times": [755.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.677}, "reply_to": "20726__0_054", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_056", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And why is it such an odd thing that we should look to the... scrutinize the evidentiary records of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [755.957], "stop_times": [761.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 755.957}, "reply_to": "20726__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__0_057", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, I think the point that Justice Scalia was leading me to with the... and I was able to get in staggering was that the question of the definition of appropriate, how far can Congress go to enforce constitutional guarantees, and the real question in this case is what does prophylactic mean if, in fact, they have a prophylactic power?\nIt would seem like they should have the most expansive power that they could have under the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to racial discrimination.\nThe history supports that.\nThen the question is, well, how far does that prophylactic power go in other areas of section 1, and our argument is that it certainly can't go to the point where Congress gets to redefine the meaning of the Constitution rather than attempting to enforce it in some way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [761.07, 783.404, 791.131, 792.5], "stop_times": [783.404, 791.131, 792.5, 810.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.07}, "reply_to": "20726__0_056", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_058", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--As far as our prior holdings go, have we ever extended that power to anything except the equal protection provisions of the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [810.251], "stop_times": [817.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 810.251}, "reply_to": "20726__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__0_059", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The only case that would indicate that it was extended at all would be Hutto v. Finney, and there's no prophylactic power question in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [817.928], "stop_times": [825.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.928}, "reply_to": "20726__0_058", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_060", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, I take it... I want to make sure I understand your argument.\nYour argument is that with respect to the protection of rights incorporated under the incorporation theory there can be no substantive expansion.\nThere simply can be a kind of reasonable means ends jurisdiction to enforce, and I take it that is basically what you would say the Necessary and Proper Clause would have provided by its own force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [825.492, 827.976, 839.907], "stop_times": [827.976, 839.907, 856.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.492}, "reply_to": "20726__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_061", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I think that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [856.556], "stop_times": [857.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.556}, "reply_to": "20726__0_060", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_062", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [857.525], "stop_times": [857.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.525}, "reply_to": "20726__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_063", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I think McCulloch v. Maryland applies in both instances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [857.776], "stop_times": [860.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.776}, "reply_to": "20726__0_062", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_064", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Yes, and I guess where I'm not sure is, why is it that you make this distinction between the protection of incorporated rights and the protection of rights which are spelled out in the text of the amendment?\nI mean, if the incorporation theory is wrong, then it's wrong, but if the incorporation theory is right, why can we draw a line between what section 5 provides?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [860.647, 876.139], "stop_times": [876.139, 888.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.647}, "reply_to": "20726__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_065", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, the city certainly does not challenge incorporation per se.\nWe're certainly not saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [888.427, 892.149], "stop_times": [892.149, 892.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 888.427}, "reply_to": "20726__0_064", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_066", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Okay, then how can we draw the line between the rights with... as to congressional powers to incorporated rights and nonincorporated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [892.988], "stop_times": [899.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.988}, "reply_to": "20726__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_067", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I think the argument is that Katzenbach v. Morgan was applied to equality rights, and if there's going to be a broad reading under the Fourteenth Amendment for enforcement, it would have to be with equality rights, and if that's right, Katzenbach must be the upper limit.\nIf Katzenbach is the upper limit, the Religious Freedom Restoration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [899.232, 915.775], "stop_times": [915.775, 918.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.232}, "reply_to": "20726__0_066", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_068", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--No, but that still assumes... when you say it's the upper limit, I assume you're talking in terms of categories, and you are still drawing a line between Congress' power with respect to incorporated rights and with respect to section 1 rights, and I don't understand... if incorporation is not to be overruled, I don't understand how that line can be drawn on a principled basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [918.997], "stop_times": [940.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.997}, "reply_to": "20726__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_069", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Your Honor, the city's argument does not center on extinction.\nEven taking the broadest power that the Congress has been permitted with respect to equality rights, Congress has not been permitted, indeed hasn't tried what it has done with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is to completely redefine the meaning of an entire clause of the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [940.39, 945.124], "stop_times": [945.124, 962.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.39}, "reply_to": "20726__0_068", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_070", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Is your main point, then, with respect to that branch of your argument that what Congress may be able to do in a particularized way, focusing on a discrete problem, it can't do wholesale?\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [962.465, 977.266], "stop_times": [977.266, 977.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 962.465}, "reply_to": "20726__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__0_071", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That is exactly our argument, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [977.654], "stop_times": [980.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.654}, "reply_to": "20726__0_070", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_072", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Is that a separation of powers argument in part, that we must proceed on a case-by-case basis?\nIs there something of that in your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [980.376, 987.112], "stop_times": [987.112, 990.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.376}, "reply_to": "20726__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__0_073", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [990.304], "stop_times": [990.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.304}, "reply_to": "20726__0_072", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_074", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--separation of powers argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [990.514], "stop_times": [991.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.514}, "reply_to": "20726__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__0_075", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I... Justice Kennedy, there... the separation of powers argument is that the one thing that Congress cannot do is to enact a standard that will apply across every law in the country and will, in fact, mimic the Constitution in its scope.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [991.546], "stop_times": [1007.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 991.546}, "reply_to": "20726__0_074", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_076", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And does that apply to the validity of the law in its Federal aspect, or just vis-a-vis the States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1007.796], "stop_times": [1014.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.796}, "reply_to": "20726__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__0_077", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The separation of powers argument would in fact invalidate this law as applied to both State and Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1014.801], "stop_times": [1019.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.801}, "reply_to": "20726__0_076", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_078", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, you are saying in effect I think that Congress under section 5 cannot anticipate what it sees as a likely difficulty and provide for it by legislation, but Congress can do that generally.\nWhy do you draw that distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1019.846, 1033.414], "stop_times": [1033.414, 1036.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.846}, "reply_to": "20726__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_079", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Justice Souter, I'm confused about when Congress has been able to do that generally.\nAre you thinking about cases like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1036.036, 1042.16], "stop_times": [1042.16, 1043.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.036}, "reply_to": "20726__0_078", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_080", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "We don't generally except in very specific instances... the First Amendment I suppose is a good example.\nWe do not generally require Congress to make the kind of factual record that I think you're talking about.\nWhen, in fact, individual rights are being invaded as, for example, in First Amendment cases, yes, we do scrutinize rather carefully, but that is not the general rule, and I think you are saying that even though there are no individual rights being invaded here, that in fact that high level of scrutiny, that high burden on Congress to make a record, is being applied, and I don't understand why you say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1043.622, 1050.806, 1058.812], "stop_times": [1050.806, 1058.812, 1083.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1043.622}, "reply_to": "20726__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_081", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Your Honor, we're not arguing for a high level on Congress.\nWe're really not arguing for much more than this Court stated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1083.439, 1086.431], "stop_times": [1086.431, 1088.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.439}, "reply_to": "20726__0_080", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_082", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, you're saying it cannot anticipate a problem without in effect making a factual record to show that in a specific instance the problem has already occurred.\nThat is what you're saying, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1088.283, 1097.76], "stop_times": [1097.76, 1099.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.283}, "reply_to": "20726__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_083", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, Justice Souter, that seems to me the only way to prevent massive usurpation of State law that RFRA effects.\nUnless Congress has a reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1099.331, 1106.665], "stop_times": [1106.665, 1108.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.331}, "reply_to": "20726__0_082", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_084", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, why doesn't Congress have the same risk of massive usurpation whenever it is legislating under Article I in cases in which it's noninfringing or risking an infringement of individual rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1108.558], "stop_times": [1121.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.558}, "reply_to": "20726__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_085", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the most appropriate case would be Heart of Atlanta Motel, in which Congress did provide for rights against discrimination in the Commerce Clause context when it was acting appropriately according to that enumerated power.\nThere were massive fact-findings in that case as to the effect on interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1121.315, 1137.006], "stop_times": [1137.006, 1141.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.315}, "reply_to": "20726__0_084", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_086", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, it had an enumerated power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and I suppose it's got an enumerated power under section 5.\nWhat's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1141.678, 1150.736], "stop_times": [1150.736, 1151.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.678}, "reply_to": "20726__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_087", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The difference is the language of section 5, which limits enforcement to the enforcement of constitutional guarantees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1151.357], "stop_times": [1157.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.357}, "reply_to": "20726__0_086", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_088", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The Necessary and Proper Clause does the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1157.632], "stop_times": [1161.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.632}, "reply_to": "20726__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__0_089", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The Necessary and Proper Clause, Your Honor, gives Congress the ability... may I finish my answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1161.145], "stop_times": [1168.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.145}, "reply_to": "20726__0_088", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_090", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Finish your answer, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1168.281], "stop_times": [1169.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.281}, "reply_to": "20726__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__0_091", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Gives Congress the ability to make effective its enumerated powers, but it does not say that Congress can do what it did in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1169.322], "stop_times": [1177.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.322}, "reply_to": "20726__0_090", "speaker": "marci_a_hamilton"}
{"id": "20726__0_092", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Hamilton.\nMr. Sutton, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1177.978, 1179.768], "stop_times": [1179.768, 1181.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.978}, "reply_to": "20726__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__1_000", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nFirst of all, in response to Justice O'Connor's first question, there are two critical differences between RFRA and every section 5 case that has come before it.\nFirst, there is no predicate of a violation, and second, there is no attempt to remedy in any way.\nThe key problem with RFRA, what makes it different from every piece of section 5 legislation that's ever been reviewed by this Court or ever enacted, is that it's totally global in nature.\nIt simply creates a new standard of review for every single form of State action that ever existed before, or ever will exist.\nIt contains no time limitations.\nIt's simply a constitutional amendment in section 5 clothing.\nThe Court has never approved that.\nI don't think they should approve it now.\nJustice Scalia, with respect to your question about incorporation, I respectfully disagree about the notion that we can draw the line with respect to unincorporated and incorporated rights.\nIt's true the Court has never held that section 5 applies to incorporated rights, and I've worked hard and long to figure out a way to make something out of that.\nI simply can't.\nSection 5 applies by its terms to every provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThat includes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1181.701, 1193.806, 1203.413, 1209.887, 1221.426, 1229.832, 1231.803, 1235.954, 1237.626, 1239.569, 1251.367, 1260.593, 1262.454, 1269.459], "stop_times": [1193.806, 1203.413, 1209.887, 1221.426, 1229.832, 1231.803, 1235.954, 1237.626, 1239.569, 1251.367, 1260.593, 1262.454, 1269.459, 1270.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.701}, "reply_to": "20726__0_092", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_001", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, but now, when you say incorporated rights, we've been quite selective, haven't we, in what rights are incorporated.\nWe haven't said they either all must be incorporated or none of them.\nWe haven't incorporated all, have we?\nWe felt free to leave out the Second Amendment, to leave out aspects of the Sixth Amendment, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1270.31, 1276.452, 1279.944, 1281.647], "stop_times": [1276.452, 1279.944, 1281.647, 1286.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.31}, "reply_to": "20726__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__1_002", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--That is true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1286.592], "stop_times": [1288.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1286.592}, "reply_to": "20726__1_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_003", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Then why can't we read section 5 the same way?\nSection 5 applies to certain of the provisions, those that are clearly set forth in the text of the article, but not to the ones that are sucked in by much later judicial interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1288.723, 1291.435], "stop_times": [1291.435, 1305.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.723}, "reply_to": "20726__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__1_004", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "As your incorporation decisions read, section 5 in this instance is not enforcing the First Amendment.\nIt's enforcing the Due Process Clause.\nThat's how they read.\nIf the notion had been Justice Black's Adamson notion, that you incorporate across the board, it might be different, but that's not how they read.\nThey talk about liberty interests.\nOne liberty interest is the Free Exercise Clause.\nIt applies across the board to States, and the Federal Government, same standard of review.\nThere's simply no line you can draw.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1305.184, 1313.029, 1316.051, 1317.12, 1324.686, 1326.907, 1329.199, 1333.762], "stop_times": [1313.029, 1316.051, 1317.12, 1324.686, 1326.907, 1329.199, 1333.762, 1336.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1305.184}, "reply_to": "20726__1_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_005", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "What if Congress were to say that we think that the grand jury provision of... what is it, the Seventh, the Sixth Amendment +/?\nshould be incorporated, although the Court never has, so we're going to require the States under the enforcement power for Article V, the Fourteenth Amendment, to have... require... all criminal prosecutions have to be initiated by a grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1336.224, 1343.389], "stop_times": [1343.389, 1359.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.224}, "reply_to": "20726__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__1_006", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Absolutely not, Your Honor.\nSection 5 would not allow you to enforce that because it doesn't appear in section 1.\nSection 1 does cover the Free Exercise Clause.\nBut this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1359.068, 1360.921, 1365.165, 1368.207], "stop_times": [1360.921, 1365.165, 1368.207, 1368.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.068}, "reply_to": "20726__1_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_007", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "How do we know that section 1 doesn't cover the grand jury provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1368.988], "stop_times": [1375.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1368.988}, "reply_to": "20726__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__1_008", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Excuse me, Your Honor.\nThat's a fair point.\nI suppose, as a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1375.503, 1377.155, 1377.856], "stop_times": [1377.155, 1377.856, 1379.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.503}, "reply_to": "20726__1_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_009", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Thank you.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1379.439, 1379.629], "stop_times": [1379.629, 1381.619], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.439}, "reply_to": "20726__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20726__1_010", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--To understate the matter.\n[Laughter]\nIt's true as a predictive matter I think Congress... you're probably right that Congress could say it does incorporate, it could pass legislation saying the States have to comply with the grand jury provision, but when that piece of legislation came here, the question of a violation is up to you.\nIt's not up to Congress.\nAs to violations, there is no deference.\nAs to remedy... and Justice Souter, I want to get to your point... there is substantial deference.\nNow, the question of the factual record is a difficult one, and it's very problematic for my side.\nI understand that.\nI think the starting point is the Court's decision in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.\nWhat did they do when they first started allowing prophylactic legislation under section 5?\nFirst, they looked at the record.\nThey looked at what Congress had done, what it had found.\nThere were commissions.\nThere were studies.\nSecondly, they looked at a series of case findings from this Court, from lower courts, establishing a pervasive and systematic disenfranchisement of the minority vote.\nThirdly, they looked at commentary.\nAs in Lopez, that is all helpful.\nIf Congress does it, it's smart, because I think what it does is, it makes it easier for you to uphold what they've done, but again, as in Lopez, it's not indispensable.\nIf they want to take their chances, be completely silent as to why they're doing something, they can take a risk, and it then becomes your job, regrettably, to figure out whether there are underlying violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1381.619, 1383.168, 1384.31, 1399.881, 1401.862, 1404.102, 1408.717, 1414.11, 1415.152, 1420.166, 1425.311, 1427.032, 1429.064, 1430.433, 1431.715, 1442.293, 1444.414, 1447.747, 1456.854], "stop_times": [1383.168, 1384.31, 1399.881, 1401.862, 1404.102, 1408.717, 1414.11, 1415.152, 1420.166, 1425.311, 1427.032, 1429.064, 1430.433, 1431.715, 1442.293, 1444.414, 1447.747, 1456.854, 1468.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1381.619}, "reply_to": "20726__1_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_011", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And in that respect, is there some requirement that the degree of intrusion on the States must be roughly balanced by the severity of the problem they're trying to correct?\nIs that the calculus we use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1468.063, 1477.549], "stop_times": [1477.549, 1480.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.063}, "reply_to": "20726__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__1_012", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Justice Kennedy, that is precisely it.\nAs you said and Justice O'Connor said in Lopez, there is an etiquette of Federalism, and one of the principle etiquettes of Federalism is that the States, and State employees like me, are presumed to know what the Constitution means and to be able to follow it.\nThe only reason you can turn that presumption on its head and create an effects test as you suggested, Justice Breyer, is if we've proved we don't know what the Constitution means.\nCongress can bench us.\nIf we don't know how to follow the Constitution, if we've made mistakes in the past with respect to a certain provision, that's fine.\nCongress has significant prophylactic remedial power to come in and remedy the violation, but you can't have a remedy without a wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1480.163, 1482.664, 1497.124, 1506.481, 1508.183, 1514.896], "stop_times": [1482.664, 1497.124, 1506.481, 1508.183, 1514.896, 1524.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.163}, "reply_to": "20726__1_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_013", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Mr. Sutton, it seems to me you overestimate the sturdiness of this institution.\nWe have here a statute unanimously passed by Congress.\nThere was virtually no dissent, and you want us to say it's no good and to judge future statutes on the basis of such ineffable principles as the etiquette of Federalism.\nI mean, it's one thing for this Court to have a clear line which we can hide behind and say that this is good and that is bad, but to expect us case-by-case to go into this kind of an analysis of whether there's sufficient factual inquiry and what-not, do you really think we can carry that much water?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1524.323, 1529.746, 1534.18, 1547.478], "stop_times": [1529.746, 1534.18, 1547.478, 1562.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1524.323}, "reply_to": "20726__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__1_014", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, first of all the unanimity behind RFRA strikes me as a wonderful opportunity from a Federalist perspective.\nIf you agree with our argument, I suggest there will be 51 RFRA's when all is said and done.\nThe States aren't going to stand idle.\nMy boss is not going to stand idle after the argument I'm making today, if it prevails, I can promise you that.\nThe States are... they're doing a great job when it comes to Free Exercise Clause issues, so first or all, I don't think there's a... I don't think there should be a concern about underprotection.\nAs to the institutional issue, I tell you, I've been thinking long and hard about this.\nI can't see a bright line out there.\nThere wasn't one in Lopez.\nAll you had was, substantially affects interstate commerce.\nThe only bright line I can offer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1562.267, 1569.523, 1574.496, 1576.258, 1581.273, 1589.418, 1595.471, 1597.622, 1599.115, 1602.467], "stop_times": [1569.523, 1574.496, 1576.258, 1581.273, 1589.418, 1595.471, 1597.622, 1599.115, 1602.467, 1604.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1562.267}, "reply_to": "20726__1_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_015", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "You're sure that one's going to hold, too, aren't you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1604.25, 1606.051], "stop_times": [1606.051, 1606.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.25}, "reply_to": "20726__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__1_016", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I do.\nI do for... but... well, actually, there is one bright line.\nThe one bright line which clearly has not been crossed here is a record of violations.\nThey can't show them.\nAll the record shows... I mean, when they wrote this statute, they were looking in this direction.\nThey didn't like Smith.\nThey thought there would be problems with Smith.\nBut their big concern about the States was not that they'd violate Smith.\nThey were concerned we would respect Smith, and that alone, and wouldn't do anything more.\nWhen they enact section 5 legislation, they've got to be looking in this direction, and you've got to look this direction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1606.992, 1609.083, 1612.715, 1618.409, 1619.721, 1623.745, 1624.677, 1627.478, 1631.011, 1635.265], "stop_times": [1609.083, 1612.715, 1618.409, 1619.721, 1623.745, 1624.677, 1627.478, 1631.011, 1635.265, 1639.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.992}, "reply_to": "20726__1_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_017", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "When you say, looking in this direction, you mean looking towards decisions of this Court which interpret the provision in question, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1639.886], "stop_times": [1646.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.886}, "reply_to": "20726__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__1_018", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That is absolutely correct, and once they establish what the right interpretation of the provision is, they've got to establish that the States were violating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1646.641], "stop_times": [1655.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1646.641}, "reply_to": "20726__1_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_019", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--They cannot, then, come forth with their own interpretation, you're saying.\nThey must depend on the interpretations from this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1655.117, 1660.119], "stop_times": [1660.119, 1662.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.117}, "reply_to": "20726__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__1_020", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--That has to be correct, Your Honor.\nIf it's not correct, two things happen.\nFirst of all, Congress has permission to effectively overrule Marbury v. Madison, interpret the Constitution as it wishes, and make that interpretation binding on this Court and throughout the country.\nSecondly, it transforms the Federal Government, and specifically Congress, from one of limited to one of totally unlimited powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1662.861, 1665.235, 1668.374, 1679.402], "stop_times": [1665.235, 1668.374, 1679.402, 1687.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1662.861}, "reply_to": "20726__1_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_021", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "If we can separate them, your Marbury argument from your Federalism argument, suppose Congress said, we want to lead by example, so we're going to have a wholesale exemption that will cover all Federal legislation, that will cover all regulations by all Federal agencies, and these will be the standards, the standards that are in RFRA, and just on the Federal level.\nWe're leaving the States alone.\nWould there be any constitutional infirmity in that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1687.577, 1710.084, 1713.226], "stop_times": [1710.084, 1713.226, 1716.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.577}, "reply_to": "20726__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__1_022", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Not at all, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1716.157], "stop_times": [1717.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1716.157}, "reply_to": "20726__1_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_023", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Even though Congress has again said what it thinks should have been the Smith doctrine, instead of what was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1717.109], "stop_times": [1725.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.109}, "reply_to": "20726__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__1_024", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Excuse me.\nI didn't speak as precisely as I should have.\nClearly the Court still would have to review, I think, the question as to what Smith means.\nI don't think as a matter of Federal power they can reinterpret the Constitution with respect to what it means as to Federal agencies, so I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1725.574, 1726.183, 1728.076, 1733.939], "stop_times": [1726.183, 1728.076, 1733.939, 1743.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1725.574}, "reply_to": "20726__1_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_025", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But they're not saying they're reinterpreting the Constitution.\nThey're saying, we know we can give exemptions, but we don't want to have to go through all these statutes.\nWe may miss some.\nSo we just have this wholesale exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1743.216, 1745.226, 1752.041, 1753.052], "stop_times": [1745.226, 1752.041, 1753.052, 1756.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.216}, "reply_to": "20726__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__1_026", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--You're right, I should have stopped the first time.\nYou're absolutely correct.\n[Laughter]\nAnd the reason you're absolutely correct is they don't need to rely on the Free Exercise Clause.\nWho cares what the Free Exercise Clause means?\nCongress has authority to regulate Federal employees, Federal agencies, and if they want to create exemptions, they can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1756.455, 1758.737, 1759.898, 1760.649, 1764.242, 1766.055], "stop_times": [1758.737, 1759.898, 1760.649, 1764.242, 1766.055, 1772.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1756.455}, "reply_to": "20726__1_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_027", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Consistently with the Establishment Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1772.069], "stop_times": [1774.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.069}, "reply_to": "20726__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__1_028", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes, consistent with the Establishment Clause.\nThat's absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1774.39, 1776.309], "stop_times": [1776.309, 1777.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1774.39}, "reply_to": "20726__1_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_029", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Can I go back for a second to your answer to the Chief Justice?\nDoes Congress have a degree of leeway?\nPerhaps it can't make up any interpretation of the First Amendment or the Fourteenth.\nBut where the Court itself has been shifting back and forth over time, might they not have leeway to determine what the interpretation that they're trying to enforce is?\nIf not, of course, statutes will become constitutional today, and unconstitutional tomorrow, and reconstitutional the next day, if this Court doesn't perfectly and always hew precisely to the same interpretation, which I suspect in the past it has not always done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1777.651, 1779.612, 1782.904, 1788.029, 1798.647], "stop_times": [1779.612, 1782.904, 1788.029, 1798.647, 1815.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.651}, "reply_to": "20726__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__1_030", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Your Honor, the first answer to that question is, it's a good reason to respect the Jeffersonian vision for this country.\nLet the States be the principal bulwark when it comes to protecting civil liberties.\nI think that's an important starting point.\nThe second question's answer is, clearly as a predictive matter they can take their chances.\nThey can take the view that here's what the Free Exercise Clause means when it gets to this Court.\nIf they're right, the legislation's sustained.\nIf they're wrong, the legislation falls.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1815.33, 1822.322, 1825.695, 1829.618, 1834.182, 1838.825, 1841.399], "stop_times": [1822.322, 1825.695, 1829.618, 1834.182, 1838.825, 1841.399, 1843.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1815.33}, "reply_to": "20726__1_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_031", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And if this Court changes its mind over the course of months or years, the legislation becomes revalid, then invalid, then revalid, et cetera?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1843.659], "stop_times": [1851.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.659}, "reply_to": "20726__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__1_032", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No.\nExcuse me, Your Honor.\nI don't think that's correct.\nOnce it gets to the Court, the day it's here at the Court to be reviewed, if it's inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause... it's struck.\nIt doesn't sit on the books waiting for a new interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause.\nI don't think I know of any precedent that allows statutes to languish and effectively--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1851.847, 1852.207, 1853.477, 1854.779, 1861.684, 1865.956], "stop_times": [1852.207, 1853.477, 1854.779, 1861.684, 1865.956, 1870.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1851.847}, "reply_to": "20726__1_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_033", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Two quick questions, please.\nDo you agree with Ms. Hamilton that Congress certainly could pass some law that would affect State laws as well, that an apparently neutral law that disproportionately affects religious groups would be required to meet a higher test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1870.781, 1872.911], "stop_times": [1872.911, 1894.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.781}, "reply_to": "20726__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__1_034", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I do not, and the reason is that there are no underlying violations that would sustain such a remedial power.\nIf there were, it would be appropriate for Congress to come in, pass a statute, and say, an effects test is sufficient.\nIf you don't require an underlying violation, you're presuming State employees are going to violate the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1894.235, 1902.141, 1909.426], "stop_times": [1902.141, 1909.426, 1915.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1894.235}, "reply_to": "20726__1_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_035", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, a second very quick question you can answer yes or no.\nAre you relying at all, either you or Ms. Hamilton, on an Establishment Clause violation in your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1915.6, 1920.645], "stop_times": [1920.645, 1927.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.6}, "reply_to": "20726__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__1_036", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "We are not, and personally I hope you reject it, because that's our mission.\nWe want to be able to overprotect free exercise rights.\nOhio, and I think most States, would say they're not in the business of beating the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1927.05, 1931.524, 1934.717], "stop_times": [1931.524, 1934.717, 1938.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1927.05}, "reply_to": "20726__1_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_037", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, are you suggesting that if you overprotect you have an Establishment Clause problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1938.68], "stop_times": [1943.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.68}, "reply_to": "20726__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__1_038", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I certainly hope not.\nI hope we've got a lot of room to overprotect religious liberties.\nIt's something we think is important.\nIt's something we want to do.\nWe obviously don't want to do it in a way that it violates the Establishment clause, though.\nYour visual cues aren't good.\nThe... I--\n[Laughter]\nLet me try to restate that.\nI'm not sure I stated it very well.\nThe... I... my view of the Establishment Clause is that clearly the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1943.364, 1944.755, 1947.596, 1949.098, 1950.21, 1955.526, 1959.196, 1961.159, 1961.529, 1962.581, 1963.803], "stop_times": [1944.755, 1947.596, 1949.098, 1950.21, 1955.526, 1959.196, 1961.159, 1961.529, 1962.581, 1963.803, 1968.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1943.364}, "reply_to": "20726__1_037", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_039", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I can't quite see your eyes.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1968.715, 1969.697], "stop_times": [1969.697, 1970.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1968.715}, "reply_to": "20726__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__1_040", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--My view of the Establishment Clause is that States are entitled to overprotect free exercise.\nIn fact, I think that's exactly what Smith says.\nWe will leave this to the States and localities to overprotect.\nBut I agree with you, there is a line.\nThere is a ceiling, and we can't go over it.\nWe can't so overprotect that in a way we're establishing a religion which violates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1970.318, 1977.124, 1979.317, 1982.699, 1983.761, 1986.753], "stop_times": [1977.124, 1979.317, 1982.699, 1983.761, 1986.753, 1992.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1970.318}, "reply_to": "20726__1_039", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_041", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But if religious adherents have a preference under every regulation, every statute, every ordinance, does that not raise free exercise... or establishment problems that are very significant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [1992.429], "stop_times": [2005.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.429}, "reply_to": "20726__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__1_042", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I would submit RFRA in that respect is no different from the Free Exercise Clause itself.\nThe Free Exercise Clause does no more than just protect religion.\nIt has no other purpose.\nRFRA does exactly the same thing, but just goes a little further.\nThat's fine.\nIt's good as long as you don't go too far and establish a religion.\nNow, it may be that my view of overprotecting is going to push us into the Establishment Clause, and at that point I'm in crouble, but until then, I think it's appropriate and quite legitimate for States to overprotect free exercise rights.\nThat's why we support the policy behind RFRA.\nThat's why we'll enact it at the State level if it's invalidated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2005.727, 2012.171, 2016.642, 2017.894, 2021.497, 2022.548, 2026.242, 2039.087, 2041.881], "stop_times": [2012.171, 2016.642, 2017.894, 2021.497, 2022.548, 2026.242, 2039.087, 2041.881, 2045.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2005.727}, "reply_to": "20726__1_041", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_043", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "What do you mean, overprotect?\nWhat does that word mean as you're using it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2045.071, 2046.423], "stop_times": [2046.423, 2049.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.071}, "reply_to": "20726__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__1_044", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, as many of the dissenters indicated in Smith, as the Congressmen and Congresswomen indicated in pass... may I finish the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2049.016], "stop_times": [2058.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2049.016}, "reply_to": "20726__1_043", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_045", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2058.831], "stop_times": [2059.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.831}, "reply_to": "20726__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__1_046", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "As they indicated in passing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2059.132], "stop_times": [2060.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2059.132}, "reply_to": "20726__1_045", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_047", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "You can finish the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2060.404], "stop_times": [2061.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.404}, "reply_to": "20726__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__1_048", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--In passing RFRA, Smith allows generally applicable neutral laws to pass free exercise scrutiny.\nThey may be instances where exemptions are appropriate, even though it happens to be a generally applicable law, and I think a State's entitled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2061.366, 2070.518], "stop_times": [2070.518, 2078.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2061.366}, "reply_to": "20726__1_047", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_049", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "So you just mean an exemption is an overprotection.\nIs that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2078.155, 2080.467], "stop_times": [2080.467, 2081.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.155}, "reply_to": "20726__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__1_050", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2081.338], "stop_times": [2081.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2081.338}, "reply_to": "20726__1_049", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20726__1_051", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Okay.\nThank you, Mr. Sutton.\nMr. Laycock, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2081.768, 2082.139, 2083.512], "stop_times": [2082.139, 2083.512, 2086.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.768}, "reply_to": "20726__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_000", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is controlled by an unbroken tradition of congressional practice and judicial decision that begins with the Civil War amendments themselves.\nFrom the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to RFRA in 1993, Congress has always understood that it has power to make constitutional rights effective in practice and to go beyond the floor set by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2086.132, 2098.54, 2107.176], "stop_times": [2098.54, 2107.176, 2120.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.132}, "reply_to": "20726__1_051", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_001", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, certainly some of the early cases on which Katzenbach relied are not to that effect.\nThe... Ex parte Virginia was simply a case where Congress had decided that State officials who violated the Fourteenth Amendment should be subject to criminal prosecution.\nThat's no extension of the Fourteenth Amendment at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2120.635, 2125.847, 2138.066], "stop_times": [2125.847, 2138.066, 2140.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.635}, "reply_to": "20726__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_002", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I agree the holding in Ex parte Virginia did not present the question we have presented here, but the standard the Court announced in Ex parte Virginia was that the congressional power reaches whatever is adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, and by the next case 4 years later, the civil rights cases adopted the badges and incidents theory of the enforcement power under the Thirteenth Amendment, which plainly goes vastly further than anything this Court would ever consider doing under the Thirteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2140.981], "stop_times": [2167.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.981}, "reply_to": "20726__2_001", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_003", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, there is that word appropriate in there, in section 5, I guess, that might bear some interpretation or weight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2167.735], "stop_times": [2175.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.735}, "reply_to": "20726__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_004", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2175.893], "stop_times": [2176.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.893}, "reply_to": "20726__2_003", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_005", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It has to be appropriate.\nNow, you admit, I suppose, that Congress cannot come in and overrule a decision of this Court it doesn't like by legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2176.632, 2178.064], "stop_times": [2178.064, 2186.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.632}, "reply_to": "20726__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_006", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--That is not contested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2186.151], "stop_times": [2187.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.151}, "reply_to": "20726__2_005", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_007", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2187.301], "stop_times": [2188.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.301}, "reply_to": "20726__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_008", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Everyone agrees with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2188.392], "stop_times": [2189.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2188.392}, "reply_to": "20726__2_007", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_009", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2189.484], "stop_times": [2190.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.484}, "reply_to": "20726__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_010", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Congress cannot overrule the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2190.032], "stop_times": [2191.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.032}, "reply_to": "20726__2_009", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_011", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And there's some indication that that was what Congress was all about here, if you read the purpose clause.\nDoes that concern us at all?\nDo we have to address that concern?\nIt also made it retroactive, so presumably the effect would be to overturn Smith--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2191.543, 2197.938, 2200.429, 2202.371], "stop_times": [2197.938, 2200.429, 2202.371, 2210.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.543}, "reply_to": "20726__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_012", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The effect is to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2210.156], "stop_times": [2211.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.156}, "reply_to": "20726__2_011", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_013", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--retroactively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2211.628], "stop_times": [2212.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.628}, "reply_to": "20726__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_014", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--The effect is to achieve a different result in some cases than Smith would achieve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2212.318], "stop_times": [2218.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.318}, "reply_to": "20726__2_013", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_015", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, and indeed, in Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2218.134], "stop_times": [2218.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.134}, "reply_to": "20726__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_016", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2218.913], "stop_times": [2219.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.913}, "reply_to": "20726__2_015", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_017", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And in Smith itself.\nIf that were to come up again, I guess this would be an effort by Congress to overturn that decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2219.354, 2220.946], "stop_times": [2220.946, 2228.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.354}, "reply_to": "20726__2_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_018", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, it would be... overturn is shorthand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2228.01], "stop_times": [2230.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2228.01}, "reply_to": "20726__2_017", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_019", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Directly and retroactively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2230.404], "stop_times": [2230.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.404}, "reply_to": "20726__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_020", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2230.614], "stop_times": [2230.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.614}, "reply_to": "20726__2_019", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_021", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And retroactively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2230.874], "stop_times": [2232.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.874}, "reply_to": "20726__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_022", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.\nOverturn is shorthand, but yes, to achieve a different result on similar facts under the statute than we would achieve under the Constitution itself, that's correct, but that's no different from the Voting Rights Act or from Title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2232.236, 2234.067], "stop_times": [2234.067, 2245.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2232.236}, "reply_to": "20726__2_021", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_023", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Mr. Laycock, do you think it overturns Reynolds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2245.453], "stop_times": [2248.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.453}, "reply_to": "20726__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__2_024", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Do I think it overturns Reynolds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2248.585], "stop_times": [2250.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.585}, "reply_to": "20726__2_023", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_025", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2250.438], "stop_times": [2250.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.438}, "reply_to": "20726__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__2_026", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No, I don't think it overturns Reynolds, but the... that's a compelling interest question.\nThat's a question whether protecting women is... and the other harms of polygamous marriage would be a compelling interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2250.798, 2254.671], "stop_times": [2254.671, 2259.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.798}, "reply_to": "20726__2_025", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_027", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, of course, Reynolds didn't reason on that basis.\nI mean, there wasn't any compelling interest standard at the time of Reynolds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2259.756, 2263.679], "stop_times": [2263.679, 2267.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.756}, "reply_to": "20726__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_028", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "You would write a different opinion than you wrote in Reynolds, but it's not at all clear the result would be any different than in Reynolds, but that would be up to this Court.\nThis Court retains the final decisionmaking power on all the cases brought under the statute or brought under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2267.961, 2275.515], "stop_times": [2275.515, 2281.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.961}, "reply_to": "20726__2_027", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_029", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "How about cases involving prisoners who... and I've seen several of these since I've been here, and petitions claiming a right in prison to smoke marijuana as part of their religious practices and beliefs.\nNow, presumably, a refusal by prison authorities to make marijuana available to a prisoner based on religious belief would now be subject to strict scrutiny.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2281.909, 2297.811], "stop_times": [2297.811, 2310.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.909}, "reply_to": "20726__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_030", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--We all know that prisoners file frivolous claims.\nWe all know they lose those claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2310.601, 2314.083], "stop_times": [2314.083, 2315.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.601}, "reply_to": "20726__2_029", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_031", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, it would require that, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2315.636], "stop_times": [2317.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.636}, "reply_to": "20726__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_032", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--It requires a claim, but the one piece of data on that is in the brief of the State of Texas, which reports that of all the cases pending against the State and its agencies, less than one-quarter of 1 percent are RFRA claims.\nMost of those are joined with other claims that would have been filed anyway, and many of them are frivolous prisoner claims that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2317.686, 2328.031], "stop_times": [2328.031, 2333.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.686}, "reply_to": "20726__2_031", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_033", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, certainly it would be open in the future for that claim to be made, or for some child to claim that their religious beliefs require them to take weapons to school, or that somebody has an absolute right under the Free Exercise Clause in the military context to wear yarmulkes, or other religious dress or head gear as their religion dictates, and that would overturn, I guess, a decision of this Court on that subject.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2333.544], "stop_times": [2367.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.544}, "reply_to": "20726__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_034", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, it would require the Court to apply a different standard under the statute, but the district judges--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2367.007], "stop_times": [2370.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.007}, "reply_to": "20726__2_033", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_035", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Excuse me.\nA different standard from Goldman?\nI thought Goldman applied exactly the standard that the statute wants.\nWould Goldman be overruled by this statue, which was the yarmulke case, whether an Air Force officer can wear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2370.86, 2370.951, 2372.904, 2376.357], "stop_times": [2370.951, 2372.904, 2376.357, 2380.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.86}, "reply_to": "20726__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_036", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Goldman was overruled by a particular statute shortly after it was decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2380.982], "stop_times": [2386.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.982}, "reply_to": "20726__2_035", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_037", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I'm not talking about that one.\nWould this statute overrule Goldman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2386.825, 2388.555], "stop_times": [2388.555, 2390.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.825}, "reply_to": "20726__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_038", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "RFRA... It's hard to imagine a compelling interest in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2390.358], "stop_times": [2393.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.358}, "reply_to": "20726__2_037", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_039", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But we held there was one.\nWe held there was one.\nWould our holding that there was a compelling interest in the Air Force not to have anybody wearing a yarmulke, would that holding be overturned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2393.607, 2394.949, 2396.021], "stop_times": [2394.949, 2396.021, 2403.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.607}, "reply_to": "20726__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_040", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--If that's how you read Goldman, it is not overruled.\nI always read Goldman as the military exception in refusing to apply the compelling interest test, but if there's a compelling interest, then Goldman is not changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2403.617, 2406.19], "stop_times": [2406.19, 2413.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.617}, "reply_to": "20726__2_039", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_041", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, compelling interest has an institutional, a juridical meaning based on our past cases, and I assume under ordinary principles of statutory construction that that is what Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2413.186], "stop_times": [2426.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.186}, "reply_to": "20726__2_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__2_042", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2426.566], "stop_times": [2427.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2426.566}, "reply_to": "20726__2_041", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_043", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "So Congress really hasn't tied our hands very much.\nI mean, if we can say that there's a compelling State interest in not having somebody wear a yarmulke, I guess we have a lot of running room still, don't we?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2427.154, 2431.468, 2438.674], "stop_times": [2431.468, 2438.674, 2439.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.154}, "reply_to": "20726__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_044", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "You might reconsider that holding if it ever comes up.\n[Laughter]\nBut yes, you still have a lot of running room, and this Court interprets RFRA and retains its independence as it interprets RFRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2439.365, 2442.628, 2443.727], "stop_times": [2442.628, 2443.727, 2452.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.365}, "reply_to": "20726__2_043", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_045", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I'd like to hear your response--\n--One... if I can, just one moment, Justice Breyer, Congress does... this Court doesn't have independence if it's construing a statute which has imported into its terms a term of art that had fairly specific meaning, i.e., compelling interest.\nIt was watered down considerably, but that's the statutory standard we must follow, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2452.131, 2454.104, 2476.418], "stop_times": [2454.104, 2476.418, 2482.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.131}, "reply_to": "20726__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__2_046", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That's the statutory standard you must follow, but you have the same independence in interpreting that statute that you have in interpreting any other statute, which isn't to say unconstrained freedom.\nOf course the Court has precedents that it follows, canons of interpretation it follows.\nIt tries to achieve congressional intent.\nBut none of that is a threat to the independent judiciary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2482.973, 2491.879, 2495.791, 2497.423], "stop_times": [2491.879, 2495.791, 2497.423, 2500.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2482.973}, "reply_to": "20726__2_045", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_047", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, but... compelling... we're interpreting what Congress meant by compelling interest in the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2500.406], "stop_times": [2506.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.406}, "reply_to": "20726__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_048", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2506.119], "stop_times": [2506.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.119}, "reply_to": "20726__2_047", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_049", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--rather than, as we had previously thought, what we meant by a compelling interest under the Constitution.\nThat's quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2506.949, 2512.394], "stop_times": [2512.394, 2513.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.949}, "reply_to": "20726__2_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_050", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2513.514], "stop_times": [2513.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2513.514}, "reply_to": "20726__2_049", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_051", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It's dramatically different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2513.954], "stop_times": [2516.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.954}, "reply_to": "20726__2_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_052", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--It's a different task, but it's no less judicially independent.\nYou still get the final word on what the statute means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2516.085, 2519.928], "stop_times": [2519.928, 2522.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2516.085}, "reply_to": "20726__2_051", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_053", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, except if we're faithful to our oaths we've got to say, we're looking at what Congress meant by this.\nWe have the final word on what a statute means, too, but that's not nearly the same thing as having, as Marbury said, the final word on what the Constitution means.\nThere we cannot be overridden except by an amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2522.452, 2528.766, 2537.263], "stop_times": [2528.766, 2537.263, 2540.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.452}, "reply_to": "20726__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_054", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I don't think we disagree, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI think that... I think we may be talking about two different senses of independent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2540.225, 2543.049], "stop_times": [2543.049, 2546.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.225}, "reply_to": "20726__2_053", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_055", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, certainly under this Court's notion of the needs and authority of the military we've given a good deal of deference to military requirements, just as we have to prison disciplinary requirements in the prison context, and so our balance might well come out differently in those cases in the past.\nBut there appears to be no room for that kind of thing under the law Congress has passed, and that isn't the test employed.\nCongress did not, in fact, return faithfully to this Court's interpretations in the past.\nIt did something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2546.479, 2570.796, 2579.054, 2587.077], "stop_times": [2570.796, 2579.054, 2587.077, 2588.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.479}, "reply_to": "20726__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_056", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Congress attempted to apply the compelling interest test across the board, but Congress is also quite clear that what is a compelling interest depends upon context.\nIt's easier to show a compelling interest in a prison or in the military than in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2588.649, 2599.296], "stop_times": [2599.296, 2602.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.649}, "reply_to": "20726__2_055", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_057", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I'm not even sure what compelling interest means in the peyote case itself, because the Court was divided on that issue.\nI'm not sure this is quite as clear a concept as everyone assumes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2602.868, 2609.564], "stop_times": [2609.564, 2614.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.868}, "reply_to": "20726__2_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__2_058", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I share that assumption.\nThat's just further evidence of why this is not such a dramatic power grab.\nThe power of interpreting compelling interests remains in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2614.138, 2617.391, 2622.313], "stop_times": [2617.391, 2622.313, 2625.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.138}, "reply_to": "20726__2_057", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_059", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Have you considered the possibility that Congress might have been well within section 5 with respect to its insistence upon, we'll call it an effects test, but perhaps went too far when it got to enacting a compelling interest criterion?\nCan the baby be split?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2625.325, 2642.175], "stop_times": [2642.175, 2644.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.325}, "reply_to": "20726__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__2_060", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "In theory the baby can be split, but there's no basis in section 5 to make that split.\nWhat... the compelling interest test comes out of this Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause.\nAll Congress did was change the threshold that the plaintiff must show to shift the burden.\nThis is a burden-shifting statute like the other intention and effect statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2644.138, 2654.714, 2660.508, 2665.331], "stop_times": [2654.714, 2660.508, 2665.331, 2669.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.138}, "reply_to": "20726__2_059", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_061", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Mr. Laycock, you can say that, and I could understand it intellectually, but practically isn't it so that what this statute does is to make the Smith doctrine academic, a dead letter?\nIt will never be applied as long as this statute lives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2669.155, 2684.224], "stop_times": [2684.224, 2686.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.155}, "reply_to": "20726__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__2_062", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It will occasionally be applied.\nWe have a free exercise claim pending in the court below.\nKeeler v. Maryland was just won on a free exercise claim in the District of Maryland.\nRader v. Johnson was just won on a free exercise claim, because there are sometimes advantages to the litigant in proceeding under the free exercise claim under Smith, rather than under RFRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2686.918, 2688.257, 2691.97, 2697.023], "stop_times": [2688.257, 2691.97, 2697.023, 2707.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2686.918}, "reply_to": "20726__2_061", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_063", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Can you explain to me a case in which the notion that a law of general application does not have to make exceptions for religious observances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2707.14], "stop_times": [2719.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.14}, "reply_to": "20726__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__2_064", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2719.199], "stop_times": [2720.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2719.199}, "reply_to": "20726__2_063", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_065", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Where that would... once we have RFRA, where that doctrine would ever come into play?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2720.118], "stop_times": [2724.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2720.118}, "reply_to": "20726__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__2_066", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--It is always in the litigant's interest to show that the law is not of general applicability, that in fact it discriminates, because that undermines the Government's compelling interest argument, undermines the Government's credibility.\nThere are a number of lower court cases that say there's not a substantial burden here, so RFRA doesn't apply, but there's discrimination so Smith does apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2724.492, 2734.687], "stop_times": [2734.687, 2742.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.492}, "reply_to": "20726__2_065", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_067", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Are you answering Justice Ginsburg's question?\nI don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2742.645, 2745.716], "stop_times": [2745.716, 2747.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.645}, "reply_to": "20726__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_068", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I thought I was.\nI thought she said why would there ever be again a free exercise claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2747.306, 2748.327], "stop_times": [2748.327, 2751.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2747.306}, "reply_to": "20726__2_067", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_069", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Because my understanding was that this goes at least as far in protecting religious freedom as Smith does, and then goes quite a distance further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2751.399], "stop_times": [2760.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.399}, "reply_to": "20726__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__2_070", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It goes some distance further.\nThere are also... there are also ways in which it goes not quite as far, according to some of the lower courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2760.155, 2761.738], "stop_times": [2761.738, 2767.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.155}, "reply_to": "20726__2_069", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_071", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, that's what I don't understand.\nIt seems to me it covered everything that the Smith doctrine protects, and protects more and, indeed, that was the only purpose in enacting it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2767.431, 2770.383], "stop_times": [2770.383, 2780.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.431}, "reply_to": "20726__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__2_072", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That was the purpose in enacting it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2780.772], "stop_times": [2784.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2780.772}, "reply_to": "20726__2_071", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_073", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2784.164], "stop_times": [2785.413], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.164}, "reply_to": "20726__2_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20726__2_074", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Take... Rader v. Johnson and Keeler v. Mayor of Cumberland are in the Government's brief, and they are really cases that proceeded under Smith and not under RFRA.\nThere are reasons to do it.\nIf I could, I'd like to address the claim that both Ohio and Boerne make that this is somehow different from all previous statutes because in all other section 5 statutes there was this massive record of widespread violations and here there are hardly any violations, and both halves of that are simply not true.\nIn many of the section 5 cases it is hard to imagine ever proving a constitutional violation.\nWhen Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act it didn't discover that most pregnancy rules were motivated by an attempt to get women or exclude them.\nSometimes that is true.\nOccasionally there would be a pregnancy case that would satisfy this Court's constitutional standard, but basically Congress said, rules about pregnancy burden women, and that burden's severe enough, it's closely enough connected to a constitutional violation, we think it ought to be protected.\nThey didn't find a fact that would have persuaded this Court that there's a constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2785.413, 2797.33, 2798.412, 2817.155, 2824.371, 2836.549, 2837.84, 2852.522], "stop_times": [2797.33, 2798.412, 2817.155, 2824.371, 2836.549, 2837.84, 2852.522, 2856.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.413}, "reply_to": "20726__2_073", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_075", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--But this case--\n--But Congress enacted... go on.\nThis case says that every law, every ordinance, every regulation in the United States must grant a religious preference if the terms of the statute are met, and it seems to me that this is quite inconsistent with our traditions, and it has very serious Establishment Clause problems--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2856.245, 2856.996, 2858.178], "stop_times": [2856.996, 2858.178, 2883.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.245}, "reply_to": "20726__2_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__2_076", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2883.293], "stop_times": [2885.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.293}, "reply_to": "20726__2_075", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_077", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--with respect to zoning, with respect to the facilities that churches must have, the fire exits, et cetera, and with respect to tax exemptions and tax deductions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2885.086], "stop_times": [2897.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.086}, "reply_to": "20726__2_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__2_078", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "This does not require a massive preference.\nWhat this requires is that when Government substantially burdens religion, it has to justify it.\nIt's not triggered without showing a substantial burden, and removing the substantial burden doesn't make the church any better off than it was before it encountered the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2897.672, 2900.245, 2905.23], "stop_times": [2900.245, 2905.23, 2915.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.672}, "reply_to": "20726__2_077", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_079", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But zoning imposes a substantial burden on everybody, and to say that it imposes it on churches just as on everybody else is to bring that within this act, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2915.496], "stop_times": [2923.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.496}, "reply_to": "20726__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_080", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2923.95], "stop_times": [2926.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.95}, "reply_to": "20726__2_079", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_081", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Any significant legislation comes within this act, and you must make an exception for religious entities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2926.224], "stop_times": [2931.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.224}, "reply_to": "20726__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_082", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And when you make that exception, the church is no better off than it was before Government started imposing the burden in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2931.046], "stop_times": [2936.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.046}, "reply_to": "20726__2_081", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_083", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, or be in the state of nature, you might say.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2936.449, 2939.381], "stop_times": [2939.381, 2940.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.449}, "reply_to": "20726__2_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_084", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2940.442], "stop_times": [2940.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2940.442}, "reply_to": "20726__2_083", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_085", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No better off than it would be if it were exempt from all laws, you're quite right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2940.933], "stop_times": [2945.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.933}, "reply_to": "20726__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_086", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--But this is... but not nearly as well off as it would be if it were getting money from the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2945.025], "stop_times": [2949.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.025}, "reply_to": "20726__2_085", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_087", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But an establishment violation is measured by whether there's a preference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2949.939], "stop_times": [2953.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.939}, "reply_to": "20726__2_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__2_088", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "This Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2953.222], "stop_times": [2954.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.222}, "reply_to": "20726__2_087", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_089", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And if we were all in the state of nature, then that wouldn't be the... wouldn't be a problem, but only the churches are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2954.461], "stop_times": [2959.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.461}, "reply_to": "20726__2_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__2_090", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--The Court unanimously rejected that understanding in Amos.\nSimply relieving a burden or exempting the church is not an establishment, nine-zero.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2959.216, 2963.187], "stop_times": [2963.187, 2967.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.216}, "reply_to": "20726__2_089", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_091", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "While we're on the Establishment clause, I assume Congress can enforce the Establishment Clause the same way it can enforce the Free Exercise Clause, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2967.821], "stop_times": [2974.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.821}, "reply_to": "20726__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_092", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I think that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2974.416], "stop_times": [2975.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.416}, "reply_to": "20726__2_091", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_093", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "So it could pass a law saying that no State shall give churches a tax exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2975.097], "stop_times": [2979.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.097}, "reply_to": "20726__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_094", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, the question... you could pass that law, and this Court would then have to decide whether it violated the Free Exercise Clause, but... and this Court would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2979.759], "stop_times": [2987.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.759}, "reply_to": "20726__2_093", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_095", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, if it didn't violate the Free Exercise Clause, then... you think... is that a substantial argument?\nMust a State give a tax exemption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2987.336, 2993.37], "stop_times": [2993.37, 2995.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.336}, "reply_to": "20726__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_096", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--After Swaggert, I suppose not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2995.042], "stop_times": [2997.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.042}, "reply_to": "20726__2_095", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_097", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.\nI suppose not, too.\nSo Congress could pass such a law, under the theory that you're proposing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [2997.283, 2997.674, 2998.695], "stop_times": [2997.674, 2998.695, 3001.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.283}, "reply_to": "20726__2_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_098", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3001.698], "stop_times": [3002.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.698}, "reply_to": "20726__2_097", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_099", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And by the same token, I suppose you would say that Congress could pass a law saying that any law or regulation... abortion is subject only to the rational basis test, no more.\nThat's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3002.797, 3023.77], "stop_times": [3023.77, 3024.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.797}, "reply_to": "20726__2_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_100", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No.\nMy client obviously has a problem with the abortion decisions, but as long as this Court adheres to those decisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3024.682, 3025.883], "stop_times": [3025.883, 3033.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.682}, "reply_to": "20726__2_099", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_101", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No, I'm talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3033.738], "stop_times": [3035.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.738}, "reply_to": "20726__2_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_102", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Congress can't roll them back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3035.268], "stop_times": [3036.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3035.268}, "reply_to": "20726__2_101", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_103", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--the power of Congress under your theory under section 5.\nCould it do that, or could it do the reverse and say, any law regulating in any fashion abortions has to be tested under the strictest scrutiny possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3036.629, 3039.122], "stop_times": [3039.122, 3051.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.629}, "reply_to": "20726__2_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_104", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3051.628], "stop_times": [3051.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.628}, "reply_to": "20726__2_103", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_105", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Could it do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3051.998], "stop_times": [3052.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.998}, "reply_to": "20726__2_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_106", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Those two laws are very different, for a reason that goes to the heart of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3052.829], "stop_times": [3055.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3052.829}, "reply_to": "20726__2_105", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_107", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Could it do either of those things?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3055.45], "stop_times": [3057.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.45}, "reply_to": "20726__2_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__2_108", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It could do the second.\nIt could not do the first.\nIt cannot roll back a right adjudicated by this Court's decisions.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3057.083, 3057.533, 3059.515, 3063.328], "stop_times": [3057.533, 3059.515, 3063.328, 3063.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.083}, "reply_to": "20726__2_107", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_109", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Because of dicta in Katzenbach?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3063.718], "stop_times": [3065.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.718}, "reply_to": "20726__2_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_110", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Because of Marbury v. Madison.\nThat really is Marbury v. Madison.\nBut when Congress expands on the rights that this Court has created, you're not in Marbury land at all.\nYou are in section 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3065.381, 3066.783, 3068.844, 3075.108], "stop_times": [3066.783, 3068.844, 3075.108, 3076.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3065.381}, "reply_to": "20726__2_109", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_111", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I don't understand that at all, why Congress may move in one direction a constitutional right but may not move it in another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3076.479], "stop_times": [3083.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.479}, "reply_to": "20726__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_112", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Because to move it, to roll back this Court's decisions really would eviscerate judicial review.\nIt would remove the independent protection for our liberty.\nBut to move in the other direction provides a supplemental or second protection for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3083.606, 3088.439, 3091.751], "stop_times": [3088.439, 3091.751, 3097.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3083.606}, "reply_to": "20726__2_111", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_113", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, but they would be arguing that they're enforcing another constitutional right.\nThat is, in rolling back the protections of freedom of religion, we're not acting under the Freedom of Religion Clause.\nWe're acting under the Establishment Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3097.727, 3101.137, 3107.101], "stop_times": [3101.137, 3107.101, 3109.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.727}, "reply_to": "20726__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_114", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "They--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3109.184], "stop_times": [3109.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.184}, "reply_to": "20726__2_113", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_115", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Because there are many clauses that can be used against each other.\nIn the abortion example just given, we could say we're using the Equal Protection Clause.\nSo you can constantly adjust both downward and upward the meaning of all the provisions of the Bill of Rights by using one of the other clauses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3109.535, 3111.889, 3116.23], "stop_times": [3111.889, 3116.23, 3123.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3109.535}, "reply_to": "20726__2_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_116", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Not constantly, but often, and when that happens the law is unconstitutional.\nSection 5 power, like the Article I powers, is subject to the constitutional rights adjudicated under other clauses by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3123.987, 3130.211], "stop_times": [3130.211, 3137.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3123.987}, "reply_to": "20726__2_115", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_117", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "If it makes any alteration in the nature of the other clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3137.677], "stop_times": [3141.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3137.677}, "reply_to": "20726__2_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__2_118", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No.\nIf it reduces the protection of the other clause below the level that this Court says is the judicially enforceable meaning of that other clause.\nThis Court gets the last word--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3141.381, 3141.671, 3149.438], "stop_times": [3141.671, 3149.438, 3151.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3141.381}, "reply_to": "20726__2_117", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_119", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3151.478], "stop_times": [3152.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.478}, "reply_to": "20726__2_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__2_120", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--when it turns to another clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3152.179], "stop_times": [3153.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3152.179}, "reply_to": "20726__2_119", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_121", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nI didn't mean to interrupt you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3153.441, 3153.711], "stop_times": [3153.711, 3154.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.441}, "reply_to": "20726__2_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__2_122", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Then it could prohibit States from enacting any affirmative action programs in order to protect the racial interests of the white majority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3154.392], "stop_times": [3161.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3154.392}, "reply_to": "20726__2_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__2_123", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "If that's this Court's understanding of Adarand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3161.848], "stop_times": [3164.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3161.848}, "reply_to": "20726__2_122", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_124", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That's the understanding of your argument, I'm saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3164.981], "stop_times": [3167.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3164.981}, "reply_to": "20726__2_123", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__2_125", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3167.044], "stop_times": [3167.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3167.044}, "reply_to": "20726__2_124", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_126", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3167.254], "stop_times": [3167.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.254}, "reply_to": "20726__2_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__2_127", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "My understanding is that the section 5 power is fully subject to cases such as Adarand and Richmond v. Croson, that's correct, because that's a judicially adjudicated right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3167.625], "stop_times": [3176.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3167.625}, "reply_to": "20726__2_126", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_128", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Mr. Laycock, could you go back to the argument that you began a while ago saying that there really is no categorical distinction that can be made between the premises, say, of the Voting Rights Act and its effect test and the present statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3176.249], "stop_times": [3191.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.249}, "reply_to": "20726__2_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__2_129", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3191.099], "stop_times": [3191.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3191.099}, "reply_to": "20726__2_128", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_130", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Could you address specifically that example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3191.279], "stop_times": [3194.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.279}, "reply_to": "20726__2_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__2_131", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The easiest example, the '82 Voting Rights Act, is global.\nIt mentions no particular voting practice.\nIt applies to any voting practice that has a discriminatory result.\nIt is enormously intrusive, vastly more so than RFRA.\nIt remade politics in the South.\nRFRA is a mile wide and an inch deep.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3194.411, 3197.484, 3199.657, 3203.67, 3207.794, 3209.487], "stop_times": [3197.484, 3199.657, 3203.67, 3207.794, 3209.487, 3211.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3194.411}, "reply_to": "20726__2_130", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_132", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The Voting Rights Act, it's constitutionality has never been upheld by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3211.42], "stop_times": [3216.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.42}, "reply_to": "20726__2_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__2_133", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It's upheld in this Court's decision in Mississippi Republican Committee, and it's been upheld unanimously after full consideration by the courts of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3216.002], "stop_times": [3224.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3216.002}, "reply_to": "20726__2_132", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_134", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Wasn't there a legislative record of findings of violations, and isn't that a distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3224.708], "stop_times": [3234.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3224.708}, "reply_to": "20726__2_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__2_135", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The '82... the legislative record in the '82 act is a mirror image of RFRA, pages and pages of denouncing City of Mobile v. Bolden as a terrible decision.\nConsiderable findings that motive is difficult to prove.\nBut what you don't find in the RFRA record you do find in that record is the Senate report says, it's difficult to prove, but that's not the real reason.\nThe real reason we're doing this is the Court announced the wrong test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3234.134, 3243.27, 3246.973, 3254.738], "stop_times": [3243.27, 3246.973, 3254.738, 3257.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3234.134}, "reply_to": "20726__2_134", "speaker": "douglas_laycock"}
{"id": "20726__2_136", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Laycock.\nGeneral Dellinger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3257.212, 3258.731], "stop_times": [3258.731, 3261.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.212}, "reply_to": "20726__2_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__3_000", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case does not require the Court to break any new ground in upholding the statute, because the act prevents what everyone would agree is an actual violation of the Constitution as noted by this Court.\nIn Lukumi, this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3261.464, 3273.18, 3289.022], "stop_times": [3273.18, 3289.022, 3292.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3261.464}, "reply_to": "20726__2_136", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_001", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "In what, Mr. Dellinger?\nYou gave a case name, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3292.725, 3294.237], "stop_times": [3294.237, 3297.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.725}, "reply_to": "20726__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__3_002", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nLukumi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3297.97, 3298.209], "stop_times": [3298.209, 3298.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3297.97}, "reply_to": "20726__3_001", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_003", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Oh.\nBabalu... Hialeah, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3298.91, 3299.53], "stop_times": [3299.53, 3301.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.91}, "reply_to": "20726__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__3_004", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Versus the City of Hialeah.\nThank you, Justice Scalia.\nIn that case, as in many others, the Court said that State rules that treat some religious denominations more favorably than others violates the Constitution.\nThis Court in Smith acknowledges that when it comes to accommodations and exceptions some denominations will predictably be treated more favorably than others and, in Kiryas Joel, you acknowledge that this inequitable favoritism will be difficult for the courts to police.\nThat takes it right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3301.343, 3302.365, 3303.516, 3315.254, 3336.909], "stop_times": [3302.365, 3303.516, 3315.254, 3336.909, 3337.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.343}, "reply_to": "20726__3_003", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_005", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Do you take the position in this case, Mr. Solicitor General, that the denial of the variance from the historic site ordinance was, in fact, a violation of the act?\nYou're here defending the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3337.64, 3349.728], "stop_times": [3349.728, 3353.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.64}, "reply_to": "20726__3_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__3_006", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--No, Justice Kennedy, we do not... we have not included... and Mr. Laycock tells me it is a substantial burden and would violate RFRA.\nWe have not included that for the United States.\nWe entered to defend the constitutionality of RFRA, and the trial court has not yet passed on whether there is a substantial burden in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3353.14, 3359.613, 3362.247], "stop_times": [3359.613, 3362.247, 3371.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3353.14}, "reply_to": "20726__3_005", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_007", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Assume that charitable deductions are very important for some churches.\nCould Congress, consistently with this act, abolish charitable deductions if that amounted... if that would result in some closure of churches?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3371.631, 3375.866], "stop_times": [3375.866, 3384.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.631}, "reply_to": "20726__3_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__3_008", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I think where you have... it would be tested in this Court by the standards--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3384.55], "stop_times": [3390.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3384.55}, "reply_to": "20726__3_007", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_009", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But this act addresses that, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3390.424], "stop_times": [3392.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.424}, "reply_to": "20726__3_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__3_010", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--This act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3392.296], "stop_times": [3392.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3392.296}, "reply_to": "20726__3_009", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_011", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And this act says that Congress must use the least-restrictive means in formulating its tax policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3392.385], "stop_times": [3399.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.385}, "reply_to": "20726__3_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__3_012", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The Court would have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3399.61], "stop_times": [3401.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3399.61}, "reply_to": "20726__3_011", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_013", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--in order to protect religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3401.583], "stop_times": [3402.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.583}, "reply_to": "20726__3_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__3_014", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--It is not clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3402.554], "stop_times": [3402.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3402.554}, "reply_to": "20726__3_013", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_015", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Is that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3402.863], "stop_times": [3403.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3402.863}, "reply_to": "20726__3_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__3_016", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--It is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3403.454], "stop_times": [3403.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3403.454}, "reply_to": "20726__3_015", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_017", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Is that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3403.644], "stop_times": [3404.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.644}, "reply_to": "20726__3_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__3_018", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--That is correct, Justice Kennedy.\nIt is not clear to me that relieving... that you're imposing a substantial burden if you're cutting back on what was a previously accorded pure benefit.\nThe substantial burden usually indicates that the Congress is relieving a burden, but as this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3404.425, 3405.656, 3417.225], "stop_times": [3405.656, 3417.225, 3421.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3404.425}, "reply_to": "20726__3_017", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_019", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Would we even get to the act if that's all Congress did?\nGiven the fact that the treatment of the churches has been part and parcel of the treatment of other so-called charitable organizations, if all Congress did was in effect require the end of the church's tax status, I suppose we would have a suit right under Smith before we ever got to RFRA, wouldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3421.97, 3424.98], "stop_times": [3424.98, 3446.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3421.97}, "reply_to": "20726__3_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__3_020", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No, I'd assumed they had abolished the charitable deduction completely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3446.827], "stop_times": [3450.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3446.827}, "reply_to": "20726__3_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20726__3_021", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3450.189], "stop_times": [3450.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3450.189}, "reply_to": "20726__3_020", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_022", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And your position is that taxation is not a burden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3450.409], "stop_times": [3453.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3450.409}, "reply_to": "20726__3_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__3_023", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That the--\n[Laughter]\nThe relieving of a benefit may not itself constitute a burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3453.272, 3454.604, 3454.874], "stop_times": [3454.604, 3454.874, 3459.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3453.272}, "reply_to": "20726__3_022", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_024", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The relieving of the benefit of being exempt from tax in particular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3459.527], "stop_times": [3461.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.527}, "reply_to": "20726__3_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__3_025", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3461.627], "stop_times": [3461.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3461.627}, "reply_to": "20726__3_024", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_026", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Which amounts to saying that taxation is not a burden, right, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3461.968], "stop_times": [3465.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3461.968}, "reply_to": "20726__3_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__3_027", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, it is a burden, but we're talking about a burden on the free exercise of religion.\nBut here, I think the critical constitutional violation that Congress is enacting prophylactic rules to prevent, that is fully a sufficient basis for resolving this case in favor of RFRA in all of its violations, is Congress' concern expressed in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3465.42, 3469.754], "stop_times": [3469.754, 3486.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3465.42}, "reply_to": "20726__3_026", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_028", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Mr. Solicitor General, does that require us to assume, and that may be correct, that, as was the case with the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act and all... there's a long, well-documented history of violations of the rights of the people protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.\nAre we... should we assume as a predicate for our decision that there is a comparable violation of religious rights that's prevalent throughout the country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3486.728, 3501.397], "stop_times": [3501.397, 3509.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3486.728}, "reply_to": "20726__3_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__3_029", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--No.\nYou don't need to assume that there is a comparable prevalent violation, but what you will find when you look at the record are two kinds of agreed-upon... that is, Court... this Court agrees, agreed-upon violation of section 1.\nOne that has gone without mention here, where this Court itself has anticipated violations that can be remedied prophylactically, is that in the accommodations process more influential and politically well-connected religions, powerful sector interests, will get exemptions when more marginal religions, particularly those that represent racial and ethnic minorities, will not get exemptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3509.292, 3510.694, 3526.652], "stop_times": [3510.694, 3526.652, 3553.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3509.292}, "reply_to": "20726__3_028", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_030", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "How does that--\n--Well--\n--How does that point fit into an argument that's purely linguistic, I think, but very important... I'm not saying I accept it or not, but I think a linguistic argument that is made is that Smith says that a general law not motivated in purpose against a religion does not violate... does not violate... the Constitution, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3553.131, 3553.352, 3553.429], "stop_times": [3553.352, 3553.429, 3580.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3553.131}, "reply_to": "20726__3_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__3_031", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3580.049], "stop_times": [3580.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3580.049}, "reply_to": "20726__3_030", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_032", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And then it says, section 2, Congress shall have power to enforce this article and so, your argument goes, where a general law that isn't motivated purposely is at stake, insofar as Congress forbids that, it's not enforcing the Constitution, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3580.258], "stop_times": [3602.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3580.258}, "reply_to": "20726__3_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__3_033", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Justice Breyer, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3602.953], "stop_times": [3605.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3602.953}, "reply_to": "20726__3_032", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_034", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--the Constitution doesn't prohibit that.\nNow, you're giving a response to that, and I just want you to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3605.056, 3605.918], "stop_times": [3605.918, 3608.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3605.056}, "reply_to": "20726__3_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__3_035", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Yes.\nMy response is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3608.639, 3608.977], "stop_times": [3608.977, 3609.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3608.639}, "reply_to": "20726__3_034", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_036", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--tie that response to a linguistic argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3609.588], "stop_times": [3610.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3609.588}, "reply_to": "20726__3_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__3_037", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--My response is quite clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3610.99], "stop_times": [3611.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3610.99}, "reply_to": "20726__3_036", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_038", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3611.28], "stop_times": [3611.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3611.28}, "reply_to": "20726__3_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__3_039", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Congress is prohibited requiring exemptions not otherwise required to some laws that would not violate section 1, but it is doing so prophylactically, as this Court does in cases like Miranda and many others.\nIt is doing so prophylactically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3611.431, 3626.173], "stop_times": [3626.173, 3628.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3611.431}, "reply_to": "20726__3_038", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_040", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, how many others... how many others, other than Miranda are there, where they... we have imposed a prophylactic rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3628.144], "stop_times": [3633.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3628.144}, "reply_to": "20726__3_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__3_041", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--I believe that a number of your rules are prophylactic.\nIn a case like North Carolina v. Pearce, where all harsher sentencing after a pretrial are prohibited--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3633.415, 3636.979], "stop_times": [3636.979, 3643.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3633.415}, "reply_to": "20726__3_040", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_042", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Well, that was a constitutional holding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3643.634], "stop_times": [3645.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3643.634}, "reply_to": "20726__3_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__3_043", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, but the violation about which you were concerned is the threat of retaliatory sentencing, so you later noted in Michigan v. Payne that that rule was greatly overinclusive in terms of the actual violations.\nThat is, hostile sentencing.\nBut to, if I may, Mr. Chief Justice, return to Justice Breyer's question, what is critical here is that Congress has... in the Voting Rights Act and in others, it prohibits a broader range of practices in order to get at those that clearly violate the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3645.975, 3646.346, 3660.567, 3662.308], "stop_times": [3646.346, 3660.567, 3662.308, 3677.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3645.975}, "reply_to": "20726__3_042", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_044", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Let me take just what you're saying and put it in this linguistic framework.\nCongress passed this law prophylactically to prevent the violation... and now, fill in the blank.\nWhat violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3677.657, 3681.35, 3691.216], "stop_times": [3681.35, 3691.216, 3692.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3677.657}, "reply_to": "20726__3_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__3_045", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The violation of treating... more than one.\nThe first one is the violation of treating some religious denominations more favorably than others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3692.127, 3694.969], "stop_times": [3694.969, 3701.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3692.127}, "reply_to": "20726__3_044", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_046", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But according to Smith that doesn't violate the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3701.273], "stop_times": [3703.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3701.273}, "reply_to": "20726__3_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__3_047", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No.\nI... no, that I beg to differ.\nWhere different religious denominations aren't treated differently there's no question before, after, and during Smith it violates the Constitution.\nIt may be difficult to remedy on a case-by-case judicial approach where you're trying to prove it, but it clearly is a constitutional violation if an exemption is made for the Methodist Church and the exemption is not made for the Santorias.\nIf you... take a case, for example, like the district court case, Rader v. Johnson, from the State of Nebraska, where the university has a rule that all freshmen must live on campus, and the... Mr. Rader is a Fundamentalist Christian.\nHis sincerity is beyond doubt.\nHis family have prayer services every morning throughout high school.\nFor him, it is an occasion of sin to be forced to go into a dormitory where there is alcohol, and profanity, and co-ed living, and partying.\nIt was really going to cost him his ability to go to this university, and his alternative is to live a few blocks off campus at the Christian Fellowship House.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3703.757, 3704.575, 3707.219, 3715.183, 3730.912, 3747.645, 3749.895, 3753.027, 3763.235], "stop_times": [3704.575, 3707.219, 3715.183, 3730.912, 3747.645, 3749.895, 3753.027, 3763.235, 3769.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3703.757}, "reply_to": "20726__3_046", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_048", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Can I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3769.97], "stop_times": [3770.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3769.97}, "reply_to": "20726__3_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20726__3_049", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes, Now... if may just finish up.\nThis is more often the... he is not given an exemption.\nWhen it turns out that the important booster calls up because he wants his son to live with a relative.\nIt turns out that a student who wants to drive his sister to school... all these are allowed exemptions from living off-campus.\nIn this case, he was able to prove it, but Congress can worry particularly about the marginal religious groups that won't get the accommodations.\nThis is not a made-up issue.\nThere are many accommodations that are made, exceptions from zoning laws, accommodations all the time.\nKiryas Joel says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3770.481, 3772.752, 3775.985, 3781.889, 3787.793, 3795.649, 3796.828, 3803.283], "stop_times": [3772.752, 3775.985, 3781.889, 3787.793, 3795.649, 3796.828, 3803.283, 3805.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3770.481}, "reply_to": "20726__3_048", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_050", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3805.075], "stop_times": [3805.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3805.075}, "reply_to": "20726__3_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__3_051", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--we are concerned that we won't be able to police those in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3805.426], "stop_times": [3809.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3805.426}, "reply_to": "20726__3_050", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_052", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, let's go back to the tax issue, and suppose the record shows that only a couple of major churches have extensive businesses that are ordinary businesses but the income from those businesses is used to support the church, ultimately, but they're ordinary businesses.\nThey run hotels, or they run gambling casinos, or have bingo games, or whatever, and it affects primarily the Catholic Church and the LDS Church.\nLet's say the facts show that.\nAnd what the State has done is to pass laws saying that all businesses that are not part and parcel of the church itself, but outside businesses that produce money for the church, will be taxed like every other business is taxed.\nNow, this law apparently would require the strictest scrutiny of that tax law.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3809.059, 3832.563, 3846.354, 3847.523, 3862.303, 3870.25], "stop_times": [3832.563, 3846.354, 3847.523, 3862.303, 3870.25, 3871.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3809.059}, "reply_to": "20726__3_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__3_053", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Justice O'Connor, only if you conclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3871.319], "stop_times": [3874.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3871.319}, "reply_to": "20726__3_052", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_054", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "You can say yes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3874.711], "stop_times": [3875.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3874.711}, "reply_to": "20726__3_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__3_055", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Would it require?\nI think the answer's no, and assuming that you would conclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3875.252, 3876.842], "stop_times": [3876.842, 3881.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3875.252}, "reply_to": "20726__3_054", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_056", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "How can you read it that way, as broadly as it's written?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3881.076], "stop_times": [3883.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3881.076}, "reply_to": "20726__3_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__3_057", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--On the assumption that you would conclude that it is not a burden on religiously motivated conduct if you limit the ways as a part of a general law in which people can raise money, that a substantial... the substantial part of the substantial burden--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3883.607], "stop_times": [3899.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3883.607}, "reply_to": "20726__3_056", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_058", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "You mean, you'd construe the statute to say the same thing Smith says.\nThat's what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3899.439, 3901.629], "stop_times": [3901.629, 3902.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3899.439}, "reply_to": "20726__3_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__3_059", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Oh, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3902.781], "stop_times": [3903.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3902.781}, "reply_to": "20726__3_058", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_060", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No, but you are saying some general laws are okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3903.612], "stop_times": [3907.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3903.612}, "reply_to": "20726__3_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__3_061", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Yes, indeed, because this... there's a lot... this case comes up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3907.115], "stop_times": [3911.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3907.115}, "reply_to": "20726__3_060", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_062", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "And where... how do we know which?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3911.065], "stop_times": [3913.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3911.065}, "reply_to": "20726__3_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__3_063", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Justice Souter, I want to remind you, and Justice O'Connor, that the case comes up on a facial challenge, so that this Court has had no occasion to interpret what constitutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3913.747], "stop_times": [3922.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3913.747}, "reply_to": "20726__3_062", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_064", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "No, I just want to interpret what you're saying, and you're saying there are two classes of cases here, and some general and neutral laws are okay, and what's your criterion for drawing that line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3922.452], "stop_times": [3934.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3922.452}, "reply_to": "20726__3_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__3_065", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--My criteria would be, again without having addressed this, whether a substantial burden is one that really goes to religiously motivated conduct and restricts that religiously motivated conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3934.741], "stop_times": [3945.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3934.741}, "reply_to": "20726__3_064", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_066", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But it is--\n--a substantial burden--\n--discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3945.199, 3945.839, 3946.58], "stop_times": [3945.839, 3946.58, 3947.151], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3945.199}, "reply_to": "20726__3_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20726__3_067", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "I mean, Amos itself said that, you know, economic activity is different and may raise Establishment Clause problems if you allow people to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3947.151], "stop_times": [3955.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3947.151}, "reply_to": "20726__3_066", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_068", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "But even if it's economic activity to raise money for the church?\nWhat difference is there between a church that runs a business, all of the money of which is devoted to the church, and a church that solicits contributions, all of which is devoted to the church?\nIs... you're saying that somehow the latter is more religiously motivated than the former?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3955.917, 3959.2, 3968.225], "stop_times": [3959.2, 3968.225, 3972.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3955.917}, "reply_to": "20726__3_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20726__3_069", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--There are instances, I think, where the Establishment Clause would require you to treat even-handedly the raising of money.\nThat is an issue that, before Smith, this Court knew, I think, how to handle.\nWhat you see in RFRA, if I may return, because I thought the theoretical questions about section 5 were interesting, but where you have a process that where RFRA gives the following solution to the problem anticipated in Smith and in Kiryas Joel of inequitable accommodations, and what RFRA says is that everyone whose free exercise of religion is substantially burdened gets the same treatment, whether they're a powerful, traditional sect or a marginal religion.\nNow, they say that we haven't shown violations yet, but this is a process where Congress actually anticipated that State and local legislative bodies... this is from the Senate report, at page 8.\nState and local legislative bodies cannot be relied upon to craft exemptions from laws of general application that will protect the ability of religious minorities to the same extent as the majority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [3972.899, 3980.523, 3986.019, 4016.68, 4031.009], "stop_times": [3980.523, 3986.019, 4016.68, 4031.009, 4042.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3972.899}, "reply_to": "20726__3_068", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_070", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "The irony to that argument is, they did it in the peyote case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4042.609], "stop_times": [4045.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4042.609}, "reply_to": "20726__3_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20726__3_071", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "In the... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4045.101], "stop_times": [4046.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4045.101}, "reply_to": "20726__3_070", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_072", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "After our decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4046.069], "stop_times": [4048.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4046.069}, "reply_to": "20726__3_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__3_073", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--And Congress... yes, but Justice Stevens, Congress was concerned... and they are the specialists on the perils of special interest exemption processes.\nThey were concerned that if you have a case-by-case process, religions that, for whatever reasons, have more political influence are able to get their specific exemptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4048.112, 4055.816], "stop_times": [4055.816, 4064.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4048.112}, "reply_to": "20726__3_072", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_074", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "General--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4064.843], "stop_times": [4065.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4064.843}, "reply_to": "20726__3_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20726__3_075", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Well, certainly the peyote smokers don't have a great deal of influence, and yet they succeeded in Oregon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4065.333], "stop_times": [4071.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4065.333}, "reply_to": "20726__3_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20726__3_076", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "It is not clear to me how well one can parse what... sometimes some minorities are particularly well-situated.\nOthers, like the Amish, have a very difficult time in the legislative process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4071.177, 4077.952], "stop_times": [4077.952, 4083.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4071.177}, "reply_to": "20726__3_075", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_077", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Perhaps the peyote smokers had help from those outside of religion.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4083.328, 4086.469], "stop_times": [4086.469, 4089.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4083.328}, "reply_to": "20726__3_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20726__3_078", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "General Dellinger, we've just been told by the representative of the Ohio Attorney General that the States want to do even more than Congress has done, but they don't want Congress to tell them.\nThat's where they say they see the principle constitutional problem, and you've just said that the States... you know, we can't trust them, and I'm asking you what basis is there for making that judgment when we're being told by the States, leave us alone.\nWe'll do even better.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4089.432, 4107.042, 4125.375], "stop_times": [4107.042, 4125.375, 4126.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4089.432}, "reply_to": "20726__3_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20726__3_079", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, there was an 800-page record of testimony, groups... one religious group after another testified as to the difficulties that particularly marginal religious groups have getting accommodations.\nThe Lukumi had to come all the way to this Court before they got a single person, a single judge to vote for them, and it's... I see my time has expired.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4126.366, 4140.354, 4149.531], "stop_times": [4140.354, 4149.531, 4149.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4126.366}, "reply_to": "20726__3_078", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20726__3_080", "conversation_id": "20726", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2074", "start_times": [4149.892, 4151.103], "stop_times": [4151.103, 4175.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4149.892}, "reply_to": "20726__3_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__0_000", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 95-1853, William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones.\nMr. Bennett.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [0.0, 8.547], "stop_times": [8.547, 9.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__0_001", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nI am here this morning on behalf of the of the President of the United States, who has asked this Court to defer a private civil damage suit for money damages against him until he leaves office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [9.839, 13.912], "stop_times": [13.912, 32.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.839}, "reply_to": "20325__0_000", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_002", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Is the request to totally dismiss the suit or to permit delay of the trial and any court appearance... in-court appearance or that position or that sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [32.014], "stop_times": [44.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 32.014}, "reply_to": "20325__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_003", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "It is to delay the trial of the case and to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [44.562], "stop_times": [48.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 44.562}, "reply_to": "20325__0_002", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_004", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "How about discovery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [48.686], "stop_times": [49.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 48.686}, "reply_to": "20325__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_005", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--And the discovery of the case.\nThere is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [49.377, 52.489], "stop_times": [52.489, 52.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 49.377}, "reply_to": "20325__0_004", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_006", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "How about discovery of people who are not the President, other witnesses and things like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [52.879], "stop_times": [57.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 52.879}, "reply_to": "20325__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_007", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor.\nWe... as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [57.715, 59.665], "stop_times": [59.665, 60.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.715}, "reply_to": "20325__0_006", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_008", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "You... you want to delay that as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [60.516], "stop_times": [62.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 60.516}, "reply_to": "20325__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_009", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I want to delay that as well.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [62.009, 63.759], "stop_times": [63.759, 64.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 62.009}, "reply_to": "20325__0_008", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_010", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Should that be a general rule if preservation of evidence becomes crucial in a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [64.138], "stop_times": [70.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.138}, "reply_to": "20325__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_011", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--As we discussed in the District Court below, Justice O'Connor, we have agreed, and the District Court noted, that if there's a danger of the loss of any evidence, that we would cooperate to preserve it and make use of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [70.493], "stop_times": [88.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 70.493}, "reply_to": "20325__0_010", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_012", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, what if you wouldn't go up and what if the District Court... what if the court below disagreed with you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [88.405], "stop_times": [93.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 88.405}, "reply_to": "20325__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_013", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [93.11], "stop_times": [95.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 93.11}, "reply_to": "20325__0_012", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_014", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I mean, what... I'm trying to figure out what the rule of law you're urging upon us here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [95.411], "stop_times": [99.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.411}, "reply_to": "20325__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_015", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--The rule of law that we are urging upon you, Justice Scalia, is unless there are exceptional circumstances in a case, the President of the United States should not be subject to litigation, either at trial or in discovery.\nUnless there is some compelling necessity, he should not be taken away from his constitutional duties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [99.334, 115.726], "stop_times": [115.726, 122.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.334}, "reply_to": "20325__0_014", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_016", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Is that issue a Federal... is it a Federal... suppose the suit were in State court, and the State court decided that the testimony of someone who was not the President is important to be preserved.\nDoes that become a Federal question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [122.682, 135.281], "stop_times": [135.281, 137.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.682}, "reply_to": "20325__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_017", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, it's a Federal question, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [137.491], "stop_times": [140.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.491}, "reply_to": "20325__0_016", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_018", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "So if that State court's jurisdiction would be appealable here, or would the whole case be removable to Federal court, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [140.453], "stop_times": [146.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.453}, "reply_to": "20325__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_019", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, I don't know how you would move a case from State court unless there is diversity.\nAnd that's why this Court must issue a constitutional ruling in this case.\nBecause, otherwise, this... this complaint, and other complaints, could be brought into any State court in the country and command the President's time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [146.637, 154.163, 159.458], "stop_times": [154.163, 159.458, 169.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.637}, "reply_to": "20325__0_018", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_020", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--But the constitutional ruling you're asking of us is not that the suit cannot be brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [169.145], "stop_times": [173.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 169.145}, "reply_to": "20325__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_021", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, we're asking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [173.579], "stop_times": [175.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 173.579}, "reply_to": "20325__0_020", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_022", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "So you're saying that the suit can be brought.\nAnd presumably it can be brought in State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [175.39, 176.601], "stop_times": [176.601, 178.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.39}, "reply_to": "20325__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_023", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--We are saying the suit against the President of the United States can be brought.\nIt can be brought in a State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [178.364, 184.466], "stop_times": [184.466, 186.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.364}, "reply_to": "20325__0_022", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_024", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [186.418], "stop_times": [186.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 186.418}, "reply_to": "20325__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_025", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "It can be brought in a Federal court.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [186.868, 188.39], "stop_times": [188.39, 188.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.868}, "reply_to": "20325__0_024", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_026", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Right.\nNow, these... these questions of whether you have to preserve the witnesses' testimony... it's important to the case or not... do they render the case removable to Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [188.551, 188.711], "stop_times": [188.711, 200.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.551}, "reply_to": "20325__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_027", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, I believe that they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [200.07], "stop_times": [201.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.07}, "reply_to": "20325__0_026", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_028", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "They do.\nAnd I take it, just fading memories of witnesses, over a period of, say, 4 or 5 years, would not be sufficient to invoke the exception provision that you're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [201.962, 202.683], "stop_times": [202.683, 214.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.962}, "reply_to": "20325__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__0_029", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I believe that's correct, Your Honor, particularly in this case, where the plaintiff had almost 20 months when Mr. Clinton was... was the governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [214.141], "stop_times": [226.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.141}, "reply_to": "20325__0_028", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_030", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Bennett--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [226.55], "stop_times": [227.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.55}, "reply_to": "20325__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__0_031", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--And I take it that... I take it that since you say... and I think you're correct that this must be a privilege that's applicable in State courts, otherwise it would be a loser and it wouldn't give the protection you think the President needs... I take it that means you cannot rely on separation of powers as the constitutional theory, as the constitutional premise, for your argument; you have to rely on some other constitutional doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [227.671], "stop_times": [256.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 227.671}, "reply_to": "20325__0_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__0_032", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I don't agree with that, with all due respect, Your Honor.\nI think this is a separation of powers case.\nBecause if this... if this Court permits this litigation or other litigation like it to go forward, any State judge in the country or any county court judge in the country could command the President's time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [256.411, 259.293, 262.515], "stop_times": [259.293, 262.515, 278.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.411}, "reply_to": "20325__0_031", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_033", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Right.\nBut separation of powers isn't a doctrine that we impose on the State.\nSeparation of powers is designed to confine each branch of the Federal Government to its appropriate constitutional scope.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [278.056, 278.287, 282.03], "stop_times": [278.287, 282.03, 290.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.056}, "reply_to": "20325__0_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__0_034", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, but I... I would find it hard to believe that this Court would say that separation of powers would apply in a Federal court proceeding, but that any county or State judge could virtually destroy the power of the President under the Constitution in his Article II duties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [290.905], "stop_times": [307.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.905}, "reply_to": "20325__0_033", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_035", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, I... I understand there's a Federal interest.\nBut it seems to me what you're saying is that the inherent nature of the President's office requires that the States be constrained in this way.\nBut that's not separation of powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [307.926, 309.936, 319.393], "stop_times": [309.936, 319.393, 321.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.926}, "reply_to": "20325__0_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__0_036", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Then it's Federal sovereignty.\nBut I... I agree with the concerns expressed in the question by Justice Kennedy that it's if it were a suit in State court.\nIt is very difficult to shoehorn it into some kind of separation of powers notion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [321.096, 325.049, 332.775], "stop_times": [325.049, 332.775, 338.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 321.096}, "reply_to": "20325__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_037", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I... I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [338.058], "stop_times": [339.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.058}, "reply_to": "20325__0_036", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_038", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "The supremacy clause... I don't know whether that bears on it... but certainly not separation of powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [339.31], "stop_times": [344.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.31}, "reply_to": "20325__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_039", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I... I understand that, Your Honor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [344.983], "stop_times": [346.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.983}, "reply_to": "20325__0_038", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_040", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Bennett, is there any experience in States with the temporal immunity with respect to a governor that you are asserting here with respect to the chief officer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [346.674], "stop_times": [360.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.674}, "reply_to": "20325__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__0_041", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--We have found none, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [360.632], "stop_times": [361.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.632}, "reply_to": "20325__0_040", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_042", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--And is it necessary... you said we must decide this as a constitutional matter because of the State court situation... this could be dealt with in the Federal courts as a matter of Federal common law.\nIsn't that where the immunities come from of executive offices?\nAnd who knows if it would come up in a State court.\nA State court might have such a similar... recognize such a similar immunity as a matter of their common law.\nSo why must we now assume that the State courts will not have such a... such an immunity and reach out for a constitutional question instead of saying here's a suit in Federal court and we can deal with it as a matter of Federal common law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [361.864, 376.733, 383.278, 387.592, 397.33], "stop_times": [376.733, 383.278, 387.592, 397.33, 415.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.864}, "reply_to": "20325__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__0_043", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I'm not quite sure I understand the question, Your Honor, but I think I do.\nI am certainly saying that this Court could decide this case without deciding the constitutional issue.\nI think that this Court could say that when the District Court judge stayed the trial, she had an inherent power, under the Landis case... the Supreme... this Court's decision in Landis... to stay the trial.\nAnd I don't think you would have to get to the constitutional considerations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [415.854, 420.326, 428.662, 445.322], "stop_times": [420.326, 428.662, 445.322, 450.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.854}, "reply_to": "20325__0_042", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_044", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, I... I find it difficult to adopt such a Federal common law rule if it were... if it were so easily frustratable.\nI mean to say that there is a Federal common law rule that you can interfere with the President's duties by... by subjecting him to civil suit would be silly if any State could subject him to silly... to civil suit.\nI mean, don't you have to... have to tell me that this Federal common law rule you're asking me to adopt is one that will have some effect?\nAnd it will have no effect if the States can do the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [450.666, 458.312, 470.599, 477.645], "stop_times": [458.312, 470.599, 477.645, 479.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.666}, "reply_to": "20325__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_045", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, I agree it would be very silly for any county judge or any State judge to start deciding on the priorities of the President of... of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [479.889], "stop_times": [490.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.889}, "reply_to": "20325__0_044", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_046", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "So I have to get to State courts somehow.\nAny general rule we adopt surely has to be one that we can enforce upon State courts as well as Federal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [490.224, 491.837], "stop_times": [491.837, 497.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.224}, "reply_to": "20325__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_047", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Oh, that's of most importance to this Court, particularly since the fact that you now have long-arm statutes which were not common in the days of our founders, and you could drag the President into any court.\nYou know, what's unprecedented here... what is unprecedented here is the notion of taking the President of the United States of America, in whom the full executive power resides, and subjecting that President to any State court or any local court in the country.\nIs this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [497.4, 511.831, 533.855], "stop_times": [511.831, 533.855, 535.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.4}, "reply_to": "20325__0_046", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_048", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Or even worse, any Federal court.\nBecause there you have, in addition, separation of powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [535.177, 537.297], "stop_times": [537.297, 539.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.177}, "reply_to": "20325__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_049", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Or any... or in any Federal court.\nAnd I think, interestingly, Your Honors, if you... if you just transpose the facts of this case to the Federal system... let's say that Miss Jones were a Federal employee and let's say that Mr. Clinton were the President, and let's say that instead of State troopers, we're talking about Secret Service people... it would be my view that your very far-reaching decision in the Fitzgerald case, which... which gave the President absolute immunity for... for acts within the outer perimeters, would probably... would probably prevent this case from... from going forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [539.858, 541.881], "stop_times": [541.881, 578.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.858}, "reply_to": "20325__0_048", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_050", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, the record in Fitzgerald was based on a fear that unless you gave the President absolute immunity, as I understand the opinion, you... you... he would not vigorously exercise his official powers as President.\nI don't see how that element is involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [578.045, 592.097], "stop_times": [592.097, 594.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.045}, "reply_to": "20325__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__0_051", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I agree with you, Mr. Justice... Mr. Chief Justice, that... that element is not present here.\nBut in the Fitzgerald opinion, in which you joined with Justice Powell, the rationale for that decision goes way beyond the chilling effect.\nYou talked about intrusion on the President's time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [594.988, 602.613, 615.2], "stop_times": [602.613, 615.2, 618.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.988}, "reply_to": "20325__0_050", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_052", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But, Mr. Bennett, that sentence that you feature was followed up by... by these words,\n\"as in the case of prosecutors and judges. \"\nAnd prosecutors and judges also enjoy absolute immunity for their acts in the course of their office.\nBut do they enjoy any kind of immunity for... for conduct unrelated to their office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [618.653, 623.067, 625.718, 634.674], "stop_times": [623.067, 625.718, 634.674, 644.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.653}, "reply_to": "20325__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__0_053", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No.\nNo, Justice Ginsburg.\nBut... but you went much further.\nI don't mean you personally.\nBut you went much further in the Fitzgerald case.\nThis was the core of the dissent of Mr. Justice White.\nHe said that you are not giving absolute immunity simply to core functions.\nYou are giving absolute immunity to the outer perimeters of the office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [644.021, 644.562, 646.212, 648.315, 649.627, 653.09, 657.443, 662.658], "stop_times": [644.562, 646.212, 648.315, 649.627, 653.09, 657.443, 662.658, 667.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.021}, "reply_to": "20325__0_052", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_054", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But I think we're mixing up two things.\nWe're mixing up, one, the total immunity, because you want the decisionmaking to be unfettered, and then the immunity that's, as you say, temporary, temporal, just not whether but when.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [667.613, 667.813], "stop_times": [667.813, 684.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.613}, "reply_to": "20325__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__0_055", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Right.\nWe're not asking for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [684.747, 685.448], "stop_times": [685.448, 686.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.747}, "reply_to": "20325__0_054", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_056", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And there are different considerations involved in the two, are there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [686.916], "stop_times": [689.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 686.916}, "reply_to": "20325__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__0_057", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, Justice Ginsburg.\nThat... that is correct.\nBut you must remember, the fundamental difference between the Fitzgerald case... or one of the fundamental differences is this Court extinguished Mr. Fitzgerald's rights for all time, involving a case where you didn't even have a sitting President.\nMr. Nixon hadn't been in office, to the best of my recollection, for 4 years.\nHere you have a sitting President.\nAnd all we're saying is we'll give Miss Jones her day in court, but let's not do it now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [689.988, 690.088, 691.981, 693.803, 709.693, 714.587, 716.397], "stop_times": [690.088, 691.981, 693.803, 709.693, 714.587, 716.397, 722.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.988}, "reply_to": "20325__0_056", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_058", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But, in effect, I... I assume you're arguing that it is interference or the risk of interference with the actual presidential duties during the 4-year term that is the source of whatever privilege you request; isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [722.932], "stop_times": [738.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.932}, "reply_to": "20325__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__0_059", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [738.143], "stop_times": [738.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.143}, "reply_to": "20325__0_058", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_060", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Right.\nNow, how does that take you from interference with the President himself, as... as a deponent or as a witness or simply as a party attending a trial, and... and go to the further extent of... of giving you some kind of a privilege to preclude discovery, which does not personally involve the President?\nHow... how is the interference there enough for you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [738.423, 738.914, 759.296], "stop_times": [738.914, 759.296, 763.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.423}, "reply_to": "20325__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__0_061", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, Mr. Justice Souter, it's the realities of real-world litigation.\nMr.... my brother at the bar, Mr. Davis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [763.059, 767.012], "stop_times": [767.012, 769.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.059}, "reply_to": "20325__0_060", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_062", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, it's going to keep you busy.\nBut the President presumably--\n[Laughter]\n--I mean, the President isn't going to attend these depositions; you are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [769.974, 771.486, 773.399, 773.74], "stop_times": [771.486, 773.399, 773.74, 778.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 769.974}, "reply_to": "20325__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__0_063", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--But in the real world of litigation, Mr. Justice Souter, do you think when Mr. Davis, as he... as he claims, that he's going to be deposing all of the troopers; and any time the President of the United States has come into contact with a member of the opposite sex, he intends to inquire of that; this is a conspiracy complaint; they talk about pattern of conduct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [778.562], "stop_times": [800.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.562}, "reply_to": "20325__0_062", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_064", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, but, Mr. Bennett--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [800.457], "stop_times": [803.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.457}, "reply_to": "20325__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__0_065", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--don't you think I'm going to have to talk to the President of United States about all those events?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [803.048], "stop_times": [806.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.048}, "reply_to": "20325__0_064", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_066", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, I assume--\n--Mr. Bennett, do you think all those events are relevant to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [806.43, 807.181], "stop_times": [807.181, 809.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.43}, "reply_to": "20325__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__0_067", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I think some trial courts would say they are not and some trial courts might... might say they are.\nWe haven't gotten to that question yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [809.464, 816.518], "stop_times": [816.518, 818.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.464}, "reply_to": "20325__0_066", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_068", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "How long do you think... how long... how long do you think it will take to try this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [818.829], "stop_times": [820.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.829}, "reply_to": "20325__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__0_069", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "It's impossible to say.\nI can tell you the President has spent... personally spent a substantial amount of time on this case already.\nI mean, this is a personal... the very nature of this case is so personal that it would require his heavy involvement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [820.992, 824.024, 829.951], "stop_times": [824.024, 829.951, 838.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.992}, "reply_to": "20325__0_068", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_070", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But... but there are... there are two elements here really... a concern about some conflict with a judge deciding how to weigh the interests of the President in attending a NATO meeting or something versus a desire to avoid damage control politically.\nI mean, is there an element of that in here?\nAnd does that enter into the constitutional balance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [838.186, 855.185, 856.907], "stop_times": [855.185, 856.907, 859.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.186}, "reply_to": "20325__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_071", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I... I think the President is a political figure and... and deals in the political... political marketplace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [859.959], "stop_times": [868.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.959}, "reply_to": "20325__0_070", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_072", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yet could be the concern about damage control, at bottom, would motivate, not necessarily this President, but any President, in wanting to spend a little time with the lawyer as these allegations are made.\nBut is that part of our constitutional balance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [868.877, 883.197], "stop_times": [883.197, 886.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.877}, "reply_to": "20325__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__0_073", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I don't think we can... I think... there's no perfect answer to this.\nBut I certainly don't think that you can permit the courts to start deciding what presidential priorities are or are not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [886.459, 890.612], "stop_times": [890.612, 898.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.459}, "reply_to": "20325__0_072", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_074", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Why can't we wait until the President asserts such a conflict?\nIt's never happened in a couple of hundred years.\nWhy can't we wait until the court says, Mr. President, I want you here for this deposition and, if you don't come, you're going to lose the case; and the President says, I'm sorry, I have to go to a NATO meeting?\nWhy don't we wait for that, what seems to me, very unlikely situation to arise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [898.569, 902.653, 905.905, 917.573], "stop_times": [902.653, 905.905, 917.573, 922.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.569}, "reply_to": "20325__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__0_075", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, I'm not so sure, in today's climate, that it is unlikely to arise.\nBut I suppose you could wait, as you say.\nBut I have a specific case I have to deal with now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [922.275, 928.689, 933.013], "stop_times": [928.689, 933.013, 937.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.275}, "reply_to": "20325__0_074", "speaker": "robert_s_bennett"}
{"id": "20325__0_076", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Bennett.\nGeneral Dellinger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [937.186, 938.458], "stop_times": [938.458, 940.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.186}, "reply_to": "20325__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__1_000", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nLet me begin by responding to Justice Scalia's question about the source of law.\nIt is constitutionally based.\nIn our view, Justice Scalia, it comes from this Court's... the same basis that this Court stated in its different opinion in Fitzgerald, where they considered the immunity there, quote, a functionally mandated incident of the President's unique office.\nThat is, it arises from Article II.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [940.97, 949.448, 955.504, 957.356, 973.947, 975.519], "stop_times": [949.448, 955.504, 957.356, 973.947, 975.519, 975.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 940.97}, "reply_to": "20325__0_076", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_001", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yeah, but to the extent that Nixon v. Fitzgerald involved some activity of the President that relates to his duties in office as President, that is an element that does not extend to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [975.959], "stop_times": [990.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.959}, "reply_to": "20325__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__1_002", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--That is correct, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [990.75], "stop_times": [992.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 990.75}, "reply_to": "20325__1_001", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_003", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And there may have been Folsom language, as there often is, in Court opinions.\nBut we have to get back to the basic source of what is it in the Constitution that we look to, to govern this... this issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [992.052, 996.116], "stop_times": [996.116, 1006.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.052}, "reply_to": "20325__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__1_004", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "You are correct, Justice O'Connor, that it is a different issue in Fitzgerald.\nBut what Fitzgerald stands for is the proposition that this Court can announce rules of law which are binding on State and Federal courts, as the Fitzgerald immunity surely is binding in State and Federal courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1006.685, 1010.558], "stop_times": [1010.558, 1024.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1006.685}, "reply_to": "20325__1_003", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_005", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, what is it in the Constitution that makes the immunity, let's say, of a Federal judge or the immunity of any Federal employee for acts of official duty binding in a State court, where that activity might itself constitute a tort under State law?\nWhat is it in the Constitution that binds the State courts so that the State court can't proceed?\nIs this the supremacy clause?\nI mean, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1024.936, 1042.588, 1048.001, 1050.442], "stop_times": [1042.588, 1048.001, 1050.442, 1050.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.936}, "reply_to": "20325__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__1_006", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes.\nThe... to the extent that it's based upon Federal law, it is the supremacy clause.\nTo the extent that it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1050.993, 1051.283, 1056.065], "stop_times": [1051.283, 1056.065, 1057.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1050.993}, "reply_to": "20325__1_005", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_007", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--So if there is a separation of powers doctrine that creates a... a... call it a Federal common law-type immunity, then that immunity for judges or anyone else is binding upon the State courts because of the supremacy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1057.126], "stop_times": [1069.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.126}, "reply_to": "20325__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__1_008", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--That is absolutely court, Justice Scalia, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1069.134], "stop_times": [1070.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1069.134}, "reply_to": "20325__1_007", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_009", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No, but not if it's based on the separation of powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1070.945], "stop_times": [1073.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.945}, "reply_to": "20325__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_010", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I believe that the Fitzgerald immunity clearly applies to actions brought in State court.\nSurely the Court in Fitzgerald did not announce that a doctrine of immunity for presidential actions, in the official capacity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1073.807, 1080.402], "stop_times": [1080.402, 1088.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1073.807}, "reply_to": "20325__1_009", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_011", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But isn't the reason for that that the immunity in a Federal court would be meaningless if it were subject to an end run, and that's how the supremacy clause translates a separation of powers doctrine into a State court immunity; isn't that the way it works?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1088.577], "stop_times": [1102.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.577}, "reply_to": "20325__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__1_012", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--That is exactly correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1102.928], "stop_times": [1104.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1102.928}, "reply_to": "20325__1_011", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_013", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But a good... a good deal of your Federal official immunity for Federal comes by statute from Congress, not from the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1104.077], "stop_times": [1112.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.077}, "reply_to": "20325__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__1_014", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, some of that comes by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1112.375], "stop_times": [1113.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1112.375}, "reply_to": "20325__1_013", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_015", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And that of course isn't... we're not faced with a situation where Congress has passed a law granting this immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1113.894], "stop_times": [1120.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.894}, "reply_to": "20325__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__1_016", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1120.26], "stop_times": [1122.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1120.26}, "reply_to": "20325__1_015", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_017", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Let me... I don't understand how Nixon v. Fitzgerald requires you to say that it is separation of powers that somehow gets to the State courts.\nA State... you could not bring suit in the State court to stay a Federal actor, whether it's the President or not.\nIt's simply the supremacy clause that says State courts don't muck around with... with Federal activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1122.711, 1131.529, 1139.124], "stop_times": [1131.529, 1139.124, 1145.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.711}, "reply_to": "20325__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_018", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1145.559], "stop_times": [1146.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1145.559}, "reply_to": "20325__1_017", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_019", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "You don't need separation of powers to get there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1146.33], "stop_times": [1148.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.33}, "reply_to": "20325__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_020", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--No.\nYou need... what you need is Article II, as informed by the separation of powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1148.472, 1148.662], "stop_times": [1148.662, 1152.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1148.472}, "reply_to": "20325__1_019", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_021", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Right, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1152.443], "stop_times": [1152.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1152.443}, "reply_to": "20325__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_022", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Nixon v.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1152.643], "stop_times": [1153.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1152.643}, "reply_to": "20325__1_021", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_023", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "So that keeps the State courts out.\nAnd then you have the doctrine of separation of powers, which keeps the Federal courts out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1153.344, 1155.565], "stop_times": [1155.565, 1159.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.344}, "reply_to": "20325__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_024", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Yes, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1159.609], "stop_times": [1160.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1159.609}, "reply_to": "20325__1_023", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_025", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Okay.\nWell, that's quite different from saying we've extended... somehow we make a ruling on separation of powers for the Federal courts and that automatically slops over to the State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1160.09, 1160.64], "stop_times": [1160.64, 1170.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.09}, "reply_to": "20325__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_026", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1170.405], "stop_times": [1170.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1170.405}, "reply_to": "20325__1_025", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_027", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "On the other hand, the case such as Toddles case, which says that a State... or a State court... cannot enjoin a Federal official, have to do with a Federal official in the course of his duties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1170.576], "stop_times": [1182.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.576}, "reply_to": "20325__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__1_028", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That is correct, Justice Kennedy.\nThe... in both instances, however, the public interest in the President's unimpaired performance of his duties must take precedence over a private litigant's interest in redress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1182.523, 1185.256], "stop_times": [1185.256, 1197.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1182.523}, "reply_to": "20325__1_027", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_029", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Dellinger, can I ask you about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1197.854], "stop_times": [1200.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.854}, "reply_to": "20325__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_030", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1200.145], "stop_times": [1200.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1200.145}, "reply_to": "20325__1_029", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_031", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Your brief and the brief of the Petitioner both make a lot about the fact that the President is... you know, it's a full-time job and he... he's very... and any intrusion upon his time is intruding.\nI must say, I don't find that terribly persuasive.\nThe fact is that... that that's a better reason why the Chief Justice or any of the Justices of this Court should have the kind of immunity you're talking about, or the Speaker of the House, or a member of Congress, none of whom can delegate any of their responsibilities.\nThe President is the one Federal officer at the highest level who is able to delegate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1200.315, 1211.782, 1216.196, 1231.566], "stop_times": [1211.782, 1216.196, 1231.566, 1237.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.315}, "reply_to": "20325__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_032", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Justice Scalia, the singularity and unitariness of the executive are what makes it distinguishable from every other official, and it's not possible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1237.41], "stop_times": [1247.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1237.41}, "reply_to": "20325__1_031", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_033", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But we see Presidents riding horseback, chopping firewood, fishing for stick fish--\n[Laughter]\n--playing golf and so forth and so on.\nWhy can't we leave it to the point where, if and when a court tells a President to be there or he's going to lose his case, and if and when a President has the intestinal fortitude to say, I am absolutely too busy... so that he'll never be seen playing golf for the rest of his administration--\n--if and when that happens, we can... we can resolve the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1247.067, 1274.575, 1251.511, 1254.433, 1275.386], "stop_times": [1274.575, 1251.511, 1254.433, 1275.386, 1280.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.067}, "reply_to": "20325__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_034", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1280.551], "stop_times": [1281.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1280.551}, "reply_to": "20325__1_033", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_035", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But, really, the notion that he doesn't have a minute to spare is... is just not... not credible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1281.112], "stop_times": [1286.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.112}, "reply_to": "20325__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_036", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice Scalia, President Reagan said quite aptly, Presidents don't have vacations; they have a change of scenery.\nEvery party to this litigation and every judge below agrees that a President cannot be subjected to litigation in the same manner as someone who is not at that time serving as President.\nWhat... what is at issue is not whether an action against the President has to be treated differently, but how that difference should be.\nAnd the approach suggested by the court below of... of sensitive judicial case management would wholly fail both to protect the President and would enmesh the State and Federal courts in a politically charged task, lacking manageable judicial standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1286.265, 1290.376, 1302.213, 1308.437], "stop_times": [1290.376, 1302.213, 1308.437, 1324.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1286.265}, "reply_to": "20325__1_035", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_037", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Perhaps you can help me with this aspect of that argument.\nAnd it's been troubling to me.\nWhen we talk about privileges and immunities, we're talking about balances of interests, the rights of the litigant, the necessities of the President.\nHere, it seems to me, that the President, during the course of the stay that this proceeding produces, is free with his staff and his resources to really, to continue to argue his case, to ruin the reputation of the plaintiff, to poison the well any way he can, just as the... as the other parties might try to do against him.\nBut he's in a very dominant position.\nThere's really nothing we have that could stay the President's activity in this regard.\nThat certainly is beyond the control of the Court.\nSo it seems to me that the imbalance here is very substantial.\nAnd I know of no compensating balance mechanism to protect the plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1324.89, 1328.873, 1330.273, 1339.719, 1366.216, 1368.518, 1374.322, 1377.424, 1382.159], "stop_times": [1328.873, 1330.273, 1339.719, 1366.216, 1368.518, 1374.322, 1377.424, 1382.159, 1386.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.89}, "reply_to": "20325__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__1_038", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, I think that certainly political pressures would cut against that.\nBut we have... we have acknowledged that delay could well have adverse consequences for a plaintiff suing any President.\nBut that has never been treated dispositive.\nThere is nothing anomalous about the proposition that individual civil damage remedies are precluded by public policy considerations.\nChief Justice Burger noted in Fitzgerald that there are at least 75,000 public officials that have absolute immunity, a different kind of immunity, but one which nonetheless precludes plaintiffs from being able to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1386.814, 1391.435, 1398.12, 1401.402, 1408.507], "stop_times": [1391.435, 1398.12, 1401.402, 1408.507, 1421.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1386.814}, "reply_to": "20325__1_037", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_039", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, Mr. Dellinger, suppose it's a child custody matter.\nSometime in the future, we have some President who doesn't get along with a spouse, and there's a child custody problem.\nThere's no right to go into a State court and get temporary relief, so that the child knows where the child is going to be for the next 8 years or whatever it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1421.457, 1424.799, 1433.257], "stop_times": [1424.799, 1433.257, 1444.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.457}, "reply_to": "20325__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__1_040", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I believe that that would be... that's the most appealing case for an exception I've heard.\nNow, we're not suggesting... and I have to be concerned about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1444.112, 1448.704], "stop_times": [1448.704, 1450.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1444.112}, "reply_to": "20325__1_039", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_041", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, so there's no automatic rule that the Court has to dismiss the minute the thing is filed; you acknowledge that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1450.917], "stop_times": [1457.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.917}, "reply_to": "20325__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__1_042", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1457.78], "stop_times": [1458.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1457.78}, "reply_to": "20325__1_041", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_043", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Or suppose a President in the future owns some part... great parcel of land somewhere and it's bubbling up with poisons.\nAnd all the neighbors are upset because of the environmental damage.\nNo temporary injunction possibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1458.091, 1465.577, 1469.63], "stop_times": [1465.577, 1469.63, 1471.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.091}, "reply_to": "20325__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__1_044", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I am not suggesting that there's a balancing test or a case-by-case determination.\nWe're suggesting that there ought to be a rule... and we have to be concerned not just with civil damage actions like this one, but with actions against all future Presidents... a rule... an operative rule that courts should postpone civil litigation until the President's term.\nBut the existence of that does not mean we can assume, arguendo, that an extraordinary case like child custody you could make an exception.\nNow, as to the President's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1471.853, 1475.195, 1488.485, 1495.391], "stop_times": [1475.195, 1488.485, 1495.391, 1496.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1471.853}, "reply_to": "20325__1_043", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_045", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, once you assume that, arguendo, you don't have a firm rule, and you begin to lose me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1496.452], "stop_times": [1500.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.452}, "reply_to": "20325__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_046", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1500.876], "stop_times": [1501.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1500.876}, "reply_to": "20325__1_045", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_047", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Because I don't like cases... I do not like courts engaging in case-by-case balancing and saying, This intrudes on the presidency too much, this doesn't intrude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1501.097], "stop_times": [1508.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.097}, "reply_to": "20325__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_048", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--This is not a matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1508.631], "stop_times": [1509.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1508.631}, "reply_to": "20325__1_047", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_049", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "You give me a clear line, and I might buy it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1509.332], "stop_times": [1511.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.332}, "reply_to": "20325__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_050", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--The fact that you have a rule, and an operative rule, and it tells courts what to do does not mean that you can never make an exception.\nThat's true of prior restraints.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1511.202, 1516.905], "stop_times": [1516.905, 1518.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1511.202}, "reply_to": "20325__1_049", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_051", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1518.347], "stop_times": [1518.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.347}, "reply_to": "20325__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_052", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That's true of prior restraints.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1518.567, 1520.017], "stop_times": [1520.017, 1520.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1518.567}, "reply_to": "20325__1_051", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_053", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "General Dellinger, there was a list in many of the briefs.\nAnd it went: nuisance abatement, mortgage foreclosure, divorce, child custody.\nAnd those were presented as categorical exceptions.\nAre you saying that it would be a case-by-case thing or that there are certain kinds of cases that would be excluded from this temporal immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1520.247, 1523.06, 1530.856, 1534.499], "stop_times": [1523.06, 1530.856, 1534.499, 1545.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.247}, "reply_to": "20325__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__1_054", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--We believe that there should be a rule that any civil litigation against a President should be postponed.\nNow, the President's attorney need worry only about civil damage actions.\nAnd it is hard, I think, given the way our legal culture treats civil damage actions, to make the case for an exception in that instance.\nBut when you consider the demands on the presidency, we think, given the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1545.268, 1549.722, 1554.907, 1563.083], "stop_times": [1549.722, 1554.907, 1563.083, 1569.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1545.268}, "reply_to": "20325__1_053", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_055", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "What are those demands in respect to a deposition, say, kept under seal, of non-White House witnesses?\nHow does proceeding with discovery for non-White House witnesses... even, let's say, kept it under seal so it wasn't in the press, et cetera... how would that interfere with the daily workings of the presidency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1569.618, 1580.305], "stop_times": [1580.305, 1593.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.618}, "reply_to": "20325__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__1_056", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I think it could interfere with the workings of the presidency, and therefore would urge that discovery be postponed, except for lost evidence that Mr. Bennett has acknowledged that he would accommodate.\nBecause I think litigation can be all-consuming and all-absorbing.\nI think there is... one has to have a sense of the extent to which someone who is involved in personal litigation can be totally absorbed by it.\nAdvising on what questions should be asked of witnesses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1593.943, 1606.001, 1610.675, 1620.099], "stop_times": [1606.001, 1610.675, 1620.099, 1623.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1593.943}, "reply_to": "20325__1_055", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_057", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But surely the range of matters--\n--Surely that may be true of an individual with an ordinary job, but with all the pressing concerns that the President has, one would think it would be less true of him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1623.352, 1624.954], "stop_times": [1624.954, 1634.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.352}, "reply_to": "20325__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__1_058", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, the... when this country adopted the 25th amendment, it was a recognition by Congress and the courts that the President's office was singular, as Chairman Emmanuel Cellars said when he proposed the amendment to Congress, the Nation cannot permit the office of the President to be vacant even for a moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1634.311], "stop_times": [1655.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1634.311}, "reply_to": "20325__1_057", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_059", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But let's say it is singular.\nNow, it seems to me you're talking about intrusion of the judiciary upon the executive's time.\nYou also have, sometimes, intrusion by the legislature upon the executive's time.\nNow, the way we've chosen to handle that with respect in particular to claims of president al privilege... not to testify, not turn over documents, not to give information to Congress... is we haven't adopted an absolute rule that, because it would be so intrusive upon the President, you can't make any such demands.\nWe wait for the case to arise.\nAnd if and when the President has the intestinal fortitude to say, as, for instance, Dwight Eisenhower did with respect to the Army McCarthy hearings, I am not going to give any testimony; I am not going to allow any of my people to give testimony.\nIf and when that comes up, I'm willing to allow a total executive privilege at that point.\nWhy can't we adopt the same rule here?\nIf and when the President says, I just don't have the time to come when you subpoena me, I'll give him an absolute immunity in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1655.444, 1656.434, 1661.649, 1666.651, 1689.626, 1691.799, 1704.438, 1710.812, 1712.705], "stop_times": [1656.434, 1661.649, 1666.651, 1689.626, 1691.799, 1704.438, 1710.812, 1712.705, 1721.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.444}, "reply_to": "20325__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_060", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1721.351], "stop_times": [1721.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1721.351}, "reply_to": "20325__1_059", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_061", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Why isn't that enough to protect the President from all that we're worried about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1721.361], "stop_times": [1725.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1721.361}, "reply_to": "20325__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_062", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Because I think that risks both, failing to protect the President and risks undercutting the role of the courts.\nTo put the President to the task with regard to each phase of a lawsuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1725.134, 1731.439], "stop_times": [1731.439, 1735.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1725.134}, "reply_to": "20325__1_061", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_063", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "The beautiful thing about it is it takes the courts out of the scene.\nThey don't have to decide, is it too important, is it unimportant, blah, blah, blah, blah, which gets the courts involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1735.683, 1738.054], "stop_times": [1738.054, 1743.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.683}, "reply_to": "20325__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_064", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--It totally undercuts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1743.32], "stop_times": [1743.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1743.32}, "reply_to": "20325__1_063", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_065", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "This way it's absolute.\nAll the President has to do is stand up and say, I'm too busy to come to this hearing, and I will not come, and you have no power to enter judgment against me simply because of my refusal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1743.73, 1744.218], "stop_times": [1744.218, 1753.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.73}, "reply_to": "20325__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__1_066", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice Scalia, that would... the approach that would have litigation go on... and perhaps no President could responsibly agree to attend, which is why putting the President to a task at every step and putting the courts at that task of making a decision about which of the President's duties.\nThe President's work makes it impossible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1753.744, 1770.126], "stop_times": [1770.126, 1773.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1753.744}, "reply_to": "20325__1_065", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_067", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But under that rule, the court wouldn't have to make any decision.\nUnder the rule proposed by the question you were answering, the minute that is asserted, the court says, Hands off, I'm out of here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1773.549, 1776.961], "stop_times": [1776.961, 1786.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.549}, "reply_to": "20325__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__1_068", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--You would put the President to the burden of being concerned with litigation constantly and having to raise at each point a refusal to participate or to cut off his testimony.\nYou would put... you would put a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1786.207, 1797.807], "stop_times": [1797.807, 1798.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1786.207}, "reply_to": "20325__1_067", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_069", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "General Dellinger... General, but you're not just talking about when the President is called to testify; you are talking about all the other people in the litigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1798.888], "stop_times": [1807.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.888}, "reply_to": "20325__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__1_070", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1807.333], "stop_times": [1808.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1807.333}, "reply_to": "20325__1_069", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_071", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--that's what makes it unlike the legislative hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1808.014], "stop_times": [1810.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.014}, "reply_to": "20325__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__1_072", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "The... the absorption of the President with the rest of the trial and the hearing places the Article III judiciary in a very difficult position.\nThe petitioners in this case give a list of activities... I'm sorry, the Respondents... in their brief that they think would not have justified delay, including vacation activities where important work may have been done, including a good example of what would happen to the courts is a 4-day train trip they note that a President... this particular President took en route to a political convention.\nNow, if you debate that example, half the people will say that's clearly nonofficial and shouldn't give way.\nThey're absolutely right; it's not even paid for by the government.\nOthers will say it's an important governmental function for a President to communicate during his reelection campaign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1810.467, 1818.962, 1841.077, 1847.352, 1850.644], "stop_times": [1818.962, 1841.077, 1847.352, 1850.644, 1856.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1810.467}, "reply_to": "20325__1_071", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20325__1_073", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.\nMr. Davis, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1856.6, 1858.05], "stop_times": [1858.05, 1860.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.6}, "reply_to": "20325__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__2_000", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton, the citizen, who holds the office of the presidency of the United States, advances the novel claim of immunity from the progress of litigation while he is President.\nThis immunity he derives, he says, from the separation of powers doctrine of our Constitution, and he further contends that the judicial branch of Government must suspend the processing of Paula Corbin Jones' lawsuit until he is out of office, potentially for a period of 7 years after the date of her filing of the suit.\nThis novel proposition has three fundamental errors.\nThe first error is to confuse the office of the presidency, which has privileges and immunities which protect its institutional duties, with the person who holds that office who, in his private capacity and personal capacity has no such privileges and immunities and instead has the same rights and responsibilities as all other citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1860.852, 1899.377, 1915.428, 1938.043, 1943.268], "stop_times": [1899.377, 1915.428, 1938.043, 1943.268, 1970.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.852}, "reply_to": "20325__1_073", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_001", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Davis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1970.293], "stop_times": [1971.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.293}, "reply_to": "20325__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_002", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1971.394], "stop_times": [1971.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.394}, "reply_to": "20325__2_001", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_003", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--what do you do when a State court tells the President, you're going to lose this lawsuit unless you appear for a hearing on June 2, and the President says, you know, Your Honor, I have a NATO meeting I'm supposed to go to, heads of State, and you know, you have a testy district judge or local State court judge... you've encountered some of them... and they say, this is my courtroom and, you know, I expect you here on June 2.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [1971.705], "stop_times": [2002.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1971.705}, "reply_to": "20325__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_004", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2002.626], "stop_times": [2003.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2002.626}, "reply_to": "20325__2_003", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_005", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And you say there's no remedy for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2003.856], "stop_times": [2004.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.856}, "reply_to": "20325__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_006", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice Scalia... no, I say that there is a remedy for that.\nFirst, the bright line test that the Court should seek here, I think, is that you look first to an actual, imminent interference with official duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2004.967, 2008.708], "stop_times": [2008.708, 2023.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.967}, "reply_to": "20325__2_005", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_007", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And who judges that, the judge does?\nThe judge says, well, Mr. President, this NATO meeting, I've sort of looked up the... it's not a very important NATO meeting.\n[Laughter]\nYou could send your Secretary of State.\nIn fact, I think he's smarter than you are anyway.\nOr the President says, it's top secret.\nI can't tell you, judge, why I can't be there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2023.551, 2026.911, 2039.159, 2033.024, 2035.796, 2041.613, 2044.622], "stop_times": [2026.911, 2039.159, 2033.024, 2035.796, 2041.613, 2044.622, 2047.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.551}, "reply_to": "20325__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_008", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Justice Ginsburg... I'm not sure who I should respond to first, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2047.006], "stop_times": [2051.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2047.006}, "reply_to": "20325__2_007", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_009", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "It's the same question.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2051.947, 2052.429], "stop_times": [2052.429, 2052.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.947}, "reply_to": "20325__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_010", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, there are ample traditional powers.\nWe don't have to shift burdens of proof or any other special mechanism here.\nThere are traditional powers of the court which must be presumed to exercise those to protect the President from interference with his job, ex parte conferences, and the like.\nJustice Scalia, your question as to what do you do if a judge does not and is not sensitive to the demands of the presidency and the time required by the occupant of that office to perform the functions, I think there are several potential remedies.\nI'm not certain that I could exhaust them all, but mandamus, prohibition.\nCertainly all roads lead to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2052.809, 2059.234, 2064.309, 2075.467, 2092.388, 2097.072], "stop_times": [2059.234, 2064.309, 2075.467, 2092.388, 2097.072, 2099.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.809}, "reply_to": "20325__2_009", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_011", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But what law would govern that?\nIs it just State law, be nice to Presidents?\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2099.884, 2101.534, 2105.598], "stop_times": [2101.534, 2105.598, 2106.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.884}, "reply_to": "20325__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_012", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No, I think first the President must make the claim, if he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2106.028], "stop_times": [2110.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.028}, "reply_to": "20325__2_011", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_013", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--And what law would control, Federal or State, when a President says I can't be there because I have to do something that's connected with my office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2110.921], "stop_times": [2121.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.921}, "reply_to": "20325__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_014", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I hope I'm not on unsettling ground here, but I would suggest, as Justice O'Connor I think first mentioned, that the Supremacy Clause, the structure... and here is a separation of powers issue perhaps, at least where the Constitution parceled out, structurally, power and gave to the President all executive power.\nIf a State or Federal court, and I'm not certain that it makes any difference whatsoever, were to interfere in such a way or permit an interference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2121.769, 2144.033], "stop_times": [2144.033, 2155.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.769}, "reply_to": "20325__2_013", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_015", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And who decides that?\nWhat we're asking is, who decides?\nDoes this Court decide whether the President is being interfered with too much, or is the simple assertion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2155.641, 2156.783, 2158.265], "stop_times": [2156.783, 2158.265, 2163.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.641}, "reply_to": "20325__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_016", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I think the simple assertion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2163.468], "stop_times": [2165.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.468}, "reply_to": "20325__2_015", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_017", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--The simple assertion by the President, if he's willing to take the political heat and say, I don't have enough time to come to this hearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2165.979], "stop_times": [2171.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.979}, "reply_to": "20325__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_018", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2171.043], "stop_times": [2172.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.043}, "reply_to": "20325__2_017", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_019", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--would you allow that absolutely to control?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2172.033], "stop_times": [2173.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.033}, "reply_to": "20325__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_020", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I would allow it to control with this possible caveat.\nIf it happened 10 times in a row, and there was a question of good faith, I think the Court... I don't think the Court can exercise any jurisdiction over his person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2173.836, 2178.237], "stop_times": [2178.237, 2190.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.836}, "reply_to": "20325__2_019", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_021", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Can't you leave political pressures to take care of that?\nNo President's going to do it 10 times.\nHe's going to look very bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2190.636, 2193.32, 2195.24], "stop_times": [2193.32, 2195.24, 2196.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.636}, "reply_to": "20325__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_022", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, I would agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2196.322], "stop_times": [2196.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2196.322}, "reply_to": "20325__2_021", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_023", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "What in your view is an interference?\nThat is, suppose, for example, that the lawyers are deposing non-White House witnesses and it turns out that every statement they made is in the newspaper and the President says, but I have to respond to each of these.\nThey're saying I was in a certain place at a certain time, or I said something to somebody only a month ago.\nAnd then somebody else says something about what he didn't say, and then somebody says something about where there's a paper that somebody wrote it down, and then it goes into... we all know how those things work, and suppose the President says, look, I don't have time to go into all of these things.\nI don't have time to remember every single thing I said to everybody and anything that's tangentially related.\nIt's interfering, right now.\nNow, what in your view... is that an interference, or is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2196.853, 2199.274, 2215.084, 2220.077, 2233.517, 2238.54, 2240.654], "stop_times": [2199.274, 2215.084, 2220.077, 2233.517, 2238.54, 2240.654, 2243.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.853}, "reply_to": "20325__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__2_024", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I think that the rule here, Justice Breyer, is an actual, imminent interference with his job and a claim that he makes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2243.103], "stop_times": [2251.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.103}, "reply_to": "20325__2_023", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_025", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I've just given you the example.\nIs that an interference, or he's saying this deposition, all these depositions interfere because I don't have time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2251.308, 2253.609], "stop_times": [2253.609, 2259.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.308}, "reply_to": "20325__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__2_026", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2259.333], "stop_times": [2259.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.333}, "reply_to": "20325__2_025", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_027", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That is an interference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2259.964], "stop_times": [2261.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.964}, "reply_to": "20325__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__2_028", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I think that may well be an interference.\nIt's the same kind of interference that you would have that's posed, this torrent of litigation that might occur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2261.497, 2264.456], "stop_times": [2264.456, 2271.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.497}, "reply_to": "20325__2_027", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_029", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Now, he comes and says that, and how in your view should this be decided?\nI'm just repeating now the question, that I want to be clear about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2271.201, 2274.944], "stop_times": [2274.944, 2277.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.201}, "reply_to": "20325__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__2_030", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "On the torrent of litigation, or how--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2277.358], "stop_times": [2279.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.358}, "reply_to": "20325__2_029", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_031", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No, how... when the... when your side, for example, takes dozens of depositions, and each one turns up what I call peripheral or satellite issues about who said what to whom where, and where the paper is and where it isn't and so forth, and he says, I don't have time to talk to my lawyers about all of these details because there are so many, and they require so much thought, and that's his claim of interference.\nNow, how in your view is it supposed to work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2279.478, 2305.374], "stop_times": [2305.374, 2307.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.478}, "reply_to": "20325__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__2_032", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice Breyer, if he relates that to his official duties so that it is taking his time and his mental processes away from his official duties, then I think that is an interference that would justify him not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2307.347], "stop_times": [2325.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.347}, "reply_to": "20325__2_031", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_033", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, so you don't defend the judgment of the court of appeals below.\nDid you file a cross-petition for certiorari then on some ground?\nThe court below permitted, as I understand it, some discovery--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2325.546, 2329.631, 2334.322], "stop_times": [2329.631, 2334.322, 2338.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.546}, "reply_to": "20325__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_034", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Oh, no.\nNo, sir--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2338.346, 2339.227], "stop_times": [2339.227, 2339.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.346}, "reply_to": "20325__2_033", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_035", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--to go forward, but you take the position that that discovery may not go forward if the President asserts, gee, this is taking my time.\nYou're deposing witness X out there in the State of Arkansas but it's consuming my time to look at it.\nTherefore, you're off the hook.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2339.337, 2346.923, 2354.307, 2356.751], "stop_times": [2346.923, 2354.307, 2356.751, 2357.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.337}, "reply_to": "20325__2_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_036", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--No.\nNo, I am defending--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2357.729, 2357.91], "stop_times": [2357.91, 2358.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.729}, "reply_to": "20325__2_035", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_037", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But that is precisely what you just told Justice Breyer is the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2358.901], "stop_times": [2363.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.901}, "reply_to": "20325__2_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_038", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2363.564], "stop_times": [2364.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.564}, "reply_to": "20325__2_037", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_039", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "What is the thing you're asserting?\nI just am totally confused now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2364.325, 2366.177], "stop_times": [2366.177, 2368.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.325}, "reply_to": "20325__2_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_040", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "All right.\nWell, let me see if I can clear the confusion.\nWhat I am suggesting, and it's in the context of the depositions that Justice Breyer raised this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2368.329, 2368.569, 2371.912], "stop_times": [2368.569, 2371.912, 2378.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.329}, "reply_to": "20325__2_039", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_041", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Depositions of third parties out of State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2378.083], "stop_times": [2381.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2378.083}, "reply_to": "20325__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_042", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--It's hard to conceive that they would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2381.695], "stop_times": [2384.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.695}, "reply_to": "20325__2_041", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_043", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But if the President comes in and says, look, I want to keep track of this stuff, I need to meet with my lawyer, and I want to see what's going on here, it's interfering with my duties, what is the lower court to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2384.797], "stop_times": [2398.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.797}, "reply_to": "20325__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_044", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, I think the lower court has its function and its duty to decide whether that is a good faith claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2398.738], "stop_times": [2406.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.738}, "reply_to": "20325__2_043", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_045", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That goes beyond my question, you understand.\nLet him answer Justice O'Connor's question.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2406.412, 2408.794, 2411.466], "stop_times": [2408.794, 2411.466, 2412.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.412}, "reply_to": "20325__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__2_046", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And if it is not, then you may have a conflict between the person of the President and a judge.\nHe would respond.\nHe would just go to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2412.397, 2420.831, 2421.863], "stop_times": [2420.831, 2421.863, 2423.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2412.397}, "reply_to": "20325__2_045", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_047", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "So the trial court judge at the State court level is to determine whether the offer... the complaint made by the President's lawyer is made in good faith or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2423.052], "stop_times": [2431.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.052}, "reply_to": "20325__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_048", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I think he must make the claim of actual interference with his duties, that as another example, the torrent of litigation has come... is so much, that I am only responding now to civil complaints.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2431.067], "stop_times": [2447.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.067}, "reply_to": "20325__2_047", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_049", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But don't we know that that's inevitable in a suit like this?\nThis argument here today is taking an hour.\nAll the counsel and all participants in the argument have thought about it for at least the weekend if not a week.\n[Laughter]\nThere's an anxiety component, there's an intellectual commitment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2447.339, 2451.293, 2454.475, 2461.981, 2463.791], "stop_times": [2451.293, 2454.475, 2461.981, 2463.791, 2468.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.339}, "reply_to": "20325__2_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_050", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2468.256], "stop_times": [2468.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.256}, "reply_to": "20325__2_049", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_051", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--there's an emotional commitment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2468.726], "stop_times": [2469.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.726}, "reply_to": "20325__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_052", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2469.435], "stop_times": [2469.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2469.435}, "reply_to": "20325__2_051", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_053", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--that's far more extensive than some time chart would indicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2469.895], "stop_times": [2474.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.895}, "reply_to": "20325__2_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_054", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2474.129], "stop_times": [2475.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.129}, "reply_to": "20325__2_053", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_055", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And I think that's part of what the President is saying, is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2475.039], "stop_times": [2477.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.039}, "reply_to": "20325__2_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_056", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2477.562], "stop_times": [2478.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.562}, "reply_to": "20325__2_055", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_057", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--if he's going to defend this lawsuit it will absorb substantial energies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2478.001], "stop_times": [2482.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.001}, "reply_to": "20325__2_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_058", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I don't believe, Justice Kennedy, that the Constitution protects him in his personal capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2482.915], "stop_times": [2489.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2482.915}, "reply_to": "20325__2_057", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_059", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, what if the President's attorney came before the Court at the cert stage and asserted in the petition for certiorari this is causing the President to spend too much time on this.\nYou, Supreme Court, lay off.\nIt's bothering my duties.\nI'm very interested in this issue, and it's taking my time.\nWhat is the Supreme Court of the United States to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2489.811, 2505.949, 2509.031, 2512.023, 2515.155], "stop_times": [2505.949, 2509.031, 2512.023, 2515.155, 2518.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.811}, "reply_to": "20325__2_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_060", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I don't think the Supreme Court of the United States is a fact-finding body on that subject.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2518.849], "stop_times": [2524.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2518.849}, "reply_to": "20325__2_059", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_061", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But the only fact is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2524.252], "stop_times": [2525.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.252}, "reply_to": "20325__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20325__2_062", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--But we have an issue of law that is consuming a great deal of time, effort, and anxiety.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2525.483], "stop_times": [2531.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.483}, "reply_to": "20325__2_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_063", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, but that issue again is a matter to be addressed to a trial judge, who is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2531.206], "stop_times": [2538.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.206}, "reply_to": "20325__2_062", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_064", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But I thought the only issue was good faith.\nI thought you said a moment ago that if in fact the particular objection to the particular deposition and what-not was made in good faith, that it would be appropriate for the court to honor it, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2538.012, 2541.845], "stop_times": [2541.845, 2555.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.012}, "reply_to": "20325__2_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_065", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, I think the court... I think... perhaps I should also suggest that a court suspicious of the good faith of that assertion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2555.723], "stop_times": [2564.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.723}, "reply_to": "20325__2_064", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_066", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No, let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2564.669], "stop_times": [2565.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.669}, "reply_to": "20325__2_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_067", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--is entitled to require a showing, just as in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2565.869], "stop_times": [2569.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.869}, "reply_to": "20325__2_066", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_068", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--But all of this showing, all of this inquiry goes to the good faith of the request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2569.031], "stop_times": [2574.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.031}, "reply_to": "20325__2_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_069", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Goes to the interference, whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2574.754], "stop_times": [2577.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.754}, "reply_to": "20325__2_068", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_070", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Goes to... I thought you were saying it goes to the good faith of the claim of interference, and that is a different thing, I think, that you are allowing thereby from an inquiry into the degree of interference and whether the interference is serious enough to warrant the stay or what-not.\nI think those are two different inquiries, and I understood you to be saying back when you were responding to Justice Breyer that it was the good faith inquiry that would be dispositive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2577.867, 2600.403], "stop_times": [2600.403, 2610.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.867}, "reply_to": "20325__2_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_071", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I think as a practical matter, and I'm not suggesting the good faith as a rule of law, as a practical matter in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2610.441], "stop_times": [2618.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.441}, "reply_to": "20325__2_070", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_072", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Probably try to take it out of the immunity context with respect to lesser officers... you know, the Fitzgerald case has been featured in the briefs and in this argument, but Harlow came down the same day, and in that case this Court said that discovery can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.\nThat was in the case of a lesser officer.\nAnd so for that reason the Court said, although immunity is only qualified, we're going to decide that question at the top of the list before any discovery is allowed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2618.624, 2639.88, 2641.98], "stop_times": [2639.88, 2641.98, 2651.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.624}, "reply_to": "20325__2_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_073", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I believe that the immunity question, if it exists, if the concept that has been suggested to this Court of temporal immunity, if it exists, bars proceedings whether they're pretrial or trial.\nIf that arises under the separation of powers, then it bars it all.\nIf it does not, it does not bar either the pretrial or the trial subject to an actual interference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2651.007, 2668.249, 2672.741], "stop_times": [2668.249, 2672.741, 2680.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.007}, "reply_to": "20325__2_072", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_074", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And I asked--\n--I thought you were arguing that... or conceding that if there was in fact a good faith assertion of the privilege in a given instance, that it would be appropriate to honor it.\nIs that... I am wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2680.796, 2681.868, 2693.255], "stop_times": [2681.868, 2693.255, 2694.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.796}, "reply_to": "20325__2_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_075", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I don't think it's a privilege.\nI think what he would be saying is, a procedure has happened here.\nI can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2694.606, 2695.047, 2700.863], "stop_times": [2695.047, 2700.863, 2701.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2694.606}, "reply_to": "20325__2_074", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_076", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Whatever you call it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2701.802], "stop_times": [2703.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.802}, "reply_to": "20325__2_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_077", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, I think the best way to call this is a trial.\nLet's talk about a trial.\nHe's anticipating 7 days worth of trial, and I can't be in court for 7 days, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2703.304, 2705.595, 2706.737], "stop_times": [2705.595, 2706.737, 2713.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2703.304}, "reply_to": "20325__2_076", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_078", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No, no.\nThis is third party depositions we were talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2713.432, 2713.632], "stop_times": [2713.632, 2716.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.432}, "reply_to": "20325__2_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_079", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "May I ask a question in that regard about third party depositions, and we're concerned about their impact on the office of the President and so forth.\nWould it be permissible for the trial judge in trying to control the litigation and recognize the special problems of the President to narrow discovery to matters that relate to the particular incident involved in the trial and say, no, you can't ask about the history for the last 10 years, or 45 other police officers and so forth.\nWould that be a permissible use of the trial judge's discretion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2716.313, 2723.997, 2742.42], "stop_times": [2723.997, 2742.42, 2745.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.313}, "reply_to": "20325__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__2_080", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I think the trial judge always has the opportunity and the duty to balance the interests--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2745.342], "stop_times": [2749.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.342}, "reply_to": "20325__2_079", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_081", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "So it would be permissible to him to narrow discovery and the scope of inquiry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2749.796], "stop_times": [2753.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.796}, "reply_to": "20325__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__2_082", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Mr. Davis, I don't think you're answering some of the questions quite as frankly as we might hope you would.\nTo say that the trial judge could consider it isn't to say whether he's bound by it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2753.177, 2759.5], "stop_times": [2759.5, 2764.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.177}, "reply_to": "20325__2_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__2_083", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I don't think he is bound--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2764.843], "stop_times": [2765.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.843}, "reply_to": "20325__2_082", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_084", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And there is a difference between a President's claim simply saying, I can't come now.\nIs that conclusive on the court?\nIt seems to me... or does the court have an obligation, or at least is it permissible to weigh the court's own evaluation of the President's claim?\nI think I would like and I think my colleagues would like your answers to those questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2765.865, 2773.411, 2775.802, 2785.728], "stop_times": [2773.411, 2775.802, 2785.728, 2790.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.865}, "reply_to": "20325__2_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__2_085", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I do believe, Chief Justice, that a court has, if it is suspicious of a President's assertion of a claim, has a right to inquire into the bona fides of that claim, and if the court found in its belief that the President did not make that claim and that there... properly that there was not an interference with his duties, I think the court would go... could... can't take any exercise of jurisdiction over his person, but could go forward with the other kinds of remedies that it might have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2790.352], "stop_times": [2829.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.352}, "reply_to": "20325__2_084", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_086", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Is that the holding of the Eighth Circuit that we're reviewing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2829.138], "stop_times": [2832.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.138}, "reply_to": "20325__2_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_087", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "The Eighth Circuit never considered, I don't think, the minutiae--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2832.841], "stop_times": [2837.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.841}, "reply_to": "20325__2_086", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_088", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "It sounds different to me than what we read in the Sixth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2837.172], "stop_times": [2840.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.172}, "reply_to": "20325__2_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_089", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--The Eighth Circuit said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2840.925], "stop_times": [2841.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.925}, "reply_to": "20325__2_088", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_090", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--in the Eighth Circuit opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2841.974], "stop_times": [2842.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.974}, "reply_to": "20325__2_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20325__2_091", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--No, the Eighth Circuit said that, sensitive to proper judicial case management and sensitive to the interests of the parties, including the President, this case should proceed, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2842.475], "stop_times": [2854.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.475}, "reply_to": "20325__2_090", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_092", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Davis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2854.432], "stop_times": [2854.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.432}, "reply_to": "20325__2_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_093", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--responding as a sensitivity to those questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2854.953], "stop_times": [2858.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2854.953}, "reply_to": "20325__2_092", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_094", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Mr. Davis, I am unlikely to favor a disposition that allows any judge, Federal or State, to sit in judgment of the President's assertion of whether his executive duties are too important or not.\nWhat about an alternative to your proposal that would draw a distinction between the person of the President being hauled before a court and depositions of other people, and say the latter, and the worry about the trial, and all of that, is just like worry about his personal health or his financial affairs, or marital problems at home, or whatever.\nIt's just something you've got to live with, even when you're President.\nHowever, to be hauled personally before a judge is something else, and so give the President absolute immunity.\nIf he makes the claim, I'm too busy to come, you cannot enter judgment against him simply because he refuses to appear, but the rest of the trial can proceed.\nWould that be acceptable to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2858.647, 2875.157, 2900.592, 2903.625, 2912.412, 2921.417], "stop_times": [2875.157, 2900.592, 2903.625, 2912.412, 2921.417, 2923.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.647}, "reply_to": "20325__2_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_095", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I would not find it acceptable because I think the presumption is that this case, which does not have a risk to it in the likely event that it goes forward... if it were to go forward does not have a risk of interference with the functions of the presidency, and it's a case of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2923.6], "stop_times": [2945.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.6}, "reply_to": "20325__2_094", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_096", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, what if the President says so?\nI'm not saying the rest of the trial.\nI'm just saying, when he's subpoenaed to testify he says, I am too busy.\nI am President of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2945.574, 2946.966, 2948.068, 2952.191], "stop_times": [2946.966, 2948.068, 2952.191, 2953.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.574}, "reply_to": "20325__2_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_097", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2953.272], "stop_times": [2955.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.272}, "reply_to": "20325__2_096", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_098", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And he has to make that claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2955.445], "stop_times": [2955.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.445}, "reply_to": "20325__2_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_099", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--he has given depositions, and he has arranged his calendar, and the court would... under the new Federal rules, as I understand it, would have a conference with him, what protections do you need, and would... could enter an order to that, and he gives available dates.\nAs a matter of fact, in most of these circumstances my brother Mr. Bennett I'm sure would be accommodating to arrange with us, without the involvement of the court at all, the time and place and date, and the availability of the President, and if he said, hey, I've got something else to do, I'm sure counsel would do it.\nIf they didn't do it, then of course you go to the court, but to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2955.796, 2971.007, 2987.618], "stop_times": [2971.007, 2987.618, 2991.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.796}, "reply_to": "20325__2_098", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_100", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "But you still insist that the court pass judgment on... if the President can't come to some compromise, you think the court will sit in judgment on whether, indeed, he's too busy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2991.731], "stop_times": [2999.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.731}, "reply_to": "20325__2_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_101", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, his option is just not to obey, because I have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [2999.836], "stop_times": [3003.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2999.836}, "reply_to": "20325__2_100", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_102", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And suffer judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3003.85], "stop_times": [3004.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.85}, "reply_to": "20325__2_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_103", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--constitutional and statutory function to perform.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3004.301], "stop_times": [3007.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.301}, "reply_to": "20325__2_102", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_104", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And suffer judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3007.343], "stop_times": [3008.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.343}, "reply_to": "20325__2_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_105", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "He could suffer judgment.\nThere's the appellate process for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3008.344, 3009.564], "stop_times": [3009.564, 3011.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.344}, "reply_to": "20325__2_104", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_106", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "When you say that the President can in good faith make an assertion of privilege that would be honored if it's in good faith, it seems to me that you give away most of your case.\nYou leave two things for court inquiry, number 1, the existence of good faith, and number 2 whether or not it's a risk to the presidency.\nIt seems to me that both of those inquiries are so very, very intrusive that it argues strongly for the absolute privilege that petitioners are suggesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3011.775, 3023.151, 3033.64], "stop_times": [3023.151, 3033.64, 3044.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.775}, "reply_to": "20325__2_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_107", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, the question came to me initially and my bright line rule was not the good faith rule, it was the actual imminent risk to the President performing his duties, and an assertion of the claim, and we got to the point of the assertion of the claim, and I merely suggested that the... that if the President was not in good faith 10 times in a row, that the court might make an inquiry into that.\nI did not suggest to the Court that the... necessarily that that was a... the rule of law that we would necessarily seek.\nI think the President would act in good faith.\nIf he did not act in it, the court may have the right to inquire.\nI don't think that is before us.\nWhat is before us is a private action.\nThe President has a private capacity.\nHe should be... he should go forward with the case, and if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3044.106, 3071.614, 3082.052, 3083.885, 3087.678, 3090.039, 3092.771, 3094.941], "stop_times": [3071.614, 3082.052, 3083.885, 3087.678, 3090.039, 3092.771, 3094.941, 3100.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.106}, "reply_to": "20325__2_106", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_108", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Davis, what is at risk for you taking into account two things.\nMr. Bennett said that it would be appropriate to take depositions to perpetuate testimony if there's a danger that the testimony won't be available later and, should you prevail, you get interest on any damage award, so what is at stake in a postponement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3100.485, 3107.87], "stop_times": [3107.87, 3129.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3100.485}, "reply_to": "20325__2_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_109", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, what is at stake, and this is... these interests I think are substantial to the plaintiff.\nShe can lose her cause of action if either she or the President dies.\nIt is extinguished, as the Eighth Circuit concurring opinion points out.\nShe has her reputation.\nYou talk about how important this case is.\nIt's a civil rights case partially and State's claims, but reputation is what we take to our grave probably more than anything else, and while she's alive that reputation is sullied.\nThe implicit... well, the implication of the article was that she was a compliant female.\nIf that is the case, we can imagine that she goes for a job and an employers says, I'm not so sure whether you made a valid claim here or not.\nI don't want to be the next employer that you charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3129.005, 3134.049, 3138.231, 3144.456, 3146.766, 3149.227, 3161.125, 3167.82, 3175.347], "stop_times": [3134.049, 3138.231, 3144.456, 3146.766, 3149.227, 3161.125, 3167.82, 3175.347, 3178.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.005}, "reply_to": "20325__2_108", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_110", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "She hasn't alleged anything like that, has she?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3178.8], "stop_times": [3181.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.8}, "reply_to": "20325__2_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_111", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No, no, but you asked me what interests are involved in the delay.\nIn addition to that, obviously, the course of human experience, we don't know when witnesses will die.\nWe certainly can't say, well, there's an emergency because somebody's going to die tomorrow who's not ill.\nThat is a common experience, and that's why justice delayed has often--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3181.024, 3185.124, 3191.62, 3195.863], "stop_times": [3185.124, 3191.62, 3195.863, 3201.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3181.024}, "reply_to": "20325__2_110", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_112", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, witnesses' memories also fade, do they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3201.266], "stop_times": [3204.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.266}, "reply_to": "20325__2_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20325__2_113", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--They fade, and they become incapacitated.\nThe documents get lost or mislaid.\nSo her case could be utterly destroyed, and she could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3204.588, 3206.458, 3209.822], "stop_times": [3206.458, 3209.822, 3214.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3204.588}, "reply_to": "20325__2_112", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_114", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I thought as far as witnesses' memories were concerned, I thought that Mr. Bennett had conceded that you could have something like Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, depositions to perpetuate testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3214.793], "stop_times": [3226.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3214.793}, "reply_to": "20325__2_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_115", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--But discovery depositions, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3226.412], "stop_times": [3230.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3226.412}, "reply_to": "20325__2_114", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_116", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3230.385], "stop_times": [3230.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.385}, "reply_to": "20325__2_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_117", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Where leads are developed?\nI'm not certain that Mr. Bennett would permit that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3230.595, 3232.005], "stop_times": [3232.005, 3235.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3230.595}, "reply_to": "20325__2_116", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_118", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No.\nNo, responding to the dim memory problem, that dim memory is a problem.\nThen you can get the current memory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3235.428, 3235.598, 3241.311], "stop_times": [3235.598, 3241.311, 3243.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.428}, "reply_to": "20325__2_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_119", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Bennett I found to be very accommodating, but this Court is going to be enunciating a constitutional doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3243.524], "stop_times": [3250.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3243.524}, "reply_to": "20325__2_118", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_120", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, I'm not so sure about that, because even in the Fitzgerald case Justice Powell had a footnote where he suggested that Congress might pass a law authorizing such a claim against the President.\nNow, if Congress could pass a law, then it can't be a constitutional matter, can it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3250.748, 3266.468], "stop_times": [3266.468, 3275.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.748}, "reply_to": "20325__2_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_121", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That is the remedy that the President... that the President could seek if he fears this interference.\nI think if there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3275.074, 3280.927], "stop_times": [3280.927, 3281.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3275.074}, "reply_to": "20325__2_120", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_122", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No, no.\nIn the Fitzgerald case Justice Powell said that he was leaving over the... leaving open the possibility that Congress could do away with the absolute immunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3281.628, 3282.079], "stop_times": [3282.079, 3294.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.628}, "reply_to": "20325__2_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_123", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Oh, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3294.328], "stop_times": [3295.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.328}, "reply_to": "20325__2_122", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_124", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--by law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3295.129], "stop_times": [3295.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.129}, "reply_to": "20325__2_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_125", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3295.619], "stop_times": [3296.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3295.619}, "reply_to": "20325__2_124", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_126", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "By a mere law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3296.168], "stop_times": [3297.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.168}, "reply_to": "20325__2_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_127", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I... the justice... Chief Justice Burger was very skeptical of that.\nThere was a suggestion in it, in dicta, in Justice Powell's opinion.\nMy own view is that if there is an immunity that arises under the Constitution and the separation of powers, that Congress by some affirmative act that says a President now doesn't have that protection, I would be very skeptical whether Congress could do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3297.049, 3302.783, 3306.776], "stop_times": [3302.783, 3306.776, 3322.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3297.049}, "reply_to": "20325__2_126", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_128", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And of course Congress can apparently make constitutional by statute what is otherwise unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, can't it?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3322.258, 3330.402], "stop_times": [3330.402, 3331.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3322.258}, "reply_to": "20325__2_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_129", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Yes, sir, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3331.841], "stop_times": [3334.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3331.841}, "reply_to": "20325__2_128", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_130", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "So even if that were true, it wouldn't be unheard of in our strange jurisprudence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3334.542], "stop_times": [3341.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.542}, "reply_to": "20325__2_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_131", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I'm not sure I want to be a part of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3341.548], "stop_times": [3345.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3341.548}, "reply_to": "20325__2_130", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_132", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "No, but it's true.\n[Laughter]\nThe fact is true though.\nIs it not true that Congress by statute can--\n--Well, Congress gives power--\n--cause something which otherwise would be held by this Court to violate the Commerce Clause not to violate it.\nThe Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce.\nIt doesn't give Congress the power to regulate immunities.\nI suppose there's a distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3345.902, 3346.724, 3347.635, 3350.077, 3353.549, 3355.82, 3359.043, 3362.015, 3364.649], "stop_times": [3346.724, 3347.635, 3350.077, 3353.549, 3355.82, 3359.043, 3362.015, 3364.649, 3365.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.902}, "reply_to": "20325__2_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20325__2_133", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That would be mine.\n[Laughter]\nMay it please the Court, there are other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3365.778, 3367.03, 3371.084], "stop_times": [3367.03, 3371.084, 3375.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3365.778}, "reply_to": "20325__2_132", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_134", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, it would if there's a Federal... if the immunity's as a matter of Federal common law and not Federal constitutional law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3375.979], "stop_times": [3382.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.979}, "reply_to": "20325__2_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20325__2_135", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Yes, but it is not here.\nWe would... and the Fitzgerald opinion did talk about presidential immunities and the sources of them, and there were four sources.\nThe presidency was a recent, much more recent development than the development of the common law, and so look for any immunity that the President has in the Constitution itself, which deals with official power, and that's purely our point here.\nUnless there is an immunity that arises constitutionally, then there should be no bar to the progress of this litigation with the courts sensitive to the burdens of the presidency and should be trusted to do so.\nThat's another, I think fundamental problem with our opponents, is that they do not have a presumption of trust that the court will deal with these matters--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3382.691, 3385.112, 3395.049, 3411.909, 3427.04], "stop_times": [3385.112, 3395.049, 3411.909, 3427.04, 3437.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3382.691}, "reply_to": "20325__2_134", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_136", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, it's often true, and litigants always don't trust one another completely.\nMay I ask you the same question I asked your opponent.\nHow long do you think it will take to try this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3437.598, 3441.941, 3444.801], "stop_times": [3441.941, 3444.801, 3447.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.598}, "reply_to": "20325__2_135", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__2_137", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--This is a very, relatively simple, as far as fact pattern case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3447.455], "stop_times": [3454.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3447.455}, "reply_to": "20325__2_136", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_138", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I'm not asking you to describe the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3454.819], "stop_times": [3456.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3454.819}, "reply_to": "20325__2_137", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__2_139", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3456.769], "stop_times": [3457.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3456.769}, "reply_to": "20325__2_138", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_140", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I'm asking you to tell me how long you think it will take to try it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3457.07], "stop_times": [3459.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3457.07}, "reply_to": "20325__2_139", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__2_141", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Depending on stipulations, Justice Stevens, I would say 4 or 5 days perhaps, but that's just a guess, and it may... and we don't know if the case will be narrowed by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3459.173], "stop_times": [3472.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3459.173}, "reply_to": "20325__2_140", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_142", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Why would it take 4 or 5 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3472.37], "stop_times": [3473.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3472.37}, "reply_to": "20325__2_141", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__2_143", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, I'm thinking of what some jurisdictions do.\nIn Virginia, in Federal or State court it would take probably... it would take a half-an-hour in the Eastern District, but--\n[Laughter]\nBut I don't think it will take very long, and there's a point to be made about that also.\nWith today's technology, with live feeds or transcripts and continuances from day-to-day, or whenever the President feels that he can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3473.972, 3478.086, 3482.46, 3485.542, 3492.628], "stop_times": [3478.086, 3482.46, 3485.542, 3492.628, 3501.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3473.972}, "reply_to": "20325__2_142", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_144", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "One of the major concerns, of course, is the extent to which you plan to go into collateral matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3501.721], "stop_times": [3506.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3501.721}, "reply_to": "20325__2_143", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20325__2_145", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--I can't, and I wouldn't bind, because I'm not certain whether they are admissible.\nI'm not certain what they... if they would tend to show a fact that we need to prove I think I would be duty bound as counsel to pursue that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3506.526, 3513.491], "stop_times": [3513.491, 3523.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3506.526}, "reply_to": "20325__2_144", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_146", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Suppose, because there are other parties involved, that it were 10 days of trial, 2 working weeks, and... pick a number... 15 depositions.\nDo you think that would be a substantial investment of the President's time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3523.368, 3533.717], "stop_times": [3533.717, 3537.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3523.368}, "reply_to": "20325__2_145", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_147", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "It could very well be.\nIt could very well be, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3537.256, 3537.496], "stop_times": [3537.496, 3539.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3537.256}, "reply_to": "20325__2_146", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_148", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "And if it then were in that degree, you think that he'd be entitled to an order deferring the litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3539.579], "stop_times": [3545.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3539.579}, "reply_to": "20325__2_147", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_149", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--If there was no way, at that time... this is ab initio, but at that time, if there was no other way to accommodate his needs, the presidency's needs for him to perform that job, then a continuance might very well be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3545.363], "stop_times": [3562.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3545.363}, "reply_to": "20325__2_148", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_150", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That's something of a perverse incentive, then, because then he has the incentive to ask for a long trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3562.466], "stop_times": [3566.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3562.466}, "reply_to": "20325__2_149", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20325__2_151", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "He may indeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3566.608], "stop_times": [3567.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3566.608}, "reply_to": "20325__2_150", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_152", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Mr. Davis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3567.88], "stop_times": [3568.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3567.88}, "reply_to": "20325__2_151", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_153", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--if he wants to avoid a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3568.661], "stop_times": [3569.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3568.661}, "reply_to": "20325__2_152", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_154", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Mr. Davis, if we can trust the court to make that judgment, and if we can trust the court to make all the specific judgments on an instance-by-instance basis which you think is the appropriate way, why can't we also trust the court to make a judgment up front that there are going to be so many specific instances, and the so many specific instances are going to be so costly to the President that the only practical thing is to make a blanket judgment now based upon its good judgment?\nIf we can trust the court to make the first two kinds of good judgments, why can't we trust a court to make that third kind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3569.279, 3604.773], "stop_times": [3604.773, 3611.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3569.279}, "reply_to": "20325__2_153", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_155", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "In an appropriate circumstance, and you're getting to the question of a stay by the district judge as a discretionary matter rather than as a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3611.308], "stop_times": [3620.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3611.308}, "reply_to": "20325__2_154", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_156", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Well, they're all discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3620.092], "stop_times": [3621.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3620.092}, "reply_to": "20325__2_155", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_157", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, I think she did this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3621.815], "stop_times": [3623.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3621.815}, "reply_to": "20325__2_156", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_158", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "I mean, it's an exercise of the court's discretion in each instance.\nIf we can trust them in the first two examples, which you concede, why not in the third, assuming there's an evidentiary basis for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3623.125, 3628.077], "stop_times": [3628.077, 3635.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3623.125}, "reply_to": "20325__2_157", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_159", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--Well, the court needs to have a factual basis on which to exercise discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3635.843], "stop_times": [3640.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3635.843}, "reply_to": "20325__2_158", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_160", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Okay, and let's assume that the President's lawyers come in and they provide one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3640.225], "stop_times": [3643.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3640.225}, "reply_to": "20325__2_159", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_161", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "If they do provide a factual basis that justifies a continuance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3643.628], "stop_times": [3648.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3643.628}, "reply_to": "20325__2_160", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_162", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3648.083], "stop_times": [3648.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3648.083}, "reply_to": "20325__2_161", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_163", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--then certainly the court has authority to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3648.323], "stop_times": [3651.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3648.323}, "reply_to": "20325__2_162", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_164", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "So the only thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3651.883], "stop_times": [3652.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3651.883}, "reply_to": "20325__2_163", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_165", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That's a matter of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3652.063], "stop_times": [3652.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3652.063}, "reply_to": "20325__2_164", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_166", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "--The only thing we're really arguing about, then, is whether there ought to be a blanket rule that can be invoked simply by saying, I want this deferral for 4 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3652.604], "stop_times": [3663.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3652.604}, "reply_to": "20325__2_165", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_167", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3663.422], "stop_times": [3664.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3663.422}, "reply_to": "20325__2_166", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_168", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "As distinct from a rule in which the President's lawyers are going to come in and say, these are the practical stakes involved, and they therefore justify a 4-year continuance.\nThat's all we're really arguing about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3664.241, 3675.45], "stop_times": [3675.45, 3677.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3664.241}, "reply_to": "20325__2_167", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20325__2_169", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "That's all we're arguing about, yes, sir.\nLet me just conclude by saying this, that what the President is seeking would require a number of changes.\nThey suggest burden of... changes as to compelling cases, that he doesn't need this, that the burden be on the plaintiff, and to delay it is a situation that would be highly unusual in the normal course, and we don't need it.\nThe power of the court to deal with this is ample.\nIf it proves not to be ample, as in Justice Souter's example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3677.011, 3678.37, 3687.917, 3704.897, 3707.929], "stop_times": [3678.37, 3687.917, 3704.897, 3707.929, 3711.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3677.011}, "reply_to": "20325__2_168", "speaker": "gilbert_k_davis"}
{"id": "20325__2_170", "conversation_id": "20325", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Davis.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1853", "start_times": [3711.144, 3713.16], "stop_times": [3713.16, 3732.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3711.144}, "reply_to": "20325__2_169", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__0_000", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 95-1402, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. the Estate of Otis C. Hubert.\nMr. Jones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [0.0, 9.647], "stop_times": [9.647, 22.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__0_001", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves the marital and charitable deductions to the Federal estate tax.\nAs with some other tax cases, and perhaps more so than most, this case involves the central logical principle that is surrounded and almost obscured by a wealth of technical detail.\nI would therefore like to focus first on the central logical principle and discuss the technical issues later.\nThe gross estate is defined as the value on the date of death of the property owned by the decedent.\nThe marital and charitable deductions to the gross estate are defined by statute as the value of the property that passes to the spouse and charity.\nWhen, as in this case, the bequest left to the spouse or charity is burdened by the obligation of paying some expense or administration expense or other claim against the estate, the value of the property that passes under the bequest is obviously less than the full face value of the bequest.\nIt is the face value of the bequest, reduced by the cost of satisfying the obligations that have been imposed on it.\nThus, in 1963, this Court explained in United States v. Stapf that when the burden of paying administration expenses' or other claims against the estate is placed on the marital bequest, the decedent has in effect left that portion of the estate not to the spouse, but has designated it for payment of the claims of others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [22.967, 32.992, 38.076, 50.005, 57.279, 65.001, 74.999, 93.773, 100.616], "stop_times": [32.992, 38.076, 50.005, 57.279, 65.001, 74.999, 93.773, 100.616, 122.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 22.967}, "reply_to": "19780__0_000", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_002", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And in that case it was the decedent's act that did it, as I recall.\nWasn't it the provision of the will that required it in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [122.36, 125.413], "stop_times": [125.413, 129.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.36}, "reply_to": "19780__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_003", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It was... actually if I remember Stapf correctly, there was an option given to the heir as to how to take under the will or not take under the will, and it dealt with the specifics of the Texas community property rules.\nIn this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [129.116, 145.636], "stop_times": [145.636, 146.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 129.116}, "reply_to": "19780__0_002", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_004", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "In any case it didn't involve a charge which was wholly contingent at the time of death and which simply arose later and then, under the statutory option, was charged against the marital share.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [146.778], "stop_times": [160.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 146.778}, "reply_to": "19780__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_005", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--No, nor does this case.\nIn this case, as several courts have explained, the obligation to pay administration expenses is fixed on the date of death.\nIt is about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [160.385, 162.218, 169.172], "stop_times": [162.218, 169.172, 170.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 160.385}, "reply_to": "19780__0_004", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_006", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "But we don't know what the expenses are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [170.023], "stop_times": [171.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.023}, "reply_to": "19780__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_007", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [171.135], "stop_times": [171.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 171.135}, "reply_to": "19780__0_006", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_008", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--and we don't know that there's going to be a... for example, a will contest or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [171.452], "stop_times": [174.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.452}, "reply_to": "19780__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_009", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Exactly.\nIt's the valuation of that later on that has to be conducted.\nBut in Stapf, the Court in speaking specifically of administration expenses, said that they, like claims against the estate, represent... I'm sorry... when the obligation for administration expenses or to pay claims against the estate is placed on the marital bequest, that that reduces the value of the marital bequest because the decedent has in concept set aside a portion of the bequest not to go to the spouse, but to someone else.\nAnd obviously, the portion of the bequest that's to go to someone else is not within the scope of the marital deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [174.725, 175.025, 179.389, 205.586], "stop_times": [175.025, 179.389, 205.586, 211.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.725}, "reply_to": "19780__0_008", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_010", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Mr. Jones, if we value the estate at the time of death, why don't we also value these encumbrances at the time of death?\nThat is one part of your argument that I don't follow.\nIf you say it's an encumbrance on the estate at the time of death, then if one were planning to pay it, one would have an amount that would yield, say, 4 years later what these expenses are.\nBut you are arguing for a dollar-for-dollar deduction and not the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [211.299, 221.435, 224.496, 238.247], "stop_times": [221.435, 224.496, 238.247, 245.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.299}, "reply_to": "19780__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_011", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [245.31], "stop_times": [246.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.31}, "reply_to": "19780__0_010", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_012", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--present value of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [246.091], "stop_times": [247.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.091}, "reply_to": "19780__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_013", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Right, and to understand that, you have to understand almost every issue in the case, most of which we haven't touched on yet, but there is a short answer to that.\nAdministration expenses are themselves a deduction under the Federal estate tax on a dollar-for-dollar basis even though administration expenses may be incurred 10 years later.\nWe do not make the estate bring those expenses back to the present value in determining the administration expense deduction for the... now, if we did, then it would make some sense to also bring back to present value the reduction from the marital deduction that occurs because of the administration expenses, but we don't do either.\nWe do a dollar-for-dollar basis on administration expenses.\nWe do a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the marital deduction to take into account the administration expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [247.043, 254.918, 265.266, 287.248, 290.701], "stop_times": [254.918, 265.266, 287.248, 290.701, 296.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.043}, "reply_to": "19780__0_012", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_014", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Well, but the executor has the election, does he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [296.325], "stop_times": [298.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.325}, "reply_to": "19780__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__0_015", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Absolutely.\nThis is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [298.435, 298.996], "stop_times": [298.996, 299.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.435}, "reply_to": "19780__0_014", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_016", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And if the executor elects to pay the deduction out of the estate, I can see why that should reduce the estate.\nBut you're telling us that if there's a $50,000 administrative expense that we can anticipate down the line, that it's the same thing, cases A, if $50,000 is deducted from the corpus that ever goes to the beneficiary, so he gets a corpus less $50,000; and case B, he gets the full corpus and the income is fully sufficient to pay the $50,000.\nI'd much rather be the beneficiary in case 2 than case 1.\nI just don't see... they are just not the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [299.587, 307.36, 330.398, 333.039], "stop_times": [307.36, 330.398, 333.039, 335.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.587}, "reply_to": "19780__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__0_017", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Well, they... I think I can give you an example that would suggest, if I understood your point, that they are the same.\nIf you had two alternative bequests, the decedent calls you in his study and says, I'm going to let you choose.\nI'm writing a will and here are the choices.\nIn both cases I'm going to give you a bank account with $100,000 in it, and in both cases, you're not going to be able to make withdrawal from those accounts for a year.\nBut in the first case, the interest earned by that account at 10 percent is going to be added to it, so at the end of the year you can withdraw $110,000, but in the second case, the interest earned by that account is not going to go to you.\nIt's going to go to the payment of administration expenses.\nSo, at the end of the year, you'll still just get $100,000.\nYou'd say, I would like the first bequest because the present value, the real value, of that bequest is higher.\nIt's $100,000 on the date of death.\nIt's $110,000 a year later.\nThe second bequest, the real value, as the Court said in Stapf, is about $90,000 because it... recognizing the time value of money, if the income is going to be spent on something else, the present value of the bequest on the date of death is reduced by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [335.741, 340.964, 347.588, 349.659, 359.126, 372.494, 375.046, 378.297, 385.063, 386.813, 388.916], "stop_times": [340.964, 347.588, 349.659, 359.126, 372.494, 375.046, 378.297, 385.063, 386.813, 388.916, 404.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.741}, "reply_to": "19780__0_016", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_018", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "But your dollar-for-dollar theory doesn't recognize discounted value... time value at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [404.935], "stop_times": [410.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.935}, "reply_to": "19780__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__0_019", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--The dollar-for-dollar--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [410.368], "stop_times": [411.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.368}, "reply_to": "19780__0_018", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_020", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It's completely arbitrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [411.57], "stop_times": [412.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 411.57}, "reply_to": "19780__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__0_021", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--The dollar-for-dollar theory, as you have described it, recognizes that this issue serves at the border between the estate tax and the income tax.\nThe estate tax, as I've tried to state earlier, allows the administration deduction on a dollar-for-dollar basis.\nIf that $10,000 that I talked about just a minute ago was spent at the end of the first year, they would be entitled to a deduction for that entire $10,000 in valuing the estate if they... unless they attempted to take that deduction on the income tax return.\nNormally these time value of money things aren't anywhere near as significant as they appear to be in this case because normally you don't have a will contest followed by a tax issue that goes to the Supreme Court.\nNormally we're talking about estates being resolved within a year or so.\nAs a practical mechanical matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [412.441, 423.809, 430.572, 448.435, 461.152, 464.744], "stop_times": [423.809, 430.572, 448.435, 461.152, 464.744, 467.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.441}, "reply_to": "19780__0_020", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_022", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "You're not suggesting that a relatively large estate is usually resolved within a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [467.707], "stop_times": [473.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.707}, "reply_to": "19780__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__0_023", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Well, I don't know how to answer that in terms of the size of the estate.\nWhat's really turns... what extends the length of the administration is the nature of the property I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [473.049, 476.762], "stop_times": [476.762, 482.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.049}, "reply_to": "19780__0_022", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_024", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "May I ask you a question?\nI wonder if I'm just dead wrong on this.\nYou sort of treat all administrative expenses as fungible.\nThey all could be deducted against income or all could be deducted against the estate tax.\nI had thought that when an estate is... includes a substantial asset as an ongoing business, that some estate expenses could not... administrative expenses could not be deducted against the income tax return.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [482.526, 484.427, 486.53, 490.03, 494.825, 508.583], "stop_times": [484.427, 486.53, 490.03, 494.825, 508.583, 509.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.526}, "reply_to": "19780__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__0_025", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [509.524], "stop_times": [510.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.524}, "reply_to": "19780__0_024", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_026", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Presumably the cost of filing a will, something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [510.036], "stop_times": [511.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.036}, "reply_to": "19780__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__0_027", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--The cost of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [511.984], "stop_times": [513.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.984}, "reply_to": "19780__0_026", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_028", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Filing a will or probate court fees, something like that.\nIt couldn't be deducted against the income earned by the ongoing business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [513.537, 516.399], "stop_times": [516.399, 519.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.537}, "reply_to": "19780__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__0_029", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Right.\nAnd indeed the expenses of the ongoing business would not be administration expenses under the estate tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [519.101, 519.371], "stop_times": [519.371, 524.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.101}, "reply_to": "19780__0_028", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_030", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "So that necessarily some expenses could be deducted against income and some could not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [524.263], "stop_times": [528.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.263}, "reply_to": "19780__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__0_031", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "We're only talking here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [528.415], "stop_times": [530.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.415}, "reply_to": "19780__0_030", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_032", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [530.278], "stop_times": [530.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.278}, "reply_to": "19780__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__0_033", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Well, absolutely, but let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [530.819], "stop_times": [532.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.819}, "reply_to": "19780__0_032", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_034", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And that's why I can't understand your hypothetical in your reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [532.9], "stop_times": [536.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.9}, "reply_to": "19780__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__0_035", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Let me see if I can help you.\nThe definition of administration expenses is in 2053(a) in the regs under that, and it lists the things that you would think of as administration expenses, arranging for the disposition of the property and things of that nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [536.513, 538.563], "stop_times": [538.563, 552.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 536.513}, "reply_to": "19780__0_034", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_036", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [552.491], "stop_times": [552.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.491}, "reply_to": "19780__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__0_037", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Those are the kinds of administration expenses that we're talking about in this case.\nIf there was a cost of running a business after death during the period of administration, those would not represent administration expenses for this purpose.\nAnd so, in my example, when I said that the will required that the income be used to pay administration expenses, I was talking about those kinds of probate and in this case tax... will contest, tax litigation expenses that relate to the disposition of the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [552.961, 557.035, 566.181], "stop_times": [557.035, 566.181, 582.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.961}, "reply_to": "19780__0_036", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_038", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Mr. Jones, throughout your brief, you put the marital deduction and the charitable deduction together.\nAnd I hope you can explain to me how your example in your reply brief would work out if you had chosen to use as your illustration a charitable deduction instead of a marital deduction, it seems to me it would lead to a rather bizarre result of a taxable estate of $50,000.\nIf the only beneficiary is a charity, that it gets... all of the income would be exempt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [582.412, 589.867, 611.67], "stop_times": [589.867, 611.67, 617.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.412}, "reply_to": "19780__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_039", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Well, the point is that it need not produce a taxable estate.\nIt's the... what... because as administration expenses are incurred, they may be deducted on the estate.\nThe administration expenses being incurred here today need have no effect whatever on the taxable estate because as the administration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [617.634, 620.896, 627.662], "stop_times": [620.896, 627.662, 635.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.634}, "reply_to": "19780__0_038", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_040", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Well, I just asked a question.\nWould the bottom line on page 3 be different if the example that you had given us was a charitable deduction rather than a marital deduction?\nYou say that the result is... a taxable estate of $500,000 results in this example.\nWould the same follow if your example had used, instead of the marital deduction, the charitable deduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [635.104, 636.376, 644.402, 649.945], "stop_times": [636.376, 644.402, 649.945, 657.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.104}, "reply_to": "19780__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_041", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Yes, because what the... in that example, the problem that is addressed is that you get a choice.\nYou can take the deduction either on the estate tax or on the income tax.\nWe don't think that you're allowed to take both.\n642(g) says you're not allowed to take both.\nThe point is their contention gives them a tax benefit both on the income tax return by claiming the deduction there and on the estate tax return by, as the case is described, purchasing the encumbrance and obtaining additional value through the bequest by purchase rather than inheritance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [657.061, 663.085, 666.407, 668.609, 671.149], "stop_times": [663.085, 666.407, 668.609, 671.149, 687.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 657.061}, "reply_to": "19780__0_040", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_042", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "So, if in fact they have some patents or something that are worth $11 million, but it costs $10 million to make them valid, all they have to do is pay tax, income tax, on $11 million, i.e., come up with about $4 million they don't have.\nIf they don't want to do that, their other alternative is that you subtract the $10 million which they had to expend from the estate, wiping out the value of the estate.\nThat's what seems unfair about it.\nIt seems that when they have an awful lot of money to spend, to make the income really appear, they're forced to give up either the estate--\n--We'll resume there at 1 o'clock, Mr. Jones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [687.3, 702.421, 711.564, 713.307, 724.093], "stop_times": [702.421, 711.564, 713.307, 724.093, 726.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.3}, "reply_to": "19780__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__0_043", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Mr. Jones, I believe you were about to answer Justice Breyer's question tendered just before lunch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [726.715], "stop_times": [738.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.715}, "reply_to": "19780__0_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__0_044", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "You just should say no.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [738.363, 742.827], "stop_times": [742.827, 745.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.363}, "reply_to": "19780__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__0_045", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Well, I don't recall frankly whether to say yes or no, but what I recall is that your hypothetical was where an asset of the value of $11 million is left to the spouse and it takes $10 million thereafter to, shall we say, perfect title to the asset.\nThis is a classic example that the Court dealt with in the Stapf case where the net value of the marital bequest is the $11 million reduced by the obligation left under the will to pay the administration expenses, which turned out to be $10 million.\nThe net value of the bequest was $1 million.\nThat's the marital deduction.\nThe spouse is entitled also to take an administration expense deduction on the estate tax return, so there is no taxable estate.\nWhat happened in this case is that, in your hypothetical, let's say $10 million in income was earned by this asset after death.\nIn that case, the executor could elect to take the administration costs against the estate tax return and have zero income tax liability on the $10 million of income.\nAnd our point is that that doesn't affect the calculation of the marital deduction.\nThe marital deduction on the estate tax return is still $1 million.\nThey have elected not to take the administration expense deduction on the estate tax return.\nSo, the taxable estate in that situation is $10 million, but there's no income tax.\nSo, under 642(g) you get to choose.\nYou can take your administration expenses against the estate tax or you can take them against the income tax.\nYou can't get a credit for both, which is what they're asking for in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [745.189, 760.748, 777.82, 780.601, 782.073, 789.908, 798.253, 811.902, 816.635, 820.048, 825.411, 830.184, 833.306, 838.551], "stop_times": [760.748, 777.82, 780.601, 782.073, 789.908, 798.253, 811.902, 816.635, 820.048, 825.411, 830.184, 833.306, 838.551, 842.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.189}, "reply_to": "19780__0_044", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_046", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Mr. Jones, could I follow up your discussion of how although the marital deduction is evaluated as of the time of death, you can take account of later developments and make them retroactive back to the time of death, such as the administrative expenses?\nNow, that's certainly true in the estate tax area, but what (b)(4)(B) requires here is that... shall be taken into account in the same manner as if the amount of a gift to such spouse if such interests were being determined.\nNow, for purposes of the gift tax, let's assume that there's a gift, an inter vivos gift.\nA trust is established with income to the spouse and the remainder to somebody else.\nNow, for purpose of the... and the trustee has the option of either charging the administrative expenses of the trust to income or against the corpus of the trust.\nHe has that option.\nWould you, for purposes of the gift tax, wait and see what he did whether he charged it against the income or not and then retroactively evaluate the value of the gift to the spouse on the basis of whether that option was exercised or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [842.902, 863.916, 879.408, 886.73, 892.173, 907.214, 908.025], "stop_times": [863.916, 879.408, 886.73, 892.173, 907.214, 908.025, 924.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.902}, "reply_to": "19780__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__0_047", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Because the... in your hypothetical, because the obligation to pay these expenses is on the marital gift, you have to value that obligation in valuing the gift.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [924.336], "stop_times": [933.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.336}, "reply_to": "19780__0_046", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_048", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It isn't on the gift.\nIt's up to the trustee, just as it's up to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [933.22, 934.252], "stop_times": [934.252, 937.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.22}, "reply_to": "19780__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__0_049", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "But in your hypothetical, the income would accrue to the marital gift.\nIt was income that would either go to the spouse or would be used to pay administration expenses.\nIt's like the $100,000, $200,000 accounts that I mentioned at the beginning.\nIf one of those $100,000 accounts requires that administration expenses be paid out of it, that reduces the value of that account on the date of the gift.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [937.564, 941.408, 946.53, 952.645], "stop_times": [941.408, 946.53, 952.645, 961.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.564}, "reply_to": "19780__0_048", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_050", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--But it isn't clear at the date of the gift whether the trustee will charge it against the income or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [961.28], "stop_times": [965.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.28}, "reply_to": "19780__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__0_051", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It doesn't matter in valuing the gift, but what matters in valuing the gift is knowing that this obligation is in fact imposed on the marital interest, the marital... the property transferred, whether it is imposed out of corpus or out of income.\nLet me go back just one step because some of these questions are more conceptually difficult as we're discussing them than they need to be because in United States v. Stapf, the Court authoritatively explained the language of the statute that you're referring to and explained in Stapf that the focus of the marital deduction is on the value of the property that passes to the spouse.\nAnd the Court said... and I'm quoting... the appropriate reference, therefore, is not to the value of the property moving from the decedent.\nIt is, as the Court said, to the net value of the property passing to the spouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [965.814, 981.322, 1007.839, 1016.135], "stop_times": [981.322, 1007.839, 1016.135, 1020.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.814}, "reply_to": "19780__0_050", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_052", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Why was the Commissioner so late in discovering Stapf?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1020.879], "stop_times": [1024.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.879}, "reply_to": "19780__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__0_053", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "The Commissioner has cited Stapf in prior cases, and I think that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1024.592], "stop_times": [1029.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.592}, "reply_to": "19780__0_052", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_054", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "But in the lower court proceedings in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1029.575], "stop_times": [1033.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.575}, "reply_to": "19780__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__0_055", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--When the case came up to this Court, it had already been cited in the Commissioner's favor by three or four other circuits, and I think that the other circuit decisions were directly on the point of administration expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1033.097], "stop_times": [1045.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1033.097}, "reply_to": "19780__0_054", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_056", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Whereas Stapf wasn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1045.664], "stop_times": [1046.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.664}, "reply_to": "19780__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__0_057", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Stapf was not directly on that point, although Stapf answers that question by the Court's discussion at the end which says that administration expenses are like other claims against the estate, and when... in that when the marital bequest is burdened by the obligation of paying those expenses, that in effect leaves that portion of the estate to someone else rather than to the spouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1046.875], "stop_times": [1069.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.875}, "reply_to": "19780__0_056", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_058", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Was the language in Stapf dependent upon the widow's option at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1069.389], "stop_times": [1073.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.389}, "reply_to": "19780__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__0_059", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "No.\nIt was only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1073.884, 1075.704], "stop_times": [1075.704, 1076.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1073.884}, "reply_to": "19780__0_058", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_060", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It's simply the fact that the administrative expenses were paid out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1076.385], "stop_times": [1079.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.385}, "reply_to": "19780__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__0_061", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Having taken that option, the question then was how to calculate the deduction.\nThe logical principle of Stapf and that applies in this area is what was the net value... what was the gross value of the bequest, reduced by the cost of the obligation imposed on it.\nAll of the applicable statutes and regulations embody that principle.\nSection 2055(c) and 2056(b)(4)(A) specify that when the obligation of paying estate taxes is placed on the marital or charitable bequest, that that reduces the value of those bequests and therefore the amount of those deductions, without regard to whether that tax is later paid with income or with corpus.\nIn section 2056(b)(4)(B), Congress specified the same result when any encumbrance or obligation is placed on the marital bequest.\nAnd the legislative history of that provision states crystal clearly that this reduction in the value of the marital bequest and in the amount of marital deduction must be made without regard to whether that payment is ultimately made out of corpus or out of income attributable to the corpus of the bequest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1079.918, 1084.209, 1094.557, 1098.769, 1120.504, 1131.33], "stop_times": [1084.209, 1094.557, 1098.769, 1120.504, 1131.33, 1148.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1079.918}, "reply_to": "19780__0_060", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_062", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Mr. Jones, may I go back to a point I raised this morning and perhaps you can straighten me out on it.\nI'm referring to page 28 of your brief where you give us the example.\nYou say that these expenses are a burden on the estate at the time of the death, and you give us an analogy to the executor setting aside a portion of the residuary estate to pay those future expenses.\nAnd I think that one of the Tax Court judges too, Judge Dubina, said that administrative expenses are deemed to accrue on the date of death.\nIn both your set-aside example and the dissenting... or was it... it was the Sixth Circuit Judge Dubina, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1148.323, 1154.876, 1161.21, 1179.472, 1191.089], "stop_times": [1154.876, 1161.21, 1179.472, 1191.089, 1200.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.323}, "reply_to": "19780__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_063", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "In Estate of Street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1200.686], "stop_times": [1201.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.686}, "reply_to": "19780__0_062", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_064", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes.\nSaid they're deemed to accrue at the date of death.\nWell, if that is so, will you explain to me again why you are not using a present value, a discounted value notion, and why you are using the dollar-for-dollar in this context as opposed to what you explained before when you actually incur the expense and you take it as a deduction?\nYou take it in the year that you incur it.\nBut why on this set-aside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1201.377, 1201.908, 1206.66, 1223.571, 1226.532], "stop_times": [1201.908, 1206.66, 1223.571, 1226.532, 1228.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.377}, "reply_to": "19780__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_065", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "No.\nExcuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1228.554, 1229.034], "stop_times": [1229.034, 1229.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.554}, "reply_to": "19780__0_064", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_066", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--analogy don't you use discounted value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1229.395], "stop_times": [1231.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.395}, "reply_to": "19780__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_067", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "When you take an... when you incur an administration expense, and you claim it on the estate tax return, you don't take it in the year that you expended it.\nMy point was that you get a dollar... if I have an estate that occurred in 1982... a death occurred in '82... and I have an administration expense in 1990, if I take that administration expense on my estate tax return, I take a dollar-for-dollar amount.\nI don't reduce the 1990 administration expense back to present value in determining the administration expense deduction on the estate tax return.\nAnd since we don't take it back to present value in determining the administrative expense deduction on the estate tax return, we also don't take it back to present value in determining the reduction in the marital deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1231.786, 1241.093, 1257.133, 1265.518], "stop_times": [1241.093, 1257.133, 1265.518, 1277.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1231.786}, "reply_to": "19780__0_066", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_068", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Well, why shouldn't the match be between the value of the estate at the date of the death?\nWhy isn't that the proper match to look at?\nIf you're evaluating the assets at the date of death, why don't you evaluate the encumbrances at the date of death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1277.597, 1281.718, 1284.96], "stop_times": [1281.718, 1284.96, 1289.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.597}, "reply_to": "19780__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_069", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Congress has not directed us to make that kind of calculation.\nWhat Congress directed... and the best example is 2055(c).\nCongress specifies that when the amount of estate taxes are paid and those burden the marital or charitable deduction, you get a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the marital deduction as a result.\nSo, I mean, in some other world, you might have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1289.965, 1293.217, 1296.708, 1308.365], "stop_times": [1293.217, 1296.708, 1308.365, 1312.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.965}, "reply_to": "19780__0_068", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_070", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "What has Congress specified for the charity?\nI asked you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1312.518, 1314.95], "stop_times": [1314.95, 1316.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.518}, "reply_to": "19780__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_071", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--That was for the charity.\nThat was 2055(c).\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1316.031, 1316.912, 1318.303], "stop_times": [1316.912, 1318.303, 1322.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.031}, "reply_to": "19780__0_070", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_072", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--I thought you said something... didn't you just say something about marital deduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1322.126], "stop_times": [1325.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.126}, "reply_to": "19780__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_073", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--2056(b)(4)(A) and 2055(c) are respectively the marital and charitable provisions that deal with the reduction in those deductions when the estate taxes are ultimately paid when those liabilities... when that obligation burdens those interests.\nJustice Ginsburg, it might be possible... I mean, it would... frankly, it would be possible to have all of this done on a present value basis.\nThat's... and if we started from scratch, that system might well make a lot of good sense, but you can't fit part of that present value approach into a system that is a dollar-for-dollar approach on all other items.\nCongress by... when they enacted 2056(b)(4)(B), they did so as part of an effort to enlarge the system to clarify the system of valuation that had derived from 2055(c), that had derived from this estate tax deduction valuation approach.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1325.007, 1342.728, 1350.293, 1365.383, 1383.625], "stop_times": [1342.728, 1350.293, 1365.383, 1383.625, 1385.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.007}, "reply_to": "19780__0_072", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_074", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Of course, what (b) tells you to look at again is not to the treatment of the charitable deduction under 55(c), but rather to the treatment of the gift.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1385.258], "stop_times": [1393.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.258}, "reply_to": "19780__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__0_075", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--And again, this is real... this is critical, Justice Scalia.\nThe Court in Stapf authoritatively explained what that language meant and said that you don't look, as you might, to what the value of the gift from the husband was in this case.\nYou look to the net value of what passes to the spouse because the focus of this is on a deduction.\nIt's on the marital deduction, what passes to the spouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1393.643, 1397.714, 1408.382, 1415.816], "stop_times": [1397.714, 1408.382, 1415.816, 1418.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.643}, "reply_to": "19780__0_074", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_076", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And in your view that was not predicated at all upon the special election that the wife had to make in that case because it seemed to me at first reading that you were turning the present election that the executor has into a purchase case.\nYou'd make every election a purchase.\nThe Stapf case proceeded on the assumption that the wife, by making her election, was in effect purchasing her property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1418.888, 1434.729, 1437.511], "stop_times": [1434.729, 1437.511, 1446.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.888}, "reply_to": "19780__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__0_077", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1446.096], "stop_times": [1447.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1446.096}, "reply_to": "19780__0_076", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_078", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And it seems to me you're just extrapolating that and saying every election is a purchase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1447.156], "stop_times": [1450.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.156}, "reply_to": "19780__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__0_079", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--It really doesn't matter how the administrative expense obligation is paid.\nThe spouse could simply write a check for all the administration expenses, or she could use post-death income, or she could use corpus.\nThose obligations have to be paid.\nIt doesn't matter how they're paid.\nWhat matters is how much are they, and under Stapf and under the statute, how much they are is a reduction in the value of what passes to her under the bequest.\nIf she pays off those obligations with any other source of income, that's what the courts describe as purchasing the encumbrance rather than inheriting it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1450.278, 1454.451, 1460.976, 1463.737, 1465.438, 1475.685], "stop_times": [1454.451, 1460.976, 1463.737, 1465.438, 1475.685, 1483.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.278}, "reply_to": "19780__0_078", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_080", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "But the meaning then of the introductory phrase in (b)(4)(B), where the interest in property, et cetera, is encumbered, I guess has to be read to mean it will always be encumbered by an administrative expense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1483.821], "stop_times": [1501.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.821}, "reply_to": "19780__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_081", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "If it is encumbered.\nI mean, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1501.411, 1502.463], "stop_times": [1502.463, 1503.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.411}, "reply_to": "19780__0_080", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_082", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Unless there's a contrary direction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1503.384], "stop_times": [1505.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.384}, "reply_to": "19780__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_083", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Well, the marital interest isn't necessarily subject to administration expenses.\nIn these residuary bequests--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1505.185, 1509.229], "stop_times": [1509.229, 1510.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.185}, "reply_to": "19780__0_082", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_084", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "But in a... certainly in a residuary case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1510.798], "stop_times": [1512.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.798}, "reply_to": "19780__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_085", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1512.739], "stop_times": [1513.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.739}, "reply_to": "19780__0_084", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_086", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--if there's no contrary instruction, it always will be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1513.14], "stop_times": [1515.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.14}, "reply_to": "19780__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_087", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1515.3], "stop_times": [1515.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.3}, "reply_to": "19780__0_086", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_088", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And it will always fit within your so-called purchase analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1515.841], "stop_times": [1519.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.841}, "reply_to": "19780__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_089", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It... that obligation is what the statute refers to as an obligation in connection with the passing of the interest.\nAny obligation in connection with the passing of the interest has to be reduced from the face value of the bequest to determine what Stapf calls the net value.\nI would like to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1519.995, 1525.829, 1535.155], "stop_times": [1525.829, 1535.155, 1535.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.995}, "reply_to": "19780__0_088", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_090", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "May I just ask you one more question?\nWhy didn't they say just what you said, any obligation, as opposed to any encumbrance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1535.826, 1537.667], "stop_times": [1537.667, 1542.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.826}, "reply_to": "19780__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_091", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Well, they said both, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1542.111], "stop_times": [1543.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1542.111}, "reply_to": "19780__0_090", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_092", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Well, the initial phrase refers to encumbrance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1543.851], "stop_times": [1547.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.851}, "reply_to": "19780__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19780__0_093", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And the second phrase says any obligation imposed in connection with the passing of the interest.\nI just want to point out that under... there is a regulation that applies here, and it applies squarely and specifically.\nAnd this regulation was adopted in 1949, the year after the statute was enacted.\nIt has been consistently applied.\nIt is a longstanding, contemporaneous regulation.\nIt is entitled to substantial deference.\nAnd I would like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1547.012, 1551.227, 1557.42, 1562.414, 1564.614, 1567.457, 1570.091], "stop_times": [1551.227, 1557.42, 1562.414, 1564.614, 1567.457, 1570.091, 1573.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1547.012}, "reply_to": "19780__0_092", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_094", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Is that the regulation that deals with marital deduction?\nIt doesn't deal with charitable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1573.55, 1575.023], "stop_times": [1575.023, 1576.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.55}, "reply_to": "19780__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_095", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1576.223], "stop_times": [1577.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1576.223}, "reply_to": "19780__0_094", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_096", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "You say the two are to be treated alike.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1577.034], "stop_times": [1579.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.034}, "reply_to": "19780__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_097", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "The same principles apply because in all of these situations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1579.505], "stop_times": [1583.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1579.505}, "reply_to": "19780__0_096", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_098", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "So that you could have a case where the entire... everything is left to a charity and you could end up on the example that you gave with a taxable estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1583.889], "stop_times": [1596.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.889}, "reply_to": "19780__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_099", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Only if they avoid taxes on the income side.\nThere's no need for there to be a taxable estate.\nThey can take the administration... administrative expense deduction with the estate taxes.\nIt's only when they try to shelter the income that this gap appears on the estate tax side, as our brief explains in some detail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1596.247, 1598.468, 1601.73, 1605.752], "stop_times": [1598.468, 1601.73, 1605.752, 1613.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.247}, "reply_to": "19780__0_098", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_100", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Even if the expense is incurred for the production of that income.\nYou don't match the expense against the income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1613.698, 1616.931], "stop_times": [1616.931, 1619.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.698}, "reply_to": "19780__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__0_101", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "if it's incurred for... solely for the production of income, then we have a question about whether it's truly an administration expense.\nIn this case, we haven't gotten into that.\nWe have accepted all of the claimed expenses as administration expenses.\nIt's the Service's view that expenses incurred in the operation of a business are not administration expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1619.212, 1624.124, 1626.776, 1630.397], "stop_times": [1624.124, 1626.776, 1630.397, 1636.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.212}, "reply_to": "19780__0_100", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_102", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Isn't that the solution for the Government, to define more closely and carefully what is the administrative expense, distinguishing it quite clearly from those expenses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1636.342], "stop_times": [1645.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.342}, "reply_to": "19780__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__0_103", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "That would not be a solution because in this case it's our understanding that substantial amounts were expended in a will contest and in litigation concerning the estate.\nThat's a normal kind of administration expense.\nThis issue comes up frequently.\nIt isn't... the problem isn't limited to the question where administrative expenses are bloated by improper charges.\nWe accept these as proper charges, and this is the problem that comes up all the time under these cases that have addressed this now five times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1645.979, 1654.375, 1656.455, 1657.727, 1665.511], "stop_times": [1654.375, 1656.455, 1657.727, 1665.511, 1672.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1645.979}, "reply_to": "19780__0_102", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__0_104", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Jones.\nMr. Aughtry, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1672.696, 1674.827], "stop_times": [1674.827, 1676.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.696}, "reply_to": "19780__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__1_000", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe difference between the course taken by 15 out of 17 of the United States Tax Court judges and the majority opinion in the Eleventh Circuit and the course urged by the Commissioner in this litigation is that the Tax Court and the Eleventh Circuit followed the actual flow of the property.\nIt followed the actual flow of the corpus as determined under controlling State law and as determined under the testamentary document which the Commissioner properly stipulated controlled the actual flow of the property.\nThe Commissioner in this case urges a Federal fiction that overrides the controlling testamentary documents, that overrides the State property and probate law, that overrides frankly her own estate tax regulations and rulings--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1676.219, 1678.12, 1680.281, 1696.833, 1708.898], "stop_times": [1678.12, 1680.281, 1696.833, 1708.898, 1722.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1676.219}, "reply_to": "19780__0_104", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_001", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "If the expenses are payable... administrative expenses are payable from the corpus, I take it there's still a deduction on the fiduciary return?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1722.649], "stop_times": [1729.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.649}, "reply_to": "19780__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_002", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--There comes a point in time when it must go on the fiduciary return, but in our view if it goes... if a dollar of corpus goes to administrative expenses, it cannot go to the wife and it cannot go to charity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1729.632], "stop_times": [1741.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.632}, "reply_to": "19780__1_001", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_003", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "No.\nI was just talking about the fiduciary return.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1741.372, 1741.621], "stop_times": [1741.621, 1742.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.372}, "reply_to": "19780__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_004", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1742.532], "stop_times": [1742.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.532}, "reply_to": "19780__1_003", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_005", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Let's say that you elect not to take the expenses, the administrative expenses, from the estate.\nYou elect to deduct them from the income--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1742.903, 1748.736], "stop_times": [1748.736, 1752.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.903}, "reply_to": "19780__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_006", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1752.548], "stop_times": [1753.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1752.548}, "reply_to": "19780__1_005", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_007", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--that's attributable to the corpus.\nUnder State law, the expenses are paid from the corpus.\nCan you still take the deduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1753.788, 1754.91, 1757.261], "stop_times": [1754.91, 1757.261, 1759.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.788}, "reply_to": "19780__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_008", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "You can take the deduction, but if you use corpus there, it does reduce the available corpus to go--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1759.231], "stop_times": [1764.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.231}, "reply_to": "19780__1_007", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_009", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "No, no.\nI'm just... all I'm talking about is the Federal fiduciary income tax return.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1764.955, 1766.067], "stop_times": [1766.067, 1769.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.955}, "reply_to": "19780__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_010", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1769.669], "stop_times": [1770.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.669}, "reply_to": "19780__1_009", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_011", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Can you still take the deduction from the income tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1770.28], "stop_times": [1772.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.28}, "reply_to": "19780__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_012", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, sir.\nAnd in fact there comes a point in time where you must.\nOnce the statute of limitation goes on the final State tax return, the income tax return is the only place you can take--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1772.772, 1773.163, 1775.183], "stop_times": [1773.163, 1775.183, 1781.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.772}, "reply_to": "19780__1_011", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_013", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Let me ask one more question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1781.537], "stop_times": [1782.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1781.537}, "reply_to": "19780__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_014", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1782.549], "stop_times": [1783.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.549}, "reply_to": "19780__1_013", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_015", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Suppose the State law provides that the expense of administration is to be paid from corpus, and it's a $50,000 expense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1783.037], "stop_times": [1793.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.037}, "reply_to": "19780__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_016", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1793.986], "stop_times": [1794.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.986}, "reply_to": "19780__1_015", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_017", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "But the income is so great that it greatly exceeds $50,000 and they credit all of the income at the end of the year to corpus.\nSo in event... in any event, the wife gets the same.\nWhat results under your view of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1794.834, 1803.37, 1806.763], "stop_times": [1803.37, 1806.763, 1810.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.834}, "reply_to": "19780__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_018", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "In speaking of corpus, we have to speak in terms of the corpus as it existed as of the date of death.\nTo the extent that that corpus is used to pay expenses and claimed as an expense as it may be on the income tax return, that corpus is not available to pay the marital or the charitable estate tax.\nThe marital and the charitable estate tax is by statute restricted to the date-of-death corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1810.286, 1815.328, 1828.398], "stop_times": [1815.328, 1828.398, 1833.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.286}, "reply_to": "19780__1_017", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_019", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "All right, so that even though the wife ends up in both cases with the same, in the example where the administrative expenses must be paid from corpus, that does reduce the marital deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1833.37], "stop_times": [1843.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.37}, "reply_to": "19780__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_020", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "In our view, yes, and that I believe was the effect of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1843.848], "stop_times": [1845.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.848}, "reply_to": "19780__1_019", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_021", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Well, it isn't really restricted to the date-of-death corpus.\nI mean, it's date-of-death corpus less administration expenses deducted from the corpus.\nIsn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1845.869, 1847.87, 1852.874], "stop_times": [1847.87, 1852.874, 1854.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.869}, "reply_to": "19780__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_022", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWe measure... and as this Court held in Maass v. Higgins and Bull v. United... you take... the State tax regime takes a snapshot of what comes into the estate at the date of death, and then you trace that corpus.\nNow, you may take that corpus and pay it to the wife, if you're permitted to do so by the testamentary documents, or you may take and pay it against corpus, if permitted to do so by the testamentary documents and State law, but if you do that, it can't go in both places.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1854.724, 1855.375, 1868.493], "stop_times": [1855.375, 1868.493, 1880.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.724}, "reply_to": "19780__1_021", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_023", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "No, I don't understand now.\nLet's assume a $2 million estate.\nIt all goes to the wife.\nThe expenses paid by the administrator in the course of administrating... administering the estate are $200,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1880.551, 1882.083, 1883.784, 1885.085], "stop_times": [1882.083, 1883.784, 1885.085, 1894.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.551}, "reply_to": "19780__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_024", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1894.001], "stop_times": [1894.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.001}, "reply_to": "19780__1_023", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_025", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "What is the marital deduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1894.652], "stop_times": [1896.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.652}, "reply_to": "19780__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_026", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "If those expenses are paid out of income, the marital deduction is the full amount of the corpus.\nIf they're paid out of corpus, then the marital deduction is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1896.613, 1902.296], "stop_times": [1902.296, 1905.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.613}, "reply_to": "19780__1_025", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_027", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "They're paid out of corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1905.138], "stop_times": [1906.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.138}, "reply_to": "19780__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_028", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--The marital deduction is reduced in that instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1906.718], "stop_times": [1908.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.718}, "reply_to": "19780__1_027", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_029", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "So, it is not the corpus as of the date of death.\nIt's the corpus as it's reduced by the administration expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1908.471, 1911.412], "stop_times": [1911.412, 1915.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.471}, "reply_to": "19780__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_030", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "If... the hypothetical was there were $2 million in date-of-death corpus that comes in, and we know for distribution purposes we use the exact same date for valuing.\nIf $1.8 million goes to the wife and two of it goes to administration expenses, the wife has a $1.8 million deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1915.566, 1924.001], "stop_times": [1924.001, 1930.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1915.566}, "reply_to": "19780__1_029", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_031", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "You don't know that $200,000 goes to administration expenses until 3 years later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1930.994], "stop_times": [1936.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.994}, "reply_to": "19780__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_032", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "No, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1936.149], "stop_times": [1936.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.149}, "reply_to": "19780__1_031", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_033", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "As of the date of death, it says all $2 million goes to the wife.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1936.767], "stop_times": [1939.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.767}, "reply_to": "19780__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_034", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--But you have to trace it under... as I read Ballantine, Roney, and that line of cases, you have to trace it.\nYou have to trace the actual flow of the corpus, the date-of-death corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1939.189, 1944.314], "stop_times": [1944.314, 1947.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.189}, "reply_to": "19780__1_033", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_035", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And you're saying... you're oversimplifying by saying everything is looked at from the date of death.\nIt surely isn't.\nYou do take account of the administration expenses and then go back and reduce the date-of-death corpus by those expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1947.577, 1951.099, 1951.928], "stop_times": [1951.099, 1951.928, 1958.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.577}, "reply_to": "19780__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_036", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "You absolutely trace it wherever it goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1958.043], "stop_times": [1959.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.043}, "reply_to": "19780__1_035", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_037", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Is it normally... in an estate if suppose the person dies and they have $10 million in assets, but they know that $200,000 will inevitably be spent on administration, is the value of that estate $9,800,000 at date of death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1959.863], "stop_times": [1976.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.863}, "reply_to": "19780__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_038", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "The value of... and if we assume it's all going to wife.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1976.435], "stop_times": [1977.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.435}, "reply_to": "19780__1_037", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_039", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1977.824], "stop_times": [1978.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.824}, "reply_to": "19780__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_040", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1978.245], "stop_times": [1978.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.245}, "reply_to": "19780__1_039", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_041", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Forget where it's going.\nI'm just saying how do they evaluate an estate.\nIf $10 million and we know in advance $200,000 in expenses, is the value at date of death then $9.8 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1978.615, 1979.356, 1981.478], "stop_times": [1979.356, 1981.478, 1988.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.615}, "reply_to": "19780__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_042", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Then you would do it precisely as we did in this estate.\nYou would set aside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1988.663, 1989.613], "stop_times": [1989.613, 1990.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.663}, "reply_to": "19780__1_041", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_043", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "But I'm saying for purposes of tax is the estate valued at $9.8 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1990.354], "stop_times": [1995.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.354}, "reply_to": "19780__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_044", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--No.\nThe estate... the date-of-death value of the property is the $10 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [1995.489, 1995.797], "stop_times": [1995.797, 2000.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.489}, "reply_to": "19780__1_043", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_045", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Even if we know for sure there will be $200,000 of administrative expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2000.221], "stop_times": [2004.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.221}, "reply_to": "19780__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_046", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "You just trace the corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2004.422], "stop_times": [2005.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.422}, "reply_to": "19780__1_045", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_047", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "So, they evaluate it at $10 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2005.574], "stop_times": [2009.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.574}, "reply_to": "19780__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_048", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2009.828], "stop_times": [2010.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.828}, "reply_to": "19780__1_047", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_049", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2010.465], "stop_times": [2010.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.465}, "reply_to": "19780__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_050", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "There are three points, time permitting, that we'd like to focus on is, one, the single most important point in reaching the right decision in this case may be the most basic.\nThe difference between those courts that got the answer right and those that didn't, those that got it right took the time to carefully define their terms, as the Tax Court did in its first footnote, before rushing to analysis.\nAnd as a consequence, they avoided the false equation that's been so sharply criticized by the commentators, the false equation that equates marital share with marital deduction.\nMarital deduction consists solely of date-of-death corpus.\nMarital share consists of both the corpus and income.\nTwo, the statutory structure of the Federal estate tax regime is built upon the sound, sensible foundation of symmetry, and that symmetry is achieved by taking the same statutory term for measuring property coming in and leaving the estate, value, and applying it at the same precise point in time.\nIndeed, we feel like we believe that that's a constitutionally driven proposition.\nThis is a transfer tax that we're working with, and we take a picture at the effective transfer date by operation of law which is the date of death, unless of course the decedent... excuse me... the executor elects an alternate valuation date.\nTo show you how closely tied this inclusion and distribution concept is, there's a specific statute that says if my fiduciary, when I die, elects the alternate valuation date, that alternate valuation date must be used not only for inclusion purposes, it must also be used for charitable contribution and for marital deduction purposes.\nWe, time permitting, hope to demonstrate the practical application of these principles to reality and how it renders the result of order and symmetry.\nIndeed, time permitting, we will demonstrate to you how the Government's position in this case is designed.\nThe object of that position is to create what we call a disappearing residuary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2010.826, 2020.724, 2032.121, 2042.359, 2044.66, 2047.622, 2066.121, 2069.635, 2083.636, 2104.279, 2113.744, 2118.859], "stop_times": [2020.724, 2032.121, 2042.359, 2044.66, 2047.622, 2066.121, 2069.635, 2083.636, 2104.279, 2113.744, 2118.859, 2123.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.826}, "reply_to": "19780__1_049", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_051", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "At some point in your discussion, would you explain to me why the Government is wrong in deciding Stapf as controlling in this case, or do you think we have to modify Stapf in order to reach the result you propose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2123.281], "stop_times": [2136.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.281}, "reply_to": "19780__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19780__1_052", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Actually, Your Honor, we applied Stapf in this case in the distribution of the property here.\nIt just doesn't apply to the impact of administration expenses on the burden borne by corpus or the income beneficiary.\nWhat Stapf... as we read Stapf... and indeed the Government has in effect deemed by way of a revenue ruling... is that you look at the value.\nYou look if there's a mortgage or something of that sort, and we had substantial mortgages in this case.\nAnd then you look at the equity received by either the wife or the charity.\nStapf, however, as pointed out by several of the questions raised during my colleague's presentation, focused upon the situation where the obligation existed at the date of death.\nAs a matter of certainty as to existence, it was in existence in the will, and it was an obligation imposed upon corpus not upon income.\nAnd so, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2136.94, 2142.114, 2149.738, 2158.363, 2162.687, 2167.579, 2177.856, 2185.49], "stop_times": [2142.114, 2149.738, 2158.363, 2162.687, 2167.579, 2177.856, 2185.49, 2187.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.94}, "reply_to": "19780__1_051", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_053", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "I don't understand what difference that makes.\nWhat I don't understand about your case is why you acknowledge as... I'm correct that you acknowledge that if this obligation were placed upon corpus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2187.252, 2189.104], "stop_times": [2189.104, 2197.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.252}, "reply_to": "19780__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_054", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2197.9], "stop_times": [2198.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.9}, "reply_to": "19780__1_053", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_055", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--it would reduce the marital deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2198.281], "stop_times": [2199.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.281}, "reply_to": "19780__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_056", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Corpus has to go there, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2199.84], "stop_times": [2202.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.84}, "reply_to": "19780__1_055", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_057", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Why is it different if it's placed upon income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2202.742], "stop_times": [2206.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.742}, "reply_to": "19780__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_058", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Two reasons.\nOne, the statute, and it takes a little bit of effort to work through this.\n2056(b)(4)(B) speaks only to obligations on corpus.\nWe know that because 2056(b)(4) only speaks to that marital share for which a deduction is allowable.\nWhat does that mean?\nWell, let me take a step back.\n2056(b)(4)(B) says any obligation or encumbrance on, quote, such property or interest.\nWhat does such property or interest mean?\nWe take a step upstream to 2056(b)(4) to the introductory paragraph, and it says that property passing to the spouse for which a deduction is allowable.\nAnd what does that mean?\nYou go to the introductory paragraph of 2056(a) and it says that the deduction that is allowable is only to the extent that it's included in the gross estate.\nThese two statutory provisions are the statutory genesis for the undisputed point that you measure the distribution by the exact same measure that's used for inclusion in the gross estate.\nAnd so, we say to you that 2654(b) itself clearly or at least establishes that the obligation must be on corpus.\nThe regulation which the Commissioner relies upon in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2206.135, 2207.417, 2211.958, 2216.802, 2224.097, 2225.389, 2226.257, 2231.691, 2233.243, 2243.419, 2244.53, 2253.285, 2265.894, 2274.499], "stop_times": [2207.417, 2211.958, 2216.802, 2224.097, 2225.389, 2226.257, 2231.691, 2233.243, 2243.419, 2244.53, 2253.285, 2265.894, 2274.499, 2278.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.135}, "reply_to": "19780__1_057", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_059", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, but I mean, an obligation... it is certainly an encumbrance upon corpus to say that all of the interest from this corpus must be used for a certain purpose.\nCertainly that renders the corpus less valuable to me.\nYou say, here, this whole corpus is yours, provided however that the interest from it for the first 5 years must be given to somebody else.\nIs that not an encumbrance upon the corpus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2278.142, 2288.818, 2292.031, 2299.464], "stop_times": [2288.818, 2292.031, 2299.464, 2301.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.142}, "reply_to": "19780__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_060", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--That proceeds on the assumption that it's an absolute commitment at the time of the date of death that all must go.\nIt... what we look to... and indeed what the Commissioner has acknowledged by revenue rulings appropriate... you look to State law to see... and this is Revenue Ruling 88-12.\nYou look to State law to see who bears this burden.\nIf it is the corpus beneficiary, then the corpus beneficiary must bear the burden.\nIf it is the income beneficiary, then it's the income beneficiary, and it does not impact the corpus.\nIndeed, there is a second ruling by the Commissioner that is at odds with an answer that we received earlier that says when you have that situation, the granting... as we do here, the granting of a power to allocate expenses between the corpus beneficiary and the income beneficiary, quote, it shall result in no disallowance or diminution of the marital deduction, close quote, for gift tax purposes... the gift tax rules that you stressed earlier are invoked here by statute... or for estate taxes.\nSo, we know under these rulings that it makes a difference, that you look to State law, and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2301.397, 2307.26, 2316.357, 2318.839, 2323.631, 2328.964, 2356.483], "stop_times": [2307.26, 2316.357, 2318.839, 2323.631, 2328.964, 2356.483, 2360.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2301.397}, "reply_to": "19780__1_059", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_061", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "They say that only applies to the existence of the power and not to its exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2360.897], "stop_times": [2365.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.897}, "reply_to": "19780__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_062", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Actually, no, Your Honor, because in that particular circumstance, it's a gift tax ruling.\nThe grant of the power occurs at the same time that the transferring the gift tax does.\nFor example, if I'm making out a marital deduction trust and I'm making a transfer, a gift today, to my wife and if I provide this provision, the value is measured today.\nThe value is measured today.\nIf there's going to be a diminution in my gift tax obligation, it's going to occur today.\nIt's not going... you know, what happens down the road doesn't alter that.\nAnd we know that that particular principle is incorporated in these estate tax provisions by statute to provide a continuing symmetry between the estate tax provisions and the gift tax provisions.\nThe third point we wish to note is that the Government's position here works a statutory impossibility in most cases, works a factual impossibility in this case, and indeed renders bizarre results every time this Federal fiction is pitched in conflict with the majority rule embraced by at least 42 of the 50 States.\nLet me speak for a moment, if I could, about certain of the other points that were raised during the earlier presentation.\nI want to stress this.\nThe Government in this ruling I alluded to I think has essentially conceded the spirit of this case.\nIn Revenue Rule 69-56, the Government says there is no diminution in the marital deduction.\nYou tie that into Revenue Ruling 88-12, which says you look... in determining the impact of debts and expenses in calculating the net value... in calculating the net value... of the marital deduction, State law is determinative.\nThe other aspect that arises is this concept that we are somehow equating the treatment under 2053 with the treatment under 2056(b)(4)(B).\nThey are different.\n2053, the administrative expense that the Commissioner referred to... and I think this was your concern, Justice Ginsburg, between present value and dollar-for-dollar reduction... is where the corpus goes.\nIt is a dollar-for-dollar concept.\nThis is not our situation here.\nHere the Commissioner relies upon 2056(b)(4)(B) which by its own terms... and at long last by the Government's contention... is a valuation concept.\nYou should know that the Government denied that this was a valuation concept in the Tax Court and in the Eleventh Circuit.\nYes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2365.709, 2370.043, 2375.637, 2385.591, 2388.002, 2392.757, 2396.15, 2406.425, 2429.71, 2438.446, 2440.269, 2445.972, 2451.395, 2467.235, 2483.796, 2485.497, 2498.705, 2500.806, 2502.378, 2511.535, 2516.768], "stop_times": [2370.043, 2375.637, 2385.591, 2388.002, 2392.757, 2396.15, 2406.425, 2429.71, 2438.446, 2440.269, 2445.972, 2451.395, 2467.235, 2483.796, 2485.497, 2498.705, 2500.806, 2502.378, 2511.535, 2516.768, 2518.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.709}, "reply_to": "19780__1_061", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_063", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "May I ask one question which I think is... let's take a normal estate, a smaller estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2518.167], "stop_times": [2521.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.167}, "reply_to": "19780__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_064", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2521.86], "stop_times": [2522.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.86}, "reply_to": "19780__1_063", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_065", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Much... $2 million.\nAnd it's worth $2 million at the date of death and everybody is sure there would be $200,000 worth of expenses.\nI take it under ordinary reasoning, the widow, if it was the man who died, would get $1.8 million, forgetting other deductions, and they'd pay $200,000.\nNow, suppose that's what would happen normally and that other $200,000 would normally be deducted as a category of administrative expense.\nI'm right so far, right, basically?\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2522.15, 2523.832, 2529.975, 2539.821, 2546.166, 2547.718], "stop_times": [2523.832, 2529.975, 2539.821, 2546.166, 2547.718, 2548.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.15}, "reply_to": "19780__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_066", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It may proceed that way.\nIt need not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2548.397, 2549.328], "stop_times": [2549.328, 2550.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.397}, "reply_to": "19780__1_065", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_067", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Now, suppose a Martian comes along... a Martian, somebody not related... and happens to pay the $200,000 and therefore the estate is now really $2 million instead of $1.8 million.\nOkay, because the wife now gets the $2 million.\nBut I take it their position is that last $200,000 came along by purchase.\nIt came along in some other way.\nIt wasn't obtained by the marital deduction portion of the estate, and it seems to work quite well and be reasonable in that ordinary case.\nI mean, there's nothing in the law that says that $200,000 came through the marital deduction.\nThey're saying it ended up being part of the estate, but it wasn't part of the marital deduction.\nThat's what the law is.\nIt seems to work well with the small estate, and your case I think they would say is a fluke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2550.069, 2560.495, 2564.619, 2569.342, 2571.623, 2583.79, 2588.534, 2592.806, 2594.228], "stop_times": [2560.495, 2564.619, 2569.342, 2571.623, 2583.79, 2588.534, 2592.806, 2594.228, 2597.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.069}, "reply_to": "19780__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_068", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2597.99], "stop_times": [2599.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.99}, "reply_to": "19780__1_067", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_069", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "And we shouldn't change the law normally because of your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2599.191], "stop_times": [2601.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.191}, "reply_to": "19780__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_070", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--First of all, I would say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2601.302], "stop_times": [2603.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2601.302}, "reply_to": "19780__1_069", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_071", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Even if they concede that your case is a fluke.\nThey wouldn't concede that I realize.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2603.285, 2605.014], "stop_times": [2605.014, 2606.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.285}, "reply_to": "19780__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19780__1_072", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--I would say that... I would say this, Your Honor.\nCertainly at first blush you'd say, well, you know, everything sort of matches up.\nI hope that I can demonstrate to your satisfaction that that analysis involves a double counting where the controlling testamentary documents and the State law permit that the expenses be paid out of income as do 42 of the 50 States.\nAnd let me see if I might draw some distinctions on this particular hypothetical.\n$2 million estate.\nIf under the controlling testamentary documents and State... excuse me... and State law, it has to be paid out of corpus, the surviving spouse gets $1.8 million.\nIf, on the other hand, it permits a balancing in the allocation of expenses between the income beneficiary and the corpus beneficiary and if, for whatever reason, just for simplicity purposes let's assume that the whole expenses were permitted to be paid out of income and were properly under State law and properly under controlling testamentary documents, then I as the fiduciary am transferring $2 million of property to the spouse.\nThat's got to be recognized, the date-of-death value of what's being included, the date-of-death value of what's being distributed.\nAnd I've got a check to various vendors that total $200,000, and so there's $2.2 million of reality that has flowed there.\nUnder the Government's approach, they would take that amount properly paid out of the expenses... excuse me... those expenses properly paid out of income and pretend it was paid out of capital so that the fiction would work that there's only $2 million of distributions when it's properly $2.2 million of distributions.\nYour example with respect to the Martian is very much like the situation in Ballantine and Roney where there was an obligation on corpus and it's viewed... and I agree with this completely.\nIt's viewed that whereas the obligation on corpus if somebody else comes in and helps them out, it doesn't change the... you cannot violate State law and the controlling testamentary documents and circumvent and alter the result.\nYou got to follow what the commitments are on corpus, as the Commissioner said in Revenue Ruling 88-12.\nAnd so, at first blush everything seems to stack up nicely, but what happens is you only get to that result and ignore the $2 million... excuse me... $200,000 properly paid out of income under State law and controlling testamentary documents if you double count, if you use $2 to create every $1 of deduction, and you ignore the payments.\nSee, the problem... the additional problem with that is let's assume that in a situation there where the expenses are paid out of income, that we're going to pretend it reduces the marital corpus anyway, what that does is that creates this gap, this disappearing residuary.\nAnd then that creates a tax which is... you say, well, now where are we going to pay that tax from?\nWell, you already spent all your income on the expenses.\nYou can't pay it out of there.\nThe Government would presume it's paid out of corpus anyway.\nSo, the tax on that $200,000 is taken back in to reduce the amount of corpus flowing to the wife which creates another tax which is taken back in to further reduce the marital deduction of the wife which creates another tax, spiraling downward, ever downward.\nThis is the multiplier effect addressed by the amicus brief on behalf of the American Council on Education and United Way.\nAnd for that reason, it creates sort of a chaotic result which... because you don't have any income left.\nWhat's worse... and this is sort of the point of the Government's position with respect to, well, you can always just sort of waive your election under 642(g) and leave it on the gift tax return, leave the expenses on the gift tax return.\nThe difficulty with that is that, as the commentators have recognized, that operates to repeal 642(g).\nOne of the articles that we cite in our brief says, Does a 642 Election Still Make Sense?\nWhat that does is, sure, you can take the expenses that you paid out of income in your hypothetical, sir, the $200,000 expenses that were actually paid out of income and move them back over to the estate tax return.\nWhat happens if you do that?\nAnd that's I think the Government's ultimate object.\nYou end up with an income tax on gross income, on the full $200,000.\nBy depriving the income beneficiary the benefit of those deductions, you create a tax on gross income, and that income beneficiary doesn't have any net income to pay those taxes with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2606.336, 2609.787, 2613.48, 2627.17, 2630.59, 2632.353, 2641.99, 2667.646, 2672.277, 2682.495, 2700.238, 2709.984, 2720.3, 2725.763, 2746.286, 2763.069, 2767.441, 2769.244, 2770.052, 2772.383, 2786.792, 2793.987, 2799.011, 2810.988, 2818.605, 2825.848, 2838.226, 2840.457, 2842.851, 2849.925], "stop_times": [2609.787, 2613.48, 2627.17, 2630.59, 2632.353, 2641.99, 2667.646, 2672.277, 2682.495, 2700.238, 2709.984, 2720.3, 2725.763, 2746.286, 2763.069, 2767.441, 2769.244, 2770.052, 2772.383, 2786.792, 2793.987, 2799.011, 2810.988, 2818.605, 2825.848, 2838.226, 2840.457, 2842.851, 2849.925, 2859.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.336}, "reply_to": "19780__1_071", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_073", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Isn't the Government correct in its reply brief in simply saying that election is always of value to the estate that doesn't... that isn't large enough to quality for the estate tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2859.672], "stop_times": [2872.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2859.672}, "reply_to": "19780__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_074", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2872.698], "stop_times": [2874.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2872.698}, "reply_to": "19780__1_073", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_075", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "That alone is a common enough situation to justify the existence of that option provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2874.191], "stop_times": [2879.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2874.191}, "reply_to": "19780__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_076", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Well, I mean, it's true that there are circumstances where there is no meaningful election, but you cannot--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2879.604], "stop_times": [2885.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2879.604}, "reply_to": "19780__1_075", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_077", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "There are circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2885.708], "stop_times": [2886.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.708}, "reply_to": "19780__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_078", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2886.689], "stop_times": [2887.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.689}, "reply_to": "19780__1_077", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_079", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Most estates aren't big enough to have to worry about the estate tax anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2887.449], "stop_times": [2891.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.449}, "reply_to": "19780__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_080", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Well, to be sure, the estate taxing is imposed on a very small sliver of the American population, but the fact of the matter is I don't think it's an answer to say we have a meaningful election available to all citizens, to say yes, there are some circumstances where it doesn't do you any good to exercise the election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2891.131], "stop_times": [2907.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.131}, "reply_to": "19780__1_079", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_081", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Is that right?\nEvery election in the law has to be interpreted in such a way that it will be of benefit to everybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2907.273, 2908.282], "stop_times": [2908.282, 2913.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.273}, "reply_to": "19780__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_082", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Not that it will be of benefit to everybody, but I would say to proceed on the assumption that there are those who don't have a meaningful election because they don't have an estate tax return that's due does not address the problem that those who need the meaningful election ought to garner some benefit from the election.\nThe circumstances that we think we face here are largely cured in our minds by the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Estate of Warren.\nIn Estate of Warren, you'll recall the court noted that there is no preference in Federal tax law as to whether or not these expenses are borne by the income beneficiary or the corpus beneficiary.\nAnd you should know in this case the income beneficiary and the corpus beneficiary in the marital deduction QTIP trust, qualified terminable interest trust, are two different people.\nIt's two completely different people.\nWhat Warren says, that there is no preference, it's interesting to me as I read the Government's distinction.\nAs I understood the Government's distinction, the Government said there in 1993, as they said in Revenue Ruling 88-12, well, we relied upon exclusively the controlling testamentary document.\nWell, if it is appropriate to rely exclusively upon the controlling testamentary document in 1993 in Warren, as the Government had relied exclusively upon State law and the controlling testamentary documents before or relied in large measure before in Ballantine, Alston, and Roney, why is it not appropriate here?\nWhy isn't it appropriate here?\nIsn't what the effect of the Government's position saying is that when I go determine who bears these administrative expenses as between my wife and my children on a different... a marital bequest and a non-marital bequest, State law governs.\nBut when I go to allocate expenses as between my wife and my children in a life estate in a remainder context, somehow State law does not obtain.\nAnd so, we say there's no basis, no material difference for altering the control of State law in those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [2913.266, 2930.418, 2943.696, 2955.433, 2964.1, 2965.651, 2972.995, 2984.621, 3002.864, 3005.117, 3021.297, 3030.382], "stop_times": [2930.418, 2943.696, 2955.433, 2964.1, 2965.651, 2972.995, 2984.621, 3002.864, 3005.117, 3021.297, 3030.382, 3041.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2913.266}, "reply_to": "19780__1_081", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_083", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Mr. Aughtry, Justice Breyer raised a question of really does this matter much.\nIs this a fluke case?\nAnd, after all, even you should take the... from now on you can take the expenses against the corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3041.059, 3046.173, 3047.714], "stop_times": [3046.173, 3047.714, 3055.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.059}, "reply_to": "19780__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__1_084", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "To the extent that I'm conforming with my State law fiduciary duties, yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3055.478], "stop_times": [3059.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.478}, "reply_to": "19780__1_083", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_085", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "So, is this just a fluke case?\nWhat... does it matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3059.241, 3062.083], "stop_times": [3062.083, 3064.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.241}, "reply_to": "19780__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__1_086", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "I don't believe that it's a fluke case.\nI think it's a smaller case than the danger that's being created here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3064.086, 3066.617], "stop_times": [3066.617, 3070.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.086}, "reply_to": "19780__1_085", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_087", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "What is that danger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3070.28], "stop_times": [3071.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.28}, "reply_to": "19780__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19780__1_088", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "The danger is that this concept of date-of-death valuation is a concept that is being... we think is being undermined here with the concept of opening the door to hindsight.\nBut it... and it's arisen in five cases by our count in 50 years... five cases in 50 years... in which the deductions are being shaved.\nBut that concept, that date-of-death valuation concept, impacts the inclusion of every asset on every estate in America.\nAnd so, if we open the door, contrary to this Court's holding in Ithaca Trust, contrary to this Court's holding on the inclusion side in Maass v. Higgins and Bull v. United States, to hindsight, I think the Government's going to lose far more revenue than they would gain by shaving these deductions in these five cases.\nAnd so, I say to you I think it is a broad concept.\nI think we're dealing with fundamental principles of estate taxation, and it's a dangerous thing for a very small benefit here to open a door to a large loss there.\nI don't know if that's at all responsive to your question.\nThe fact of the matter is, Your Honor, we subscribe to Justice Holmes' theory.\nJustice Holmes advocated in his lectures before Harvard... they were ultimately embodied in the common law... that the law ought to be more concerned with the practical application to reality based upon experience than with detached logic or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3071.889, 3082.025, 3089.852, 3097.346, 3115.988, 3119.04, 3129.248, 3132.291, 3138.914], "stop_times": [3082.025, 3089.852, 3097.346, 3115.988, 3119.04, 3129.248, 3132.291, 3138.914, 3154.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3071.889}, "reply_to": "19780__1_087", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_089", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "At that time he hadn't seen the Internal Revenue Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3154.463], "stop_times": [3157.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3154.463}, "reply_to": "19780__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__1_090", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--I know.\n[Laughter]\nA fortunate soul, indeed.\nHe did, however, apply that--\nHe did, however, apply that wisdom in his decision in Ithaca Trust which is I think squarely on point in principle with this case.\nIn Ithaca Trust, we were dealing with a deduction, a circumstance where a gentleman died.\nHe left a life estate to his wife with the remainder interest to the charity.\nAnd the question was, how do we measure the value of that charitable deduction?\nAs events turned out, the wife regrettably died by way of accident 1 year later and the State wanted to come in and said, well, you know, the life estate is much smaller and therefore the remainder interest is much greater and therefore the charitable contribution deduction is much greater.\nAnd Justice Holmes, on behalf of this Court in Ithaca Trust said, I know the temptation to take what is now the readily known fact, the matter of certainty, to resolve the past event, but if we're to be true to this principle of date-of-death valuation for deduction purposes, distribution purposes, in addition to being true to this principle in Maass v. Higgins and Bull v. United States for inclusion purposes, we cannot succumb to the temptation of using hindsight.\nWe cannot proceed to resolve those uncertainties that existed, that must exist in every valuation at the date of valuation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3157.004, 3164.521, 3161.937, 3162.949, 3166.422, 3175.037, 3180.701, 3184.284, 3188.796, 3202.756, 3228.813], "stop_times": [3164.521, 3161.937, 3162.949, 3166.422, 3175.037, 3180.701, 3184.284, 3188.796, 3202.756, 3228.813, 3236.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.004}, "reply_to": "19780__1_089", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_091", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Unless the charge is against the corpus, then we do use hindsight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3236.116], "stop_times": [3239.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.116}, "reply_to": "19780__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_092", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "You trace the corpus.\nYou take the date of death, and wherever that corpus goes, you trace it.\nYou don't use hindsight to erode the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3239.298, 3240.129, 3243.402], "stop_times": [3240.129, 3243.402, 3246.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.298}, "reply_to": "19780__1_091", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_093", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "It's a universal principle, if you're willing to ignore it with respect to the corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3246.614], "stop_times": [3250.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3246.614}, "reply_to": "19780__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19780__1_094", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--No.\nNo, Your Honor.\nYou look to who gets that property.\n2056 and 2055 both speak specifically to the property included as of the date of death in the gross estate, and they can only get a deduction equal to that amount of corpus that they ultimately got.\nAnd we measure what they got.\nIt's a question of my wife got precisely what I gave here.\nWhat I gave her was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3250.245, 3251.197, 3251.738, 3253.638, 3266.086, 3267.957, 3270.671], "stop_times": [3251.197, 3251.738, 3253.638, 3266.086, 3267.957, 3270.671, 3271.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3250.245}, "reply_to": "19780__1_093", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_095", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Mr. Aughtry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3271.709], "stop_times": [3272.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.709}, "reply_to": "19780__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__1_096", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3272.46], "stop_times": [3273.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3272.46}, "reply_to": "19780__1_095", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_097", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "--in your brief you gave us seven independent insufficient reasons for affirming.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3273.061], "stop_times": [3276.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.061}, "reply_to": "19780__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__1_098", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3276.852], "stop_times": [3277.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3276.852}, "reply_to": "19780__1_097", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_099", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Which one would you rely on if you had to pick one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3277.643], "stop_times": [3280.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.643}, "reply_to": "19780__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__1_100", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Symmetry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3280.035], "stop_times": [3280.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3280.035}, "reply_to": "19780__1_099", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_101", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "The number one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3280.966], "stop_times": [3281.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.966}, "reply_to": "19780__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__1_102", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3281.677], "stop_times": [3282.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.677}, "reply_to": "19780__1_101", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_103", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3282.749], "stop_times": [3283.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.749}, "reply_to": "19780__1_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19780__1_104", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Symmetry, I submit to you, is far preferable to the sort of chaos that we've tried to describe as best we could in our brief of a disappearing residuary, of the downward spiral, of multiplier effect, and of the unnecessary conflict created between the Commissioner's recent construction of this regulation adopted 40 years after the fact, the conflict between that construction, the Commissioner's own estate tax regulations and rulings... we've cited 69-56.\nThe ruling specifically says there's no diminution... and indeed in conflict with the gift tax regulations and rules invoked here by statute.\nSymmetry and order we urge upon you is preferable to that form of chaos.\nThanks so very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3283.477, 3312.169, 3320.573, 3325.815], "stop_times": [3312.169, 3320.573, 3325.815, 3326.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3283.477}, "reply_to": "19780__1_103", "speaker": "david_d_aughtry"}
{"id": "19780__1_105", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Aughtry.\nMr. Jones, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3326.737, 3328.607], "stop_times": [3328.607, 3330.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3326.737}, "reply_to": "19780__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__2_000", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "I have two points I will try to make very briefly.\nThe first is that Stapf by its terms applies its net value logic to administration expenses as well as to other claims against the estate.\nAt page 134, the Court said in both instances, referring to both administration expenses and claims, by directing that payment be made of debts chargeable to another or to non-estate property reduces his net estate and in effect confers a gift or bequest upon another, which is exactly why we have to reduce the marital deduction because the net value of the bequest has been burdened by this encumbrance.\nI need to say very briefly that the regulations and rulings that the Tax Court and that the taxpayer rely on are a classic example of apples and oranges.\nThe regulations and rulings that the Tax Court relied on were under 2056(b)(5) which relates to a marital deduction when a gift is left in trust, where the spouse gets--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3330.279, 3332.431, 3341.247, 3364.06, 3373.277], "stop_times": [3332.431, 3341.247, 3364.06, 3373.277, 3384.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3330.279}, "reply_to": "19780__1_105", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "19780__2_001", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jones.\nYour time has expired.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3384.944, 3385.916, 3387.249], "stop_times": [3385.916, 3387.249, 3388.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.944}, "reply_to": "19780__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19780__2_002", "conversation_id": "19780", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1402", "start_times": [3388.532], "stop_times": [3393.398], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.532}, "reply_to": "19780__2_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20949__0_000", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1594, Barbara DeBuono v. NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Services.\nMs. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [0.0, 12.599], "stop_times": [12.599, 19.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__0_001", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nState laws of general applicability relate to ERISA plans only when they both operate upon a plan in its capacity as a plan, and when the effect of that law is to dictate or restrict and not merely influence plan choice.\nThe health facility assessment, a gross receipts tax imposed upon hospitals in New York, does not relate to ERISA plans which operate their own hospitals because neither of these elements is present.\nThe impact of the HFA upon plans is no more than that of the laws that were upheld by this Court in the Blue Cross v. Travelers case and the Court's recent opinion in California v. Dillingham.\nLike those laws, the HFA does not dictate or restrict plan choice.\nLike the surcharges in Travelers, the HFA may have an economic impact upon a plan's cost of providing benefits.\nThis impact may occur regardless of whether plans own their own hospitals or purchase hospital care services from third parties.\nIn either case, the economic impact of the law is not enough to make the law relate to plans.\nNotwithstanding the fund's ownership of the hospital in this case, the HFA also does not relate to the plan because it operates upon the fund not in its capacity as a plan but as a provider of medical services.\nThe HFA is part and parcel of the State regulation of hospitals, and the provision of medical services is not a plan function which ERISA preemption was designed to protect.\nWhen plans choose to provide the types of benefits which are not strictly financial but which involve services, those services remain subject to generally applicable State regulation whether plans purchase those services from third parties or choose to provide those services in kind.\nThe operation of a hospital, like the operation of a day care center, the practice of law, and employees' training programs, are not plan functions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [19.455, 23.077, 39.396, 51.995, 66.094, 72.167, 80.533, 88.758, 95.774, 111.694, 124.131, 144.326], "stop_times": [23.077, 39.396, 51.995, 66.094, 72.167, 80.533, 88.758, 95.774, 111.694, 124.131, 144.326, 154.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 19.455}, "reply_to": "20949__0_000", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_002", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Ms. Smith, do you agree with the outline offered by the Solicitor General as sort of a summary of this Court's holdings in this area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [154.482], "stop_times": [165.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.482}, "reply_to": "20949__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_003", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [165.859], "stop_times": [167.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.859}, "reply_to": "20949__0_002", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_004", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Would you adopt the same outline yourself without variation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [167.151], "stop_times": [170.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.151}, "reply_to": "20949__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_005", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Your Honor, the outline of this... what this Court has decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [170.653], "stop_times": [174.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.653}, "reply_to": "20949__0_004", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_006", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, they construct a kind of four-part simple test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [174.545], "stop_times": [177.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.545}, "reply_to": "20949__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_007", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [177.957], "stop_times": [178.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.957}, "reply_to": "20949__0_006", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_008", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Do you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [178.208], "stop_times": [179.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.208}, "reply_to": "20949__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_009", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWhere we differ from the Solicitor is not necessarily in outcome but somewhat in analysis.\nIn this case, the respondents, who would agree that many generally applicable laws would not relate to them even if they were imposed directly upon them, respondents claim that this case is different because when you operate your own hospital you're acting as a provider of medical services, which they say is what an ERISA plan is meant to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [179.009, 180.128, 187.213], "stop_times": [180.128, 187.213, 207.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 179.009}, "reply_to": "20949__0_008", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_010", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "And do you agree that all general health laws that would affect clinic operations are validly applied to an ERISA health clinic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [207.836], "stop_times": [219.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.836}, "reply_to": "20949__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_011", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [219.404], "stop_times": [219.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.404}, "reply_to": "20949__0_010", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_012", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "The standards of degrees required for people engaged in the health care business, and so forth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [219.985], "stop_times": [227.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.985}, "reply_to": "20949__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_013", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nWhen the State is regulating generally in the health care area, those are areas of traditional State concern.\nIf ERISA plans choose to operate in those areas, they take basically the marketplace as the State is regulating the marketplace of those areas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [227.17, 228.7, 235.285], "stop_times": [228.7, 235.285, 244.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.17}, "reply_to": "20949__0_012", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_014", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "And I suppose there might be some disagreement by respondents on that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [244.161], "stop_times": [250.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.161}, "reply_to": "20949__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_015", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "The respondents' argument is that at least in the health care area, but I think that their theory is equally applicable to those other four benefit areas that involve services... day care, prepaid legal services, and apprenticeship training... that when plans operate in those areas, the State may not regulate them.\nAt least, they may not tax them, I believe is the respondents' argument.\nOur disagreement is that in those areas, those services remain subject to State regulation.\nOne looks at the plan as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [250.075, 272.719, 276.311, 286.329], "stop_times": [272.719, 276.311, 286.329, 288.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.075}, "reply_to": "20949__0_014", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_016", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, do you think the same principles should govern whether a general tax law or a general State requirement for background training or cleanliness concerns or something of that kind--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [288.26], "stop_times": [302.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.26}, "reply_to": "20949__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_017", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--In these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [302.398], "stop_times": [303.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 302.398}, "reply_to": "20949__0_016", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_018", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--the same principles govern the answer to both questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [303.009], "stop_times": [306.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.009}, "reply_to": "20949__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_019", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--In these service areas... in these service areas, yes, so a generally applicable health care tax, a generally applicable day care tax, or in these four service areas, whether, if you can regulate in those areas in a generally applicable way you can tax in those areas in a generally applicable way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [306.491], "stop_times": [323.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.491}, "reply_to": "20949__0_018", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_020", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Ms. Smith, I don't understand what you think the effect of the very broad language, relates to, is.\nWhat does it bring to this enterprise that we're engaging in that wouldn't be affected by our ordinary preemption principles?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [323.313, 332.138], "stop_times": [332.138, 346.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 323.313}, "reply_to": "20949__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__0_021", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Justice Scalia, the way that the Court has formulated preemption analysis to date, there are two prongs.\nThere's the refer-to prong, as the Court refers to it, and the connection prong.\nWhat the relates-to analysis does to date is that if you had general preemption provisions, conflict-of-field preemption provisions, a State law which referred to ERISA plan which kept them out of those fields would not be preempted.\nBut to date, the... this Court has held that a State law which specifically refers to ERISA plans, even if it gives ERISA plans better protection... for instance, in the Mackey case the part of the law that required the State garnishment law not to apply to ERISA plans this Court held was preempted, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [346.858, 356.204, 361.409, 382.102], "stop_times": [356.204, 361.409, 382.102, 402.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.858}, "reply_to": "20949__0_020", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_022", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But that's normal field preemption, isn't it, that you cannot... you can neither reduce nor increase the protection that the Federal Government gives.\nThat's what normal field preemption would produce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [402.834, 410.922], "stop_times": [410.922, 413.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 402.834}, "reply_to": "20949__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__0_023", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--My understanding of field preemption, Your Honor, is that a State law that specifically kept whatever was being regulated out of the field would not be preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [413.763], "stop_times": [425.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.763}, "reply_to": "20949__0_022", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_024", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I don't know what you mean.\nWhat... that kept whatever was being regulated out of the field?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [425.25, 427.38], "stop_times": [427.38, 430.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.25}, "reply_to": "20949__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__0_025", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right.\nFor instance, if it was a question of nuclear safety and the law said something about State, whatever... and you can't be in the nuclear safety area, that that would not be preempted.\nThat is my understanding of field preemption.\nBut in this case, when the State garnishment law says ERISA plans are not subject to the garnishment law, this Court has held that because it specifically referred to and applied only to ERISA plans, it was not preempted... it was preempted, sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [430.743, 431.184, 441.83, 444.043], "stop_times": [431.184, 441.83, 444.043, 459.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.743}, "reply_to": "20949__0_024", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_026", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "In any event, do I understand that... you said you agreed with the Government's outline as a summary of what this Court has held, that however you might wish Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in the Dillingham case to be speaking for the majority, the majority has not yet spoke that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [459.742], "stop_times": [478.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.742}, "reply_to": "20949__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__0_027", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nWe do agree with the Government's outline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [478.585, 479.835], "stop_times": [479.835, 481.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 478.585}, "reply_to": "20949__0_026", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_028", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But how would this case come out, do you think, under Justice Scalia's field preemption theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [481.847], "stop_times": [491.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.847}, "reply_to": "20949__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_029", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Your Honor, we are asking the Court basically, in making this distinction between services and plans, to carve out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [491.202], "stop_times": [502.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.202}, "reply_to": "20949__0_028", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_030", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, I think the question I asked you was, how would the case come out if you were to apply normal field preemption principles to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [502.981], "stop_times": [509.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.981}, "reply_to": "20949__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_031", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--It would come out that this law does not relate to plans because the service area is outside the field of employee benefit plans, that while employee benefit plans are concerned with the funding and payment of benefits, that the services which those benefit payments may fund, the quantity of the services, the quality of the services, the availability of the services, are not an area with which ERISA is concerned with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [509.494], "stop_times": [537.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.494}, "reply_to": "20949__0_030", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_032", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But does it work to distinguish that which is doing the providing, namely the plan, and that which the plan buys, like the services?\nI mean, that distinction seems to run throughout the cases, but for the area of pensions itself, where the fund is basically writing a check, so it's quite closely tied up with the fund.\nBut in the benefits area, they're buying something, so is it the case... how does that distinction work between the plan itself... this is another case in which we've... other cases have tried to make the same distinction.\nThe Government's tended to resist it, I think... and that which the plan buys.\nWhen you get to that which the plan buys, there's no field preemption.\nRather, you look bit-by-bit to see if that which the plan buys and the State's regulating that conflicts specifically with the purpose of Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [537.023, 545.097, 555.145, 566.402, 570.867, 574.146], "stop_times": [545.097, 555.145, 566.402, 570.867, 574.146, 581.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.023}, "reply_to": "20949__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__0_033", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "That distinction works very well, Your Honor.\nIn this case, the respondents are claiming that they're not buying anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [581.361, 584.894], "stop_times": [584.894, 589.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.361}, "reply_to": "20949__0_032", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_034", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "No, no, but that just happens to be because they went and supplied it themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [589.699], "stop_times": [592.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.699}, "reply_to": "20949__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__0_035", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [592.871], "stop_times": [593.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.871}, "reply_to": "20949__0_034", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_036", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "That's just an artifact of the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [593.562], "stop_times": [595.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.562}, "reply_to": "20949__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__0_037", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--But basically that is the distinction that we are asking the Court to draw.\nMost ERISA benefits are strictly financial.\nIt's money and the contingency upon.\nPension benefits, money and the contingency of retirement.\nDeath benefits and the contingency of death.\nThere are only four ERISA benefits that actually involve services.\nIn other words, services that plans may buy, and that would be day care, apprenticeship training, prepaid legal services, and health--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [595.483, 598.003, 602.188, 604.649, 607.932, 609.532, 614.815], "stop_times": [598.003, 602.188, 604.649, 607.932, 609.532, 614.815, 623.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.483}, "reply_to": "20949__0_036", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_038", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I mean, you've really looked into this a lot, and so what I'm quite serious is... if there were some words in an opinion that said when you look into that area which, when you look into those things which the plan buys, as opposed to the management of a trust, when you look into that area, normally there is no preemption unless the State law conflicts with a purpose of Congress, and a rather specific purpose at that.\nNow, would that cause trouble?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [623.539, 650.167], "stop_times": [650.167, 651.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 623.539}, "reply_to": "20949__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__0_039", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--No, Your Honor, not in our view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [651.9], "stop_times": [653.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 651.9}, "reply_to": "20949__0_038", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_040", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Not in this case it wouldn't but I mean, in your experience in general would it cause trouble?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [653.991], "stop_times": [657.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.991}, "reply_to": "20949__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__0_041", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "No, Your Honor, not in our view, because in general, again, we're dealing with a very limited area of ERISA benefits that actually involve something that the plan purchases as opposed to money that the plan is giving, and when ERISA plans are operating as ordinary commercial entities, they may well purchase services.\nThey may purchase... they may purchase, you know, fiduciary services.\nThey may purchase stationery.\nThey may purchase whatever, and clearly we don't think that anyone would contest that when they're operating in those commercial capacities, purchasing those entities, that ERISA preemption would apply.\nWhether you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [657.774, 682.44, 686.772, 688.164, 699.762], "stop_times": [682.44, 686.772, 688.164, 699.762, 700.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 657.774}, "reply_to": "20949__0_040", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_042", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But you don't want to draw a line... the difference between buying the service, because I think this is a case where the plan itself is providing it, so I think in your brief you try to look at the other side of it and say when you're talking about plan funding, plan administration, that's what ERISA covers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [700.872], "stop_times": [724.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.872}, "reply_to": "20949__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__0_043", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but you could also look at this when an ERISA plan provides services in kind, they're simply purchasing them in a different way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [724.506], "stop_times": [731.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.506}, "reply_to": "20949__0_042", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_044", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [731.932], "stop_times": [732.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.932}, "reply_to": "20949__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_045", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Instead of purchasing them from a third party, they are directly purchasing them from the doctors and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [732.413], "stop_times": [738.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.413}, "reply_to": "20949__0_044", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_046", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--But it would have a direct financial effect.\nIf the ERISA plan buys clinic services elsewhere in New York, then this tax is going to be paid by the entity that actually provides the service, and so it may in fact cost ERISA something less, because it's not paying the tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [738.958, 742.438], "stop_times": [742.438, 762.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.958}, "reply_to": "20949__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_047", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [762.433], "stop_times": [763.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.433}, "reply_to": "20949__0_046", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_048", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But if it were to provide the services itself, then the ERISA plan is certainly liable for the full tax, so it may end up costing ERISA less to contract out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [763.021], "stop_times": [775.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.021}, "reply_to": "20949__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__0_049", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Your Honor, in this case the incidence of the tax is not on the ERISA plan but on the hospital which, although it's not critical to my argument, is a separately incorporated corporation.\nThe hospital can, like any other entity, determine how it's going to fund the tax.\nIt could pass it on to its customers, in this case, the ERISA plan participants, in higher copays.\nIn this particular case, it could decide to pass it on to its other customers, the other plans that have services there, or the Worker's Comp carriers, or the fund could pay it.\nIt's really no different than if it's Mount Sinai that's paying the tax.\nIn this case, it's not the fund that's paying the tax, or that has the incidence of the tax.\nIt's the medical centers themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [775.1, 786.068, 791.651, 798.216, 810.523, 814.867, 820.16], "stop_times": [786.068, 791.651, 798.216, 810.523, 814.867, 820.16, 823.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.1}, "reply_to": "20949__0_048", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_050", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But what I run into, you know, with my own thought there is, I run into a problem.\nI mean, I can easily say, let's distinguish what's normally bought, even though in your case it happens to be provided, from the running of the fund, and let's say in the former situation and grouping your case with the former, normally there is no preemption unless you find a specific conflict.\nThen I run into these... the benefit cases where the fund was buying certain medical benefits, really, and the Court said no, it's preempted where you have the pregnancy... you know, the certain rules on what you can buy or not buy, which were really regulations of what was bought, rather than regulations of the fund, so how do you work with those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [823.062, 827.064, 843.246], "stop_times": [827.064, 843.246, 865.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.062}, "reply_to": "20949__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__0_051", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Your Honor, in those cases you're impacting upon what the fund is paying, what services, as opposed to the services themselves.\nSo, for instance, the State of New York can regulate surgery, and it could say, there's too much surgery in the State of New York.\nNo one can have surgery unless there's a second opinion.\nWhat the court... what the State can't say is, and anyone who pays for the surgery must also pay for the second opinion, because you're dealing with coverage issues: what is a plan paying for, as opposed to what services are available in the marketplace.\nIf there are no further questions, Your Honor, I will reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [865.001, 875.888, 884.563, 887.715, 902.795], "stop_times": [875.888, 884.563, 887.715, 902.795, 907.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.001}, "reply_to": "20949__0_050", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__0_052", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Very well, Ms. Smith.\nMr. Kneedler, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [907.847, 909.7], "stop_times": [909.7, 911.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.847}, "reply_to": "20949__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__1_000", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe health facilities assessment tax at issue in this case as applied to the hospitals owned by the plan is not superseded by ERISA under ERISA's express preemption provision.\nThe assessment law is a law of general applicability that operates in the field of health care, a field that this Court identified in Travelers as one of traditional State regulation.\nThe legal incidence of the tax, and in tax law legal incidence is often very important, is on hospitals.\nThe impact on the plan is only incidental from its capacity as the owner of the hospital.\nIt is not on the plan in its capacity as such.\nThe assessment law, therefore, does not relate to the ERISA plan at issue in this case because it does not intrude into the field of regulation of ERISA welfare benefit plans which section 514(a) preserves for exclusive Federal regulation.\nThe purpose of section 514(a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [911.551, 931.483, 942.489, 952.948, 961.093, 967.497, 971.58, 989.42], "stop_times": [931.483, 942.489, 952.948, 961.093, 967.497, 971.58, 989.42, 992.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 911.551}, "reply_to": "20949__0_052", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_001", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Mr. Kneedler--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [992.403], "stop_times": [993.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.403}, "reply_to": "20949__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__1_002", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [993.164], "stop_times": [993.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 993.164}, "reply_to": "20949__1_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_003", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--how do you think the so-called field preemption notice, the field preemption doctrine would play out in these ERISA cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [993.454], "stop_times": [1005.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.454}, "reply_to": "20949__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__1_004", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1005.783], "stop_times": [1006.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1005.783}, "reply_to": "20949__1_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_005", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--and how would that apply here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1006.373], "stop_times": [1007.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.373}, "reply_to": "20949__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__1_006", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--In this case, the field preemption analysis would certainly lead to sustaining the State tax, because the State tax operates, again, in the area of health care.\nIt operates with respect to a facility owned by the plan.\nIt does not operate in the field of ERISA plans as such, and therefore we think it would not be preempted.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1007.983, 1018.821, 1022.142, 1029.207], "stop_times": [1018.821, 1022.142, 1029.207, 1029.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1007.983}, "reply_to": "20949__1_005", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_007", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Do you think that principle would explain most or all of our previous cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1029.788], "stop_times": [1035.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.788}, "reply_to": "20949__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__1_008", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--It would explain most.\nIt would not explain all.\nI agree with counsel for the State that it would not in particular explain the Mackey case, or not as readily.\nThe portion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1035.852, 1036.733, 1037.682, 1046.198], "stop_times": [1036.733, 1037.682, 1046.198, 1047.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1035.852}, "reply_to": "20949__1_007", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_009", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Which is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1047.348], "stop_times": [1047.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.348}, "reply_to": "20949__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__1_010", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--The portion of the Mackey case that held that an express exemption from State garnishment laws for ERISA plans was preempted.\nOrdinarily, when you have field preemption, if the State enacts a law that gets State law out of the way to secure the field for Federal occupation, that would ordinarily not be something that would be preempted by field preemption.\nHaving said that, with all respect, there is a bit of an anomaly about having an express exception for ERISA plans in a case like Mackey preempted where the State is trying to clear the way for exclusive Federal regulation and get out of the way something that is beneficial to a plan, not something that just regulates it in a more beneficial way, but removes State law from the setting altogether, would not normally be a problem with field preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1047.859, 1058.195, 1071.636], "stop_times": [1058.195, 1071.636, 1098.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1047.859}, "reply_to": "20949__1_009", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_011", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, there... is it not fair to say that there is also some inconsistency in our expression of the rule we were applying in the earlier cases as compared with the expression that we've used in the last few?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1098.432], "stop_times": [1112.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.432}, "reply_to": "20949__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_012", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Yes.\nI think the Court's more recent cases have tended to focus on the objectives of the... of ERISA, and that can be tied, we think, rather directly as a textual matter to the field preemption argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1112.894, 1114.186], "stop_times": [1114.186, 1130.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1112.894}, "reply_to": "20949__1_011", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_013", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "What is the field preemption?\nThat is to say, I've never fully understood this.\nIf a State passes a law, and it was the purpose of Congress in a Federal statute that the State not pass this kind of law, then it's preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1130.018, 1131.928, 1134.017], "stop_times": [1131.928, 1134.017, 1144.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.018}, "reply_to": "20949__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__1_014", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1144.045], "stop_times": [1144.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1144.045}, "reply_to": "20949__1_013", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_015", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Is that called conflict preemption, or field preemption?\nI mean, in the instance when there is no direct conflict, I mean, isn't it in both instances a question of looking to the purpose of Congress and seeing if this is the kind of law that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1144.486, 1147.688], "stop_times": [1147.688, 1156.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.486}, "reply_to": "20949__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__1_016", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right.\nNow, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1156.794, 1157.434], "stop_times": [1157.434, 1158.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1156.794}, "reply_to": "20949__1_015", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_017", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--If that's right, then if you use the word field preemption, what will it do in general?\nHow should it be used?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1158.165, 1162.308], "stop_times": [1162.308, 1164.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.165}, "reply_to": "20949__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__1_018", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Well, for example, it's very important under ERISA because the Court has said on a number of occasions, and we agree with this, that ERISA preempts State laws in some circumstances even where ERISA itself does not furnish governing law, in particular in the design of ERISA plans themselves, what benefits to offer, who they would be paid for, paid to, what the amount of them will be.\nEven though ERISA does not dictate particular benefit levels, its purpose was to leave that to employers and employees to negotiate to come up... to leave to private ordering, and so State law that would regulate the benefit structure, even though it doesn't conflict with any particular provision of ERISA addressing that, would conflict with Congress' purpose to insulate that from State regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1164.098, 1189.884], "stop_times": [1189.884, 1213.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1164.098}, "reply_to": "20949__1_017", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_019", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "In a broad sense, Mr. Kneedler, I suppose any preemption involves a conflict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1213.032], "stop_times": [1216.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.032}, "reply_to": "20949__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_020", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1216.311], "stop_times": [1216.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1216.311}, "reply_to": "20949__1_019", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_021", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Any preemption is conflict preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1216.732], "stop_times": [1219.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.732}, "reply_to": "20949__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_022", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--In that sense, under this, and particularly when you have an express preemption clause, anything that conflicts with the express preemption clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1219.233], "stop_times": [1226.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1219.233}, "reply_to": "20949__1_021", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_023", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "And I thought in our cases what conflict preemption meant was, where an inconsistent obligation is placed upon the regulated party.\nIf the Federal Government tells you to do X, and the State tells you to do not X--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1226.689, 1236.156], "stop_times": [1236.156, 1240.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.689}, "reply_to": "20949__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_024", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1240.979], "stop_times": [1241.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1240.979}, "reply_to": "20949__1_023", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_025", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--that is a conflict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1241.93], "stop_times": [1242.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.93}, "reply_to": "20949__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_026", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Right, or perhaps including the category where the State law would stand as an obstacle to the full accomplishment of the Federal purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1242.779], "stop_times": [1249.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1242.779}, "reply_to": "20949__1_025", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_027", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1249.545], "stop_times": [1249.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.545}, "reply_to": "20949__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_028", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Which affecting benefit structure would, we think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1249.995], "stop_times": [1252.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1249.995}, "reply_to": "20949__1_027", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_029", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Whereas I thought we've said field preemption would apply where the Federal law tells you to do X, and the State law says do X plus 10, which wouldn't... you're doing X, but you're doing more than X.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1252.647], "stop_times": [1270.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.647}, "reply_to": "20949__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_030", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1270.428], "stop_times": [1270.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1270.428}, "reply_to": "20949__1_029", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_031", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But if the Government wanted this thing to be complete, and we're occupying the field, you're not supposed to address this area at all, X plus 10 would be preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1270.668], "stop_times": [1280.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.668}, "reply_to": "20949__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_032", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "That's correct, and so the sorts of things that are occupied by the field, some of them are addressed by ERISA itself, but things having to do with the internal management of the plan... benefit structures, investment decisions, fiduciary responsibilities, things having to do with the way the administrator handles the plan... and with respect to those things, we think the things that the State can't regulate it ordinarily can't tax.\nThe things that the State can regulate the State ordinarily can tax, and it's instructive that subsection b5(b)i, which was part of a special provision adopted for the Hawaii health care plan, specifically says that the exemption for that does not affect State tax laws as they may relate to ERISA plans, and the background and structure of that shows, we think, that Congress intended that State tax laws be treated generally as... the same way that regulation is and, after all, tax is a species of regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1280.175, 1301.859], "stop_times": [1301.859, 1336.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1280.175}, "reply_to": "20949__1_031", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_033", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, how would field preemption play out in the context of direct State regulations going to the educational background of employees in the clinic, and cleanliness requirements, and so forth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1336.081], "stop_times": [1349.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.081}, "reply_to": "20949__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__1_034", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "As to that, they would not be preempted because they do not address the internal affairs of an ERISA plan as such in its capacity as a plan with respect to funding, and financing, and what services will be paid for.\nSuch a State law regulates the services that are in turn either purchased or furnished in kind by the ERISA plan, so under that view of field preemption what the... the field the State is in is substantive health care regulation, licensing of the facility and what-not.\nAnd in general, the distinction that Justice Breyer made we would agree with, and it was essentially our position in Travelers as well that where the ERISA plan steps out of its internal management of plan structure and purchases something in the market, either pencils for the office or services in kind, State substantive regulation or taxation of a... a sales tax for purchasing something wouldn't be preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1349.211, 1363.3, 1382.0], "stop_times": [1363.3, 1382.0, 1407.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1349.211}, "reply_to": "20949__1_033", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_035", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "What else besides sales tax?\nWhat taxes does an ERISA plan have to bear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1407.989, 1409.93], "stop_times": [1409.93, 1413.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.989}, "reply_to": "20949__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__1_036", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "We think it would have to pay, for example, unemployment compensation taxes that... for its employees.\nWe think, on the other hand, if the State tried to tax the income to the plan itself, which is a species perhaps of regulating the corpus of the trust funds, if there's a separate trust fund, if the State tries to regulate the corpus of the trust by regulating investment decisions, we think that's at the core of what ERISA would not allow, and therefore it may well be that the State could not tax the corpus of the trust itself.\nBut where the State is leaving... or the trust, the plan is leaving its internal operations and going out into the marketplace by hiring employees or purchasing goods and services, including services in kind that are paid for by the ERISA plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1413.713, 1420.485, 1444.13], "stop_times": [1420.485, 1444.13, 1459.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1413.713}, "reply_to": "20949__1_035", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_037", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, what if the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1459.381], "stop_times": [1460.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.381}, "reply_to": "20949__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__1_038", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--the State could regulate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1460.934], "stop_times": [1461.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1460.934}, "reply_to": "20949__1_037", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_039", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--What if the State taxes numerous other corpuses that have nothing to do with ERISA plans as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1461.144], "stop_times": [1466.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.144}, "reply_to": "20949__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__1_040", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "That would... it's that point we think that may make that a closer question, and we would urge the Court not to decide that question in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1466.627], "stop_times": [1474.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1466.627}, "reply_to": "20949__1_039", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_041", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Would that be field preemption or conflict preemption?\nWould you... if you feel it couldn't be taxed, wouldn't that be because you think that there is an indication in the legislation that Congress did not want it taxed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1474.421, 1479.125], "stop_times": [1479.125, 1487.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.421}, "reply_to": "20949__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__1_042", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right.\nCongress intended to preserve the assets in the fund for the benefit of the employees, but we think that that could also be a species of field preemption, because the State could not directly regulate investment decisions by holding fiduciaries to different standards or requiring diversification requirements in the portfolio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1487.86, 1488.301], "stop_times": [1488.301, 1505.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1487.86}, "reply_to": "20949__1_041", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_043", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But that's just why... that's exactly why I'm nervous about the words, field preemption, because in trying to work out what the field is you have to make roughly the same analysis that you'd have to make on purpose.\nDo you have a use of the word, field?\nI mean, if we were to use the word field preemption, how would you use it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1505.074, 1516.721, 1518.362], "stop_times": [1516.721, 1518.362, 1523.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.074}, "reply_to": "20949__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__1_044", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I would, I think, refer to whether the State law is addressing the ERISA plan as an ERISA plan, in its capacity as an ERISA plan, not when it is purchasing goods and services outside of the plan's operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1523.257], "stop_times": [1538.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1523.257}, "reply_to": "20949__1_043", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_045", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1538.724], "stop_times": [1540.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.724}, "reply_to": "20949__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__1_046", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I think it's the former that's the field.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1540.076], "stop_times": [1540.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1540.076}, "reply_to": "20949__1_045", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20949__1_047", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Caruso, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1540.677, 1541.726], "stop_times": [1541.726, 1545.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.677}, "reply_to": "20949__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__2_000", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe are dealing here with a State tax on the corpus of the fund.\nWhat's being taxed are the contributions that are being paid to the fund by the employers required under the collective bargaining agreements to make those contributions, and benefit payments being made for the benefits that the ERISA fund is paying, so this case involves a tax.\nThere's a clear indication in the legislation itself and in the legislative history of ERISA that Congress intended tax... State tax laws to enjoy no charmed existence.\nThey were to be treated like any other law, any other State law that relates to a plan.\nThat is the language of the statute.\nAnd when the fund is being required to pay a State assessment on the very activities that makes the fund a fund, the very health care benefits that the fund is paying out, the contributions that the employers are paying for those benefits, I submit to you that it's self-evident that the tax in this case relates to the fund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1545.199, 1548.382, 1553.244, 1571.078, 1583.777, 1588.88, 1591.424], "stop_times": [1548.382, 1553.244, 1571.078, 1583.777, 1588.88, 1591.424, 1617.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1545.199}, "reply_to": "20949__1_047", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_001", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Why not the sales tax on items that the fund uses to operate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1617.31], "stop_times": [1622.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.31}, "reply_to": "20949__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_002", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I think in that case the fund is actually acting not as a fund but as a purchaser.\nWhat we're saying there is, we would tend to agree that if you use the concept that was first developed I believe in the Shaw case, the tenuous, remote, and peripheral concept, that when the plan is acting in a capacity that any other private entity would be involved in, then the plan is to be treated like any other private entity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1622.623, 1627.255], "stop_times": [1627.255, 1647.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1622.623}, "reply_to": "20949__2_001", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_003", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But when the plan is operating a private hospital, why shouldn't it be treated like any other hospital?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1647.958], "stop_times": [1651.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.958}, "reply_to": "20949__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_004", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Because a plan does provide benefits.\nIf you look at the definition of ERISA, ERISA says that any plan or program to provide health benefits through insurance or otherwise, and the ERISA definition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1651.101, 1653.364], "stop_times": [1653.364, 1663.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.101}, "reply_to": "20949__2_003", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_005", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "What about other benefits that a plan might provide, like legal services?\nDo you say the same thing about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1663.77, 1666.421], "stop_times": [1666.421, 1668.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.77}, "reply_to": "20949__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_006", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Well, if the plan is providing legal services and there's been a tax imposed on the contributions that the plan is providing to the attorneys who are providing the services, I would say yes, that that tax would be preempted, because that tax is being imposed on the very activities that make the plan a plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1668.992], "stop_times": [1688.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1668.992}, "reply_to": "20949__2_005", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_007", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, what about the State requirement that anyone giving legal services has to be a licensed attorney?\nI mean, that affects the cost.\nThat's going to cost the plan more if it's legal benefits, so you'd be back here arguing that, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1688.637, 1694.701, 1696.501], "stop_times": [1694.701, 1696.501, 1702.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1688.637}, "reply_to": "20949__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__2_008", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, obviously that's not the case that we have here today, but we're not looking at it from a cost standpoint, Justice O'Connor.\nWhat we're saying is, look at the activity.\nWhat we're saying is, if you're buying pencils, you're a purchaser.\nYou can impose the sales tax.\nIf you're engaging in employing individuals as part of your operations of the clinic and there are employment taxes to be paid, well, you are an employer.\nYou're not a plan.\nBut when you're providing benefits, and it's the contributions for those benefits that the State is taxing, we say there, there you are taxing the plan as a plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1702.295, 1708.459, 1711.341, 1716.734, 1718.246, 1726.541, 1727.282], "stop_times": [1708.459, 1711.341, 1716.734, 1718.246, 1726.541, 1727.282, 1737.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.295}, "reply_to": "20949__2_007", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_009", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But my question related not to the tax but to this sure knowledge that the State law requirement that legal advice be given by licensed attorneys will cost more.\nIt's going to cost the ERISA plan, the fund, more money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1737.908, 1747.896], "stop_times": [1747.896, 1751.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.908}, "reply_to": "20949__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20949__2_010", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "We would say, and the probabilities are in that situation, if you look at the structure and objectives and ERISA, that there probably was not an indication of congressional intent, as there was in the Travelers case, that Congress intended ERISA to preempt that type of regulation, and in this case we have explicit language in the statute that says State tax laws, they don't have a charmed existence.\nWe want them treated like anything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1751.536, 1776.013], "stop_times": [1776.013, 1777.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1751.536}, "reply_to": "20949__2_009", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_011", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, that refers to the Hawaii exception, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1777.876], "stop_times": [1780.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.876}, "reply_to": "20949__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20949__2_012", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I'm sorry, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1780.326], "stop_times": [1782.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.326}, "reply_to": "20949__2_011", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_013", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Doesn't that reference to State tax laws refer to the specific provisions for the Hawaiian plans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1782.477], "stop_times": [1787.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.477}, "reply_to": "20949__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20949__2_014", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I think it refers to the Hawaiian plan, but what it says is, it kind of mirrors the language of the preemption clause and says State tax laws that relate to plans shall not... shall be preempted, in essence.\nI'm paraphrasing.\nAnd I think the concern there was that the Hawaii... the dispensation for the Hawaii plan might have created some indications that there were certain tax aspects of the Hawaii plan, that in fact Hawaii in some prior litigation involving a prototype of its plan had taken the position that the State enactment there was a tax, and therefore there was some Tenth Amendment protection.\nThere's some indication then that Congress was specifically concerned about the approach being taken by Hawaii in this prior litigation and saw the need to point out, as it did in 1974 when it rejected the executive branch's request that State tax laws be exempted from the preemption provision, that they should not have any charmed existence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1787.15, 1799.779, 1801.01, 1828.106], "stop_times": [1799.779, 1801.01, 1828.106, 1847.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.15}, "reply_to": "20949__2_013", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_015", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Mr. Caruso--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1847.06], "stop_times": [1847.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.06}, "reply_to": "20949__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20949__2_016", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--that they should be treated like any other law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1847.911], "stop_times": [1849.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.911}, "reply_to": "20949__2_015", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_017", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--May I ask you a different question?\nAm I right that your argument assumes the definition of provide as that word occurs in ERISA, and I think you're assuming that provide means provide in any way or by any means, whereas I would have thought that provide means... in order to have general application, I would have thought that provide meant, provide the means or the funds for the purchase or obtaining of these various kinds of benefits, and if it... if provide is defined in the latter way, then I take it that would be the end of your argument, but perhaps I don't understand your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1849.732, 1851.294], "stop_times": [1851.294, 1894.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.732}, "reply_to": "20949__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20949__2_018", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Of course, I disagree with your definition because I think the term otherwise was being used.\nOtherwise has a very broad meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1894.149, 1897.703], "stop_times": [1897.703, 1898.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.149}, "reply_to": "20949__2_017", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_019", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Okay, but if the definition were as I've suggested, then your argument would fail, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1898.922], "stop_times": [1905.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.922}, "reply_to": "20949__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20949__2_020", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Then I take it you would be saying that the tax is being imposed not on the plan but on a hospital.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1905.708], "stop_times": [1912.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1905.708}, "reply_to": "20949__2_019", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_021", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "To put it crudely, to provide means to finance.\nIf that is what provide means in ERISA, then your argument would not... would not get you to victory in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1912.202, 1914.273], "stop_times": [1914.273, 1923.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.202}, "reply_to": "20949__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20949__2_022", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I'm afraid I'm not... I don't feel that I can concede that point, because I think what Congress was saying is that they have structured a system of national tax exemption.\nIt's very clear, ERISA plans are not subject to taxation under the Federal system, and I think what was intended by the legislative history was, there was an indication by Congress that we're going to not allow the States to tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1923.028, 1934.636], "stop_times": [1934.636, 1947.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.028}, "reply_to": "20949__2_021", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_023", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "No, but on my theory, if we're going to treat pro... if we're going to treat the word provide as, in effect, synonymous with financing, then it would follow that the taxation here is not on the ERISA plan as the financing authority but, rather, on the ERISA plan wearing a different hat in operating a hospital, and if that's the way we analyze it, then I take it your argument would fail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1947.755], "stop_times": [1976.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.755}, "reply_to": "20949__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20949__2_024", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--I mean, that's one way to look at it, but the way I look at it, if Congress said that a State law that... a State tax law that relates to a plan is preempted, and the plan is the party that's paying that tax on the activities that make it a plan, then I would submit that if this type of law is not preempted, I don't know what other type of tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1976.754], "stop_times": [1997.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.754}, "reply_to": "20949__2_023", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_025", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "So in other words, if they have a travel bureau, if they decide in the... the ERISA plan decides to set up its own travel agent to arrange for employee vacations, and there's a uniform tax in the State on travel agents, it doesn't have to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [1997.057], "stop_times": [2011.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.057}, "reply_to": "20949__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_026", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--That... we would take the position that that doesn't involve the activities of the plan as a plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2011.159], "stop_times": [2016.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.159}, "reply_to": "20949__2_025", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_027", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, why... so if they have to pay that if they set up a travel bureau to arrange for employee vacations, why do they have to... how do they get out of paying when they set up a hospital to provide the employee medical treatment?\nIn both cases it's something that a plan normally buys--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2016.21, 2030.52], "stop_times": [2030.52, 2033.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.21}, "reply_to": "20949__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_028", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right, but it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2033.591], "stop_times": [2034.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.591}, "reply_to": "20949__2_027", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_029", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--from others, but in this particular instance it provides it itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2034.791], "stop_times": [2037.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.791}, "reply_to": "20949__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_030", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--But it isn't buying it here.\nI mean, there seems to be this understanding on the part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2037.635, 2038.604], "stop_times": [2038.604, 2040.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.635}, "reply_to": "20949__2_029", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_031", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "It isn't buying it with the travel agent either.\nIt's their own travel agent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2040.665, 2042.427], "stop_times": [2042.427, 2043.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.665}, "reply_to": "20949__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_032", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--But when... a travel agency may have one point, but in the case of a clinic that we operate, this is not like a commercial clinic.\nWe don't open this clinic to the public.\nWe're limiting these operations only to our ERISA-covered participants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2043.797, 2050.632, 2052.435], "stop_times": [2050.632, 2052.435, 2057.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.797}, "reply_to": "20949__2_031", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_033", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Mr. Caruso, it says through insurance or otherwise.\nSuppose your plan decided to provide its health benefits through insurance, and instead of buying insurance from anybody, it ran its own insurance company.\nWould State insurance laws not apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2057.568, 2060.038, 2071.916], "stop_times": [2060.038, 2071.916, 2077.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.568}, "reply_to": "20949__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__2_034", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, we're getting into the other area where we get into the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2077.86], "stop_times": [2080.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.86}, "reply_to": "20949__2_033", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_035", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "It's exactly parallel.\nThrough insurance or otherwise.\nYou're doing it otherwise, and you say since we're doing it otherwise, the State laws that regulate the otherwise don't apply.\nSuppose you did it through insurance?\nWould the State laws governing insurance apply?\nYou became your own insurance company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2080.851, 2082.443, 2084.246, 2089.308, 2091.168, 2092.962], "stop_times": [2082.443, 2084.246, 2089.308, 2091.168, 2092.962, 2095.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2080.851}, "reply_to": "20949__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__2_036", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--I would say no, because there's a... there's the deemer clause in ERISA itself which says that the State may not consider an ERISA plan an insurance company for purposes of insurance regulation, so this issue here where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2095.141], "stop_times": [2108.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.141}, "reply_to": "20949__2_035", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_037", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, but--\n--You wouldn't need it, then.\nThat really means the... where you haven't set up an insurance company, the deemer clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2108.489, 2109.16, 2110.161], "stop_times": [2109.16, 2110.161, 2116.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.489}, "reply_to": "20949__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__2_038", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--It's where your... there is insurance regulation that the State is trying to apply to the fund as an insurer.\nIt's taking the position, well, this is really insurance regulation, and I think Congress has specifically said in that situation when you're the direct provider of insurance, in essence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2116.236, 2121.529], "stop_times": [2121.529, 2132.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.236}, "reply_to": "20949__2_037", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_039", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2132.075], "stop_times": [2132.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.075}, "reply_to": "20949__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__2_040", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--you've got a different status--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2132.496], "stop_times": [2133.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.496}, "reply_to": "20949__2_039", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_041", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--You wouldn't have to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2133.477], "stop_times": [2134.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.477}, "reply_to": "20949__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__2_042", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--as opposed to going out and purchasing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2134.819], "stop_times": [2136.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.819}, "reply_to": "20949__2_041", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_043", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Why was the deemer clause put in the statute if, as you tell us, it is clear from the general preemption provision that if you're providing insurance directly you can't be regulated, just as if you're providing otherwise directly you can't be regulated?\nI mean, it seems to me that they envisioned insurance, but they said elsewhere in the statute the States aren't going to regulate you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2136.128, 2150.517], "stop_times": [2150.517, 2160.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.128}, "reply_to": "20949__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__2_044", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, in the insurance area--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2160.605], "stop_times": [2162.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.605}, "reply_to": "20949__2_043", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_045", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "As an insurer, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2162.275], "stop_times": [2163.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.275}, "reply_to": "20949__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__2_046", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--In the insurance area they specifically say insurance regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2163.076], "stop_times": [2165.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.076}, "reply_to": "20949__2_045", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_047", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But what about the otherwise?\nThe otherwise is hospitals.\nThat's the most obvious way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2165.377, 2165.777, 2166.899], "stop_times": [2165.777, 2166.899, 2168.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.377}, "reply_to": "20949__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__2_048", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2168.019], "stop_times": [2168.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.019}, "reply_to": "20949__2_047", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_049", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But it doesn't say in a deemer clause, shall not be deemed to be a hospital.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2168.269], "stop_times": [2172.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.269}, "reply_to": "20949__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20949__2_050", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I understand that.\nThey didn't do it there because Congress didn't envision that a State was going to be taxing the operations of a plan when the plan was directly providing services as a plan.\nThere was no need for it to say that we have to deem it not to be a hospital, because a plan is a hospital.\nAnd I understand that under Justice Souter's definition that if provide means only to finance, then I think perhaps the result would be different, but I'm suggesting to you that the word otherwise allows plans to do more than just pay insurance or provide financing, but rather to actually engage in the provision of the services directly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2172.082, 2173.444, 2183.869, 2189.863], "stop_times": [2173.444, 2183.869, 2189.863, 2210.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.082}, "reply_to": "20949__2_049", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_051", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But you do agree that the plan-operated medical center would be subject to regulations, the State qualifications for physicians, for staff people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2210.457], "stop_times": [2227.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.457}, "reply_to": "20949__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_052", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "We're not suggesting otherwise.\nI mean, again, it's not our case.\nIt hasn't arisen yet.\nMaybe it's an area that may have to be addressed at some later time to see whether ERISA can be read to indicate that Congress had an intent to restrict regulation in that area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2227.447, 2230.089, 2231.771, 2233.161], "stop_times": [2230.089, 2231.771, 2233.161, 2245.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.447}, "reply_to": "20949__2_051", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_053", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--But I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2245.41], "stop_times": [2245.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.41}, "reply_to": "20949__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_054", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I can't see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2245.79], "stop_times": [2246.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.79}, "reply_to": "20949__2_053", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_055", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2246.301], "stop_times": [2246.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.301}, "reply_to": "20949__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_056", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I don't see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2246.682], "stop_times": [2247.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.682}, "reply_to": "20949__2_055", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_057", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--You don't see which, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2247.312], "stop_times": [2250.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.312}, "reply_to": "20949__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_058", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "I do not see that anything in ERISA would suggest that the State could not exercise its traditional police powers in regulating health care service.\nWhat I say here is, though, that when I look at ERISA there is a specific provision on taxation.\nWhat I'm saying, when the tax is being imposed on the plan when the plan is engaging in hospital--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2250.984, 2260.259, 2264.961], "stop_times": [2260.259, 2264.961, 2270.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.984}, "reply_to": "20949__2_057", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_059", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--But if we take out your tax reference and say, we read that as discrete to this special Hawaii situation so please concentrate on the statute without that provision, then what is your distinction between the tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2270.447], "stop_times": [2284.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2270.447}, "reply_to": "20949__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_060", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--I would hope you wouldn't do that, because I think if you looked in 1974, the executive branch actually went to Congress and said to Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2284.976], "stop_times": [2291.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2284.976}, "reply_to": "20949__2_059", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_061", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Well, I'm asking you to do that.\nAnd now distinguish for me the taxation from the regulation, without the special reference to taxation that you find.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2291.051, 2292.16], "stop_times": [2292.16, 2300.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.051}, "reply_to": "20949__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_062", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Well, I think there's a direct relationship when the fund is being asked to take some of its assets and provide those assets to the State, to the State's general coffers.\nI don't think ERISA intended that type of State imposition on ERISA plans.\nI mean, it's just contrary to the whole structure of tax exemption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2300.076, 2310.011, 2316.076], "stop_times": [2310.011, 2316.076, 2320.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.076}, "reply_to": "20949__2_061", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_063", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, it can't just be that it's getting money from the State, from... and putting it into the State's coffers, because you've already said unemployment compensation, sales tax, that's all okay, even though that comes out of the corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2320.099], "stop_times": [2332.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.099}, "reply_to": "20949__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20949__2_064", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--I agree with you.\nWhat I'm saying, when it's being imposed on the fund's contributions and benefit plans, not on it's incidental activities in providing the services, and I think if you take the position... what I'm particularly concerned about is if we're going to slice it that thin, that what's to prevent the States from taxing the income of the funds, from tax... if they're allowed to tax the contributions, that's the corpus.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2332.848, 2333.187, 2360.094], "stop_times": [2333.187, 2360.094, 2360.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.848}, "reply_to": "20949__2_063", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_065", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "The line, I think, that they want to draw, the Government, is to say, distinguish between, in the benefit area, that which does the buying, namely the plan, and that which is bought, namely, the benefits, and in the case where you're talking about the latter, by and large you can impose uniform taxes, and if it turns out that in a particular instance the former, namely that which does the buying, itself decides to provide that which is normally bought, it's treated as if it bought it.\nNow, that's a clear line.\nIt's administrable.\nIt... you take away your horror cases by saying, fine, if they provide a horror tax, that's different, and what line would you provide?\nI mean, you see, that's the virtue of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2360.905, 2390.013, 2391.976, 2393.527, 2402.092], "stop_times": [2390.013, 2391.976, 2393.527, 2402.092, 2405.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.905}, "reply_to": "20949__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_066", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Well, if you took that approach, then that's what saying, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2405.067], "stop_times": [2405.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.067}, "reply_to": "20949__2_065", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_067", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2405.354], "stop_times": [2405.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2405.354}, "reply_to": "20949__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_068", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--if ERISA... an ERISA plan cannot be defined as the direct provider.\nThat's what you're in essence saying, that it really becomes the hospital, even though becoming the hospital is what an ERISA plan is supposed to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2405.875, 2409.518], "stop_times": [2409.518, 2417.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.875}, "reply_to": "20949__2_067", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_069", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Well, they don't always... they don't necessarily... the ERISA plan I take it in many instances buys hospital care from others.\nIt doesn't often--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2417.713, 2423.576], "stop_times": [2423.576, 2424.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.713}, "reply_to": "20949__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_070", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "It does that on occasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2424.447], "stop_times": [2425.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.447}, "reply_to": "20949__2_069", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_071", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Yes, well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2425.329], "stop_times": [2425.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2425.329}, "reply_to": "20949__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_072", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "In that situation then it would be treated like other buyers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2425.789], "stop_times": [2428.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.789}, "reply_to": "20949__2_071", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_073", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--So why... but if you take your position, then what you do is, you simply get the ERISA plans themselves, through a real tax advantage, to start going into the businesses of providing those things which normally would be bought from others, and they'd get a tax break.\nWhy?\nWhy would Congress want that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2428.051, 2448.845, 2450.384], "stop_times": [2448.845, 2450.384, 2451.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.051}, "reply_to": "20949__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_074", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Because Congress has done it that way, and I think you'll find that if you look at the Metropolitan Life case, that the same type of special status was given to self-insured plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2451.947], "stop_times": [2460.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.947}, "reply_to": "20949__2_073", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_075", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "So your actual answer, if you happen to have an ERISA plan that bought paid vacations for its employees, and they decide to go into the travel business limited to employees, the answer then to the question is, they're tax exempt, right, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2460.472], "stop_times": [2473.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.472}, "reply_to": "20949__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_076", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2473.089], "stop_times": [2473.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.089}, "reply_to": "20949__2_075", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_077", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Yes, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2473.519], "stop_times": [2473.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.519}, "reply_to": "20949__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20949__2_078", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2473.96], "stop_times": [2474.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.96}, "reply_to": "20949__2_077", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_079", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "But am I correct in understanding you do... you would not make the same argument about regulations such as the requirement of a second opinion of a physician?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2474.381], "stop_times": [2482.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.381}, "reply_to": "20949__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20949__2_080", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2482.385], "stop_times": [2483.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2482.385}, "reply_to": "20949__2_079", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_081", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "You draw the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2483.045], "stop_times": [2483.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.045}, "reply_to": "20949__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20949__2_082", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "That is correct.\nIf there are no further questions, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2483.767, 2484.758], "stop_times": [2484.758, 2488.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.767}, "reply_to": "20949__2_081", "speaker": "donato_caruso"}
{"id": "20949__2_083", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Caruso.\nMs. Smith, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2488.669, 2490.84], "stop_times": [2490.84, 2493.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.669}, "reply_to": "20949__2_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20949__3_000", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Your Honor, the HFA is not a tax on benefit contributions.\nIt's a tax on hospital receipts.\nThe characterization is equally applicable to any time a plan purchases services from any hospital, so when Mount Sinai, a private, nonplan-owned hospital, receives benefit payments from any other plan, Mount Sinai can claim we can't pay the HFA because the plan made these payments.\nIt's a contribution, and therefore it's a tax on plan contributions.\nWhile to the plan that makes the payments when they're purchasing services, whether it's health care services or day care services, it may represent a benefit payment, to the taxed entity, to the hospital, to the day care center, it is simply income.\nSecondly, in these service areas, if you can regulate these entities, you should tax them, you should be able to tax them, because ERISA makes no distinction in its preemption provision between regulatory laws and tax laws.\nWith or without the Hawaii prepaid legal services... I mean, sorry, the Hawaii prepaid... yes, health service exemption, State tax laws are treated the same.\nThey are relate... they are preempted only if they relate-to, and the State's argument is in these service areas you may regulate without regard to ERISA plans, and therefore you may tax in these areas without regard to the fact that ERISA plans are purchasing services in these areas.\nFinally, Your Honor, outside of these service areas the tax issue is a complicated one, and one which is really not fully addressed in these briefs.\nFor instance, the notion that ERISA plans are carte blanche exempt from Federal and State taxation is simply not correct.\nI would urge you in this case not to get into a general tax analysis, and the State itself is limiting its argument to the purchase of services and the taxing of services in these areas which are matters of traditional State concerns.\nIt's not necessary to determine whether the States can tax the corpus of trusts.\nThose are... present different and perhaps more complicated issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2493.662, 2501.519, 2504.1, 2525.535, 2529.385, 2544.906, 2563.519, 2574.085, 2594.039, 2603.093, 2611.201, 2627.119, 2632.074], "stop_times": [2501.519, 2504.1, 2525.535, 2529.385, 2544.906, 2563.519, 2574.085, 2594.039, 2603.093, 2611.201, 2627.119, 2632.074, 2636.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2493.662}, "reply_to": "20949__2_083", "speaker": "m_patricia_smith"}
{"id": "20949__3_001", "conversation_id": "20949", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Smith.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1594", "start_times": [2636.777, 2640.062], "stop_times": [2640.062, 2641.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.777}, "reply_to": "20949__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__0_000", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 95-1521, United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc.--\nMr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [0.0, 12.119], "stop_times": [12.119, 13.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__0_001", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves a challenge to undertakings by the United States in connection with a comprehensive plan of action, an international agreement entered into by 50 countries in 1989 to address the migrant crisis in Southeast Asia in the 1980's.\nBy 1989, 750,000 migrants from Vietnam alone had fled to other countries.\nSome countries began to turn back the migrants at sea, which resulted in a loss of life, and Hong Kong revoked its prior policy of treating the arrived migrants as presumptive refugees, and began to treat them instead as illegal aliens.\nThe comprehensive plan of action, or CPA, was designed to diffuse this crisis, to protect those migrants who genuinely feared persecution, to save the loss of life, or to prevent the loss of life, and also to control further illegal immigration.\nUnder the CPA, Vietnamese and Laotians were permitted to land in Hong Kong and other countries, and to seek refugee status there.\nThose who were screened in or found to be refugees under international standards and under the auspices of the UNHCR were permitted to remain temporarily and seek resettlement in third countries, but a central tenet of the CPA was those that were screened and found not to be refugees would be repatriated to their countries of origin.\nThat would be either voluntarily, it was hoped, or if need be, eventually involuntarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [13.601, 17.534, 33.893, 40.197, 54.116, 72.559, 82.176, 103.477], "stop_times": [17.534, 33.893, 40.197, 54.116, 72.559, 82.176, 103.477, 108.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.601}, "reply_to": "20141__0_000", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_002", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, may I ask you to clarify at the outset what the Government's position is with respect to the statement by the respondents that the respondents requested the State Department to seek from the Hong Kong Government an extension of the undertaking to process these people to cover the proceedings on remand, and that the Department refused, so that a remand would force the Hong Kong Government's undertaking to lapse and would likely subject respondents to immediate forcible repatriation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [108.723], "stop_times": [153.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.723}, "reply_to": "20141__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_003", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I'm afraid there must have been some confusion.\nI'm informed by the State Department that the State Department did not refuse that.\nAnd I'm informed that last week there were discussions approaching the Government of Hong Kong about this.\nThose discussions again were taken up over the weekend, and just this morning we received from Hong Kong a letter in which Hong Kong... and I just received it.\nI've given it to opposing counsel, but we did not have time to transmit it to the Court this morning.\nIn that letter, Hong Kong confirms a request made by the United States that the 24 Vietnamese migrants who are listed in an attached memorandum who are the plaintiffs in this case, and those of Lisa Le, basically the migrants for whom we previously had requested and obtained assurances, would not be repatriated before January 1997, January 31, 1997 or the completion of this case, whichever comes first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [153.232, 157.634, 162.386, 168.801, 180.209, 184.561], "stop_times": [157.634, 162.386, 168.801, 180.209, 184.561, 212.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.232}, "reply_to": "20141__0_002", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_004", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "I took that to be what you represented to this Court in your motion to join... in your response to the motion to join additional parties, because there you said that the Government obtained insurances from the Hong Kong Government that both the Lisa Le plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in this case would not be forcibly repatriated during appellate and Supreme Court proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [212.301], "stop_times": [236.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.301}, "reply_to": "20141__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_005", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [236.324], "stop_times": [236.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.324}, "reply_to": "20141__0_004", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_006", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "So am I correct in saying the appellate proceedings would encompass whatever happens in the Lisa Le case in the D.C. Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [236.815], "stop_times": [244.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.815}, "reply_to": "20141__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_007", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "On remand through January 31.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [244.281, 246.943], "stop_times": [246.943, 247.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.281}, "reply_to": "20141__0_006", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_008", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "And this case on remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [247.363], "stop_times": [248.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.363}, "reply_to": "20141__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_009", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--And this case on remand.\nThe Government of Hong Kong is understandably getting somewhat impatient and also, with the reversion of Hong Kong to China on June 30, the Government of Hong Kong is eager to have the return of the migrants completed and especially, given the recent enactment of section 633 of the Illegal Immigration Reform Act, which removes the statutory basis for the claim, the circumstances of this case have substantially changed, but yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [248.483, 249.454], "stop_times": [249.454, 279.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.483}, "reply_to": "20141__0_008", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_010", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But your view is... your representation is that it's January 30 or the termination of proceedings here and in the D.C. Circuit, whichever is earlier?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [279.805], "stop_times": [290.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.805}, "reply_to": "20141__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_011", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [290.421], "stop_times": [291.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.421}, "reply_to": "20141__0_010", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_012", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "The January 30 date or the termination of proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [291.252], "stop_times": [293.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.252}, "reply_to": "20141__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_013", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [293.402], "stop_times": [294.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.402}, "reply_to": "20141__0_012", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_014", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "That has been asked for, or that has been received?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [294.524], "stop_times": [297.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.524}, "reply_to": "20141__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__0_015", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "It was requested--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [297.066], "stop_times": [298.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.066}, "reply_to": "20141__0_014", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_016", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "It was requested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [298.255], "stop_times": [299.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.255}, "reply_to": "20141__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__0_017", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--and received this morning.\nWe just received back a fax this morning from Hong Kong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [299.657, 300.939], "stop_times": [300.939, 303.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 299.657}, "reply_to": "20141__0_016", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_018", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, if we--\n--Saying that the Hong Kong Government has agreed to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [303.581, 304.93], "stop_times": [304.93, 307.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.581}, "reply_to": "20141__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__0_019", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [307.411], "stop_times": [308.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.411}, "reply_to": "20141__0_018", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_020", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "And if we were to vacate and remand, would you have objection to the D.C. Court entering a stay based on those terms?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [308.071], "stop_times": [314.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.071}, "reply_to": "20141__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20141__0_021", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "A stay in this case, a stay is not necessary because no injunction was ever entered in this case.\nThe district court granted summary judgment for the Government and the court of appeals remanded for further proceedings consistent with its decision.\nIn the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [314.587, 322.872, 330.267], "stop_times": [322.872, 330.267, 331.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.587}, "reply_to": "20141__0_020", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_022", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But if we were to vacate and remand, what would the situation be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [331.537], "stop_times": [335.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.537}, "reply_to": "20141__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20141__0_023", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--The situation would be, pursuant to these representations, Hong Kong would not involuntarily repatriate anyone in this case or the Lisa Le case before January 31 unless the case was earlier terminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [335.1], "stop_times": [352.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.1}, "reply_to": "20141__0_022", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_024", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "The D.C. Circuit had not earlier entered a stay, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [352.33], "stop_times": [357.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.33}, "reply_to": "20141__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_025", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "In the Lisa Le case it did, because the district court in the Lisa Le case had entered injunctions based on the panel's ruling in this case.\nThe district court in that case entered a series of injunctions which... the D.C. Circuit for a month declined a stay.\nWe filed a stay application here, and then when that stay application was ripe for consideration the D.C. Circuit entered a stay and the... I think the representations we previously had obtained from Hong Kong were perhaps instrumental in that stay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [357.134, 363.829, 370.725], "stop_times": [363.829, 370.725, 386.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.134}, "reply_to": "20141__0_024", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_026", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "A stay of what?\nIt certainly wasn't a stay of Hong Kong's deportation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [386.215, 386.615], "stop_times": [386.615, 389.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.215}, "reply_to": "20141__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__0_027", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "No, a stay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [389.467], "stop_times": [389.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.467}, "reply_to": "20141__0_026", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_028", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--I think our writ doesn't run that far yet, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [389.695], "stop_times": [392.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.695}, "reply_to": "20141__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__0_029", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Right.\nNo.\nIt was a stay of the injunctions requiring... preventing the State Department from declining to process the visa applications of Hong Kong, and basically the stay plus Hong Kong's assurances maintains the status quo.\nOf course, the... that representation does not prevent anyone from voluntarily repatriating.\nWe're only talking about involuntary repatriations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [392.059, 392.857, 393.188, 407.658, 414.723], "stop_times": [392.857, 393.188, 407.658, 414.723, 419.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.059}, "reply_to": "20141__0_028", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_030", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, as long as we've gotten into facts, may I ask you about the Government's position on one other factual issue which I'm not sure of?\nThe respondents, as I recall, made the representation... this goes to the merits of their claim... that with respect to refugees who had been screened out who were in Hong Kong from other countries than Vietnam, the United States continues to, or has, I guess, never refused to process immigrant visa applications, and that it is only those from Vietnam who have been the subject of this policy pursuant to this agreement.\nAnd I... that interests me because it seems to be a response to the Government's position that in fact the reason for the Government's action is not the nationality of the plaintiffs but the illegality of their status, and the respondents are saying there are plenty of others with equally illegal status, but if they are from a different country they are being treated differently.\nIs that... is the respondent's claim factually correct, as you understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [419.124, 426.46, 463.714, 487.122], "stop_times": [426.46, 463.714, 487.122, 491.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.124}, "reply_to": "20141__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__0_031", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, the... let me explain it this way.\nThe basis for the Government's policy is that persons who are screened out under the CPA must return to their country of origin rather than applying in the country of first asylum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [491.864, 495.457], "stop_times": [495.457, 507.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.864}, "reply_to": "20141__0_030", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_032", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Does the CPA cover anything other than Vietnamese refugees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [507.384], "stop_times": [510.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.384}, "reply_to": "20141__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__0_033", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "It also covers Laotians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [510.577], "stop_times": [512.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.577}, "reply_to": "20141__0_032", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_034", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Laotians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [512.525], "stop_times": [513.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.525}, "reply_to": "20141__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__0_035", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But in Hong Kong it's true the vast majority, in fact virtually all of the migrants subject to the CPA in Hong Kong are from Vietnam, but the... this was... this is a situation in which, in fact, there are no other aliens similarly situated to those covered by the CPA.\nThe CPA was a unique but perhaps precedent-setting international agreement to address migrant crisis of a sort of that the world is unfortunately very familiar with over the last 3 or 4 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [513.047, 531.308], "stop_times": [531.308, 542.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.047}, "reply_to": "20141__0_034", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_036", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "You're saying the class, save for Vietnamese and Laotians, is an empty class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [542.005], "stop_times": [545.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.005}, "reply_to": "20141__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__0_037", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, yes, because the CPA was entered into to address a migrant crisis that was itself country-specific, and it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [545.629], "stop_times": [553.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.629}, "reply_to": "20141__0_036", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_038", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Right, but I think if I understand your answer, it is there are no refugees from other countries than Vietnam and Laos in Hong Kong who have been screened out and who are applying for immigrant visa status.\nThere are no such individuals, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [553.984, 568.784], "stop_times": [568.784, 570.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.984}, "reply_to": "20141__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__0_039", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Under the CPA, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [570.895], "stop_times": [572.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.895}, "reply_to": "20141__0_038", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_040", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, not under the CPA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [572.237], "stop_times": [573.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.237}, "reply_to": "20141__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__0_041", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [573.647], "stop_times": [573.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.647}, "reply_to": "20141__0_040", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_042", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Regardless of the CPA.\nThey're either there or they're not there.\nAre there any such making applications?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [573.977, 575.219, 576.558], "stop_times": [575.219, 576.558, 579.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.977}, "reply_to": "20141__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__0_043", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--I frankly cannot represent whether there are people from other... from other countries besides Vietnam and Laos.\nThis agreement was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [579.139, 588.305], "stop_times": [588.305, 589.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.139}, "reply_to": "20141__0_042", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_044", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "This class includes only those people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [589.667], "stop_times": [591.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.667}, "reply_to": "20141__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_045", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [591.468], "stop_times": [591.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.468}, "reply_to": "20141__0_044", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_046", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "The CPA doesn't apply, and you wouldn't be following that with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [591.828], "stop_times": [596.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.828}, "reply_to": "20141__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_047", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [596.41], "stop_times": [596.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.41}, "reply_to": "20141__0_046", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_048", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--nationals from any countries--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [596.69], "stop_times": [597.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.69}, "reply_to": "20141__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_049", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "That's correct.\nThe predicate for the application of this policy is the CPA in which the United States and other countries undertook as a way of... let me be clear about this.\nThe CPA is a comprehensive agreement that has a number of parts to it, and the central part was, in order to get the countries of first asylum to allow people to land in the first place, they had to have some assurance of a screening opportunity and those found to be refugees would be resettled.\nBut an important corollary is, those found not to be refugees would be returned, and that... but the people found not to be refugees includes those who happen to have current visa petitions filed on behalf of them in the United States and others, and the United States, in consultation with UNHCR and other countries of first asylum, concluded that it was essential to carrying out the CPA to maintain that with respect to those migrants who were covered by the CPA.\nAgain, this was a problem migrant crisis-specific agreement, country-specific agreement, and in the conduct of foreign relations and addressing migrant crises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [597.942, 598.293, 607.061, 623.473, 649.86], "stop_times": [598.293, 607.061, 623.473, 649.86, 659.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.942}, "reply_to": "20141__0_048", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_050", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--So the CPA arose as a result out of massive migration of Vietnamese and Laotians--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [659.387], "stop_times": [665.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.387}, "reply_to": "20141__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__0_051", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [665.411], "stop_times": [665.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.411}, "reply_to": "20141__0_050", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_052", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--and not anybody else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [665.841], "stop_times": [666.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.841}, "reply_to": "20141__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__0_053", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "That's correct, and it was that problem the CPA addressed, and we think it would be odd indeed if the United States in its conduct of foreign relations, where it can treat different nations differently for legitimate foreign policy concerns, could not also treat the nationals of those different nations differently depending on the circumstances that have arisen in the bilateral or unilateral... I mean, multilateral arrangements, and also just in the real world taking account of what has caused the outflow of migrants.\nMost migrant crises are country-specific, resulting from the internal conditions of a particular country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [666.633, 699.685], "stop_times": [699.685, 705.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.633}, "reply_to": "20141__0_052", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_054", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, in the proceedings below, as I understand the record, the Government argued that there was discrimination against Vietnamese nationals but it could be justified on a rational basis, and as I understand the argument made by the Government now is, there was no discrimination at all.\nAnd on a secondary point, I think the record discloses that in the courts below the Government did not argue that the language of the statute referring to issuance of a visa did not include accepting a visa application.\nWere either of these arguments raised by the Government below?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [705.879, 730.255, 750.829], "stop_times": [730.255, 750.829, 755.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.879}, "reply_to": "20141__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20141__0_055", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, in... going to the second one first for the moment, the... we did argue that... I think the argument that respondents make is that we did not argue that the question of consular venue is separately addressed and exclusively addressed by 8 U.S.C. 1202(a), which says that a person shall apply for a visa in such locations as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation.\nBut we certainly did argue that this was... that 1152(a)(1), which bars preference or priority or discrimination in the issuance of visas, did not apply to consular venue, and the argument that consular venue is separately addressed by 1202(a) is just a further argument in support of our basic claim that the... that 1152(a)(1) did not apply to this at all.\nAnd in fact what we did argue in the court of appeals is that the regulation that the Secretary issued, which changed on appeal and the court of appeals applied the amended regulation on appeal, that that was issued pursuant, as we point out in our brief, to the very specific authority in 1202(a), which is the consular venue statutory provision.\nSo we think all these arguments were presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [755.581, 782.479, 809.526, 830.031], "stop_times": [782.479, 809.526, 830.031, 832.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.581}, "reply_to": "20141__0_054", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_056", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "How about the discrimination point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [832.512], "stop_times": [835.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.512}, "reply_to": "20141__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20141__0_057", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "In the lower court we argued that this was... that this was not discrimination, at least that's my understanding, and also that... but beyond that the position here that this... that... I don't know if one calls it justification, or it's not discrimination, that you can look at it either way, that discrimination is a conclusion that encompasses whatever justifications may be offered for the policy, or that it's not discrimination in the first place.\nIf the question just focused on whether there were distinctions, then the statute would use distinctions, but it uses the word discrimination, which I think we would view as being a conclusion, and read into that should be, particularly on something like consular venue, the ability of the United States to take into account nationality considerations.\nAs we point out in our brief, when Congress enacted this provision in 1965, it had long been the policy of the United States before then and since then, for example, to adopt special procedures for security purposes for aliens from particular nations, from communist bloc countries for a while, and as the... there's a declaration cited at page 17 of our... of the petition that describes that history and describes what was before Congress in 1965.\nI think that goes to both... to actually two points, that 1152(a)(1), the nondiscrimination provision, didn't apply to the applications for visas in the first place, but even if it did.\nCongress couldn't have not... could not have meant to absolutely prohibit the... irrespective of the justification the taking into account of nationality in the processing, in the procedures for the filing, the venue, and the review of visa applications, that the nondiscrimination provision was really intended from the outset to apply only to the allocation of visas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [835.152, 866.105, 886.698, 914.976, 927.023], "stop_times": [866.105, 886.698, 914.976, 927.023, 954.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.152}, "reply_to": "20141__0_056", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_058", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Let me ask you one more question.\nThe Government now urges us to vacate and remand because of the very recent amendment to section 1152(a)(1).\nDoes that recent amendment cover all of the respondent's claims?\nDidn't they make constitution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [954.522, 956.912, 969.882, 978.298], "stop_times": [956.912, 969.882, 978.298, 980.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 954.522}, "reply_to": "20141__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20141__0_059", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "They did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [980.989], "stop_times": [982.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.989}, "reply_to": "20141__0_058", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_060", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Constitutional arguments and other things that haven't been addressed by the Court and that might not be covered by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [982.539], "stop_times": [988.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.539}, "reply_to": "20141__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20141__0_061", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Right.\nThey made two further arguments.\nFirst of all, in the statutory argument, as we said in our brief, the recent amendment we think is dispositive, and one more piece of information on that I'd like to call the Court's attention to.\nAt page 21 of respondent's brief in footnote 13 they cite a letter that was sent to the... by 45 Members of Congress to the President in early August urging the President to drop his support for the provision of the bill that was ultimately enacted in 6... as 633 that was then in conference, 45 Members of Congress, and they said apparently those provisions were included in the House and Senate bills at the behest of the State Department in order to overturn the adverse result of the LAVAS decision, so it's entirely clear that the Members of Congress when considering this provision, when it finally emerged from conference, knew that it was proposed for the purpose of and would have the effect of overturning the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [988.644, 989.265, 991.147, 1002.032], "stop_times": [989.265, 991.147, 1002.032, 1046.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.644}, "reply_to": "20141__0_060", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_062", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Mr. Kneedler, the respondents here have sought only injunctive and declarative relief, haven't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1046.512], "stop_times": [1051.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1046.512}, "reply_to": "20141__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__0_063", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1051.397], "stop_times": [1052.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.397}, "reply_to": "20141__0_062", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_064", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "They did... they've not sought damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1052.008], "stop_times": [1053.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.008}, "reply_to": "20141__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__0_065", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "No, that's correct, and we think it's clear, quite aside from this legislative history making clear that this was intended to apply to this very situation, the usual principles governing prospective relief would make clear that it's effective prospectively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1053.898], "stop_times": [1066.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.898}, "reply_to": "20141__0_064", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_066", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, the respondents have come back and said, oh, but we also want reparative injunctive relief looking to the past.\nDo you know what that's all about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1066.718, 1077.113], "stop_times": [1077.113, 1078.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.718}, "reply_to": "20141__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20141__0_067", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, not entirely, because it would seem to us that any injunctive relief in this case would direct the Secretary of State to provide for the issuance of visas in Hong Kong in the future, and that's the very reason why prospective relief cannot be granted if it would be in conflict with a new statute, and the conference and House reports on this legislation say that it was just intended to clarify the fact that the Secretary of State has unreviewable authority to establish visa venue rules, so it's clear that Congress was ratifying the Secretary's interpretation of the statute and intended to maintain the status quo.\nIn fact, the text of 633 says that nothing in this paragraph... meaning 1152(a)(1)... shall be construed to prohibit the Secretary from establishing procedures for the filing of applications.\nRespondents are asking this Court to construe 1152(a)(1) in a way that would apply to bar the Secretary from doing exactly that, so it seems to me the statute speaks directly to what this Court is being asked to do.\nI'd like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1078.993, 1123.244, 1139.404, 1154.303], "stop_times": [1123.244, 1139.404, 1154.303, 1154.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1078.993}, "reply_to": "20141__0_066", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_068", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, with respect to the two issues that were not decided by the D.C. Circuit, they haven't been considered, and you concede that they are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1154.874], "stop_times": [1169.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.874}, "reply_to": "20141__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_069", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1169.844], "stop_times": [1170.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.844}, "reply_to": "20141__0_068", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_070", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--in the case and would be ripe for consideration, but the case... this case and Lisa Le both raising the same questions but going on different tracks are somewhat confusing, disorderly.\nWhat's the Government's plan for proceeding should we grant your request to vacate and remand to the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration in light of the very recent legislative change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1170.415, 1187.809], "stop_times": [1187.809, 1200.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.415}, "reply_to": "20141__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_071", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Excuse me.\nI... we would seek an expeditious response in the lower court.\nWhether that would involve presenting the whole matter to the full court or waiting for the panel to rule would be a different... a question we would have to discuss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1200.204, 1201.606, 1205.219], "stop_times": [1201.606, 1205.219, 1218.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.204}, "reply_to": "20141__0_070", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_072", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Currently you have a panel in this case and an en banc court in Lisa Le.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1218.549], "stop_times": [1223.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1218.549}, "reply_to": "20141__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_073", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Right, that is correct.\nNow, there is... we recognize the confusion, and there is something to be said, we acknowledge, for this Court going ahead and deciding the case now that it's been briefed and argued and presented to it.\nOur suggestion of a remand in this case all along, however, was based on this Court's usual course when there's been an intervening change in the law and also when other issues are in the case that haven't been addressed.\nI would like briefly to address those two other issues, getting back to Justice O'Connor's question on them.\nThe first of the other two claims is one that the policy is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.\nThere are two problems with that.\nThe first is that judicial review of that claim is precluded, as was judicial review of the statutory claim, and that is itself true for two reasons.\nOne, the comprehensive judicial review provisions of the INA establish that review is precluded under the INA, or, excuse me, under the APA, and also visa matters, including consular venue matters, are of the sort traditionally committed to agency discretion, and therefore barred... judicial review is barred for that reason as well.\nWith respect to the preclusion of review, I would just like to point out that the INA contains provisions for judicial review of deportation orders of people who've entered the United States, and also for judicial review of people who are seeking to enter the United States, but in the latter category, only when somebody has arrived at our shores and is in exclusion proceedings and can seek review in habeas corpus, but not because exclusion matters are generally appropriate for judicial review, but because the person is in custody, and therefore has access to habeas corpus.\nIn this Court's decision in Brownell v. Tom We Shung in 1956, the Court held that an alien in the United States could have access to the APA to seek judicial review in an exclusion matter, but the Court pointed out it was not suggesting, of course, that an alien who had never reached our shores would be able to do that, and it also cited legislative history of the '52 act in which an exclusive review provision was deleted in which the... in which Congress made clear that it was not providing for review of consular officer decisions, or changing review under the INA.\nThen in 1961, Congress came along and specifically overturned the Brownell decision, and provided for judicial review in exclusion only... in exclusion matters only in habeas corpus, and not otherwise, intending to remove the APA, the very basis on which respondents seek to bring a challenge in this case.\nAnd in fact the Court... we spell this out at pages 25 to 28 of our brief, and in fact the House report on that legislation says that permitting an APA suit would\n\"give recognition to a fallacious doctrine that an alien has a right to enter this country which he may litigate in the courts of the United States against the U.S. Government as a defendant. \"\nWell, if that was true with respect to aliens who had reached our shores, then a fortiori would be true with respect to aliens who are in Hong Kong who have no rights under the United States Constitution with respect to their admission and no statutory rights that they can invoke in court.\nBut even if this Court were somehow to get around the preclusion of judicial review, we think the respondent's APA claim would fail on the merits.\nThis is certainly not an arbitrary and capricious policy.\nThe explanation is spelled out at pages 217 to 219 of the Joint Appendix in this case, in which the cable that went to the field in October of 1994 explains that this policy was reinstated after a careful review, after concerns were received from UNHCR and other first... and first asylum countries that screening or processing immigrant visas in Hong Kong and other first asylum countries was discouraging people from returning voluntarily and therefore was seriously undermining the comprehensive plan of action.\nThe State Department also pointed out that since 1990, when it had adopted the opposite view, it believed that conditions in Vietnam had improved, and therefore it was appropriate to insist that people return there before filing for visas to come to the U.S.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1223.084, 1223.862, 1237.152, 1248.529, 1253.361, 1261.586, 1262.607, 1271.403, 1292.156, 1323.498, 1358.831, 1378.536, 1389.292, 1398.377, 1414.939, 1422.754, 1425.746, 1462.321], "stop_times": [1223.862, 1237.152, 1248.529, 1253.361, 1261.586, 1262.607, 1271.403, 1292.156, 1323.498, 1358.831, 1378.536, 1389.292, 1398.377, 1414.939, 1422.754, 1425.746, 1462.321, 1477.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1223.084}, "reply_to": "20141__0_072", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_074", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, are you aware of any case that... where questions such as these were raised below, not touched there, and where this Court responded to them as... not as a court of review but the only court to pass on them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1477.821], "stop_times": [1495.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.821}, "reply_to": "20141__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__0_075", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Not specifically.\nThe Court surely has the power to do it, and we don't deny that, and frankly we believe the other two claims can be very readily disposed of, and so we... that's one of the reasons why on remand we would expect the court of appeals to readily dispose of the claims.\nThe court of appeals itself, for example, applied the change in the regulation on appeal, even though the respondents were invoking claims under the prior regulation, on the theory that no one has a vested right in receiving a visa, and if there's a change in the law, that should be applied.\nWe would expect the court to do that.\nIn fact, we would expect Congress understood, knowing the LAVAS decision, that that would be the rule and it's change in the law would be applied.\nThat's another piece of information.\nBut specifically, no, but we understand that the Court has the power.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1495.143, 1498.204, 1514.024, 1528.044, 1529.554, 1536.82, 1539.063, 1545.108], "stop_times": [1498.204, 1514.024, 1528.044, 1529.554, 1536.82, 1539.063, 1545.108, 1546.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.143}, "reply_to": "20141__0_074", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_076", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "May I just ask one question, Mr. Kneedler, is it still the Government's primary submission, though, that we should simply GBR at this time, rather than addressing these issues?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1546.857], "stop_times": [1554.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.857}, "reply_to": "20141__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__0_077", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Yes, that would be our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1554.632], "stop_times": [1555.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.632}, "reply_to": "20141__0_076", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_078", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1555.754], "stop_times": [1556.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.754}, "reply_to": "20141__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__0_079", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--That's our primary submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1556.435], "stop_times": [1556.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1556.435}, "reply_to": "20141__0_078", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__0_080", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.\nMr. Wolf, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1556.935, 1558.375], "stop_times": [1558.375, 1560.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.935}, "reply_to": "20141__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_000", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere are two issues that must be resolved in favor of affirmance in order to... in favor of respondents in order to affirm this case.\nThe first issue is whether the statute, section 1152(a)(1), was violated by the Department's policy when that policy was in existence and before the new statute came along.\nThe second issue is whether the change instituted on September 30, 1996 deprives respondents of the right to relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1560.585, 1572.694, 1580.47, 1591.137], "stop_times": [1572.694, 1580.47, 1591.137, 1601.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1560.585}, "reply_to": "20141__0_080", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_001", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "What is the relief... if you were to win on the first issue as you have described it, what would your relief be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1601.404], "stop_times": [1607.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.404}, "reply_to": "20141__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__1_002", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, the relief that we would suggest, Justice Souter, is relief... reparative relief, relief that could, insofar as is possible, restore plaintiffs to the position that they would have been in were it not for the Department's illegal conduct.\nSo for instance, in the case of somebody who had been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1607.361, 1621.893], "stop_times": [1621.893, 1626.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.361}, "reply_to": "20141__1_001", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_003", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, do you concede that if the statute in fact was intended to be retroactive, that relief would be impossible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1626.084], "stop_times": [1632.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.084}, "reply_to": "20141__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__1_004", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--If the statute was intended to be retroactive, that relief would be impossible, but there's nothing in the language of the statute indicating any retroactive intent, and under this Court's decision in Landgraf, a new law cannot be applied retroactively to conduct predating its enactment if that conduct was illegal, so the new law cannot reach back and render lawful conduct that was unlawful at the time that conduct was... took place, and certainly we are... respondents are entitled to relief that would remedy the effects of the illegal conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1632.269], "stop_times": [1667.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1632.269}, "reply_to": "20141__1_003", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_005", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But what you're asking... you still haven't gotten the final judgment in this case, and what you're asking for is some sort of a declaration or injunction that the Secretary may not require repatriation from Hong Kong in order to process visas.\nNow, the traditional view is that we apply the law in effect when the... when our Court decides a case, or the court of appeals applies the law when it... in effect when it decides it.\nIf the law in effect now is that your clients are not entitled to any statutory relief, I don't see where your idea of reparative relief goes anywhere in the light of the new statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1667.422, 1686.376, 1696.713], "stop_times": [1686.376, 1696.713, 1709.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.422}, "reply_to": "20141__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_006", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, first just to clarify the type of relief that we're seeking, we're seeking an order mandating the processing and the expeditious processing in Hong Kong of our clients' visa applications, not an order that would have anything to do with enforceable repatriation, per se.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1709.462], "stop_times": [1723.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.462}, "reply_to": "20141__1_005", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_007", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But if under presently enforced law you're not entitled to that, the fact that you might have been entitled to it a year ago is something that a court ordinarily won't recognize.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1723.912], "stop_times": [1736.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.912}, "reply_to": "20141__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_008", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, certainly, were the statute to be one that prohibited this Court from issuing an injunction or from granting the... granting respondents the relief they're seeking, then that would be correct, but the situation here is that respondents had a substantive right to be... to not be discriminated against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1736.859], "stop_times": [1760.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1736.859}, "reply_to": "20141__1_007", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_009", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, what do you mean by a substantive right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1760.227], "stop_times": [1761.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.227}, "reply_to": "20141__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_010", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, we had... at the time we had an expectation, a reasonable expectation that we would not be discriminated against in the issuance of a visa.\nUnder Landsgraf, the new statute cannot reach back and make determinations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1761.948, 1768.702], "stop_times": [1768.702, 1775.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.948}, "reply_to": "20141__1_009", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_011", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, that's true if you're seeking damages, but just... your whole effort here was prospective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1775.294], "stop_times": [1780.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.294}, "reply_to": "20141__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_012", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--The principle of nonretroact... of the principle concerning retroactivity applies, as I understand it, regardless of the type of relief that's being sought.\nThe point is, is that this Court has the power to remedy the past effects of the illegal conduct, so there's nothing to prevent this Court from restoring respondents to the situation they would have been in were it not for the illegal conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1780.97, 1790.715], "stop_times": [1790.715, 1803.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.97}, "reply_to": "20141__1_011", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_013", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But I think you have conceded that we don't have that power if, number 1, you are not seeking damages, and you're not, and number 2, the statute is in fact to be applied retroactively.\nOn those two assumptions, there's nothing we or any court could do, even on your own premise, but apply the new statute, and that would be the end of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1803.695, 1815.131], "stop_times": [1815.131, 1824.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.695}, "reply_to": "20141__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__1_014", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Justice Souter, that's correct if the statute were to be applied retroactively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1824.989], "stop_times": [1829.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1824.989}, "reply_to": "20141__1_013", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_015", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "So everything turns on the retroactivity of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1829.711], "stop_times": [1833.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.711}, "reply_to": "20141__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__1_016", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1833.254], "stop_times": [1834.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.254}, "reply_to": "20141__1_015", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_017", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "And why should that be decided in the court of appeals where normally the first cut at an issue like that is, of course, not taken in this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1834.424], "stop_times": [1843.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.424}, "reply_to": "20141__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20141__1_018", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, I would say that there are two reasons in this particular case.\nThe first reason is a concern regarding forcible repatriation.\nThe Department has received certain representations from the Hong Kong Government that lapsed on January 31, 1997.\nGiven the proceedings in this case and the pace that it has gone at, we can't be confident that on remand we would be able to get relief after the appellate process and so on before the lapse of that time.\nThe processing itself takes several weeks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1843.83, 1847.123, 1850.615, 1859.24, 1870.588], "stop_times": [1847.123, 1850.615, 1859.24, 1870.588, 1872.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.83}, "reply_to": "20141__1_017", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_019", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Wolf, the D.C. Circuit was prepared to hear the Lisa Le case en banc on September 19 and deferred that only because the proceeding was pending here.\nWhy would you not think that they would proceed expeditiously were we to vacate and remand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1872.47, 1882.185], "stop_times": [1882.185, 1889.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.47}, "reply_to": "20141__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_020", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, it's uncertain how the D.C. Circuit would handle this case.\nThey may send it first back to the district court, in which case we would have to have proceedings before the district court, come back up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1889.03, 1892.863], "stop_times": [1892.863, 1898.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.03}, "reply_to": "20141__1_019", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_021", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Under what possible scenario would they send it back to the district court when it is the decision of the three-judge panel that is the problem, not the initial... the district court was just following the orders that the three-judge panel gave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1898.856], "stop_times": [1916.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.856}, "reply_to": "20141__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_022", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, that gets me to the next point about why a remand would be inappropriate in this case, and that is is that nothing about the change in statute alters the fact that the Department's conduct was illegal at the time that conduct took place.\nRespondents should not have to go back to the D.C. Circuit and relitigate that issue on remand.\nA much more appropriate disposition in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1916.348, 1930.548, 1936.553], "stop_times": [1930.548, 1936.553, 1938.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.348}, "reply_to": "20141__1_021", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_023", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "D.C. Circuit was poised to litigate it en banc.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1938.995], "stop_times": [1943.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.995}, "reply_to": "20141__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_024", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--The D.C. Circuit was poised to litigate it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1943.717], "stop_times": [1946.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.717}, "reply_to": "20141__1_023", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_025", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "And the fact that the cert petition was granted and heard doesn't make what the D.C. Circuit was intending to do any less appropriate than when the D.C. Circuit ordered it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1946.489], "stop_times": [1959.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.489}, "reply_to": "20141__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_026", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, for the same reasons, Justice Ginsburg, that it may be improvident for this Court to retain the certiorari petition as we indicated in our supplemental brief, it may also be improvident for the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit en banc to retain... to consider this case yet again on all of the issues--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1959.498], "stop_times": [1982.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.498}, "reply_to": "20141__1_025", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_027", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Why yet again?\nThe very fact that the D.C. Circuit agreed to hear the case en banc is a signal, is it not, that the Court was quite divided and was not content to let it rest with the panel decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1982.503, 1982.973], "stop_times": [1982.973, 1995.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.503}, "reply_to": "20141__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_028", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--It was a signal that the Court viewed it as a serious question, as this Court's granting of certiorari is such a signal, but for the same reason that this Court might want to relinquish this case, the D.C. Circuit en banc could do well the same.\nAt any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [1995.462, 2012.503], "stop_times": [2012.503, 2013.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.462}, "reply_to": "20141__1_027", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_029", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Wolf, I have an unrelated question.\nIt has to do with the latest submission.\nYou represented in the supplemental brief that a remand of the case would cause the Hong Kong Government's undertaking to lapse and would likely subject respondents to immediate forcible repatriation.\nThat's a rather startling representation, and when I looked back at the pleading that wasn't even printed for this Court, it was the Government's response to your motion to joint parties, and I saw when I read to Mr. Kneedler that the Government represented that they would obtain... had obtained assurances from the Hong Kong Government that no one would be forcibly repatriated during the appellate and Supreme Court proceedings in this case and in the Lisa Le case, what was the basis for the rather attention-grabbing representation you made in view of the Government's representation that conflicted with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2013.952, 2015.674, 2018.186, 2036.539], "stop_times": [2015.674, 2018.186, 2036.539, 2085.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.952}, "reply_to": "20141__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_030", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, we were not clear, based on that statement about whether or not the representation would include representations made on... would include the situation on remand.\nWe spoke with Government counsel to ask whether they would make further... get further representations from the Hong Kong Government.\nWe were left certainly with the clear impression that that was not going to happen, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2085.913, 2095.61, 2101.782], "stop_times": [2095.61, 2101.782, 2108.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.913}, "reply_to": "20141__1_029", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_031", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Before alleging to this Court that it would cause immediate repatriation, do you not think it would have been appropriate to let us know that the Government had something quite... said something quite the contrary, had represented to this Court that no one was going to be repatriated pending the proceedings here and in Lisa Le?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2108.808], "stop_times": [2130.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.808}, "reply_to": "20141__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_032", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, as I indicated, Justice Ginsburg, we believed there to be some ambiguity, significant ambiguity in that statement.\nWe checked with the Government.\nApparently they believed there to be enough ambiguity to go back to the Hong Kong Government, which they never told us they were going to do, and that ended up being the situation as it exists today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2130.763, 2138.279, 2139.599], "stop_times": [2138.279, 2139.599, 2150.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.763}, "reply_to": "20141__1_031", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_033", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "It was described in rather definite terms that the Department refused, and that the... that would cause... I mean, you didn't put anything... you didn't indicate to us that anything was at all ambiguous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2150.175], "stop_times": [2167.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.175}, "reply_to": "20141__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_034", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "I did not understand it at the time to be ambiguous.\nIf it indicate... if it was ambiguous, I regret that I... that we put it in those terms, but at the time I did not see there to be any ambiguity.\nAs I understood the representation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2167.038, 2170.0, 2179.385], "stop_times": [2170.0, 2179.385, 2181.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.038}, "reply_to": "20141__1_033", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_035", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "This is not ambiguous, but you just said to me that, well, you thought that that might be the problem, and you were well aware that the Government had already represented to this Court that no one would be repatriated until this Court and the D.C. Circuit were completed, proceedings were completed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2181.737], "stop_times": [2200.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.737}, "reply_to": "20141__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_036", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--As I said, as I understood the representations at the time, they only applied to the Supreme Court proceedings and the appellates court in Lisa Le, and if it may have been my misunderstanding, I would apologize for that.\nThe Department's... this Court certainly has the power to remedy the past illegal conduct, and there's nothing in section 1152(a)(1) which deprives respondents of a remedy in this case, and therefore, if a violation occurred prior to the enactment of the new law, then this Court certainly could offer respondents, or the lower courts could certainly give respondents the relief that they are seeking, and the rule is no different in the case of an interpretive statute, or statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2200.1, 2211.317], "stop_times": [2211.317, 2244.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.1}, "reply_to": "20141__1_035", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_037", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, Mr. Wolf, supposing somebody comes into court and says, up until 1994 I was entitled to receive a certain amount of money as a pension, but I realize... this is 1996... now Congress has said that that no longer obtains, but I just want a declaratory judgment that I might have received it had I applied in 1994, now, would a court grant that sort of a thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2244.938], "stop_times": [2272.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.938}, "reply_to": "20141__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_038", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Perhaps not, but in this particular case, taking your hypothetical, if the person had applied for pension benefits in '94, been denied on illegal grounds in '94, and then in '96 the law changed, the individual would still be entitled to receive the pension benefits for '94, or injunctive order granting the benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2272.767], "stop_times": [2293.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.767}, "reply_to": "20141__1_037", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_039", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "What would be the possible conceivable meaning of the Congress' provision that the new statute applies to all cases filed after a certain date?\nIsn't that the way the provision in the new law is worded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2293.61, 2309.8], "stop_times": [2309.8, 2313.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.61}, "reply_to": "20141__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_040", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "No, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2313.322], "stop_times": [2315.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.322}, "reply_to": "20141__1_039", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_041", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "How do we know what cases the new law applies to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2315.924], "stop_times": [2318.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.924}, "reply_to": "20141__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_042", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "The new law states what it states.\nIt's a one sentence provision saying nothing in section 1152... it's nothing in the former paragraph, meaning 1152(a)(1), shall be interpreted as limiting the authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2318.946, 2320.608], "stop_times": [2320.608, 2331.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.946}, "reply_to": "20141__1_041", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_043", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But there's an effective date provision for the legislation too, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2331.755], "stop_times": [2335.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.755}, "reply_to": "20141__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_044", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--There is an effective date provision, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2335.147], "stop_times": [2337.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.147}, "reply_to": "20141__1_043", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_045", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "And what does that say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2337.428], "stop_times": [2337.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.428}, "reply_to": "20141__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_046", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "There are various different effective date provisions.\nThere are 12 provisions that are specifically retroactive.\nThis is not one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2337.888, 2341.762, 2344.153], "stop_times": [2341.762, 2344.153, 2345.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.888}, "reply_to": "20141__1_045", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_047", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "How does this one read?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2345.343], "stop_times": [2346.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.343}, "reply_to": "20141__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_048", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "I'm not sure, Justice Scalia, whether there's a... we checked, and I didn't recall seeing a default retroactive provision, but I believe the statute becomes effective on the date that it is enacted for... as the default provision, and to that degree it is certainly the case that should the Department today institute a policy refusing to process visa applications on... and discriminating in that process on grounds of race, nationality, or sex, then a person would not be able to obtain relief and would have no right to obtain relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2346.715], "stop_times": [2382.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.715}, "reply_to": "20141__1_047", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_049", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "I had thought that it had said all cases filed after a certain date, in which case your argument wouldn't make any sense, because that obviously means, regardless of what the situation might have been on the facts, if your case is filed after a certain date, the new law applies.\nOtherwise, it wouldn't make any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2382.298, 2399.361], "stop_times": [2399.361, 2400.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.298}, "reply_to": "20141__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_050", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "This partic... in our particular case, what... the important retroactive event is the Secretary's determination, refusing to process immigrant visa applications at a time when he was required to do so.\nThere is nothing in the statute indicating that the... indicating that the statute was intended to retroactively legalize conduct which was unlawful at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2400.761, 2415.411], "stop_times": [2415.411, 2426.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.761}, "reply_to": "20141__1_049", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_051", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Yes, but I have a little trouble with the language because your basic position is, as I understood the briefs correctly, is that 1152(a)(1) should be construed as a limitation on the authority of the Secretary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2426.437], "stop_times": [2439.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.437}, "reply_to": "20141__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_052", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Section 11... yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2439.927], "stop_times": [2442.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.927}, "reply_to": "20141__1_051", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_053", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But then as amended it says, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary, so forth and so on.\nSo if we were to decide the case, your basic submission, we would either have to say that something in 1152(a)(1) limits the authority of the Secretary, or it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2442.508, 2449.043], "stop_times": [2449.043, 2459.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.508}, "reply_to": "20141__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_054", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, I would say that the answer to that question, Justice Stevens, is provided for in Roadway Express, where the... this Court stated that the fact that a statute may... the Congress often enacts statutes that purports to interpret what a provision means and tells a court how to interpret what a provision means, but that does not make the statute any the more retroactive than any other type of congressional enactment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2459.229], "stop_times": [2483.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.229}, "reply_to": "20141__1_053", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_055", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "No, but you're still asking us to construe a statute in a way directly contrary to the way Congress has told us we should construe it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2483.996], "stop_times": [2491.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.996}, "reply_to": "20141__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_056", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, with respect to what happened before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2491.302], "stop_times": [2495.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.302}, "reply_to": "20141__1_055", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_057", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "It doesn't say... there's no time limit.\nIt just talks about people who are going to construe this statute, and you're asking us to construe this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2495.192, 2497.494], "stop_times": [2497.494, 2501.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.192}, "reply_to": "20141__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_058", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, I'm asking... what I'm saying is that in Roadway Express the Court specifically adopted a very similar type of statute that informed the Court as to how the statute should be construed.\nThe Court stated that that did not apply to conduct that had predated the statute.\nIn other words, the statute cannot make lawful what was unlawful--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2501.807, 2516.337, 2521.5], "stop_times": [2516.337, 2521.5, 2525.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.807}, "reply_to": "20141__1_057", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_059", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Mr. Wolf, are you saying there is no such thing as a clarifying amendment?\nHere we had a sharp division in the D.C. Circuit, excellent opinions on both sides saying what the judges thought this statute meant, and Congress then came in and said we think that the dissent had it right about what the statute meant.\nThat's a clarifying amendment.\nSo whether that controls us, and I agree with you it doesn't, it is the Congress saying we think that the statue did and should mean what the dissenting judge thought it meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2525.653, 2528.456, 2547.876, 2550.878], "stop_times": [2528.456, 2547.876, 2550.878, 2565.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.653}, "reply_to": "20141__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_060", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Which, Justice Ginsburg, is exactly what happened in Roadway Express.\nI mean, certainly the Congress could inform this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2565.999, 2569.701], "stop_times": [2569.701, 2573.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.999}, "reply_to": "20141__1_059", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_061", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Did you cite Roadway Express in your papers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2573.735], "stop_times": [2575.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.735}, "reply_to": "20141__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_062", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Yes.\nIt's cited in the supplemental brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2575.756, 2577.005], "stop_times": [2577.005, 2579.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2575.756}, "reply_to": "20141__1_061", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_063", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "In the supplemental brief.\nMr. Wolf, two things occur to me.\nOne is the point you've just been discussing with Justice Ginsburg, which is that conceivably the amendment by Congress should assist the courts in determining the meaning of the statute as it was originally enacted.\nThat is possible.\nSecondly, what the respondents are seeking ultimately is issuance of visas.\nNow, that hasn't occurred as yet, and if the Court were to order the Department of State to issue visas, that relief is prospective, and as I understand it, we have held that an amendment like this would apply to the issuance of that prospective relief.\nI don't think there's any way to avoid that by trying to look backwards and say, well, the statute meant something else at the time.\nThe relief, nonetheless, is prospective, and would appear to be governed by the new provisions of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2579.619, 2580.829, 2588.144, 2607.626, 2608.808, 2621.785, 2644.94, 2653.847], "stop_times": [2580.829, 2588.144, 2607.626, 2608.808, 2621.785, 2644.94, 2653.847, 2663.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2579.619}, "reply_to": "20141__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_064", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Taking the first of your... taking the first part of your question first, as this Court indicated in Rusello, the interpretations of a future... of a new Congress are hazardous grounds upon which to base interpretations of a previous Congress.\nWith respect to the second part of your question, certainly injunctive relief like all relief, compensatory damages, operates in the future, but there's nothing that prevent... that in this statute deprives the Court of the power to remedy a past violation of the wrong.\nIn all of the cases that... in which... to which I believe you're referring, Justice O'Connor, the statute specifically eliminated a remedy, but in our case there's nothing in section 633 that eliminates a remedy.\nIt simply informs the Court of how Congress would like the Court to construe the statute, but if Congress wanted the Court... wanted to apply that retroactively, the uniform decisions of this Court are that it must say so expressly, and there is nothing in section 633 that does that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2663.422, 2681.885, 2699.957, 2712.615], "stop_times": [2681.885, 2699.957, 2712.615, 2730.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.422}, "reply_to": "20141__1_063", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_065", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "My point was not that, but rather that the statute applies prospectively and would govern the issuance of prospective relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2730.127], "stop_times": [2741.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.127}, "reply_to": "20141__1_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20141__1_066", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "The... well, this Court has also held in numerous occasions, Justice O'Connor, that if Congress wants to take away a remedy, that it also must do so expressly, and again, there's nothing about section 633 that takes away a remedy.\nIt simply informs this Court of how the statute should be construed, and that is why I think River Express is dispositive on this point.\nWith respect to the issue of whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2741.764, 2757.904, 2765.601], "stop_times": [2757.904, 2765.601, 2769.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.764}, "reply_to": "20141__1_065", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_067", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, but if you take the surrounding legislative history it's perfectly clear that Congress intended to disapprove the decision of the court of appeals in this case, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2769.053], "stop_times": [2779.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.053}, "reply_to": "20141__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_068", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, even in Roadway Express the Court mentioned... stated that even if Congress disapproves of a previous opinion, that doesn't mean that it's retroactive, and the only expressions of legislative intent that we've seen really are two statements of Congressmen who are opposed to the bill, which also this Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2779.472], "stop_times": [2795.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2779.472}, "reply_to": "20141__1_067", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_069", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Which you cite in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2795.661], "stop_times": [2797.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.661}, "reply_to": "20141__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_070", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Which the Department cites in its brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2797.233], "stop_times": [2800.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.233}, "reply_to": "20141__1_069", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_071", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, I thought you cited it in your brief, too, didn't you at footnote 13?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2800.064], "stop_times": [2803.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.064}, "reply_to": "20141__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_072", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Oh, that was a letter previous to the enactment of the bill.\nThose comments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2803.908, 2807.999], "stop_times": [2807.999, 2808.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2803.908}, "reply_to": "20141__1_071", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_073", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Where you say, having recently become aware of the obscure provision 45 Congressmen, including 13 Members of the House... sent a letter to the President August 1 expressing the view that the court of appeals' interpretation of 1152(a)(1) was correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2808.6], "stop_times": [2821.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.6}, "reply_to": "20141__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_074", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Mm-hmm Well, that's correct.\nThat's correct, and the fact that, as I indicated, the fact that Congress may have a view as to whether a particular decision is correct or incorrect doesn't answer the question as to whether or not the statute is retroactive.\nWith respect to the issue of whether or not the Department's policy is discriminatory and violated section 1152(a)(1) at the time, section 1152(a)(1) prohibits... provides that no person shall be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa on the basis of race, sex, and nationality.\nSection 1152(a)(1) therefore places nationality on the same footing as race and gender and prohibits discrimination with respect to all in the issuance of an immigrant visa.\nThis policy is facially discriminatory.\nIf a French person or a Chinese person is in Hong Kong and has been screened out, they can go to the U.S. Consulate, or could, prior to the change in the law, go to the U.S. Consulate and have their visa processed, but if that person was a Vietnamese national, and they were screened out or illegally in Hong Kong, they could not.\nThey'd have to go back to Vietnam to have their visas issued and processed.\nNow, the Department argues that the fact that this policy took place in the context of the CPA, and the unique circumstances facing the Vietnamese refugee crisis at the time justified its illegal policy.\nAnd then the Department makes this sort of funny argument that justification and discrimination are the same thing.\nBut this Court has never considered just... discrimination and justification as one question.\nThey're two separate questions.\nThe first question is, does the policy... is the policy facially discriminatory?\nDoes it draw an explicit distinction between Vietnamese nationals and Laotian nationals, if Laotian nationals are in fact covered, and the nationals of other countries, and the answer to that must be yes.\nThe second question then is, does the policy... is the policy justified?\nIs there a compelling interest for the policy?\nWhat is the rationalization for the policy?\nBut the statute prohibits discrimination in the issuance of a visa, and does not allow exceptions for the rational basis that the Department prefers, and the Department's argument at any rate with respect to the comprehensive plan of action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2821.56, 2823.852, 2835.387, 2854.43, 2864.718, 2866.899, 2886.192, 2889.652, 2905.403, 2911.968, 2917.51, 2918.772, 2922.864, 2933.643, 2938.405, 2940.786, 2942.469], "stop_times": [2823.852, 2835.387, 2854.43, 2864.718, 2866.899, 2886.192, 2889.652, 2905.403, 2911.968, 2917.51, 2918.772, 2922.864, 2933.643, 2938.405, 2940.786, 2942.469, 2957.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.56}, "reply_to": "20141__1_073", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_075", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "In order to tell whether there's been discrimination, don't you have to first determine whether the two people are similarly situated?\nDoesn't that determination go into... necessarily go into the question of discrimination or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2957.636, 2966.425], "stop_times": [2966.425, 2971.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.636}, "reply_to": "20141__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_076", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, it seems to me that the statute places race, sex, and nationality as a category, and therefore that... therefore you cannot dis... you cannot differentiate between races, between genders.\nThe statute describes that.\nLet me give an example.\nThink about the... of course, the Court's classic decisions in Hirabayashi and Korematsu.\nThe Court specifically in Hirabayashi said, well, Japanese Americans are not similarly situated to other Americans.\nWell, that didn't mean it wasn't discriminatory.\nThe Department--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [2971.817, 2983.265, 2984.745, 2985.737, 2991.829, 2998.665, 3000.795], "stop_times": [2983.265, 2984.745, 2985.737, 2991.829, 2998.665, 3000.795, 3001.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.817}, "reply_to": "20141__1_075", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_077", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But do you think when Congress passed this statute, did it have in mind refusing to allow the State Department to carry on the ordinary country-by-country distinctions that it makes in conducting foreign policy?\nI mean, it might have done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3001.536, 3015.898], "stop_times": [3015.898, 3017.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.536}, "reply_to": "20141__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20141__1_078", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3017.547], "stop_times": [3019.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3017.547}, "reply_to": "20141__1_077", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_079", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But I mean, is there any evidence that it did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3019.38], "stop_times": [3021.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3019.38}, "reply_to": "20141__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20141__1_080", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Justice Breyer, there's no specific legislative history of this provision.\nI would say that the statute says what it says, no person shall be discriminated against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3021.411, 3025.422], "stop_times": [3025.422, 3028.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3021.411}, "reply_to": "20141__1_079", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_081", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, all right, it says what it says.\nIsn't all foreign policy discriminatory by nations?\nWe treat some nations one way, we treat other nations another way.\nAll foreign policy runs that way.\nNow, maybe this was to be an exception from ordinary foreign policy, but should we assume that that was so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3028.775, 3029.666, 3034.327, 3038.081, 3040.642], "stop_times": [3029.666, 3034.327, 3038.081, 3040.642, 3046.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.775}, "reply_to": "20141__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20141__1_082", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, I... the language says what it says, and the courts should construe the language as it says it.\nNow, the Department--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3046.887, 3052.54], "stop_times": [3052.54, 3053.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.887}, "reply_to": "20141__1_081", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_083", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, if it says what it says, wouldn't we normally assume that what it had in mind was the kind of discrimination forbidding that kind of discrimination that did exist in Korematsu--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3053.291], "stop_times": [3064.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.291}, "reply_to": "20141__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20141__1_084", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3064.909], "stop_times": [3065.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.909}, "reply_to": "20141__1_083", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_085", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--but not the kind of discrimination that is consistent with ordinary foreign policy, treating one nation differently from another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3065.55], "stop_times": [3073.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.55}, "reply_to": "20141__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20141__1_086", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--It seems doubtful to me, Justice Breyer, because the statute prohibits discrimination, and discrimination is a different concept than the rationalization for the particular conduct at issue.\nEven the Department does not maintain under the statute the mere rational basis for its conduct would justify these particular types of distinctions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3073.725, 3082.96], "stop_times": [3082.96, 3091.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3073.725}, "reply_to": "20141__1_085", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_087", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "May I ask you just a factual question?\nPerhaps I should know this, but supposing there were a Vietnamese who had been a long-time resident of Hong Kong, that he was not one of the boat people, could he be... could he apply for a visa in Hong Kong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3091.696, 3094.428], "stop_times": [3094.428, 3106.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.696}, "reply_to": "20141__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_088", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "If a Vietnamese was not a boat person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3106.136], "stop_times": [3109.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3106.136}, "reply_to": "20141__1_087", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_089", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3109.098], "stop_times": [3109.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3109.098}, "reply_to": "20141__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_090", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, there are a number of Vietnamese who came by bus, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3109.749], "stop_times": [3113.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.749}, "reply_to": "20141__1_089", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_091", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "No, say he's lived there for the last 20 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3113.031], "stop_times": [3115.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.031}, "reply_to": "20141__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_092", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Oh, certainly.\nCertainly.\nA Vietnamese boat person who was lawfully resident--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3115.391, 3116.042, 3116.483], "stop_times": [3116.042, 3116.483, 3118.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3115.391}, "reply_to": "20141__1_091", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_093", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "No, not a boat... I say, a Vietnamese.\nIf that's true, then it doesn't seem to me the discrimination is on the basis of nationality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3118.244, 3121.215], "stop_times": [3121.215, 3126.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.244}, "reply_to": "20141__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_094", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, Justice Stevens, if you take two people, two nationals in the same circumstances, one a Vietnamese who has been denied refugee status, one French who have been denied refugee status, the French person can walk into the consulate, get their visa, the Vietnamese person cannot.\nThat seems to me to be facially discriminatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3126.17, 3143.932], "stop_times": [3143.932, 3145.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.17}, "reply_to": "20141__1_093", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_095", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But are you assuming the French person is also... came as a... was one of these migrants on the... in this... one of the boat people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3145.463], "stop_times": [3153.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.463}, "reply_to": "20141__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_096", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, I can't see how the fact that somebody came by boat or by plane would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3153.518], "stop_times": [3159.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3153.518}, "reply_to": "20141__1_095", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_097", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, it's whether he comes within the terms of the CPA or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3159.851], "stop_times": [3163.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.851}, "reply_to": "20141__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_098", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, with respect to the CPA again, that issue seems to me to go to the rational basis, to the justification for the conduct, not to the classification of the conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3163.305], "stop_times": [3170.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3163.305}, "reply_to": "20141__1_097", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_099", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, but the classifica... the class does not include all Vietnamese.\nIt includes a subcategory of Vietnamese who fit into the CPA category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3170.66, 3173.943], "stop_times": [3173.943, 3179.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.66}, "reply_to": "20141__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20141__1_100", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Yes, but with respect to the same subcategories of other countries, such as the same subcategory of French, the Vietnamese would be treated differently.\nNow, it is true that Vietnamese are under the rubric of the comprehensive plan of action, but the plan... comprehensive plan of action is addressed only to Vietnamese.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3179.366, 3186.78], "stop_times": [3186.78, 3195.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3179.366}, "reply_to": "20141__1_099", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_101", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But Mr. Wolf, doesn't... haven't you already shown why this is worlds different from Korematsu?\nBecause Korematsu applied to people who were citizens of the United States just as much as it applied to someone who had just reached the shore.\nSo it was a blanket policy, and you, by giving the answer that a resident of Hong Kong from Vietnam who had been there for awhile, was not involved in this urgent departure, would be treated like the Frenchman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3195.035, 3199.908, 3210.555], "stop_times": [3199.908, 3210.555, 3228.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.035}, "reply_to": "20141__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__1_102", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, actually, as I recall in Korematsu and Hirabayashi, at at least one particular time the classification only applied to Japanese on the West Coast who were rounded up and placed into relocation centers, so the fact that it didn't also apply... might not have also applied to Japanese on the East Coast would not have rendered the classification there any the less discriminatory, so in terms of the issue of whether this is discriminatory, there really should be no question.\nWith respect to the CPA argument anyway, it appears to be purely pretextual.\nAt pages 116 and 117 of the Joint Appendix, the Department was inquiring... received an inquiry from its consulate as to whether or not the processing of a screened-out boat person would violate the CPA.\nThe Department said that to require such a boat person to return to Vietnam to have their visas processed was procedural overkill and not at all necessary to the integrity of the CPA and, in fact, during 4 years of the CPA's existence, from 1989 to 1993, the Department processed visa applications in Hong Kong, and the Department processes visa applications in Hong Kong of nationals from other countries such as Great Britain, England... from Great Britain, from Hong Kong itself, from Australia... so all of these visas are being processed in Hong Kong.\nIt's hard to understand why this violates the CPA.\nIt seems to me that the Department's argument with respect to the CPA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3228.968, 3258.888, 3263.432, 3276.549, 3309.852, 3312.904], "stop_times": [3258.888, 3263.432, 3276.549, 3309.852, 3312.904, 3315.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3228.968}, "reply_to": "20141__1_101", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_103", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Well, it would certainly encourage more people to come out if they know once they get in Hong Kong, where they have safe refuge, they can apply for a visa to the United States from there.\nI thought that's the purpose of the State Department's policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3315.407, 3325.363], "stop_times": [3325.363, 3328.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.407}, "reply_to": "20141__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_104", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3328.506], "stop_times": [3329.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3328.506}, "reply_to": "20141__1_103", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_105", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--to discourage people from coming out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3329.237], "stop_times": [3330.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3329.237}, "reply_to": "20141__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20141__1_106", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Justice Scalia, that gets directly to my point, that the Department seems to be confusing the justification for its policy with the issue of whether or not the policy is a discriminatory one, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3330.559], "stop_times": [3340.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3330.559}, "reply_to": "20141__1_105", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_107", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Isn't there something to what Mr. Kneedler said, that you know, discrimination in one sense... you say someone has a discriminating taste.\nIt can be a compliment.\nIt simply means you can distinguish between different things.\nInvidious discrimination is something else.\nBut to say that you have to draw... you can draw a bright line between the concept of discrimination and the term justification, I don't think is necessarily true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3340.743, 3347.408, 3348.73, 3351.692, 3355.386], "stop_times": [3347.408, 3348.73, 3351.692, 3355.386, 3365.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.743}, "reply_to": "20141__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__1_108", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "--Well, it seems to me that it's a line, Chief Justice Rehnquist, that this Court has drawn in numerous cases in the equal protection context, in the context of numerous statutes that prohibit discrimination, and in view of... Congress certainly was aware of how this Court interprets the meaning of discrimination when it passed the statute in 1965, and there's no reason to interpret this statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3365.143], "stop_times": [3386.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3365.143}, "reply_to": "20141__1_107", "speaker": "daniel_wolf"}
{"id": "20141__1_109", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wolf.\nMr. Kneedler, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3386.066, 3386.917], "stop_times": [3386.917, 3389.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3386.066}, "reply_to": "20141__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__2_000", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Several points, Mr. Chief Justice.\nFirst of all, in Landgraf this Court said when the intervening statute authorizes or affects the propriety of prospective relief, application of the new provision is not retroactive, so analytically the question here is not one of retroactivity, since prospective relief is being asked for, and that's what the Court is being asked to do.\nThis statute specifically speaks to what a court should do, whether a court can construe 1152(a)(1) to prohibit the Secretary from establishing locations for the processing of visas, as Justice Stevens mentioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3389.869, 3394.674, 3415.366], "stop_times": [3394.674, 3415.366, 3432.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3389.869}, "reply_to": "20141__1_109", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__2_001", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But Mr. Kneedler, to the extent that this is like a venue provision where you can have this processed, if Congress changes a venue rule while a case is in a tribunal, I assume the case would not have to be dismissed at midstream, that unless Congress said otherwise, the venue that was proper when the case was initiated would stay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3432.077], "stop_times": [3457.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3432.077}, "reply_to": "20141__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20141__2_002", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "But that would be... that would I think be not upset... I mean, again, that would be a question of statutory construction, it would not be a question of an injunctive action.\nIt would be a question of a rule of procedure to be applied in an ongoing case much like Landgraf, speaking to what a court has to do, has to decide at the time it's deciding a particular issue in a case.\nAt the time the court decides venue, it decides venue, and the statute shouldn't reach back and change that.\nThis statute is not retroactive in the sense that people who got visas in 1993 during the interim period when the State Department had a contrary view, will have those visas taken away and be sent back to Hong Kong.\nThis is entirely prospective, and if there was any doubt about Congress' intent that this governed this case, the letter from the 45 Members of Congress said that the amendment would overturn the adverse result in LAVAS.\nThe State Department's letter said it's amendment was intended to reverse the decision in LAVAS.\nRepresentative Smith said it was an attempt to overrule LAVAS, and Representative Conyers said it would have the immediate effect of requiring two dozen Vietnamese, precisely these two dozen Vietnamese in Hong Kong, to return to Vietnam.\nThere was no doubt that Congress intended and expected this to apply to this case.\nWith respect to the question of discrimination, this only covers people who were screened out under the CPA.\nScreened out is a term of art under international refugee matters, applying it here to this international agreement.\nIt doesn't apply to other people who may be in Hong Kong like a Vietnamese national who may have gotten there in other ways.\nAlso, as the Chief Justice pointed out, this is not invidious discrimination by any means.\nThe United... Vietnamese have been the beneficiaries of United States immigration policy over the last 15 years to an extent that few other countries have matched: 1.2 million Vietnamese have entered the United States, including 400,000 who have departed from Vietnam during the orderly departure process.\nThere is no way that this policy can be regarded as invidious discrimination against Vietnamese.\nIt is designed to implement valid foreign policy.\nMy last point is that the discussion in this case is... we think underscores why this sort of case doesn't belong in court to begin with.\nThis is a case challenging foreign policy and migration policy halfway around the world in a suit brought by aliens in a foreign country objecting to the way in which their visas are being processed in a foreign country, a classic matter for which judicial review is precluded, and has traditionally been committed to agency discretion by law.\nAnd that rule cannot be circumvented by having a U.S. citizen who happens to have applied for a visa petition to file his or her own suit in U.S. courts.\nThe Immigration Act makes clear that the visa petitioner's interest in a matter such as this is simply filing the visa petition and having the Attorney General determine whether the beneficiary of the visa petition would be entitled to a visa preference.\nOnce that happens, the U.S. person's interest in the matter lapses.\nThere is no further interest.\nThe alien abroad is accorded a preference and stands entirely on his own or her own with respect to whether there will be any admission to the United States.\nIn fact, the nondiscrimination provision invoked here speaks in terms of discrimination or preferences with respect to the alien abroad.\nIt confers no rights on a U.S. citizen in the United States.\nSo with respect to both respondent's APA claim and the statutory claim, review is precluded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3457.064, 3463.998, 3473.645, 3479.128, 3491.778, 3503.594, 3508.366, 3521.587, 3525.24, 3531.024, 3537.347, 3543.809, 3550.094, 3566.247, 3570.898, 3574.16, 3581.295, 3602.919, 3611.735, 3625.364, 3631.248, 3632.218, 3641.825, 3649.712, 3655.195], "stop_times": [3463.998, 3473.645, 3479.128, 3491.778, 3503.594, 3508.366, 3521.587, 3525.24, 3531.024, 3537.347, 3543.809, 3550.094, 3566.247, 3570.898, 3574.16, 3581.295, 3602.919, 3611.735, 3625.364, 3631.248, 3632.218, 3641.825, 3649.712, 3655.195, 3660.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3457.064}, "reply_to": "20141__2_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__2_003", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3660.127], "stop_times": [3661.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3660.127}, "reply_to": "20141__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20141__2_004", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3661.189], "stop_times": [3661.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3661.189}, "reply_to": "20141__2_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20141__2_005", "conversation_id": "20141", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1521", "start_times": [3661.522], "stop_times": [3662.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3661.522}, "reply_to": "20141__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__0_000", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 95-1181, William C. Dunn and Delta Consultants, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.\nMr. Stumpp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [0.0, 7.676], "stop_times": [7.676, 8.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__0_001", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Treasury Amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act, which is quoted in full on page 1 of our brief, provides in pertinent part, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to govern or in any way be applicable to transactions in foreign currency unless such transactions involve the sale thereof for future delivery conducted on a board of trade.\nThe question presented in this case is whether the Treasury Amendment excludes off-exchange foreign currency options from CEA regulation, thus whether off-exchange foreign currency options are transactions in the foreign currency within the Treasury Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [8.708, 13.102, 34.673], "stop_times": [13.102, 34.673, 50.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.708}, "reply_to": "21015__0_000", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_002", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Now, if it were a... an off-exchange futures deal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [50.635], "stop_times": [58.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 50.635}, "reply_to": "21015__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_003", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [58.6], "stop_times": [59.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.6}, "reply_to": "21015__0_002", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_004", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--If it were an off-exchange futures--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [59.822], "stop_times": [63.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 59.822}, "reply_to": "21015__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_005", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [63.535], "stop_times": [64.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 63.535}, "reply_to": "21015__0_004", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_006", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--agreement that we were dealing with, I guess the Commodity Futures Trading Commission... both parties agree, it wouldn't have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [64.694], "stop_times": [75.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.694}, "reply_to": "21015__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_007", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I believe... yes, both parties would agree, Your Honor.\nThe only dispute is because it's an off-exchange foreign currency option transaction rather than an off-exchange--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [75.841, 78.913], "stop_times": [78.913, 84.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.841}, "reply_to": "21015__0_006", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_008", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Why shouldn't futures and options be treated the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [84.187], "stop_times": [88.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 84.187}, "reply_to": "21015__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_009", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--I believe they should be, Your Honor, and I believe both of them are exempt by the Treasury Amendment, as long as they're off-exchange transactions in foreign currency, whether in futures or in options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [88.259], "stop_times": [97.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 88.259}, "reply_to": "21015__0_008", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_010", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Although the Treasury Amendment didn't really speak of the options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [97.426], "stop_times": [103.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 97.426}, "reply_to": "21015__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_011", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "No.\nThe Treasury Amendment spoke broadly, Your Honor, of transactions in foreign currency.\nIt did not limit it to foreign currency futures.\nIt spoke broadly of transactions in foreign currency.\nAnd accordingly, the ordinary meaning of the phrase would indicate that any transaction in which foreign currency is the subject matter would be excluded by the Treasury Amendment... off-exchange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [103.33, 104.061, 107.583, 110.526, 112.766], "stop_times": [104.061, 107.583, 110.526, 112.766, 124.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.33}, "reply_to": "21015__0_010", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_012", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But there are some holdings that distinguish transactions in from a future or an option agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [124.043], "stop_times": [132.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 124.043}, "reply_to": "21015__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_013", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I would think the holdings Your Honor is referring to are certain holdings that have distinguished off-exchange futures from off-exchange options, along the lines that an option until exercised does not become a transaction in the foreign currency itself.\nAnd if those are the decisions to which Your Honor is referring, I think they were... first, I think both courts that decided that way were dicta because you were dealing with exchange traded futures, although that was not the ground on which the courts went, and therefore it would be subject... it would not be subject to the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [132.929, 151.221], "stop_times": [151.221, 170.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.929}, "reply_to": "21015__0_012", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_014", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Exchange traded futures or exchange traded options?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [170.155], "stop_times": [172.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.155}, "reply_to": "21015__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_015", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "In the two cases I believe Justice O'Connor is referring to... is the Chicago Board of Trade and the American Board of Trade case... they both dealt with off-exchange options on foreign currencies, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [172.706], "stop_times": [185.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.706}, "reply_to": "21015__0_014", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_016", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "She said futures I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [185.313], "stop_times": [186.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.313}, "reply_to": "21015__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_017", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Thank you.\nYour Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [186.365, 187.787], "stop_times": [187.787, 188.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.365}, "reply_to": "21015__0_016", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_018", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But you... would you run by me what you said about dictum because the Second Circuit said we might have gone on another ground but we didn't.\nThe ground that we went on was the first one.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [188.167, 198.344, 201.385], "stop_times": [198.344, 201.385, 202.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.167}, "reply_to": "21015__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_019", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "As I said, Your Honor, I believe that the holding in the American Board of Trade case on which the court below relied in this case was dicta because it was on-exchange trading.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [202.146, 212.624], "stop_times": [212.624, 213.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.146}, "reply_to": "21015__0_018", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_020", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--But in that earlier case, the court didn't decide it on the basis that it was on-exchange trading.\nIt decided it on the basis that it was an option.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [213.372, 219.197, 225.18], "stop_times": [219.197, 225.18, 225.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 213.372}, "reply_to": "21015__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_021", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--No.\nI agree, Your Honor.\nI'm not questioning the way the court got there.\nI'm saying they could have gotten there another way, but obviously the way the court did decide, they did not go on an on-exchange/off-exchange--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [225.37, 225.61, 225.981, 228.934], "stop_times": [225.61, 225.981, 228.934, 235.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 225.37}, "reply_to": "21015__0_020", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_022", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Is their holding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [235.618], "stop_times": [236.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.618}, "reply_to": "21015__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_023", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--The holding in American Board of Trade was options do not become transactions in foreign currency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [236.029], "stop_times": [240.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.029}, "reply_to": "21015__0_022", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_024", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [240.901], "stop_times": [241.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.901}, "reply_to": "21015__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_025", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--until they're exercised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [241.092], "stop_times": [242.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.092}, "reply_to": "21015__0_024", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_026", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [242.023], "stop_times": [242.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.023}, "reply_to": "21015__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_027", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "The court below recognized that they could have gone on a different basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [242.404], "stop_times": [247.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.404}, "reply_to": "21015__0_026", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_028", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [247.336], "stop_times": [247.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.336}, "reply_to": "21015__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_029", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--but did not, and accordingly could not overrule the decision of the prior panel and noted the conflict with the Fourth Circuit and indicated that that... such a conflict was for this Court to resolve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [247.656], "stop_times": [258.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.656}, "reply_to": "21015__0_028", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_030", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes.\nWell, I just wanted to be clear that you recognized it was a holding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [258.723, 261.055], "stop_times": [261.055, 264.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.723}, "reply_to": "21015__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_031", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Oh, I... my only point, Your Honor, was I said I thought it could have been dicta, but clearly that is not the way the court, the Second Circuit, went.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [264.629], "stop_times": [271.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.629}, "reply_to": "21015__0_030", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_032", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [271.102], "stop_times": [272.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.102}, "reply_to": "21015__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_033", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "The question, thus, is whether the off-exchange foreign currency options are transactions in foreign currency within the Treasury Amendment and thus exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act.\nWe submit that that question should be answered in the affirmative for two reasons.\nThe ordinary meaning of the phrase transactions in foreign currency means any commercial dealings involving foreign currency or any dealings where foreign currency is the subject matter of the transaction.\nHere off-exchange foreign currency options that were traded are dealings and they are... and they do have foreign currency as the subject matter.\nAccordingly, under the ordinary meaning of the Treasury Amendment, they are exempt from Commodity Exchange Act regulation by the Treasury Amendment.\nThe second reason really confirms the first.\nThe congressional purpose in enacting the Treasury Amendment was to exclude off-exchange foreign currency transactions of whatever type from the Commodity Exchange Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [272.223, 287.283, 291.935, 305.356, 314.292, 321.544, 325.207], "stop_times": [287.283, 291.935, 305.356, 314.292, 321.544, 325.207, 334.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 272.223}, "reply_to": "21015__0_032", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_034", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, you say whatever type.\nNow, this type was not known at the time of the amendment.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [334.875, 337.005, 338.835], "stop_times": [337.005, 338.835, 339.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.875}, "reply_to": "21015__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_035", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That's true, Your Honor.\nThere was not the established market there is for off-exchange foreign currency markets in 1974.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [339.216, 340.177], "stop_times": [340.177, 345.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.216}, "reply_to": "21015__0_034", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_036", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Tell me who were the traders that the Treasury had in mind when it proposed this amendment.\nI take it it's the large banks I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [345.05, 353.138], "stop_times": [353.138, 355.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.05}, "reply_to": "21015__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_037", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "The majority... the off-exchange interbank market is primarily composed of the major banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [355.668], "stop_times": [359.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.668}, "reply_to": "21015__0_036", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_038", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [359.89], "stop_times": [360.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.89}, "reply_to": "21015__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_039", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And in fact the trading in this case was done in such banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [360.251], "stop_times": [363.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.251}, "reply_to": "21015__0_038", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_040", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Now, are the major... that's in part an answer to my next question.\nAre the same major banks for whom the Treasury had concern at the time the amendment was proposed engaging in the kind of option trading which is the subject of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [363.322, 366.784], "stop_times": [366.784, 377.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.322}, "reply_to": "21015__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_041", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I'm only unclear, Your Honor, if you're asking back in 1974 or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [377.3], "stop_times": [381.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.3}, "reply_to": "21015__0_040", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_042", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "No.\nI know in '74 they couldn't have, but today.\nThey're trading options the same way they used to be trading futures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [381.425, 381.685, 384.597], "stop_times": [381.685, 384.597, 388.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.425}, "reply_to": "21015__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_043", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--They're trading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [388.269], "stop_times": [389.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.269}, "reply_to": "21015__0_042", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_044", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "As they're now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [389.109], "stop_times": [391.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.109}, "reply_to": "21015__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_045", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--They are trading foreign currency options now, Your Honor.\nIn fact, I believe from the amici briefs that were submitted by the banks and the industry associations, it indicates the hundreds of billions of dollars that are trade in that market on a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [391.462, 393.133], "stop_times": [393.133, 403.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 391.462}, "reply_to": "21015__0_044", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_046", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--So that if the concern at the time the amendment was originally proposed was to keep this business within the United States, or keeps the... keep the American banks competitive, that concern of policy I presume then would be just as applicable to options trading today as it was for future tradings then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [403.667], "stop_times": [424.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.667}, "reply_to": "21015__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_047", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--I think that's precisely correct, Your Honor.\nI would also note that although the primary perhaps concern with the Treasury Amendment related to the large banks, that was not the only concern.\nThe Treasury Department noted that it was also to affect the traders and investors that were dealing in this off-exchange market.\nSo, I will not deny that the majority of the traders were the major banks, but they are not the only traders who are dealing in this market either then or now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [424.652, 426.255, 433.939, 443.664], "stop_times": [426.255, 433.939, 443.664, 451.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.652}, "reply_to": "21015__0_046", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_048", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "If... as I understood your answer to Justice Souter, there were very few traders other than the large banks in options in foreign currency.\nHow about options in Government securities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [451.829, 461.186], "stop_times": [461.186, 463.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.829}, "reply_to": "21015__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__0_049", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Again, Your Honor, are we speaking then or now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [463.828], "stop_times": [467.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.828}, "reply_to": "21015__0_048", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_050", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [467.151], "stop_times": [467.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.151}, "reply_to": "21015__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__0_051", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I don't know what traders existed back in '74 in the Government securities market.\nI would certainly assume that the major banks were trading there.\nThe Treasury Department in its letter spoke generally of this off-exchange market referring to banks, referring to investors.\nThe CFTC itself has indicated there are other participants, abritrageurs, import-export companies, et cetera, dealing in the general foreign currency market.\nI have not individually focused underneath that in terms of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [467.661, 478.337, 480.93, 489.593, 499.972], "stop_times": [478.337, 480.93, 489.593, 499.972, 504.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.661}, "reply_to": "21015__0_050", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_052", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "One of the concerns that I have is that whatever we say here with reference to foreign securities... options in foreign currencies is going to apply also to options in Government securities.\nAnd there's a suggestion in some of the briefs that accepting your position would lead to a substantial regulatory gap.\nSo, just during the course of your remarks, I hope you could address that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [504.524, 514.751, 523.217], "stop_times": [514.751, 523.217, 527.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.524}, "reply_to": "21015__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__0_053", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--All right, Your Honor.\nThe second meaning that I... or the second reason I was suggesting the question should be answer in the affirmative was the congressional purpose in enacting this to exclude the entire off-exchange market from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act.\nAnd as has been suggested by the... some of the questions today, that unless that decision is reversed and foreign currency options are held to be excluded by the Treasury Amendment, the congressional purpose in enacting it would be defeated and the vast majority of foreign currency options may move to banks and institutions without the United States.\nNow, to provide just a brief description of petitioners' activities in this case, petitioner Dunn was the President of petitioner Delta Consultants which served as an advisor concerning foreign currency transactions to various investment companies.\nHowever, the foreign currency options that were transacted were not traded with investors and they were not traded on a board of trade.\nInstead, the transactions were entered into in the international off-exchange interbank market with major banks, primarily Credit Lyonnais, Bank Julius Baer, Societe Generale, and Chase, and are different from the foreign currency futures contracts that are traded on exchanges and which the CFTC does regulate.\nThe district court rejected the argument that the Treasury Amendment provided an exclusion for these off-exchange foreign currency options and therefore there was no subject matter jurisdiction.\nThe Second Circuit affirmed but did not independently analyze the Treasury Amendment exclusion.\nWe submit the decision should be reversed.\nPetitioners here engaged in transactions in foreign currency.\nThose transactions were not conducted on a board of trade, and thus the Treasury Amendment excludes CEA regulation of petitioners off-exchange foreign currency trading.\nAs this Court has held, where the terms of a statute are not defined in the statute or have no common law... established common law meaning, they must be given their ordinary meaning.\nAnd here the ordinary meaning of transactions in foreign currency are any dealings where foreign currency is the subject matter.\nReally then we're dealing with the meaning of four words in the Treasury Amendment, transactions in foreign currency.\nThe CFTC concedes these are transactions.\nThere is no issue that foreign currency is involved.\nSo, the dispute comes down to the meaning of the word in as used in the four-word phrase transactions in foreign currency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [527.388, 528.89, 545.481, 563.893, 579.494, 587.048, 608.302, 619.358, 625.934, 628.224, 632.489, 641.966, 654.043, 661.187, 668.793, 671.805, 675.498], "stop_times": [528.89, 545.481, 563.893, 579.494, 587.048, 608.302, 619.358, 625.934, 628.224, 632.489, 641.966, 654.043, 661.187, 668.793, 671.805, 675.498, 683.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.388}, "reply_to": "21015__0_052", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_054", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Why couldn't in have a narrower meaning given that the statute also uses the word involving?\nWe think of transactions in interstate commerce as different from transactions affecting interstate commerce.\nWe have that kind of difference in the law.\nWhy shouldn't it apply here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [683.234, 691.639, 698.364, 701.026], "stop_times": [691.639, 698.364, 701.026, 702.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.234}, "reply_to": "21015__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_055", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Because there is no indication of any congressional purpose to indicate such a distinction.\nI think that the argument being made by respondents is that Congress selected the word in to draw a rather critical regulatory distinction, and I don't think there's any indication that that was the intent of Congress to do so.\nThere would be no reason why if that in fact were the intent, the Treasury Amendment would not simply have been drafted as transactions in foreign currency futures as opposed to leaving the broad description of transactions in foreign currency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [702.756, 708.89, 724.442], "stop_times": [708.89, 724.442, 739.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.756}, "reply_to": "21015__0_054", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_056", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Is there some reason in policy why you would want to distinguish between the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [739.09], "stop_times": [744.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.09}, "reply_to": "21015__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_057", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "There is no reason why I would wish to distinguish between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [744.013], "stop_times": [747.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.013}, "reply_to": "21015__0_056", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_058", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Why one would wish to distinguish between the two then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [747.956], "stop_times": [751.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.956}, "reply_to": "21015__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_059", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I don't think that there would be a reason in light of the legislative intent indicated in enacting the statute.\nThe Treasury Department letter which was submitted as the Commodity Exchange Act... the amendments were being proposed and the definition of commodity was being substantially expanded beyond the traditional agricultural commodities, the Treasury Department was concerned that that language might include foreign currency transactions and communicated that concern to Congress.\nMost of the specific discussion contained in the Treasury Department's letter referred to foreign currency futures.\nHowever, the specific language which the Treasury Department proposed and which Congress enacted as the Treasury Amendment does not speak of foreign currency futures.\nIt speaks more generally and more broadly of transactions in foreign currency.\nSo, there would be no reason to take that approach unless the intent were to exclude the entire field of off-exchange foreign currency futures.\nIndeed, the respondents point out that, as has already been commented on, in 1974 there was not an established market for off-exchange foreign currency options.\nThus, it really doesn't make sense to suggest that without such a market Congress intentionally chose the word in to distinguish futures from an options market which did not yet exist to any real extent.\nSo, accordingly, I think the ordinary meaning and the most logical meaning, which is confirmed by the congressional purpose, is that transactions in foreign currency was a broad exclusion to this new expansion of the definition of commodity under the CEA and accordingly should be given that effect by this Court, namely, to exclude the entire field of off-exchange foreign currency transactions, whether those transactions happen to be in the nature of futures, options, or any other type of transaction that there may be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [751.129, 761.925, 780.978, 789.364, 799.759, 804.712, 813.489, 823.956, 837.523], "stop_times": [761.925, 780.978, 789.364, 799.759, 804.712, 813.489, 823.956, 837.523, 870.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.129}, "reply_to": "21015__0_058", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_060", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Because we're going to have to draw the distinction with respect to the sort of recapture proviso at the end, aren't we, because that refers to sales for future delivery?\nSo, that's going to draw back the futures contracts, but it's not going to draw back the options contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [870.215, 878.521], "stop_times": [878.521, 883.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.215}, "reply_to": "21015__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_061", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I do not agree, Your Honor, that the savings clause only relates to futures.\nI think the savings clause exempts from... the Treasury Amendment excludes all off-exchange transactions in foreign currency, and the savings clause brings back those in the language of the statute which involve the sale thereof for future delivery conducted on a board of trade.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [883.495, 888.819], "stop_times": [888.819, 906.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.495}, "reply_to": "21015__0_060", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_062", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But sale for future delivery is a fairly straightforward description, isn't it, of the future versus the options contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [906.76], "stop_times": [913.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.76}, "reply_to": "21015__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21015__0_063", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I would say, Your Honor, that the description of sale for future delivery would include both futures and options.\nI think the act in different places uses phrases such as a contract of sale for future delivery.\nHere it's a broader phrased sale thereof for future delivery.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [913.954, 920.678, 928.773, 934.178], "stop_times": [920.678, 928.773, 934.178, 934.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.954}, "reply_to": "21015__0_062", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_064", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "If you were describing an option alone, would you use the word delivery?\nYou don't deliver under one of these kinds of options.\nYou don't deliver anything, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [934.816, 937.698, 945.496], "stop_times": [937.698, 945.496, 946.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.816}, "reply_to": "21015__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__0_065", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Well, I think you deliver under an option as much as you deliver under a future because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [946.945], "stop_times": [952.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.945}, "reply_to": "21015__0_064", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_066", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But you don't deliver until you... until somebody exercises the option; whereas, under the futures contract, if the contract is not canceled, you do have to deliver.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [952.729, 961.345], "stop_times": [961.345, 961.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.729}, "reply_to": "21015__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__0_067", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Oh, that's true, but my point is first that most futures contracts are offset rather than actual delivery being made under them, and the nature of the transaction is both futures and options are derivative transactions.\nThey are not transactions actually involving the underlying commodity, whatever that commodity might be.\nIt's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [961.856, 976.223, 984.031], "stop_times": [976.223, 984.031, 985.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.856}, "reply_to": "21015__0_066", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_068", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, whether actually delivered or not, whether they're offset instead of executed, doesn't alter whether they are a sale for future delivery.\nWhen the sale occurs, it is a sale for future delivery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [985.11, 996.717], "stop_times": [996.717, 1000.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.11}, "reply_to": "21015__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_069", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--And I believe that is true for both options and futures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1000.06], "stop_times": [1003.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.06}, "reply_to": "21015__0_068", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_070", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "An option is not a sale at all.\nIt's an option to make a purchase and a commitment to make a future sale if the option to make a purchase is exercised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1003.803, 1005.596], "stop_times": [1005.596, 1014.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.803}, "reply_to": "21015__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_071", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "From the writer's standpoint, Your Honor, there's an obligation.\nPerhaps from the buyer's standpoint, he might have the decision to make as to whether to exercise the option, but from the standpoint of the writer of the option, he's obligated to make whatever, depending on whether it's a put or call option... to make delivery or to get out of the contract, offset the contract in the same way you would do with a futures contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1014.041, 1017.944], "stop_times": [1017.944, 1042.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.041}, "reply_to": "21015__0_070", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_072", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Mr. Stumpp, I thought section... 7 U.S. Code, section 6(c) had some specific bearing on this case, and it's entitled Regulated Option Trading and says that no person shall offer to enter into or enter the execution of any transaction involving any commodity regulated under this chapter which is of the character of or is commonly known to the trade as an option contrary to any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission.\nAnd then subsection (f) of the same section says that nothing in this chapter is deemed to govern or be applicable to any transaction in an option on foreign currency traded on a national security exchange.\nApparently the purpose there is to preserve SEC jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1042.667, 1081.113, 1099.687], "stop_times": [1081.113, 1099.687, 1104.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.667}, "reply_to": "21015__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_073", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "On 6c(f), that's exactly the purpose, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1104.7], "stop_times": [1106.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.7}, "reply_to": "21015__0_072", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_074", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes, but on the first... on subparagraph (b) it seems to give to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the power to regulate or prohibit some transaction in the character of an option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1106.633], "stop_times": [1125.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.633}, "reply_to": "21015__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_075", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That's true.\nI don't think there's a dispute that the CFTC has general jurisdiction over options.\nHowever, when specifically dealing with foreign currency... or transactions in foreign currency, whether those transactions are options, futures, or any other type of transaction in foreign currency, those, provided they occur off exchange are exempt from the Commodity Exchange Act pursuant to the Treasury Amendment.\nThere are other provisions.\nSection 2(i) of the Commodity Exchange Act also gives regulation authority to the CFTC over options.\nBut again, those are options... regulation generally resides in the CFTC which is not disputed.\nHowever, if the option is in foreign currency, if it is a transaction in foreign currency, the Treasury Amendment pulls it out, exempts it from the Commodity Exchange Act, whether it be under section 6c(b), section 2(i), or any other section.\nThe Treasury Amendment would exclude them from regulation under the act.\nThe ordinary meaning, as I've stated, of transactions in foreign currency basically is any transaction where the subject matter involved is foreign currency.\nThe CFTC--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1125.693, 1126.274, 1132.449, 1152.15, 1153.432, 1161.036, 1167.41, 1182.711, 1185.524, 1206.437], "stop_times": [1126.274, 1132.449, 1152.15, 1153.432, 1161.036, 1167.41, 1182.711, 1185.524, 1206.437, 1208.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.693}, "reply_to": "21015__0_074", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_076", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But to reach your conclusion, you have to say, as you do apparently, that an option with respect to foreign currency is a transaction in foreign currency.\nThat's necessary for your result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1208.538, 1222.827], "stop_times": [1222.827, 1226.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.538}, "reply_to": "21015__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__0_077", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--An option is as much a transaction in foreign currency as a future is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1226.5], "stop_times": [1231.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1226.5}, "reply_to": "21015__0_076", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_078", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Would you look at, let's see, section 6(c).\nWhere is it?\nIt's on page 6a of the Government's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1231.003, 1239.288, 1242.11], "stop_times": [1239.288, 1242.11, 1245.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.003}, "reply_to": "21015__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_079", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Brief on the merits, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1245.911], "stop_times": [1248.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.911}, "reply_to": "21015__0_078", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_080", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Brief on the merits, and it's item 2 on page 6a which is section 6c(d)(2).\nThe Commission shall issue regulations that permit grantors and futures commission merchants to offer to enter into... enter into... or confirm the execution of, any commodity option transaction on a physical commodity subject to the provisions of.\nElsewhere the act speaks of an option transaction on a commodity, and you're saying that the earlier expression, transaction in, includes options.\nDoesn't this later language suggest that transaction in does not refer to options?\nOptions are on the commodity, not in the commodity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1248.865, 1262.785, 1282.035, 1298.527, 1305.05], "stop_times": [1262.785, 1282.035, 1298.527, 1305.05, 1308.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.865}, "reply_to": "21015__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_081", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, first, Your Honor, I don't agree with that kind of a conclusion.\nThe CFTC or the respondents have spent a great deal of time arguing that transactions in are different from transactions involving.\nYour Honor is now suggesting transactions on.\nThe meaning, particularly in light of the way the Treasury Amendment came up, was clearly to exempt the field.\nThe Treasury Department proposed the specific language and Congress adopted the language.\nI think it is clear that again if the intent were only to exclude futures, it would have been easy to say transactions in foreign currency futures.\nThe language selected by Congress as proposed by the Treasury Department which wished to exclude CFTC regulation in the entire off-exchange foreign currency market was simply transactions in foreign currency.\nThe fact that the act in different places may provide regulations for options generally does not detract from the exclusion that the Treasury Amendment provided for those transactions in foreign currency whether they happen to be options or any other type of transaction in that foreign currency.\nI would also note that, and getting back to one of the prior points in terms of delivery as a future compared to an option, is that the CFTC respondents argue that options only create a right rather than an obligation to purchase or sell the commodity.\nThat type of distinction is really inaccurate because it doesn't properly describe a future itself.\nUnder the act there have been determinations that futures... instruments can be futures without that type of purchase and sale obligation.\nThe CFTC... if purchase and sale of the underlying commodity were an actual requirement of being a futures contract, then the CFTC would not have been able to approve a number of exchanged-traded, cash-settled futures.\nWhere there are no... where they can be no delivery, there is no obligation to purchase or sell the underlying commodity, and in fact some of these, such as Eurodollars... the underlying commodity doesn't really exist.\nYou couldn't deliver.\nYou have to cash settle.\nSo, the delivery aspect in an attempt to differentiate futures and options simply does not work because that is not an accurate description of commodity futures contracts themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1308.582, 1312.585, 1320.931, 1324.023, 1332.849, 1337.493, 1348.699, 1363.62, 1383.171, 1408.891, 1416.475, 1428.762, 1446.795, 1459.882, 1460.473, 1461.715], "stop_times": [1312.585, 1320.931, 1324.023, 1332.849, 1337.493, 1348.699, 1363.62, 1383.171, 1408.891, 1416.475, 1428.762, 1446.795, 1459.882, 1460.473, 1461.715, 1473.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1308.582}, "reply_to": "21015__0_080", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_082", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Why couldn't you deliver Eurodollars, Mr. Stumpp?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1473.202], "stop_times": [1475.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.202}, "reply_to": "21015__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__0_083", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "They don't exist as such.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1475.984], "stop_times": [1478.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1475.984}, "reply_to": "21015__0_082", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_084", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That's a good reason.\n[Laughter]\nMay I ask--\n--In answer to the gap problem that has been raised, one of your friends said that what Dunn/Delta are doing... that doesn't fall between the regulators because clearly what Dunn is doing falls within the SEC bailiwick because you are... what you're doing is having contracts with your investors and those would count as securities.\nDo you agree that that would be so, that you might escape the CFTC, but you're with the SEC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1478.325, 1480.228, 1480.498, 1485.359, 1517.021], "stop_times": [1480.228, 1480.498, 1485.359, 1517.021, 1526.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.325}, "reply_to": "21015__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__0_085", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Speaking here, Your Honor, I don't think there is any regulatory gap because even the CFTC's complaint describes the investments that were entered into here as investment strategies, and I think that would fall within the definition of investment contracts for SEC jurisdictional purposes.\nSo, I don't think there is any regulatory gap.\nI think there is no jurisdiction of the CFTC over these transactions, but it is not to suggest that there is not jurisdiction of other agencies, most appropriately the SEC, to regulate those type of transactions.\nAs I said, the transactions were not made between petitioners and the individual investors.\nThe transactions were made between... with the major banks.\nThe investors were not counter-parties to any of the off-exchange foreign currency options that were transacted here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1526.256, 1541.917, 1544.25, 1556.997, 1562.754, 1568.155], "stop_times": [1541.917, 1544.25, 1556.997, 1562.754, 1568.155, 1574.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1526.256}, "reply_to": "21015__0_084", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_086", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "If we think that the language is open to either interpretation, and at the time they enacted it, nobody really thought about the options market developing, and if there's a good practical way to get your... the industry's concerns dealt with through negotiations between Treasury and CFTC dividing responsibility, why wouldn't we then, other things being equal, say, all right, the people who administer this, apparently the Treasury and the CFTC, think it's better to read the language as inclusive and then get the exclusion through negotiation with the industry between the agencies?\nIt introduces more flexibility, deal more subtly with congressional and Treasury purposes, et cetera.\nWhy not go in that direction?\nI'm not saying I would.\nI'm just trying to get your response to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1574.648, 1618.767, 1625.202, 1627.105, 1627.833], "stop_times": [1618.767, 1625.202, 1627.105, 1627.833, 1629.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.648}, "reply_to": "21015__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__0_087", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "First, Your Honor, I'd note that it might not have been intended that way, but I think your question has a hypothetical element to it simply because the CFTC and the Treasury Department most certainly do not agree over the way this provision is read.\nI think perhaps the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1629.436, 1641.594], "stop_times": [1641.594, 1642.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1629.436}, "reply_to": "21015__0_086", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_088", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But I was thinking they could work out... they don't agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1642.794], "stop_times": [1645.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.794}, "reply_to": "21015__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__0_089", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--They don't agree.\nThey have filed amicus briefs in the Fourth Circuit in Salomon Forex.\nThey filed amicus briefs on opposite sides of the issue, and that was 4 years ago.\nIn fact, in the opposition to the petition for certiorari in this case, which was jointly submitted by the CFTC and the Treasury Department, one of the reasons that were offered why this Court should not grant cert was that there might be a chance the agencies would work it out between themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1645.715, 1647.067, 1650.289, 1655.132], "stop_times": [1647.067, 1650.289, 1655.132, 1672.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1645.715}, "reply_to": "21015__0_088", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_090", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1672.824], "stop_times": [1673.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.824}, "reply_to": "21015__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__0_091", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Obviously--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1673.214], "stop_times": [1673.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1673.214}, "reply_to": "21015__0_090", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_092", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I noted that that brief was filed for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and for the United States as amicus curiae, whereas the opposition on the merits is just for the CFTC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1673.795], "stop_times": [1687.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.795}, "reply_to": "21015__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__0_093", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--That's right.\nThe Treasury Department, I think it's fair to say, does not share the view of the CFTC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1687.662, 1688.193], "stop_times": [1688.193, 1692.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1687.662}, "reply_to": "21015__0_092", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_094", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And this thing was called the Treasury Amendment, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1692.047], "stop_times": [1694.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1692.047}, "reply_to": "21015__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_095", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes, it was, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1694.688], "stop_times": [1695.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1694.688}, "reply_to": "21015__0_094", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_096", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Because it was introduced by the Treasury Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1695.427], "stop_times": [1697.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.427}, "reply_to": "21015__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_097", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Specifically by... or specifically enacted as they proposed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1697.46], "stop_times": [1701.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1697.46}, "reply_to": "21015__0_096", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_098", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But if I may just vary Justice Breyer's question, yes, these agencies right now do not seem to be in agreement, but if this Court made a decision that would say what the law is, then does it follow that there are going to be this tight regulation then that would drive everyone to the London or other markets instead of reasonable exemptions being made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1701.441], "stop_times": [1729.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.441}, "reply_to": "21015__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__0_099", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think that that's... obviously, it's a hypothetical because it hasn't happened, Your Honor.\nI think that in the number of years the dispute has existed, if it were possible to reach some kind of agreement without a direction from this Court, I think it would have happened by this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1729.23, 1734.893], "stop_times": [1734.893, 1743.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1729.23}, "reply_to": "21015__0_098", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_100", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, isn't your answer that if Treasury were that confident, they would never have introduced the Treasury Amendment?\nIf they were content to rely upon the good offices of the communities... Commodity Futures Trading Commission, they wouldn't have introduced the amendment at all.\nThey would have just said we'll cut our deal with the Commission.\nWe know they're reasonable people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1743.178, 1749.704, 1760.65, 1763.144], "stop_times": [1749.704, 1760.65, 1763.144, 1764.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.178}, "reply_to": "21015__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__0_101", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I will agree with that observation.\n[Laughter]\nIf I may, Your Honor, if there's no further questions, Mr. Chief Justice, at this time I'd like to reserve whatever remains for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1764.223, 1768.677, 1768.897], "stop_times": [1768.677, 1768.897, 1776.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1764.223}, "reply_to": "21015__0_100", "speaker": "gary_d_stumpp"}
{"id": "21015__0_102", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Very well, Mr. Stumpp.\nMr. Minear, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1776.131, 1777.633], "stop_times": [1777.633, 1779.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.131}, "reply_to": "21015__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_000", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe submit that foreign currency futures are transactions in foreign currency, but foreign currency options are not.\nWe think that is the most accurate and sensible interpretation of the Treasury Amendment's text.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1779.844, 1787.507, 1793.862], "stop_times": [1787.507, 1793.862, 1798.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.844}, "reply_to": "21015__0_102", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_001", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, so you both agree that it's a... an option is a transaction in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1798.176], "stop_times": [1804.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.176}, "reply_to": "21015__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_002", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "No.\nI... we disagree that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1804.38, 1804.851], "stop_times": [1804.851, 1806.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.38}, "reply_to": "21015__1_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_003", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Then I misunderstood you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1806.281], "stop_times": [1807.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.281}, "reply_to": "21015__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_004", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Yes.\nA... we say that a futures contract is properly described as a transaction in a commodity because it is an actual sale of the commodity although at a... for settlement and delivery at a later date.\nAn options contract by contrast is a sale of a future right to buy or sell the commodity.\nIt involves the commodity, but it is not a transaction in the commodity itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1807.653, 1808.161, 1819.111, 1825.632], "stop_times": [1808.161, 1819.111, 1825.632, 1830.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.653}, "reply_to": "21015__1_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_005", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Is it a transaction involving a commodity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1830.197], "stop_times": [1833.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.197}, "reply_to": "21015__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_006", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "It would be fair to characterize it as a transaction involving a commodity.\nAnd in fact, that is how the CEA actually characterizes it, and it's one of the reasons why we have concerns with treating a transaction in foreign currency as a transaction in foreign currency options.\nPetitioners argue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1833.499, 1837.881, 1850.41], "stop_times": [1837.881, 1850.41, 1851.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.499}, "reply_to": "21015__1_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_007", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "May I clarify one thing at the outset, Mr. Minear?\nJustice Kennedy pointed out that the statute also applies to Federal Government securities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1851.691, 1853.862], "stop_times": [1853.862, 1859.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.691}, "reply_to": "21015__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_008", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1859.626], "stop_times": [1860.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.626}, "reply_to": "21015__1_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_009", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And the Chicago Board of Trade has filed a brief in which they express concern about the status of off-exchange transactions in Federal securities.\nAnd as I understand your position, they would... the options and the futures transactions would be treated differently in that security as well as foreign exchange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1860.478, 1870.081], "stop_times": [1870.081, 1880.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.478}, "reply_to": "21015__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_010", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "To a large extent, that is true, Your Honor.\nLet me first say that Government securities are traded on the exchanges, on the Chicago Board of Trade.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1880.479, 1883.291], "stop_times": [1883.291, 1889.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.479}, "reply_to": "21015__1_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_011", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Correct, but they're concerned about the off-exchange transactions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1889.686], "stop_times": [1891.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.686}, "reply_to": "21015__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_012", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes.\nThere the Chicago Board of Trade is concerned that that type of trading introduces the possibility of fraud, just as the CFTC is concerned as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1891.586, 1892.257], "stop_times": [1892.257, 1901.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.586}, "reply_to": "21015__1_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_013", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And your position is that the trading in options will... would be regulated, but trading in futures would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1901.083], "stop_times": [1907.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.083}, "reply_to": "21015__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_014", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1907.257], "stop_times": [1909.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.257}, "reply_to": "21015__1_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_015", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1909.047], "stop_times": [1909.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.047}, "reply_to": "21015__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_016", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think it's also important to point out, however, that it's not clear if there is actually a market off... over the counter in Government security options.\nThere certainly is a market in Government security futures and there is a market on options on Government security futures, but we do not have anything in the record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1909.478, 1918.975], "stop_times": [1918.975, 1927.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.478}, "reply_to": "21015__1_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_017", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But the irony then is you would retain the power to regulate the less... I mean, the market that may not exist, namely, the options, and you would have no power to regulate the market we know exists in futures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1927.27], "stop_times": [1940.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.27}, "reply_to": "21015__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_018", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Well, that simply reflects what happened in 1974.\nWhen Congress enacted the CEA in 1974, it was sweeping in a large number of new commodities that were subject to regulation.\nAt that time all options had been prohibited.\nThere was no allowable option trading on the regulated commodities.\nThe Treasury Department noted that could raise problems with regard to certain futures trading in foreign currency, as well as trading in certain types of other financial instruments, and it responded to that market condition that existed at that time.\nI think it's important to understand also that Congress also provided that the CFTC can exempt transactions if in fact it determines that it is appropriate not to regulate them.\nSo, Congress actually did provide for these types of problems, these new markets that would emerge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1940.119, 1942.881, 1950.003, 1952.996, 1957.09, 1972.17, 1983.257], "stop_times": [1942.881, 1950.003, 1952.996, 1957.09, 1972.17, 1983.257, 1988.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.119}, "reply_to": "21015__1_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_019", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, it could exempt... but it could not regulate the futures, the off-exchange trading in futures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1988.549], "stop_times": [1993.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.549}, "reply_to": "21015__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_020", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "It could not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1993.744], "stop_times": [1994.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.744}, "reply_to": "21015__1_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_021", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1994.453], "stop_times": [1994.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.453}, "reply_to": "21015__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_022", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1994.934], "stop_times": [1995.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.934}, "reply_to": "21015__1_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_023", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Now, what regulations has the CFTC imposed on the market in foreign currency options?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [1995.595], "stop_times": [2007.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.595}, "reply_to": "21015__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_024", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Generally foreign currency options would be subject to the usual requirements of a contract market and the usual requirements that govern options trading.\nFor the most part, options trading off of exchanges is not allowed.\nThere are certain exemptions that do apply, however.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2007.703, 2017.94, 2022.171], "stop_times": [2017.94, 2022.171, 2024.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2007.703}, "reply_to": "21015__1_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_025", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "They just prohibit it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2024.713], "stop_times": [2026.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.713}, "reply_to": "21015__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_026", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "They have largely prohibited it with certain very important exceptions, however.\nThere is a dealer exception which covers people who are dealing in the retail trade of a particular commodity at issue.\nThere's a trade option exemption also that deals with people who are engaging in a transaction for a commercial purpose.\nAnd then there's also what is known as the swap exemption which covers certain types of transactions which may or may not be futures or options but, the CFTC has determined, can safely be subject to... can be engaged in without substantial problems of fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2026.166, 2029.167, 2035.87, 2042.565], "stop_times": [2029.167, 2035.87, 2042.565, 2058.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.166}, "reply_to": "21015__1_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_027", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Could it be said that the trade here was under one of the exceptions?\nCommercial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2058.606, 2064.25], "stop_times": [2064.25, 2065.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.606}, "reply_to": "21015__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_028", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "No, I do not believe that they would qualify for any of the exceptions here.\nAnd in fact, the trading that was involved here is exactly the problem that Congress was concerned about in 1974, the so-called Ponzi scheme of trading in naked options and then not being able to cover--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2065.051, 2067.121], "stop_times": [2067.121, 2077.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.051}, "reply_to": "21015__1_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_029", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think Congress was also concerned that the Treasury Department ought to have control over matters that involve trading in foreign currency which probably affect our own currency as well.\nThe CFTC is an independent regulatory agency, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2077.678, 2088.016], "stop_times": [2088.016, 2091.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.678}, "reply_to": "21015__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_030", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2091.967], "stop_times": [2092.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.967}, "reply_to": "21015__1_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_031", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "It can do what it wants and the President cannot alter its decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2092.667], "stop_times": [2096.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.667}, "reply_to": "21015__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_032", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That is largely true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2096.239], "stop_times": [2097.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.239}, "reply_to": "21015__1_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_033", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think Congress was concerned that these decisions should lie with the President of the United States through the Treasury Department, and I don't see, as far as the impact of that upon our national life is concerned, how options are any different from futures.\nYou're talking about fiddling around with foreign currency, and given the international market that now exists, you're talking about fiddling around with our currency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2097.341, 2112.76], "stop_times": [2112.76, 2122.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.341}, "reply_to": "21015__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_034", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, it's not clear, Your Honor, first of all, in the record what effects this will have on the foreign currency markets.\nBut I think more specifically to your point, I think we have to look to what Congress really intended, and what it said in the statute.\nThat is what we have used as the guide here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2122.197, 2127.821, 2133.473], "stop_times": [2127.821, 2133.473, 2135.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.197}, "reply_to": "21015__1_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_035", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, I certainly don't think that just the use of the word in... it bears the meaning you want to give it, but if that same terminology had been used in some legislation, I can just envision the Government coming up here and saying... let's say, an SEC authorization says that it can regulate transactions in something, and you would say, well, it's ridiculous to think that you can avoid all of this by simply dealing in options.\nOf course, options are transactions in that kind of thing.\nI don't think Congress had that distinction in its mind when it drew this thing.\nSo, we're really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2135.586, 2159.911, 2163.575, 2168.339], "stop_times": [2159.911, 2163.575, 2168.339, 2169.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.586}, "reply_to": "21015__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_036", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "We think what... we think... Congress had in its mind was the problem of futures trading and not options trading, and we think the language it used actually indicates that.\nAnd it's a good deal more than simply the word in.\nWe also ask you to look at two other provisions of the CEA, section 2(i) which describes the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction, and section 6(c) which grants the CFTC authority to regulate options.\nIn both of those cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2169.138, 2177.154, 2179.805, 2192.383], "stop_times": [2177.154, 2179.805, 2192.383, 2194.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.138}, "reply_to": "21015__1_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_037", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Where are those in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2194.175], "stop_times": [2194.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.175}, "reply_to": "21015__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_038", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Yes, those are in our brief.\nThe section 2(i) appears at page 1a of the appendix, and the relevant provision of section 6(c) which is subsection (b) appears at page 4.\nWhat you note with regard to both of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2194.876, 2196.186, 2207.112], "stop_times": [2196.186, 2207.112, 2209.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2194.876}, "reply_to": "21015__1_037", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_039", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "There's no sound coming out of your speaker.\nAre you not speaking into it or is there a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2209.165, 2212.597], "stop_times": [2212.597, 2215.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.165}, "reply_to": "21015__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_040", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--I'm not sure if there is a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2215.319], "stop_times": [2216.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2215.319}, "reply_to": "21015__1_039", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_041", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "It's not connected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2216.868], "stop_times": [2218.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2216.868}, "reply_to": "21015__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_042", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I will try and speak more loudly if that would be of assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2218.849], "stop_times": [2221.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.849}, "reply_to": "21015__1_041", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_043", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think you'll have to because it isn't working.\nThat might be a good idea.\nThat or don't say anything important.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2221.272, 2222.462, 2222.833, 2225.785], "stop_times": [2222.462, 2222.833, 2225.785, 2225.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.272}, "reply_to": "21015__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_044", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I would much prefer to speak to the important matters here.\nAnd in that regard, I think the provisions... these two provisions that I've cited are important and very significant because they both mention... they discuss options and they both describe them as transactions involving the commodity, and they both use very specific language to talk about options.\nI think what's clear throughout the CEA is that when Congress meant to deal with options, it dealt with them quite specifically.\nIt either mentioned them by name or it used the transactions involving terminology.\nThat same language is found also in section 2(a) of the CEA.\nAnd we think that that is very significant in determining what Congress meant when it used the more restrictive phrase transactions in foreign currency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2225.985, 2229.547, 2246.929, 2253.194, 2258.135, 2262.349], "stop_times": [2229.547, 2246.929, 2253.194, 2258.135, 2262.349, 2271.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2225.985}, "reply_to": "21015__1_043", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_045", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "To go back to Justice Scalia's question for a minute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2271.546], "stop_times": [2274.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.546}, "reply_to": "21015__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_046", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2274.037], "stop_times": [2274.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.037}, "reply_to": "21015__1_045", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_047", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--I'm... it may well be that the language determines this in your favor, but if it does not and if it really is open and if Congress did in fact regulate... exempt the foreign transactions for the reasons set out in the Treasury letter, then is there any reason why, in a world where options transactions now serve the same purposes and are used to the same extent as futures transactions, the result should differ?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2274.598], "stop_times": [2308.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.598}, "reply_to": "21015__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_048", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2308.118], "stop_times": [2308.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.118}, "reply_to": "21015__1_047", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_049", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I mean if the language is open and the world is such that the purpose is the same and the Treasury Department apparently thinks that's what it meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2308.969], "stop_times": [2317.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.969}, "reply_to": "21015__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_050", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes, we think there is a very good reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2317.345], "stop_times": [2320.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.345}, "reply_to": "21015__1_049", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_051", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "What is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2320.567], "stop_times": [2321.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.567}, "reply_to": "21015__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_052", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--that they shculd be treated differently, and that is Congress' historic concern that options posed a more serious risk of fraud than futures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2321.148], "stop_times": [2328.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.148}, "reply_to": "21015__1_051", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_053", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "If that isn't so, that is to say, if in today's world it's just as easy to be fraudulent or not fraudulent in respect to a futures transaction when engaged in by thousands of people as a options transaction, then what do we do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2328.251], "stop_times": [2344.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.251}, "reply_to": "21015__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_054", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2344.713], "stop_times": [2345.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.713}, "reply_to": "21015__1_053", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_055", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I mean, is it like the Commerce Clause not foreseeing the automobile?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2345.254], "stop_times": [2348.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.254}, "reply_to": "21015__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_056", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--I think it's a matter of the Court looking to the expertise of two bodies: first, Congress which has continued to regulate options more strictly and has vested authority for exceptions with the CFTC; and then the CFTC itself and its assessment of whether these markets do pose a serious risk or not.\nThe CFTC carefully examined the options market in the newly regulated commodities in 1976.\nIt initially decided to deregulate that market and it found that there were numerous problems with fraud in the marketplace.\nIn 1978 it reimposed those limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2348.826, 2367.427, 2375.024, 2381.486], "stop_times": [2367.427, 2375.024, 2381.486, 2384.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2348.826}, "reply_to": "21015__1_055", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_057", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But if they trusted the FTC to make these determinations, they wouldn't have needed the Treasury Amendment.\nThey would have said that the CFTC has exemption authority.\nWe will rely upon their good offices, unreversible by the President of the United States, to exempt those things that need exempting.\nThey were not willing to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2384.878, 2389.823, 2393.053, 2400.67], "stop_times": [2389.823, 2393.053, 2400.67, 2401.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.878}, "reply_to": "21015__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_058", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think what Congress was doing in 1974, it was looking at the markets that existed at that time, and it was saying, yes, we feel we can safely exempt the foreign currency futures market, the only market that existed and the only market that was described in the Treasury Amendment's... the Treasury Department's correspondence respecting the Treasury Amendment.\nAs to future markets that might develop, CFTC would be given the authority to make those judgments based on its ability to gather the facts and make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2401.802, 2422.084], "stop_times": [2422.084, 2429.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2401.802}, "reply_to": "21015__1_057", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_059", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, no, but the legislative findings deal with... in section 5 deal with both futures and options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2429.768], "stop_times": [2436.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.768}, "reply_to": "21015__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_060", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Yes, that is true, and again I think section 5 is probably most notable for the fact that it distinguishes between transactions in commodities and options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2436.604], "stop_times": [2446.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.604}, "reply_to": "21015__1_059", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_061", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I thought you were saying that Congress really wasn't thinking about options at all when it passed this bill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2446.859], "stop_times": [2452.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.859}, "reply_to": "21015__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_062", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "It was not to a large extent, and with regard to section 5--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2452.522], "stop_times": [2455.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.522}, "reply_to": "21015__1_061", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_063", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, then why did it include options in the legislative findings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2455.315], "stop_times": [2457.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.315}, "reply_to": "21015__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_064", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--The legislative findings... you're talking about the last two sentences of that section which appear on page 3a.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2457.905], "stop_times": [2463.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.905}, "reply_to": "21015__1_063", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_065", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, I presume those are as good as any other findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2463.54], "stop_times": [2465.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.54}, "reply_to": "21015__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_066", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But those findings were added in 1983, some time after 1974.\nMany of these markets have grown dramatically.\nI think that's the most remarkable effect about the commodities market, is they have been subject to dramatic expansion since 1974.\nAnd the CFTC is exercising judgment in terms of where there are serious problems of fraud.\nThey believe there are serious problems of fraud in the foreign currency market as indicated by this very case, and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2465.912, 2471.415, 2473.827, 2480.982, 2486.386], "stop_times": [2471.415, 2473.827, 2480.982, 2486.386, 2493.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.912}, "reply_to": "21015__1_065", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_067", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "With respect to this very case, Mr. Minear, the point that was made I think in the Chase Manhattan brief about the SEC has ample jurisdiction to take care of this kind of operation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2493.489], "stop_times": [2505.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.489}, "reply_to": "21015__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__1_068", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--That is not necessarily true, Your Honor.\nThat... I think that that brief suggested that some of these transactions would be... would fall within the description of an investment contract, and therefore would be a security for purposes of the Securities and Exchange Act.\nThe problem with that is that you can avoid the investment contract terminology... or the requirement... the satisfy... you can avoid a... creating a transaction that is an investment contract by simply how you structure it.\nSo, fraudulent bucket shops can in fact avoid that problem by simply avoiding a... structuring their dealings in a way that does not create an investment contract.\nSo, there's still a residual need for CFTC oversight in some of these areas unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2505.757, 2508.618, 2520.868, 2536.619, 2545.754], "stop_times": [2508.618, 2520.868, 2536.619, 2545.754, 2551.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.757}, "reply_to": "21015__1_067", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_069", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Isn't it true also, or is it... it's something I picked up from one of the briefs... that as the traders become more and more sophisticated, it's harder to tell a difference in a futures and an option, and you can even have an option on a future, et cetera, et cetera?\nIsn't it very difficult sometimes to tell which of the two it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2551.859, 2564.886], "stop_times": [2564.886, 2569.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.859}, "reply_to": "21015__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__1_070", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--It could be.\nIt depends.\nI think that the swap exemption is an example of that.\nIt discusses the fact that there are very sophisticated transactions that are being engaged in that may have the aspects of a future but are not actually a future.\nAnd in those situations, the CFTC has carefully looked at the transactions, has indicated which ones they think are permissible and which ones are not.\nAnd that is in fact a very reasonable way to go forward with respect to these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2569.431, 2570.71, 2571.19, 2574.843, 2583.027, 2590.842], "stop_times": [2570.71, 2571.19, 2574.843, 2583.027, 2590.842, 2594.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.431}, "reply_to": "21015__1_069", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_071", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But if they are so close that you can't tell them apart, what sense would it make to say that the futures are out but the options are in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2594.476], "stop_times": [2604.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.476}, "reply_to": "21015__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21015__1_072", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Well, we think that what Congress did in 1974 is it looked at the futures market as it existed then and said those... that area is exempt.\nThere are no... there will not be CFTC regulation in that area.\nBut as to these new instruments that come in, we'll make a case-by-case determination.\nWe'll vest that authority with the CFTC which has the authority and the time and the expertise to evaluate these transactions and determine whether or not they're serving a useful market purpose and whether or not they pose an unacceptable risk of fraud in the marketplace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2604.373, 2612.728, 2616.371, 2620.761], "stop_times": [2612.728, 2616.371, 2620.761, 2634.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2604.373}, "reply_to": "21015__1_071", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_073", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Mr. Minear, don't futures and options involve the same market participants?\nI'm not sure the sense of regulating one and not the other.\nAnd if you regulate the options market, it seems to me, particularly if they're the same participants and it's the same general market, that you're affecting futures anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2634.312, 2639.625, 2644.828], "stop_times": [2639.625, 2644.828, 2653.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.312}, "reply_to": "21015__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__1_074", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, I think all of these can raise very complex economic questions in terms of the relationship between the options market and the futures market.\nBut I think we can say this, that with regard to commercial expectations, the futures market is secure.\nWith regard to the newly created options market, those questions ought to be evaluated by someone.\nWe shouldn't simply provide an open-ended exception that says... simply says that anything that involves a foreign currency is going to be exempt from regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2653.664, 2662.76, 2668.663, 2675.118], "stop_times": [2662.76, 2668.663, 2675.118, 2683.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.664}, "reply_to": "21015__1_073", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_075", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, then maybe you need to adopt the Board of Trade's position that they're both subject to the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2683.243], "stop_times": [2688.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.243}, "reply_to": "21015__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__1_076", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "No.\nWe think the problem with that position is it runs into the difficulty with the board of trade proviso that was discussed earlier.\nIt's clear that Congress did want futures transactions to be... that were conducted on a board of trade to be subject to CFTC regulation.\nSo, we think that that's a textual problem of taking that approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2688.296, 2689.038, 2695.713, 2704.918], "stop_times": [2689.038, 2695.713, 2704.918, 2708.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2688.296}, "reply_to": "21015__1_075", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_077", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Could you refer me to something just in respect to your answer to Justice Kennedy?\nI had assumed throughout this we weren't discussing no regulation of fraud.\nI thought the issue was who would regulate: CFTC on the one hand or SEC and Treasury on the other.\nNow you're saying that if we hold that the CFTC does not have the authority, no one has the authority in respect to a significant number of off-exchange option currency transactions.\nNow, is that so?\nIs that what you're saying, and if it is, where would I find out the scope of that problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2708.959, 2712.412, 2717.965, 2725.192, 2738.442, 2739.711], "stop_times": [2712.412, 2717.965, 2725.192, 2738.442, 2739.711, 2744.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2708.959}, "reply_to": "21015__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_078", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes, we are saying that there would be... if you hold that options are excluded, there will be a significant portion of the market that will not be subject to regulation by anyone.\nThe Treasury Department does not directly regulate these markets for fraud.\nIt does regulate banks for safety and soundness, and as long as these transactions take place in the interbank market, that provides some substantial protection.\nBut any other protection would have to come from another agency.\nThose agencies would be the CFTC or the SEC.\nThe problem with SEC regulation here is unless the transaction involved qualifies as an investment contract under this Court's decision in Howey, there would not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2744.104, 2752.829, 2757.362, 2764.808, 2767.998, 2771.712], "stop_times": [2752.829, 2757.362, 2764.808, 2767.998, 2771.712, 2781.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.104}, "reply_to": "21015__1_077", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_079", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Who monitors futures contracts for fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2781.529], "stop_times": [2783.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.529}, "reply_to": "21015__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_080", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--No one is monitoring the futures contracts for fraud, and in part that was because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2783.018], "stop_times": [2788.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.018}, "reply_to": "21015__1_079", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_081", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "So, it works there.\nWhy can't it work here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2788.561, 2788.901], "stop_times": [2788.901, 2789.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.561}, "reply_to": "21015__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_082", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--The... and again, we're talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2789.842], "stop_times": [2792.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.842}, "reply_to": "21015__1_081", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_083", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Is there some rule that everybody has to be regulated or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2792.194], "stop_times": [2793.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.194}, "reply_to": "21015__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_084", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Let me clarify this again that with regard to the over-the-counter market, there is no CFTC direct regulation of futures, but that was based on the Congress... congressional determination that that was not necessary.\nCongress has never made an--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2793.136, 2805.674], "stop_times": [2805.674, 2806.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.136}, "reply_to": "21015__1_083", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_085", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--That's begging the question.\nI mean, you're just begging the very question.\nDid they make that determination just for futures or for all transactions involving foreign currency?\nYou point out that they do use the term involving to refer to options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2806.955, 2807.826, 2810.207, 2817.373], "stop_times": [2807.826, 2810.207, 2817.373, 2824.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.955}, "reply_to": "21015__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_086", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2824.795], "stop_times": [2825.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.795}, "reply_to": "21015__1_085", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_087", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But they also use the term on to refer to options.\nSo, they're obviously not using any consistent language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2825.316, 2828.639], "stop_times": [2828.639, 2831.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.316}, "reply_to": "21015__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_088", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think the context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2831.851], "stop_times": [2832.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.851}, "reply_to": "21015__1_087", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_089", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "They use in, they use on, they use involving.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2832.973], "stop_times": [2835.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.973}, "reply_to": "21015__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_090", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--I think you will find that they refer to transactions in options in only one case and that's in section 6c(f) where they say, transactions... where they actually refer to that the CFTC would have no jurisdiction over transactions in options on foreign currency traded on a national securities exchange.\nNow, it's clear when Congress uses the term transactions in, I think they're talking about a very specific type of transaction.\nIt is accurate to describe an option as a transaction in an option, a foreign currency option.\nI do not think it's accurate to describe as a transaction involving... or an options transaction as a transaction in the foreign currency, the underlying commodity itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2835.053, 2854.195, 2860.99, 2867.014], "stop_times": [2854.195, 2860.99, 2867.014, 2876.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.053}, "reply_to": "21015__1_089", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_091", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But the problem with that argument is the unless such transactions involve at the end of the subsection.\nThat is obviously a subcategory of those which are in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2876.19, 2882.174], "stop_times": [2882.174, 2885.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2876.19}, "reply_to": "21015__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_092", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That's right.\nAnd so that... and that supports our view I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2885.307, 2885.827], "stop_times": [2885.827, 2888.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.307}, "reply_to": "21015__1_091", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_093", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Not if involve is the broader term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2888.729], "stop_times": [2891.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.729}, "reply_to": "21015__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_094", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Our view is this, that the transactions in foreign currency would include spot transactions, would include cash forward transactions, and would include futures transactions.\nAll three of those transactions involve situations where you're actually purchasing the underlying commodity.\nIf you enter into one of those transactions and do nothing else, you will receive the commodity that's involved.\nWe think that options are different because they do not have that distinction.\nAll you're buying in that case is a right.\nYou're not buying the underlying commodity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2891.34, 2900.916, 2906.39, 2911.923, 2915.464, 2917.257], "stop_times": [2900.916, 2906.39, 2911.923, 2915.464, 2917.257, 2919.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.34}, "reply_to": "21015__1_093", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_095", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But, Mr. Minear, now do you agree that if the petitioners had engaged in exactly the same scheme, including misrepresentations and all, with their customers in trading in off-exchange foreign currency futures, the CFTC would have no jurisdiction over it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2919.858], "stop_times": [2946.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2919.858}, "reply_to": "21015__1_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_096", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "We think that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2946.074], "stop_times": [2947.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.074}, "reply_to": "21015__1_095", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_097", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Same conduct exactly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2947.376], "stop_times": [2949.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.376}, "reply_to": "21015__1_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_098", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--There would be one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2949.287], "stop_times": [2950.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2949.287}, "reply_to": "21015__1_097", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_099", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--but in connection with futures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2950.289], "stop_times": [2951.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.289}, "reply_to": "21015__1_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_100", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Excuse me, Your Honor.\nThere would be one question that we'd ask, whether this is conducted on a board of trade or not.\nBut let's assume it's not on a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2951.859, 2952.57, 2956.991], "stop_times": [2952.57, 2956.991, 2958.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.859}, "reply_to": "21015__1_099", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_101", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "No.\nLet's say it's an off-exchange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2958.253, 2958.453], "stop_times": [2958.453, 2959.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2958.253}, "reply_to": "21015__1_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_102", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Well, board of trade is not necessarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2959.484], "stop_times": [2961.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.484}, "reply_to": "21015__1_101", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_103", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "They're off, not a board of trade.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2961.406], "stop_times": [2962.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2961.406}, "reply_to": "21015__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_104", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--with your hypothetical assuming it's not on a board of trade.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2962.277], "stop_times": [2965.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.277}, "reply_to": "21015__1_103", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_105", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2965.048], "stop_times": [2965.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.048}, "reply_to": "21015__1_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_106", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "In that situation it's true that the CFTC would not be able to bring an enforcement action, but it might be far more difficult to bring that type of fraudulent scheme and let me explain why.\nI think this is important.\nThat options are peculiarly subject to fraud because they're very easy to market to an unsuspecting public.\nThey can be sold very much like a lottery ticket.\nThe way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2965.239, 2974.515, 2975.535, 2981.609, 2984.34], "stop_times": [2974.515, 2975.535, 2981.609, 2984.34, 2984.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2965.239}, "reply_to": "21015__1_105", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_107", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "An option can?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2984.931], "stop_times": [2986.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.931}, "reply_to": "21015__1_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_108", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--An option can because what you're telling the person is, here, you pay this premium, a small premium, and you... and the sky is the limit on what you might get in the form of your investment return.\nA futures contract... to explain a futures contract to an investor would be no simple matter to begin with.\nBut beyond that, it also... they have to explain to the person that you're making an investment in a future purchase and you might be obligated to buy that future commodity.\nMuch of this has really to do with the market mentality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [2986.042, 2996.518, 3002.642, 3011.618], "stop_times": [2996.518, 3002.642, 3011.618, 3015.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2986.042}, "reply_to": "21015__1_107", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_109", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Wouldn't there be even less reason to find an exception for an option where the buyer doesn't have to go ahead with it?\nHe can not exercise the option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3015.092, 3022.766], "stop_times": [3022.766, 3024.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.092}, "reply_to": "21015__1_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_110", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "The difficulty here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3024.977], "stop_times": [3026.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.977}, "reply_to": "21015__1_109", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_111", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I mean, it's just a strange argument it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3026.528], "stop_times": [3029.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.528}, "reply_to": "21015__1_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_112", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Well, I think that this... the answer here is largely a part of history and largely a part of market psychology.\nBut it has always been easier to market options than... fraudulently than futures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3029.129, 3034.142], "stop_times": [3034.142, 3040.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3029.129}, "reply_to": "21015__1_111", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_113", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, how do you know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3040.116], "stop_times": [3040.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.116}, "reply_to": "21015__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_114", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think Congress made that determination in terms of how it decided in 1922, since 1922, that there would be no options.\nOptions would not be sold on agricultural commodities because they posed such a danger of fraud, but futures would be allowed.\nAnd that was the law from 1922 until 1974.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3040.997, 3049.312, 3056.558], "stop_times": [3049.312, 3056.558, 3061.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3040.997}, "reply_to": "21015__1_113", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_115", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And so all that proves is what you're saying was true in 1922.\nIt doesn't prove it's true now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3061.031, 3063.121], "stop_times": [3063.121, 3064.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.031}, "reply_to": "21015__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_116", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And what it proves is that in 1974, the relevant time for determining the Treasury Amendment, Congress continued to hold that view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3064.824], "stop_times": [3072.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.824}, "reply_to": "21015__1_115", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_117", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, if we adopt your view of the Treasury Amendment, not if we adopt the petitioners'.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3072.157], "stop_times": [3078.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.157}, "reply_to": "21015__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_118", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, even apart from the Treasury Amendment, Congress continued to impose a ban on options in 1974 even though it was allowing trading in the futures market.\nIt simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3078.31, 3086.698], "stop_times": [3086.698, 3087.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.31}, "reply_to": "21015__1_117", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_119", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Mr. Minear, has anybody... who's representing the President's position in this case?\nI assume that's Treasury's position since he controls Treasury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3087.479, 3093.023], "stop_times": [3093.023, 3095.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.479}, "reply_to": "21015__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_120", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Yes, that's right.\nLet me tell you candidly what occurred in this case.\nThe Solicitor General was called upon to make a determination between the Treasury Department and the CFTC in terms of what is the appropriate position to take on this case.\nHe looked at the statutory language here and made the determination that the CFTC's view was more in accord with the statutory language, and that's why we're taking that position in this case.\nSo, this does represent the view of the Solicitor General in determining what is the best reading of this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3095.594, 3096.746, 3100.689, 3109.694, 3120.11], "stop_times": [3096.746, 3100.689, 3109.694, 3120.11, 3126.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.594}, "reply_to": "21015__1_119", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_121", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3126.165], "stop_times": [3126.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3126.165}, "reply_to": "21015__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_122", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Now I'd like to point to some other textual indicia because I think we haven't really spent much time talking about those.\nOne of the things that I think is significant about the Treasury Amendment is it actually does include certain types of options within its reach.\nIt makes specific reference to security warrants and also repurchase options.\nSo, Congress was aware that certain options would be included in the exclusion here.\nYet, it nevertheless decided against including foreign currency options.\nOne would think that if Congress had intended to include foreign currency options within the exclusion, it would have said so expressly like it did with regard to the other options that were involved here.\nWe think that they also... that this... we also find textual support from the board of trade proviso.\nThis has been discussed by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3126.956, 3134.229, 3140.955, 3146.017, 3150.621, 3154.852, 3164.71, 3171.004], "stop_times": [3134.229, 3140.955, 3146.017, 3150.621, 3154.852, 3164.71, 3171.004, 3172.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.956}, "reply_to": "21015__1_121", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_123", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Does the word transactions in modify just foreign currency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3172.654], "stop_times": [3178.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.654}, "reply_to": "21015__1_122", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__1_124", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--No.\nIt modifies all six of the items that are described there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3178.779, 3179.04], "stop_times": [3179.04, 3183.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3178.779}, "reply_to": "21015__1_123", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_125", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "So, then you do have transactions in an option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3183.283], "stop_times": [3185.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.283}, "reply_to": "21015__1_124", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__1_126", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes, in repurchase options which in that case were specialized... is a specialized type of option.\nBut I think what it indicates here is that Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3185.504, 3190.686], "stop_times": [3190.686, 3193.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3185.504}, "reply_to": "21015__1_125", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_127", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That means you can have a transaction in an option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3193.538], "stop_times": [3195.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.538}, "reply_to": "21015__1_126", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__1_128", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--You can have a transaction in an option, and we... our view would be different if Congress had said transactions in foreign currency options, but it simply said transactions in foreign currency.\nThat's what lies at the heart of our view here on the statutory text.\nIn the Treasury Amendment, Congress said... exempted transactions in certain items.\nIt did not include foreign currency options among those, even though it included foreign currency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3195.56, 3205.436, 3209.179, 3214.563], "stop_times": [3205.436, 3209.179, 3214.563, 3220.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3195.56}, "reply_to": "21015__1_127", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_129", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I guess there's no such thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3220.298], "stop_times": [3221.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.298}, "reply_to": "21015__1_128", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__1_130", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--even though it included other kinds of options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3221.358], "stop_times": [3222.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3221.358}, "reply_to": "21015__1_129", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_131", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--There's no such thing as a repurchase future I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3222.38], "stop_times": [3225.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.38}, "reply_to": "21015__1_130", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21015__1_132", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think not, and in fact I think that is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3225.852], "stop_times": [3230.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3225.852}, "reply_to": "21015__1_131", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_133", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Would you help me out with the term repurchase options?\nWhat is the universe that that encompasses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3230.283, 3232.865], "stop_times": [3232.865, 3235.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.283}, "reply_to": "21015__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_134", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "This is actually an area where there's some uncertainty, but let me explain.\nWe do know what repurchase agreements are, that the repurchase--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3235.436, 3239.479], "stop_times": [3239.479, 3243.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3235.436}, "reply_to": "21015__1_133", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_135", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But we don't know what repurchase options are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3243.363], "stop_times": [3245.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.363}, "reply_to": "21015__1_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_136", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--We think options are options on repurchase agreements, and we think that Congress might have been looking forward to the possibility of options on repurchase agreements.\nNow, I don't know if that market exists or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3245.614, 3252.807], "stop_times": [3252.807, 3255.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.614}, "reply_to": "21015__1_135", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_137", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And the universe that repurchase agreements covers, is that all agricultural commodities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3255.071], "stop_times": [3261.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.071}, "reply_to": "21015__1_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_138", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "No.\nIt's primarily Government securities.\nIn fact, I think it's... that term is used almost exclusively.\nIf you look to a financial dictionary, you'd find that when we talk about repurchase agreements, we're largely talking about parking Government securities with one holder for a temporary period and then selling them back.\nSo, what we really have here with repurchase options... and I think this Congress was envisioning the possibility that repurchase agreements might be included.\nRepurchase--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3261.713, 3262.224, 3263.706, 3266.888, 3278.365, 3285.188], "stop_times": [3262.224, 3263.706, 3266.888, 3278.365, 3285.188, 3285.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3261.713}, "reply_to": "21015__1_137", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_139", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Help me again.\nA repurchase agreement is a commitment by the Government to rebuy a previously issued security.\nIs that what it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3285.558, 3286.319, 3291.403], "stop_times": [3286.319, 3291.403, 3291.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3285.558}, "reply_to": "21015__1_138", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_140", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Yes, although this more often takes place between banks.\nThey can take place between the Federal Reserve Board and a bank or between the banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3291.993, 3294.765], "stop_times": [3294.765, 3298.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3291.993}, "reply_to": "21015__1_139", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_141", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3298.499], "stop_times": [3298.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.499}, "reply_to": "21015__1_140", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21015__1_142", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But these are all Government securities, so they fall within the Government security exemption anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3298.689], "stop_times": [3302.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3298.689}, "reply_to": "21015__1_141", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_143", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Mr. Minear, if we should disagree with you and hold that options are included within the exemption, do you think the language at the end of that Treasury Amendment, unless such transactions involve the sale thereof for future delivery conducted on a board of trade... do you think that that is... can be applied to options?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3302.552], "stop_times": [3327.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.552}, "reply_to": "21015__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_144", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "We think it cannot be applied to options.\nThere's a possible argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3327.417, 3329.998], "stop_times": [3329.998, 3331.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3327.417}, "reply_to": "21015__1_143", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_145", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "You're going to be in big trouble if we disagree with you then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3331.309], "stop_times": [3334.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.309}, "reply_to": "21015__1_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21015__1_146", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Yes, I think that's right.\nI think that might well be the case.\nBut again, we have to look at what the words of the statute say, and that is what we've used as our guide here.\nThe term, unless such transactions involve the sale thereof for future delivery... and I'm reading on page 2a of our appendix.\nWe think that's a term of art that really refers specifically to futures, and I think you can see that if you look directly below at section 5 which says transactions... this is the legislative finding section.\nTransactions in commodities involving the sale thereof for future delivery is commonly conducted on boards of trade and known as futures.\nSo, that proviso--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3334.161, 3335.153, 3337.724, 3342.146, 3349.052, 3360.087, 3368.373], "stop_times": [3335.153, 3337.724, 3342.146, 3349.052, 3360.087, 3368.373, 3370.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3334.161}, "reply_to": "21015__1_145", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_147", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Mr. Minear, you said some part of that legislative finding was added in 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3370.255], "stop_times": [3374.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3370.255}, "reply_to": "21015__1_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_148", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3374.828], "stop_times": [3375.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3374.828}, "reply_to": "21015__1_147", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_149", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "What was added and what was put in in 1974?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3375.108], "stop_times": [3378.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.108}, "reply_to": "21015__1_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_150", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "The 1974 language actually I think can be traced back to 1922.\nI believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3378.921, 3383.884], "stop_times": [3383.884, 3384.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3378.921}, "reply_to": "21015__1_149", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_151", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But what was added in 1983 that wasn't there... but was there in 1974?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3384.595], "stop_times": [3390.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.595}, "reply_to": "21015__1_150", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_152", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--The language respecting options which appears on page 3a of our appendix, and it begins at about halfway below the page.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3390.649], "stop_times": [3398.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3390.649}, "reply_to": "21015__1_151", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_153", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Furthermore?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3398.062], "stop_times": [3398.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3398.062}, "reply_to": "21015__1_152", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_154", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Furthermore, transactions which are of the character of and are commonly known to the trade as options.\nAgain, here's Congress using the term, very specific term, options when it means to deal with options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3398.703, 3403.057], "stop_times": [3403.057, 3408.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3398.703}, "reply_to": "21015__1_153", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_155", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And that was added in 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3408.43], "stop_times": [3410.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3408.43}, "reply_to": "21015__1_154", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_156", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "That was added in 1983.\nNow, I would like to reemphasize a point here that I think is very important to bear in mind, and that is the Treasury Amendment is an exemption from a general regulatory program, and if there are doubts about its reach, we think the more narrow interpretation is the preferred one here.\nThat rule has particular force where Congress has appointed an expert agency, namely, the CFTC to... and given it authority to provide further exemptions from the regulatory program.\nIt's the CFTC that has the expertise in this area and can make those determinations of whether or not the transactions at issue pose the threat of fraud that was the underlying concern of the securities... the Commodity Exchange Act when it was enacted in 1936 and when it was expanded in 1974.\nWe think that petitioners' non-textual argument really is ultimately unpersuasive.\nTheir notion is simply that it would be illogical for Congress to exempt both foreign currency futures and foreign currency options because they serve similar marketing and hedging functions.\nBut ultimately Congress has always recognized the difference between futures and options.\nIt has done so in the agricultural commodities, and we believe it has done so in these other commodities as well.\nWe think Congress has drawn a line here, and it has drawn a line between foreign currency futures and options.\nIt had a reasonable and sound basis for drawing that line, namely, the fact that options pose more serious risks of fraud.\nFinally, the last point I would like to make is although we believe that the statutory language here is clear, if you disagree with us on that, then it's appropriate to give deference to the CFTC's view as the administrative agency that is administering the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3410.461, 3411.403, 3431.835, 3444.093, 3461.725, 3467.059, 3477.674, 3482.609, 3487.982, 3494.547, 3501.95], "stop_times": [3411.403, 3431.835, 3444.093, 3461.725, 3467.059, 3477.674, 3482.609, 3487.982, 3494.547, 3501.95, 3516.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3410.461}, "reply_to": "21015__1_155", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_157", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But that would be a matter of the agency's jurisdiction, wouldn't it?\nWe don't ordinarily give deference on the jurisdictional point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3516.319, 3520.042], "stop_times": [3520.042, 3522.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3516.319}, "reply_to": "21015__1_156", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_158", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "I think that you do in fact.\nIn fact, in CFTC v. Schor, this Court made that point.\nIt was a question whether CFTC had jurisdiction over reparation proceedings, but you did recognize that we do... it's almost inevitable... inevitably necessary to give deference to an agency's determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3522.604, 3524.156, 3528.227], "stop_times": [3524.156, 3528.227, 3540.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3522.604}, "reply_to": "21015__1_157", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_159", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes, but that isn't a rule in thin air.\nThat's the rule of what Congress would have liked the courts to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3540.156, 3540.947], "stop_times": [3540.947, 3544.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3540.156}, "reply_to": "21015__1_158", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_160", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3544.6], "stop_times": [3545.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3544.6}, "reply_to": "21015__1_159", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_161", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And if anything here where it's the Treasury Amendment, why wouldn't you think Congress would like the courts to pay particular attention to the Treasury, if anyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3545.499], "stop_times": [3553.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3545.499}, "reply_to": "21015__1_160", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21015__1_162", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, we think that the Court's explanation of deference in Smiley is that Congress has delegated this authority to the agency that's charged with administration of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3553.763], "stop_times": [3563.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3553.763}, "reply_to": "21015__1_161", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_163", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "But on this point, hasn't the Government taken different positions at times and said that both futures and options in foreign currency were excluded from CFTC jurisdiction?\nIsn't that the position the Government has taken at times in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3563.55, 3578.571], "stop_times": [3578.571, 3582.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3563.55}, "reply_to": "21015__1_162", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_164", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "The United States filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3582.053], "stop_times": [3583.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3582.053}, "reply_to": "21015__1_163", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_165", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3583.283], "stop_times": [3584.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3583.283}, "reply_to": "21015__1_164", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_166", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "--taking that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3584.084], "stop_times": [3584.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3584.084}, "reply_to": "21015__1_165", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_167", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "And so why is any deference owed here?\nIsn't it a litigation position and not anything entitled to deference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3584.594, 3588.128], "stop_times": [3588.128, 3592.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3584.594}, "reply_to": "21015__1_166", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21015__1_168", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Well, the CFTC's position is not a litigation position.\nThe Commission voted on whether or not to bring this suit, and so it is conducted with sufficient authoritativeness and deliberateness to be entitled to deference.\nI see my time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3592.199, 3595.751, 3604.757], "stop_times": [3595.751, 3604.757, 3605.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3592.199}, "reply_to": "21015__1_167", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21015__1_169", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Minear.\nMr. Stumpp, you have 1 minute remaining.\nTo just briefly touch on a few points raised, the exemptions, the dealer trade option and swap exemption, I think are adequately covered in the amici briefs.\nThey're limited exemptions.\nThey're certainly well subject to CFTC interpretation, modification, or withdrawal.\nThe point that continues to be made concerning that options have been dealt with differently by the CFTC.\nAs I said it is not relevant once you... once the CFTC acknowledges, as they have, that the foreign currency options market didn't exist at that time and the agricultural options regulation, whatever purpose may have been served specifically dealing with agricultural options, would not be relevant to the expansion of the definition of commodity in the '74 amendments beyond the traditional agricultural commodities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3605.648, 3606.449, 3608.651, 3623.62, 3624.521, 3628.733, 3635.798], "stop_times": [3606.449, 3608.651, 3623.62, 3624.521, 3628.733, 3635.798, 3658.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3605.648}, "reply_to": "21015__1_168", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21015__1_170", "conversation_id": "21015", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stumpp.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1181", "start_times": [3658.384, 3659.385], "stop_times": [3659.385, 3660.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3658.384}, "reply_to": "21015__1_169", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_000", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-262, Jon Edmond v. United States.\nMr. Morrison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [0.0, 8.378], "stop_times": [8.378, 9.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_001", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe question presented by this case is whether the civilian judges of the Courts of Criminal Appeal of the Coast Guard were properly appointed.\nIn actuality, there are two questions: 1) did the Secretary of Transportation have the statutory authority to make the appointment, and 2) if he did, is it constitutional for him to have done so because the officers are principal offices rather than inferior officers.\nCongress first provided for civilian appellate judges in the armed services in 1950, with the passage of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in particular, Article 66(a).\nIt was available to all of the armed services, but the legislative history is clear that it was intended principally for the use of the Coast Guard.\nUntil 1993, the Coast Guard used civilian judges and, like all of the other military judges who were appointed to the military appellate panels, they were appointed, as they were for the other armed services, by the person known as the Judge Advocate General of the armed services, which in the case of the Coast Guard is the general counsel of the Transportation Department, and before that the general counsel of the Treasury Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [9.267, 11.57, 19.625, 35.245, 46.442, 54.527], "stop_times": [11.57, 19.625, 35.245, 46.442, 54.527, 82.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.267}, "reply_to": "20367__0_000", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_002", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "There's a Judge Advocate General for each branch, is there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [82.416], "stop_times": [85.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 82.416}, "reply_to": "20367__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_003", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That is correct.\nIn the Transportation Department... there is no one in the Coast Guard.\nThat position by statute is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [85.418, 85.906, 90.521], "stop_times": [85.906, 90.521, 93.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 85.418}, "reply_to": "20367__0_002", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_004", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "General--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [93.042], "stop_times": [93.773], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 93.042}, "reply_to": "20367__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__0_005", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--general counsel of the Department of Transportation.\nIn 1993, the Court of Military Review for the Coast Guard, as it was then known, recognized that there were serious Appointments Clause problems with respect to the civilian members of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review.\nThe problem arose because the Judge Advocate General is clearly not one of those listed persons in the Appointments Clause and therefore cannot constitutionally be designated as an appointing officer even for inferior officers.\nAs part of its opinion in a case called Senior, the Coast Guard Court of Military Review asked the Secretary of Transportation to \"reappoint\" all of the civilian judges, and he did that.\nIn fact, he did that for all of the judges of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review, and although he did not cite 49 U.S.C. section 323(a), or, in fact, any other provision, that is the statute on which the Government relies, and the first question presented is, is that reliance justified?\nThe Government recognizes that, despite the broad language of section 323(a), it cannot be used if there is another statute that provides for another method of appointment for this particular office or any other.\nThe question in this case arises because Article 66(a) does not use the word, appointment.\nIt uses... it used initially establish, and then constitute, but the history is clear that from 1950 until 1993, it was the Judge Advocate General who actually did the appointing for the civilians.\nThe Government says because the word appointment wasn't used we should not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [93.773, 95.364, 110.212, 124.522, 137.562, 155.744, 169.982, 178.128, 193.347], "stop_times": [95.364, 110.212, 124.522, 137.562, 155.744, 169.982, 178.128, 193.347, 197.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 93.773}, "reply_to": "20367__0_004", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_006", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, Article 66 speaks in terms of assigning, doesn't it, not appointing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [197.919], "stop_times": [203.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.919}, "reply_to": "20367__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_007", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Yes.\nWell, it first talks about constitute and establish, and then it uses the word assignment.\nThat is correct, Your Honor.\nThe Government argues from that that it should not be treated as an alternative method of appointment.\nThe first answer we have to that is that it has been construed by the agencies all across the military from 1950 to 1993 as providing the appointment power.\nIndeed, there is no other provision of law that would allow the appointment of civilian judges in the Coast Guard.\nThere certainly was nothing from 1950 to 1968... '66, when the Coast Guard was transferred from the Treasury Department--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [203.124, 203.913, 209.258, 210.249, 215.435, 226.201, 233.094], "stop_times": [203.913, 209.258, 210.249, 215.435, 226.201, 233.094, 242.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 203.124}, "reply_to": "20367__0_006", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_008", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "But there weren't any civilian judges in the other branches, were there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [242.242], "stop_times": [245.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.242}, "reply_to": "20367__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_009", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Yes, there were, Your Honor.\nThere were also in the Navy.\nThe Navy had a number of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [245.052, 245.683, 246.915], "stop_times": [245.683, 246.915, 248.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.052}, "reply_to": "20367__0_008", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_010", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "For how long?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [248.234], "stop_times": [249.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.234}, "reply_to": "20367__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_011", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "It's in note 2 of my brief, Your Honor.\nI'll--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [249.045, 251.158], "stop_times": [251.158, 251.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.045}, "reply_to": "20367__0_010", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_012", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, I'll pick it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [251.749], "stop_times": [254.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.749}, "reply_to": "20367__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_013", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd it's also recognized in the Weiss opinion as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [254.581, 254.969], "stop_times": [254.969, 257.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.581}, "reply_to": "20367__0_012", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_014", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, the Coast Guard is the only place where civilian judges are now used--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [257.322], "stop_times": [261.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.322}, "reply_to": "20367__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_015", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [261.733], "stop_times": [262.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.733}, "reply_to": "20367__0_014", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_016", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--at the present time, and I guess... I mean, even if 866(a) were invalid, you still... as long as they are inferior officers you could look to 49 U.S. Code 323(a), I suppose, for the Coast Guard, for appointment by the Secretary of Transportation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [262.545], "stop_times": [282.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.545}, "reply_to": "20367__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_017", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, that gets to our... that is the question, Your Honor, whether you can, and the Coast Guard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [282.587], "stop_times": [287.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 282.587}, "reply_to": "20367__0_016", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_018", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, I just thought there was a fall-back statute, so until you get to whether they're principal or inferior officers, I'm not sure you can address your first question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [287.041], "stop_times": [297.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.041}, "reply_to": "20367__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_019", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I think not.\nI think that the question of whether 323(a) is a fall-back statute or not is very much of an open question, and we first suggest that 66(a) has been treated as though it were an Appointment Clause in all of the armed... in all of the armed service appointment statutes, in all of the armed services, including the Coast Guard, and the history is absolutely clear that it has been construed that way, for there is no other source of appointment.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [297.197, 298.929, 324.084], "stop_times": [298.929, 324.084, 324.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.197}, "reply_to": "20367__0_018", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_020", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, let me ask you this, which gets further into this principal or inferior business.\nHow many military officers are there at present, more than 250,000 and some?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [324.485, 331.531], "stop_times": [331.531, 337.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.485}, "reply_to": "20367__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_021", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nI... that is about correct.\nI don't know for sure, but it's in that order of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [337.795, 338.386, 339.996], "stop_times": [338.386, 339.996, 341.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.795}, "reply_to": "20367__0_020", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_022", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "And are all of those people principal officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [341.526], "stop_times": [343.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.526}, "reply_to": "20367__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_023", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [343.809], "stop_times": [344.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.809}, "reply_to": "20367__0_022", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_024", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [344.628], "stop_times": [344.919], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 344.628}, "reply_to": "20367__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__0_025", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I don't believe so.\nIt's never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [344.919, 345.72], "stop_times": [345.72, 346.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.919}, "reply_to": "20367__0_024", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_026", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "So as far as you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [346.201], "stop_times": [347.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.201}, "reply_to": "20367__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_027", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--been tested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [347.981], "stop_times": [348.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.981}, "reply_to": "20367__0_026", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_028", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--concerned, if one of those military officers is reassigned to a principal office, then it would require a new appointment and confirmation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [348.211], "stop_times": [360.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.211}, "reply_to": "20367__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_029", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe Appointment Clause requires a method of appointment.\nIn... under our constitutional scheme, every inferior officer of the United States could be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.\nThe Congress is given the option to make a law that provides for one of three alternative methods of appointment, but the fact that somebody is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate does not make them, by that alone, a principal officer, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [360.429, 360.679, 363.742, 372.568], "stop_times": [360.679, 363.742, 372.568, 388.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.429}, "reply_to": "20367__0_028", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_030", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "But you do... you accept Weiss, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [388.128], "stop_times": [391.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 388.128}, "reply_to": "20367__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_031", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--I have no choice, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [391.11], "stop_times": [392.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 391.11}, "reply_to": "20367__0_030", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_032", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "You aren't suggesting any invalidity there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [392.35], "stop_times": [393.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.35}, "reply_to": "20367__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__0_033", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Yes... yes, Your Honor.\nNow, the Government seems to say that under the scheme that they have devised using 323(a) to rescue them... and by the way, Justice O'Connor, there was a very simple solution in 1993 when this problem was recognized.\nAll the Government had to do at that point was to ask the President of the United States to appoint the civilian judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the problem would have been cured prospectively at that point, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [393.792, 394.943, 410.301], "stop_times": [394.943, 410.301, 423.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 393.792}, "reply_to": "20367__0_032", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_034", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Mr. Morrison, isn't that a bit much, when you think of all of the ALJ's, all of the people who perform comparable functions, the trial people at the tax court, and to take this officer, as important as his job is, and to say that this intermediate appellate judge is a principal officer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [423.141], "stop_times": [448.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.141}, "reply_to": "20367__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20367__0_035", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, I'll be glad to turn to that question, Your Honor.\nFirst, let me... our principal focus on the principal officer point is twofold.\nOne is that these judges have very, very broad powers of review, and second that they have practical finality.\nThat latter characteristic distinguishes them from the trial judges that Your Honor was talking about, the ALJ's, all of whose decisions are reviewable as of right.\nJudges' decisions by the Coast Guard Court of Military Review and of the other armed services are reviewable on a discretionary basis only, certiorari, in essence, to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and less than 4 percent of those cases get taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [448.156, 451.13, 457.332, 463.276, 473.934], "stop_times": [451.13, 457.332, 463.276, 473.934, 487.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.156}, "reply_to": "20367__0_034", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_036", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Excuse me.\nYou say ALJ's are reviewable as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [487.221, 487.702], "stop_times": [487.702, 490.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.221}, "reply_to": "20367__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_037", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Of right.\nThe decisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [490.183, 490.965], "stop_times": [490.965, 491.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.183}, "reply_to": "20367__0_036", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_038", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Are routinely and automatically reviewed?\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [491.545, 495.076], "stop_times": [495.076, 495.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.545}, "reply_to": "20367__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_039", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--As of right, Your Honor.\nYes, that is correct.\nCertainly in all of the examples that the Government cites on pages 26 and 27 of its brief, and obviously there may be some ALJ some place whose decisions are not, but my understanding of the basic structure of the APA is that every person who is dissatisfied with the decision by the ALJ can at least go to an agency head and in most cases to a court of law as of right, in contradistinction to this case, in which the reviews are entirely discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [495.356, 496.087, 496.899], "stop_times": [496.087, 496.899, 526.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.356}, "reply_to": "20367__0_038", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_040", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--But these people you say are principal officers are assigned by the general counsel of the Coast Guard, who is not a principal officer.\nIsn't that a strange world?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [526.208, 537.745], "stop_times": [537.745, 539.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.208}, "reply_to": "20367__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_041", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "It certainly is, Your Honor.\nSorry, you mean the military officers, or the civilians, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [539.037, 540.297], "stop_times": [540.297, 544.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.037}, "reply_to": "20367__0_040", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_042", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [544.641], "stop_times": [544.911], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 544.641}, "reply_to": "20367__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__0_043", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--As far as the military officers are concerned, they may be assigned by the general counsel, but under Weiss, under this Court's decision in Weiss, the Court held that there was no separate appointment required for them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [544.911], "stop_times": [556.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.911}, "reply_to": "20367__0_042", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_044", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "But on your theory they jump from being, some of them at least, inferior officers to superior officers based on the general counsel's appointment, or assignment, rather.\nAll of them do.\nAll of them do, unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [556.508, 566.513, 568.516], "stop_times": [566.513, 568.516, 570.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.508}, "reply_to": "20367__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20367__0_045", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "All of the appellate judges, yes.\nWe're not talking about trial judges here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [570.376, 572.106], "stop_times": [572.106, 573.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.376}, "reply_to": "20367__0_044", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_046", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [573.859], "stop_times": [574.918], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 573.859}, "reply_to": "20367__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__0_047", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "They may well be... it is entirely possible for various officers in the military to reach certain points in which they may be principal officers.\nThat is, for instance, somebody could be a high-ranking person that could be a principal officer in the military.\nWithout knowing what the duties are, I couldn't tell for sure.\nI would say the likelihood is not great, but there are probably not very many in the Coast Guard, other than the Commandant of the Coast Guard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [574.918, 584.575, 589.718, 592.771], "stop_times": [584.575, 589.718, 592.771, 598.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.918}, "reply_to": "20367__0_046", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_048", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--As I understand your theory, what you do have to say on your theory is that those who are not at the superior level by virtue of their military appointments as such suddenly become superior officers by virtue of this assignment to sit on a court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [598.364], "stop_times": [612.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 598.364}, "reply_to": "20367__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20367__0_049", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, and that is... but that is constitutionally acceptable, as this Court held in Weiss, because they were appointed as principal officers along the way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [612.254], "stop_times": [620.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.254}, "reply_to": "20367__0_048", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_050", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "We didn't hold that in Weiss.\nWe left open the... as I recall, Justice Souter wrote that that question was involved, but as I recall the opinion for the Court never addressed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [620.7, 621.989], "stop_times": [621.989, 632.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.7}, "reply_to": "20367__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_051", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "It said as I... we're talking about civilian--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [632.808], "stop_times": [636.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.808}, "reply_to": "20367__0_050", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_052", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I'm talking about the problem of having a requirement for the appointment of superior... of principal officers which can be evaded by simply having an inferior officer reassigned to a task that is the task of a principal officer, never appointing that inferior officer by the method set forth in the Constitution.\nThat's a real problem, isn't it?\nI mean, I think it's a real problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [636.77, 663.907, 665.068], "stop_times": [663.907, 665.068, 666.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.77}, "reply_to": "20367__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_053", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, I think it is, but my burden today is a more limited burden, which is for the civilians who were never appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate to positions in the Coast Guard, that they cannot be reassigned or anything by the Judge Advocate General to these positions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [666.759], "stop_times": [686.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.759}, "reply_to": "20367__0_052", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_054", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, of course--\n--But--\n--It goes to the heart of your whole contention, because it goes to the question of whether it is reasonable to interpret 66 as you ask us to interpret it, as being an authorization to appoint these people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [686.142, 686.803, 687.062], "stop_times": [686.803, 687.062, 701.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 686.142}, "reply_to": "20367__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_055", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "No, Your Honor, I... well, we know for a fact that... and I don't believe the Government disputes this.\nFrom 1950 until 1993, Article 66 was the only provision relied upon for the appointment of civilians to the Courts of Military Review for the Coast Guard and for the Navy, which is the only two services that had them, and so insofar as that fact is concerned, it's not disputed.\nI would say, however, if the Court agrees with me on my first issue... that is, on the first, the statutory construction issue, the Court need not reach this constitutional question.\nIt simply says, the Secretary of Transportation, construing the statutes together, does not have the authority in part because it produces a series of results with regard to the courts of military review that don't make any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [701.902, 708.627, 727.369, 737.705], "stop_times": [708.627, 727.369, 737.705, 751.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.902}, "reply_to": "20367__0_054", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_056", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Mr. Morrison, but we do know that Congress wanted to have these tribunals, and... including civilians.\nIf we take your interpretation of the statute, then we are demolishing what Congress wanted.\nIf we take the Government's view that 323... is that what it is +/?\ncan supplement 66, then we save what Congress plainly wanted to do, so why doesn't the statutory argument turn against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [751.125, 758.619, 765.324, 770.937], "stop_times": [758.619, 765.324, 770.937, 782.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.125}, "reply_to": "20367__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20367__0_057", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, we have two rules of construction in conflict.\nOne is to try to save the statute, as Your Honor has just suggested.\nThe other is to try to avoid the constitutional question, which I have suggested also comes into effect here.\nBut there is another way, of course, to have saved this statute, which is to have had the President of the United States make these appointments in January 1993, instead of going through the short-cut of having the Secretary of Transportation do it, because under the Constitution the President has the power to appoint all officers of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.\nThe only time he does not have that power is when Congress expressly by law takes it away from him and gives it in a valid law to somebody else.\nSince the law as applied to civilians in the Coast Guard... appointments by the Judge Advocate General... was not a valid law, the President's residual power would come forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [782.024, 787.7, 790.77, 795.585, 815.426, 824.462], "stop_times": [787.7, 790.77, 795.585, 815.426, 824.462, 834.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.024}, "reply_to": "20367__0_056", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_058", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "But the President's resid... you make it sound as though this was totally within the control of the executive, but it wasn't, because the President's power is the power to appoint by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [834.648], "stop_times": [846.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.648}, "reply_to": "20367__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_059", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [846.376], "stop_times": [847.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.376}, "reply_to": "20367__0_058", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_060", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [847.398], "stop_times": [847.818], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 847.398}, "reply_to": "20367__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__0_061", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [847.818], "stop_times": [848.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.818}, "reply_to": "20367__0_060", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_062", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--It's a little harder than you make it.\nIt would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [848.869, 851.353], "stop_times": [851.353, 852.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.869}, "reply_to": "20367__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_063", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, not... I think probably not, Your Honor, as a practical matter.\nThere are two judges at this point in the Coast Guard.\nThe President says, these people have been serving.\nHe reappoints them.\nThere are problems with appointment, but I don't think this would come within--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [852.281, 856.145, 858.907, 861.458, 862.55], "stop_times": [856.145, 858.907, 861.458, 862.55, 866.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.281}, "reply_to": "20367__0_062", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_064", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--It would be a fairly unusual provision, though, for the office to be filled by presidential appointment with advice and consent of the Senate for officials of... this far down the ladder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [866.483], "stop_times": [879.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.483}, "reply_to": "20367__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_065", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, I don't know that that's... I view them as comparable to people in the... as tax court judges, Your Honor, and tax court judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.\nThere are various administrative boards whose members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.\nThere would, of course, be one anomaly, which is that you would have some people who are chosen by the President and other people who are chosen either by JAG or the Secretary of Transportation.\nThat's what we're concerned about here.\nIf the Government's view is upheld, we have a situation in which some of the members of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals will be appointed by the President... by the JAG, selected, assigned, chosen by the JAG, if I may use neutral terms... others will be appointed by the Secretary of Transportation.\nArticle 66(a) specifically says that the chief judge of each of these courts of military appeals are to be appointed by the JAG.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [879.971, 891.308, 896.062, 907.209, 910.02, 928.463], "stop_times": [891.308, 896.062, 907.209, 910.02, 928.463, 939.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.971}, "reply_to": "20367__0_064", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_066", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Does Article 66 use the word appointed there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [939.76], "stop_times": [943.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.76}, "reply_to": "20367__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_067", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "It says chosen I believe, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [943.033], "stop_times": [944.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.033}, "reply_to": "20367__0_066", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_068", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, that's quite different from appointed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [944.954], "stop_times": [947.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.954}, "reply_to": "20367__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_069", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [947.544], "stop_times": [949.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.544}, "reply_to": "20367__0_068", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_070", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "It can mean... chosen can mean selecting from someone who already holds the office.\nDesignated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [949.235, 954.54], "stop_times": [954.54, 956.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.235}, "reply_to": "20367__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_071", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Designated.\nI beg your pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [956.22, 957.512], "stop_times": [957.512, 958.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.22}, "reply_to": "20367__0_070", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_072", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, that's even further from appointed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [958.203], "stop_times": [959.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.203}, "reply_to": "20367__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_073", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Yes, except that in this case if you look at the appointing memorandum here it appoints and as far as I can tell designates Chief Judge Baum as the... this is in our appendix at A7... I'm sorry, at A6.\nHe has... the Secretary of Transportation has designated Chief Judge Baum, the only civilian, as the chief judge of the court.\nThat is contrary to what the statute says.\nSimilarly, the statute... we have a situation, supposing a vacancy now occurs on the Coast Guard court.\nIt's one of the military officers who are regularly and routinely reassigned.\nThe question then becomes, who gets to fill this vacancy?\nDoes the JAG get to fill it by assignment, or does the Secretary get to fill it by appointment?\nThe next thing we would know, we would have a larger number of civilian judges.\nI say this not because it's an insuperable problem, but it creates a situation which seems to be very different from what's created by the statute here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [959.762, 977.104, 988.842, 992.554, 999.85, 1004.312, 1008.246, 1013.769, 1018.571], "stop_times": [977.104, 988.842, 992.554, 999.85, 1004.312, 1008.246, 1013.769, 1018.571, 1027.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 959.762}, "reply_to": "20367__0_072", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_074", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, it's not insuperable at all, given that the JAG has to do what the Secretary tells him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1027.436], "stop_times": [1031.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.436}, "reply_to": "20367__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_075", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, Your Honor, that's not entirely true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1031.821], "stop_times": [1033.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.821}, "reply_to": "20367__0_074", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_076", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Any power given to the JAG, unless it's expressly or implicitly limited to him alone, is certainly exercisable by the Secretary, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1033.931], "stop_times": [1044.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.931}, "reply_to": "20367__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_077", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, the JAG is independently... general counsel is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and I don't think that the general counsel of the Transportation Department could be removed by the Secretary of Transportation if the President wanted to keep him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1044.337], "stop_times": [1057.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1044.337}, "reply_to": "20367__0_076", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_078", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "It's not a question of removing him.\nIt's a question of the Secretary saying, I know that this function is assigned to you, but you are my subordinate, and I am going to exercise this function directly myself.\nCan't that be done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1057.466, 1058.546, 1070.066], "stop_times": [1058.546, 1070.066, 1070.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.466}, "reply_to": "20367__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_079", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, I think that's the question, but it's by no means clear that that's correct, and the reason I say that is because there are other things about this statute which suggest that although Congress didn't use the word exclusively here, that it did intend for the JAG's to be in charge of the process.\nAs this Court recognized--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1070.985, 1086.726], "stop_times": [1086.726, 1088.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1070.985}, "reply_to": "20367__0_078", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_080", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Sure, and it intends, for example, in the Justice Department for the subordinate heads of the divisions to do what they want, but doesn't the Attorney General have the power to direct them to do it the way he wants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1088.058], "stop_times": [1099.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.058}, "reply_to": "20367__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_081", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1099.863], "stop_times": [1100.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.863}, "reply_to": "20367__0_080", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_082", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Even though it sets forth their duties?\nThat's Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1100.534, 1101.976], "stop_times": [1101.976, 1104.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.534}, "reply_to": "20367__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__0_083", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, sir.\nWell, that's right, except that as I suggested... he said he would fire his Secretary till he finds one that agrees with him.\nHere, I suggest to you that the general counsel cannot necessarily be fired by the Secretary of Transportation because the general counsel is a presidential appointee.\nBut there's an important set of reasons why I would say that the Justice Department analogy doesn't apply, other than the fact that there are no specific duties listed for most high-ranking officials in the Justice Department.\nIt simply says there shall be 11 Assistant Attorneys Generals who shall carry out the duties.\nHere, in Article 66, I believe the fair reading is that Congress has constructed a system in which they are taking the control over the workings of the courts of military review, or now courts of criminal appeal, out of the line authority.\nThat is, from the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Transportation, and put the control in the lawyers.\nThat is to prevent what this Court recognized in Weiss was the possibility of improper command influence, and this shows up in the selection of the chief judge, in the fact that the... by the JAG, by the fact that the JAG designates who shall sit on what panels, by the fact that the rules for the courts of military review are decided by the JAG's, and that the JAG's are regularly scheduled to meet on practices and procedures.\nThis is more than simply interstitial law-making.\nThis is, in our view, a deliberate decision by the congress to say, for whatever reason... and I suggest that there are many good ones relating to command influence... we want the JAG's rather than the departmental heads to be involved in this process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1104.688, 1104.938, 1105.259, 1110.662, 1118.746, 1130.284, 1134.828, 1151.328, 1158.242, 1183.459, 1186.811], "stop_times": [1104.938, 1105.259, 1110.662, 1118.746, 1130.284, 1134.828, 1151.328, 1158.242, 1183.459, 1186.811, 1201.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.688}, "reply_to": "20367__0_082", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_084", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, suppose they wanted the JAG's... Congress passed a statute and said, we want the JAG's to do all the appointing.\nWe want them to.\nThat's their job.\nAnd one day somebody walked into Congress and said, you know, you've made a little mistake here, because unfortunately under the Constitution the civilian person doesn't have a presidential appointment, and you've got to give the power to the Secretary to appoint him.\nSo Congress says, ah, great idea.\nWe'll say he can be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury.\nThat cures it, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1201.991, 1208.596, 1209.315, 1210.286, 1223.697, 1224.949, 1227.51], "stop_times": [1208.596, 1209.315, 1210.286, 1223.697, 1224.949, 1227.51, 1228.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.991}, "reply_to": "20367__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__0_085", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1228.441], "stop_times": [1229.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.441}, "reply_to": "20367__0_084", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_086", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "All right, and they say, you know, it could come up again, so why don't we pass our statute in general form and just say the Secretary of the Treasury can appoint officers, and that would cure it, I guess.\nHe's an officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1229.891, 1240.3], "stop_times": [1240.3, 1241.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.891}, "reply_to": "20367__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__0_087", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1241.151], "stop_times": [1242.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.151}, "reply_to": "20367__0_086", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_088", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "And then somebody says, you know, you don't have to.\nYou already did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1242.11, 1243.292], "stop_times": [1243.292, 1244.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.11}, "reply_to": "20367__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__0_089", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1244.003], "stop_times": [1245.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1244.003}, "reply_to": "20367__0_088", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_090", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I mean, that's the difficulty I'm having, because I don't see... the statute there certainly would be okay as a curative statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1245.452], "stop_times": [1252.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.452}, "reply_to": "20367__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__0_091", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1252.668], "stop_times": [1253.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1252.668}, "reply_to": "20367__0_090", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_092", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "It would certainly be okay as a specific curative statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1253.817], "stop_times": [1257.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.817}, "reply_to": "20367__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__0_093", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--There's no question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1257.901], "stop_times": [1258.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.901}, "reply_to": "20367__0_092", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_094", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "You could put the specific word in general form, and if somebody points out you already have the statute you don't need to pass it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1258.622], "stop_times": [1263.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.622}, "reply_to": "20367__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__0_095", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "My submission is that this general statute should not be applied here because it doesn't make any sense.\nIt's not... in the words that this Court used just recently in the Robinson v. Shell Oil case in part 2A of its opinion, even were the plain language to apply, the result must also be consistent and coherent and workable, and I suggest to you that implying the authorization for the Secretary of Transportation to make the appointment here runs up against that problem, and therefore you should construe this not to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1263.464, 1270.46], "stop_times": [1270.46, 1298.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.464}, "reply_to": "20367__0_094", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_096", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "But why?\nWell, how much implying are you doing when the statute says the Secretary of Transportation may appoint and fix the pay of officers and employees of the Department of Transportation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1298.897, 1299.638], "stop_times": [1299.638, 1308.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.897}, "reply_to": "20367__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_097", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, I misspoke, Your Honor.\nLet me suggest this.\nI said at the beginning, and the Government doesn't dispute it, that if there is another specific statutory scheme for appointment of other officers, as there is... for instance, there's a general counsel in the Department of Transportation... that the Secretary of Transportation could not use this residual power of appointment whether the person is an inferior officer or not, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1308.544, 1309.934, 1311.356], "stop_times": [1309.934, 1311.356, 1329.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1308.544}, "reply_to": "20367__0_096", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_098", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "And what is your authority for that, the... a specific statute governs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1329.658], "stop_times": [1333.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.658}, "reply_to": "20367__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_099", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1333.899], "stop_times": [1334.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.899}, "reply_to": "20367__0_098", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_100", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--in preference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1334.16], "stop_times": [1334.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.16}, "reply_to": "20367__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_101", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1334.811], "stop_times": [1335.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1334.811}, "reply_to": "20367__0_100", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_102", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--But certainly there can be situations in which more than one statute apply, can't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1335.331], "stop_times": [1341.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.331}, "reply_to": "20367__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_103", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Yes, and the question is, did Congress intend to allow this to apply, given the lengths to which they went in Article 66(a)?\nNow, there are two advantages in accepting this approach.\nNumber 1 is, it sends the matter back to Congress so that Congress can look at this and say, now, which makes sense?\nWhich system do we want to have?\nBecause the legislative history is clear that Congress has never focused on the Appointments Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1341.944, 1347.899, 1352.172, 1358.607, 1360.227], "stop_times": [1347.899, 1352.172, 1358.607, 1360.227, 1366.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.944}, "reply_to": "20367__0_102", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_104", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, Congress can do that if you lose the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1366.171], "stop_times": [1368.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.171}, "reply_to": "20367__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20367__0_105", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1368.942], "stop_times": [1369.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.942}, "reply_to": "20367__0_104", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_106", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Congress can say, gee, we passed a fall-back statute that covers this, and maybe we don't want to cover it again, and the advantage is that you do not for reasons of appointment formality disrupt a great many things that have been done, so why not let Congress have its crack at it on a different contingency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1369.974], "stop_times": [1389.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.974}, "reply_to": "20367__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20367__0_107", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That gets me to my second submission, Your Honor, and that is that it avoids the constitutional question, to which I'd now like to return.\nAs I said before, my two principal arguments on the constitutional issue are that the broad range of review that the judges of the courts of criminal appeal have, they have an enormous power.\nThey review every single conviction of every... any significance in the military.\nEvery bad conduct discharge, every confinement for a year or more appeal as of right to these courts.\nAs the court of military appeals said in 1990 in the Cole case, this is an awesome plenary power of de novo review of facts and law.\nThere is an unusually broad power of review of facts.\nAs Article 66, quoted on page 3 of our brief, says, judges may weigh evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted issues, questions of fact, recognizing the trial court had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses.\nThat's an extraordinary power of review, far broader than the judges of the court of appeals have in our Federal criminal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1389.328, 1393.91, 1408.642, 1414.253, 1419.509, 1429.113, 1432.534, 1448.947], "stop_times": [1393.91, 1408.642, 1414.253, 1419.509, 1429.113, 1432.534, 1448.947, 1456.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.328}, "reply_to": "20367__0_106", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_108", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, but it's no broader than the authority of a district court to review the findings of a special master, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1456.101], "stop_times": [1461.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.101}, "reply_to": "20367__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__0_109", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, I would say that that is correct.\nDistrict judges, of course, I believe are principal officers, Your Honor.\nThe Government has never suggested otherwise.\nBut the second... and the second reason is the question of finality, and that gets me to my Freytag point, which is that in Freytag this Court ruled that the chief judge of the tax court had the authority to appoint inferior officers, and in my view, implicit in that decision was a recognition that the judges of the tax court had to be principal officers, for otherwise you would have a system in which inferior officers were appointing other inferior officers, precisely the diffusion of power and accountability the Appointment Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1461.236, 1465.417, 1468.53, 1471.09], "stop_times": [1465.417, 1468.53, 1471.09, 1499.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1461.236}, "reply_to": "20367__0_108", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_110", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "There are some differences--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1499.611], "stop_times": [1500.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.611}, "reply_to": "20367__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20367__0_111", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--There are, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1500.991], "stop_times": [1501.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.991}, "reply_to": "20367__0_110", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_112", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--and for example there's a fixed tenure for tax court judges that doesn't exist here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1501.862], "stop_times": [1507.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.862}, "reply_to": "20367__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20367__0_113", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe Government makes a point of that.\nMy view on that is that the tenure question is most important with respect to the office rather than the office-holder.\nSurely, for example, if the Secretary of Transportation for the last 40 years had had terms... the Secretary of Transportation serves at the will of the President.\nIf we could show that he was only there for a year or two each time before there was a turnover, nobody would say they aren't principal officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1507.005, 1507.726, 1509.637, 1516.31, 1525.527], "stop_times": [1507.726, 1509.637, 1516.31, 1525.527, 1533.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.005}, "reply_to": "20367__0_112", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_114", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, but the trouble, Mr. Morrison is, if you're going to make the accountability point, on your theory the inferior military officer becomes a superior officer merely on the designation of the Judge Advocate General, and there is no accountability at all for that.\nCongress never gets a look at it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1533.051, 1550.152], "stop_times": [1550.152, 1553.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.051}, "reply_to": "20367__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20367__0_115", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Your Honor, I lost that issue in Weiss, and I'm not here to reargue it again today.\nI'll reserve the remainder of my time if I may.\nIf you ask a question, Your Honor, I'll be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1553.323, 1556.976, 1558.897], "stop_times": [1556.976, 1558.897, 1560.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1553.323}, "reply_to": "20367__0_114", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__0_116", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Very well, Mr. Morrison.\nMr. Stewart, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1560.539, 1562.51], "stop_times": [1562.51, 1564.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.539}, "reply_to": "20367__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__1_000", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe appointment at issue in this case satisfied the requirements of the Constitution and was consistent with the pertinent statutes.\nJudges on the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals are inferior officers whose appointment may properly be vested in the head of a Department.\nThe judges are removable by an executive branch official subordinate to the President, their decisions are subject to review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and their jurisdiction is confined to a narrow class of cases.\nSecond, the appointment was consistent with the relevant statutes.\nThe Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 323 (a), authorizes the Secretary to appoint officers within the Department.\nNothing in Article 66 of the UCMJ divests the Secretary of that authority for the courts to give--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1564.493, 1571.727, 1577.651, 1584.576, 1595.562, 1599.105, 1606.138], "stop_times": [1571.727, 1577.651, 1584.576, 1595.562, 1599.105, 1606.138, 1612.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1564.493}, "reply_to": "20367__0_116", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_001", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1612.793], "stop_times": [1613.814], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.793}, "reply_to": "20367__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__1_002", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--For the courts to give the Judge Advocate General exclusive power to select members of the courts of criminal appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1613.814], "stop_times": [1618.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1613.814}, "reply_to": "20367__1_001", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_003", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Are Coast Guard officers appointed in the same manner as the officers of other services?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1618.527], "stop_times": [1623.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.527}, "reply_to": "20367__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20367__1_004", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Yes, they are.\nThey're appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and as with officers in the other branches a separate appointment is required for a promotion to a higher rank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1623.562, 1624.31], "stop_times": [1624.31, 1632.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.562}, "reply_to": "20367__1_003", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_005", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "So the... 323 does not apply to Coast Guard officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1632.908], "stop_times": [1636.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.908}, "reply_to": "20367__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20367__1_006", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That's correct, 323(a) does not give the Secretary of Transportation authority to appoint commissioned officers in the Coast Guard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1636.889], "stop_times": [1646.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.889}, "reply_to": "20367__1_005", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_007", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Mr.--\n--Even though... and is that because there's another specific statute that supervenes it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1646.125, 1646.566], "stop_times": [1646.566, 1651.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.125}, "reply_to": "20367__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20367__1_008", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That's correct.\nThere's a specific statute that not only is addressed particularly to the office in question, but that provides an inconsistent method of appointment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1651.148, 1652.039], "stop_times": [1652.039, 1660.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.148}, "reply_to": "20367__1_007", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_009", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Mr. Stewart, you were giving several reasons why you say these officers are inferior, and yet in one sense they do have more power than even a normal court of appeals judge in the Federal system would have, insofar as they make de novo fact-finding and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1660.024], "stop_times": [1683.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.024}, "reply_to": "20367__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_010", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "It's correct that with respect to the scope of review in cases falling within their jurisdiction a court of criminal appeals may engage in de novo fact-finding as opposed to the clearly erroneous standard that would apply in the civilian courts.\nIn other respects, however, the powers of the courts of criminal appeals are more limited.\nFirst, and perhaps most obviously, the courts of criminal appeals hear cases falling within a narrow class of jurisdiction, in contrast to Article III courts of appeals, who can hear the full range of civil and criminal cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1683.219, 1698.349, 1703.934], "stop_times": [1698.349, 1703.934, 1716.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1683.219}, "reply_to": "20367__1_009", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_011", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That makes the difference whether you're inferior or not, whether what you're given control of is insignificant or not?\nI find that... I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1716.31, 1723.947], "stop_times": [1723.947, 1725.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.31}, "reply_to": "20367__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_012", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "We certainly don't claim that that's dispositive, but in Morrison--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1725.376], "stop_times": [1728.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1725.376}, "reply_to": "20367__1_011", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_013", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I don't see why it has any relevance.\nI mean, if I'm made an ambassador to a really tiny, itsy-bitsy country, am I not a principal officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1728.799, 1730.612], "stop_times": [1730.612, 1737.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.799}, "reply_to": "20367__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_014", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, with respect to ambassadors, obviously the Constitution specifically identifies that as an office that must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but we take your point that there may be officers who exercise power in a limited area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1737.986], "stop_times": [1752.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.986}, "reply_to": "20367__1_013", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_015", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "If I'm appointed as an independent counsel for a little tiny offense, am I not a principal officer, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1752.766], "stop_times": [1760.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1752.766}, "reply_to": "20367__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_016", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "No.\nThe Court held in Morrison that it's an inferior officer rather than a principal officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1760.369, 1761.281], "stop_times": [1761.281, 1765.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1760.369}, "reply_to": "20367__1_015", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_017", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--One thing, in the court in question here, the Coast Guard court does sit in review on officers who were themselves appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.\nThat seems to me a very substantial function.\nThis court can review the court martial of an officer, can it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1765.713, 1780.762, 1784.055], "stop_times": [1780.762, 1784.055, 1787.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.713}, "reply_to": "20367__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20367__1_018", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That's correct, but again in terms of the limited nature of the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, it's limited not simply in the sense that it hears only a small category of cases, but in the sense that the only people potentially subject to its jurisdiction are individuals who have chosen to join a specialized society knowing that they are to be governed by different rules.\nWe would also say that while the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals may engage in de novo fact-finding, in other respects its review of court martial decisions is more limited than that which would prevail in the Article III system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1787.287, 1811.153], "stop_times": [1811.153, 1824.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.287}, "reply_to": "20367__1_017", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_019", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I'm less concerned about what it can do to those below it than I am concerned with what those above it can do to it.\nWhat is the finality of the determinations made by this court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1824.631, 1830.848], "stop_times": [1830.848, 1836.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.631}, "reply_to": "20367__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_020", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1836.011], "stop_times": [1837.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.011}, "reply_to": "20367__1_019", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_021", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "To what extent is it subject, in other words, to control by some superior officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1837.22], "stop_times": [1840.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.22}, "reply_to": "20367__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_022", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, all of its decisions are subject to review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.\nThere are two categories of cases as to which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises mandatory review.\nThose are cases in which the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals has affirmed sentence of death, and cases in which the Judge Advocate General of the service certifies the case for review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.\nThe Government as a practical matter may insist upon further review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1840.882, 1845.815, 1852.41, 1864.608], "stop_times": [1845.815, 1852.41, 1864.608, 1870.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.882}, "reply_to": "20367__1_021", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_023", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "So in any case, any case can be mandatorily reviewable so long as the JAG wants it reviewed, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1870.582], "stop_times": [1878.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.582}, "reply_to": "20367__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_024", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That's correct.\nWith respect to other cases, cases not involving a sentence of death and cases in which the JAG does not certify, the defendant may petition for review.\nIt is essentially like a cert process where the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1878.376, 1878.676, 1886.373], "stop_times": [1878.676, 1886.373, 1890.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.376}, "reply_to": "20367__1_023", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_025", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "If review is had, is it de novo review of facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1890.594], "stop_times": [1894.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.594}, "reply_to": "20367__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_026", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--It is not de novo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1894.938], "stop_times": [1896.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.938}, "reply_to": "20367__1_025", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_027", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--and law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1896.098], "stop_times": [1896.298], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.098}, "reply_to": "20367__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__1_028", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--It is not de novo review of facts.\nIn that limited sense the court of criminal appeals may issue a decision which is not effectively subject to reversal by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1896.298, 1897.86], "stop_times": [1897.86, 1906.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.298}, "reply_to": "20367__1_027", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_029", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Should that enter the balance on whether we think it's an inferior officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1906.136], "stop_times": [1910.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.136}, "reply_to": "20367__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_030", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--I think it enters the balance, but I think the more important point is that in ensuring the practical subordinacy of the court of criminal appeals within the military justice system, the important point is that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may review all questions of law, and the court of criminal appeals is subordinate not simply in the sense that it is subject to reversal in an individual case, but in the sense that it is obligated to follow the precedents laid down by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in prior cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1910.708], "stop_times": [1940.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.708}, "reply_to": "20367__1_029", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_031", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Now, the Navy used to also have civilian judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1940.257], "stop_times": [1943.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.257}, "reply_to": "20367__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_032", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Up to, I believe the early seventies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1943.77], "stop_times": [1945.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.77}, "reply_to": "20367__1_031", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_033", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "And under what statutory authority were they properly employed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1945.152], "stop_times": [1950.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.152}, "reply_to": "20367__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_034", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1950.254], "stop_times": [1950.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.254}, "reply_to": "20367__1_033", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_035", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--under your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1950.695], "stop_times": [1951.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.695}, "reply_to": "20367__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_036", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--I think under our theory they were not properly employed, and under our theory the civilian judges who served on the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals prior to the Secretary's January '93 memorandum were not properly employed.\nIndeed, we conceded as much in Ryder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1951.205, 1965.734], "stop_times": [1965.734, 1967.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.205}, "reply_to": "20367__1_035", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_037", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "And do you take the position that the Secretary of Transportation here could designate his authority to some lower officer or employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1967.635], "stop_times": [1977.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.635}, "reply_to": "20367__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_038", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "The question of delegation of Appointments Clause authority is a complicated one.\nMy understanding is that that is currently being considered by others within the Department of Justice, so I would hesitate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1977.082, 1983.446], "stop_times": [1983.446, 1989.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.082}, "reply_to": "20367__1_037", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_039", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, you cite United States v. Hartwell, which might deal with that very question.\nDo you rely on it for that authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1989.421, 1995.244], "stop_times": [1995.244, 1996.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.421}, "reply_to": "20367__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_040", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, Hartwell dealt with something different from delegation.\nThat is, by delegation we would envision a system in which a Secretary said to a subordinate official, you may exercise my authority to appoint a particular official without further review from me.\nWhat happened in Hartwell was different.\nThe individual officer appointed in Hartwell was appointed by the Assistant Secretary with the express approval of the Secretary, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [1996.694, 1999.625, 2012.235, 2014.067], "stop_times": [1999.625, 2012.235, 2014.067, 2021.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.694}, "reply_to": "20367__1_039", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_041", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, isn't it a little difficult to see how delegation could survive under the Appointments Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2021.661], "stop_times": [2028.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.661}, "reply_to": "20367__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_042", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--I think there would certainly be concerns about whether the accountability was preserved.\nOn the other hand, it's also true that most powers that are conferred upon Department heads may be delegated to subordinates.\nIn any event, the Secretary has not purported to delegate his 323(a) authority in this case.\nInstead, he issued a memorandum stating that he was adopting the JAG's assignments as appointments of his own.\nAnd to return to the point I was making earlier, in some respects the court of criminal appeals' review of court martial decisions is more limited than that which would occur in an Article III court in the criminal context.\nThat is, under the Sentencing Reform Act, a court of appeals within the Federal system may hear a Government appeal from a district court sentencing determination and may determine that the sentence was not harsh enough.\nIn the military justice system, by contrast, Article 66 makes it clear that the review of the court of criminal appeals is limited to the sentence as entered by the court martial and approved by the convening authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2028.557, 2034.75, 2042.154, 2047.8, 2053.353, 2066.342, 2077.987], "stop_times": [2034.75, 2042.154, 2047.8, 2053.353, 2066.342, 2077.987, 2090.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.557}, "reply_to": "20367__1_041", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_043", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Now, are you essentially adopting the position that Justice Souter did in his separate concurring opinion in Weiss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2090.848], "stop_times": [2098.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.848}, "reply_to": "20367__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_044", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, we conceded in... the Government conceded in Weiss at oral argument and we would concede here that if judges on the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals were principal officers, there would be a substantial constitutional question as to the status not only of the civilian judges but as... but of the military judges as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2098.952], "stop_times": [2121.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.952}, "reply_to": "20367__1_043", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_045", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well, couldn't you give me an easier, shorter answer?\nDo you agree with Justice Souter's concurrence in Weiss, yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2121.007, 2123.459], "stop_times": [2123.459, 2128.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.007}, "reply_to": "20367__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_046", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "We are not prepared to concede that the appointment would necessarily be invalid.\nThat is, if this Court were to hold that judges on the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2128.161, 2134.426], "stop_times": [2134.426, 2139.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2128.161}, "reply_to": "20367__1_045", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_047", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Excuse me.\nI thought Justice Souter took the position they were inferior officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2139.02, 2139.488], "stop_times": [2139.488, 2143.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.02}, "reply_to": "20367__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_048", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Oh, yes, we definitely agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2143.642], "stop_times": [2145.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.642}, "reply_to": "20367__1_047", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_049", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "And you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2145.192], "stop_times": [2146.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.192}, "reply_to": "20367__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20367__1_050", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Yes, that's correct.\nNow, with respect to the statutory question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2146.174, 2146.805], "stop_times": [2146.805, 2150.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.174}, "reply_to": "20367__1_049", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_051", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "What you don't agree with is that it would be unconstitutional to allow the assignment of an inferior officer to the position... to do a function performed by principal officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2150.788], "stop_times": [2165.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.788}, "reply_to": "20367__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_052", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--We're not prepared to concede at this point that an inferior officer who was appointed by the President with Senate confirmation... we're not going to concede as a categorical matter that that person could not be shifted to a principal office.\nIf we lose this case on the Appointments Clause question we would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2165.467, 2177.583], "stop_times": [2177.583, 2181.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.467}, "reply_to": "20367__1_051", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_053", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2181.096], "stop_times": [2181.497], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.096}, "reply_to": "20367__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__1_054", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--look at the opinion and see what it said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2181.497], "stop_times": [2182.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.497}, "reply_to": "20367__1_053", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_055", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "One who happened to have been appointed that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2182.819], "stop_times": [2184.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.819}, "reply_to": "20367__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_056", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2184.711], "stop_times": [2186.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.711}, "reply_to": "20367__1_055", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_057", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Yes, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2186.221], "stop_times": [2186.592], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.221}, "reply_to": "20367__1_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__1_058", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "With respect to the statutory question, we want to make clear the Government is not arguing that Congress, in passing the Department of Transportation Act, specifically contemplated that the Secretary's authority would be used with respect to civilian judges on the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.\nIn our view, that's simply not the correct question.\nThe question first is whether section 323(a) by its terms authorizes the Secretary to act, and we think it's clear that it does.\nSection 323(a) says specifically that the Secretary of Transportation may appoint officers and employees within the Department.\nThere's no question that a judge on the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is an officer within the Department of Transportation, and so the real question is, does Article 66 of the UCMJ divest the Secretary of the authority that he would otherwise possess with respect to these civilian judges, and we think for two reasons that it shouldn't be read that way.\nFirst, Article 66 doesn't use the word appoint.\nIt says the Judge Advocate General can establish a court of criminal appeals, refers to judges assigned to that court, but there's no plain language that would suggest that the Judge Advocate General makes appointments at all, let alone that he is the sole appointing authority.\nWith respect to one point made by the petitioners, in our view the legislative history makes clear and this Court's opinion in Weiss makes clear that the point of vesting this authority in the Judge Advocate General was to remove the matter from the influence of the commanding officer who convened the court martial, not to remove the decision from the control of the Secretary of Transportation and, indeed, if Congress' purpose were to make it impossible for the Secretary of Transportation to influence the assignment process, it would have been bizarre to give assignment authority to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2186.592, 2205.345, 2207.355, 2216.412, 2223.117, 2244.052, 2247.643, 2262.531], "stop_times": [2205.345, 2207.355, 2216.412, 2223.117, 2244.052, 2247.643, 2262.531, 2296.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.592}, "reply_to": "20367__1_057", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_059", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "But is it true... but I take it that nobody ever thought about this problem at all in Congress, so we're not... it's just totally imaginary to think what they were thinking.\nThey weren't thinking anything, and the... on this point, and so I think the argument is that just as you responded to Justice Kennedy you said, well, look, the Secretary under this clause doesn't appoint officers of the Coast Guard, does he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2296.224, 2304.99], "stop_times": [2304.99, 2321.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.224}, "reply_to": "20367__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__1_060", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--No, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2321.212], "stop_times": [2322.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.212}, "reply_to": "20367__1_059", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_061", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "No, because there's another provision for that.\nHe says, well, read this provision.\nWhat this provision fairly read says is that the JAG was going to do the appointing, and just as the officer of the Coast Guard provision is... everybody understood that, and they know that this general catch-all doesn't apply to that, so everybody here understood that the JAG would do the appointing, and so the catch-all doesn't apply to that, either.\nWhy do one and not the other, and it can't just be a technicality of the definiteness of the language.\nHe says, look really to the reality of how the thing was working.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2322.441, 2324.742, 2326.444, 2348.878, 2354.932], "stop_times": [2324.742, 2326.444, 2348.878, 2354.932, 2358.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.441}, "reply_to": "20367__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__1_062", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2358.395], "stop_times": [2359.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2358.395}, "reply_to": "20367__1_061", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_063", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "What's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2359.066], "stop_times": [2360.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.066}, "reply_to": "20367__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__1_064", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--The definiteness of the language is one point, but I think what we would say is even more important is that the JAG is a subordinate official within the Department of Transportation who is subject by statute to the Secretary's control and who could be directed by the Secretary to assign a particular individual to the court of criminal appeals.\nAnd therefore while it would... it would obviously disrupt the statutory scheme for the Secretary of Transportation to purport to appoint commissioned officers within the Coast Guard, because that would subvert in a very practical way the process that Congress had established for making people a part of the Coast Guard, since the Secretary could, in any event, direct the JAG to assign a particular individual to the court of criminal appeals, there's no practical disruption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2360.636, 2378.818], "stop_times": [2378.818, 2404.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2360.636}, "reply_to": "20367__1_063", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_065", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2404.745], "stop_times": [2405.025], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.745}, "reply_to": "20367__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__1_066", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--by saying that the Secretary can exercise that authority himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2405.025], "stop_times": [2407.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.025}, "reply_to": "20367__1_065", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_067", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--Doesn't the statute pertain to commissioning of Coast Guard officers read the same way?\nAren't they appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate the same way other officers are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2407.896, 2413.71], "stop_times": [2413.71, 2418.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.896}, "reply_to": "20367__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__1_068", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2418.245], "stop_times": [2419.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.245}, "reply_to": "20367__1_067", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_069", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Mr. Stewart, isn't it, beyond that, your position that to read the language here, which does not say appoint, to mean appoint the civilian officers... the civilian judges would be unconstitutional?\nIs that not... unless you think the JAG is the head of a Department.\nYou don't think he's the head of a Department, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2419.453, 2435.896, 2439.018], "stop_times": [2435.896, 2439.018, 2440.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.453}, "reply_to": "20367__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_070", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "That's correct.\nBut the JAG certainly could not assign civilian judges to the court without an appointment from someone else, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2440.708, 2441.119], "stop_times": [2441.119, 2446.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.708}, "reply_to": "20367__1_069", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_071", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "So essentially petitioner is asking that 66(a) be interpreted, although it doesn't say it explicitly, in a fashion that is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2446.883], "stop_times": [2457.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.883}, "reply_to": "20367__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20367__1_072", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--I think that's correct, in a fashion that's unconstitutional and also in a fashion that would subvert Congress' intention that the services, and particularly the Coast Guard, should be able to use civilian judges.\nThat is I think... one important point is that to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2457.341, 2468.427], "stop_times": [2468.427, 2472.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.341}, "reply_to": "20367__1_071", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_073", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I think his point was that you... how far do you go in stretching 323 in order to rescue a scheme that would be unconstitutional if you didn't stretch 323?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2472.231], "stop_times": [2481.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.231}, "reply_to": "20367__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20367__1_074", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--I mean, with respect, we agree with the Chief Justice that it's not a stretch.\nArticle 323(a) says categorically that the Secretary of Transportation may appoint officers and employees within the Department.\nThe only remotely difficult question is not whether 323(a) applies by its terms, but whether Article 66 takes away the authority that was otherwise conferred, and we think it's important to point out that to the extent that we can hazard an educated guess as to what Congress anticipated, neither side in this case is arguing that the system should work in precisely the manner that Congress expected.\nThat is, probably Congress expected that the JAG's would be solely responsible for placing individuals on the courts of criminal appeals, but it surely expected that the pool of potential judges would include all civilians who were members of the bar of a Federal court, or the highest court of the State, and we know that it can't work that way.\nWe can't have both sole authority in the JAG and that pool of judges, and therefore it can't be a dispositive objection to our theory that Congress didn't anticipate that it would work that way.\nTo the extent that Congress' expectations are relevant at all, the more accurate question is, which approach preserves more of what Congress wanted than the other one, and we think it would clearly have been more important to Congress that the potential pool of judges remain the same, rather than that the authority be lodged in the Judge Advocate General rather than the Secretary, because the Secretary in any event could direct the JAG to appoint... to assign whatever individuals he wanted.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2481.387, 2486.24, 2493.586, 2519.972, 2539.515, 2550.481, 2580.083], "stop_times": [2486.24, 2493.586, 2519.972, 2539.515, 2550.481, 2580.083, 2582.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.387}, "reply_to": "20367__1_073", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20367__1_075", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Morrison, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2582.144, 2584.805], "stop_times": [2584.805, 2586.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.144}, "reply_to": "20367__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20367__2_000", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "I'd just like to add to Mr. Stewart's response to Justice O'Connor's question about the de novo review.\nIn addition, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces cannot review sentences in the same way that the courts of criminal appeals can do, and so that's an additional power that extends beyond it.\nFor better or for worse, the Constitution creates only two categories of officers of the United States.\nThey must either be principal officers or inferior officers and, thus, if the Court reads 323(a) the way that Mr. Stewart suggests, the Court must then face the constitutional question of whether on balance these officers are more like principal officers or more like inferior officers.\nWe believe that the comparisons with the courts are the most relevant comparisons, and that compared with the judges of the tax court and other similar judges, these judges, who deal not simply with money but with liberty and life in some cases, are sufficiently important... they're sufficient--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2586.895, 2594.16, 2604.707, 2611.802, 2631.594], "stop_times": [2594.16, 2604.707, 2611.802, 2631.594, 2650.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2586.895}, "reply_to": "20367__1_075", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__2_001", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "On that subject, Mr. Morrison, do I understand your argument to be that prospectively, if you're right... I know that you have a client concern... because there is the important liberty interest that you describe, all of the judges of this tribunal would be military and none would be civilian?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2650.606], "stop_times": [2669.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.606}, "reply_to": "20367__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20367__2_002", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--I... if I understand your... until Congress could correct it, that is correct, Your Honor.\nThey would have to be civilian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2669.68, 2677.133], "stop_times": [2677.133, 2678.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2669.68}, "reply_to": "20367__2_001", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__2_003", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2678.334], "stop_times": [2678.535], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.334}, "reply_to": "20367__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20367__2_004", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Unless the President... as I said before, the President--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2678.535], "stop_times": [2681.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2678.535}, "reply_to": "20367__2_003", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__2_005", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--If you prevail then, of course, there's one result for your clients, but the result for the system is that unless and until Congress does something further, all of the judges must be military people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2681.847], "stop_times": [2696.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.847}, "reply_to": "20367__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20367__2_006", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "--No, Your Honor, that is not correct.\nAs I said before, the President could step in tomorrow and send these nominations to the Senate, and as soon as they were confirmed, that would be constitutionally sufficient, because under the Appointments Clause the President has the ultimate fall-back authority to make these appointments and to cure the constitutional defect.\nSo the question then is, under this choice that the Court must make if it agrees with the Government's submission on 323(a), are they more like principal officers or are they more like inferior officers and we believe that, given their wide-ranging powers and the practical finality of their decisions, the balance favors principal rather than inferior officers.\nIf the Court has no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2696.187, 2697.519, 2714.96, 2734.452], "stop_times": [2697.519, 2714.96, 2734.452, 2736.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2696.187}, "reply_to": "20367__2_005", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20367__2_007", "conversation_id": "20367", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Morrison.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-262", "start_times": [2736.125, 2738.157], "stop_times": [2738.157, 2739.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.125}, "reply_to": "20367__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__0_000", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 95-1352, Gary Edwards and Tana Wood v. Jerry Balisok.\nMs. Mix, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [0.0, 10.077], "stop_times": [10.077, 18.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__0_001", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents issues at the intersection of the Civil Rights Act and the habeas corpus statute.\nIn his civil rights complaint, Mr. Balisok seeks relief from harm stemming from allegedly unconstitutional procedures at a prison disciplinary hearing.\nAlthough the liberty interest that has given rise to these procedural protections is the loss of good-time credits, Mr. Balisok does not seek restoration of those good-time credits in this action and reserves that claim for a later time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [18.333, 24.436, 30.05, 38.886], "stop_times": [24.436, 30.05, 38.886, 52.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 18.333}, "reply_to": "20005__0_000", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_002", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "He has not finally waived it or surrendered it, though, has he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [52.697], "stop_times": [55.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 52.697}, "reply_to": "20005__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__0_003", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Mr. Balisok has specifically reserved his right to contest and litigate over the loss of good-time credits at a later time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [55.819], "stop_times": [64.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 55.819}, "reply_to": "20005__0_002", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_004", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "One minor point.\nHe alleges at some point that he's a pretrial detainee, that his conviction was overturned.\nDo these good-time credits apply to some other conviction or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [64.253, 65.293, 71.106], "stop_times": [65.293, 71.106, 74.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.253}, "reply_to": "20005__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__0_005", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "No.\nThey would still apply to that conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [74.179, 76.051], "stop_times": [76.051, 77.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 74.179}, "reply_to": "20005__0_004", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_006", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--He says that the conviction was overturned, although he's still in custody.\nI just didn't know how that plays out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [77.692, 81.605], "stop_times": [81.605, 83.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 77.692}, "reply_to": "20005__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__0_007", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes.\nI think he was still in custody pending recharging on the same situation.\nSo, he was still subject to a good-time credit application and denial process while incarcerated.\nSo, it made no difference in his--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [83.074, 83.725, 88.678, 94.074], "stop_times": [83.725, 88.678, 94.074, 95.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 83.074}, "reply_to": "20005__0_006", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_008", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "So, the good-time credits apply in case he's convicted again?\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [95.503, 97.654], "stop_times": [97.654, 98.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.503}, "reply_to": "20005__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__0_009", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Yes, they would still be applying to his total term of confinement.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [98.415, 101.588], "stop_times": [101.588, 102.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 98.415}, "reply_to": "20005__0_008", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_010", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "This is a retrial on the same charge that was earlier overturned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [102.349], "stop_times": [107.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.349}, "reply_to": "20005__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__0_011", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I believe so, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [107.32], "stop_times": [109.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.32}, "reply_to": "20005__0_010", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_012", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Has he been retried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [109.073], "stop_times": [109.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 109.073}, "reply_to": "20005__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__0_013", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I believe so, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [109.712], "stop_times": [112.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.712}, "reply_to": "20005__0_012", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_014", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, then why... wouldn't the whole good-time calculus begin anew if he were convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [112.333], "stop_times": [118.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 112.333}, "reply_to": "20005__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__0_015", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I think the good-time calculus would be made on his total time of confinement, if I understand the system right.\nSo, he's receiving credit for time served while he's in a pretrial detention status and the good time is going to be calculated on the whole of his sentence.\nAs a result of the allegations of this complaint, the question presented by this case is whether certain prisoner cases which purport to be about due process procedures but which may inevitably or logically entail a shorter duration of confinement should proceed as habeas corpus actions with the attendant exhaustion of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [118.527, 125.333, 135.17], "stop_times": [125.333, 135.17, 156.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.527}, "reply_to": "20005__0_014", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_016", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "May I just add one point to it?\nYou said inevitably be shorter.\nDo you disagree with his argument that there is a State law doctrine that he may or may not lose his good-time credits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [156.582, 157.994, 159.965], "stop_times": [157.994, 159.965, 165.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.582}, "reply_to": "20005__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_017", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--I'm not sure precisely which doctrine you're referring to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [165.898], "stop_times": [170.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.898}, "reply_to": "20005__0_016", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_018", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, the same or other evidence.\nI forget the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [170.623, 172.504], "stop_times": [172.504, 173.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.623}, "reply_to": "20005__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_019", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "The some evidence standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [173.135], "stop_times": [174.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 173.135}, "reply_to": "20005__0_018", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_020", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Some, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [174.415], "stop_times": [175.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.415}, "reply_to": "20005__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_021", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "It is correct that if there was a lack of some evidence in the hearing, that our position would be that his good time could not stand, that the hearing should be reversed.\nBut we do not agree with Mr. Balisok that that is the only basis upon which the hearing sanction could be reversed.\nIf you take his position as expressed, that the some evidence standard is the only basis to reverse a hearing sanction, then it renders the rest of the rule protections meaningless.\nYou could have serious due process violations and under the theory advanced by Mr. Balisok, those serious due process violations could not result in a reversal of the sanction imposed in the disciplinary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [175.296, 190.566, 197.611, 208.718], "stop_times": [190.566, 197.611, 208.718, 219.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.296}, "reply_to": "20005__0_020", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_022", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I'm not sure I totally understand your answer.\nLet me rephrase my question, if I may,--\nIs it correct that at least in theory he could win this lawsuit and say there were Federal violations of his procedural rights, rights of... violations of his Federal procedural rights and nevertheless end up still losing his good-time credits?\nIs that a possibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [219.775, 222.507, 224.517, 238.948], "stop_times": [222.507, 224.517, 238.948, 241.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.775}, "reply_to": "20005__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_023", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That he could win this particular suit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [241.399], "stop_times": [244.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.399}, "reply_to": "20005__0_022", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_024", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And not get his good-time credits restored.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [244.541], "stop_times": [246.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.541}, "reply_to": "20005__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_025", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Our position is that that is not what would occur, that if he were to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [246.973], "stop_times": [251.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.973}, "reply_to": "20005__0_024", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_026", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, is it possible or just unlikely in your view?\nI mean, you're saying you don't think it will happen, but your whole argument is based on if this could result, that's enough, but I'm just wondering if you agree that it will not necessarily result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [251.846, 255.007], "stop_times": [255.007, 266.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.846}, "reply_to": "20005__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_027", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--We believe that the allegations that Mr. Balisok has made necessarily invalidate the sanction of his... imposed in his hearing, that they are so serious.\nThey go to the fundamental--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [266.204, 277.591], "stop_times": [277.591, 279.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.204}, "reply_to": "20005__0_026", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_028", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And they necessarily would require the restoration of his good-time credits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [279.183], "stop_times": [282.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.183}, "reply_to": "20005__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_029", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Yes, under the Heck test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [282.716], "stop_times": [284.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 282.716}, "reply_to": "20005__0_028", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_030", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Then in order for you to prevail, you would not have to advocate the rule that you do advocate in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [284.347], "stop_times": [289.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 284.347}, "reply_to": "20005__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_031", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [289.799], "stop_times": [291.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.799}, "reply_to": "20005__0_030", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_032", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I see.\nAnd are you taking the position now that if he succeeds here and then ultimately does challenge his confinement on habe that you're not going to claim harmless error?\nAre you taking that position right now?\nThere's no harmless error doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [291.682, 292.233, 301.527, 305.03], "stop_times": [292.233, 301.527, 305.03, 306.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.682}, "reply_to": "20005__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__0_033", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "With respect to the claims that he is asserting in this complaint that they are serious enough that a harmless error doctrine would not be brought to bear on these claims, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [306.572], "stop_times": [317.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.572}, "reply_to": "20005__0_032", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_034", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Some due process claims would be subject to harmless error, but this would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [317.168], "stop_times": [321.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.168}, "reply_to": "20005__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__0_035", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--That is correct.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [321.402, 323.843], "stop_times": [323.843, 324.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.402}, "reply_to": "20005__0_034", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_036", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "What is peculiar about this that disentitles it to a harmless error analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [324.364], "stop_times": [329.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.364}, "reply_to": "20005__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__0_037", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--The nature of the allegations made by Mr. Balisok are the arbitrary denial of witness statements that go to his fundamental ability to prove his innocence and put forth a case and prove his innocence before the disciplinary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [329.176], "stop_times": [347.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.176}, "reply_to": "20005__0_036", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_038", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But what if those witness statements are brought in and it turns out they're really not very relevant at all?\nYou'd still say no harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [347.108, 351.789], "stop_times": [351.789, 353.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.108}, "reply_to": "20005__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_039", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "No.\nAt that point I think a district court looking at that or a State court in habeas corpus, could conclude that there was harmless error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [353.722, 354.842], "stop_times": [354.842, 362.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.722}, "reply_to": "20005__0_038", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_040", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Then there's nothing inevitable in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [362.148], "stop_times": [363.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.148}, "reply_to": "20005__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__0_041", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But just looking at the allegations of the complaint as stated, our position is that some due process violation, some allegations that alleged serious deviations from the rule of standards, will inevitably lead to the restoration of good time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [363.978], "stop_times": [378.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.978}, "reply_to": "20005__0_040", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_042", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes, but you've just said... excuse me.\nHave you not just said in answer to Justice Scalia that we in fact cannot tell at this stage whether this is one of those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [378.748, 378.969], "stop_times": [378.969, 386.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 378.748}, "reply_to": "20005__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__0_043", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "We think this is one of those cases, but the State of Washington--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [386.043], "stop_times": [391.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.043}, "reply_to": "20005__0_042", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_044", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "You know what the witnesses are going to say.\nYou know, for example, that his hypothetical cannot be true in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [391.577, 392.478], "stop_times": [392.478, 395.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.577}, "reply_to": "20005__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__0_045", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--No.\nYou don't know that.\nYou have to look at just the bare, naked allegations of the complaint to make that determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [395.64, 396.92, 398.112], "stop_times": [396.92, 398.112, 403.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 395.64}, "reply_to": "20005__0_044", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_046", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But doesn't... isn't it the case... and I don't want to go on too much longer with this, but isn't it the case that based on the allegations, you simply cannot tell in this case whether the... whether his success at this stage will inevitably result in an entitlement to reduced time.\nYou cannot tell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [403.975, 420.108], "stop_times": [420.108, 421.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.975}, "reply_to": "20005__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__0_047", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, we have not wanted to concede that point in this case because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [421.006], "stop_times": [425.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.006}, "reply_to": "20005__0_046", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_048", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I realize.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [425.2], "stop_times": [425.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.2}, "reply_to": "20005__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__0_049", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--we think they are so serious.\nBut I think it is true in the prison disciplinary context, unlike the criminal arena that the Court analyzed in Heck, that it is more difficult to say certain allegations inevitably will affect the outcome because of the application of the harmless error doctrine in prison disciplinary hearings and because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [425.5, 426.759], "stop_times": [426.759, 449.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 425.5}, "reply_to": "20005__0_048", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_050", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "One of the oddities in this area is that we have the State arguing that the prisoner is probably going to prevail in all of these procedural matters, and in order to establish a 1983 suit, the prisoner argues the contrary.\nWe've got you switching positions, which makes me wonder if the doctrine isn't incongruous at its foundation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [449.186, 466.637], "stop_times": [466.637, 472.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.186}, "reply_to": "20005__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__0_051", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Yes.\nWe realize that we were elevating Mr. Balisok's claims to a certain degree by our position.\nBut I think the problem is that, as I said, the prison disciplinary context is a more fact-bound determination and you do not have the same principles to apply in that context that you have in the criminal arena.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [472.72, 474.211, 480.214], "stop_times": [474.211, 480.214, 495.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.72}, "reply_to": "20005__0_050", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_052", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "The question you present in your petition for certiorari is whether Heck bars the 1983 action brought by a prisoner challenging prisoner disciplinary procedures, if the success of that action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner's loss of good time.\nNow, that was the language used in Heck I believe, necessarily imply, but that could mean... is there a probability, a possibility, or a certainty?\nThat really is what we have to decide here, what that language in Heck meant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [495.936, 511.935, 522.001], "stop_times": [511.935, 522.001, 525.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.936}, "reply_to": "20005__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__0_053", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes, and that certainly is the language in Heck, and I think, Mr. Chief Justice, the problem you have in a prison disciplinary case, in a case like Balisok, is that if we can't conclude that there is a 100 percent chance that the sanction is going to be reversed, then the lower courts are saying that doesn't meet that language in Heck that says necessarily invalidate.\nAnd so, he can have his case one degree removed.\nIt can be very, very serious allegations.\nYet, the court can't say with 100 percent certainty that this is a case that will necessarily invalidate the sanction and that case will go forward in 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [525.936, 548.75, 552.733, 555.134], "stop_times": [548.75, 552.733, 555.134, 564.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.936}, "reply_to": "20005__0_052", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_054", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, are you asking us to make some clarification of Heck or change it in some way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [564.82], "stop_times": [572.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.82}, "reply_to": "20005__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20005__0_055", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "We are proposing that the Court adopt what we refer to as a bright line rule to address a broader context of cases, particularly prison disciplinary cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [572.516], "stop_times": [583.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.516}, "reply_to": "20005__0_054", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_056", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "So, your answer is yes to my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [583.783], "stop_times": [585.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.783}, "reply_to": "20005__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20005__0_057", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [585.433], "stop_times": [585.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.433}, "reply_to": "20005__0_056", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_058", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "You do want a change or a clarification in Heck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [585.854], "stop_times": [589.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.854}, "reply_to": "20005__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20005__0_059", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes.\nI don't think you have to change the holding in Heck, and certainly, as Mr. Balisok has suggested, we are not asking for a reversal of Heck.\nBut we do think that the Court needs to clarify language in Heck and language in Wolff v. McDonnell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [589.035, 590.617, 599.403], "stop_times": [590.617, 599.403, 604.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.035}, "reply_to": "20005__0_058", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_060", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Ms. Mix, this is bait and switch.\nWe just decided Heck a couple of years ago.\nWe would not have taken this case in order to decide whether we should reconsider a case just decided.\nThe question you presented in your petition was, does this Court's ruling in Heck bar a 1983 action that would... that would... necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner's loss of good time?\nThat's how you put the question, and I assumed we were going to have a case before us where it would necessarily imply the invalidity and that the Ninth Circuit ignored what Heck seemed to say very clearly, that where it... not seemed to say... said very clearly... that where it would necessarily imply invalidity or shortening of the sentence, you have to do it by habeas.\nNow you come before us with a totally different proposition that Heck is inadequate to the real world and we should adopt some new proposition.\nI mean, that may be a nice argument, but I resent being forced to confront that argument when it's not what I thought we were taking the case for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [604.827, 606.209, 609.098, 613.242, 628.582, 652.649, 660.405], "stop_times": [606.209, 609.098, 613.242, 628.582, 652.649, 660.405, 669.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.827}, "reply_to": "20005__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_061", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, what we have done is we have argued that Heck is applicable to a category of cases in the prison disciplinary context and that it does fit squarely into that context, that the lower courts are doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [669.031], "stop_times": [682.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.031}, "reply_to": "20005__0_060", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_062", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I thought the issue was whether good-time credits comes within Heck.\nThat is simply whether eliminating a good-time credit is part of necessarily shortening the sentence.\nThat's what I thought the issue we were going to grapple with was.\nBut, gee, very little of the debate... in fact, I think none of the debate... goes to that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [682.338, 685.941, 693.167, 696.459], "stop_times": [685.941, 693.167, 696.459, 700.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.338}, "reply_to": "20005__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_063", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Justice Scalia, I think that whichever route the Court goes with this case, it is very important to say that Heck explicitly applies in the prison disciplinary context and that good-time credits are, as the courts have consistently found, within the definition of fact and duration of confinement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [700.681], "stop_times": [719.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.681}, "reply_to": "20005__0_062", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_064", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And it would do some good just to decide that point, right, even if we don't reconsider Heck and adopt a much more expansive rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [719.093], "stop_times": [728.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.093}, "reply_to": "20005__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_065", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--It would do some good to address that point, but there will continue to be difficulties just under that rule because the courts, such as the Ninth Circuit, can take a very serious--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [728.06], "stop_times": [741.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.06}, "reply_to": "20005__0_064", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_066", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And maybe some day we'll agree to consider those difficulties, but I didn't think we had agreed to consider them here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [741.457], "stop_times": [746.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.457}, "reply_to": "20005__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_067", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--What I'm saying, though, is even if you make explicit that Heck applies to the prison disciplinary context, if the lower courts are going to say, but nothing fits within the necessary invalidation rule of Heck, the rigors of the Heck test, then we haven't achieved very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [746.022], "stop_times": [764.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.022}, "reply_to": "20005__0_066", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_068", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Ms. Mix, I'm confused and perhaps you can help me.\nIt seems like everything that you are discussing is academic because in this case, as I understand the prisoner's complaint, he's not saying that the conduct, the bad conduct in which he engaged in, isn't conduct that's subject to a good-time reduction.\nWhat he's saying is I'm a jailhouse lawyer, and I'm going to be brought up on these disciplinary charges, and most of the time they've got me.\nBut I want the procedure to be fair.\nSo, I'm talking about not giving me witness statements or witness statements that aren't date-stamped.\nSo, I'm not arguing that I'm ever entitled in any of these proceedings to keep that good time.\nI'm not talking about whether I was a bad actor in prison.\nAll I'm saying is I want a procedure that isn't infected by these witness statements.\nAnd so, I read his complaint and I say, well, he's not talking about the possibility of good time at all.\nHe's saying whenever there's discipline in this prison, I want to make sure that I have a fair procedure.\nAnd I may, if I did the bad act, sure, they can take away my good time.\nSo, how do we even get to your question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [764.955, 768.037, 785.999, 794.956, 798.417, 803.811, 810.215, 813.828, 819.991, 826.885, 834.002, 839.253], "stop_times": [768.037, 785.999, 794.956, 798.417, 803.811, 810.215, 813.828, 819.991, 826.885, 834.002, 839.253, 841.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.955}, "reply_to": "20005__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__0_069", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That is how Mr. Balisok has presented his complaint certainly and how he would like his complaint to be read, but we have to remember a couple of things.\nOne is that he has specifically reserved his right to go challenge his good time later, and by allowing him to proceed with just a procedures challenge, to rectify the procedures that you have described, what we do in that case is we put the procedural interest ahead of the substantive interest.\nWe allow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [841.665, 852.882, 873.025], "stop_times": [852.882, 873.025, 874.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.665}, "reply_to": "20005__0_068", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_070", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, what's wrong with that?\nWhat's wrong with saying if a prison going to have a disciplinary proceeding, it's got to be fair?\nAnd that's very basic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [874.196, 875.118, 879.559], "stop_times": [875.118, 879.559, 881.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.196}, "reply_to": "20005__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__0_071", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Because this Court has said on a number of occasions that procedural due process exists in the first instance to protect against the mistaken and unjustified depravation of liberty.\nAnd the vindication of those procedural rights should not be at the expense of the substantive interest that they are there to protect.\nAnd in this situation what will happen is he will get his procedural victory in his 1983 action, and then he will take that procedural victory back to the Washington State courts and use it to bolster or demand relief on his loss of good time on his substantive claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [881.292, 892.078, 898.102], "stop_times": [892.078, 898.102, 915.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.292}, "reply_to": "20005__0_070", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_072", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But is that necessarily true?\nIsn't it at least possible if he won this case, you could have another prison disciplinary action and follow all the procedures he requests and come to the same conclusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [915.424, 916.355], "stop_times": [916.355, 925.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.424}, "reply_to": "20005__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_073", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That is correct, but I would characterize that, Justice Stevens, as comparable to a new trial, a new hearing, where the relief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [925.33], "stop_times": [934.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.33}, "reply_to": "20005__0_072", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_074", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "A new trial that ended up with exactly the same period of incarceration as he got with the unfair trial.\nThat happens a lot in the criminal area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [934.557, 940.36], "stop_times": [940.36, 941.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.557}, "reply_to": "20005__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__0_075", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--But the remedy that is given, the rehearing or the retrial, should be given by a court sitting in habeas corpus, not by a 1983 court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [941.981], "stop_times": [951.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 941.981}, "reply_to": "20005__0_074", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_076", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "The Ninth Circuit in this case, Ms. Mix, as I understand it, relied on its earlier opinion in Gotcher against Wood.\nAnd am I right in thinking in that case they said that an inmate's challenge to the procedure by which he was denied good-time credits does not call into question the continuing... the lawfulness of his continuing confinement, in effect, saying that good-time credits, one way or the other, do not require any resort to habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [951.378, 958.741], "stop_times": [958.741, 979.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.378}, "reply_to": "20005__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__0_077", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Their conclusion is that simply challenging the procedures doesn't call into question the good time.\nI don't think they're saying that the good time isn't... or that Heck isn't... doesn't apply to a situation where good time is at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [979.304, 988.192], "stop_times": [988.192, 996.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.304}, "reply_to": "20005__0_076", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_078", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Their position is that just challenging the procedures never calls into question the good time.\nIsn't that right?\nEven if they gave him no hearing at all and the most... even in a case where it's clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [996.227, 1002.14, 1002.901], "stop_times": [1002.14, 1002.901, 1011.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.227}, "reply_to": "20005__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_079", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1011.337], "stop_times": [1013.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.337}, "reply_to": "20005__0_078", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_080", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--that there is... that there was harmful error, the Ninth Circuit would say good-time credits just don't count for purposes of Heck.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1013.017, 1020.563], "stop_times": [1020.563, 1021.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.017}, "reply_to": "20005__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_081", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--I think that is correct.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1021.542, 1022.313], "stop_times": [1022.313, 1022.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.542}, "reply_to": "20005__0_080", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_082", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And you take the other extreme.\nYou say even when there... even when the error is harmless, good-time credits do count for purposes of Heck.\nAnd maybe you're both wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1022.714, 1023.583, 1032.628], "stop_times": [1023.583, 1032.628, 1035.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.714}, "reply_to": "20005__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_083", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--I suppose that's possible.\nThis is a question that has many answers to it.\nBut I think that the problem with what the Ninth Circuit has done and what we have seen other circuit courts doing is they're relying on the language in Wolff and they're relying on the language in Heck that says a procedures-only challenge that does not necessarily vitiate the good time can go forward.\nYet, there are a large category of cases where the good time is called into question and where, although it might not necessarily be taken away, when the court looks at the issue, it may not reach a harmless error conclusion, but it still may reach a conclusion that that good time should be restored.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1035.463, 1038.693, 1041.253, 1060.338], "stop_times": [1038.693, 1041.253, 1060.338, 1079.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.463}, "reply_to": "20005__0_082", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_084", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I'll look at Heck.\nWas that a direct quote when you said necessarily?\nDoes Heck use the word necessarily?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1079.85, 1081.442, 1083.763], "stop_times": [1081.442, 1083.763, 1086.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1079.85}, "reply_to": "20005__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__0_085", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Heck uses the term I think in relation to the Wolff--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1086.574], "stop_times": [1090.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.574}, "reply_to": "20005__0_084", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_086", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1090.428], "stop_times": [1091.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.428}, "reply_to": "20005__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__0_087", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--passage, necessarily vitiate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1091.768], "stop_times": [1093.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.768}, "reply_to": "20005__0_086", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_088", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Necessarily vitiate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1093.831], "stop_times": [1094.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.831}, "reply_to": "20005__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__0_089", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1094.649], "stop_times": [1096.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.649}, "reply_to": "20005__0_088", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_090", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Suppose Mr. Balisok had gotten his disciplinary sanction, hadn't attacked it, and then brought a suit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1096.081], "stop_times": [1103.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.081}, "reply_to": "20005__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__0_091", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I'm sorry.\nI didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1103.696, 1104.357], "stop_times": [1104.357, 1104.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.696}, "reply_to": "20005__0_090", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_092", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Suppose instead of this emerging in a particular disciplinary action, Mr. Balisok had brought a separate action in which he said I've been disciplined before, I'm likely to be disciplined again.\nThe procedure is unfair, and I want... I'm bringing this 1983 suit to get the procedure fixed so that if and when I'm disciplined again, I'll get a fair procedure.\nWould that be a permissible suit to bring under 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1104.767, 1119.738, 1130.703], "stop_times": [1119.738, 1130.703, 1134.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.767}, "reply_to": "20005__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__0_093", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Yes, I believe it would be because he would not be under... suffering from any sanction that affected the fact and duration of confinement sufficient to put it into habeas.\nIt is an anticipatory action.\nNow, whether he would have standing would be another question.\nBut we think there are two types os suits that could go forward as you have described, Justice Ginsburg.\nOne would be that purely anticipatory suit, assuming he can establish standing, and the other way the inmate can get around this issue is he can concede that the result is right.\nIf it is the procedural interest that the inmate wants to vindicate, if he wants the procedures corrected and not done in a certain way in the future, let him make good on that and enter into some sort of binding concession that says I am not challenging the result of this hearing.\nRight now these rules out of Wolff and out of Heck don't provide for that.\nSo, we can have a situation like Balisok's where he has specifically reserved that right and he may go forward on that claim for the good time later armed with a victory in 1983.\nAnd what that does in a case like this is it deprives the State court of the first opportunity to look at claims and issues that affect the fact and duration of confinement.\nAnd this Court has specifically said that should not occur under principles of comity.\nSo, we are very concerned that that will be the result unless some boundaries are drawn around the language in Wolff and in Heck.\nWhat we will end up with in that situation, if he is allowed to go forward in 83 and then goes back to State court, is the potential... flat-out potential... for conflicting results between these two courts.\nAnd the public good should... and the discretion of the court should be exercised in recognition that the public good does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1134.396, 1146.534, 1148.417, 1150.739, 1156.862, 1168.129, 1185.02, 1190.553, 1205.404, 1215.641, 1221.364, 1231.211, 1243.77], "stop_times": [1146.534, 1148.417, 1150.739, 1156.862, 1168.129, 1185.02, 1190.553, 1205.404, 1215.641, 1221.364, 1231.211, 1243.77, 1251.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.396}, "reply_to": "20005__0_092", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_094", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "We don't have any discretion under section 1983.\nI mean, some of us think we have discretion under habeas corpus, but we certainly don't have any under 1983.\nI understood Heck to say that only by reason of a clear congressional policy that there should be exhaustion of State remedies before habeas corpus occurs.\nWe could read the other Federal statute, that Federal statute, to impose a statutory limitation upon 1983 that where the 1983 action necessarily boils down to habeas corpus, to the same thing, you should require exhaustion.\nBut you're asking us to go much further in order to pursue a policy that may well be a desirable policy, but I don't know how we have the discretion to read 1983 which is categorical on its face.\nWhat statute do you appeal to that modifies 1983 to such a degree that even where it does not boil down necessarily to the same thing as habeas corpus, we may require exhaustion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1251.073, 1253.985, 1258.658, 1270.746, 1289.339, 1301.497], "stop_times": [1253.985, 1258.658, 1270.746, 1289.339, 1301.497, 1316.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1251.073}, "reply_to": "20005__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_095", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I think the answer to that is when a prisoner is challenging procedures where the challenge to that procedure logically will affect and call into question, the very language the Court used into... in Heck, the confinement, then that is a case that involves the fact and duration of confinement, and it should proceed first in Federal habeas corpus.\nIt's not imposing an exhaustion request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1316.236, 1340.633], "stop_times": [1340.633, 1343.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.236}, "reply_to": "20005__0_094", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_096", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But you've acknowledged that it does not necessarily call into question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1343.064], "stop_times": [1346.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.064}, "reply_to": "20005__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_097", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1346.417], "stop_times": [1348.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.417}, "reply_to": "20005__0_096", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_098", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--the confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1348.087], "stop_times": [1348.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1348.087}, "reply_to": "20005__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_099", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Granted that can be the case in many prisoner cases, but I think what we need to do is look at what is the next natural step after Heck in dealing with claims that call into question confinement, effect of duration, confinement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1348.628], "stop_times": [1365.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.628}, "reply_to": "20005__0_098", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_100", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "The next natural step is another Federal statute, going beyond the statute that enabled us to go as far as we did in Heck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1365.427], "stop_times": [1372.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.427}, "reply_to": "20005__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__0_101", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I disagree.\nI think that the Court has struggled for years in trying to deal with the intersection between the Civil Rights Act and the habeas corpus statute, and the lower courts continue to express confusion on how to apply these two statutes.\nAnd it doesn't take a congressional action to address this issue.\nIt takes this Court to give some more rules in this area as to how these two statutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1372.092, 1374.404, 1388.272, 1391.206], "stop_times": [1374.404, 1388.272, 1391.206, 1396.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.092}, "reply_to": "20005__0_100", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_102", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But you say that Mr. Balisok could do exactly what on the surface he seems to want to do which is to get a fair procedure, disciplinary procedure, installed, and he could do that under 1983, but he has to pay a price.\nThat is, he has to say even if the good time was taken away from me in an unfair procedure, I am giving up my right to the equivalent of a new trial so that I can bring the 1983 action.\nThat's what you're saying in essence, that this is not a case where he must exhaust.\nHe could bring it as a 1983 action, but he must say, I will never seek restoration of those credits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1396.57, 1410.337, 1430.0, 1435.064], "stop_times": [1410.337, 1430.0, 1435.064, 1442.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.57}, "reply_to": "20005__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__0_103", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--He has an alternative.\nHe can either concede that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1442.068, 1445.25], "stop_times": [1445.25, 1447.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.068}, "reply_to": "20005__0_102", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_104", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, that's what you are saying.\nHe can... he's got a 1983 suit, but he has to say, I won't try to get back those good-time credits even though, if I win the 1983 action, it will be clear that the procedure that was used to discipline people in this prison was unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1447.381, 1448.823], "stop_times": [1448.823, 1466.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.381}, "reply_to": "20005__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__0_105", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--His alternative to conceding that result is go... to go first into State court and attempt to have the State court look at the substantive liberty interest that is at issue.\nThose are expedited proceedings.\nThose are excellent proceedings by which he can quickly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1466.324, 1479.854, 1481.624], "stop_times": [1479.854, 1481.624, 1485.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1466.324}, "reply_to": "20005__0_104", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_106", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But if he prefers the Federal forum, he can have it.\nThere's nothing disabling about his claim.\nHe can have it in a Federal forum, but he has to give up the good time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1485.785, 1487.408, 1490.399], "stop_times": [1487.408, 1490.399, 1493.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.785}, "reply_to": "20005__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__0_107", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--That is correct, but I think he still has other avenues back into the Federal forum should he choose the exhaustion route first, and even if he should not prevail in that and be subject to a harmless error situation under the rule that we have proposed, the broader rule that we have proposed, he could then go forward with a nominal damages claim, another... other Carey-type claims because he would not be foreclosed on that.\nI will reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1493.761, 1523.871], "stop_times": [1523.871, 1527.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.761}, "reply_to": "20005__0_106", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__0_108", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Very well, Ms. Mix.\nMr. Rice, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1527.985, 1529.254], "stop_times": [1529.254, 1530.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.985}, "reply_to": "20005__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__1_000", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere are four important points raised by this case.\nThe first one is, is Wolff v. McDonnell and Heck v. Humphrey good law?\nAnd yes, it is.\nSecond, do the Heck principles apply to prison disciplinary hearings?\nYes, they do.\nThird, is it important for our system of justice that prisoners be permitted to file 1983 claims to protect violations of procedural due process at prison hearings?\nYes, it is.\nAnd finally, does Mr. Balisok's amended complaint state a valid claim for a violation of procedure as set out in Wolff and Heck?\nAnd it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1530.556, 1534.738, 1537.92, 1542.895, 1544.656, 1548.088, 1549.55, 1559.875, 1561.197, 1568.741], "stop_times": [1534.738, 1537.92, 1542.895, 1544.656, 1548.088, 1549.55, 1559.875, 1561.197, 1568.741, 1570.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1530.556}, "reply_to": "20005__0_108", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_001", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Number two was not agreed to by the decision below, though, was it?\nI mean, the unreported decision of the Ninth Circuit seemed to indicate that all challenges to prison procedures are exempt from Heck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1570.161, 1573.203], "stop_times": [1573.203, 1582.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.161}, "reply_to": "20005__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_002", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe Ninth Circuit decision applied Heck.\nWhat it said was if you're simply attacking procedure, then the Heck principle of does it necessarily imply invalidity doesn't apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1582.42, 1584.262, 1586.573], "stop_times": [1584.262, 1586.573, 1596.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1582.42}, "reply_to": "20005__1_001", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_003", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Let me take the opposite side of the side I was taking with Ms. Mix.\nIs it possible just to attack procedure?\nIsn't any... in at least any attack looking retrospectively to a procedure that has already occurred, as opposed to a suit enjoining future use of that procedure, doesn't any such suit necessarily involve a challenge to the elimination of good-time credits?\nOtherwise, you have no standing.\nYou can't come in and just complain that somebody in the past committed a procedure that was wrong but that didn't hurt you in any respect.\nIsn't... at least as far as the allegations of the complaint is concerned, doesn't a challenge to the denial of past good-time credits because of invalid procedure always necessarily involve a claim that you should get good-time credits restored?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1596.229, 1601.373, 1605.065, 1624.287, 1625.549, 1633.683], "stop_times": [1601.373, 1605.065, 1624.287, 1625.549, 1633.683, 1649.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.229}, "reply_to": "20005__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_004", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "No, it does not.\nIf you look at this Court's decisions under like Carey v. Piphus or Memphis School District or Wolff v. McDonnell, this Court has clearly said that a depravation of a constitutional procedure is in itself a violation and you have to have... you have standing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1649.415, 1650.915], "stop_times": [1650.915, 1666.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.415}, "reply_to": "20005__1_003", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_005", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "We've never said that.\nEven where you acknowledge that the procedure made no difference to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1666.496, 1666.867], "stop_times": [1666.867, 1670.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.496}, "reply_to": "20005__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_006", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Well, the procedure made a difference, Your Honor, because he wasn't allowed to call a witness at a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1670.917], "stop_times": [1676.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.917}, "reply_to": "20005__1_005", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_007", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's the procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1676.543], "stop_times": [1677.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.543}, "reply_to": "20005__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_008", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's the procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1677.221], "stop_times": [1678.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.221}, "reply_to": "20005__1_007", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_009", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "What's the difference?\nThe difference is he was denied good-time credits that he should have been allowed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1678.373, 1678.833], "stop_times": [1678.833, 1683.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.373}, "reply_to": "20005__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_010", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "The difference is that he wasn't allowed to have a witness at a hearing and whether or not that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1683.035], "stop_times": [1690.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1683.035}, "reply_to": "20005__1_009", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_011", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "He does not have to go ahead and say, in order to have standing, and that made a difference in the outcome.\nHe doesn't have to say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1690.12, 1695.054], "stop_times": [1695.054, 1697.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.12}, "reply_to": "20005__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_012", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--He has to say for standing purposes that he had a right to call that and that it may have affected the outcome of the hearing, not that it would have affected, that he had a right to have those witnesses there.\nThose witnesses are a basic constitutional right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1697.404, 1708.654], "stop_times": [1708.654, 1711.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.404}, "reply_to": "20005__1_011", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_013", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "He does not have to assert that it affected the outcome of the hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1711.834], "stop_times": [1713.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.834}, "reply_to": "20005__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_014", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--He has to assert that it may have affected the outcome of the hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1713.557], "stop_times": [1715.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.557}, "reply_to": "20005__1_013", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_015", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Just that it may have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1715.77], "stop_times": [1716.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.77}, "reply_to": "20005__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_016", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, because he can't, under 1983 and the habeas dichotomy, Your Honor, because the decision as to whether it would have affected the outcome belongs in State court.\nThat's purely a State court decision under habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1716.091, 1725.027], "stop_times": [1725.027, 1727.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.091}, "reply_to": "20005__1_015", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_017", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "No.\nWhat... you're equating the outcome of the hearing with an eventual order of release, aren't you?\nHe may very well say not only that it may have, but it did affect the outcome of the hearing.\nBut for that error, I would not have been... I would not have had my good time subtracted, but it doesn't follow from that that he is necessarily entitled to have the good time restored and the period of his incarceration shortened.\nIsn't that the distinction that you want to make?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1727.969, 1730.2, 1736.083, 1742.648, 1755.064], "stop_times": [1730.2, 1736.083, 1742.648, 1755.064, 1756.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.969}, "reply_to": "20005__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_018", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, because in the State of Washington and in most States, when a prisoner goes in to attack habeas, he is going in under a standard of, one, some or any evidence that upholds the hearing.\nAnd in the State of Washington, in particular, they have held that where you allege a constitutional violation such as in the case of In re Burton where they were denied notice of the hearing, which is one of the fundamental rights this Court guaranteed, the State of Washington didn't automatically reverse that, but said they had to show an actual and substantial prejudice for that constitutional violation.\nThat's different than the standard under 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1756.876, 1768.024, 1787.676], "stop_times": [1768.024, 1787.676, 1790.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.876}, "reply_to": "20005__1_017", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_019", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "One is never denied due process.\nOne is denied something without due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1790.169, 1792.32], "stop_times": [1792.32, 1795.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.169}, "reply_to": "20005__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_020", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1795.482], "stop_times": [1796.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1795.482}, "reply_to": "20005__1_019", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_021", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "The process itself is worthless.\nSomething has been taken away from you without the process that either the Constitution or a statute requires, and that is your grievance.\nBut it seems to me the grievance in every one of these prisoner actions is I have wrongly been denied good-time credit, and that is necessarily an assertion that I should get out earlier than they're going to let me out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1796.872, 1799.604, 1807.1], "stop_times": [1799.604, 1807.1, 1820.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.872}, "reply_to": "20005__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_022", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "The grievance is that he was denied the right to present witnesses.\nIn fact, he was lied to by the prison officials, and that, yes, had he presented those witnesses, it may have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing.\nWe don't know that and we don't know that in 1983.\nThat's a decision for State court to decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1820.397, 1825.873, 1832.766, 1836.709], "stop_times": [1825.873, 1832.766, 1836.709, 1838.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.397}, "reply_to": "20005__1_021", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_023", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Are you saying it's... he's saying, it's not inevitable that I will get my good time, but at least I'll have a shot at it?\nI'll have a fairer shot.\nWhat I'd like to do is to get those good-time credits, and if I get my fair procedure, maybe I'll have a better chance, but it's not inevitable that if I win my procedural argument, I'm going to get the credits.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1838.95, 1845.094, 1847.015, 1858.612], "stop_times": [1845.094, 1847.015, 1858.612, 1859.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.95}, "reply_to": "20005__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_024", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "If the Court held that he was denied constitutional procedure under 1983 and awarded him the injunction he seeks and nominal damages, he would... it would not necessarily imply any change in the outcome of his hearing at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1859.213], "stop_times": [1873.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.213}, "reply_to": "20005__1_023", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_025", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--But wouldn't he have to have something in the... I thought his situation is, I've had an unfair trial, so at least I ought to get my good-time credits restored, and then we can have a fair disciplinary proceeding and maybe they'll be taken away again.\nIsn't that really what you're saying is going on here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1873.772, 1890.853], "stop_times": [1890.853, 1895.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.772}, "reply_to": "20005__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_026", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "No, Your Honor, I'm not.\nI'm ultimately saying that this Court needs to determine under 1983 whether or not proper prison procedures were followed.\nIn Wolff v. McDonnell, in Superintendent v. Hill, this Court said that there are four basic, bottom line rights to a fair hearing in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1895.027, 1896.549, 1903.471], "stop_times": [1896.549, 1903.471, 1912.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.027}, "reply_to": "20005__1_025", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_027", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes, but procedural rights don't exist in the air.\nThey have to be, as Justice Scalia just pointed out, for the purpose of protecting something.\nAnd here it seems to me what they're protecting is the man's liberty.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1912.598, 1914.808, 1920.312, 1923.214], "stop_times": [1914.808, 1920.312, 1923.214, 1923.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.598}, "reply_to": "20005__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_028", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes, the liberty interest and good-time credits and the right to a fair hearing.\nThat's what it's protecting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1923.534, 1926.627], "stop_times": [1926.627, 1927.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.534}, "reply_to": "20005__1_027", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_029", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "You say, Mr. Rice, that he would get a declaration of some sort in the Federal court that he had been denied procedural rights in the disciplinary proceeding.\nAnd then you envision him going to State court and taking that declaration then.\nWhat does he do in State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1927.849, 1943.949, 1947.66], "stop_times": [1943.949, 1947.66, 1949.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.849}, "reply_to": "20005__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__1_030", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, he would go to State court, if he had the opportunity to, to go to State court.\nHe could present that declaration from the Federal court.\nBut the State court doesn't have to honor it, and the State court under 2254 and habeas has the first right of review to determine whether or not the facts presented make any difference in the hearing result or the outcome of the hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1949.473, 1954.045, 1957.838], "stop_times": [1954.045, 1957.838, 1972.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.473}, "reply_to": "20005__1_029", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_031", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That seems like a very strange bifurcation.\nYou know, we like... we think of things ordinarily if you can do something in one procedure, you... and you contemplate I gather this totally divided procedure.\nHalf of it takes place in Federal court and half in State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1972.989, 1976.171, 1985.965], "stop_times": [1976.171, 1985.965, 1989.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.989}, "reply_to": "20005__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__1_032", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "They're separate and distinct procedures, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1989.838, 1992.781], "stop_times": [1992.781, 1993.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1989.838}, "reply_to": "20005__1_031", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_033", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But surely we had that same objection that the Chief Justice is questioning when you're attacking the conviction itself.\nWe said this is very intrusive on State judicial mechanisms for us to second guess their judgment of convictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [1993.121, 2000.215], "stop_times": [2000.215, 2008.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.121}, "reply_to": "20005__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_034", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Well, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2008.381], "stop_times": [2010.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.381}, "reply_to": "20005__1_033", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_035", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And yet, that seems to be the very process that you're holding out here as the solution to some of the questions we've been raising in the context of good time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2010.413], "stop_times": [2019.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.413}, "reply_to": "20005__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_036", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, an attack to the conviction or the sentence imposed at the conviction by Federal statute under habeas must be done in habeas corpus and must exhaust State remedies.\nBut an attack to an illegal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2019.86, 2029.463], "stop_times": [2029.463, 2031.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.86}, "reply_to": "20005__1_035", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_037", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's because we've said so, and we've said so in order to preserve the State from Federal interference.\nAnd I think what we're asking here in exploring how we best interpret Heck is whether or not those same State/Federal interests don't control.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2031.566, 2039.871], "stop_times": [2039.871, 2051.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.566}, "reply_to": "20005__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_038", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, they don't because, one, 1983 is a different statute which doesn't require exhaustion.\nThis Court in Patsy, in the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2051.047, 2056.702], "stop_times": [2056.702, 2058.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.047}, "reply_to": "20005__1_037", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_039", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But we were talking about 1983 in the context of the collateral attack on a conviction as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2058.695], "stop_times": [2064.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.695}, "reply_to": "20005__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_040", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--That's true, but in there... in Heck you also affirmed Wolff and said an attack to the procedure that doesn't necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or the sentence is valid and can go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2064.157], "stop_times": [2075.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.157}, "reply_to": "20005__1_039", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_041", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Why doesn't this necessarily imply the invalidity of the sentence if you consider as the sentence the increase by reason of the denial of his good-time credits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2075.754], "stop_times": [2090.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.754}, "reply_to": "20005__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_042", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "It doesn't imply it, Your Honor, because when he goes to State court, when he goes into... to the attack of habeas--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2090.425], "stop_times": [2096.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.425}, "reply_to": "20005__1_041", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_043", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That denial of good-time credits is invalid.\nIf you want to deny good-time credits, you have to go through the whole thing again with a new procedure, but the past denial is automatically invalid once you decide the procedure was wrong.\nIsn't it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2096.268, 2098.46, 2108.316], "stop_times": [2098.46, 2108.316, 2108.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.268}, "reply_to": "20005__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_044", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--It's not automatic.\nNo, sir, it's not because when he goes into habeas corpus, there's an entirely different standard the court is looking at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2108.707, 2109.595], "stop_times": [2109.595, 2115.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.707}, "reply_to": "20005__1_043", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_045", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--No, no, no.\nI'm just talking about he comes and challenges under 1983 the procedures.\nThe procedures are found to be improper.\nOkay?\nDoes that not mean that the thing has to be done again and that the prior denial of good-time credits is invalidated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2115.98, 2116.431, 2121.384, 2124.676, 2125.638], "stop_times": [2116.431, 2121.384, 2124.676, 2125.638, 2132.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.98}, "reply_to": "20005__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_046", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "It does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2132.731], "stop_times": [2133.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.731}, "reply_to": "20005__1_045", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_047", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "It does not even imply that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2133.562], "stop_times": [2135.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.562}, "reply_to": "20005__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_048", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "It may... it implies the procedures were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2135.833], "stop_times": [2139.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.833}, "reply_to": "20005__1_047", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_049", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Careful, because what it says, whether a judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2139.847], "stop_times": [2148.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.847}, "reply_to": "20005__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_050", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2148.281], "stop_times": [2148.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.281}, "reply_to": "20005__1_049", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_051", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And I don't see how it's possible to say that when you prevail under 1983 on the ground that the procedures were wrong, that does not imply that the denial of good-time credits was in error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2148.561], "stop_times": [2160.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.561}, "reply_to": "20005__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_052", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, Your Honor, this Court used footnote 7 in Heck to explain what it meant by necessarily imply, and in footnote 7 this Court said if the attack on procedures had a different doctrine such as inevitable discovery or harmless error, then our holding that the procedure was invalid doesn't necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or sentence because of other doctrines which intersect on that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2160.911], "stop_times": [2186.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.911}, "reply_to": "20005__1_051", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_053", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Under your theory, Mr. Rice, could you go into Federal court and say with respect to a trial in which you had been found guilty of a criminal offense that you had been denied the right of counsel and that the Federal judge says, well, you know, that should be in habeas?\nYou say, well, no, I'm not trying to challenge my conviction here.\nI just want nominal damages for being denied the right to counsel.\nAnd then could you... so, then the Federal court says, okay, I find you were denied the right.\nCan you then take that over to State court and say, look, I've got a finding that I was denied counsel, so set my conviction aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2186.316, 2204.05, 2207.361, 2210.933, 2215.198], "stop_times": [2204.05, 2207.361, 2210.933, 2215.198, 2221.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.316}, "reply_to": "20005__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__1_054", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Your Honor, you can reach certain levels of constitutional depravation that no court would hold a fair hearing.\nNow, in the denial of counsel, the question becomes, did the person waive counsel?\nDid they... were they coming back later after an improper waiver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2221.812, 2228.925, 2233.049], "stop_times": [2228.925, 2233.049, 2236.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.812}, "reply_to": "20005__1_053", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_055", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Can a Federal court make that determination without... in a 1983 action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2236.742], "stop_times": [2242.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.742}, "reply_to": "20005__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__1_056", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I think that immunities granted in the judicial context would prohibit a Federal court from making that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2242.094], "stop_times": [2250.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2242.094}, "reply_to": "20005__1_055", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_057", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, immunity is an affirmative defense.\nMr. Rice, the difference in footnote 7 that you appeal to is this.\nThe example given in footnote 7 is an unconstitutional search and seizure.\nYou have standing to challenge an unconstitutional search and seizure regardless of its effect upon your conviction.\nIt is a wrong in and of itself.\nBut you have no standing to challenge the depravation of procedures unless you allege that those procedures have affected or may have affected the reduction of your sentence.\nThe example given in footnote 7 has no relationship to the present case.\nThere was standing to challenge a separate unconstitutional act, but the unlawful act you're claiming here is an act that you have the ability to challenge only by reason of your assertion that it affected your sentence.\nThat's a different situation entirely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2250.73, 2252.361, 2259.466, 2265.039, 2272.933, 2275.435, 2287.693, 2292.726, 2304.126], "stop_times": [2252.361, 2259.466, 2265.039, 2272.933, 2275.435, 2287.693, 2292.726, 2304.126, 2306.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.73}, "reply_to": "20005__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__1_058", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I go back to this Court's precedent in Carey v. Piphus and in Memphis School District where there was a challenge to an unconstitutional procedure which the Court said it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the hearing.\nIt would not have mattered, and that the challenge to a constitutional procedure on the right to a fair hearing... it doesn't entitle you to actual damages.\nIt doesn't entitle you to any other damages other than the injunction on the hearing and nominal damages which you can get and to vindicate that right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2306.576, 2318.665, 2328.93], "stop_times": [2318.665, 2328.93, 2339.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.576}, "reply_to": "20005__1_057", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_059", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "It's significant that footnote 7 does not refer to harmless error.\nIt says that there are other doctrines such as independent source and inevitable discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2339.198, 2343.432], "stop_times": [2343.432, 2353.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.198}, "reply_to": "20005__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_060", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And it also says, and of course, harmless error under Arizona v. Fulmanente.\nSo, it does refer to all three, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2353.156, 2358.231], "stop_times": [2358.231, 2360.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.156}, "reply_to": "20005__1_059", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_061", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Isn't it enough for your case, Mr. Rice, to admit the possibility that there may be some procedural depravations that simply couldn't be cured?\nI don't know whether that's so in this context, but let's assume that it's a possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2360.542, 2370.139], "stop_times": [2370.139, 2373.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.542}, "reply_to": "20005__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_062", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2373.539], "stop_times": [2374.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.539}, "reply_to": "20005__1_061", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_063", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And then simply say, but that is not the issue in this case and there is no claim that this is one of them.\nAnd as long as there would have to be a further step before any ultimate determination that the sentence should be... of any ultimate determination that the sentence be shortened, so long as there would have to be a further step, whether it be a harmless error step or the application of this some evidence doctrine, whatever, as long as there would have to be a further step, then you don't have the inevitability that our prior case, that Heck and Humphrey, spoke of.\nIsn't that enough for you to prevail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2374.741, 2379.824, 2408.903], "stop_times": [2379.824, 2408.903, 2410.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.741}, "reply_to": "20005__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_064", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Yes, it is enough for us to prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2410.846], "stop_times": [2412.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.846}, "reply_to": "20005__1_063", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_065", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Now, is that something different from what I understood a moment ago you to be arguing which was there's a further step simply because there would be no collateral estoppel or no res judicata effect in a State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2412.485], "stop_times": [2428.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.485}, "reply_to": "20005__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_066", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's correct because of the State having the some or any evidence standard, having a substantial and actual injury for a constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2428.777], "stop_times": [2437.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.777}, "reply_to": "20005__1_065", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_067", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Okay, but wouldn't your argument be exactly the same if, let's say, suddenly tomorrow morning you could show that a return to the State court would be futile?\nYou would still have to prove more than just a procedural violation before you would be entitled to any ultimate relief, let's say, on Federal habe.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2437.171, 2447.448, 2455.863], "stop_times": [2447.448, 2455.863, 2456.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.171}, "reply_to": "20005__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_068", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--On Federal habeas, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2456.684], "stop_times": [2458.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.684}, "reply_to": "20005__1_067", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_069", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes, and that's enough for you to win... I understood your argument to be that that's enough for you to win this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2458.177], "stop_times": [2463.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.177}, "reply_to": "20005__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_070", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's enough for us to win.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2463.579], "stop_times": [2464.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.579}, "reply_to": "20005__1_069", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_071", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Can you explain... for a minute I would appreciate going back to the Chief Justice's question.\nAs I read Heck... and I was coming new to it... and trying to work out how it would apply to the mine run... maybe yours is or isn't... mine run kind of case where a prisoner says there was some procedural violation at my disciplinary hearing.\nA mine run case.\nI thought the problem in Heck is that 1983 normally requires no exhaustion.\nPatsy.\nBut habeas law seems to require something that looks like exhaustion, and therefore you have to reconcile it.\nIn reconciling them, I can imagine it would make sense to say, sorry, 1983 requires no exhaustion.\nThat's the end of it.\nOr to say it requires exhaustion for prison cases because of habeas.\nGo exhaust.\nBut what I can't understand is how it could lead to a hybrid system where you get the worst of both worlds.\nYou have to keep running between one... or you can run between one court and another, get half your case decided in Federal court, then get the other half decided in State court.\nWhy does that make sense in terms of the effort to reconcile 1983 with habeas law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2464.17, 2469.933, 2485.565, 2486.594, 2492.508, 2493.88, 2500.533, 2507.047, 2508.559, 2513.762, 2514.991, 2521.817, 2531.284], "stop_times": [2469.933, 2485.565, 2486.594, 2492.508, 2493.88, 2500.533, 2507.047, 2508.559, 2513.762, 2514.991, 2521.817, 2531.284, 2538.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.17}, "reply_to": "20005__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20005__1_072", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "While it seems convoluted, Your Honor, it makes sense because there is very distinct and separate remedies in 1983 and in habeas corpus.\nIn habeas corpus all you can get is a reversal of the hearing or return of your good time.\nYou cannot get an injunction to attack an improper procedure or to try and stop the conduct from occurring again and again and again.\n1983 allows you to go in and get a declaration and injunction to stop the conduct from occurring, and in many ways, it's a more efficient remedy than habeas corpus.\nSo, the two doctrines are separate and they operate separately.\nAnd this Court said in Wolff and it has said over and again in different cases like Heck that you could actually have them both at the same time because they're addressing such different standards and different matters of proof, and they're statutorily created by Congress.\nNow, to further your answer your question why you may not have this back and forth again and the trouble you're concerned about is in April of 1980... 1996 Congress passed the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.\nIt addressed virtually all of the questions that the State is concerned about.\nFirst, you have to exhaust... when they looked at exhaustion... and Congress looked at exhaustion, they said we're going to make prisoners exhaust State administrative remedies, not judicial or court remedies.\nOn the administrative remedies, Mr. Balisok has done that.\nSecond, for how the petition to go, it said, if you're attacking conditions in the prison or conduct of the guards affecting confinement, you can proceed under 1983.\nCongress has said that.\nIf you're attacking the result of the hearing or a term of confinement, you have to go to habeas corpus.\nThose are the two routes you have a choice to do.\nThey're separate.\nAs for these claims going forward, Congress has said, you know, there have been too many of them, so we're going to enact a three strikes and you're out provision.\nThree frivolous or malicious claims, you're gone.\nWe're going to make prisoners do filing fees.\nWe're going to make them pay for that.\nSo, we're going to have prisoners pay their judgment for the attorney fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2538.489, 2548.824, 2553.726, 2561.714, 2571.749, 2576.914, 2592.141, 2601.959, 2606.203, 2616.229, 2619.601, 2630.546, 2631.868, 2638.173, 2640.153, 2641.385, 2649.42, 2651.972, 2653.892, 2655.314], "stop_times": [2548.824, 2553.726, 2561.714, 2571.749, 2576.914, 2592.141, 2601.959, 2606.203, 2616.229, 2619.601, 2630.546, 2631.868, 2638.173, 2640.153, 2641.385, 2649.42, 2651.972, 2653.892, 2655.314, 2659.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.489}, "reply_to": "20005__1_071", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_073", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Actually three strikes and you're in.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2659.667, 2661.239], "stop_times": [2661.239, 2662.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.667}, "reply_to": "20005__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__1_074", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, three strikes and you're in.\nYou're right, Your Honor.\nExactly.\nBut Congress has addressed all of the concerns about the different claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2662.749, 2663.62, 2664.461, 2665.45], "stop_times": [2663.62, 2664.461, 2665.45, 2669.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2662.749}, "reply_to": "20005__1_073", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_075", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Mr. Rice, what was the relief asked for in this lawsuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2669.333], "stop_times": [2673.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.333}, "reply_to": "20005__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_076", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Mr. Balisok asked for a declaration that the conduct of the guards was unconstitutional.\nHe asked for an injunction to have them stop that conduct in the future, that if they have statements in their hand... and his allegations are that they had the statements, and they told him they didn't exist.\nHis third is for damages and according to proof to the court.\nNow, after the Prison Litigation Reform Act, that's just nominal damages.\nAnd his fourth is a general claim for any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.\nThat's the only claims of relief in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2673.176, 2678.268, 2689.386, 2693.819, 2697.963, 2701.874], "stop_times": [2678.268, 2689.386, 2693.819, 2697.963, 2701.874, 2704.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.176}, "reply_to": "20005__1_075", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_077", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "In his... if he prevailed and had a determination, a declaratory judgment, that his rights had been violated by the guards, would that not have preclusive effect as to that finding against the State in a State court... in a subsequent State court proceeding?\nThe State is a party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2704.335, 2720.847], "stop_times": [2720.847, 2722.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.335}, "reply_to": "20005__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_078", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Not really, Your Honor, and here's why.\nWhile it may have... it may say, all right, that fact is determined.\n28 U.S.C. 2254 by Federal statute grants to the States the right of independent review in habeas corpus.\nSo, if the State felt that its hands were tied by that determination, it could discard it or even come to a different interpretation because of what's granted to it under 2254(b) which is a right of independent determination.\nAlso, there's no requirement that a Federal judgment be given preclusive effect in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2722.237, 2725.34, 2728.642, 2738.259, 2751.136], "stop_times": [2725.34, 2728.642, 2738.259, 2751.136, 2757.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.237}, "reply_to": "20005__1_077", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_079", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Is there in Washington law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2757.72], "stop_times": [2759.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.72}, "reply_to": "20005__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_080", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "No, there is not, not that I'm aware of.\nThe State can look at it, but the State is not required to adopt it.\nSo, in that respect, the State can come in and look and say, all right, we've got this finding in Federal court, and the first thing it looks at under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2759.943, 2762.974, 2766.376], "stop_times": [2762.974, 2766.376, 2774.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.943}, "reply_to": "20005__1_079", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_081", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "May I just... that went by me very quickly.\nI thought there was something about the supremacy of Federal law that would require a Federal court to honor... a State court to honor a Federal judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2774.523, 2776.364], "stop_times": [2776.364, 2782.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.523}, "reply_to": "20005__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_082", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Your Honor, a Federal court... a State court is required to honor a sister court judgment under full faith and credit of the Constitution, and a Federal court must honor a State court judgment under the full faith and credit statute.\nThere is no Federal statute which requires a State court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2782.989, 2794.656], "stop_times": [2794.656, 2797.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.989}, "reply_to": "20005__1_081", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_083", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But there is the Supremacy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2797.738], "stop_times": [2798.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.738}, "reply_to": "20005__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_084", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--The Supremacy Clause would infer to the State that it should give deference to the Federal court judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2798.629], "stop_times": [2806.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.629}, "reply_to": "20005__1_083", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_085", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "You're saying that a court decree doesn't count as a Federal act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2806.063], "stop_times": [2811.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.063}, "reply_to": "20005__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_086", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "In terms of applying it to 2254 which gives the State the right of independent review, that the State court can look separate from the Federal judgment in 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2811.709], "stop_times": [2825.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.709}, "reply_to": "20005__1_085", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_087", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I thought... and maybe I'm wrong about this... that it was well accepted that essentially the Federal court judgment gets the same full faith and credit in a State court that a sister State... the notion that a Federal court judgment is entitled to less respect in State A than a judgment of a sister State, State B judgment, that's very strange to me, and I frankly don't think it's the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2825.698], "stop_times": [2852.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.698}, "reply_to": "20005__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_088", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it's my understanding that the full faith and credit of the Constitution goes State to State and that the full faith and credit statute governs both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2852.135], "stop_times": [2863.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.135}, "reply_to": "20005__1_087", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_089", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Yes, but the... but there are other doctrines and one of them is the supremacy of Federal law.\nYour stronger argument I suppose is that you can give full faith and credit to the judgment and still not revoke his good time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2863.593, 2867.546], "stop_times": [2867.546, 2874.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2863.593}, "reply_to": "20005__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_090", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "It would not revoke his good time because of the State court rights under some or any evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2874.808], "stop_times": [2879.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2874.808}, "reply_to": "20005__1_089", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_091", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's a much sounder argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2879.172], "stop_times": [2879.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.172}, "reply_to": "20005__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_092", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2879.711], "stop_times": [2880.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2879.711}, "reply_to": "20005__1_091", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_093", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's a much sounder argument than to say that a State court doesn't have to give, in effect, full faith and credit to a Federal judgment.\nYes.\nThat's quite a different point as to whether or not it must accept as binding the fact that, say, the officer mislabeled or destroyed or concealed the documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2880.542, 2885.825, 2886.626], "stop_times": [2885.825, 2886.626, 2894.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.542}, "reply_to": "20005__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20005__1_094", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, Your Honor, when the decision... when the 1983 decision goes into State court, the State court has several avenues to look at the facts of the case independently.\n2254 says you've got a right of first review.\nWashington's law under some or any evidence... and I refer to the In re Burton where they said not... any meager evidence, even inferential evidence, is enough to support the finding of the disciplinary board, and once they find any evidence, the analysis stops.\nIt's not a weighing decision between the court... between is this good evidence and this bad evidence.\nThis Court affirmed that rule in Superintendent v. Hill where it said for prison disciplinary hearing review--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2894.941, 2905.66, 2909.512, 2927.054, 2932.638], "stop_times": [2905.66, 2909.512, 2927.054, 2932.638, 2938.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.941}, "reply_to": "20005__1_093", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_095", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But 2254 applies to Federal court proceedings, and you're saying there's also a provision in 2254 that says a State court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2938.91], "stop_times": [2947.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.91}, "reply_to": "20005__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_096", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--2254(b) says that a State court has the first... gives the States the first right of review on habeas grounds.\nYou have to have that exhaustion.\nThe State has to have the independent right to make that determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2947.826, 2958.634, 2959.973], "stop_times": [2958.634, 2959.973, 2964.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.826}, "reply_to": "20005__1_095", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_097", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Yes, but the whole assumption of the 1983 action is that it is not functionally equivalent to habeas.\nSo, I don't see why that would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2964.439, 2971.792], "stop_times": [2971.792, 2973.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.439}, "reply_to": "20005__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_098", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2973.345], "stop_times": [2976.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2973.345}, "reply_to": "20005__1_097", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_099", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I mean, the... 2254 is applying habeas versus habeas, State versus Federal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2976.597], "stop_times": [2982.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.597}, "reply_to": "20005__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_100", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2982.321], "stop_times": [2983.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.321}, "reply_to": "20005__1_099", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_101", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "The whole premise of our argument is that the 1983 action is not to be regarded as a covert habeas action under certain circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2983.069], "stop_times": [2993.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.069}, "reply_to": "20005__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_102", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "It's not a covert habeas action at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2993.878], "stop_times": [2996.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2993.878}, "reply_to": "20005__1_101", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_103", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2996.389], "stop_times": [2996.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.389}, "reply_to": "20005__1_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_104", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "But it depends upon--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2996.76], "stop_times": [2997.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.76}, "reply_to": "20005__1_103", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_105", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--So, therefore, 2254 doesn't have any application one way or the other, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [2997.928], "stop_times": [3002.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.928}, "reply_to": "20005__1_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20005__1_106", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--It has application with regard to what the State standard is when it reviews a prisoner habeas petition.\nThat's where it has application, and the State standard on review of a prisoner habeas petition is the right of first and independent review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3002.353, 3008.867], "stop_times": [3008.867, 3017.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3002.353}, "reply_to": "20005__1_105", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_107", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Well, we could look at this later.\n2254, as I... including (b), applies to the State... what a State court must do, and it must first defer to a... pardon me... what a Federal court must do.\nIt must first defer to the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3017.763, 3019.394, 3028.23], "stop_times": [3019.394, 3028.23, 3029.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.763}, "reply_to": "20005__1_106", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_108", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's right, and that has been interpreted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3029.672], "stop_times": [3033.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3029.672}, "reply_to": "20005__1_107", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_109", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "And it has been interpreted to say that the State court need not be bound by any prior Federal judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3033.174], "stop_times": [3038.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.174}, "reply_to": "20005__1_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20005__1_110", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Well, look... you can look at the language in Heck v. Humphrey where the State there was saying you have to in Heck... you can't allow this ruling to afford in Heck because it's going to be preclusion in State court, and the opinion in Heck addresses that point and says, no, it's not going to be preclusion.\nPreclusion may not be... may not apply and it may not even be permissible.\nAnd it sets out in footnote 11 I believe why that's so because 2254 is Federal statute and the preclusion is judge-made law, court-made law.\nSo, 2254 governs over court-made law when you weigh the two, and 2254 will give the independent review to the State.\nSo, if you look at Heck in footnote 11, that's fully explained by this Court why preclusion wouldn't apply.\nMr. Balisok is simply asking for a right to review an unconstitutional procedure.\nPrisoners in the United States have really just four when it comes to fair hearings: a right to notice, a right to time to prepare, a right to present witnesses so long as it doesn't interfere with prison discipline or administration, and a written finding of fact.\nThere's only four things that are given to prisoners.\nHe's simply asking in this case that these guards who had witness statements that he had asked for, who deliberately told them they didn't exist, that didn't date-stamp them so that he couldn't prove they existed at the time, but were later found in his file... that he have the right to have a ruling under 1983 that that conduct is unfair and it's unconstitutional and it shouldn't be permitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3038.577, 3055.638, 3059.979, 3070.748, 3079.333, 3086.857, 3093.933, 3107.31, 3109.564], "stop_times": [3055.638, 3059.979, 3070.748, 3079.333, 3086.857, 3093.933, 3107.31, 3109.564, 3133.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.577}, "reply_to": "20005__1_109", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_111", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Mr. Rice, I've been looking for footnote 11 in Heck v. Humphrey.\nI don't--\n--It ends with footnote 10.\nYes.\nIs that the footnote that we thought better of and didn't issue?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3133.009, 3138.041, 3138.372, 3139.473, 3140.262, 3144.306], "stop_times": [3138.041, 3138.372, 3139.473, 3140.262, 3144.306, 3146.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.009}, "reply_to": "20005__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_112", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Footnote 9.\nI'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3146.486, 3148.309], "stop_times": [3148.309, 3148.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3146.486}, "reply_to": "20005__1_111", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_113", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3148.928], "stop_times": [3149.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.928}, "reply_to": "20005__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20005__1_114", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Look at footnote 9 where this Court says, while we have no occasion to rule on the matter at this time, it is at least plain preclusion will not necessarily be an automatic or even permissible effect.\nAnd then in the explanation of that it says, the court-made preclusion rules may, as judicial application of categorical mandate of section 1983 may not, take account of the policy embodied in section 2254(b)'s exhaustion requirement that State courts be given the first opportunity to review constitutional claims bearing upon State prisoner release from custody.\nSo, that's where you get the dichotomy on the case where 1983 deals with procedure, an unconstitutional procedure.\nBut we are not asking for return of his good time.\nWe're not asking for reversal of the hearing.\nWe're saying this was a hearing involving good time, which is a liberty interest.\nThis Court has said that good time still remains that.\nAnd second, when you've got a liberty interest at stake, you're entitled to a minimum of due process for a fair hearing.\nAnd that's all we're in court asking for this... for Mr. Balisok to have is his hearing... is a right to a fair hearing.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3149.268, 3160.297, 3182.43, 3193.838, 3196.059, 3198.96, 3202.182, 3205.024, 3212.11, 3219.644], "stop_times": [3160.297, 3182.43, 3193.838, 3196.059, 3198.96, 3202.182, 3205.024, 3212.11, 3219.644, 3220.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3149.268}, "reply_to": "20005__1_113", "speaker": "thomas_h_speedy_rice"}
{"id": "20005__1_115", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rice.\nMs. Mix, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3220.955, 3221.867], "stop_times": [3221.867, 3224.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.955}, "reply_to": "20005__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20005__2_000", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nEven if there is no preclusion with respect to the successful 1983 action, I think the primary concern that the State has is that the State interests and comity interests are not served by the State having a second independent opportunity to look at this claim.\nAnd the problem that we have with what has been described here is exactly the situation of running between the courts where Mr. Balisok says, well, yes, indeed he will go back to State court and present this declaration to the State court, this declaration of a Federal court, that there have been procedural violations of constitutional magnitude at this hearing.\nAnd the State court is in the position at that point of either rendering an inconsistent result with a Federal district court that has looked at the same issue or the State courts and State officials are in the position of being persuaded by that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3224.208, 3232.082, 3254.158, 3278.352], "stop_times": [3232.082, 3254.158, 3278.352, 3294.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3224.208}, "reply_to": "20005__1_115", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__2_001", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Of course, it is true that this problem only arises if you lose in the Federal court.\nMost of these cases you're going to win in the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3294.153, 3296.824], "stop_times": [3296.824, 3300.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.153}, "reply_to": "20005__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__2_002", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--If he win... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3300.558], "stop_times": [3302.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3300.558}, "reply_to": "20005__2_001", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__2_003", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3302.618], "stop_times": [3303.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.618}, "reply_to": "20005__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__2_004", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Yes, if he wins in a Federal court, we'll have that problem, and that is the precise situation that leads to conflict among the courts that this Court has said should not be allowed to occur.\nAnd the situation gets even worse because if Mr. Balisok then wins in his State habeas corpus petition, he has yet another avenue back into Federal court for the actual harm from the confinement.\nSo, we have multiple times into the courts and multiple avenues into Federal courts when we bifurcate these actions and allow a 1983 procedures-only claim to proceed as described by Mr. Balisok.\nThe second point I'd like to address is just a question of whether the procedures are part and parcel of the liberty, and we think very much that they are.\nThe second part of the Heck holding is very critical with respect to our rule.\nHeck not only barred damages for unlawful confinement, but it also barred claims for harm caused by unlawful actions that rendered confinement invalid.\nAnd if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3303.009, 3314.186, 3329.836, 3344.727, 3358.174, 3362.228, 3372.044], "stop_times": [3314.186, 3329.836, 3344.727, 3358.174, 3362.228, 3372.044, 3373.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3303.009}, "reply_to": "20005__2_003", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__2_005", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Do you have any comment on Carey against Piphus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3373.885], "stop_times": [3376.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.885}, "reply_to": "20005__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20005__2_006", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "--Under the rules we have proposed, Carey could remain a good rule in that it would allow nominal damages for the violation of procedural rights but only after there had been exhaustion of remedies through the habeas corpus procedures.\nSo, if there is a finding of error but it's harmless error, that procedural right could still go forward for a nominal damages claim under Carey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3376.126, 3398.061], "stop_times": [3398.061, 3409.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3376.126}, "reply_to": "20005__2_005", "speaker": "kathleen_d_mix"}
{"id": "20005__2_007", "conversation_id": "20005", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Mix.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1352", "start_times": [3409.357, 3410.107], "stop_times": [3410.107, 3411.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3409.357}, "reply_to": "20005__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_000", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1232, General Motors Corporation v. Roger W. Tracy.\nMr. Dyk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [0.0, 9.347], "stop_times": [9.347, 25.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_001", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves the question whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against interstate transactions in the application of its sales and use tax of natural gas purchases.\nIf the purchaser in Ohio, such as General Motors in this case, purchases from a local public utility which supplies the gas through its own distribution lines, the sale or use is exempt.\nOn the other hand, if the gas is supplied by an interstate marketer of natural gas which has no distribution lines within the State, the purchase is not exempt, and this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [25.699, 25.839, 36.776, 50.784], "stop_times": [25.839, 36.776, 50.784, 61.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 25.699}, "reply_to": "20258__0_000", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_002", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "When you say discriminate, Mr. Dyk, you suggest that these two entities should be treated as equals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [61.943], "stop_times": [68.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 61.943}, "reply_to": "20258__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_003", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [68.419], "stop_times": [69.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.419}, "reply_to": "20258__0_002", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_004", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "That there aren't really any factors that distinguish them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [69.217], "stop_times": [71.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 69.217}, "reply_to": "20258__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_005", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--There are no factors that distinguish them in our view, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt's the same gas that can come from the same well, distributed over the same interstate pipeline, distributed through the same local pipeline, and the local natural gas company may or may not be selling tariff gas.\nIn other words, it may be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [71.507, 74.84, 89.66], "stop_times": [74.84, 89.66, 90.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 71.507}, "reply_to": "20258__0_004", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_006", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, but isn't it a public utility that we're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [90.501], "stop_times": [93.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.501}, "reply_to": "20258__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20258__0_007", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, it is a public utility, but the sales by the public utility are not regulated sales.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [93.794], "stop_times": [99.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 93.794}, "reply_to": "20258__0_006", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_008", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, I'm very concerned about your theory, frankly, because it seems to me that your theory would really eviscerate public regulation of public utilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [99.768], "stop_times": [111.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.768}, "reply_to": "20258__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20258__0_009", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, I don't think so, Justice O'Connor.\nFirst of all, what we have here is our local public utilities, which are making to a very significant extent nontariff sales.\nThat's admitted at the very outset of the respondent's brief at page 1 and 2.\nIt's reflected in the record, in the Joint Appendix at pages 229 and 230.\nAs a result of local deregulation, natural gas public utilities in Ohio, and this is true in other States as well, are permitted to engage in the business of gas marketing.\nIn other words, they're largely unregulated.\nAll they had to do during the period in question was to file the contract with the public utility commission.\nThey in fact were allowed to do this, to engage in these unregulated sales, because they faced competition from these interstate marketers, and the public utilities--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [111.384, 113.355, 121.57, 125.504, 129.827, 139.443, 141.806, 146.798], "stop_times": [113.355, 121.57, 125.504, 129.827, 139.443, 141.806, 146.798, 155.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 111.384}, "reply_to": "20258__0_008", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_010", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "But I assume that the overall rate the utility can earn is limited by regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [155.343], "stop_times": [162.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.343}, "reply_to": "20258__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20258__0_011", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Not in these sales, Justice O'Connor.\nThese sales are unregulated sales.\nThere is no tariff for them.\nThe price at which the gas is sold is not regulated.\nThe whole purpose of this was to allow these local public utilities to compete with the interstate marketers so they wouldn't have to sell pursuant to a tariff, so that they could engage in the same kind of competition, the same kind of discounting, the same kind of individual pricing that the out-of-State marketers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [162.379, 163.478, 166.029, 167.461, 169.943], "stop_times": [163.478, 166.029, 167.461, 169.943, 184.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.379}, "reply_to": "20258__0_010", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_012", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Was this a new statute, Mr. Dyk, or was... the statutory permission for the utilities to do unregulated sales, was that statute in effect during the tax period here in question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [184.161], "stop_times": [202.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 184.161}, "reply_to": "20258__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__0_013", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--It wasn't a statute during the tax period in question.\nWhat you had was permission from the Ohio Public Service Commission to engage in these kinds of sales, and there was a 19... October 1987 order, for example, with respect to East Ohio Gas, which I'll lodge with the Court.\nIt's not in the record, but it is a public order of the commission which said yes, you can engage in these kinds of sales, and these went on for a number of years.\nThis is reflected, as I said, in the record at 229 to 230.\nThen last June, this was formalized by statute for the first time, and the Ohio legislature said, you don't even have to bother to file these arrangements, these marketing arrangements, with the public utilities commission, you just go ahead and do it, and go on your merry way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [202.844, 205.136, 220.606, 228.0, 231.753], "stop_times": [205.136, 220.606, 228.0, 231.753, 246.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.844}, "reply_to": "20258__0_012", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_014", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Suppose the unregulated sales were subject to the sales tax so that there would be equivalence between the utility's unregulated sales and the interstate sales, would your case then go away, or would you still argue that there's discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [246.212], "stop_times": [261.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.212}, "reply_to": "20258__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__0_015", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "I still... I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [261.433], "stop_times": [262.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.433}, "reply_to": "20258__0_014", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_016", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "I take it your theory is that there's still discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [262.294], "stop_times": [263.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.294}, "reply_to": "20258__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__0_017", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--I think that... that is not this case, but there is still discrimination involved, because the public utilities are allowed, under an Ohio law, to file volume discount tariffs and things of that sort which allow them to compete even under the tariffs, and this October 1987 order of the public utilities commission which I mentioned shows on its face that Northeast Gas in that particular case was able to compete and actually offer a lower price pursuant to these tariffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [263.974], "stop_times": [291.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.974}, "reply_to": "20258__0_016", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_018", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "But public utilities have a number of other burdens on them, do they not, particularly serving retail customers.\nThey may have to provide gas to people who can't pay the bill, or supply a certain amount of heat during the winter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [291.743, 297.286], "stop_times": [297.286, 304.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.743}, "reply_to": "20258__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_019", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "They may, Mr. Chief Justice, but they also engage in this unregulated business, and the fact that they are a favored local industry, that the State wishes to protect theme, has not in this Court's other Commerce Clause cases been a sufficient basis for discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [304.562], "stop_times": [320.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.562}, "reply_to": "20258__0_018", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_020", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "But don't you have to look at their entire business, and not just the part that you single out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [320.992], "stop_times": [324.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.992}, "reply_to": "20258__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_021", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "I don't think so, Mr. Chief Justice.\nFor example, in the Armco case, which is cited in the amicus brief of Columbia Gas, they had a situation where there was a discrimination against out-of-State wholesalers, and the theory was, well, we can treat in-State manufacturers/wholesalers differently, and the fact that you may combine competitive interstate business with some sort of local business doesn't justify discrimination under the Commerce Clause, and I understand the Court in that case to have directly addressed that question and to resolve it in favor of invalidating the discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [324.814, 327.716], "stop_times": [327.716, 359.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.814}, "reply_to": "20258__0_020", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_022", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Dyk, when you say that these nontariff sales are not part of its regular business, is it also the case that for purposes of determining what their allowable rate of return will be, the profits they make from these sales are not considered, it's just the separate... they can make as much money as they want from these nonregulated sales, and it will not be considered in fixing their tariffs for the next year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [359.887], "stop_times": [383.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.887}, "reply_to": "20258__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__0_023", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "That is my understanding, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [383.834], "stop_times": [385.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.834}, "reply_to": "20258__0_022", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_024", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [385.093], "stop_times": [385.304], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 385.093}, "reply_to": "20258__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20258__0_025", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--and the purpose of this is, what you have as a result of Federal deregulation is you have a lot of competition in the natural gas market.\nAnybody can sell gas, transport it over interstate pipelines, and the same kind of deregulation has taken place at the State level.\nYou can take the gas over the local public utility lines and sell it.\nAnybody can go into that business.\nAnd as a result of this competition, what happened was that the local public utilities were suffering.\nPeople were going to these interstate marketers, and the local public utilities commissions wanted to find some way of enabling these companies to compete with these new marketers, and the way they figured out to allow them to compete in many instances was to say, okay, we'll allow you, too, to make unregulated sales and to act as marketers, and to compete with these interstate businesses so you don't lose the in-State business.\nNow, there's a very important reason for that, of course.\nThey wanted them to earn additional money to increase their profitability, but that did not come into account in fixing the rates pursuant to the tariffs for natural gas--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [385.304, 393.098, 400.463, 404.497, 405.768, 411.012, 433.597, 435.088], "stop_times": [393.098, 400.463, 404.497, 405.768, 411.012, 433.597, 435.088, 447.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.304}, "reply_to": "20258__0_024", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_026", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Mr. Dyk, may I ask you a question on that score?\nYou've indicated that the same intrastate pipelines are used by both the independent seller and the public utility, and are those pipelines owned by the public utility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [447.677, 450.448], "stop_times": [450.448, 461.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.677}, "reply_to": "20258__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_027", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--They're owned by the public utility, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [461.245], "stop_times": [462.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.245}, "reply_to": "20258__0_026", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_028", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "And how do they determine the charge for the gas sold that's delivered through those pipelines in the independent marketer sales?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [462.978], "stop_times": [471.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.978}, "reply_to": "20258__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_029", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, what you have is both open access... that is, people who are not in the public utility business have the right to use those transportation facilities... and so-called unbundling, which was a concept that originated at the Federal level but also exists at the State level, in which there are separate statements for transportation charges and the transportation charges have to be... has to be... have to be justified.\nOf course, the public utilities really remain as public utilities when they're supplying the transportation service, but that's unbundled.\nIt's charged separately, and the rates are calculated separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [471.261, 494.026, 501.303], "stop_times": [494.026, 501.303, 503.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.261}, "reply_to": "20258__0_028", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_030", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "And those are... they're charged separately, but are they controlled by the State public utility commission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [503.734], "stop_times": [508.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.734}, "reply_to": "20258__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_031", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "The transportation rates are still controlled by the State public utility commission, though in some instances even those transportation rates are now being individually negotiated.\nBut by and large those are pursuant to tariffs set by the public utility--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [508.966, 517.12], "stop_times": [517.12, 520.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.966}, "reply_to": "20258__0_030", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_032", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "If they're individually negotiated, it would seem to me that the market would take care of the disparity between the taxed and the no-tax sellers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [520.714], "stop_times": [526.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.714}, "reply_to": "20258__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_033", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Justice Stevens, I'm not under... I'm not sure why I understand the market would take care of that.\nWhat you have is the charges for the gas are stated separately, and if the public utility has an advantage, there's no 5 to 7-percent use tax on the purchases from them, they have an advantage over the interstate seller, who must sell to a purchaser, and the tax is on the purchaser, the purchaser has to pay this 5 to 7-percent tax, and in a business like this, which is highly competitive, 5 to 7-percent can be a significant amount of money and a significant advantage.\nNow, what the State says is, oh well, we impose a gross receipts tax on the public utilities.\nThe problem is that the gross receipts tax doesn't satisfy this Court's standards for a compensatory tax.\nIt's not imposed on a substantially equivalent event.\nIt's not even imposed on the same people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [526.857, 532.772, 561.149, 567.464, 574.089, 576.06], "stop_times": [532.772, 561.149, 567.464, 574.089, 576.06, 577.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.857}, "reply_to": "20258__0_032", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_034", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Dyk, is it clear that for what you call the unregulated sales both before it was formalized in the law and under the new law, that those unregulated sales also escaped the sales tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [577.962], "stop_times": [591.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.962}, "reply_to": "20258__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__0_035", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Yes, because the natural gas company is still a supplier of natural gas.\nIt is still a natural gas company which is supplying the gas over its own distribution lines within the State, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [591.239, 598.095], "stop_times": [598.095, 604.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.239}, "reply_to": "20258__0_034", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_036", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, couldn't... could Ohio say, because the public utility has obligations that the State imposes on it, and because the regulated sales have bundled together these other aspects, while there won't be an escape from the sales tax entirely, there will be an allocation, so that only the part that's attributable to the commodity is subject to the sales tax and not the part that's attributable to these other items?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [604.369], "stop_times": [641.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.369}, "reply_to": "20258__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__0_037", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, there is no sales or use tax on the transportation.\nThere's only a sales or use tax now on the gas purchase, so what you have is a discriminatory situation, and these public utilities have the advantage of being able to act as gas marketers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [641.973, 645.546], "stop_times": [645.546, 658.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.973}, "reply_to": "20258__0_036", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_038", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Even with respect to the gas, the obligation that you must have enough supply to serve everybody at all times, could that be factored out so that you could make the gas sale of the regulated company similar to the unregulated sale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [658.403], "stop_times": [676.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.403}, "reply_to": "20258__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__0_039", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, there are many ways that the State could achieve its interest here without discriminating against interstate commerce, as you suggest.\nFor example, if there is concern, and that's expressed in some of the amicus briefs in support of the respondent, if there's concern that residential customers shouldn't have to pay the sales or use tax on gas purchases, it's a simple matter to just exempt residential customers from the sales or use tax.\nIt's very easy to construct a system that treats equally purchasers from interstate companies and purchasers from local public utilities.\nIt's not hard at all, and there's no justification for the State framing it the way it does in a discriminatory manner.\nI should add that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [676.286, 683.33, 700.611, 708.468, 714.569], "stop_times": [683.33, 700.611, 708.468, 714.569, 718.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.286}, "reply_to": "20258__0_038", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_040", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, you suggested that if there were an exemption for residential customers, no sales tax, that would be all right, but you're recognizing that there can be some recognition by the State that it is imposing, that this is a regulated industry.\nWhat else could the State do to take into account the obligations that the regulated utility is under?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [718.152, 732.611], "stop_times": [732.611, 740.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.152}, "reply_to": "20258__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__0_041", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, obviously they could reduce the gross receipts tax, which appears to be what they've done in this new legislation of last June in House bill 476.\nThey don't have to impose this kind of gross receipts tax on public utilities, but what they can't do under this Court's jurisprudence is to say, we're going to have two identical purchases here.\nOn one of them we're going to have a use tax; on the other one we're not going to have a use tax.\nThere's a rule of strict equality here, and it makes particular sense in the context of this very highly competitive natural gas market, and this is not only true with respect to industrial purchasers, and industrial purchasers are the ones who suffered during the period we're involved in here, but it's going to happen in the residential market also.\nThese... there are tariffs being filed in Ohio and elsewhere, and I think this is again recognized in the Columbia Gas brief, that will allow competition at the residential level.\nThe whole industry is changing dramatically as a result of congressional policy, reflected in the 1978 and 1989 statutes and the implementing FERC regulations.\nThere's going to be competition at the residential level for gas sales between the public utilities and between the out-of-State marketers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [740.478, 749.695, 759.479, 763.433, 783.386, 793.362, 804.229], "stop_times": [749.695, 759.479, 763.433, 783.386, 793.362, 804.229, 813.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.478}, "reply_to": "20258__0_040", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_042", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "I take it an apportioned gross receipts tax would be constitutional, and if everybody paid their gross receipts tax then your client's suppliers would pay an apportioned gross receipts tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [813.005], "stop_times": [827.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.005}, "reply_to": "20258__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__0_043", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, I think it would be constitutional to have an apportioned gross receipts tax, except for the fact that you probably can't reach out-of-State sellers with a gross receipts tax because of Public Law 86-272, so the State would probably choose to approach it by having a use tax imposed on all people and to remit... as they apparently are seeking to do in the new legislation remit the gross receipts tax so it doesn't bear so heavily on the public utilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [827.174], "stop_times": [855.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.174}, "reply_to": "20258__0_042", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_044", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Can you tell me, getting back to the unregulated sales that the utilities make, is there anything in the record that gives us an idea of the significance, the percentage of sales that were... the utility made that were unregulated sales during the tax period in question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [855.483], "stop_times": [868.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.483}, "reply_to": "20258__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__0_045", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "No, there's no statistic for that.\nWhat I think the record reflects is that about 20 percent of the industrial sales continued to be made by public utilities during the period, but there's no breakdown as to what part of that 20 percent is unregulated sales and what part might be pursuant to volume discount tariffs or other things of that sort.\nNow, what... the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [868.681, 870.914, 888.683], "stop_times": [870.914, 888.683, 892.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.681}, "reply_to": "20258__0_044", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_046", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Dyk, I just wanted to make sure, in light of what you said about, that even the residential sales are being deregulated.\nYou responded to me, to my question, what could the State do to recognize that this is a public utility?\nYou said, it could exempt sales to residential users, and you stand by that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [892.517, 901.122, 908.428], "stop_times": [901.122, 908.428, 912.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.517}, "reply_to": "20258__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__0_047", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, I... sure.\nOf course they could exempt sales to residential users, as long as a residential user who chooses to purchase from the out-of-State marketer as opposed to the in-State public utility is treated the same way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [912.75, 914.052], "stop_times": [914.052, 924.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.75}, "reply_to": "20258__0_046", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_048", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Right now, there isn't that choice, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [924.109], "stop_times": [925.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.109}, "reply_to": "20258__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__0_049", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "In some places there is, but by and large there isn't.\nIt's a coming phenomenon.\nIt hasn't really arrived in substantial degree yet.\nWhat Ohio supreme court said here is, well, we don't have any problem here, because this excise tax to be sure is not imposed on the local public utilities, but it is imposed on local gas marketers who are not public utilities under this Court's precedents for over 100 years, ranging from the Brimmer case way back when up to this Court's decision in Carbone.\nThe fact that some local people may be disadvantaged is no excuse under the Commerce Clause, and what the State is trying to do now... and this is not an argument that it made below and not an argument that was adopted by the Ohio supreme court... it is saying, well, the Federal regulatory scheme has blessed this discrimination that we have made in amendments to the Natural Gas Act that were passed in the early 1950's, which allowed the State public utilities commissions to continue to regulate the interstate gas market and effectively overruled this Court's decision in East Ohio.\nAnd we've shown in our brief, I think, that these 1950 amendments had nothing to do with permitting discriminatory taxation by the States.\nEven this Court's decision in East Ohio recognized that the tax doctrines really didn't have much to do with this and it was addressing itself only to regulatory issues.\nBut I think the most significant thing is not that Congress in the fifties authorized this kind of discrimination, but that Congress in the seventies and 1980's has taken a very strong position that it wishes to have a competitive natural gas market, that it has taken actions again and again and again to create a competitive natural gas market in this country, and it has recognized that natural gas is a commodity which should be treated separate from transportation... in other words, this is the unbundling aspect of it... and it has said that it wants all the competitors who were selling natural gas to have an equal opportunity, and if there's any Federal policy here, we respectfully suggest, it is a Federal policy that everybody should be treated the same and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [925.948, 928.92, 930.072, 932.922, 955.728, 991.362, 999.927, 1009.064], "stop_times": [928.92, 930.072, 932.922, 955.728, 991.362, 999.927, 1009.064, 1050.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.948}, "reply_to": "20258__0_048", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_050", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Dyk, can I interrupt you for just a second?\nIn response to Justice Kennedy, you said that the record indicated that about 20 percent of the utility sales were industrial sales, but you don't know how much of those were un... pursuant to volume discount tariffs, and how much were unregulated.\nAssume they were all pursuant to volume discount tariffs.\nWould you win or lose this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1050.25, 1052.301, 1064.139, 1066.84], "stop_times": [1052.301, 1064.139, 1066.84, 1069.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.25}, "reply_to": "20258__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_051", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, I think we would still win, because I think whether the public utility sales are made pursuant to tariffs or are unregulated, that in either event the public utility is a competitor with the out-of-State marketer, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1069.202], "stop_times": [1082.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.202}, "reply_to": "20258__0_050", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_052", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "But without the power to set its own prices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1082.261], "stop_times": [1083.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.261}, "reply_to": "20258__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_053", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, it has the power to set its own prices in the sense that it can propose tariffs, some of which may be marginal cost tariffs rather than fully allocated tariffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1083.82], "stop_times": [1094.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.82}, "reply_to": "20258__0_052", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_054", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Let me put the question a little differently.\nThe record doesn't tell us how much the 20 percent is unregulated and how much isn't, and I suppose you have the burden of establishing unconstitutionally generally, and if the amount of unregulated sales are critical to your case, I suppose you have the burden of showing us how many they were, so is it correct that we should decide the case on the hypothesis that all of those 20 percent were actually regulated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1094.569, 1096.359], "stop_times": [1096.359, 1116.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.569}, "reply_to": "20258__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_055", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Oh, I don't think you need to do that, Justice Stevens.\nI think this Court has made clear in a lot of cases that if there is even a small discrimination against interstate commerce; and if you look at the unregulated sales as being the only significant ones, which we don't, there were still some of them, and for example, in Associated Industries and Bacchus the court has said, well, even if the favored sales are very small in volume, and maybe wouldn't be considered economically significant, there's no de minimis doctrine under the Commerce Clause.\nIt's still invalid.\nYou just can't discriminate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1116.042, 1118.285, 1145.611, 1146.393], "stop_times": [1118.285, 1145.611, 1146.393, 1147.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.042}, "reply_to": "20258__0_054", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_056", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Would the whole tax be invalid, or only the tax as applied to those sales, assuming that the tax as applied to other sales by the utility is okay?\nWhy would we strike down even the sales that were pursuant to volume discounts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1147.684, 1157.528], "stop_times": [1157.528, 1163.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1147.684}, "reply_to": "20258__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__0_057", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1163.403], "stop_times": [1164.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.403}, "reply_to": "20258__0_056", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_058", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Tariff volume discounts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1164.034], "stop_times": [1165.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.034}, "reply_to": "20258__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__0_059", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I don't think you're striking down particular sales that were favored.\nI think what you are doing is saying, you can't disfavor the General Motors purchases from the out-of-State marketer of natural gas, and the fact that there is only a small volume of favored sales doesn't matter, that the whole volume of disfavored sales is still treated unconstitutionally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1165.315, 1169.617], "stop_times": [1169.617, 1188.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.315}, "reply_to": "20258__0_058", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_060", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Just what does the record show about, not the volume of discount sales, but the unregulated sales of the utility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1188.25], "stop_times": [1197.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.25}, "reply_to": "20258__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_061", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "It shows that they occurred, at pages 229 and 230, and as I mentioned at the beginning of the argument, in the very outset of the respondent's brief they mention that these sales occurred, too, and it's confirmed in the amicus brief in support of the respondent filed by Columbia Gas Company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1197.106], "stop_times": [1215.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1197.106}, "reply_to": "20258__0_060", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_062", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "And your position is, even if only 1 percent of the 20 percent was this kind of sale, your client is exempt from paying the sales tax, the use tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1215.728], "stop_times": [1225.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.728}, "reply_to": "20258__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_063", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, it is until the sales tax is made constitutional, that our view is that any amount of discrimination against interstate commerce and in favor of a local seller or a purchaser from a local seller is unconstitutional, and I think that this Court has never required that there be a particular volume of discrimination, and I think it's made quite clear that it doesn't matter what the scope of the discrimination is, it's still forbidden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1225.723], "stop_times": [1251.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.723}, "reply_to": "20258__0_062", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_064", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, again, I take it your view, even if zero percent is unregulated, it's unconstitutional.\nThe discrimination exists.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1251.302, 1255.524], "stop_times": [1255.524, 1256.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1251.302}, "reply_to": "20258__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__0_065", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, yes, Justice Kennedy, my position is that it's still unconstitutional, but that would be on a different theory.\nI think obviously there have to... on the theory that the discrimination here is between unregulated sales by the public utility and the out-of-State marketer, there has to be some volume of sales.\nThere is.\nThe record confirms that, and the amicus brief confirms that.\nBut I think, as you suggest, we would also say that even if there had been no sales, which is not the situation here, even if there had been no sales we would still prevail in this case because you can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1256.725, 1262.368, 1272.216, 1272.685, 1275.947], "stop_times": [1262.368, 1272.216, 1272.685, 1275.947, 1286.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1256.725}, "reply_to": "20258__0_064", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_066", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "How can an amicus brief confirm a factual question?\nI mean, I can imagine the record might.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1286.395, 1290.626], "stop_times": [1290.626, 1292.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.395}, "reply_to": "20258__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_067", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, the record does confirm that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1292.699], "stop_times": [1295.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.699}, "reply_to": "20258__0_066", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_068", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "But how can an amicus brief do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1295.15], "stop_times": [1297.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.15}, "reply_to": "20258__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_069", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, it's an amicus who's in this business and who said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1297.321], "stop_times": [1301.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.321}, "reply_to": "20258__0_068", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_070", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "But the State isn't bound... the State may... the respondent may be bound by its statements in its own brief, but certainly it's not bound by statements in some amicus brief, even though the amicus is in support of the respondent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1301.174], "stop_times": [1312.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.174}, "reply_to": "20258__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__0_071", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, I'm not suggesting they're bound by it, Mr. Chief Justice, and I think the record and the public orders of the public utilities commission and the respondent's brief provides ample evidence that these kinds of sales occurred, and occurred during the period that's involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1312.211], "stop_times": [1326.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.211}, "reply_to": "20258__0_070", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_072", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Dyk, who was the witness who was testifying at 229 and 230?\nIs he your witness, or the State's witness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1326.369, 1329.772], "stop_times": [1329.772, 1332.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.369}, "reply_to": "20258__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_073", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "I believe it's the State's witness, but if I look at the record here for a moment I can tell you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1332.434], "stop_times": [1336.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.434}, "reply_to": "20258__0_072", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_074", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "It's a Mr. Duffy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1336.347], "stop_times": [1341.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.347}, "reply_to": "20258__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_075", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "No, that's the counsel.\nMr. Duffy's sitting here.\nHe wasn't the witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1341.931, 1344.562, 1346.174], "stop_times": [1344.562, 1346.174, 1348.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.931}, "reply_to": "20258__0_074", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_076", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "He would like to have testified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1348.055], "stop_times": [1350.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1348.055}, "reply_to": "20258__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__0_077", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "It's the tax commissioner's witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1350.456], "stop_times": [1351.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.456}, "reply_to": "20258__0_076", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_078", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Dyk, you would be making the argument that you're making even if every sale by the public utility was regulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1351.488], "stop_times": [1359.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.488}, "reply_to": "20258__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__0_079", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Yes, I would because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1359.993], "stop_times": [1361.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.993}, "reply_to": "20258__0_078", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_080", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "And would you spell out what that argument is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1361.302], "stop_times": [1363.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.302}, "reply_to": "20258__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__0_081", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, I think the argument is that where you have a competitive gas market like this, and... you cannot favor an in-State interest simply because it has public utility status, and I think this Court's decision in Buck and Kuckendall, which is 267 U.S., dealing with motor transport... it's an opinion by Justice Brandeis from 1925, but I think it's still good law... says that you can't come in here and say, well, this is a market that needs to be regulated and we're going to require certificates of public interest, convenience and necessity, we're not going to let people compete from out of State.\nI think the argument that you could treat a public utility differently might have had and made sense 20 years ago.\nI don't think it makes sense now.\nThere's a competitive market, there's a competitive market there as a result of national policy, and I think even if you had nothing but tariff sales, that you couldn't discriminate against the out-of-State marketers.\nThat wouldn't be permissible under the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1363.324, 1394.104, 1399.858, 1401.31, 1410.225], "stop_times": [1394.104, 1399.858, 1401.31, 1410.225, 1412.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.324}, "reply_to": "20258__0_080", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_082", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "You're saying that to do that under this market is really to adopt by subterfuge a compensatory tax justification, I take it, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1412.416], "stop_times": [1420.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.416}, "reply_to": "20258__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20258__0_083", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, I... certainly it's possibly based on that.\nThey suggest that it's designed to compensate for the gross receipts tax, and our answer is, fine, if you think the gross receipts tax is a problem, fix the gross receipts tax, but have equality in the use tax so that some sellers are not advantaged and others disadvantaged.\nMr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1420.951, 1425.455, 1437.334], "stop_times": [1425.455, 1437.334, 1440.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.951}, "reply_to": "20258__0_082", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__0_084", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Very well, Mr. Dyk.\nMr. Sutton, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1440.764, 1442.076], "stop_times": [1442.076, 1443.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.764}, "reply_to": "20258__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__1_000", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nI'd like to start by addressing an argument that I began thinking about about 8:00 last night, and that is the nontariff argument that was just made.\nIt's a very clever argument, because what it does is try to take on what I think is our best argument.\nOur best argument is that the marketers are trying to have their cake and eat it too.\nThey want the benefits of utility status, but not the burdens.\nAnd what General Motors is now saying is, they're saying, well, that's not actually true, the utilities are trying to do the same thing, and that's the reason they've relied on this 1987 order, and that's the reason they suggested that there actually were nontariff sales by utilities during the audit period.\nThat's a great argument.\nIt's just not supported by the record or by the law.\nIt's not supported by the record because if you look at pages 229 and 230, it doesn't make any indication that there were actually nontariff sales during the audit period, 1987 through 1989.\nThere's nothing in the record at all that indicates that.\nThe notion that 20 percent of the sales to industrial consumers were nontariff sales is also unsupported.\nThat's simply not true.\nBut let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1443.976, 1452.431, 1461.297, 1467.243, 1470.875, 1474.097, 1491.097, 1492.899, 1495.55, 1508.64, 1510.551, 1518.887, 1519.848], "stop_times": [1452.431, 1461.297, 1467.243, 1470.875, 1474.097, 1491.097, 1492.899, 1495.55, 1508.64, 1510.551, 1518.887, 1519.848, 1520.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1443.976}, "reply_to": "20258__0_084", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_001", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, do we have to take this case on the basis that we assume they were tariff-regulated sales?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1520.656], "stop_times": [1528.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.656}, "reply_to": "20258__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20258__1_002", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Your Honor, yes, I think you do, but I can make another point, and that is that even if they were nontariff sales, let's say the record actually did support their argument, they've got another hurdle to clear, and that's that Ohio has a doctrine called the dual capacity doctrine.\nWhat the dual capacity doctrine says, and we've cited a case called American Transportation in our brief that deals with it, the dual capacity doctrine acknowledges that utilities can sometimes operate as utilities in a tariff setting, and then other times they can be operating like other businesses.\nIn this instance, it would be a marketer.\nA good example is precisely the facts of American Transportation.\nThat was a situation where a utility... it happened to be a motor carrier... decided to get into the business not just of delivering services, that is, transporting people or goods, they decided also to get into the business of actually manufacturing part of the trucks, and they thought they could do that and still get utility status with respect to certain tax benefits.\nThey didn't get it, and the Ohio supreme court recognized that very doctrine.\nThere's a recent decision that we relied on in our brief called Carnegie, which makes the precise same point.\nIt was decided less than a year ago, and recognized that you can operate in one setting as a utility, and in another not as a utility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1528.973, 1544.652, 1561.715, 1562.875, 1567.338, 1587.541, 1591.332, 1597.286], "stop_times": [1544.652, 1561.715, 1562.875, 1567.338, 1587.541, 1591.332, 1597.286, 1604.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1528.973}, "reply_to": "20258__1_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_003", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "This is a decision of the supreme court of Ohio?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1604.753], "stop_times": [1607.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.753}, "reply_to": "20258__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__1_004", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "The Carnegie decision, Your Honor, is not.\nThe American Transportation decision is an Ohio supreme court decision.\nThe Carnegie decision is a decision from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, which is our intermediate tax court.\nIt applies throughout the State.\nIt binds the tax commissioner, the PUC, and the Attorney General's Office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1607.083, 1609.254, 1612.987, 1618.651, 1620.153], "stop_times": [1609.254, 1612.987, 1618.651, 1620.153, 1624.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.083}, "reply_to": "20258__1_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_005", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Was that the decision that said an out-of-State public utility regulated by some other State but not Ohio remains a public utility even though it's acting as a marketer in Ohio?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1624.384], "stop_times": [1636.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.384}, "reply_to": "20258__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__1_006", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, that is the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1636.232], "stop_times": [1638.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.232}, "reply_to": "20258__1_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_007", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "And is... are you adhering to that decision?\nAre you adopting that decision as part of your position, that once a public utility always a public utility, whether in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1638.624, 1643.158], "stop_times": [1643.158, 1652.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.624}, "reply_to": "20258__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__1_008", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, the candid answer is the Ohio supreme court and the Ohio courts are wrestling with that issue right now.\nThe dichotomy they're trying to deal with is, do you decide it's a status-based inquiry, once a utility, always a utility, or do you look at the activity and determine on a case-by-case basis whether they're acting as a utility?\nThe American Transportation case seems to take this case-by-case, activity-by-activity approach.\nWe're not saying Carnegie should be good law, should bind this Court, should bind the Ohio supreme court.\nThe reason we're relying on Carnegie is for a very different point.\nWe rely on it to show that there are no facial lines here, that the Ohio supreme court has yet to address the question whether utilities actually are defined by State boundaries, so that was part of our alternative argument, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1652.764, 1659.477, 1671.094, 1677.369, 1683.312, 1686.395], "stop_times": [1659.477, 1671.094, 1677.369, 1683.312, 1686.395, 1700.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1652.764}, "reply_to": "20258__1_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_009", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, to the extent the case is as you first described it, it's... and I was listening to it.\nIt seemed to me to help Mr. Dyk's position more than yours, i.e., that this is not a utility for some purposes, and therefore it should be comparable to the out-of-State suppliers that sell to GM.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1700.035, 1703.966], "stop_times": [1703.966, 1716.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.035}, "reply_to": "20258__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__1_010", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, that's not true, and if I said that, I misspoke.\nEvery single--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1716.745, 1719.878], "stop_times": [1719.878, 1721.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.745}, "reply_to": "20258__1_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_011", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "You didn't say that.\nIt was just the inference I was drawing, and maybe I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1721.167, 1722.049], "stop_times": [1722.049, 1724.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1721.167}, "reply_to": "20258__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__1_012", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, I mis... would it be, I implied, you inferred.\nThe thing I'm trying to say is that the utilities in this instance, all of the sales, every single sale at issue in this case was a tariff sale.\nThere's absolutely no evidence that any were nontariff, and so they simply can't rely on that argument.\nThat's my first point, that it's just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1724.309, 1727.03, 1737.889, 1742.952], "stop_times": [1727.03, 1737.889, 1742.952, 1744.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.309}, "reply_to": "20258__1_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_013", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, it may be the next case, but can you tell me under the new law, are the unregulated sales exempt from sales tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1744.404], "stop_times": [1751.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.404}, "reply_to": "20258__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__1_014", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Your Honor, the new law does not address that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1751.787], "stop_times": [1753.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1751.787}, "reply_to": "20258__1_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_015", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, either they're... they have an exemption under current law.\nDoes that exemption apply to the unregulated sales?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1753.818, 1758.062], "stop_times": [1758.062, 1761.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.818}, "reply_to": "20258__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__1_016", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, what I'm saying is, the new law went into effect a month ago.\nTo my understanding, it does not address the question what happens to a nontariff sale, so it's not simply... it's not been decided by the General Assembly of Ohio, and it's not something the Ohio courts addressed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1761.425, 1766.317], "stop_times": [1766.317, 1777.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.425}, "reply_to": "20258__1_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_017", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Yes, but until that law of a month or so ago, during the period developed in this lawsuit, if the utility made unregulated sales, they were exempt from tax.\nThat's clear, I think, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1777.373, 1785.551], "stop_times": [1785.551, 1788.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.373}, "reply_to": "20258__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_018", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1788.092], "stop_times": [1789.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.092}, "reply_to": "20258__1_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_019", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "If they made any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1789.031], "stop_times": [1789.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.031}, "reply_to": "20258__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_020", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Your Honor, it's not entirely clear.\nThat is not entirely clear, and that goes back to the American Transportation case.\nThe American Transportation case was a situation in which the utility was acting as a manufacturer, and it was treated like a manufacturer in that capacity.\nMy guess, my assumption is that they're probably going to treat utilities across the board as regulated entities when it comes to tariff or nontariff sales, but that's just not been decided by the record.\nIn fact, in the order they're citing, this 1987 order, the utility was not even allowed to earn a profit on the gas.\nIt was acting as an agent of the producer, so the nontariff hypothetical they're positing is one, not only it wasn't presented there, I'm just not sure what the precise facts are that they're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1789.582, 1792.875, 1796.358, 1805.514, 1815.29, 1823.545], "stop_times": [1792.875, 1796.358, 1805.514, 1815.29, 1823.545, 1835.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.582}, "reply_to": "20258__1_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_021", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Sutton, did you want us to decide this case on your assumption, or would you be content with a narrow decision that says, at least since we don't know in this case that any nontariff sales are exempted from the tax, it's certainly okay to exempt tariff sales from the tax, it's certainly okay to exempt tariff sales from the tax, and that's all we have to decide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1835.182], "stop_times": [1854.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.182}, "reply_to": "20258__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__1_022", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, that's correct.\nThat's precisely correct.\nThere's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1854.484, 1855.646, 1857.066], "stop_times": [1855.646, 1857.066, 1857.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.484}, "reply_to": "20258__1_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_023", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "You'll... what's correct, that you'll take the latter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1857.436], "stop_times": [1858.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.436}, "reply_to": "20258__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__1_024", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1858.798], "stop_times": [1860.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.798}, "reply_to": "20258__1_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_025", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Take the latter and run.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1860.678], "stop_times": [1861.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.678}, "reply_to": "20258__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__1_026", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Absolutely, which is precisely the way the--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1861.249, 1862.741], "stop_times": [1862.741, 1863.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.249}, "reply_to": "20258__1_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_027", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1863.002], "stop_times": [1863.422], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.002}, "reply_to": "20258__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20258__1_028", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Which is precisely the way the case has been argued, or briefed at least, until now, the assumption being that they all were tariff sales.\nOhio's not contriving this regulatory distinction between utilities on the one hand and all other businesses on the other.\nIt's been with us for as long as we've had a dormant Commerce Clause, and it's a distinction that in one way or another is reflected in the statutes of every State in the country, including the District of Columbia.\nWhat's going on in this instance, and the danger presented by this case, is that you've got a situation in which marketers have been allowed to enter a natural gas business, they've been allowed to enter the business in an unregulated capacity, which as they acknowledge is critical to this business being... even being in existence.\nWhat they're now trying to do is reach over this regulatory wall and pick off some of the benefits of utility status without sharing in any of those burdens.\nThat simply just doesn't make sense as a matter of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1863.422, 1871.046, 1879.13, 1890.278, 1908.159, 1917.516], "stop_times": [1871.046, 1879.13, 1890.278, 1908.159, 1917.516, 1923.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.422}, "reply_to": "20258__1_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_029", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, they're just saying, you know, we don't want all the benefits.\nThere are a lot of other benefits you can give to utilities.\nAll they're saying is, there's one particular benefit you can't give to utilities, and that is, in transactions that are equivalent, giving them a commercial advantage by reason of your tax.\nI mean, you can help these utilities a lot of different ways.\nYou don't have to do it this way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1923.169, 1926.992, 1929.064, 1940.27, 1942.814], "stop_times": [1926.992, 1929.064, 1940.27, 1942.814, 1943.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.169}, "reply_to": "20258__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__1_030", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, these transactions, however, simply aren't equivalent.\nThere's nothing about them that is equivalent.\nIn one setting you have prices that are set by the free market, what the market will bear.\nThe obligations that the seller takes upon themselves are solely obligations that are a matter of contract.\nOn the other side of the line, you have a completely different sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1943.853, 1947.095, 1949.337, 1954.322, 1960.326], "stop_times": [1947.095, 1949.337, 1954.322, 1960.326, 1963.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.853}, "reply_to": "20258__1_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_031", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "You're assuming all tariff... all these sales were tariff sales.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1963.947], "stop_times": [1966.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.947}, "reply_to": "20258__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__1_032", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Absolutely.\nThe rates are not set by the seller, so they can't price-compete.\nThey have a public duty to the whole State, to all consumers.\nThat public duty requires them to supply natural gas on demand at all times in the year, on the coldest day of the winter.\nWhat's critical about that, and what makes these two transactions so different, is that utilities, as a result of their public duty obligation, must enter into long-term contracts to make sure the commodity is available on the coldest day of the winter, and they must also reserve space on interstate pipelines to make sure that they can ship it when they need to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [1966.359, 1967.028, 1970.53, 1974.193, 1981.477], "stop_times": [1967.028, 1970.53, 1974.193, 1981.477, 2000.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.359}, "reply_to": "20258__1_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_033", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "What if you have a long-term contract by the independent marketer who... that contains all those provisions, we'll deliver gas when it's cold, and we'll guarantee that it will be there and the pipe will be.\nWhy then are they different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2000.451, 2010.668], "stop_times": [2010.668, 2011.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.451}, "reply_to": "20258__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_034", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, because in that instance they would be imposing those obligations upon themselves as a matter of contract, not as a matter of State law.\nThey would be able independently to bargain, both the buyer and the seller, as to whether they wanted to do that.\nBut let me add another point, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2011.747, 2018.502, 2024.226], "stop_times": [2018.502, 2024.226, 2026.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.747}, "reply_to": "20258__1_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_035", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "But the other thing that's puzzling about it, the whole rationale for regulating the prices of the utilities are to prevent them from charging too much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2026.147], "stop_times": [2032.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.147}, "reply_to": "20258__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_036", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "That's absolutely... that's absolutely correct.\nYour Honor, the other problem that marketers are going to have in the situation, I think ultimately there's an end game here.\nThe suggestion that deregulation that is started at the Federal level is going to inexorably extend to the State level, I think is mistaken.\nI think there's a stopping point, and the stopping point is that if you're going to have State utility laws like Ohio does that require utilities... and let's say they impose it on marketers as well... to make sure natural gas can be supplied year-round, what happens is, you end up in a situation where the marketer has to own pipeline.\nThere's simply no way the marketer can guarantee, if he or she does not own pipeline, that natural gas is going to be supplied year-round on the coldest day of the winter.\nThat is a business that utilities will always control, utilities always will have to control.\nThat's something marketers can never do.\nThey can say as a matter of contract we'll do our best, but the reason they can't guarantee it is, someone else owns the pipeline, and that's the public utility, so that's a fundamental distinction.\nIt's a fundamental distinction that will always be there, and I think as a matter of a State's police power, it's properly always going to be saying to itself, we've got to have a utility industry.\nIt might be a different utility industry than we had 20, 30 years ago, but the reason we need a utility industry, the reason we can't keep going down this deregulation road, is people die if they don't have heat in winter.\nThere's no elected official I know of that's going to let the private market, in simply contracts between buyers and sellers, determine whether natural gas is delivered in Cleveland, Ohio, in January of a given year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2032.872, 2035.694, 2041.547, 2049.092, 2067.283, 2076.57, 2082.443, 2084.306, 2095.371, 2105.559, 2117.328], "stop_times": [2035.694, 2041.547, 2049.092, 2067.283, 2076.57, 2082.443, 2084.306, 2095.371, 2105.559, 2117.328, 2129.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.872}, "reply_to": "20258__1_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_037", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "We do it for food.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2129.123], "stop_times": [2130.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.123}, "reply_to": "20258__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_038", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, in the food setting, number one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2130.235], "stop_times": [2135.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.235}, "reply_to": "20258__1_037", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_039", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "It's no less essential, and we don't feel the need to have the Government take over bread distribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2135.288], "stop_times": [2142.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.288}, "reply_to": "20258__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_040", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--The distinction between food, Your Honor, and natural gas is that in one you've got a natural monopoly setting and in the other you do not.\nThere's nothing about the delivery of food that requires you to lay pipelines, telephone wires, or some other form of distribution system to get the good, the commodity from the producer or wholesaler to the individual consumer, so a State would never go down that road because they wouldn't need to.\nWhat's unique about your natural monopolies is, it's a situation where monopolies are actually a good thing.\nThey're a good thing visually because no one wants pipelines criss-crossing their State more than necessary.\nThey're a good thing economically because they're much more efficient.\nIt's much more efficient to have one natural gas pipeline, or two or three at the most, serving an area, than it is to have several.\nAll economists would agree with that.\nThat's a problem, Your Honor, that just doesn't exist in the food setting or in other commodity settings.\nIt just doesn't exist.\nI'd like to make another point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2142.023, 2149.687, 2167.959, 2174.594, 2180.639, 2184.862, 2192.106, 2194.667, 2200.071, 2200.942], "stop_times": [2149.687, 2167.959, 2174.594, 2180.639, 2184.862, 2192.106, 2194.667, 2200.071, 2200.942, 2202.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.023}, "reply_to": "20258__1_039", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_041", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Sutton, what about Mr. Dyk's argument that of course you can recognize that these are public utilities, but not by the sales tax exemption so long as you're imposing a compensating use tax.\nYou can adjust the gross receipts tax, you can exempt residential sales.\nHow do you respond to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2202.685, 2215.12, 2218.052], "stop_times": [2215.12, 2218.052, 2220.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.685}, "reply_to": "20258__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__1_042", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Our principle argument, Justice Ginsburg, beyond the argument that they're differently situated, is that these are actually transactions that can't be reconciled.\nI don't think the court under the guise of the Commerce Clause should be forcing States to reconcile what are inherently irreconcilable transactions.\nThe reason they're irreconcilable is number 1, because one involves the sale of a naked commodity, the other is a commodity in the service, so they're just, to begin with, different transactions, different in a way that would be true of other sales services versus just a sale.\nThe other difference is, of course, the rate control and the duty you have to the public.\nI don't know quite how... I mean, if the Court... let's just take as an example, if the Court's decision, God forbid, were okay, Ohio, when it comes to public utility sales, you now have to put a 5 to 7-percent tax on all of those sales.\nWhy... why is that compensating?\nIt's not clear to me that it's compensating.\nIt's not clear to me that there's any more integrity in that system than there is in the current one, and that's because the transactions and the sellers are so very different.\nIn fact, I think this Court's compensatory tax cases most recently Fulton, from just last term, and Associated Industries from three terms ago, stand for that very point.\nIn rejecting... in rejecting the State's efforts to establish that there was a compensatory tax which justified discrimination, the Court was saying, in effect, we're not going to look at apples and oranges comparisons.\nThey've got to be mutually exclusive proxies before you can justify a discriminatory tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2220.115, 2228.801, 2237.045, 2250.933, 2254.816, 2267.974, 2270.408, 2272.268, 2280.273, 2291.351, 2304.259], "stop_times": [2228.801, 2237.045, 2250.933, 2254.816, 2267.974, 2270.408, 2272.268, 2280.273, 2291.351, 2304.259, 2310.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.115}, "reply_to": "20258__1_041", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_043", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Do most States or almost all States decline to impose sales tax on gas or electricity sold through a utility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2310.433], "stop_times": [2318.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.433}, "reply_to": "20258__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__1_044", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, there are seven State statutes which are cited in the Kansas amicus brief that are precisely like ours.\nI should note one of them is from the District of Columbia, which of course is something Congress controls and would create, I think, an anomaly here if Ohio was forced to make this change, the District of Columbia would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2318.758, 2324.302], "stop_times": [2324.302, 2336.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.758}, "reply_to": "20258__1_043", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_045", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Do other States... you say seven don't.\nDoes that mean that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2336.199, 2338.931], "stop_times": [2338.931, 2339.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.199}, "reply_to": "20258__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__1_046", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "No, I'm sorry, seven have precisely the same system we have.\nI'm not aware of the numbers that have, you know, one form of tax and another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2339.872, 2342.814], "stop_times": [2342.814, 2347.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.872}, "reply_to": "20258__1_045", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_047", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--You think Congress controls the District of Columbia more than it controls Ohio?\nI mean, the only point is, Congress could change it in the District of Columbia.\nIt certainly could change it in Ohio if it wanted to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2347.456, 2351.63, 2357.373], "stop_times": [2351.63, 2357.373, 2359.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.456}, "reply_to": "20258__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__1_048", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Oh, absolutely.\nI agree completely.\nThe point I'm saying is, you have a situation where a different branch of Government would be compelling Ohio to do something.\nIt would be a branch of Government that couldn't compel the District of Columbia to do it.\nI think that's an anomaly.\nIn fact, Dean Milk, the 1951 case, suggests that's quite relevant.\nWhat is Congress doing with respect to the District of Columbia in an interstate commerce discrimination setting?\nBut Justice Kennedy, I want to come back to your point, because I think it's an important one.\nThere are... of the States that have taxation systems with respect to utilities and other businesses, 31 divide their taxation systems between those entities that are public utilities and those that are other businesses.\nThe problem with General Motors' position in this argument, and I think this also responds to something, Justice Ginsburg, you were asking, is that if you say Ohio has to endorse or adopt a sales tax that's precisely the same for marketers as it is for utilities, then you're going to have to go down a road which requires you to examine the differential treatment in each of these 31 States for utilities on the one hand and other businesses on the other.\nI can give you an example of how that plays out in Ohio.\nIn Ohio, all businesses are required to pay what is effectively an income tax.\nIt's a corporate franchise tax.\nNow, utilities don't pay that tax.\nThey've never paid it.\nThey pay lots of other taxes.\nIn fact, they're a very heavily taxed entity.\nBut if we lose this case, the next case, and it's one that should be filed the next day, would come in and say, marketers should no longer be forced to pay a corporate income tax, and the reason is because their competitors, public utilities, do not.\nWestinghouse would require that very proposition if you adopted the view that they're similarly situated entities that must be taxed and treated the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2359.126, 2359.805, 2360.826, 2365.939, 2369.742, 2370.563, 2374.654, 2380.708, 2385.082, 2399.973, 2424.397, 2426.98, 2431.762, 2433.152, 2435.005, 2436.127, 2438.148, 2440.851, 2454.97], "stop_times": [2359.805, 2360.826, 2365.939, 2369.742, 2370.563, 2374.654, 2380.708, 2385.082, 2399.973, 2424.397, 2426.98, 2431.762, 2433.152, 2435.005, 2436.127, 2438.148, 2440.851, 2454.97, 2463.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.126}, "reply_to": "20258__1_047", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_049", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Why do you figure Westinghouse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2463.665], "stop_times": [2465.326], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.665}, "reply_to": "20258__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20258__1_050", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, because Westinghouse was a case involving corporate taxation, and I'm making the point that this would be a corporate taxation setting.\nWestinghouse establishes that you can have a Commerce Clause discrimination at the corporate level... in other words, where sellers are being taxed differently at the corporate level depending on whether they sell in-State or out-of-State, so while I don't want to be arguing against myself if we lose, I'm just making the point that this would be a problem that would come down the road.\nThat's just the income tax.\nThere are other problems as well.\nWhy is it that utilities, for example, should get franchises?\nWhy should they get exclusive areas where they alone sell a product and no one else does?\nIt seems to me that if General Motors is correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2465.326, 2472.551, 2490.393, 2491.412, 2492.954, 2497.776, 2503.07], "stop_times": [2472.551, 2490.393, 2491.412, 2492.954, 2497.776, 2503.07, 2506.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.326}, "reply_to": "20258__1_049", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_051", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Of course, in most of those situations they don't have competitors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2506.712], "stop_times": [2509.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.712}, "reply_to": "20258__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_052", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Most--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2509.524], "stop_times": [2511.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.524}, "reply_to": "20258__1_051", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_053", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "This is an usual case, because a public utility has a competitor for a significant part of its business, but in most public utility regulation there's... it's a natural monopoly and there's no competitor to be concerned about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2511.226], "stop_times": [2521.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.226}, "reply_to": "20258__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_054", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--I'm not sure I'm following that, Your Honor.\nI mean, the point I'm making is that utilities get a franchise.\nThat franchise allows them to be the distributor of all natural gas in that area and, if they're asked, to be the seller of the gas and the service.\nWhat I'm saying is that General Motors and its marketers would be allowed to come in and say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2521.192, 2523.723, 2526.525, 2534.943], "stop_times": [2523.723, 2526.525, 2534.943, 2540.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.192}, "reply_to": "20258__1_053", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_055", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Maybe they could get Congress to pass a must-carry provision.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2540.515, 2544.536], "stop_times": [2544.536, 2544.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.515}, "reply_to": "20258__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__1_056", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--I thought I should have read the briefs below in the case before.\nThe other point I'd like to make, Your Honor, and I think this is... as I read your decisions in the Commerce Clause area it's an efficiency inquiry.\nI know some of you have disagreed on that point, but it seems to me if you look at the Court's most aggressive Commerce Clause cases, what I see going on is an efficiency inquiry.\nIs the State doing something that is compelling an activity that could be done more efficiently somewhere else within its borders?\nThat's what I see the Court saying in Carbone.\nThat's what I see it saying in West Lynn Creamery, and certainly Boston Stock Exchange.\nI think fundamentally General Motors is a problem in that area.\nI don't see the efficiency problem going on here.\nWe know, if you look at the natural gas industry and divide the different transactions that go on, there's nothing we're doing discriminatory with respect to solicitation.\nThat can be done by utilities and marketers anywhere, in-State, out-of-State.\nWe're not doing anything with respect to where the gas originates.\nIs it from Ohio?\nIs it from Texas?\nThere's nothing there.\nWhat we're doing that's discriminatory, we're told, is with respect to the ultimate distribution.\nThe problem with that efficiency argument is, there's absolutely no way as a matter of common sense and economics to have a more efficient distribution system of natural gas in a State other than Ohio.\nThat can't be done.\nIn Ohio, an elected official that said we ought to ensure that the distribution lines are working properly in Indiana would be laughed out of office.\nThere's an inherent nature to utility sales that they have to be in-State.\nThere's nothing wrong about that, and as long as Ohio is not saying as a precondition to being--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2544.787, 2547.838, 2558.387, 2567.193, 2574.437, 2576.299, 2580.28, 2584.053, 2586.645, 2595.04, 2599.184, 2601.995, 2603.435, 2604.156, 2605.388, 2610.601, 2622.798, 2624.83, 2633.766, 2638.878], "stop_times": [2547.838, 2558.387, 2567.193, 2574.437, 2576.299, 2580.28, 2584.053, 2586.645, 2595.04, 2599.184, 2601.995, 2603.435, 2604.156, 2605.388, 2610.601, 2622.798, 2624.83, 2633.766, 2638.878, 2645.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.787}, "reply_to": "20258__1_055", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_057", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, to say there's an inherent nature that they have to be in-State, the reason they have to be in-State generally is because of a legal provision.\nIt's that Indiana won't allow an Ohio public utility to come into Indiana, and vice versa.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2645.393, 2654.65], "stop_times": [2654.65, 2660.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.393}, "reply_to": "20258__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__1_058", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Well, I mean, actually Ohio would allow an Indiana utility to come into Ohio.\nWhat Ohio would say is that if you're going to take on an obligation to supply natural gas year-round to every corner of the State, you've got to own pipelines here, and that's the problem.\nYou can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2660.002, 2664.336, 2675.132], "stop_times": [2664.336, 2675.132, 2675.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.002}, "reply_to": "20258__1_057", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_059", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Are there any... are there any Indiana utilities which presently serve retail customers in Ohio?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2675.573], "stop_times": [2680.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.573}, "reply_to": "20258__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__1_060", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Your Honor, I am not aware of any, but I will say this, and it's reflected in the amicus brief of Columbia Gas, Columbia Gas is a great example of a national utility.\nThey have utility operations I think in at least four States, including Ohio.\nThere's nothing about Ohio law that says an Ohio... an Hawaii-owned utility can't buy transportation lines and take on the obligations of an Ohio utility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2680.776, 2690.934, 2695.916], "stop_times": [2690.934, 2695.916, 2706.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.776}, "reply_to": "20258__1_059", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_061", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "And that would be the case for the Indiana utility, the Chief Justice's... if that Indiana utility did provide services in Ohio, it would become an Ohio utility as well, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2706.684], "stop_times": [2716.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.684}, "reply_to": "20258__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__1_062", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Absolutely.\nThe point I'm making is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2716.901, 2717.552], "stop_times": [2717.552, 2718.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2716.901}, "reply_to": "20258__1_061", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_063", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Now we still have in limbo, Mr. Sutton, that Carnegie you sort of cite, and you say, I want to use it whichever way I can use it, but that seems to be at least one tribunal in Ohio saying, if you are a public utility any place, we'll treat you as a public utility here, even though you're acting as a marketer here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2718.951], "stop_times": [2738.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.951}, "reply_to": "20258__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__1_064", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Right.\nYour Honor, I want to make it perfectly clear, Carnegie helps us.\nThe reason Carnegie helps us is because that's a setting, or that's a case that suggests of a utility transaction took place outside of Ohio... in other words, we're not dealing what the Chief... Mr. Chief Justice was just asking about.\nThe utility transaction actually takes place in Indiana alone.\nCarnegie suggests you would still get the use tax exemption.\nThe reason we're relying on Carnegie... and I want to make it clear, it's for a very narrow ground for this decision.\nThe reason we rely on Carnegie is, it shows that Ohio treats, or at least potentially treats utilities the same whether they own transportation equipment in Ohio or outside of Ohio.\nWe're trying to... we're taking on the facial absolutism component of General Motors' argument, the notion that you own... you set a requirement that you own transportation equipment in the State, and because you do that that's a facial line, it discriminates against other entities, you lose.\nWe're saying, that's not true.\nWe can even respond to the facial absolutism argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2738.175, 2738.586, 2742.025, 2756.027, 2759.429, 2763.11, 2768.893, 2780.61, 2797.423, 2799.304], "stop_times": [2738.586, 2742.025, 2756.027, 2759.429, 2763.11, 2768.893, 2780.61, 2797.423, 2799.304, 2802.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.175}, "reply_to": "20258__1_063", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_065", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Well, but you can't be exempted from the sales tax as a utility unless you own pipes, pipeline in Ohio, isn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2802.276], "stop_times": [2809.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2802.276}, "reply_to": "20258__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20258__1_066", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "No, that's precisely the quandary that Carnegie suggests, and here's why that's true, Your Honor.\nYou get the benefit of the use tax exemption if it would be a transaction that would be exempt had it been a sale in the State, okay.\nIf we have an Indiana transaction, what happens is the Indiana utility sells to General Motors or Pipeline, uses its transportation equipment, it winds up in Ohio, there's an argument... it's an argument that there's a use tax applicable.\nThat is not our preferred ground.\nIn fact, I think it would be dangerous for the Court to issue an opinion that suggests that in 1996 or 1997 that the only way utilities in this country... and it's just not natural gas utilities, it's all utilities... the only way they can be constitutional is if you don't have a requirement that they own transportation equipment in the State.\nI think that's an odd rule, and that's why our fundamental argument is that they're differently situated entities, and even if Ohio law does require you to own the transportation equipment within the State boundaries, it's still constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2809.972, 2815.696, 2824.899, 2838.279, 2840.671, 2859.755], "stop_times": [2815.696, 2824.899, 2838.279, 2840.671, 2859.755, 2875.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2809.972}, "reply_to": "20258__1_065", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_067", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "May I ask, just supposing, if Ohio wanted to, could it impose on the competitor, the independent marketer that sells to General Motors, an obligation to sell only at the same price that the utility can charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2875.754], "stop_times": [2888.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.754}, "reply_to": "20258__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_068", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Your Honor, I think in this instance they'd have difficulty doing that, because the transactions occurred out of State, so that they simply couldn't do that.\nBut to answer your question with respect to what happened if it were in-State, and that happens here, some of these transactions were by in-State marketers, absolutely.\nIn fact, I think it's important--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2888.373, 2896.658, 2904.563], "stop_times": [2896.658, 2904.563, 2905.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.373}, "reply_to": "20258__1_067", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_069", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "And also, I suppose, could require them to supply their customers in the winter even if they don't pay their bills.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2905.713], "stop_times": [2910.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.713}, "reply_to": "20258__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_070", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Oh, Your Honor, that's precisely... it's ironic why we're here.\nThe reason we're here is because back in 1982 some marketers came to Ohio and said, listen, we'd like to sell natural gas, but we'd like to do it in a deregulated capacity, and Ohio at that point had the choice to say, no.\nYou're a utility, or you're not a utility, and we could still do that under the Natural Gas Act.\nBut Ohio chose not to, and what Ohio chose to do was to say, well, we think deregulated gas is a good thing.\nIt's particularly good for industrial consumers.\nWe're just... the only thing we're going to condition it on is that there's a regulatory line, and if you're on the deregulated side you get the benefits and burdens of it, if you're on the regulated side you get the benefits and burdens as well, but you can't pick and choose.\nOnce you're one you have to comply with all of those rules and all of those laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2910.405, 2915.671, 2928.137, 2933.443, 2939.036, 2941.467, 2953.866], "stop_times": [2915.671, 2928.137, 2933.443, 2939.036, 2941.467, 2953.866, 2957.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.405}, "reply_to": "20258__1_069", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_071", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "If they were compelled to comply with the rules, then of course they could not... they would also get the tax exemption, you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2957.926], "stop_times": [2964.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.926}, "reply_to": "20258__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20258__1_072", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Oh, yes, absolutely.\nAbsolutely.\nThey of course would ultimately probably have to get transportation equipment as well, right.\nThis gets back to the point we were talking about earlier, that Ohio... the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, it's elected officials, can't be certain that a company will be able to provide natural gas whenever it is needed, however cold, unless that company owns transportation equipment, so I think fundamentally... I mean, I don't know of an Ohio opinion that says that, but I think as a practical matter, they probably would end up saying that very point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2964.872, 2965.333, 2966.642, 2970.867], "stop_times": [2965.333, 2966.642, 2970.867, 2994.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.872}, "reply_to": "20258__1_071", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_073", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Sutton, just to clear out one thing, you're not arguing standing any more at this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [2994.842], "stop_times": [3000.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.842}, "reply_to": "20258__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20258__1_074", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "No, we're not, Your Honor.\nYour Honor, I'd like to very briefly address the congressional authority argument that we have also raised.\nLet me tell you why it's a difficult argument, but why I think we can still make it.\nIt's a difficult argument because back in 1938 when the Natural Gas Act was passed, and again when it was amended in 1953, I don't think it was in any Congressman or-woman's mind that they needed to pass this law to constitutionalize the status of utilities, so that's a problem I had.\nIt simply just wasn't something they were after.\nThey were trying to fill a regulatory void with respect to interstate transportation of gas.\nBut that said, the language does the trick.\nThe language indicates that there's a dichotomy between all retail sales on the one hand and all wholesale sales on the other.\nIn this instance, that's all we have.\nAll we have are retail transactions, and under section 1(b) and (c) of the act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. 717b and c, that's precisely what Ohio's allowed to do.\nNow, General Motors has argued that's not true.\nThe enabling language simply gives you authority to regulate rates, services.\nIt doesn't use the magic words, tax.\nWe don't think Congress had to use the magic words, tax, in order to bless this form of transaction, and the reason is straightforward.\nNumber 1, the text of the Commerce Clause itself, of course, uses the word regulate.\nIt says nothing about tax, and we wouldn't be here if the word regulate in the Constitution didn't cover discriminatory taxes, so that's a starting point.\nA second point is a matter of common sense.\nAs this Court has indicated, is the word regulate does cover tax.\nIndeed, in General Motors' own opening brief at page 28, and again in one of their amicus briefs, at page 13 of the Chamber of Commerce brief, they made that very point.\nThe Chamber of Commerce said, what's going on here is Ohio is using taxes as a back-door way to regulate marketers, so I think as a matter of common understanding, everyone understands the broad term regulate to cover taxes.\nThere's another reason why this is legitimate, under congressional blessing, and that's the fact that what Ohio has done to all of the marketers... and I think this is important for the Commerce Clause issue as well.\nWhat Ohio has done is treated the marketers like all other businesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [3000.376, 3000.846, 3009.412, 3012.744, 3029.023, 3030.946, 3036.62, 3039.331, 3046.455, 3048.808, 3059.975, 3063.047, 3068.64, 3070.89, 3080.568, 3085.16, 3093.365, 3095.468, 3098.35, 3107.536, 3121.385, 3132.141], "stop_times": [3000.846, 3009.412, 3012.744, 3029.023, 3030.946, 3036.62, 3039.331, 3046.455, 3048.808, 3059.975, 3063.047, 3068.64, 3070.89, 3080.568, 3085.16, 3093.365, 3095.468, 3098.35, 3107.536, 3121.385, 3132.141, 3136.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.376}, "reply_to": "20258__1_073", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_075", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Sutton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [3136.835], "stop_times": [3137.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.835}, "reply_to": "20258__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__1_076", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [3137.785], "stop_times": [3138.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3137.785}, "reply_to": "20258__1_075", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "20258__1_077", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Mr. Dyk, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [3138.005], "stop_times": [3140.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.005}, "reply_to": "20258__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20258__2_000", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Just very briefly, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Sutton suggests that he's not sure, but maybe these unregulated sales by public utilities would not be taxed, would not be exempt.\nThere's no basis for that in the statute.\nThe statute does not distinguish between regulated and unregulated sales by public utilities.\nAll public utility sales are exempt.\nAll natural gas sales are exempt.\nAnd while we think the interpretation of the Carnegie case that they supply is not correct, if that interpretation is correct, what they're saying is, anybody who can claim the status of public utility can come into any part of the State and make exempt sales as a gas marketer, whereas the out-of-State companies are never going to get the exemption if they can't claim that public utility status.\nThe congressional policy here, we suggest, is clear.\nIt's in favor of competition.\nIt's in favor of allowing everybody to compete on an equal footing.\nWe respectfully suggest that that policy leads to the same conclusion that this Court's Commerce Clause precedents do, and that is the discrimination here is not acceptable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [3140.857, 3157.498, 3160.631, 3165.634, 3168.345, 3170.125, 3193.181, 3197.944, 3199.717, 3202.817], "stop_times": [3157.498, 3160.631, 3165.634, 3168.345, 3170.125, 3193.181, 3197.944, 3199.717, 3202.817, 3211.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3140.857}, "reply_to": "20258__1_077", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__2_001", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "What's your best case that we look to of congressional policy in determining whether or not there's a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, some of the rubbish cases, or... I can't think of a Commerce Clause case where we specifically really rely on the congressional policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [3211.723], "stop_times": [3229.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.723}, "reply_to": "20258__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20258__2_002", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "I can't remember one either, Justice Kennedy, but suggest that this might be an appropriate instance in which to rely on that policy as illuminating the meaning of the Commerce Clause, but we think we don't need that.\nWe don't need a finding as to congressional policy.\nWe think the result here is absolutely clear under the Commerce Clause precedents, even without that.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [3229.203, 3243.625, 3245.425, 3249.508], "stop_times": [3243.625, 3245.425, 3249.508, 3250.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3229.203}, "reply_to": "20258__2_001", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20258__2_003", "conversation_id": "20258", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dyk.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1232", "start_times": [3250.96, 3252.282], "stop_times": [3252.282, 3253.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.96}, "reply_to": "20258__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__0_000", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-651, James E. Gilbert v. Richard Homar.\nMs. Mosley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [0.0, 10.378], "stop_times": [10.378, 11.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__0_001", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe issue presented in this case is whether due process requires a public employer to provide a hearing in every instance before suspending one of its employees without pay.\nThe Third Circuit held that a Loudermill-type hearing providing for hearing and a notice to be heard must be given to an employee in every case before suspending him without pay, regardless of the reasons for the suspension, regardless of the governmental interests involved, regardless of the purpose to be served, no matter... regarding the substantial assurance of reliability, regardless of the duration of the suspension.\nWe think this is wrong.\nWe think that the better rule is that which was announced in Mallen.\nIn Mallen, the Court said an important governmental interest accompanied by substantial assurance that the deprivation is not without basis may, in limited circumstances, justify the postponement of a hearing until after the deprivation.\nWhat we are asking for here is for the Court to make explicit what was suggested in Mallen, that the university's interest in the prompt removal of a police officer arrested for drug-related charges justified Mr. Homar's suspension without a hearing and without pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [11.888, 16.904, 28.5, 65.492, 67.944, 72.729, 92.671], "stop_times": [16.904, 28.5, 65.492, 67.944, 72.729, 92.671, 116.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.888}, "reply_to": "19847__0_000", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_002", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So you would--\n--Ms. Mosley--\n--Excuse me.\n--it was my understanding that the Third Circuit wasn't saying you must have a full dress hearing, just give the officer an opportunity to say why he shouldn't be payless during the suspension period, just an opportunity, I think the words were, to tell his side of the story.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [116.787, 116.947, 117.318, 118.7], "stop_times": [116.947, 117.318, 118.7, 142.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 116.787}, "reply_to": "19847__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__0_003", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIn this case, we're suggesting that such an opportunity would be useless.\nIn this particular case, we have... in this particular case, we have a police officer who was arrested on very serious charges, and that particular arrest itself required prompt action, just as in Mallen the Court said that the mere fact of the arrest is enough to undermine the public confidence and the public trust.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [142.204, 144.216, 149.518], "stop_times": [144.216, 149.518, 178.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.204}, "reply_to": "19847__0_002", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_004", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, the problem, Ms. Mosley, is not apparently on whether the suspension can occur.\nI don't see either side disagreeing that under these circumstances the officer can be suspended.\nI guess it really turns on whether there should have been some opportunity promptly to discuss the pay situation during the suspension, right?\nI mean, that's what we're really talking about, not whether there can be a suspension, because I guess your opponents agree there could be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [178.37, 186.594, 193.577, 203.685], "stop_times": [186.594, 193.577, 203.685, 211.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.37}, "reply_to": "19847__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__0_005", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes.\nIn our case, however--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [211.42, 212.291], "stop_times": [212.291, 214.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.42}, "reply_to": "19847__0_004", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_006", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And in this case, we've never had a determination on the facts.\nI guess it turned out that the charges were dismissed very promptly, but there was no opportunity to discuss the pay situation for a while.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [214.153, 218.524], "stop_times": [218.524, 229.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.153}, "reply_to": "19847__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__0_007", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That's right.\nWhat we're saying is that there are important interests furthered by his prompt suspension and his prompt suspension without pay.\nThe government had important interests at stake here, not just the interest in promptly removing a police officer following his arrest on drug-related charges, but there was the interest in maintaining the public's confidence in the integrity of the police force and the police officers' confidence in the integrity of the police force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [229.111, 230.152, 239.528], "stop_times": [230.152, 239.528, 259.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.111}, "reply_to": "19847__0_006", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_008", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So you do not apply this to every State employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [259.87], "stop_times": [263.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 259.87}, "reply_to": "19847__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__0_009", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "With respect to the arrest on a felony charge, we're saying that the arrest, or that the suspension would be without pay, but we're suggesting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [263.073], "stop_times": [275.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.073}, "reply_to": "19847__0_008", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_010", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So it's with respect to all employees, or just police officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [275.602], "stop_times": [279.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.602}, "reply_to": "19847__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__0_011", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--With all Commonwealth employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [279.744], "stop_times": [281.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 279.744}, "reply_to": "19847__0_010", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_012", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, is the suspension automatic?\nI mean, it seems to me that one of the things I think we're arguing about in this case is whether you're really applying this regulation, and the regulation that you set out on page 3 of your brief makes the suspension automatic on arrest.\nThere doesn't seem to be a substantive objection to the regulation as such, so if it's this regulation which is being applied, then the only real issue of fact would be, was the person arrested or charged or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [281.717, 285.448, 301.829], "stop_times": [285.448, 301.829, 316.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 281.717}, "reply_to": "19847__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__0_013", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [316.549], "stop_times": [317.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.549}, "reply_to": "19847__0_012", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_014", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And yet if I understand what the other side is saying, they're saying that really isn't the standard that they apply, that in fact it's... number 1, it's not consistently applied.\nNumber 2, if it had been alone what was being applied the individual would have been reinstated when the charges were dropped, and he wasn't, and so they're saying that the real issue in the case is... or in the case of a suspension is not whether there was an arrest or charge, but something to do with the merits of the arrest or charge, and if the latter point is true, then there really is a lot more to talk about at a hearing than the mere fact of the arrest or not.\nCould you comment on that issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [317.728, 328.247, 359.546], "stop_times": [328.247, 359.546, 361.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.728}, "reply_to": "19847__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__0_015", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWhat we're saying is at the point of time when the suspension was made, there was only one issue, and that issue was, was there an arrest, and was the nature of the charge a felony, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [361.679, 362.658], "stop_times": [362.658, 373.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.679}, "reply_to": "19847__0_014", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_016", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And you apply the regulation to everybody, and so far as you know, are there any exceptions in the sense that the inquiry might have been more far-ranging, or there might have been a... an exercise of discretion on the part of the suspending authority?\nDo you know of any such instances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [373.758, 388.715], "stop_times": [388.715, 390.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.758}, "reply_to": "19847__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__0_017", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--As far as I know, Your Honor, there is no discretion, and that this particular regulation is applied in every instance involving an arrest of a Commonwealth employee for a felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [390.277], "stop_times": [401.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.277}, "reply_to": "19847__0_016", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_018", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "All right.\nNow, if... I'm sorry.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [401.935, 402.516, 403.247], "stop_times": [402.516, 403.247, 403.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.935}, "reply_to": "19847__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__0_019", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, the only issue then is, does the employee's charge or arrest fall within that regulation, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [403.614], "stop_times": [410.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.614}, "reply_to": "19847__0_018", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_020", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "All right, but if that is so, and that is the standard, why wasn't he simply reinstated when the charges were dropped?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [410.851], "stop_times": [419.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.851}, "reply_to": "19847__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__0_021", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Your Honor, that particular issue simply doesn't appear to have been addressed.\nIt was not addressed by Mr. Homar.\nIt was not addressed by the district court, and it wasn't addressed by the Third Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [419.397, 425.96, 428.441], "stop_times": [425.96, 428.441, 434.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.397}, "reply_to": "19847__0_020", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_022", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "But neither was this regulation that you're relying on.\nThat sort of comes in... it's barely there until your brief in this Court, and the deposition of, what was his... Mr. Levanowitz?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [434.596, 437.098], "stop_times": [437.098, 449.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.596}, "reply_to": "19847__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__0_023", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [449.446], "stop_times": [449.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.446}, "reply_to": "19847__0_022", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_024", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--said that he used it not as a law but as a guide among other guides, so it doesn't sound like it follows like the night the day.\nAt least that wasn't how the personnel supervisor conceived it.\nHe thought it was just one of the guides he had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [449.847, 459.363, 463.594], "stop_times": [459.363, 463.594, 466.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.847}, "reply_to": "19847__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__0_025", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, we understand that Mr. Levanowitz from his deposition testimony certainly should be understood as saying that that was one of the things that he considered.\nHowever, insofar as he's suggesting that he has discretion, he was merely wrong.\nAnd also, we're saying that although we did not place a great deal of emphasis on the existence of the Governor's code, that is certainly referred to, and that particular aspect relates only to the issue of the value of additional process.\nThat is the point of having that particular code of reference, or a code of conduct in the case.\nWhat we're suggesting is, in the balance, when you talk about the various factors that you're considering, one of those factors is, what is the value of having any additional process?\nWhat is the value of having the employee come in and say anything--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [466.706, 476.154, 481.106, 501.259, 507.162, 517.44], "stop_times": [476.154, 481.106, 501.259, 507.162, 517.44, 521.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.706}, "reply_to": "19847__0_024", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_026", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, but you don't have a balance, because you began by telling us that this was a police officer and that that's important, and I can understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [521.583], "stop_times": [528.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.583}, "reply_to": "19847__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__0_027", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [528.649], "stop_times": [529.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.649}, "reply_to": "19847__0_026", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_028", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "But you say it applies across the board to all employees.\nThat's the rule you're defending.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [529.04, 531.101], "stop_times": [531.101, 532.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.04}, "reply_to": "19847__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__0_029", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, no.\nWhat I'm suggesting is that we have a rule, and there's no discretion, so as to that element of the balance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [532.152, 532.891], "stop_times": [532.891, 538.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.152}, "reply_to": "19847__0_028", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_030", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "May I just make it clear?\nYou are saying that the rule you want us to adopt is that there is an across-the-board rule that is... that meets constitutional requirements for a State to suspend any employee who is charged with a felony without a hearing and without pay.\nIsn't that your submission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [538.634, 540.196, 554.936], "stop_times": [540.196, 554.936, 556.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.634}, "reply_to": "19847__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__0_031", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--What I'm suggesting, Your Honor, is that where there's an important interest, and there's some assurance that the reason for the action taken is not without basis, and there's a need for prompt action, then the court may, in those instances, suspend without--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [556.066], "stop_times": [571.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.066}, "reply_to": "19847__0_030", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_032", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "You mean the State may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [571.226], "stop_times": [572.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.226}, "reply_to": "19847__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__0_033", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--The State may suspend without pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [572.958], "stop_times": [575.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.958}, "reply_to": "19847__0_032", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_034", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So then you're not arguing for the broad rule that I suggested at the outset of my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [575.8], "stop_times": [581.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.8}, "reply_to": "19847__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__0_035", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [581.743], "stop_times": [582.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.743}, "reply_to": "19847__0_034", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_036", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "You don't need to defend a rule across the board, I take it.\nYour position here could simply be limited to police officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [582.544, 587.287], "stop_times": [587.287, 591.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.544}, "reply_to": "19847__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__0_037", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It could be, because clearly the removal of a police officer on charges such as were involved here is a very important issue.\nHowever, we're not suggesting that the interests implicated by some other employee might not also raise very fundamental, compelling interests to warrant his or her suspension without pay as well.\nWhat we're suggesting is that there... we're not really arguing for a new rule, or the announcement of any new kind of approach in these types of cases.\nWhat we're saying is that the rules that have been in force, such as the Mathews balancing test, and the rule that was announced in Mallen, are adequate to deal with this particular situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [591.848, 601.786, 618.176, 629.585], "stop_times": [601.786, 618.176, 629.585, 642.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.848}, "reply_to": "19847__0_036", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_038", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, if you're going to have a case-by-case rule for every employee, depending on who he or she is, you might as well have a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [642.402], "stop_times": [647.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.402}, "reply_to": "19847__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__0_039", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, Your Honor, one of the reasons that we're suggesting that there would not have been a need, or there would be no value, is that it really does depend on what the purpose or the function of the action is.\nWe're saying that there's nothing new with respect to saying that due process is a flexible concept.\nThere is no rule that fits every single situation, and that in fact the Court has suggested in Mallen, or in Mathews and other cases that there is a balancing.\nThere is a balancing in every single situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [647.886, 662.405, 669.36, 680.346], "stop_times": [662.405, 669.36, 680.346, 682.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.886}, "reply_to": "19847__0_038", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_040", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "What we want to... I mean, what we want to know is whether in this case there should have been a hearing or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [682.748], "stop_times": [688.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.748}, "reply_to": "19847__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__0_041", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [688.982], "stop_times": [689.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 688.982}, "reply_to": "19847__0_040", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_042", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And let me suggest an argument to you and get your response to it.\nThe argument would be this.\nIf you had a regulation that provided every employee shall be suspended upon arrest, suspended without pay upon arrest, and you applied that across the board, and that regulation as such was not attacked as somehow being unconstitutional, then you would have an argument to the effect that look, the only issue is whether there was an arrest or not, and there's not likely to be a mistake about that.\nOr if you had a regulation that said, every police officer shall be suspended upon arrest, you could make the same argument.\nThe only question is whether there's an arrest.\nBut if, in fact, this regulation, which seems to cover everybody, does not in fact cover everybody, then, at least, it seems to me there... or the argument would run that in any given case an employee could say, look, it shouldn't apply to me.\nYou apply it to some, you don't apply it to others, regardless of what it says on its face, and it shouldn't apply to me, and that's a much... I suppose a much more complicated issue than whether there was an arrest or not.\nIf that's the issue, there would be a good reason for having a pre-suspension hearing.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [689.493, 694.419, 695.447, 721.115, 729.57, 731.511, 753.076, 766.353, 771.737], "stop_times": [694.419, 695.447, 721.115, 729.57, 731.511, 753.076, 766.353, 771.737, 773.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.493}, "reply_to": "19847__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__0_043", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "My response, Your Honor, is that there are no facts in the record, or there are no facts of which I am aware, that suggest this particular regulation does not apply in every instance when there's been an arrest of a Commonwealth employee and a charge of a felony.\nIn that particular case, the inquiry is the same.\nIt is whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [773.92, 790.629, 794.082], "stop_times": [790.629, 794.082, 795.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.92}, "reply_to": "19847__0_042", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_044", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So you are going to defend it on the grounds that it does apply to everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [795.032], "stop_times": [798.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.032}, "reply_to": "19847__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__0_045", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--It does apply to everyone.\nIt does apply to everyone, so the inquiry at the point of consideration of what to do once you receive that information is, you know, is this a Commonwealth employee, has there been a formal charge, and is that charge a felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [798.644, 800.267], "stop_times": [800.267, 815.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.644}, "reply_to": "19847__0_044", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_046", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Had there been no Governor's code, you would lose.\nIs that... then you're relying on the Governor's code as the reason why there should be no opportunity to tell his side of the story?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [815.585, 818.269], "stop_times": [818.269, 825.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.585}, "reply_to": "19847__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__0_047", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No, we're not, Your Honor.\nWhat we're suggesting is, as I've stated, is there is a balancing.\nThere has to be an important governmental interest which we do have here.\nWe do have reliable information which would be supported by the State police arrest of this person, so there's no suggestion that the action taken is baseless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [825.512, 826.654, 831.677, 835.47], "stop_times": [826.654, 831.677, 835.47, 848.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.512}, "reply_to": "19847__0_046", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_048", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Then what use is the Government code?\nI'm really... I'm having a hard time understanding what use you're making of that.\nIs it your position that the Government... that the Governor's code makes it unnecessary to have a hearing, because it applies universally, however, you concede that in some cases that may be unconstitutional?\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [848.577, 850.63, 855.131, 869.782], "stop_times": [850.63, 855.131, 869.782, 871.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.577}, "reply_to": "19847__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__0_049", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No, I don't think that I'm conceding that in some cases it could be unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [871.822], "stop_times": [877.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.822}, "reply_to": "19847__0_048", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_050", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [877.886], "stop_times": [878.396], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 877.886}, "reply_to": "19847__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__0_051", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "What I'm suggesting is that the value or the purpose of our reliance on the Governor's code is to suggest there is no discretion, so there's no need for any hearing.\nAny... there's no point in dispute at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [878.396, 888.204], "stop_times": [888.204, 891.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.396}, "reply_to": "19847__0_050", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_052", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--So you are defending the proposition that it is constitutional to fire, or to suspend without pay, any State employee upon his or her arrest for a felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [891.165], "stop_times": [904.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.165}, "reply_to": "19847__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__0_053", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "What I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [904.125], "stop_times": [907.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.125}, "reply_to": "19847__0_052", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_054", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Because that's what the Governor's code says.\nIf you're arrested for a felony, you're suspended without pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [907.215, 908.707], "stop_times": [908.707, 910.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.215}, "reply_to": "19847__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__0_055", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--What I'm suggesting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [910.578], "stop_times": [911.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.578}, "reply_to": "19847__0_054", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_056", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And you say that is constitutional with regard to all State employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [911.89], "stop_times": [915.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.89}, "reply_to": "19847__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__0_057", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--What I'm suggesting is, that regulation relates to all employees, but there are other factors in the Mathews balance that must be considered--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [915.533], "stop_times": [924.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.533}, "reply_to": "19847__0_056", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_058", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Okay, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [924.378], "stop_times": [924.987], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 924.378}, "reply_to": "19847__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__0_059", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--in addition to whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [924.987], "stop_times": [926.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.987}, "reply_to": "19847__0_058", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_060", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That comes back to my original question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [926.689], "stop_times": [927.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 926.689}, "reply_to": "19847__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__0_061", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [927.6], "stop_times": [928.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.6}, "reply_to": "19847__0_060", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_062", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It applies to all employees, but you say it may not be constitutional as to some of them.\nIs that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [928.038, 932.183], "stop_times": [932.183, 933.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.038}, "reply_to": "19847__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__0_063", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's correct.\nWhat I'm suggesting is that element, that factor, that... the factor on which that particular regulation bears some interest may not require the same result, given that the governmental interest involved, the need for prompt action, for instance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [933.863, 934.774], "stop_times": [934.774, 952.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.863}, "reply_to": "19847__0_062", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_064", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So why shouldn't he have the opportunity to argue that this is one of those cases in which it would be unconstitutional to apply the Governor's code?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [952.075], "stop_times": [960.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.075}, "reply_to": "19847__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__0_065", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Well, we've stated that the interest of the Government in getting this person off the campus cannot be challenged, it's very important, and that we don't see that there's a dispute to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [960.96], "stop_times": [974.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.96}, "reply_to": "19847__0_064", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_066", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Is it so important that he shouldn't have an opportunity just to say, it was the wrong place, the wrong time.\nI was totally innocent.\nI was visiting a friend.\nAnd then they could make a determination based on the police chief's experience with this man, but here he was just told, you will be payless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [974.2, 981.444, 984.105, 986.158], "stop_times": [981.444, 984.105, 986.158, 999.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.2}, "reply_to": "19847__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__0_067", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, there are two aspects to that.\nThe one is, what is the value?\nIf the triggering event is his arrest, and his arrest on a felony charge, there's no dispute to that, and Mr. Homar has never disputed that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [999.526, 1002.337, 1004.49], "stop_times": [1002.337, 1004.49, 1013.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.526}, "reply_to": "19847__0_066", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_068", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "But the value is, he could say to his immediate boss at the university, look, I was visiting a friend.\nI had no idea of this.\nThere was no warrant for my arrest.\nThere was no judicial officer who found probable cause.\nIt was the wrong time, wrong place situation.\nThen he could be believed or disbelieved, but at least he would have had a chance to tell his story.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1013.744, 1020.32, 1023.091, 1025.242, 1029.586, 1032.287], "stop_times": [1020.32, 1023.091, 1025.242, 1029.586, 1032.287, 1037.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.744}, "reply_to": "19847__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__0_069", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "We're suggesting that it's not even the credibility of this police officer that's important at this point.\nThe governmental interest in having his prompt removal is in protecting the public's confidence in the integrity of the police force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1037.56, 1043.184], "stop_times": [1043.184, 1052.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1037.56}, "reply_to": "19847__0_068", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_070", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1052.119], "stop_times": [1052.77], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.119}, "reply_to": "19847__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__0_071", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "We're suggesting that is what requires the promptness of the action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1052.77], "stop_times": [1055.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.77}, "reply_to": "19847__0_070", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_072", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--May I ask a question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1055.623], "stop_times": [1056.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.623}, "reply_to": "19847__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__0_073", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1056.724], "stop_times": [1057.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.724}, "reply_to": "19847__0_072", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_074", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--about the meaning of the regulation on which you rely?\nDo you read that as requiring that the suspension continue as long as the charges remain outstanding, or would it be within the superior's authority to interview him, find out the facts, and say this is obviously a mistake, I'm going to put you back on the payroll?\nWould the regulation have permitted that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1057.155, 1059.125, 1075.198], "stop_times": [1059.125, 1075.198, 1078.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.155}, "reply_to": "19847__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__0_075", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "We're suggesting that insofar as the suspension was based or triggered by the arrest, and on a felony charge, that it would be of no value to have a hearing prior--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1078.119], "stop_times": [1093.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1078.119}, "reply_to": "19847__0_074", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_076", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I understand that.\nMy question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1093.437, 1093.988], "stop_times": [1093.988, 1094.418], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.437}, "reply_to": "19847__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__0_077", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Prior--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1094.418], "stop_times": [1095.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.418}, "reply_to": "19847__0_076", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_078", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--My question is, what does the regulation mean with regard to the authority of the supervisor to reinstate the man before the criminal charges are dismissed?\nWould the supervisor have that authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1095.109, 1105.245], "stop_times": [1105.245, 1107.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.109}, "reply_to": "19847__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__0_079", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--The regulation does not speak to that and does not preclude that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1107.127], "stop_times": [1111.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.127}, "reply_to": "19847__0_078", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_080", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It does not preclude that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1111.209], "stop_times": [1112.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.209}, "reply_to": "19847__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__0_081", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It does not preclude that.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1112.331, 1113.272], "stop_times": [1113.272, 1114.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.331}, "reply_to": "19847__0_080", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_082", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So that a hearing might have been valuable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1114.16], "stop_times": [1115.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.16}, "reply_to": "19847__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__0_083", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--It... we don't think that the hearing would have been valuable on the question... in this particular case, the criminal charges were dismissed, so at that point we must concede, and there is nothing in the record to suggest why this was not done, that there may have been some value in having a hearing once those criminal charges were dismissed.\nBut on the issue that we are here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1115.732, 1139.008], "stop_times": [1139.008, 1141.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.732}, "reply_to": "19847__0_082", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_084", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "But I don't understand why it might not have been valuable even before they were dismissed if the supervisor would have had authority to reinstate him knowing the full story.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1141.189], "stop_times": [1149.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.189}, "reply_to": "19847__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__0_085", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--The... we're not suggesting that the supervisor would have had full authority to reinstate prior to the resolution of the criminal charges, and if that was your question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1149.524], "stop_times": [1162.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.524}, "reply_to": "19847__0_084", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_086", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "You told me a moment ago he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1162.983], "stop_times": [1163.484], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.983}, "reply_to": "19847__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__0_087", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--And if that's... if... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1163.484], "stop_times": [1165.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.484}, "reply_to": "19847__0_086", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_088", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Which do you think is the better view of the regulation, he did or did not have the authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1165.084], "stop_times": [1169.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.084}, "reply_to": "19847__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__0_089", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I do not believe that the regulation gave him the authority to have a hearing and reinstate prior to the resolution of the criminal charges.\nIf the purpose and the reason for the suspension was his arrest on criminal charges and a felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1169.438, 1181.687], "stop_times": [1181.687, 1190.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.438}, "reply_to": "19847__0_088", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_090", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Even if the charges remain pending for 3 or 4 weeks, and even though the supervisor was convinced that they were going to be dismissed, he still had to keep him off the payroll.\nThat's your view of the regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1190.673, 1199.876], "stop_times": [1199.876, 1201.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.673}, "reply_to": "19847__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__0_091", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's my view of the regulation regarding the whole point of the hearing, or the inquiry at that time.\nAs we have stated Mallen, in... the Court in Mallen suggests just the mere fact that there's been an arrest itself is sufficient to threaten the public's confidence in the police force.\nWhat we're saying here is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1201.468, 1207.953, 1223.592], "stop_times": [1207.953, 1223.592, 1225.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.468}, "reply_to": "19847__0_090", "speaker": "gwendolyn_t_mosley"}
{"id": "19847__0_092", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Mosley.\nMs. Hubbard, we'll hear from you now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1225.816, 1227.546], "stop_times": [1227.546, 1229.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.816}, "reply_to": "19847__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__1_000", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nUnder the Third Circuit's per se rule, any public employee who is suspended without pay in advance of a hearing is entitled to seek money damages for a constitutional violation.\nThis is contrary to the Court's precedents, and could impair the Federal Government's interest in needed flexibility in employment matters.\nBecause of deficiencies in the record, however, we believe the Court should reject the Third Circuit's rules, vacate its judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings.\nI'd like to focus first on why Mallen and Barchi tell us that a government may, in appropriate circumstances, suspend an employee without pay and in advance of the hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1229.717, 1239.743, 1251.111, 1258.905, 1268.423], "stop_times": [1239.743, 1251.111, 1258.905, 1268.423, 1281.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1229.717}, "reply_to": "19847__0_092", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_001", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I take it, then, the rule you're going to submit to us is that it depends on the nature of the employee and the work that the employee does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1281.541], "stop_times": [1289.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.541}, "reply_to": "19847__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_002", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Under Mallen and Barchi, and as well under Mathews, you have to identify the government interest in prompt action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1289.246], "stop_times": [1296.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1289.246}, "reply_to": "19847__1_001", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_003", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So does the government... the government does not have an interest in suspending any employee who's been arrested and charged with a felony without a hearing and suspending without pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1296.361], "stop_times": [1306.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.361}, "reply_to": "19847__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_004", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "We think it's an easier case to say that you could do it with a law enforcement officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1306.978], "stop_times": [1313.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1306.978}, "reply_to": "19847__1_003", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_005", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I know that.\nThat's why I'm asking.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1313.542, 1315.153, 1316.194], "stop_times": [1315.153, 1316.194, 1317.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.542}, "reply_to": "19847__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_006", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It's unclear.\nI'm not sure why the... that would be defensible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1317.486, 1319.987], "stop_times": [1319.987, 1323.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1317.486}, "reply_to": "19847__1_005", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_007", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And is there a difference between the suspension of duty, performance of duty and the deprivation of pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1323.178], "stop_times": [1331.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.178}, "reply_to": "19847__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__1_008", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Generally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1331.103], "stop_times": [1333.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1331.103}, "reply_to": "19847__1_007", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_009", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Might there be a different balance between the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1333.183], "stop_times": [1335.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.183}, "reply_to": "19847__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__1_010", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor.\nGenerally, if the government suspends an employee with pay it does not implicate a protected property interest, so you would not have to go through this balancing test.\nWe think Mallen and Barchi are properly understood--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1335.585, 1337.778, 1347.934], "stop_times": [1337.778, 1347.934, 1351.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1335.585}, "reply_to": "19847__1_009", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_011", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Why does the government have to give somebody a paid vacation if they've been charged with a felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1351.086], "stop_times": [1355.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.086}, "reply_to": "19847__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_012", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--It doesn't if it can satisfy the Mallen and Barchi test that it had a compelling interest or adequate interest to suspend them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1355.451], "stop_times": [1365.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1355.451}, "reply_to": "19847__1_011", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_013", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "How does the government show this compelling interest, other than if it's not a policeman, if it's a groundskeeper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1365.384], "stop_times": [1371.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.384}, "reply_to": "19847__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_014", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I think it would be harder with a groundskeeper.\nI mean, this Court has already identified other circumstances... if it's a bank director accused of fraud.\nIf there's a public safety concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1371.16, 1374.821, 1380.404], "stop_times": [1374.821, 1380.404, 1382.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1371.16}, "reply_to": "19847__1_013", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_015", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That was a private individual.\nI mean, it's different when the government as regulator is knocking a private individual out of his private job.\nCan't the government have a policy and, indeed, don't many governments have such a policy, we do not employ felons, and if there's any suspicion of somebody being a felon, you're off the payroll until that suspicion is eliminated?\nWhy isn't that a reasonable rule?\nI don't care if you're a police officer or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1382.177, 1383.557, 1392.624, 1408.313, 1409.393], "stop_times": [1383.557, 1392.624, 1408.313, 1409.393, 1411.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.177}, "reply_to": "19847__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__1_016", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It may well be, Justice Scalia.\nI'm not here to defend the Governor's code in all of its applications.\nWhat I'd like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1411.406, 1413.257, 1416.559], "stop_times": [1413.257, 1416.559, 1417.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1411.406}, "reply_to": "19847__1_015", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_017", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Of course, if you continue paying the charged felon, can the government get the money back?\nWhat do you do bring a lawsuit to get back the money you've been paying after the person is finally convicted if you continue paying the salary?\nHow much would it cost you to bring a lawsuit to get back the pay that you... I mean, it seems to me there's a substantial government interest there, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1417.6, 1422.173, 1431.479], "stop_times": [1422.173, 1431.479, 1439.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.6}, "reply_to": "19847__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__1_018", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Justice Scalia, you have identified one of the primary problems with the Third Circuit rule.\nThe effect of the rule is that even if the Government constitutionally can suspend you, it constitutionally is required to pay you in all instances, and we think this is not compatible with the Court's precedents or, indeed, with our basic understanding of the employment relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1439.713, 1444.348], "stop_times": [1444.348, 1463.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1439.713}, "reply_to": "19847__1_017", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_019", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "One of the benefits of the Third Circuit's rule, and one of the benefits of the contrary rule... either you can suspend without pay, or... is that it avoids all the kind of building castles in the air and factual analyses that you don't know when the supervisor first confronts a situation... if he has to go through some Mathews balancing test every time, it's not very workable in the real world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1463.539], "stop_times": [1489.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1463.539}, "reply_to": "19847__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__1_020", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice, and we believe that where there's any doubt about which way the balance would tip, the prudent employer can protect itself by suspending the person with pay for the time necessary to decide whether or not further action is warranted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1489.415], "stop_times": [1507.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1489.415}, "reply_to": "19847__1_019", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_021", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "By suspending the person with pay.\nSo you're saying that the presumption should be that you can only suspend with pay, unless there's no... unless the Mathews balance is undoubtedly in favor of the State.\nThat's the rule you propose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1507.889, 1508.75, 1518.347], "stop_times": [1508.75, 1518.347, 1519.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.889}, "reply_to": "19847__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_022", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy.\nWe're saying that the employer always has the option to dispel any constitutional doubt by suspending the employee with pay, but if the employer concludes that this is one of those cases that falls within Mallen and Barchi and it is permissible to suspend the employee without pay, then if that determination is correct, it should not be liable for damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1519.926, 1521.767], "stop_times": [1521.767, 1547.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1519.926}, "reply_to": "19847__1_021", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_023", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, if you can't tell us whether the cases are easy or hard, how is the employee's supervisor to do it?\nI mean, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1547.085, 1555.08], "stop_times": [1555.08, 1556.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.085}, "reply_to": "19847__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_024", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "We think there... it is the nature of a balancing test that there will be hard cases, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1556.702], "stop_times": [1564.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1556.702}, "reply_to": "19847__1_023", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_025", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--May I just interrupt... I don't mean to interrupt you.\nI guess I have, but--\n[Laughter]\nBut just pursuing the Chief Justice's point for a moment, if you took the Third Circuit's rule and said that's the law, you can't take his pay away until you at least give him an opportunity to give his side of the story, he can... you can do that in a day or two, so it may be that only a day or two's pay is at stake in this huge constitutional fight, because if you called him up and said, hey, Joe, what happened, and he tells you his story, he says, I'm sorry, that's not enough, you're arrested, you're off the payroll.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1564.615, 1566.526, 1567.918, 1569.438], "stop_times": [1566.526, 1567.918, 1569.438, 1594.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.615}, "reply_to": "19847__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__1_026", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That's very often the case, Justice Stevens.\nThis is the minimal Loudermill hearing, and it would not in most cases be so burdensome to call the employer in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1594.175, 1596.717], "stop_times": [1596.717, 1603.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1594.175}, "reply_to": "19847__1_025", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_027", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So we're not talking about indefinite pay.\nWe're talking about pay for the 2 or 3 days that's necessary in order to give the fellow a chance to tell his side of the story.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1603.411, 1606.102], "stop_times": [1606.102, 1613.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.411}, "reply_to": "19847__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19847__1_028", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's absolutely correct, but we do believe that if this is a Mallen Barchi case and the government was justified in suspending him without a hearing, even during that period between the suspension and the hearing, if the suspension was lawful in that he was given all the process he was due, the employer is not constitutionally required to pay him.\nThe nature of the property right at issue here is the right to continue to work and to earn a living.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1613.236, 1636.864], "stop_times": [1636.864, 1643.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1613.236}, "reply_to": "19847__1_027", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_029", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Ms. Hubbard, you went through a lot of ifs, and I... following up Justice Stevens' question, if the employee is arguing all I want is a chance to tell my side of the story, all that's involved... all that's at stake for the government is a couple of days, at most, of my pay, why doesn't any balance work in favor of the employee?\nThe government can take him out of the job, and the only question is the pay for a couple of days.\nWhy doesn't the employee win on that kind of balance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1643.816, 1672.385, 1681.48], "stop_times": [1672.385, 1681.48, 1684.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.816}, "reply_to": "19847__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__1_030", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It might well, but in the balance that you're proposing, you're positing 1 or 2 days' pay.\nIn other cases it may take longer to resolve the issue, as in Mallen or Barchi, for instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1684.954, 1692.459], "stop_times": [1692.459, 1699.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1684.954}, "reply_to": "19847__1_029", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_031", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "But if you say the only process that's due is a chance to tell his side of the story, period, no full evidentiary hearing.\nThat can come later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1699.443, 1706.048], "stop_times": [1706.048, 1707.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.443}, "reply_to": "19847__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__1_032", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Right, but there may be government justifications for having to postpone even a Loudermillstyle hearing for a week or two, and we're just saying that the Court needs to use its framework for balancing those questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1707.11], "stop_times": [1722.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1707.11}, "reply_to": "19847__1_031", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_033", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Have you come across anywhere... I'd be quite curious.\nThe last time the Court said that kind of thing was I think in Goss v. Lopez, wasn't it, where they said, all it is you just give the student a chance to tell his side of the story before you suspend him.\nWell, how is it worked out?\nI mean, it seems to me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1722.788, 1725.389, 1735.387, 1736.759], "stop_times": [1725.389, 1735.387, 1736.759, 1739.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.788}, "reply_to": "19847__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__1_034", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "From the Federal Government's perspective--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1739.999], "stop_times": [1741.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1739.999}, "reply_to": "19847__1_033", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_035", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1741.05], "stop_times": [1741.501], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.05}, "reply_to": "19847__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__1_036", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--it's worked out very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1741.501], "stop_times": [1742.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1741.501}, "reply_to": "19847__1_035", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_037", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And so basically school districts don't feel inhibited in suspending children?\nHave there... have you come across anything--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1742.302, 1746.394], "stop_times": [1746.394, 1747.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.302}, "reply_to": "19847__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__1_038", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Oh, I'm sorry, Justice Breyer, I can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1747.726], "stop_times": [1750.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1747.726}, "reply_to": "19847__1_037", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_039", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--that says whether school districts do or do not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1750.037], "stop_times": [1751.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.037}, "reply_to": "19847__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__1_040", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I can't speak for the school district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1751.019], "stop_times": [1752.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1751.019}, "reply_to": "19847__1_039", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_041", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--You haven't found it.\nHave you found anything... in working on this, it's such a close analogy that I'd be awfully curious if you found something, and the answer is you haven't.\nYou don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1752.08, 1752.669, 1759.985], "stop_times": [1752.669, 1759.985, 1760.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1752.08}, "reply_to": "19847__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__1_042", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No, sir, I haven't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1760.676], "stop_times": [1761.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1760.676}, "reply_to": "19847__1_041", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_043", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "You have a closer analogy that you were just about to bring up, how the Federal Government works.\nIt has these hearings within a week, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1761.575, 1765.718], "stop_times": [1765.718, 1768.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.575}, "reply_to": "19847__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__1_044", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Right, and the general practice with the Federal Government is to suspend employees with pay.\nThe one... assuming that the employee is a nonprobationary employee, and unless there are national security issues at stake, we do suspend with pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1768.239, 1774.172], "stop_times": [1774.172, 1784.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1768.239}, "reply_to": "19847__1_043", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_045", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It's only money for the Federal Government, and the Federal Government can print more.\n[Laughter]\nStates and municipalities can't.\nThey have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1784.761, 1787.992, 1790.275, 1791.664], "stop_times": [1787.992, 1790.275, 1791.664, 1792.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.761}, "reply_to": "19847__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__1_046", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I... that is one factor.\nThere could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1792.536, 1794.627], "stop_times": [1794.627, 1795.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1792.536}, "reply_to": "19847__1_045", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_047", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--They have an automatic budget-balancing requirement.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1795.368, 1797.839], "stop_times": [1797.839, 1799.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.368}, "reply_to": "19847__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__1_048", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I prefer to say that the Federal Government is just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1799.672], "stop_times": [1801.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1799.672}, "reply_to": "19847__1_047", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_049", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "You think that's a factor, that there's a difference in the Federal Government and the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1801.321], "stop_times": [1804.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.321}, "reply_to": "19847__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_050", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--It could be if there were a circumstance that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1804.163], "stop_times": [1807.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1804.163}, "reply_to": "19847__1_049", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_051", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "The fact that the Federal Government has more money, that's a factor that we tell the Third Circuit it has to start weighing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1807.857], "stop_times": [1813.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.857}, "reply_to": "19847__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_052", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--If I may, Justice Kennedy, one factor could be fiscal constraints.\nFor instance, if a university could demonstrate here that it could not both pay Mr. Homar's salary and pay a substitute during that interim, there could be a public safety concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1813.589, 1818.523], "stop_times": [1818.523, 1830.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1813.589}, "reply_to": "19847__1_051", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_053", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "You know that it's not going to be able to show that for a 3-day suspension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1830.452], "stop_times": [1832.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.452}, "reply_to": "19847__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__1_054", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I think that's the exceptional case, but there may be room for fiscal constraints--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1832.843], "stop_times": [1837.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1832.843}, "reply_to": "19847__1_053", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_055", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And it might be a 2-week situation rather than a 3-day situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1837.855], "stop_times": [1841.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.855}, "reply_to": "19847__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__1_056", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That's correct.\nWith my time remaining... oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1841.097, 1841.698], "stop_times": [1841.698, 1844.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1841.097}, "reply_to": "19847__1_055", "speaker": "ann_hubbard"}
{"id": "19847__1_057", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "You can say goodbye.\nThank you, Ms. Hubbard.\n[Laughter]\nMr. Fareri.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1844.49, 1846.401, 1848.033, 1850.064], "stop_times": [1846.401, 1848.033, 1850.064, 1852.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.49}, "reply_to": "19847__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__2_000", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to begin by speaking about this Governor's code of conduct that is so heavily relied upon by the Commonwealth in this case.\nIt was not brought up or even raised until this case got to the Supreme Court.\nIf you look in the joint appendix, Mr. Levanowitz testified that he did not even feel that he was obliged to follow the Governor's code of conduct.\nI would submit to you that the Governor's code of conduct is not even relevant for the determination as to what quantum of due process should have been afforded Mr. Homar under these facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1852.985, 1856.638, 1864.483, 1869.676, 1876.661], "stop_times": [1856.638, 1864.483, 1869.676, 1876.661, 1886.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1852.985}, "reply_to": "19847__1_057", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_001", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, maybe we should leave that issue for the circuit or the district court on remand.\nIf we were to do that, let me ask you what your answer to this question would be.\nIf we assume that the Governor's code of conduct requiring the automatic suspension at least applies to all law enforcement officers and should be, by its terms, enforced, then the only issue would be in a given case whether, in fact, there had been an arrest or a charge.\nUnder those circumstances, do you believe that a pre-suspension hearing is necessary if pay is not to be continued during the suspension?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1886.228, 1892.492, 1897.846, 1922.682], "stop_times": [1892.492, 1897.846, 1922.682, 1933.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.228}, "reply_to": "19847__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__2_002", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "If pay is not to be continued, yes, Your Honor, because that would be an issue, as to whether or not the individual can continue to receive his pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1933.87], "stop_times": [1940.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.87}, "reply_to": "19847__2_001", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_003", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, but the issue would turn solely on the question whether there had been an arrest or a charge, and is that the kind of issue upon which there is a sufficient risk of error to require the pre-termination, the pre-suspension hearing?\nI mean, there's a pretty good argument that that issue is so simple, it's so unlikely that there is going to be a mistake about that, that it really would be justified to say no, the hearing could take place afterwards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1940.532, 1958.233], "stop_times": [1958.233, 1970.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.532}, "reply_to": "19847__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__2_004", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I would concede that if the Governor's code of conduct is in the case and it is supportable and it is constitutional, then I would agree with you, Justice Souter, on that point.\nIt is our position in this case that the general rule crafted by the court of appeals below is fundamentally correct.\nHowever, the Court need not reach that.\nIt need not reach the issue of the propriety of such a rule in order to affirm the holding below.\nRather, the result reached below may be obtained by applying the three Mathews factors to the facts of the case, and I'd like to go over those with the Court now.\nThe first Mathews factor is an assessment of the private interest that would be affected.\nIn this particular case, I would submit that there is a very strong private interest that Mr. Homar had of continuing his employment.\nThe Court has recognized in many cases in the past such as the Loudermill case, then the Mallen case, that an employee has a great private interest in continuing with their employment and continuing to receive their wages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [1970.151, 1980.149, 1989.445, 1991.236, 1996.608, 2004.495, 2009.257, 2016.343], "stop_times": [1980.149, 1989.445, 1991.236, 1996.608, 2004.495, 2009.257, 2016.343, 2030.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.151}, "reply_to": "19847__2_003", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_005", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, I suppose how significant that interest is would depend certainly upon, you know, how many other funds the individual has.\nI mean, if this individual is independently wealthy and is just being a police officer for fun, I suppose it wouldn't be very important, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2030.132, 2038.146], "stop_times": [2038.146, 2048.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2030.132}, "reply_to": "19847__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_006", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2048.362, 2050.194], "stop_times": [2050.194, 2050.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.362}, "reply_to": "19847__2_005", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_007", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Do we know how much money he had in the bank?\nIs that the kind of factor we ought to take into account?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2050.583, 2052.695], "stop_times": [2052.695, 2056.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.583}, "reply_to": "19847__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_008", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I don't think so, Your Honor, because a wage earner, I think you can make certain presumptions about somebody who is earning a wage.\nI think it's a fair presumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2056.107, 2063.393], "stop_times": [2063.393, 2064.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.107}, "reply_to": "19847__2_007", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_009", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "He doesn't have any money in the bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2064.804], "stop_times": [2066.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.804}, "reply_to": "19847__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_010", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I don't know whether he had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2066.216], "stop_times": [2069.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2066.216}, "reply_to": "19847__2_009", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_011", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No, I mean, is that the presumption you can make?\nI know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2069.368, 2071.428], "stop_times": [2071.428, 2071.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.368}, "reply_to": "19847__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_012", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I think the presumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2071.728], "stop_times": [2072.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.728}, "reply_to": "19847__2_011", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_013", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I know a significant number of wage earners who could, you know, support themselves for quite a while.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2072.65], "stop_times": [2077.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.65}, "reply_to": "19847__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_014", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I think in one of the amicus briefs, Your Honor, there's a study that indicates that approximately a third of all wage earners in this country now live essentially from paycheck to paycheck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2077.943], "stop_times": [2087.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.943}, "reply_to": "19847__2_013", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_015", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, isn't there something to be said for a rule that's more or less automatic, rather than requiring the supervisor to sit down in each case and read a study like this that says a third of these people... and trying to figure out whether this employee was in that third or not, for either saying that with respect to a police officer you can suspend upon arrest without pay or perhaps, as the Third Circuit says, you can't suspend.\nThere are just a great deal of transactional costs in this balancing test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2087.949, 2115.146], "stop_times": [2115.146, 2120.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.949}, "reply_to": "19847__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__2_016", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I couldn't agree with you more.\nThat's why we think that the rule crafted by the Third Circuit is correct.\nYou cannot engage in a Mathews balance in each and every case.\nAs you indicated, that is completely unworkable in the real world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2120.599, 2123.122, 2127.094, 2130.476], "stop_times": [2123.122, 2127.094, 2130.476, 2135.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.599}, "reply_to": "19847__2_015", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_017", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Mr. Fareri, the... that rule, the automatic rule that there must be some opportunity to tell his side of the story, it isn't entirely clear to me what is entailed, how much it costs the State.\nSo for example, if the position is, the State says, you've been arrested.\nYou've been charged.\nDoes the State have to do anything more at that point?\nThey could say, now tell us your reason, but you told us that there has to be a notice.\nHe did have notice.\nA reason... is the reason... is it an adequate reason for the employer simply to say, you've been charged, and then, okay, you have a justification.\nTell us.\nIs there anything more... is there any more process that's due the employee than what I just described?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2135.161, 2150.489, 2158.964, 2160.296, 2165.9, 2172.604, 2173.536, 2186.674, 2187.375], "stop_times": [2150.489, 2158.964, 2160.296, 2165.9, 2172.604, 2173.536, 2186.674, 2187.375, 2193.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.161}, "reply_to": "19847__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__2_018", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I think what you're describing, Justice Ginsburg, is a Loudermill-type process, and we are not arguing that the employee is entitled to anything more than that.\nWhat we're talking about in this case is something... it couldn't be any more simple.\nNotice... notice of the problem, and an opportunity to say, I'm innocent.\nThis gentleman did not have even that simple process in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2193.469, 2200.432, 2205.076, 2210.83], "stop_times": [2200.432, 2205.076, 2210.83, 2214.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.469}, "reply_to": "19847__2_017", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_019", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No, but I thought the question was not whether he's innocent, but whether he's been charged.\nSuppose you have a State that simply adopted that rule.\nIf you were charged with a felony, you will be suspended without pay, period.\nSo the only issue before the supervisor is, have you been charged with a felony?\nDo you need a hearing for that?\nThat's a matter of public record, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2214.423, 2218.353, 2221.006, 2226.28, 2229.932, 2231.334], "stop_times": [2218.353, 2221.006, 2226.28, 2229.932, 2231.334, 2233.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.423}, "reply_to": "19847__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_020", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Given... if you take the Court's premise that that rule is valid--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2233.975], "stop_times": [2238.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2233.975}, "reply_to": "19847__2_019", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_021", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2238.667], "stop_times": [2239.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.667}, "reply_to": "19847__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_022", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2239.308], "stop_times": [2239.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.308}, "reply_to": "19847__2_021", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_023", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Then you wouldn't need a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2239.969], "stop_times": [2240.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.969}, "reply_to": "19847__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_024", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Then you wouldn't need a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2240.84], "stop_times": [2241.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.84}, "reply_to": "19847__2_023", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_025", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "So you are arguing it is invalid to have a blanket rule that if you're a State employee charged with a felony you will be suspended.\nYou cannot do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2241.671, 2249.645], "stop_times": [2249.645, 2250.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.671}, "reply_to": "19847__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_026", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I think that's invalid, and additionally I don't think that's applicable in this case, for the reasons I indicated previously.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2250.644], "stop_times": [2255.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.644}, "reply_to": "19847__2_025", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_027", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, that's a seperate question, for which we might have to remand, but assuming that that is the State rule, you say you're suspended without pay when you're charged with a felony, that rule would be unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2255.519], "stop_times": [2267.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.519}, "reply_to": "19847__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_028", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's my position, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2267.768], "stop_times": [2269.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.768}, "reply_to": "19847__2_027", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_029", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, Mr. Fareri, you do acknowledge, do you, that the State can have a blanket rule for law enforcement officers, that if the law enforcement officer himself or herself is arrested for or charged with a felony, that the duties of that officer can be immediately suspended subject to a prompt post suspension hearing.\nYou agree with that.\nI'm not talking about pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2269.468, 2296.145, 2297.327], "stop_times": [2296.145, 2297.327, 2298.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.468}, "reply_to": "19847__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__2_030", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I would agree with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2298.175], "stop_times": [2299.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.175}, "reply_to": "19847__2_029", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_031", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Just the duties.\nBut you want a different rule invoked if the suspension is without pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2299.337, 2300.657], "stop_times": [2300.657, 2306.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.337}, "reply_to": "19847__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__2_032", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2306.323], "stop_times": [2307.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.323}, "reply_to": "19847__2_031", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_033", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Subject to a prompt post--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2307.493], "stop_times": [2308.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.493}, "reply_to": "19847__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__2_034", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2308.895], "stop_times": [2309.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.895}, "reply_to": "19847__2_033", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_035", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I thought you gave me a different answer.\nI thought in the simple case that I put, in which the only issue is whether a law enforcement officer had been arrested or charged with a felony, that in that case, even though there would be a suspension without pay, the issue was so simple that there was no... and the risk of error so slight that there was no need for a pre-suspension hearing.\nDid I misunderstand you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2309.753, 2311.216, 2336.36], "stop_times": [2311.216, 2336.36, 2337.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2309.753}, "reply_to": "19847__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__2_036", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I think, Justice Souter, that my answer was given assuming that that rule was valid--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2337.522], "stop_times": [2343.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.522}, "reply_to": "19847__2_035", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_037", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2343.947], "stop_times": [2344.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.947}, "reply_to": "19847__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__2_038", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That if you're arrested then you would be suspended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2344.357], "stop_times": [2346.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.357}, "reply_to": "19847__2_037", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_039", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Okay.\nBut you just answered that you say that would be unconstitutional.\nIn your colloquy with Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2346.929, 2347.32, 2350.99], "stop_times": [2347.32, 2350.99, 2352.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.929}, "reply_to": "19847__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__2_040", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2352.883], "stop_times": [2353.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.883}, "reply_to": "19847__2_039", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_041", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I believe you said that it would be unconstitutional, that that would be the rule, but in response to Justice Souter's question as well I suppose you'd have to say, no, it's not enough.\nIt would satisfy the rule, but it wouldn't satisfy the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2353.504, 2366.23], "stop_times": [2366.23, 2369.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.504}, "reply_to": "19847__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__2_042", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2369.573], "stop_times": [2370.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.573}, "reply_to": "19847__2_041", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_043", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Did you ever charge, or did your side ever charge in this case that the rule was substantively unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2370.734], "stop_times": [2376.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.734}, "reply_to": "19847__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__2_044", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, we didn't, Your Honor, because the rule was never raised until I'm standing here right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2376.799], "stop_times": [2380.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.799}, "reply_to": "19847__2_043", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_045", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I see.\nYou just didn't know that that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2380.829, 2381.27], "stop_times": [2381.27, 2382.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.829}, "reply_to": "19847__2_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19847__2_046", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "The rule has not been raised in any past pleadings, in any past briefs.\nThe first time that it was raised was in the brief to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2382.171, 2386.684], "stop_times": [2386.684, 2389.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.171}, "reply_to": "19847__2_045", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_047", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Well, how about your brief, your red brief in this Court?\nDid you challenge the rule as unconstitutional there?\nI had not understood the brief to take that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2389.396, 2392.668, 2395.139], "stop_times": [2392.668, 2395.139, 2400.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.396}, "reply_to": "19847__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__2_048", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "We didn't, Mr. Chief Justice, the reason being, again, we feel strongly that the rule is not in the case, because the personnel director himself testified that he did not rely on the rule.\nAnd additionally, as one of the members of the Court indicated when they were asking counsel for the State a question, after the... all charges were dismissed, and all charges were dismissed 6 days after his arrest for insufficient evidence after a preliminary hearing, the human resources director continued on with his suspension for a period of 23 days, during which Mr. Homar did not receive his pay.\nNow, if they're going to rely on that rule, why didn't they lift that suspension and reinstate him after all charges were dismissed?\nThey did not do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2400.564, 2412.041, 2436.446, 2444.553], "stop_times": [2412.041, 2436.446, 2444.553, 2445.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.564}, "reply_to": "19847__2_047", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_049", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "He did eventually get pay.\nWas that prompted by anything other than the goodness of the university's heart?\nWas there any union involvement in getting him that pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2445.341, 2448.614, 2454.447], "stop_times": [2448.614, 2454.447, 2458.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.341}, "reply_to": "19847__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__2_050", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "The union was involved, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2458.38], "stop_times": [2459.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.38}, "reply_to": "19847__2_049", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_051", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Is this a bargainable subject, the... what will happen to an employee when there's a charge of misconduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2459.803], "stop_times": [2470.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.803}, "reply_to": "19847__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__2_052", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "There's... the collective bargaining agreement is not in the record, but I can tell the Court that that does provide for a grievance process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2470.199], "stop_times": [2477.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2470.199}, "reply_to": "19847__2_051", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_053", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Can I go back to the... what I think is your main argument?\nI take it Judge Serokin wrote, a governmental employer may not suspend an employee without pay unless the suspension is preceded by some kind of pre-suspension hearing.\nHe means never, all right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2477.275, 2481.326, 2494.044], "stop_times": [2481.326, 2494.044, 2496.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.275}, "reply_to": "19847__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__2_054", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2496.516], "stop_times": [2497.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.516}, "reply_to": "19847__2_053", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_055", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Okay.\nSo I would like to know whether there aren't some circumstances where you could suspend him without a preceding hearing.\nA bank guard at Fort Knox robs Fort Knox and is charged.\nWe're not sure, but he's charged formally.\nA teacher, State university, sexually assaults a student and is charged.\nA policeman is a major drug dealer and is charged.\nThe authorities say, there's a charge.\nWe therefore have probable cause to think he did it.\nWe will give him a prompt post suspension hearing where he can say everything within one pay period and give him his money back unless we think that he really is guilty.\nOkay?\nNow, what's wrong with that?\nThe reason they want to do it is because they think it's impossible to run a police force, a university, or Fort Knox with people like that having been charged on the payroll doing their job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2497.257, 2497.727, 2505.532, 2512.857, 2515.95, 2522.052, 2531.128, 2534.25, 2538.704, 2549.941, 2551.591, 2553.584], "stop_times": [2497.727, 2505.532, 2512.857, 2515.95, 2522.052, 2531.128, 2534.25, 2538.704, 2549.941, 2551.591, 2553.584, 2563.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.257}, "reply_to": "19847__2_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__2_056", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2563.709], "stop_times": [2564.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.709}, "reply_to": "19847__2_055", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_057", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And if you say, oh, just don't pay them, they laugh at that and say, what do you mean?\nIf we send him a paycheck it's a paid vacation.\nOf course the taxpayers want to have people who are paid at work doing something.\nNow, that's the argument, and I want to hear your response.\nYour Honor, I think even in those circumstances where it's absolutely clear that there's been some wrongdoing on the part of the employee that there is always a value to the pre-suspension process.\nAnd I think the reason there should be pre-suspension process is because the wage earner's interest in his employment is so critical and so important, and sometimes a matter of being able to support himself and his family, and the skin off the nose of the government, so to speak, is so slight, because what we're talking about is a Loudermill process, that I would argue that you should have a pre-suspension process even in those types of cases that the Court--\n--Suppose the employee doesn't ask for one?\nSuppose in one of Justice Breyer's hypotheticals that the employee does... who has the burden... I take it that you're saying that in every case the employer must take the initiative, even if the employee didn't ask to have any kind of pre-deprivation hearing.\nIs that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2564.36, 2569.284, 2571.715, 2575.646, 2578.539, 2588.667, 2615.765, 2618.326, 2642.182], "stop_times": [2569.284, 2571.715, 2575.646, 2578.539, 2588.667, 2615.765, 2618.326, 2642.182, 2643.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.36}, "reply_to": "19847__2_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__2_058", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I would say yes, Justice Ginsburg, because I think there are some employees who probably aren't sophisticated enough to ask for one, and I think because the governmental employer is in the position of running the workforce, that that should be their obligation to provide one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2643.133], "stop_times": [2657.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.133}, "reply_to": "19847__2_057", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_059", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And that was this case, wasn't it?\nThis... Homar did not ask... he said, am I suspended, but he didn't ask if he could have a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2657.84, 2659.332], "stop_times": [2659.332, 2665.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.84}, "reply_to": "19847__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__2_060", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's correct, and that exemplifies what I'm saying.\nI don't think he had the knowledge to know that he was even entitled to that, and he didn't understand what his rights were until after he consulted counsel, which was sometime after that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2665.246, 2669.009], "stop_times": [2669.009, 2680.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2665.246}, "reply_to": "19847__2_059", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_061", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Could I follow up my question with--\n--Mr. Fareri, I guess there are two really separate questions here.\nOne is whether you need a pre-deprivation hearing, and the second one, and I'm not sure what your answer to this is, whether you can continue the deprivation until the charge is dropped or resolved.\nIn other words, it's no big deal I suppose if you say you can suspend without pay but you have to provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing, which means in 2 or 3 days he gets a hearing.\nThat's not the State's position.\nAs I understand the State, the State's position is, we don't have to provide a hearing until the felony charge is resolved either up or down, which is really not a prompt... I mean, depending upon how promptly the felony is disposed of.\nWhat is your position on the latter question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2680.136, 2681.617, 2686.221, 2704.543, 2722.245, 2723.875, 2738.803], "stop_times": [2681.617, 2686.221, 2704.543, 2722.245, 2723.875, 2738.803, 2741.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.136}, "reply_to": "19847__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__2_062", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "On whether or not the post suspension process would satisfy in lieu of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2741.315], "stop_times": [2745.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.315}, "reply_to": "19847__2_061", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_063", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2745.959], "stop_times": [2746.3], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.959}, "reply_to": "19847__2_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__2_064", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--the pre-suspension process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2746.3], "stop_times": [2746.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.3}, "reply_to": "19847__2_063", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_065", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes.\nYou're arguing, I take it, that you need a prompt... not only do you need a prompt post deprivation hearing, even if you provide the hearing 2 days after the suspension, you would still say the suspension is bad.\nYou cannot suspend at all without pay until you have a hearing first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2746.63, 2747.051, 2760.79], "stop_times": [2747.051, 2760.79, 2764.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.63}, "reply_to": "19847__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_066", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2764.362], "stop_times": [2765.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.362}, "reply_to": "19847__2_065", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_067", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And you wouldn't be satisfied with saying you need a prompt hearing afterwards, so you'll only be docked for 2 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2765.424], "stop_times": [2771.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.424}, "reply_to": "19847__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_068", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and the reason is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2771.798], "stop_times": [2773.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.798}, "reply_to": "19847__2_067", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_069", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Two days isn't that much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2773.328], "stop_times": [2774.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.328}, "reply_to": "19847__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_070", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Well, but it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2774.259], "stop_times": [2775.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.259}, "reply_to": "19847__2_069", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_071", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "This guy's in the wrong job if he can't live for 2 days without... you know.\nDon't you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2775.752, 2779.452], "stop_times": [2779.452, 2782.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.752}, "reply_to": "19847__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_072", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Your Honor, the cost to the government is so slight, and again, the interest of the employee is so great.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2782.184], "stop_times": [2787.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.184}, "reply_to": "19847__2_071", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_073", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "But I thought this Court reached that decision in Mallen.\nI mean, we upheld an immediate suspension and permit post deprivation hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2787.74, 2790.362], "stop_times": [2790.362, 2800.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.74}, "reply_to": "19847__2_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__2_074", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "There are some different facts in Mallen, Your Honor.\nFor instance, in Mallen there was a grand jury indictment.\nIn this case what you have is a search incident to an arrest.\nMy client happened to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2800.017, 2803.589, 2806.47, 2810.243], "stop_times": [2803.589, 2806.47, 2810.243, 2811.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.017}, "reply_to": "19847__2_073", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_075", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, you want us to draw a different line between somebody who has... is indicted by a grand jury as opposed to somebody who's arrested based on probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2811.805], "stop_times": [2822.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.805}, "reply_to": "19847__2_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__2_076", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI think that a bright line... a bright line rule should be drawn.\nHowever, that... I'm just bringing that factor up over--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2822.062, 2823.551, 2827.014], "stop_times": [2823.551, 2827.014, 2831.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2822.062}, "reply_to": "19847__2_075", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_077", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Where would the rule leave the Mallen situation in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2831.037], "stop_times": [2834.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.037}, "reply_to": "19847__2_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__2_078", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, that the rule takes... the rule would take into account the very important interests of the employee in continuing with his wages as recognized by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2834.811], "stop_times": [2844.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.811}, "reply_to": "19847__2_077", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_079", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, but I... how would your rule deal with the Mallen situation?\nI mean, which we have said was permissible?\nI take it your rule would allow it to be permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2844.685, 2849.098, 2853.33], "stop_times": [2849.098, 2853.33, 2856.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.685}, "reply_to": "19847__2_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__2_080", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Well, Mallen does not... again, Mallen does not deal with the governmental employer either, as in this case.\nMallen is a Federal regulation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2856.352, 2863.428], "stop_times": [2863.428, 2865.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.352}, "reply_to": "19847__2_079", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_081", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, wouldn't it be a fortiori?\nIf the government can require someone to step aside who is in a... simply in a regulated business, ought it not to be a fortiori with a government employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2865.469, 2867.291], "stop_times": [2867.291, 2876.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.469}, "reply_to": "19847__2_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__2_082", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Well, with... the issue with the government... governmental employer that you don't have where there is a regulation of private business is the issue of the pay.\nThe government does not have an interest in whether or not the employee would continue to be paid where there's private regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2876.206, 2885.583], "stop_times": [2885.583, 2894.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.206}, "reply_to": "19847__2_081", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_083", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Are you saying... it was the bank that decided not to pay him.\nThe only thing that the Government required was the suspension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2894.439, 2898.171], "stop_times": [2898.171, 2900.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2894.439}, "reply_to": "19847__2_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__2_084", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "The regulation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2900.351], "stop_times": [2901.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.351}, "reply_to": "19847__2_083", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_085", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "All right.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2901.353, 2902.204], "stop_times": [2902.204, 2902.705], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.353}, "reply_to": "19847__2_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__2_086", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--didn't speak one way or another to the pay, and I think the decision may even indicate that that was left to the bank, and there's nothing in the case that indicates whether or not the suspension was with or without pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2902.705], "stop_times": [2916.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2902.705}, "reply_to": "19847__2_085", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_087", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That's exactly the... what I was trying... I'm quite... I'm trying to focus on something with my question, which is, you responded with the answer it's a slight governmental interest, and that's the point that I'm uncertain about, and would like you to follow up on.\nThe contrary, I take it, would be, what are you talking about, slight?\nIf we have to keep people on the payroll who have done and been charged with serious crimes such as I've mentioned, we can't do that as a practical matter.\nPeople will think we're giving them paid vacations.\nThat's A.\nB is, slight?\nLet's look at what happened after Goss.\nPeople get mixed up in applying these things and they think they have to give students tremendous full hearings with lawyers before they can even kick them out of class.\nNow, I don't know if what I've just said is accurate.\nIt may be false, but that's why I want your response--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2916.022, 2930.731, 2936.415, 2949.144, 2952.667, 2953.416, 2956.347, 2959.221, 2969.357, 2973.27], "stop_times": [2930.731, 2936.415, 2949.144, 2952.667, 2953.416, 2956.347, 2959.221, 2969.357, 2973.27, 2977.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.022}, "reply_to": "19847__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__2_088", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2977.832], "stop_times": [2979.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2977.832}, "reply_to": "19847__2_087", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_089", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--to those two separate things, one, in administering complicated things like separating pay from suspension, everything gets mixed up and before you know it they cannot... they feel, the school districts, that they can't really suspend a child without a tremendous full-blown hearing, even though that's not what the Court said.\nThat's A, and B is what you'd call confidence in the public service in not giving people paid vacations for a month when they've been charged by grand juries, or arrests for serious crimes.\nThose are the two things, that what you said slight, so I'm trying to say, is it slight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [2979.755, 2998.365, 3010.513], "stop_times": [2998.365, 3010.513, 3015.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.755}, "reply_to": "19847__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__2_090", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Your Honor, it is slight, because we're not talking about keeping somebody in pay status for a period of a month.\nYou're talking about at most a week, maybe even less than that, until they would get a Loudermill-type process.\nOn the second point, to the extent that there's confusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3015.807, 3021.041, 3027.194], "stop_times": [3021.041, 3027.194, 3030.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.807}, "reply_to": "19847__2_089", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_091", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, excuse me.\nThat's not what the State says.\nI mean, the State says they're entitled to keep him off the rolls until the charge is resolved.\nI mean, that may be more... you're saying the whole thing comes to an end as soon as the hearing's provided.\nThe State says no, not only don't I think I have to provide a hearing promptly, I don't have to provide it during the whole period that the person is still under charge.\nThat's a long time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3030.417, 3030.867, 3032.61, 3038.153, 3045.756, 3053.761], "stop_times": [3030.867, 3032.61, 3038.153, 3045.756, 3053.761, 3055.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.417}, "reply_to": "19847__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__2_092", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I think the State is wrong, Your Honor.\nI think that the individual has a constitutional right to be heard sooner than the period of time it may take for that criminal charge to be adjudicated.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3055.413, 3059.607, 3069.042], "stop_times": [3059.607, 3069.042, 3071.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.413}, "reply_to": "19847__2_091", "speaker": "james_v_fareri"}
{"id": "19847__2_093", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Fareri.\nMr. O'Duden, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3071.546, 3073.689], "stop_times": [3073.689, 3075.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.546}, "reply_to": "19847__2_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__3_000", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nLet me begin if I may by discussing the issue of what governmental interests are at stake in the situation that we face in this case.\nWe think that the Court's cases are quite clear that in order to satisfy its burden of denying somebody a pre-deprivation hearing the government has to show that there is a significant administrative burden, and the argument that we hear today is really a general argument that suggests that, as Justice Breyer put it, we can't do this because if we do the public will be outraged.\nWe don't denigrate or trivialize the argument that's made by the State, but we think that the long experience of the Federal Government's practice defeats the argument, because the fact of the matter is, the rule that we advocate here today has been the routine practice for many, many years, and there has been no suggestion at any point that the public has in any way been outraged.\nJustice Scalia, are you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3075.51, 3093.932, 3103.569, 3129.826, 3157.172], "stop_times": [3093.932, 3103.569, 3129.826, 3157.172, 3158.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3075.51}, "reply_to": "19847__2_093", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_001", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No.\nI was just going to say, how's the Federal budget doing?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3158.915, 3159.356, 3162.257], "stop_times": [3159.356, 3162.257, 3164.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.915}, "reply_to": "19847__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__3_002", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--The Federal budget isn't doing well, Your Honor, but I can assure you it's not because people are being given Loudermill-type hearings, and I think it's also important--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3164.298], "stop_times": [3172.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3164.298}, "reply_to": "19847__3_001", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_003", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "A million dollars here, a million dollars there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3172.533], "stop_times": [3174.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.533}, "reply_to": "19847__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__3_004", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--No, I don't think it translates into that at all, and I think there's one other important thing to be kept in mind here.\nIf an erroneous decision is avoided, what does that do?\nThat saves the government money, because it means that in that situation the employer doesn't have to go out and hire a substitute, and it doesn't have to expend the resources to train that substitute and, of course, it also means that it avoids what could be the very significant cost of having to pay that employee back pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3174.375, 3181.117, 3187.232], "stop_times": [3181.117, 3187.232, 3208.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3174.375}, "reply_to": "19847__3_003", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_005", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--If it is in fact in the government's best interest to do that, presumably the government will do that without being told that the Constitution requires it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3208.347], "stop_times": [3216.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3208.347}, "reply_to": "19847__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__3_006", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, I wish the world were that simple, Your Honor.\nI think that the Court recognized in Goss v. Lopez that notwithstanding the good intentions of those who are in a position to impose discipline, it often doesn't work out that way, and that's why we have the Constitution, to defend citizens, to defend employees from deprivations of their property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3216.23, 3219.763], "stop_times": [3219.763, 3239.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3216.23}, "reply_to": "19847__3_005", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_007", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It's not a... I don't think it's a good constitutional argument to say this is really not only in the employee's best interest but in the employer's best interest, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3239.876], "stop_times": [3248.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.876}, "reply_to": "19847__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__3_008", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3248.244], "stop_times": [3248.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3248.244}, "reply_to": "19847__3_007", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_009", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "The employer presumably can look out for his own best interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3248.792], "stop_times": [3251.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.792}, "reply_to": "19847__3_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__3_010", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--The reason that we're talking about the employer's interest at all is, of course, we're faced with having to deal with the Mathews test, and therefore we're having to respond to the government's assertion that their interests are somehow compromised by giving somebody a pre-deprivation hearing.\nI think it's important in looking at this case for all of us to keep in mind what the due process framework here is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3251.775, 3268.246], "stop_times": [3268.246, 3276.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3251.775}, "reply_to": "19847__3_009", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_011", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, what... let's keep in mind what the suspended person here would argue at the hearing.\nWhat would you expect him to argue at the hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3276.961, 3283.467], "stop_times": [3283.467, 3285.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.961}, "reply_to": "19847__3_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__3_012", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "In this situation, I'm putting aside the issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3285.156], "stop_times": [3289.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3285.156}, "reply_to": "19847__3_011", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_013", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I was not indicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3289.56], "stop_times": [3289.989], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3289.56}, "reply_to": "19847__3_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__3_014", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--I'm putting aside the issue... well, he wasn't indicted.\nI'm putting aside here the issue of the Governor's code.\nHe could say that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, that he wasn't guilty, that he was innocent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3289.989, 3293.171, 3295.415], "stop_times": [3293.171, 3295.415, 3302.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3289.989}, "reply_to": "19847__3_013", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_015", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No, but the response to that is, we have a policy that all State employees, or at least police officers, will be suspended if they're under indictment.\nWe do not want indicted police officers walking around enforcing the law, and since they're not going to be walking around enforcing the law, we're not going to pay them.\nThat seems pretty reasonable to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3302.521, 3312.738, 3321.293], "stop_times": [3312.738, 3321.293, 3322.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.521}, "reply_to": "19847__3_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__3_016", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, of course, that's not the policy that we're talking about in this case, Your Honor.\nWhat we're talking about here is a code, as my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3322.472, 3326.957], "stop_times": [3326.957, 3330.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3322.472}, "reply_to": "19847__3_015", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_017", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "All right, but's assume it is.\nI mean, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3330.948, 3332.29], "stop_times": [3332.29, 3333.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.948}, "reply_to": "19847__3_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__3_018", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Okay.\nYou're moving now to a hypothetical situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3333.011, 3333.762], "stop_times": [3333.762, 3334.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3333.011}, "reply_to": "19847__3_017", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_019", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Right... well, maybe, maybe not, but we can let the lower court resolve it.\nAssuming it's a policy that at least police officers will be suspended without pay if they are under indictment, what would the hearing have consisted... you know, what good would the hearing have done here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3334.881, 3338.734], "stop_times": [3338.734, 3354.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.881}, "reply_to": "19847__3_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__3_020", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "If... assuming that were the policy, that your hypothetical is true, one of the things that he could have argued is that the policy was unconstitutional.\nHe could have made that argument to the decisonmaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3354.085, 3362.34], "stop_times": [3362.34, 3364.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3354.085}, "reply_to": "19847__3_019", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_021", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Let's assume it's constitutional.\nDoes he have any other argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3364.941, 3368.103], "stop_times": [3368.103, 3369.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3364.941}, "reply_to": "19847__3_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__3_022", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, in essence what your hypothetical sets up is a situation where there is no point to the hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3369.473], "stop_times": [3376.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3369.473}, "reply_to": "19847__3_021", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_023", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Right.\nWell, I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3376.018, 3376.478], "stop_times": [3376.478, 3377.069], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3376.018}, "reply_to": "19847__3_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19847__3_024", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Okay, and you're assuming that it's constitutional--\n[Laughter]\nSo you're talking all of the arguments out of the employee's hands.\nIn that case, obviously, there is no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3377.069, 3379.201, 3380.112, 3383.184], "stop_times": [3379.201, 3380.112, 3383.184, 3385.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3377.069}, "reply_to": "19847__3_023", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_025", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Well, Mathews v. Eldridge hearings are not to determine what's constitutional or not.\nThey're to determine what the facts are under a balancing test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3385.064, 3388.838], "stop_times": [3388.838, 3391.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.064}, "reply_to": "19847__3_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__3_026", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3391.78], "stop_times": [3392.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3391.78}, "reply_to": "19847__3_025", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_027", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "And if we hypothesize that it's an adequate and defensible interest for the government not to have police officers who are under criminal charges enforcing the law then it is constitutional, so I think you're avoiding the question when you say what the hearing is going to establish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3392.511], "stop_times": [3412.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.511}, "reply_to": "19847__3_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__3_028", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No.\nI think I said that if those were the facts, then there would be little point to the hearing at all.\nIn fact, there would be no point to the hearing.\nBut I do want to emphasize that those are not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3412.292, 3412.612, 3417.517, 3419.207], "stop_times": [3412.612, 3417.517, 3419.207, 3421.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3412.292}, "reply_to": "19847__3_027", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_029", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, so then you have to say that it's unlawful for the State to have the policy of suspending officers that are under criminal charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3421.89], "stop_times": [3429.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3421.89}, "reply_to": "19847__3_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19847__3_030", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Ultimately he would be reduced to making that kind of argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3429.926], "stop_times": [3435.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3429.926}, "reply_to": "19847__3_029", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_031", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "No, you mean suspending without pay... without pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3435.429], "stop_times": [3437.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.429}, "reply_to": "19847__3_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__3_032", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Suspending without pay, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3437.8], "stop_times": [3438.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3437.8}, "reply_to": "19847__3_031", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_033", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It's an argument you're perfectly willing to make.\nI mean, you think that that's the case, that it is unconstitutional to suspend--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3438.889, 3440.491], "stop_times": [3440.491, 3443.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3438.889}, "reply_to": "19847__3_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19847__3_034", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes, given the fact... given what this Court has said about the significance of the fact of an arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3443.944], "stop_times": [3451.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3443.944}, "reply_to": "19847__3_033", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_035", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Certainly a supervisor isn't in a position to make any intelligent, informed decision about whether a policy is constitutional or not.\nI mean, we're talking about this very quick telephone call and the guy at the other end says, of the telephone says, your policy's unconstitutional.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3451.107, 3460.174, 3468.46], "stop_times": [3460.174, 3468.46, 3469.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3451.107}, "reply_to": "19847__3_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19847__3_036", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, in this situation, where the code calls for a suspension to the extent practical that may well give the supervisor pause before he goes ahead and imposes that action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3469.701], "stop_times": [3484.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3469.701}, "reply_to": "19847__3_035", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_037", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, you're... I take it that... I don't want to put words in your mouth... that you're saying there's no circumstance in which simply phoning the person before suspending him without pay and to say, is there some exceptional circumstance, is there something to your side of the story, you're saying that that's always required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3484.189], "stop_times": [3502.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3484.189}, "reply_to": "19847__3_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__3_038", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I'm sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3502.292], "stop_times": [3503.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3502.292}, "reply_to": "19847__3_037", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_039", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "It could be very simple.\nIt could be very simple, a telephone call, what's your point... what's your point of view.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3503.013, 3504.183, 3507.404], "stop_times": [3504.183, 3507.404, 3507.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3503.013}, "reply_to": "19847__3_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__3_040", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3507.845], "stop_times": [3508.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3507.845}, "reply_to": "19847__3_039", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_041", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--That's basically what you're arguing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3508.336], "stop_times": [3509.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3508.336}, "reply_to": "19847__3_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19847__3_042", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that is.\nWith respect to the Mallen case, since that has come up here, I do want to emphasize in my remaining moments that Mallen does not reach the issue that is presented here.\nMallen obviously turned on the Court's very real concern about there being an actual government interest that was going to be jeopardized, namely, public confidence in the banks, the concern about protecting bank depositors.\nThere was a congressional finding on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3509.698, 3510.637, 3522.985, 3537.415], "stop_times": [3510.637, 3522.985, 3537.415, 3540.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3509.698}, "reply_to": "19847__3_041", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_043", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Well, there's a much greater interest, of course, in assuring the public that their police officers are not indicted for felonies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3540.056], "stop_times": [3547.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3540.056}, "reply_to": "19847__3_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__3_044", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--There is a public interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3547.433], "stop_times": [3548.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3547.433}, "reply_to": "19847__3_043", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_045", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I think the policy is at least as great, if not significantly greater than in Mallen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3548.792], "stop_times": [3554.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3548.792}, "reply_to": "19847__3_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19847__3_046", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Your Honor, as the Solicitor General points out, that interest is addressed by removing the employee from his duties.\nIt does not follow from that, however, that the State has established an adequate justification to deprive that employee of his pay.\nThat is a separate matter, and those justifications that are asserted here by the government do not justify its summary deprivation of the employee's pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3554.007, 3561.911, 3569.785], "stop_times": [3561.911, 3569.785, 3579.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3554.007}, "reply_to": "19847__3_045", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_047", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Mr. O'Duden, is this something that a union could bargain about with the public employer, say, now we want to have a code.\nYou can suspend people, of course, but you have to have some kind of hearing before you take away their pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3579.753, 3586.596], "stop_times": [3586.596, 3592.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3579.753}, "reply_to": "19847__3_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__3_048", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Yes, and in fact the record here does show that the employee here did in fact grieve under the collective bargaining procedures his suspension, and that is yet another fact that belies the petitioner's last-minute argument here that this code is actually binding.\nWe think it's very clear, based on the undisputed record in this case, that this Governor's code was in no way binding on the petitioners.\nIt obviously wasn't binding on the decisionmakers, and the university's own rules of conduct, if I may make one final point, they provide that before a person is to be suspended, he is to be given an opportunity to be heard in his defense.\nThat again is in the recbrd of this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3592.91, 3609.002, 3617.898, 3635.389], "stop_times": [3609.002, 3617.898, 3635.389, 3637.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3592.91}, "reply_to": "19847__3_047", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_049", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "But if this is a bargainable subject, then I take it what you're asking for here is to say the Constitution takes care of it, the union doesn't have to bargain for it, so the union can bargain for other things, because the Constitution will require in every case some kind of hearing before pay is removed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3637.609], "stop_times": [3656.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3637.609}, "reply_to": "19847__3_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__3_050", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I follow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3656.543], "stop_times": [3660.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3656.543}, "reply_to": "19847__3_049", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_051", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "You answered my question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3660.374], "stop_times": [3661.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3660.374}, "reply_to": "19847__3_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__3_052", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3661.456], "stop_times": [3662.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3661.456}, "reply_to": "19847__3_051", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_053", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "--earlier that a union could bargain with a public employer not to take away people's pay without some kind of hearing.\nNow, what I'm saying to you is, if the Due Process Clause does that job, then the union doesn't have to bargain for it.\nIt can bargain for something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3662.077, 3672.152, 3679.217], "stop_times": [3672.152, 3679.217, 3680.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3662.077}, "reply_to": "19847__3_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19847__3_054", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "That's quite right.\nIt puts it in the position of being able to focus on whatever post-deprivation procedures may be warranted.\nIt would mean that it would not have to bargain for those pre-deprivation rights.\nThat is quite correct, Your Honor.\nUnless there are further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3680.679, 3681.39, 3687.094, 3692.207, 3693.248], "stop_times": [3681.39, 3687.094, 3692.207, 3693.248, 3696.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3680.679}, "reply_to": "19847__3_053", "speaker": "gregory_oduden"}
{"id": "19847__3_055", "conversation_id": "19847", "text": "Thank you, Mr. O'Duden.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-651", "start_times": [3696.03, 3697.65], "stop_times": [3697.65, 3698.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3696.03}, "reply_to": "19847__3_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__0_000", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1184, Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture v. Wileman Brothers and Elliott, Inc.--\nMr. Jenkins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [0.0, 9.507], "stop_times": [9.507, 10.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__0_001", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn this case, respondents' challenge on First Amendment grounds, payments toward advertising designed to promote the products that they offer for sale, whether they're measured under the integrated bar and union line of cases that we believe is appropriate, or under the Central Hudson test for restrictions on commercial speech, the generic advertising programs pass constitutional muster.\nIn our view, the regulatory framework at issue here is most analogous to the integrated bar and union context.\nThis Court has applied the Central Hudson test where Government has restricted or prohibited the dissemination of truthful commercial information, but the marketing order provisions at issue here do not ban, suppress, or restrict respondents' speech in any way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [10.228, 17.934, 37.956, 44.902], "stop_times": [17.934, 37.956, 44.902, 58.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.228}, "reply_to": "20092__0_000", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_002", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "May I ask a question at an early stage, Mr. Jenkins?\nI think you take the position here that you didn't... that the Government didn't argue that the Abood line or the union line cases wasn't argued in the Ninth Circuit because of the Cal-Almond decision in that court, but the administrative law judge suggests that the Government at least in that forum said that the Abood line didn't apply, and I'm just wondering if the Government has waived that, if we can't just assume that the Central Hudson test applies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [58.211, 63.002], "stop_times": [63.002, 104.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 58.211}, "reply_to": "20092__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_003", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [104.011], "stop_times": [105.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 104.011}, "reply_to": "20092__0_002", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_004", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--in light of the posture taken below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [105.071], "stop_times": [107.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.071}, "reply_to": "20092__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_005", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I don't think so, Justice O'Connor.\nIn fact, the Government has argued throughout this litigation that these programs satisfy both Central Hudson and the Abood line of cases.\nWe... pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [107.572, 109.315, 115.178], "stop_times": [109.315, 115.178, 116.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.572}, "reply_to": "20092__0_004", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_006", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But it does appear that the Government below chose not to urge the Abood line, took that tactic, and I don't know why we should address that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [116.717], "stop_times": [125.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 116.717}, "reply_to": "20092__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_007", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I disagree with that characterization of our position below.\nI believe that in our briefs in the district court in particular we argued expressly that the Abood standard was satisfied and that the Central Hudson test was satisfied.\nIt is true that we did not argue in the district court or in the court of appeals that that was the only appropriate test, but I do think that we've argued consistently that both tests are satisfied.\nIn the court of appeals, as you've said, it's true that we were laboring under the adverse precedent in Cal-Almond, where the Central Hudson test was applied, but we did refer to the Frame case from the Third Circuit, which did rely in part on Abood, so I think that argument is preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [125.043, 128.294, 136.69, 145.666], "stop_times": [128.294, 136.69, 145.666, 158.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.043}, "reply_to": "20092__0_006", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_008", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And both of those lines of cases, of course, deal with the First Amendment, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [158.965], "stop_times": [162.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.965}, "reply_to": "20092__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__0_009", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Quite so, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThat's certainly the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [162.539, 164.679], "stop_times": [164.679, 165.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.539}, "reply_to": "20092__0_008", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_010", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Jenkins, assuming that we apply one or the other test in a way that requires us to determine the value of the Government's interest, do you claim that the value of the Government's interest depends on a Government concern over and above that of the growers whose products they are advertising, or, on the other hand, do you claim that the Government's interest is essentially derivative, that it's important simply because the growers themselves want to do this, and that desire, that vote in fact on their part establishes its importance?\nWhich is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [165.701, 209.5], "stop_times": [209.5, 210.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 165.701}, "reply_to": "20092__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_011", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I think it's the latter, Justice Souter, but I think it's even broader than that.\nThe Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act expressly sets out the goals of that statute and of the marketing orders, which include establishing orderly market conditions for the covered commodities.\nCongress, as in the integrated bar context and as in the union context, has chose to leave in the first instance to the regulated industry the determination whether, in a particular region, as for a particular commodity, that interest is threatened, but we think that both the overwhelming support by the industry and the record in this case indicate that that interest was certainly implicated here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [210.1, 213.292, 222.547], "stop_times": [213.292, 222.547, 243.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.1}, "reply_to": "20092__0_010", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_012", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But the growers, as I understand it, do not vote in any narrow or specific sense as to whether the interest is threatened.\nThey simply vote as to whether they want the advertising program or not, isn't that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [243.43, 251.137], "stop_times": [251.137, 255.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.43}, "reply_to": "20092__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_013", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I think that's correct, Justice Souter, but that just is at the core of the Government's interest.\nWhere private industry and, I would add, the Secretary has to make a determination that private... that generic advertising would further... tend to further the interest of the act, that is because in a particular region, under a particular marketing order, the need exists.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [255.829, 261.863], "stop_times": [261.863, 274.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.829}, "reply_to": "20092__0_012", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_014", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Is that how you would explain the... what struck me, at least, as the peculiarity in this case that apparently there are, I guess, peach-growers, for example, in some 30 States, but the only ones who seem to have expressed a need for this advertising scheme are California peach-growers.\nIs the explanation for that that there simply has not been a demonstrated instability in markets elsewhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [274.633, 295.516], "stop_times": [295.516, 305.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 274.633}, "reply_to": "20092__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_015", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I think that's true, Justice Souter, but I'd also like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [305.01], "stop_times": [307.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.01}, "reply_to": "20092__0_014", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_016", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Does the record support that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [307.892], "stop_times": [309.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.892}, "reply_to": "20092__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_017", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--It does not, and let me make clear the way in which this act operates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [309.284], "stop_times": [314.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.284}, "reply_to": "20092__0_016", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_018", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Jenkins, before you do that may I ask you, I think a question that is of a similar basic kind?\nYou latch onto the Abood and Keller cases.\nWhat is the Government interest here that compares to the labor peace or the regulation of the bar?\nThat's what I don't understand.\nWhy is it so important that we have these orders?\nWhat purpose that compares with collective bargaining underlies all of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [314.025, 323.793, 329.587, 339.545, 345.238, 351.423], "stop_times": [323.793, 329.587, 339.545, 345.238, 351.423, 357.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.025}, "reply_to": "20092__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20092__0_019", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, as I've said, first the broader interest is in orderly market conditions.\nI think the legislative history of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, the 1954 legislative history of the adoption of promotional programs, and the record of the formal rulemaking that gave birth to the advertising provisions of the marketing orders indicate the economic hardship that results and the economic instability in the Nation as a whole that results when there's wide fluctuation of market prices, when particularly farmers but other elements of the industry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [357.506, 362.268], "stop_times": [362.268, 387.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.506}, "reply_to": "20092__0_018", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_020", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I could understand that if this was across the board, if you said there this compelling need, and so we do it for all agricultural commodities, but it seems to be rather haphazard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [387.487], "stop_times": [399.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.487}, "reply_to": "20092__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20092__0_021", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, I think that relates to my answer to Justice Souter's previous question, which is that taking, for example, that one of the proposed disparities is between California-grown peaches and Georgia-grown peaches... and I think it's important to look at the regulatory framework here, which is commodity-specific, and region-specific.\nTaking peaches as an example, first, California is responsible for the majority of peaches that wind up on people's shelves, but more importantly, between two different regions there are vast disparities in labor costs, in quality.\nThe length of the season in California is much longer.\nCalifornia-grown peaches have a Nationwide market, whereas Georgia-grown peaches are basically locally grown and consumed along the Eastern seaboard.\nThere are transportation costs that are different.\nThere are investment costs that are different.\nBut I think the particularized nature, commodity-specific nature and region-specific nature of these marketing orders reflects narrow tailoring rather than arbitrariness, but Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [399.161, 416.405, 428.733, 431.185, 438.627, 440.49, 441.64], "stop_times": [416.405, 428.733, 431.185, 438.627, 440.49, 441.64, 451.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.161}, "reply_to": "20092__0_020", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_022", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "How can it be narrow tailoring when the... when in effect the tailoring is done by a nongovernmental entity?\nI mean, the tailoring to which you are referring, market-specific, region-specific, is simply done by a vote of the people who are growing the peaches.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [451.928, 457.861], "stop_times": [457.861, 466.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.928}, "reply_to": "20092__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_023", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, that's not entirely true, Justice Souter, insofar as the marketing... the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act treats different commodities in different regions differently, but you're certainly correct that it's the industry in the first instance, a supermajority, two-thirds majority producers, that caused the marketing order to come into being.\nThat's because Congress I think reasonably has determined that people in the industry, operating day-to-day, are the best measure of need.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [466.728, 483.838], "stop_times": [483.838, 491.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.728}, "reply_to": "20092__0_022", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_024", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Jenkins--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [491.743], "stop_times": [492.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.743}, "reply_to": "20092__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_025", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [492.864], "stop_times": [493.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.864}, "reply_to": "20092__0_024", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_026", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--do we have to believe... this argument sounds like something time-warped out of the 1920's.\nThe thirties.\nOr the thirties.\n[Laughter]\nAnd this is a remnant of the National Industrial Recovery Act when this kind of an argument was made for every industry in the country, and indeed, they tried to have marketing, the equivalent of marketing orders for every industry in the country.\nIt was found not to be true and not to be effective.\nNow, do we have to believe it, that somehow it is effective for agricultural marketing orders, but having the Government in cooperation with the industry, the corporate State, it is called, in Italy, as an efficient mechanism for producing economic prosperity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [493.245, 497.907, 499.74, 499.877, 500.508, 515.438, 519.14], "stop_times": [497.907, 499.74, 499.877, 500.508, 515.438, 519.14, 534.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.245}, "reply_to": "20092__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_027", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I think so, Justice Scalia, for two reasons.\nFirst, as we've indicated in our brief at footnote 3, Congress since the court of appeals decision in this case has reaffirmed the importance of these programs and, in fact, expanded them and made significant factual findings regarding their importance, but... pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [534.341, 536.873], "stop_times": [536.873, 549.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.341}, "reply_to": "20092__0_026", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_028", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Just for agriculture.\nI mean, Congress hasn't done it for everything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [549.87, 550.09], "stop_times": [550.09, 552.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.87}, "reply_to": "20092__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_029", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Has not done it for every commodity, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [552.454], "stop_times": [554.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.454}, "reply_to": "20092__0_028", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_030", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I mean, it seems to express the belief that elsewhere that isn't true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [554.966], "stop_times": [556.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.966}, "reply_to": "20092__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_031", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I don't think so.\nAgain, if I can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [556.806, 558.965], "stop_times": [558.965, 559.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.806}, "reply_to": "20092__0_030", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_032", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That market disorder is okay.\nIndeed, it's what drives the market.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [559.506, 560.958], "stop_times": [560.958, 562.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.506}, "reply_to": "20092__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_033", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, no, Justice Scalia.\nI think the determination first is that there may not be significant market disorder and fluctuation in those industries where... private industry where producers have not felt a need to invoke the Government's aid, but if I can analogize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [562.288, 563.831], "stop_times": [563.831, 574.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.288}, "reply_to": "20092__0_032", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_034", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "They will invoke the Government's aid anywhere.\nWhere have they not felt the need to invoke the Government's aid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [574.897, 576.497], "stop_times": [576.497, 579.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.897}, "reply_to": "20092__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_035", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [579.78], "stop_times": [580.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.78}, "reply_to": "20092__0_034", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_036", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "They'll take the Government's aid wherever they can get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [580.301], "stop_times": [582.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.301}, "reply_to": "20092__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_037", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, I don't think so.\nFor example, there are a number of commodities for which marketing orders are authorized, but where the industry has not chosen to use them, to ask for them.\nIn plums, for example, in 1991 the California... the aspects of the marketing order that relate to plums were terminated because there was an industry-wide referendum and plum producers found that it was no longer important.\nBut if I could again analogize to the union context, not every workplace is unionized.\nIt's only where a majority of workers feel that a union will effectuate their interest and therefore Congress' interest in labor peace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [582.154, 583.072, 589.608, 600.052, 604.436], "stop_times": [583.072, 589.608, 600.052, 604.436, 610.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.154}, "reply_to": "20092__0_036", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_038", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, isn't it at least, or couldn't Congress find as a fact that in agriculture, at least since after the First World War, there's always been a problem.\nIf there's a good crop the prices are low, and if the prices are good, there's virtually no crop.\nIt's a totally different situation from most other kinds of marketed goods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [610.991, 620.539, 627.382], "stop_times": [620.539, 627.382, 632.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.991}, "reply_to": "20092__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__0_039", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "We think so, Mr. Chief Justice, and I think particularly as to these commodities that is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [632.604], "stop_times": [637.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.604}, "reply_to": "20092__0_038", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_040", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But that... that could justify the marketing orders, but it certainly doesn't support with any necessity the advertising.\nYou could have marketing orders and try to organize the market without any Government advertising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [637.359, 647.333], "stop_times": [647.333, 653.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.359}, "reply_to": "20092__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__0_041", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's certainly true as a technical matter, Your Honor, but it's also true that in adopting both... in adopting promotional programs Congress found, and in adopting these particular marketing order provisions the Secretary found that these... the ability to invoke generic advertising activities has a beneficial effect, and in fact directly advances--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [653.397], "stop_times": [673.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.397}, "reply_to": "20092__0_040", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_042", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "What is the test that you say we must apply to determine the validity of this provision requiring advertising?\nDo we have to find that there is a real, substantial harm, and that this is a provision that's narrowly tailored to eliminate it, or is the standard that's applied something far more deferential?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [673.653, 685.748], "stop_times": [685.748, 699.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.653}, "reply_to": "20092__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__0_043", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, Justice Kennedy, I think it is more deferential, but if I could set back for a moment, I think that if certainly this Court were to conclude that regulating these commodities and establishing orderly market conditions in terms of its effect on the national economy was a trivial interest, then the Government would lose in this case.\nI think there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [699.309, 715.609], "stop_times": [715.609, 716.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.309}, "reply_to": "20092__0_042", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_044", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Because speech is involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [716.36], "stop_times": [717.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.36}, "reply_to": "20092__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__0_045", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I'm sorry, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [717.321], "stop_times": [720.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.321}, "reply_to": "20092__0_044", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_046", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Because speech is involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [720.363], "stop_times": [721.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.363}, "reply_to": "20092__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__0_047", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, insofar as the First Amendment rights of handlers are affected, then there must be, I suppose, more than an irrational governmental interest, but I think there's no question that the interest here is substantial.\nIf... insofar as your question about what test should apply, we do think it's more deferential.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [721.412, 733.39], "stop_times": [733.39, 737.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.412}, "reply_to": "20092__0_046", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_048", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Jenkins--\n--Well, in a commercial speech context it seems to me that you don't have to establish a very clear governmental interest in order to prevail.\nIf it's simply commercial speech necessary to move a line of goods, isn't that the end of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [737.814, 739.705, 748.931], "stop_times": [739.705, 748.931, 754.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.814}, "reply_to": "20092__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__0_049", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, yes.\nThe Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [754.114, 755.786], "stop_times": [755.786, 756.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.114}, "reply_to": "20092__0_048", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_050", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "What is the case, the closest case that you have to suggest the proper standard that we should use here?\nWhich case, Turner Broadcasting, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [756.527, 763.92], "stop_times": [763.92, 767.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.527}, "reply_to": "20092__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__0_051", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--No, Your Honor,--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [767.463], "stop_times": [768.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.463}, "reply_to": "20092__0_050", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_052", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Or the Zauderer case?\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [768.593, 769.714], "stop_times": [769.714, 770.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.593}, "reply_to": "20092__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__0_053", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Zauderer, insofar as the Central Hudson test commercial speech analysis is applicable, Zauderer would probably be the closest case insofar as it involved the aspect of compelled disclosure of information, as distinguished from restrictions on speech, but we think that the speech interests in this case are attenuated in several respects, first because it's commercial speech, second because there's no restriction on respondent's ability to advertise in any respect, third because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [770.075], "stop_times": [797.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.075}, "reply_to": "20092__0_052", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_054", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, let me ask you about that.\nOne of respondents' complaints is that the 1989 advertising guide promoted a proprietary variety of nectarine, the Red Jim, which is grown exclusively by one of the growers, and a grower who does not want to lease or sell a royalty to that, so Red Jim is grown only by one grower.\nNow, do you defend that practice under the... under any test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [797.554, 799.445, 826.613], "stop_times": [799.445, 826.613, 831.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.554}, "reply_to": "20092__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_055", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Your Honor, we do, but let me first say that I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [831.736], "stop_times": [834.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.736}, "reply_to": "20092__0_054", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_056", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's amazing, that the Government could take money from everybody in the industry, every grower of peaches and nectarines, and advertise one grower's exclusive use to a patented fruit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [834.778], "stop_times": [849.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.778}, "reply_to": "20092__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_057", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, Justice O'Connor, if that were the dominant or even perhaps a plurality of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [849.045], "stop_times": [852.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.045}, "reply_to": "20092__0_056", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_058", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [852.709], "stop_times": [852.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.709}, "reply_to": "20092__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_059", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [852.929], "stop_times": [853.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.929}, "reply_to": "20092__0_058", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_060", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--do you defend the right of the Government to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [853.788], "stop_times": [855.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.788}, "reply_to": "20092__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_061", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Justice O'Connor, we would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [855.961], "stop_times": [857.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.961}, "reply_to": "20092__0_060", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_062", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Just answer that isolated question... under any test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [857.331], "stop_times": [861.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.331}, "reply_to": "20092__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_063", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I suppose my answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [861.886], "stop_times": [863.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.886}, "reply_to": "20092__0_062", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_064", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [863.656], "stop_times": [864.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.656}, "reply_to": "20092__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_065", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "We do not defend an overarching governmental goal of advertising a particular competitor's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [864.186], "stop_times": [868.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.186}, "reply_to": "20092__0_064", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_066", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But you say, if it happens once in a while it's okay.\nWe can overlook that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [868.769, 871.242], "stop_times": [871.242, 872.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.769}, "reply_to": "20092__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_067", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, Justice O'Connor, I think it's important to look... in our, in the Joint Appendix in Volume 2, at page 531, this is the varieties chart to which respondents were referring, and among the list of many, many varieties, there is included the Red Jim which, as you pointed out, is a proprietary variety--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [872.232], "stop_times": [889.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.232}, "reply_to": "20092__0_066", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_068", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [889.722], "stop_times": [890.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.722}, "reply_to": "20092__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_069", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--shipped by only one handler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [890.103], "stop_times": [891.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.103}, "reply_to": "20092__0_068", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_070", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [891.144], "stop_times": [891.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.144}, "reply_to": "20092__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_071", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Now, we think that this is an infinitesimal aspect of this program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [891.555], "stop_times": [895.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.555}, "reply_to": "20092__0_070", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_072", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "So you say if there are violations, they're de minimis, and so we can ignore them.\nIs that in a nutshell what you say there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [895.295, 900.351], "stop_times": [900.351, 902.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.295}, "reply_to": "20092__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_073", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's part of our argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [902.631], "stop_times": [903.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.631}, "reply_to": "20092__0_072", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_074", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Would you clarify one more thing for me?\nAssessments under this program run against the handlers, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [903.342, 905.433], "stop_times": [905.433, 910.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.342}, "reply_to": "20092__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_075", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [910.506], "stop_times": [910.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.506}, "reply_to": "20092__0_074", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_076", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Not the growers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [910.937], "stop_times": [911.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.937}, "reply_to": "20092__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_077", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [911.457], "stop_times": [911.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 911.457}, "reply_to": "20092__0_076", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_078", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Do the handlers pass it on to the growers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [911.838], "stop_times": [914.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.838}, "reply_to": "20092__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_079", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's the expectation of the way in which this program operates, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [914.138], "stop_times": [918.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 914.138}, "reply_to": "20092__0_078", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_080", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And who has to vote to terminate the program, the growers or the handlers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [918.113], "stop_times": [922.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.113}, "reply_to": "20092__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_081", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--The growers vote in the first instance to terminate.\nI would note, however, that in adopting the advertising provisions of this marketing order handlers also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [922.234, 924.527], "stop_times": [924.527, 929.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.234}, "reply_to": "20092__0_080", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_082", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "As well as the growers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [929.91], "stop_times": [931.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.91}, "reply_to": "20092__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_083", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [931.369], "stop_times": [931.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 931.369}, "reply_to": "20092__0_082", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_084", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "To set it in place in the first place, handlers and growers vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [931.8], "stop_times": [935.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.8}, "reply_to": "20092__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_085", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [935.793], "stop_times": [936.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.793}, "reply_to": "20092__0_084", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_086", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But to terminate it only growers vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [936.093], "stop_times": [938.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.093}, "reply_to": "20092__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_087", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's correct, and let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [938.165], "stop_times": [939.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.165}, "reply_to": "20092__0_086", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_088", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Have any of the growers asked for a vote on peaches and nectarines in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [939.036], "stop_times": [944.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.036}, "reply_to": "20092__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__0_089", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, in fact, Your Honor, there are periodic referenda, I believe every 4 years, and in the last referenda there was overwhelming support for this program, I believe between 75 and 83 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [944.529], "stop_times": [955.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.529}, "reply_to": "20092__0_088", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_090", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Jenkins, this relates to Justice O'Connor's question about the Big Jim, and--\n--Red Jim.\nRed Jim, I'm sorry.\n[Laughter]\nI don't know how I could have made that mistake.\nAnd ties it in to the Government's assertion that Abood governs here.\nLet me read you what I wrote in an opinion joined by Justices O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy in a case called Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association:\nWhat is distinctive, the opinion said, about the free riders who are nonunion members of the union's own bargaining unit, is that in some respects they are free riders whom the law requires the union to go out of its way to benefit even at the expense of its other interests.\nIn the labor union context, the union has a fiduciary obligation to every one of the employees, whether they're union members or not, and sometimes has to sacrifice its own interest to those obligations.\nThat is not the case as I understand this program.\nIt can be the case that advertising will benefit a mere majority of the handlers and severely impair the interests of a minority of members.\nYou don't assert that there is a fiduciary obligation here on the part of the organization, as there is with unions, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [955.076, 959.249, 960.488, 964.823, 961.991, 965.123, 969.117, 979.435, 998.425, 1013.465, 1016.608, 1028.635], "stop_times": [959.249, 960.488, 964.823, 961.991, 965.123, 969.117, 979.435, 998.425, 1013.465, 1016.608, 1028.635, 1035.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.076}, "reply_to": "20092__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_091", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "We don't, Justice Scalia, assert that there's something comparable to the duty of fair representation in this context, although that is similarly true in the integrated bar context, that there is no concomitant duty of fair representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1035.59], "stop_times": [1047.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.59}, "reply_to": "20092__0_090", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_092", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I think the bar is a special situation, and have always felt that, but as far as unions go, you have the distinctive fiduciary obligation.\nI just don't see how you can take Abood and apply it to this situation, where a majority can harm a minority's interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1047.99, 1058.025], "stop_times": [1058.025, 1065.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.99}, "reply_to": "20092__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_093", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, I also think that the majority cannot, as an overwhelming, either as a goal or as the effect harm the minority's interest.\nThere are significant safeguards in place, both regulatory and statutory, to ensure that there is not overwhelming harm or even significant harm to handlers as individuals.\nI'd also point out in the integrated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1065.091, 1073.726, 1083.621], "stop_times": [1073.726, 1083.621, 1085.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1065.091}, "reply_to": "20092__0_092", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_094", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Some of them here say they're being harmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1085.553], "stop_times": [1087.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.553}, "reply_to": "20092__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_095", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1087.415], "stop_times": [1088.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.415}, "reply_to": "20092__0_094", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_096", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Some of them here say they're being harmed, that the mere advertising of, generically, peaches harms them because they are trying to convince the public that all peaches are not fungible, that some kind of peaches are really good peaches, and their interests are harmed by any generic peach advertising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1088.917], "stop_times": [1104.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.917}, "reply_to": "20092__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_097", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But Justice Scalia, I don't see how that removes this from the Abood line of cases.\nIt's similarly true that if I'm an employee and I'm opposed to maternity leave, and the union nonetheless negotiates a maternity leave clause in our contract, I have no First Amendment right to prevent that.\nAlthough I feel that I'm being harmed and my, both my First Amendment interests, I feel, and my practical interests are being harmed, there's no violation of the duty of fair representation, nor is there a violation of the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1104.955, 1109.019, 1121.447], "stop_times": [1109.019, 1121.447, 1133.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.955}, "reply_to": "20092__0_096", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_098", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Jenkins, supposing there's such a thing as the Beer Institute, which is a private organization devoted to generic advertising for beer, and supposing some of its members feel that some of the micro breweries who aren't members are kind of free-riding on the generic, could the Beer Institute go to Congress and say, look, we want to have a kind of a marketing agreement and some generic advertising.\nWe want to bring these freeloaders on board, so let's assess everybody who produces any beer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1133.206, 1159.191], "stop_times": [1159.191, 1164.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.206}, "reply_to": "20092__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__0_099", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I think if it were, in fact, an important governmental interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1164.815], "stop_times": [1168.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.815}, "reply_to": "20092__0_098", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_100", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I'm sure the beer people would think it was. [Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1168.748], "stop_times": [1172.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.748}, "reply_to": "20092__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__0_101", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1172.389], "stop_times": [1173.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.389}, "reply_to": "20092__0_100", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_102", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "You think beer is less important than peaches?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1173.931, 1176.052], "stop_times": [1176.052, 1176.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.931}, "reply_to": "20092__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_103", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--No comment on that, but I do think that... of course, it's up to this Court to determine as a matter of law whether the interest that Congress in this case seeks to achieve is an important or a substantial one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1176.373], "stop_times": [1189.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.373}, "reply_to": "20092__0_102", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_104", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Jenkins, on that point, I understand the portion of these marketing orders that deals with inspection quality controls, and nobody is contesting that everybody can be required to pay for the cost of inspecting and assuring health and safety standards.\nBut the... whatever importance that interest has, does that spill over to, that advertising is an important interest?\nAren't these quite discrete, so one could say yes, the Government's got a very important interest to making sure that health requirements are met, but the advertising, the promotional interest doesn't have the same strength, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1189.102, 1206.392, 1215.979], "stop_times": [1206.392, 1215.979, 1230.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.102}, "reply_to": "20092__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20092__0_105", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I just have a two-part answer to that.\nFirst, I think that the other things that these marketing orders allow have to do with increasing consumption.\nThey're not safety and health regulations.\nThose are regulated through a different set of programs.\nSo the question is, if there's an adequate justification for those aspects, does the availability of generic marketing, generic advertising, also help to achieve that goal?\nThe question... pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1230.208, 1233.861, 1239.624, 1242.126, 1245.368, 1255.543], "stop_times": [1233.861, 1239.624, 1242.126, 1245.368, 1255.543, 1256.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.208}, "reply_to": "20092__0_104", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_106", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "It may also help, but does it have the same importance as maturity standards and the inspection controls?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1256.975], "stop_times": [1267.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.975}, "reply_to": "20092__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20092__0_107", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I think, Justice Ginsburg, under this Court's cases the question has not been, is the means toward the end as important, is one means as important as another, but first is the end important and then, secondly, does the means chosen advance the end, and so I think the record in this case does demonstrate that the end of orderly market conditions and sustained demand for these products is significantly advanced by the means that's chosen, including generic advertising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1267.613], "stop_times": [1292.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.613}, "reply_to": "20092__0_106", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_108", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But your argument is on that, as I understand it, that we have generally accepted the proposition that advertising induces people to buy what is advertised.\nI mean, do you... there's kind of an assumption as a matter of law that advertising works to some degree, and I will grant you that, but is that enough in a case like this, because it seems to me, number one, that advertise... the assumption that advertising works doesn't tell us very much about whether the advertising is creating or advancing an orderly market as opposed to a less orderly one, and it doesn't tell us very much about what the difference is between the effect of advertising either on consumption or orderly markets in California and the failure of advertising with respect to markets everywhere else.\nI guess to put the... my question in a nutshell, are the peach growers in the other, whatever it is, 29 States making less of a profit in a chaotic market as opposed to the California growers who, as a result of this advertising program, are making measurably more money in an orderly market?\nDo... does the record indicate that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1292.719, 1302.444, 1349.637, 1370.799], "stop_times": [1302.444, 1349.637, 1370.799, 1373.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1292.719}, "reply_to": "20092__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_109", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Justice Souter, let me answer the second part of your question first.\nYou asked earlier about the record.\nI think it's important to note that here the Government was defending a particular program, and so the record doesn't reflect, for example, why Georgia peaches are not regulated.\nAs I've indicated, there are reasons why different markets are treated differently, but the record doesn't reflect it because in our view our burden is to demonstrate that this program satisfies constitutional requirements, and we think that the evidence amply demonstrates first that advertising, generic advertising programs advance the interest of consumer demand for these products, and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1373.511, 1376.185, 1377.534, 1385.248], "stop_times": [1376.185, 1377.534, 1385.248, 1406.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.511}, "reply_to": "20092__0_108", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_110", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "It makes consumers buy them, is what you mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1406.453], "stop_times": [1408.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1406.453}, "reply_to": "20092__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_111", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1408.964], "stop_times": [1409.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1408.964}, "reply_to": "20092__0_110", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_112", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1409.765], "stop_times": [1410.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.765}, "reply_to": "20092__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_113", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And both of the courts below found that, and that secondly, viewed in the context of this act, it provides the Secretary and the commodity committees with a tool for influencing consumer preferences, and I think it's the inevitable... the conclusion is inevitable that that aids in regulating market conditions.\nIf the Secretary... insofar as the Secretary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1410.085, 1425.796], "stop_times": [1425.796, 1428.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1410.085}, "reply_to": "20092__0_112", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_114", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, I... it regulates only in the sense that it... we will assume that it creates some demand that would not have been there otherwise.\nBut when we're faced with a situation in which there are in fact contrasting markets, and we want to know, even under a comparatively relaxed standard, what the causal connection is between the advertising and orderly markets, it seems to me sensible to look at the markets where the advertising isn't going on to see if they are depressed or disorderly, and I take it we cannot do that in this case, because the record just doesn't tell us anything about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1428.248, 1435.752], "stop_times": [1435.752, 1464.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.248}, "reply_to": "20092__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_115", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I think that's generally correct, but I would also note--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1464.732], "stop_times": [1467.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.732}, "reply_to": "20092__0_114", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_116", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Isn't it fair to say... and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1467.862, 1470.574], "stop_times": [1470.574, 1471.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.862}, "reply_to": "20092__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_117", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, I was just going to say it's also the case that these markets are very different, so that if there is sufficient demand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1471.315], "stop_times": [1476.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.315}, "reply_to": "20092__0_116", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_118", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But how do we know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1476.35], "stop_times": [1477.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1476.35}, "reply_to": "20092__0_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__0_119", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--We don't, Justice Souter, but as I've said, I don't think we need to know that in order to answer the question that's at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1477.8], "stop_times": [1483.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1477.8}, "reply_to": "20092__0_118", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_120", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Jenkins--\n--So you're saying... I'm sorry.\nTo take a specific case, in this record there's nothing like there was in the case before the Third Circuit, the meat case, where the Court said, well, we can understand... the Government has made a case that this industry is in disastrous shape, but there's nothing of that kind here, that the peach and nectarine industry is about to fall apart, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1483.844, 1484.645, 1485.704], "stop_times": [1484.645, 1485.704, 1505.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.844}, "reply_to": "20092__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20092__0_121", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think the record in the Frame case was quite similar, but the program was somewhat different.\nThe beef program focuses almost exclusively on promotional programs and advertising, and so insofar as Congress perceived a problem and the only thing it did about it was to create promotional advertising programs, the Third Circuit concluded correctly, we think, that there was a problem existing that Congress sought to address.\nHere, Congress has used a larger number of tools, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1505.549, 1510.521, 1527.101], "stop_times": [1510.521, 1527.101, 1531.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.549}, "reply_to": "20092__0_120", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_122", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Am I wrong in having the impression that Congress made a determination with respect to the state of the meat market and said we have to respond to that terrible situation, and there were no such findings by the legislature here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1531.125], "stop_times": [1546.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.125}, "reply_to": "20092__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20092__0_123", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I think with respect, Justice Ginsburg, that's incorrect.\nI think the district court in particular made findings as to the type of problem that Congress was trying to get at, and in fact cites the Congressional Record indicating that there were in fact gluts of supply, that there was suppressed demand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1546.054, 1548.686], "stop_times": [1548.686, 1560.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1546.054}, "reply_to": "20092__0_122", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_124", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But the question is whether Congress made the findings, not whether the district court did.\nDid Congress make the findings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1560.193, 1563.855], "stop_times": [1563.855, 1565.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.193}, "reply_to": "20092__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_125", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Congress was citing... pardon me.\nThe district court was citing Congress' findings, but let me be clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1565.047, 1566.848], "stop_times": [1566.848, 1569.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1565.047}, "reply_to": "20092__0_124", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_126", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Citing the findings, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1569.78], "stop_times": [1570.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.78}, "reply_to": "20092__0_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_127", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Was citing the Congressional Record reports, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1570.881], "stop_times": [1574.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1570.881}, "reply_to": "20092__0_126", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_128", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Statements by... not the whole Congress, but by some individual Members of Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1574.703], "stop_times": [1579.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.703}, "reply_to": "20092__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_129", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Some were from reports--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1579.855], "stop_times": [1580.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1579.855}, "reply_to": "20092__0_128", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_130", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Committee reports?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1580.846], "stop_times": [1581.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.846}, "reply_to": "20092__0_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_131", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1581.738], "stop_times": [1582.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1581.738}, "reply_to": "20092__0_130", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_132", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But there was no congressional finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1582.298], "stop_times": [1584.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.298}, "reply_to": "20092__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__0_133", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think in the act itself there's a congressional finding that programs are necessary, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1584.66], "stop_times": [1590.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1584.66}, "reply_to": "20092__0_132", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_134", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Programs, but is there anything... are you telling me that the record from Congress is comparable, that there was no more that Congress said about the meat industry than it said about the fruit industry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1590.674], "stop_times": [1603.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.674}, "reply_to": "20092__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20092__0_135", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I think it is comparable, but I want to be specific, because I don't want to mislead the Court.\nCongress made findings both in 1937, when it adopted the act, and then in 1954, when it added promotional programs, not advertising specifically.\nIt... Congress subsequently added advertising as among the promotional programs, and we think Congress was not required to make additional findings, as when it had already indicated what it found promotional programs to accomplish.\nIt's also true that in the formal rulemaking by the Secretary the record, when the advertising specifically was adopted, their extensive findings... in fact, even the court of appeals found that there were extensive findings in rejecting respondent's APA challenge, that this type of advertising did effectuate the goals of the act.\nThat's a statutory requirement.\nIf I could, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1603.951, 1607.353, 1615.429, 1627.777, 1643.127, 1644.937], "stop_times": [1607.353, 1615.429, 1627.777, 1643.127, 1644.937, 1647.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1603.951}, "reply_to": "20092__0_134", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__0_136", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Very well, Mr. Jenkins.\nMr. Campagne, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1647.641, 1649.392], "stop_times": [1649.392, 1651.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.641}, "reply_to": "20092__0_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__1_000", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think there's one thing everybody's missing, and that is, what is the problem?\nWhat is the problem with peaches, plums, and nectarines in California that's any different than the other 32 States that grow these commodities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1651.302, 1661.54, 1666.943], "stop_times": [1661.54, 1666.943, 1675.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.302}, "reply_to": "20092__0_136", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_001", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Disorderly markets are the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1675.579], "stop_times": [1678.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.579}, "reply_to": "20092__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_002", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, the Solicitor, in answering your question in that regard, I believe misspoke.\nHe indicated that there was a finding that there was disorderly markets--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1678.221, 1687.026], "stop_times": [1687.026, 1691.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1678.221}, "reply_to": "20092__1_001", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_003", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1691.64], "stop_times": [1692.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.64}, "reply_to": "20092__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_004", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--and he cites the 1954 act, which doesn't deal with that subject whatsoever.\nThe way the promulgation records show here... because we have an unusual situation that Justice O'Connor spoke about in the Community Nutrition case, where we file a 15(a) petition.\nWe sue before an ALJ employed by the Secretary of Agriculture.\nShe gave the Government every opportunity possible... as a matter of fact, they stipulated that Exhibit 297, and they made that stipulation at Stipulation Number 57... I'm sorry, 59, that that was the exclusive rulemaking record.\nWhen the district court relied on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1692.268, 1695.892, 1706.82, 1711.393, 1730.333], "stop_times": [1695.892, 1706.82, 1711.393, 1730.333, 1732.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.268}, "reply_to": "20092__1_003", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_005", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Just a minute, Mr. Campagne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1732.155], "stop_times": [1733.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.155}, "reply_to": "20092__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__1_006", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1733.365], "stop_times": [1733.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1733.365}, "reply_to": "20092__1_005", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_007", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That isn't terribly helpful to simply hold up a brief and say that Stipulation Number 59... we don't know what... if you want to make a point, make it so that we can all understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1733.636], "stop_times": [1742.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.636}, "reply_to": "20092__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__1_008", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Very well, Your Honor.\nIn that stipulation the administrative law judge said, I've got a problem.\nI don't understand what some of you are expressing in your questions.\nI want to give you every opportunity to show me that there's disorderly marketing going on in California but not in the other 32 States, and the stipulation that was entered into is that the USDA relies on Exhibit 297.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1742.602, 1743.413, 1749.477, 1754.68], "stop_times": [1743.413, 1749.477, 1754.68, 1771.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.602}, "reply_to": "20092__1_007", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_009", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Where is that?\nCan we find it in something that we have before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1771.052, 1771.891], "stop_times": [1771.891, 1773.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.052}, "reply_to": "20092__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_010", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes.\nIt's page 134a of our appendix to our opposition to the petition, Your Honor.\nIn there, they actually stipulate that the Government relies solely and exclusively on Exhibit 297, and I'm paraphrasing, as being the entire rulemaking record regarding the implementation of the advertising program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1773.683, 1773.864, 1782.98], "stop_times": [1773.864, 1782.98, 1801.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.683}, "reply_to": "20092__1_009", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_011", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "It doesn't say exclusively in what I'm reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1801.27], "stop_times": [1804.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.27}, "reply_to": "20092__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__1_012", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "It says, as being the entire rulemaking record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1804.101], "stop_times": [1808.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.101}, "reply_to": "20092__1_011", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_013", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Oh, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1808.656], "stop_times": [1809.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.656}, "reply_to": "20092__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__1_014", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--on the third line, Your Honor, regarding the implementation of the advertising record with respect to peaches, plums, and nectarines which occurred approximately 6 years after the act was amended.\nThe next--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1809.497, 1821.545], "stop_times": [1821.545, 1823.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.497}, "reply_to": "20092__1_013", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_015", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Campagne, can I ask you a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1823.916], "stop_times": [1825.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.916}, "reply_to": "20092__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_016", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1825.646], "stop_times": [1825.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.646}, "reply_to": "20092__1_015", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_017", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "We basically have a constitutional question here, and there are an awful lot of details floating around.\nWould it make any difference, as a matter of constitutional law, if Congress had made a finding that this particular market had particular problems that justified this kind of group advertising program?\nWould you still have the same constitutional argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1825.866, 1829.76, 1840.927], "stop_times": [1829.76, 1840.927, 1844.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.866}, "reply_to": "20092__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_018", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "It would make a huge difference, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1844.468], "stop_times": [1847.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.468}, "reply_to": "20092__1_017", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_019", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "You do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1847.061], "stop_times": [1847.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.061}, "reply_to": "20092__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_020", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "They would have an easier time with Central Hudson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1847.321], "stop_times": [1849.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.321}, "reply_to": "20092__1_019", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_021", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "So you're not saying this sort of program is always unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1849.462], "stop_times": [1852.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.462}, "reply_to": "20092__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_022", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nDespite what the Wall Street Journal said last week, we're not saying that the beef program has to be thrown out or the milk program has to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1852.864, 1853.585], "stop_times": [1853.585, 1860.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1852.864}, "reply_to": "20092__1_021", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_023", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Why can't Congress leave those findings to be made by the Secretary?\nCongress does that all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1860.19, 1863.453], "stop_times": [1863.453, 1865.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.19}, "reply_to": "20092__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_024", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--But in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1865.183], "stop_times": [1866.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.183}, "reply_to": "20092__1_023", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_025", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Establishes a basic framework for a program and says if an executive officer finds a certain situation to exist, he can take certain actions.\nThey do that all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1866.653, 1873.347], "stop_times": [1873.347, 1874.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.653}, "reply_to": "20092__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_026", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--In this case, Your Honor, I don't need to address that issue, although--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1874.689], "stop_times": [1879.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.689}, "reply_to": "20092__1_025", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_027", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Sure you do.\nI just asked you about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1879.733, 1880.133], "stop_times": [1880.133, 1880.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.733}, "reply_to": "20092__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_028", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Oh, I'm sorry.\nOf course Congress can delegate its legislative authority, despite Carter v. Cole, because of the subsequent cases, to the Secretary of Agriculture, but he didn't do that in this case, Your Honor.\nThe 1954 act that the Solicitor was referring to was the post Korea act.\nIt didn't have anything to do with advertising.\nThe advertising act, that's 608(c)(6)(I), was a... came into existence in 1965.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1880.664, 1881.112, 1891.44, 1897.123, 1899.514], "stop_times": [1881.112, 1891.44, 1897.123, 1899.514, 1908.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.664}, "reply_to": "20092__1_027", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_029", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, in connection with that, Mr. Campagne, you don't have to attack here the various health inspection provisions, the pro rata provisions, that sort of thing, and I take it you're not challenging the basic congressional authority to enact something like that.\nYou're simply trying to separate out the advertising provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1908.961, 1924.572], "stop_times": [1924.572, 1927.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.961}, "reply_to": "20092__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__1_030", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe're assessed on average 19 cents a carton.\nNine cents goes for quality control and inspection.\nWe have no problem with that.\nFifty-three percent... that is, 10 percent... goes to generic advertising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1927.954, 1928.523, 1931.277, 1934.777, 1936.079], "stop_times": [1928.523, 1931.277, 1934.777, 1936.079, 1940.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1927.954}, "reply_to": "20092__1_029", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_031", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, what is the difference between... you say what is the problem.\nThere's a regulatory problem.\nIf you think this program is unjustified I guess you can go to the courts and say, it's arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, and get it thrown out, right?\nAll right.\nWe're talking about the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1940.651, 1944.414, 1948.498, 1957.444, 1957.915], "stop_times": [1944.414, 1948.498, 1957.444, 1957.915, 1959.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.651}, "reply_to": "20092__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20092__1_032", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1959.387], "stop_times": [1960.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.387}, "reply_to": "20092__1_031", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_033", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "So what is the First Amendment problem that your client has that wouldn't be shared by anybody who used to fly on the airlines and had to pay money in part for messages that they might have disagreed with that would have been spent by the Air Transport Association required by the Civil Aeronautics Board, or exactly the same thing in the utilities industry, or the trucking industry, or any taxpayer who pays taxes which then is spent by the Government on messages they disagree with?\nIn other words, what's the First Amendment interest here that isn't shared in thousands of regulatory situations by millions of members of the public whose money the Government often takes to spend, or have other private people spend, on messages that they might not want to pay for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [1960.496, 1989.597], "stop_times": [1989.597, 2009.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.496}, "reply_to": "20092__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20092__1_034", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Your Honor, we would have no objection whatsoever if the Secretary of Agriculture was taking money out of the General Treasury and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2009.91], "stop_times": [2018.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.91}, "reply_to": "20092__1_033", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_035", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "No, no, they didn't... I'm saying the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission... I mean, I thought the Constitution would permit the public, mistaken or not, to have regulatory systems to regulate every industry, perhaps, if they wanted to, to have a nonfree enterprise system perhaps if they didn't want to.\nI don't know.\nI thought those were basically democratic questions.\nBut if we have a system where the industry is regulated, I'm asking what is the First Amendment interest that is different from the same First Amendment interest of every flier, every customer of a trucker, every customer of a utility... I'm just repeating myself, but it seems to me that there are vast numbers of consumers who used to have to spend lots of money they didn't want to spend for messages that regulators would either permit or require.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2018.265, 2037.156, 2038.167, 2041.1], "stop_times": [2037.156, 2038.167, 2041.1, 2074.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.265}, "reply_to": "20092__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20092__1_036", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--The First Amendment issue, Your Honor, is two-pronged.\nFirst of all, they're forcing us to associate with our competitors, and it's not like the milk board, where milk is white and wet, and so the milk board doesn't have much opportunity to prefer one product over another.\nWhen you buy milk, you don't know if it's a Jersey or a Guernsey milk you're drinking, whereas in our commodity, we have over 100 varieties of plums.\nMy clients happen to grow some green plums.\nIf I tell you today--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2074.581, 2078.475, 2092.053, 2099.21, 2102.869], "stop_times": [2078.475, 2092.053, 2099.21, 2102.869, 2105.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.581}, "reply_to": "20092__1_035", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_037", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well then, you would point out, I suppose, that you're not objecting to expenditure of money for advertising or for any other purpose by the Government.\nThe United States doesn't contend in this case that these are Government expenditures, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2105.002, 2113.447], "stop_times": [2113.447, 2117.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.002}, "reply_to": "20092__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20092__1_038", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--No.\nIn their footnote, Your Honor, they admit this is not Government speech, although one of their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2117.459, 2118.07], "stop_times": [2118.07, 2122.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.459}, "reply_to": "20092__1_037", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_039", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "So it's not Government speech, which would pose a different issue, so we can get rid of a whole lot of those regulatory programs that Justice Breyer was referring to, and only limit ourselves to those in which a privately run organization spends money that is assessed against competitors.\nNamely, all of the programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2122.043, 2138.664], "stop_times": [2138.664, 2140.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.043}, "reply_to": "20092__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_040", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--But the point I was trying to make, Your Honor, here we have absolutely no studies whatsoever.\nWhen the act was amended in 1965 it was done by one letter, one letter from the Secretary to Congress that said, I would like to implement advertising because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2140.046, 2145.408], "stop_times": [2145.408, 2156.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.046}, "reply_to": "20092__1_039", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_041", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "It seems to me your argument is they did a lousy job here, but if they'd done a good job, it would be constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2156.475], "stop_times": [2162.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.475}, "reply_to": "20092__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_042", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--If they could meet the Central Hudson test, which was the test they stipulated to before the Ninth Circuit in Cal-Almond--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2162.59], "stop_times": [2170.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.59}, "reply_to": "20092__1_041", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_043", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes, but we're not bound by that.\nWhy a Central Hudson test, where in fact in Central Hudson and the other speech cases that seem relevant there was a problem with a person having attributed to him a view that he really didn't hold, and moreover an important view, and a political view, and a view of conscience.\nIs there anything like a political view, a view of conscience, an important, critical view that the public would think that your client held because of these messages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2170.875, 2172.237, 2190.177], "stop_times": [2172.237, 2190.177, 2200.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.875}, "reply_to": "20092__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_044", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2200.964], "stop_times": [2201.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.964}, "reply_to": "20092__1_043", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_045", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2201.575], "stop_times": [2201.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.575}, "reply_to": "20092__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_046", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Some of our clients testified they don't sponsor lying.\nThey believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2201.886, 2205.378], "stop_times": [2205.378, 2206.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2201.886}, "reply_to": "20092__1_045", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_047", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "They don't sponsor what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2206.347], "stop_times": [2207.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.347}, "reply_to": "20092__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_048", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Lying.\nMisleading the public.\nThe generic advertising program is that a California peach is better than a Georgia peach or a South Carolina peach, which together add up to the same amount of volume we have.\nWe say that's not true.\nThere's over 100 varieties, and if you grow that variety in South Carolina it's going to taste the same as that variety tastes in California.\nIt's a lie.\nAnother one of our clients testified that he really resents the sexual subliminal messages of the advertising board.\nHe happens to be on a hospital board that deals with abuse of children.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2207.219, 2208.17, 2209.38, 2218.346, 2219.618, 2225.44, 2225.891, 2235.275, 2240.281], "stop_times": [2208.17, 2209.38, 2218.346, 2219.618, 2225.44, 2225.891, 2235.275, 2240.281, 2243.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.219}, "reply_to": "20092__1_047", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_049", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Is that the picture of this little girl running in a sprinkler eating a nectarine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2243.082], "stop_times": [2246.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.082}, "reply_to": "20092__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20092__1_050", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--And the radio that says so juicy, so sweet, a radio advertisement right afterwards that says eating a peach reminds you of your first kiss in the back seat of your car.\nHe has an ideological problem with that, but more importantly, they're sending a subliminal message that red is better.\nNow, if I ask each one of you to buy some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2246.805, 2257.752, 2265.165], "stop_times": [2257.752, 2265.165, 2268.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.805}, "reply_to": "20092__1_049", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_051", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, there's nothing in words to that effect in the ads, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2268.057], "stop_times": [2272.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.057}, "reply_to": "20092__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_052", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIt's the depiction, the subliminal message that red is better, and some of these varieties, not only the Red Jim that you mentioned--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2272.681, 2273.611], "stop_times": [2273.611, 2280.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.681}, "reply_to": "20092__1_051", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_053", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, would you be here at all if the advertising were in fact generic advertising for California fruit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2280.726], "stop_times": [2290.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.726}, "reply_to": "20092__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_054", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, first of all they'd have to define to me, Your Honor, in some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2290.874], "stop_times": [2294.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.874}, "reply_to": "20092__1_053", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_055", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Or is there some problem here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2294.865], "stop_times": [2296.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.865}, "reply_to": "20092__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_056", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--what the problem... that's the point, exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2296.558], "stop_times": [2299.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.558}, "reply_to": "20092__1_055", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_057", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2299.369], "stop_times": [2299.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.369}, "reply_to": "20092__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_058", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I don't know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2299.74], "stop_times": [2300.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.74}, "reply_to": "20092__1_057", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_059", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I'm trying to understand what it is you say causes or results in a First Amendment violation here.\nIt is not clear to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2300.609, 2310.115], "stop_times": [2310.115, 2311.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.609}, "reply_to": "20092__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_060", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--They take almost a million dollars a year, give it to my competitors to advertise 15 varieties of fruit we don't grow, and force us to associate with our competitors in a manner--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2311.366], "stop_times": [2323.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2311.366}, "reply_to": "20092__1_059", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_061", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Don't you represent handlers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2323.483], "stop_times": [2325.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.483}, "reply_to": "20092__1_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_062", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I represent handlers/shippers, but there's a big distinction, Your Honor.\nMy handlers are growers who handle their own fruit.\nThe handlers that run the committee are growers who... are handlers who primarily ship fruit grown by other people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2325.506, 2328.988, 2333.731], "stop_times": [2328.988, 2333.731, 2343.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.506}, "reply_to": "20092__1_061", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_063", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, of course, you're forced to associate, using your term, by the terms of the marketing order anyway.\nIf there were no promotional advertising you'd be \"forced to associate\".\nSo what we have here is a program that I think, insofar as its regulatory mechanisms other than promotion, is clearly lawful and valid and constitutional, and it seems to me that you're building on that base.\nOnce you have in place a marketing order, a marketing system, it seems to me logical that that marketing entity engage in generic advertising.\nI don't see why the advertising suddenly causes a forced association problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2343.188, 2350.721, 2357.125, 2374.336, 2385.365], "stop_times": [2350.721, 2357.125, 2374.336, 2385.365, 2393.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.188}, "reply_to": "20092__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_064", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Because what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2393.801], "stop_times": [2394.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.801}, "reply_to": "20092__1_063", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_065", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "You're already associated, whether you like it or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2394.532], "stop_times": [2397.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.532}, "reply_to": "20092__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_066", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--In 1959, when they promulgated marketing orders for quality control there was no problem.\nWe had no objection to that.\nBut when they moved in 1971 for a legislative amendment and in 1975 and 1976 actually adopted it, with no rulemaking record of Congress at all, and then made it discretionary so that annually the Secretary of Agriculture annually is supposed to be deciding whether to advertise, how much money to advertise, is there a problem in California that's different in other States... he didn't do any of that.\nActually, no notice and comment through 1986 harvest, a few months before my trial started.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2397.513, 2404.807, 2405.919, 2434.316], "stop_times": [2404.807, 2405.919, 2434.316, 2440.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.513}, "reply_to": "20092__1_065", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_067", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I didn't know you were here on some APA claim.\nI thought what we had before us was a First Amendment claim, and I haven't heard a response yet as to what specific problem you have that triggers the First Amendment.\nAre you relying on the fact that there are assessments made, and you have less money to advertise on your own?\nIs that part of your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2440.791, 2443.312, 2453.951, 2461.414], "stop_times": [2443.312, 2453.951, 2461.414, 2462.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.791}, "reply_to": "20092__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_068", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "That's absolutely what I was trying to express, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2462.964], "stop_times": [2465.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2462.964}, "reply_to": "20092__1_067", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_069", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, that's odd, because I thought that there isn't much difference between an assessment or any other fee or tax that Government might take, which necessarily, of course, limits your funds for advertising.\nYou have less money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2465.906, 2479.496], "stop_times": [2479.496, 2480.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.906}, "reply_to": "20092__1_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_070", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes, but, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2480.606], "stop_times": [2482.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.606}, "reply_to": "20092__1_069", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_071", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Do you cite a case from this Court to support you on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2482.148], "stop_times": [2485.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.148}, "reply_to": "20092__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_072", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Yes, PG&E, and that is that you're taking our money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2485.351], "stop_times": [2488.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2485.351}, "reply_to": "20092__1_071", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_073", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "PG&E.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2488.683], "stop_times": [2489.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.683}, "reply_to": "20092__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_074", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2489.634], "stop_times": [2489.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.634}, "reply_to": "20092__1_073", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_075", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Do you have a citation for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2489.743], "stop_times": [2491.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.743}, "reply_to": "20092__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_076", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nPG&E v. PUC of California, cited in our merits brief.\nThat's the case, Your Honor, where you struck a rule that required PG&E to promulgate the messages in their own envelopes to others, and the reason this Court struck it is that it stated it would require PG&E to respond when they might not otherwise want to speak, and that's exactly what goes on here.\nWe give almost a million dollars a year, of which 53 percent is devoted to generic collective advertising, to our competitors who grow fruit we don't grow, primarily, and then when we do have a little bit of money left over and try to advertise our own brands, we have to spend a lot of it trying to change the minds of the consumer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2491.085, 2491.345, 2498.948, 2526.858], "stop_times": [2491.345, 2498.948, 2526.858, 2549.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.085}, "reply_to": "20092__1_075", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_077", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Do you say that your growers do not... that your clients do not grow peaches or nectarines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2549.181], "stop_times": [2555.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.181}, "reply_to": "20092__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_078", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Our clients grow peaches, plums, and nectarines, but there's over 100 varieties of each peach, plum, and nectarine, unlike beef and unlike milk, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2555.936], "stop_times": [2566.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.936}, "reply_to": "20092__1_077", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_079", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "You don't believe that all California peaches are the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2566.663], "stop_times": [2569.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.663}, "reply_to": "20092__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_080", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2569.204], "stop_times": [2570.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.204}, "reply_to": "20092__1_079", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_081", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And that is the message that this advertising conveys to the public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2570.586], "stop_times": [2574.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.586}, "reply_to": "20092__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_082", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2574.569], "stop_times": [2575.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.569}, "reply_to": "20092__1_081", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_083", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "So they're conveying precisely the message that you want to counter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2575.588], "stop_times": [2579.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.588}, "reply_to": "20092__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_084", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "They're conveying... exactly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2579.06], "stop_times": [2582.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2579.06}, "reply_to": "20092__1_083", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_085", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And your associational objection, as I take it, is not an objection to simply being regulated with everybody else, associated on that basis, but rather the objection of being presented to the public as in league with everybody else: All us California peach-growers are the same.\nCalifornia peaches are California peaches, and California peach-growers are California peach-growers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2582.273, 2601.286], "stop_times": [2601.286, 2607.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.273}, "reply_to": "20092__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_086", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Exactly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2607.589], "stop_times": [2608.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.589}, "reply_to": "20092__1_085", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_087", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "You don't like some of these other peach-growers, do you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2608.871, 2610.511], "stop_times": [2610.511, 2610.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.871}, "reply_to": "20092__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_088", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "We want you to buy our yellow nectarines and not their red nectarines.\nThey taste better.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2610.731, 2616.498], "stop_times": [2616.498, 2616.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.731}, "reply_to": "20092__1_087", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_089", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr. Campagne--\n--May I ask you, if this were a homogenous product, you then would not have a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2616.824, 2618.527], "stop_times": [2618.527, 2622.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.824}, "reply_to": "20092__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_090", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "It would be... that's correct, Your Honor.\nIt would be much--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2622.308, 2626.512], "stop_times": [2626.512, 2627.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.308}, "reply_to": "20092__1_089", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_091", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And if the advertising was limited to those features of the California peaches that were, in fact, common to all California peaches, you would not have a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2627.133], "stop_times": [2636.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.133}, "reply_to": "20092__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_092", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--If they could establish that California had a problem which the Government had an interest in solving, but there is no record whatsoever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2636.64], "stop_times": [2645.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.64}, "reply_to": "20092__1_091", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_093", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, assume they could do that.\nAssume they could establish that the Secretary of Agriculture is convinced that we ought to sell more California peaches, and that therefore they ought to have a program that advertises the features of California peaches that all California peaches share.\nWould that be permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2645.826, 2646.785, 2662.035], "stop_times": [2646.785, 2662.035, 2663.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.826}, "reply_to": "20092__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_094", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I believe, Your Honor, that the answer would be yes if there was only one variety of peaches and it was grown in 33 States, and for some reason California's economic environment was in imminent danger of collapse, and no other States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2663.708], "stop_times": [2677.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.708}, "reply_to": "20092__1_093", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_095", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, it doesn't have to be in collapse, does it?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2677.085, 2678.656], "stop_times": [2678.656, 2678.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.085}, "reply_to": "20092__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_096", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, in Frame they stipulated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2678.976], "stop_times": [2681.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.976}, "reply_to": "20092__1_095", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_097", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I mean, they've got all sorts of marketing orders where the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2681.347], "stop_times": [2682.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.347}, "reply_to": "20092__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_098", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--that the meat industry was in imminent danger of collapse and they assessed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2682.839], "stop_times": [2688.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.839}, "reply_to": "20092__1_097", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_099", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Are you saying that that's the bottom line that they must show?\nIt's a question I asked Mr. Jenkins about and he said no, that Frame is just like this case, but I couldn't grasp from your brief whether you were saying this... none of this forced advertising can be justified unless there's some compelling need shown in the particular industry.\nThat was one argument that you made.\nAnd then you sort of had another argument that said, well, they don't give us credit for our own advertising, and they're advertising some varieties that belong to particular members of the committee.\nSo which is it?\nAre you saying none of this is any good, or some of it may be good but some isn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2688.023, 2690.954, 2714.9, 2718.232, 2730.26, 2731.8], "stop_times": [2690.954, 2714.9, 2718.232, 2730.26, 2731.8, 2739.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.023}, "reply_to": "20092__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20092__1_100", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--We're saying both, Your Honor.\nWe're saying first, if you want to force me to associate with my competitors when we're head-on competing, that I want you to buy my yellow nectarines and not your red nectarines, and you're giving my money to the person who grows those red nectarines, you've got to show a problem that requires a governmental compelling interest to solve under association rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2739.266, 2740.805], "stop_times": [2740.805, 2762.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.266}, "reply_to": "20092__1_099", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_101", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But may I interrupt again, Mr. Campagne?\nSupposing that you agree that if the advertising were restricted to common features of California peaches, and there was an adequate justification... the industry is having all sorts of troubles.\nPeople are buying bananas instead of peaches... and the advertising was restricted, I think you'd say that would be okay, but you're complaining because they advertise features of the peaches that are unique to some varieties and not shared by all the others.\nNow, supposing 97 percent of the advertising concentrates on common features, and 3 percent is bad under your analysis.\nIs the whole program bad, or just the 3 percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2762.33, 2764.131, 2773.738, 2787.368, 2794.682], "stop_times": [2764.131, 2773.738, 2787.368, 2794.682, 2797.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.33}, "reply_to": "20092__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_102", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Under that hypothetical of course, Your Honor, if there was a compelling governmental interest to solve some serious problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2797.683], "stop_times": [2803.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.683}, "reply_to": "20092__1_101", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_103", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2803.738], "stop_times": [2804.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.738}, "reply_to": "20092__1_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_104", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--and we only grew one variety in all the States, the answer would be that 3 percent would be bad.\nHowever, that's not the facts of this case, Your Honor.\nA peach is not a peach.\nA plum is not a plum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2804.189, 2809.222, 2811.562, 2813.074], "stop_times": [2809.222, 2811.562, 2813.074, 2814.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.189}, "reply_to": "20092__1_103", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_105", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes, but what if the Secretary of Agriculture made a lot of findings saying a peach is a peach, to add--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2814.594], "stop_times": [2820.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.594}, "reply_to": "20092__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_106", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "They haven't made any such findings, Your Honor.\nAs a matter of fact, the record of this trial where ALJ Baker said bring in all the rulemaking record and produce all your witnesses, prove that there's over 100 varieties of peach, and they're completely different, and I can prove it to you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2820.488, 2821.59], "stop_times": [2821.59, 2833.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.488}, "reply_to": "20092__1_105", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_107", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--With reference to the marketing--\n--But the question, the basic question I have is whether you're really attacking a program as a program, or maladministration of the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2833.948, 2835.86], "stop_times": [2835.86, 2841.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.948}, "reply_to": "20092__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_108", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the end of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2841.795], "stop_times": [2843.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.795}, "reply_to": "20092__1_107", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_109", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I'm trying to figure out whether the program is just sort of per se bad, or has it just been poorly administered.\nYou make a very persuasive case that they've made some bad decisions along the way, but does that taint the entire program?\nThat's the basic question I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2843.876, 2849.429, 2854.263], "stop_times": [2849.429, 2854.263, 2855.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.876}, "reply_to": "20092__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20092__1_110", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--This particular program on this particular 19 days of trial record, it was tainted from the very beginning.\nThey went to Congress on one letter, and all they said is, the majority of the growers want it.\nThat's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2855.803, 2861.817, 2867.45], "stop_times": [2861.817, 2867.45, 2868.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2855.803}, "reply_to": "20092__1_109", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_111", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But this is not an APA problem.\nI thought your point was that the First Amendment requires that you be careful and do it right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2868.021, 2869.283], "stop_times": [2869.283, 2876.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.021}, "reply_to": "20092__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_112", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Just like Turner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2876.446], "stop_times": [2877.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.446}, "reply_to": "20092__1_111", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_113", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "As is not required in some other areas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2877.388], "stop_times": [2879.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.388}, "reply_to": "20092__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_114", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2879.429], "stop_times": [2880.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2879.429}, "reply_to": "20092__1_113", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_115", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "You must demonstrate the compelling interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2880.01], "stop_times": [2881.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.01}, "reply_to": "20092__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_116", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "For over 20 years they didn't produce any studies or any reports showing that California--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2881.9], "stop_times": [2887.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2881.9}, "reply_to": "20092__1_115", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_117", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "We keep drifting away from the First Amendment, and it does get to sound like an Administrative Procedure Act problem, but that is not your point.\nYour point is that these I's have to be dotted and the T's have to be crossed because the First Amendment is at stake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2887.233, 2892.518], "stop_times": [2892.518, 2899.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.233}, "reply_to": "20092__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_118", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2899.45], "stop_times": [2900.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2899.45}, "reply_to": "20092__1_117", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_119", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Of course, to the extent that the marketing order without the promotional aspects of it helps everybody to market their peaches, I suppose you're helping to market Red Jim through the marketing order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2900.322], "stop_times": [2912.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.322}, "reply_to": "20092__1_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_120", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2912.861], "stop_times": [2913.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2912.861}, "reply_to": "20092__1_119", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_121", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And given the fact that you are therefore in a common marketing entity anyway, it seems to me to much diminish your First Amendment claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2913.502], "stop_times": [2924.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.502}, "reply_to": "20092__1_120", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_122", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2924.058], "stop_times": [2925.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.058}, "reply_to": "20092__1_121", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_123", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Whether you like it or not, big growers may be helping smaller growers to market their products, and maybe that's not cost-effective for you and you'd rather have something else, but you begin with the premise that this is a valid program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2925.069], "stop_times": [2939.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.069}, "reply_to": "20092__1_122", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_124", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "But you're forgetting a very key important point, Your Honor.\nAt least we're playing on a level playing field when the agency says you can't sell a nectarine, whether it's a Red Jim nectarine or a Tom Gran yellow nectarine, if it has a worm in it.\nWe're not going to advertise to people and change our message that we want you to eat worms.\nBut when 50 percent of this advertising dollar goes to spending, as their own testimony indicates, towards varieties that are controlled by 40 to 60 percent of... single varieties controlled by 40 to 60 percent of the handlers that aren't us, we're not playing on a level playing field.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2939.939, 2942.21, 2952.826, 2956.459], "stop_times": [2942.21, 2952.826, 2956.459, 2977.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.939}, "reply_to": "20092__1_123", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_125", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, don't you also distinguish between regulations which don't have any speech import to them, like quality and so on, plus some sort of regulation that forces you to spend money for speech?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2977.663], "stop_times": [2990.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.663}, "reply_to": "20092__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__1_126", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Exactly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2990.463], "stop_times": [2991.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2990.463}, "reply_to": "20092__1_125", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_127", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I agree with you that a peach is not a peach.\nI really do.\n[Laughter]\nI mean, absolutely.\nI love those juicy peaches which you can hardly ever get.\nI understand that.\nBut I'm also concerned about turning First Amendment district courts into regulatory agencies, and therefore I'm worried about this problem of the Air... I promise you I disagreed a lot with what the Air Transport Association might have advertised.\nIn the rate base the customer pays, and I pay for it a flyer.\nThat's what I'm worried about.\nNow, you brought up PG&E as a precedent, but then I look at PG&E and I look at it and think, my goodness, that was a case where there was a more clear First Amendment problem, because it was the company's property.\nThe company had to put the message in the envelope.\nIt was absolutely clear that the company was underwriting this message with which it disagreed, rather than analogize it to like a public forum.\nSo I'd like you to talk a little bit more about that case, because as I looked at that plurality opinion quickly, it seemed to me that yours was a more attenuated interest by a long shot than the interest there, but I raise that so you can discuss it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [2991.771, 2995.285, 2996.656, 2996.917, 2999.008, 3001.82, 3002.431, 3016.668, 3020.95, 3022.432, 3035.081, 3038.073, 3048.238], "stop_times": [2995.285, 2996.656, 2996.917, 2999.008, 3001.82, 3002.431, 3016.668, 3020.95, 3022.432, 3035.081, 3038.073, 3048.238, 3061.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.771}, "reply_to": "20092__1_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20092__1_128", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI can give you a good example.\nWhen Mr. Gerawan testified that in 1987 they took 675,000 from him and gave it to his competitors of a committee of nectarine growers that was run by his competitor, Mr. Jimmy Ito, whose proprietary variety is the Red Jim nectarine that Mr. Gerawan can neither grow nor buy, nor handle, because all the fruit has to be handled by Mr. Ito, that he... he respects Mr. Ito, but he just doesn't want his money to go to him, because they have a marketing window and they're producing the same... he produces... and competes with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3061.859, 3063.028, 3064.37], "stop_times": [3063.028, 3064.37, 3096.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3061.859}, "reply_to": "20092__1_127", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_129", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, that may well have been an error, as the Government conceded in its argument, but you don't overturn the whole program, I suppose.\nYou would overturn that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3096.3, 3103.824], "stop_times": [3103.824, 3105.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.3}, "reply_to": "20092__1_128", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_130", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--But it's inherent to the entire system, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3105.076], "stop_times": [3108.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.076}, "reply_to": "20092__1_129", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_131", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, are there other examples where in these advertisements a single proprietary item that no one else could acquire was advertised by name, and if so, what, and where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3108.068], "stop_times": [3120.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.068}, "reply_to": "20092__1_130", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_132", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "The May Belle nectarine, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3120.737], "stop_times": [3122.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3120.737}, "reply_to": "20092__1_131", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_133", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3122.918], "stop_times": [3123.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.918}, "reply_to": "20092__1_132", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_134", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "The May Belle nectarine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3123.588], "stop_times": [3124.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3123.588}, "reply_to": "20092__1_133", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_135", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And it was specifically referred to in the ad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3124.838], "stop_times": [3128.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.838}, "reply_to": "20092__1_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_136", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3128.251], "stop_times": [3128.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.251}, "reply_to": "20092__1_135", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_137", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3128.461], "stop_times": [3128.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.461}, "reply_to": "20092__1_136", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_138", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I believe in the very same exhibit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3128.922], "stop_times": [3130.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.922}, "reply_to": "20092__1_137", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_139", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Weren't these peaches--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3130.063], "stop_times": [3131.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.063}, "reply_to": "20092__1_138", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_140", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "It's in that same section.\nI can't remember the exact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3131.834, 3135.586], "stop_times": [3135.586, 3136.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.834}, "reply_to": "20092__1_139", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_141", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Weren't the peaches selected because of the volume?\nDoesn't the chart which lists all the peaches reflect the volume of peaches that were sold through the marketing entity?\nWasn't that the criteria for inclusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3136.646, 3138.558, 3150.497], "stop_times": [3138.558, 3150.497, 3152.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.646}, "reply_to": "20092__1_140", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_142", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Yes.\nMr. Field, the chief employee of the committee, testified that they tried to advertise the top 15 producing varieties and to leave the other 100 minor varieties behind, but Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3152.507, 3153.038], "stop_times": [3153.038, 3165.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3152.507}, "reply_to": "20092__1_141", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_143", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "So it was based on volume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3165.416], "stop_times": [3167.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.416}, "reply_to": "20092__1_142", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_144", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--They're spending all of their TV and radio advertising money on eat California peaches because they're all the same before July 4, 80 percent of the money.\nThey're reserving 20 percent of it to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3167.487, 3175.532], "stop_times": [3175.532, 3177.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3167.487}, "reply_to": "20092__1_143", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_145", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Was there a finding to that effect, that that's the necessary purport of those ads, or can we just tell it from the... from reading the ads?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3177.733], "stop_times": [3184.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3177.733}, "reply_to": "20092__1_144", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20092__1_146", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--There's a finding to that effect in Judge Baker's decision, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3184.207], "stop_times": [3187.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3184.207}, "reply_to": "20092__1_145", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_147", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr.--\n--To what effect?\nTo the effect that the advertising goes primarily or overwhelmingly to support the proposition that all California peaches are desirable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3187.33, 3187.84, 3188.271], "stop_times": [3187.84, 3188.271, 3196.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.33}, "reply_to": "20092__1_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_148", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Are the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3196.235], "stop_times": [3197.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.235}, "reply_to": "20092__1_147", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_149", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Are the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3197.918], "stop_times": [3199.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.918}, "reply_to": "20092__1_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_150", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3199.047], "stop_times": [3199.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3199.047}, "reply_to": "20092__1_149", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_151", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And--\n--Mr.... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3199.388, 3200.009], "stop_times": [3200.009, 3200.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.388}, "reply_to": "20092__1_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_152", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And she further--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3200.89], "stop_times": [3202.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3200.89}, "reply_to": "20092__1_151", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_153", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And you object to that.\nYou'd be here even if they weren't pushing the Red Jim or whatever this nectarine is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3202.27, 3203.041], "stop_times": [3203.041, 3207.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.27}, "reply_to": "20092__1_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_154", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Absolutely, because that's not truthful.\nI want to tell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3207.702, 3209.214], "stop_times": [3209.214, 3209.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3207.702}, "reply_to": "20092__1_153", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_155", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, that... but isn't there another reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3209.875], "stop_times": [3210.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.875}, "reply_to": "20092__1_154", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_156", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--that you ought to buy green plums and give them to your wife, and you're thinking to yourself right now you don't want to give your wife diarrhea, but green plums--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3210.865], "stop_times": [3217.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3210.865}, "reply_to": "20092__1_155", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_157", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Green plums?\nI would never give my wife a green plum.\n[Laughter]\nMr. Campagne--\n--I've never even seen a green plum.\nI thought plums--\nPlums aren't regulated any more, so why are we talking about those?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3217.159, 3217.86, 3222.923, 3219.202, 3220.171, 3221.993, 3223.153], "stop_times": [3217.86, 3222.923, 3219.202, 3220.171, 3221.993, 3223.153, 3227.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.159}, "reply_to": "20092__1_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_158", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Because, Your Honor, we have almost $6 million in trust--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3227.226], "stop_times": [3230.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3227.226}, "reply_to": "20092__1_157", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_159", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Greengage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3230.237], "stop_times": [3231.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.237}, "reply_to": "20092__1_158", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__1_160", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--and the Ninth Circuit ordered that there would be a determination as to whether or not those moneys that we related to plums from 1987 through 1991, so plums are still relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3231.628], "stop_times": [3241.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3231.628}, "reply_to": "20092__1_159", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_161", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3241.736], "stop_times": [3242.236], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.736}, "reply_to": "20092__1_160", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20092__1_162", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "And we grow green plums.\nWe just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3242.236, 3243.425], "stop_times": [3243.425, 3243.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3242.236}, "reply_to": "20092__1_161", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_163", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Well, the only ads--\n--Greengage.\nExcuse me.\nI thought the only ad programs once plums were out of it were for peaches and nectarines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3243.806, 3244.517, 3244.867, 3245.768], "stop_times": [3244.517, 3244.867, 3245.768, 3252.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.806}, "reply_to": "20092__1_162", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20092__1_164", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--That's true, Your Honor, but it's not moot because the regulation never changed that required the Secretary to annually decide whether or not to advertise, if so, where, how much money, and Mr. Chief Justice raised a very interesting question to the Solicitor, and that is, doesn't this all kind of follow the law of supply and demand, but one thing we notice here is that as the crop goes down, the assessments change, versus go up.\nIn other words, the promulgation record we have in existence here is not tied to solving any problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3252.192, 3284.783], "stop_times": [3284.783, 3290.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3252.192}, "reply_to": "20092__1_163", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_165", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Well, Mr. Campagne, that raises something I wanted to get back to you on.\nAs I understand it, even if the advertising were truthful, and even if the advertising were truly generic, you would still claim that there was a First Amendment violation, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3290.916, 3294.369], "stop_times": [3294.369, 3305.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3290.916}, "reply_to": "20092__1_164", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__1_166", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3305.677], "stop_times": [3306.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3305.677}, "reply_to": "20092__1_165", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_167", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Because there is no justification in the first place.\nThere is no necessity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3306.498, 3308.33], "stop_times": [3308.33, 3309.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.498}, "reply_to": "20092__1_166", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__1_168", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "There's no problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3309.13], "stop_times": [3310.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3309.13}, "reply_to": "20092__1_167", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_169", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3310.482], "stop_times": [3310.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.482}, "reply_to": "20092__1_168", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__1_170", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--and because there's no problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3310.782], "stop_times": [3312.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3310.782}, "reply_to": "20092__1_169", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_171", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "All right.\nLet me ask you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3312.272, 3312.572], "stop_times": [3312.572, 3313.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.272}, "reply_to": "20092__1_170", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__1_172", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--there's no governmental interest in solving a problem that doesn't exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3313.574], "stop_times": [3314.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3313.574}, "reply_to": "20092__1_171", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_173", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Let me ask you a final question.\nIf that is so, why do you concede that you have no First Amendment objection to the... in effect, to the forced association with the growers for nonspeech purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3314.405, 3315.995], "stop_times": [3315.995, 3325.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.405}, "reply_to": "20092__1_172", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__1_174", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Because in that sense, when they pass a quality control rule that says that all growers of all 100 different varieties, green and red, can't sell anything that's got a worm in it, that doesn't impinge on my First Amendment rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3325.882], "stop_times": [3342.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3325.882}, "reply_to": "20092__1_173", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_175", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "You're saying that really is not an association within the meaning of the First Amendment, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3342.752], "stop_times": [3346.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.752}, "reply_to": "20092__1_174", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__1_176", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "No.\nThat's just pure regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3346.515, 3346.785], "stop_times": [3346.785, 3348.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3346.515}, "reply_to": "20092__1_175", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_177", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "So there really isn't an association component here to the regulatory... to the regulatory scheme, which is exclusive of the speech problem that you raise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3348.195], "stop_times": [3357.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.195}, "reply_to": "20092__1_176", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__1_178", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3357.371], "stop_times": [3357.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3357.371}, "reply_to": "20092__1_177", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_179", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3357.772], "stop_times": [3358.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.772}, "reply_to": "20092__1_178", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20092__1_180", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "We're not here, Your Honor, trying to vitiate the entire marketing order.\nWe don't... we accept the 9 cents that goes to the quality control.\nWe're only speaking to the 10 cents per carton that goes to the forced association with our competitors who grow different varieties and, basically, in some varieties take over $200 an acre, which is more than our profit margin in some varieties, and force us in the limited amount of time we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3358.393, 3362.117, 3366.788], "stop_times": [3362.117, 3366.788, 3386.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.393}, "reply_to": "20092__1_179", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_181", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Thank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3386.541], "stop_times": [3388.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3386.541}, "reply_to": "20092__1_180", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__1_182", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3388.133], "stop_times": [3388.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3388.133}, "reply_to": "20092__1_181", "speaker": "thomas_e_campagne"}
{"id": "20092__1_183", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "--Mr. Campagne.\nMr. Jenkins, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3388.514, 3389.893], "stop_times": [3389.893, 3392.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.514}, "reply_to": "20092__1_182", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20092__2_000", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI'd like to begin just very briefly by stating that as to the administration of this program most of the factual findings that respondent's cite come from the ALJ's findings on the APA claim against these programs.\nThose were overturned by the judicial officer, who found those findings as to bias, as to red is better, and what-have-you, to be clearly erroneous.\nBoth of the courts below affirmed that holding, the APA holding, and so I think those findings are simply out of the case.\nThe Court need not necessarily ignore them completely, but no final adjudication has been made upholding these findings of bias.\nIf I could turn to the question of the Government interest here, I think we have demonstrated that there's a free rider problem that's important and comparable to the union and integrated bar context, that in agriculture, and particularly as to these commodities, there are many small producers who could not engage in the kind of economies of scale that's available under this program.\nThat's not necessarily true in some other industries.\nThe record does speak, for instance, to the California almond industry, and this Court has repeatedly held that where Congress finds a problem and deals with it in a way that is constitutionally justifiable, the fact, at least outside of the strict scrutiny context, that it has not chosen to employ those remedies elsewhere does not render unconstitutional its action where it has done so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3392.394, 3397.198, 3411.298, 3419.014, 3424.966, 3430.899, 3450.965, 3452.634], "stop_times": [3397.198, 3411.298, 3419.014, 3424.966, 3430.899, 3450.965, 3452.634, 3470.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3392.394}, "reply_to": "20092__1_183", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__2_001", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Does anything in the law prevent bias?\nDoes anything in the law... let's assume that 51 percent of the California growers grow red peaches, or red nectarines, or whatever color red things we were talking about.\nAnything in the law would prevent this money from being spent with advertisements showing only the red fruit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3470.776, 3472.537, 3483.226], "stop_times": [3472.537, 3483.226, 3488.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3470.776}, "reply_to": "20092__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__2_002", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "I think so, Justice Scalia, as a practical matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3488.909], "stop_times": [3492.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3488.909}, "reply_to": "20092__2_001", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__2_003", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "What provision is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3492.122], "stop_times": [3492.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3492.122}, "reply_to": "20092__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__2_004", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "May I complete my answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3492.73], "stop_times": [3494.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3492.73}, "reply_to": "20092__2_003", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__2_005", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3494.162], "stop_times": [3494.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3494.162}, "reply_to": "20092__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20092__2_006", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "The AMAA provides that the Secretary must find that particular activities are... tend to effectuate the goals of the act.\nThe Agricultural Marketing Service has guidelines which, for instance, prevent the criticism of other commodities or products, so I think both as a practical matter and as a legal matter there are checks on misuse of this system.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3494.553, 3503.108, 3514.287], "stop_times": [3503.108, 3514.287, 3515.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3494.553}, "reply_to": "20092__2_005", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20092__2_007", "conversation_id": "20092", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1184", "start_times": [3515.037, 3515.703], "stop_times": [3515.703, 3517.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3515.037}, "reply_to": "20092__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_000", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1723, Tom Grimmett v. Patricia Brown.\nMr. Sauber.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [7.406, 11.374], "stop_times": [11.374, 43.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 7.406}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_001", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOur client, Joanne Siragusa, possessed a debt owed to her by her husband--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [43.495, 46.742], "stop_times": [46.742, 53.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 43.495}, "reply_to": "21037__0_000", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_002", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Are you also representing the trustee in bankruptcy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [53.656], "stop_times": [57.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 53.656}, "reply_to": "21037__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_003", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes, we are, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [57.108], "stop_times": [58.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.108}, "reply_to": "21037__0_002", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_004", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Because the interests seem to diverge a little bit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [58.34], "stop_times": [61.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 58.34}, "reply_to": "21037__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_005", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I think the application--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [61.373], "stop_times": [62.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 61.373}, "reply_to": "21037__0_004", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_006", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--and I was a little curious about how your argument was going to cover both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [62.661], "stop_times": [65.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 62.661}, "reply_to": "21037__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_007", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--The application on the first issue of the Banker's Trust issue, by definition, since it rests on a conclusion of the bankruptcy, I think only applies to her definition of injury at this point, and not to the trustee's interest.\nThe... her preexisting debt owed to her by her husband was not part of the racketeering scheme and not alleged to be so.\nWhen he went into bankruptcy owing her somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.4 million as a result of a property settlement, that debt was a preexisting legitimate debt unrelated to the racketeering activity as alleged in the racketeering complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [65.803, 81.385, 92.581], "stop_times": [81.385, 92.581, 113.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 65.803}, "reply_to": "21037__0_006", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_008", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, could you tell us just preliminarily please whether Vincent Siragusa has... at one point the bankruptcy order had discharged Vincent Siragusa's debts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [113.204], "stop_times": [131.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.204}, "reply_to": "21037__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_009", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes.\nHe received a statutory preliminary discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [131.417, 131.988], "stop_times": [131.988, 135.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.417}, "reply_to": "21037__0_008", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_010", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Has that ever been... has an order come from the bankruptcy court changing that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [135.69], "stop_times": [142.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 135.69}, "reply_to": "21037__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_011", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes.\nJoanne and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [142.426, 142.907], "stop_times": [142.907, 145.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.426}, "reply_to": "21037__0_010", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_012", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I didn't see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [145.096], "stop_times": [145.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.096}, "reply_to": "21037__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_013", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Joanne and the trustee objected within the 1 year of his statutory discharge, claiming that the discharge had been obtained by fraud.\nThat was the adversary complaint.\nUltimately in 1994 Vincent settled both with the estate and with Joanne individually and agreed that his discharge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [145.955, 155.272, 156.914], "stop_times": [155.272, 156.914, 166.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 145.955}, "reply_to": "21037__0_012", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_014", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But what order issued from the bankruptcy court reflecting any of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [166.741], "stop_times": [170.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.741}, "reply_to": "21037__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_015", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--The... there is an order.\nI don't believe it's in the record, but there is an order from the bankruptcy court accepting the settlement which includes giving up his discharge, so as of 1994 his preliminary discharge was revoked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [170.485, 172.405], "stop_times": [172.405, 185.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.485}, "reply_to": "21037__0_014", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_016", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "So you say it is, but we won't find it anywhere in these papers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [185.584], "stop_times": [189.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.584}, "reply_to": "21037__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_017", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I don't believe it's in this record, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [189.505], "stop_times": [190.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 189.505}, "reply_to": "21037__0_016", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_018", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "A preliminary discharge is one that... could you explain that just very briefly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [190.316], "stop_times": [197.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.316}, "reply_to": "21037__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_019", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThe preliminary discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is granted within a certain number of months as long as no one... none of the creditors of the trustee object.\nSubject to a 1-year period beyond the automatic granting of that preliminary discharge the other creditors and the trustee can object to the discharge on the ground that it was obtained by fraud.\nJoanne Siragusa and the trustee did file in May of 1989--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [197.181, 198.653, 209.2, 223.808], "stop_times": [198.653, 209.2, 223.808, 229.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.181}, "reply_to": "21037__0_018", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_020", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That the discharge was obtained by fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [229.703], "stop_times": [231.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.703}, "reply_to": "21037__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_021", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes.\nJoanne and the trustee filed in May of 1989 an adversary complaint alleging that, among other things, the discharge granted to Vincent preliminarily was obtained by fraud.\nThe Ninth Circuit found that that was the date on which Joanne was injured.\nOur position is that her debt, her preexisting debt was the same the day before she filed that complaint as it was the day after.\nThe focus of the racketeering scheme in this case is focused on a bankruptcy fraud.\nIt's a classic attempt to get out from under a legal obligation to pay a debt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [231.625, 232.054, 246.966, 253.639, 264.585, 271.871], "stop_times": [232.054, 246.966, 253.639, 264.585, 271.871, 277.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.625}, "reply_to": "21037__0_020", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_022", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Mr. Sauber, what's left of... what injury has now been incurred?\nI mean, I don't... once the bankruptcy... the source of the injury was the bankruptcy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [277.655, 284.36], "stop_times": [284.36, 290.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.655}, "reply_to": "21037__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_023", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [290.634], "stop_times": [293.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.634}, "reply_to": "21037__0_022", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_024", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "It was a discharge in bankruptcy, was it not?\nIf that's been undone, what injury is there for anybody to complain about in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [293.025, 295.038], "stop_times": [295.038, 299.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.025}, "reply_to": "21037__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_025", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "The... there are two ways in which Joanne can be injured by this bankruptcy fraud.\nOne is if the debtor obtains a discharge of its... of his obligation to pay her.\nThat's now been removed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [299.252, 304.163, 311.199], "stop_times": [304.163, 311.199, 312.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 299.252}, "reply_to": "21037__0_024", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_026", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That's out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [312.859], "stop_times": [313.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.859}, "reply_to": "21037__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_027", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Secondly, if she is forced to accept at the end of the bankruptcy less than 100 percent of the debt he owed her when he started this scheme, and that reduction is caused by the racketeering activity, that is her racketeering injury at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [313.35], "stop_times": [334.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.35}, "reply_to": "21037__0_026", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_028", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well--\n--Has that occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [334.044, 334.415], "stop_times": [334.415, 334.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.044}, "reply_to": "21037__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_029", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, our position is that until the bankruptcy is complete and over, whether or not she's been injured, whether or not her preexisting non-RICO debt has been affected by the racketeering activity cannot be determined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [334.816], "stop_times": [349.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.816}, "reply_to": "21037__0_028", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_030", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And she has a cause of action before that injury occurs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [349.056], "stop_times": [351.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.056}, "reply_to": "21037__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_031", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "She filed a protective cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [351.968], "stop_times": [353.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.968}, "reply_to": "21037__0_030", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_032", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But the very authority that you rely on, Mr. Sauber, the Banker's Trust, says that such a claim is not ripe, and the bottom line of that case was dismissal, so I was frankly surprised that you were urging to preserve your case, that no injury has yet occurred.\nWell, if no injury has yet occurred, you have no lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [353.819, 373.173], "stop_times": [373.173, 376.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.819}, "reply_to": "21037__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__0_033", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, it was... if I may, it was dismissed, Banker's Trust, without prejudice.\nShe was concerned that she was in a jurisdiction that would not accept the Banker's Trust line of cases, and she filed a protective lawsuit on the assumption that... on the fear that one of the courts in her jurisdiction would find differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [376.335, 381.158], "stop_times": [381.158, 397.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.335}, "reply_to": "21037__0_032", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_034", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I've no objection to dismissing this without prejudice, but I don't know how it cannot be dismissed if there has been no injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [397.019], "stop_times": [402.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.019}, "reply_to": "21037__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_035", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, there has been no injury to Joanne if you accept our argument with respect to Banker's Trust.\nWith respect to the trustee, who the Ninth Circuit pegged as being injured in May of 1989, his case is still related to the second question, whether or not you decide that the proper approval rule in this... for a civil RICO case is an injury-in-pattern discovery rule.\nIf you decide that, then his... the trustee's injury in May of 1989 doesn't start the statute of limitations ticking.\nIt won't tick until December of 1990.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [402.522, 409.718, 430.201, 440.967], "stop_times": [409.718, 430.201, 440.967, 443.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 402.522}, "reply_to": "21037__0_034", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_036", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "We can't tell whether the trustee's been injured either until the end of the bankruptcy, can we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [443.339], "stop_times": [447.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 443.339}, "reply_to": "21037__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_037", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, I think that the Banker's Trust line of cases would only apply to Joanne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [447.293], "stop_times": [453.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.293}, "reply_to": "21037__0_036", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_038", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "When you say Banker's Trust, you're referring to the Second Circuit case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [453.337], "stop_times": [457.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 453.337}, "reply_to": "21037__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_039", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat would only apply to Joanne because by definition it assumes that the bankruptcy is complete.\nThe record in this case stands that the Ninth Circuit has concluded that the trustee was injured as of May of 1989, and since he would be unaffected by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [457.081, 457.692, 463.375], "stop_times": [457.692, 463.375, 475.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.081}, "reply_to": "21037__0_038", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_040", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "How was he injured in May of 19--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [475.893], "stop_times": [477.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 475.893}, "reply_to": "21037__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_041", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--The Ninth Circuit rests its decision on the assumption that in May of 1989 Joanne and the trustee recognized, because they filed their adversary complaint, that her husband has tried to concoct a bankruptcy scheme to get out from paying her the legal obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [477.813], "stop_times": [498.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.813}, "reply_to": "21037__0_040", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_042", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--How does that injury the trustee in bankruptcy?\nWere there two acts in this?\nI thought what you're claiming in that complaint is there is a person, and he owes some money to Joanne, and she has a secured interest in some property, and he figures out a way that he can get rid of that secured interest because what he's going to do is go through bankruptcy and the secured interest will disappear.\nThat's the whole thing.\nNow, if that's the whole thing I don't even see that there are two acts.\nWhere is there a RICO case at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [498.338, 500.2, 502.07, 519.703, 521.604, 524.125], "stop_times": [500.2, 502.07, 519.703, 521.604, 524.125, 525.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.338}, "reply_to": "21037__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_043", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, the racketeering complaint which was filed in 19--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [525.667], "stop_times": [529.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.667}, "reply_to": "21037__0_042", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_044", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Much less the... the other part of that is how is the trustee hurt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [529.247], "stop_times": [531.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.247}, "reply_to": "21037__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_045", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, the racketeering complaint is different from the adversary complaint.\nThe racketeering complaint was filed in 1993.\nThe racketeering activity and the schemes identified are the scheme to defraud her of her legal debt, the scheme to defraud her husband's partners--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [531.719, 535.783, 538.254], "stop_times": [535.783, 538.254, 549.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.719}, "reply_to": "21037__0_044", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_046", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "It all is the same thing, isn't it?\nIt all is the same thing.\nWhat he did is, he went through bankruptcy and he wasn't entitled to.\nI mean, I take it if I have a fraudulent scheme to get $100,000 from the bank, that might hurt the bank, that might hurt some depositors, that might hurt some shareholders.\nHow is it two actions, and how is the trustee... to go back to Justice Scalia's question, how is the trustee in bankruptcy hurt by this RICO proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [549.38, 551.463, 552.623, 555.704, 563.241], "stop_times": [551.463, 552.623, 555.704, 563.241, 572.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.38}, "reply_to": "21037__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_047", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I think that the Ninth Circuit concluded that in May of 1989 both Joanne and the trustee were injured by the recognition that Vincent had filed a fraudulent bankruptcy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [572.327], "stop_times": [584.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.327}, "reply_to": "21037__0_046", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_048", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "It hurt their feelings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [584.178], "stop_times": [585.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.178}, "reply_to": "21037__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_049", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No.\nIt hurt their interest in the estate by attempting fraudulently to transfer the assets to other people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [585.186, 585.587], "stop_times": [585.587, 592.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.186}, "reply_to": "21037__0_048", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_050", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But did it transfer the assets?\nDid it do anything?\nIt seems to me it did nothing at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [592.841, 594.604, 595.353], "stop_times": [594.604, 595.353, 596.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.841}, "reply_to": "21037__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_051", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No.\nHe fraudulently transferred his interest in his medical practice to other people.\nThat was the whole basis of the bankruptcy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [596.916, 597.484, 602.288], "stop_times": [597.484, 602.288, 604.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.916}, "reply_to": "21037__0_050", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_052", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "The assets were transferred, and the trustee therefore collected less money in the bankruptcy estate.\nThat happened, is that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [604.38, 610.665], "stop_times": [610.665, 612.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.38}, "reply_to": "21037__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_053", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, the assets were transferred.\nHe then... the trustee then did proceed against the recipients of that property in an attempt to get them back.\nA settlement in 1992 was entered into with the possessors of that fraudulently transferred property.\nAt the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [612.848, 615.429, 623.344, 630.8], "stop_times": [615.429, 623.344, 630.8, 631.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.848}, "reply_to": "21037__0_052", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_054", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And the trustee in bankruptcy, a settlement between the trustee in bankruptcy and the individuals who got it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [631.381], "stop_times": [638.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 631.381}, "reply_to": "21037__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_055", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes, and with Joanne personally, and as a result--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [638.345], "stop_times": [641.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.345}, "reply_to": "21037__0_054", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_056", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, but and... we're talking about the trustee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [641.548], "stop_times": [643.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.548}, "reply_to": "21037__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_057", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [643.459], "stop_times": [643.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.459}, "reply_to": "21037__0_056", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_058", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Did the trustee get the assets back into the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [643.729], "stop_times": [645.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.729}, "reply_to": "21037__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_059", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "He got a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [645.882], "stop_times": [646.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.882}, "reply_to": "21037__0_058", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_060", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--bankruptcy estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [646.133], "stop_times": [647.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.133}, "reply_to": "21037__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_061", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nAt that point, Justice O'Connor, the asset, which was the medical practice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [647.174, 647.775], "stop_times": [647.775, 652.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.174}, "reply_to": "21037__0_060", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_062", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [652.958], "stop_times": [653.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.958}, "reply_to": "21037__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_063", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--had diminished in value and they entered into a settlement of a certain amount of money which came into the estate, some of which went to Joanne personally, because she personally settled with the partners at that point also.\nThe racketeering scheme, the pattern that's alleged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [653.418, 666.177], "stop_times": [666.177, 671.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.418}, "reply_to": "21037__0_062", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_064", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Could you answer... sorry.\nCould you... I was... I... what was your answer to Justice O'Connor's question?\nI never got one.\nHow much money did the trustee lose as a result of this scheme?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [671.051, 672.321, 675.793, 676.504], "stop_times": [672.321, 675.793, 676.504, 681.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.051}, "reply_to": "21037__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_065", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, the estate of Vincent is... has not yet paid off its lawful debt to Joanne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [681.269], "stop_times": [689.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.269}, "reply_to": "21037__0_064", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_066", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "How much does it owe?\nNo, not to Joanne.\nHow much money has the trustee lost as a result of the scheme that you say involved a fraudulent transfer of property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [689.764, 691.524, 692.536], "stop_times": [691.524, 692.536, 702.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.764}, "reply_to": "21037__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_067", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "If you take into account the settlement, it's our position that the estate at this point has lost several hundred thousand dollars and that Joanne, by definition, has also lost several hundred thousand dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [702.533], "stop_times": [715.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.533}, "reply_to": "21037__0_066", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_068", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "By the fraud, or by the reduction in value of the business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [715.002], "stop_times": [717.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.002}, "reply_to": "21037__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_069", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, I think that it clearly is the reduction in value of the business, but I think the allegation would be that the business was reduced over the course of the bankruptcy because of the bankruptcy fraud, that the proceeding in bankruptcy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [717.463], "stop_times": [735.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.463}, "reply_to": "21037__0_068", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_070", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Why would he enter into a settlement, then, accepting less, if he's entitled to more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [735.543], "stop_times": [739.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.543}, "reply_to": "21037__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__0_071", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--He's pursuing more.\nThe business was only worth a certain amount of money when he settled with the partners, and he is still pursuing more in this lawsuit.\nThat's the whole point of his attempting to bring assets back into the estate so that he can pay out the creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [739.817, 740.879, 751.504], "stop_times": [740.879, 751.504, 760.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.817}, "reply_to": "21037__0_070", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_072", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "When you say the bankruptcy fraud, you mean something different, Mr. Sauber, I take it, than the fraudulent conveyance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [760.05], "stop_times": [767.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.05}, "reply_to": "21037__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_073", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [767.395], "stop_times": [768.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.395}, "reply_to": "21037__0_072", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_074", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Surely you can answer it yes or no.\nEither you do mean something different or you don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [768.545, 771.109], "stop_times": [771.109, 773.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.545}, "reply_to": "21037__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_075", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I mean something in addition to that, his submission of false statements throughout the bankruptcy as to his assets, and as to his intentions, but basically, Mr. Chief Justice, yes, his attempt to transfer his property, claim that he no longer has the assets to pay off his debt to his wife, and to go through and obtain a discharge.\nThat was the heart of the bankruptcy fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [773.109, 795.011], "stop_times": [795.011, 796.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.109}, "reply_to": "21037__0_074", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_076", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But I still don't understand, is there a separate claim somewhere that the... he conveyed property, perhaps the medical practice, to third parties in fraud of creditors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [796.824], "stop_times": [812.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.824}, "reply_to": "21037__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_077", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [812.085, 812.633], "stop_times": [812.633, 813.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.085}, "reply_to": "21037__0_076", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_078", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That has nothing to do with the bankruptcy, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [813.515], "stop_times": [815.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.515}, "reply_to": "21037__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_079", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, the point of the fraudulent conveyance does have something to do with the bankruptcy.\nHe wanted to go into bankruptcy, claim that he no longer had any of the assets to pay off his debts because he had now transferred them, obtain a discharge of his legal debt to his wife, and then emerge from bankruptcy and regain possession of the assets that he possessed in the first place.\nThat's the classic bankruptcy fraud.\nThat was the scheme here.\nNow, it turned out that Joanne and the trustee discovered in December of 1990 that this scheme also had other potential victims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [815.876, 820.38, 839.541, 841.363, 843.715], "stop_times": [820.38, 839.541, 841.363, 843.715, 854.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 815.876}, "reply_to": "21037__0_078", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_080", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Can you tell me, what is the first predicate act under RICO and what is the second, and what was the date of each?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [854.081], "stop_times": [861.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.081}, "reply_to": "21037__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21037__0_081", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "The earliest predicate acts alleged in the complaint are the filing of the bankruptcy.\nThere is a bankruptcy fraud as a predicate act, and there are mail and wire frauds.\nThe scheme alleged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [861.377, 869.645, 873.544], "stop_times": [869.645, 873.544, 876.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.377}, "reply_to": "21037__0_080", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_082", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "What are the later predicate acts?\nDoes that suffice for a RICO violation, or do we need a second predicate act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [876.717, 879.218], "stop_times": [879.218, 886.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 876.717}, "reply_to": "21037__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21037__0_083", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--No.\nI think that suffices in that there are more than two, but the second predicate act that brings in the pattern is the defrauding of Vincent's partners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [886.104, 887.486], "stop_times": [887.486, 901.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.104}, "reply_to": "21037__0_082", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_084", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And when did that occur?\nYou say there cannot be a pattern without a second victim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [901.354, 902.814], "stop_times": [902.814, 904.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.354}, "reply_to": "21037__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21037__0_085", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No, I'm not saying that, Your Honor.\nI think that question was answered by this Court.\nIn this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [904.346, 905.926, 908.798], "stop_times": [905.926, 908.798, 909.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.346}, "reply_to": "21037__0_084", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_086", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well then, why couldn't there be a pattern inferred from the multiple predicate acts before the second victim even entered the picture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [909.539], "stop_times": [915.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.539}, "reply_to": "21037__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21037__0_087", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--There may have... there may be such a pattern, but in this case she alleged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [915.353], "stop_times": [921.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.353}, "reply_to": "21037__0_086", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_088", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, if there is such a pattern, and I thought your answer a moment ago was that there was, then I would suppose that so far as the pattern requirement for your cause of action it was satisfied before anything was done to damage the medical partner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [921.908], "stop_times": [940.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.908}, "reply_to": "21037__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21037__0_089", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--No, I would disagree.\nThe pattern that she alleges in the RICO complaint, the second part of the RICO complaint, is that the scheme which she was a victim of also served to defraud others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [940.73, 943.292], "stop_times": [943.292, 957.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.73}, "reply_to": "21037__0_088", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_090", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes... yes, but if there are two predicate acts insofar as she is concerned, the filing of the bankruptcy petition and, second, the transfer of the assets of the medical practice, that's enough to establish a pattern as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [957.1], "stop_times": [971.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.1}, "reply_to": "21037__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_091", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "It may or it may not be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [971.56], "stop_times": [973.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.56}, "reply_to": "21037__0_090", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_092", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, let's suppose it is, that we think it is enough, and this other story about another doctor, well, fine, but it was complete as of the time the bankruptcy petition was filed and the transfer then was made, plus mailings and calls and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [973.572], "stop_times": [993.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.572}, "reply_to": "21037__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_093", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But Justice O'Connor, you are redefining her pattern and her RICO case.\nThe Ninth Circuit accepted as given her RICO complaint, and it decided that if it's an injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [993.778, 998.749], "stop_times": [998.749, 1007.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.778}, "reply_to": "21037__0_092", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_094", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I'm just looking at what the record discloses here, and what's being alleged, and enough is being alleged apparently to establish both a claimed injury by her and a series of acts that would qualify as a pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1007.726], "stop_times": [1026.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.726}, "reply_to": "21037__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_095", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I think that that really starts to sound a little bit to us like overpleading in that basically she was in a dispute with her husband.\nHe tried through bankruptcy to get out from having to pay her.\nNow, are there more than one predicate acts which you could then allege were a pattern, and that there's continuity, and relationship?\nI don't know.\nBut in this case we chose not to allege that as a racketeering case.\nWe chose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1026.249, 1035.714, 1039.535, 1049.703, 1050.424, 1055.948], "stop_times": [1035.714, 1039.535, 1049.703, 1050.424, 1055.948, 1056.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.249}, "reply_to": "21037__0_094", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_096", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "You included all these facts in the complaint, and if it's laid out, there it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1056.386], "stop_times": [1061.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.386}, "reply_to": "21037__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_097", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Absolutely.\nWe included them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1061.641, 1062.601], "stop_times": [1062.601, 1063.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.641}, "reply_to": "21037__0_096", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_098", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "In fact, it's a complaint that went on for 130-some pages.\nYou've got plenty in there, all over the place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1063.753, 1067.406], "stop_times": [1067.406, 1069.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.753}, "reply_to": "21037__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_099", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--It is quite a lengthy and quite a detailed complaint, but the pattern that she does allege and chooses to proceed with is the pattern that includes the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1069.967], "stop_times": [1082.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.967}, "reply_to": "21037__0_098", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_100", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That she now chooses to proceed with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1082.154], "stop_times": [1084.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.154}, "reply_to": "21037__0_099", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_101", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1084.265], "stop_times": [1084.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.265}, "reply_to": "21037__0_100", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_102", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "She filed this complaint in... what year was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1084.616], "stop_times": [1089.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.616}, "reply_to": "21037__0_101", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_103", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--19--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1089.297], "stop_times": [1089.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1089.297}, "reply_to": "21037__0_102", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_104", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "November '93.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1089.928], "stop_times": [1090.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.928}, "reply_to": "21037__0_103", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_105", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1090.739], "stop_times": [1091.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.739}, "reply_to": "21037__0_104", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_106", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And claimed injury and claimed a RICO cause of action, and we have to decide among other things, I guess, when a statute of limitations begins to run, and is there anything we can agree on at all in this messy case?\nDo you agree that at least the elements of the RICO claim have to exist before the statute can run?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1091.13, 1109.522], "stop_times": [1109.522, 1118.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.13}, "reply_to": "21037__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_107", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1118.898], "stop_times": [1119.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.898}, "reply_to": "21037__0_106", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_108", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That means an injury and a pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1119.399], "stop_times": [1126.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.399}, "reply_to": "21037__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_109", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "A pattern, yes.\nThat I think we can agree on.\nThe Ninth Circuit in its decision, which on the second issue I think is why we're, said, if it decided to accept an injury and pattern discovery rule, then the complaint was timely.\nBy deciding only on an injury discovery rule, then the complaint was not timely, and the only thing that you can take from that is that the Ninth Circuit found that the pattern alleged in the complaint was not evident to her until December of 1990.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1126.593, 1127.693, 1130.134, 1145.805], "stop_times": [1127.693, 1130.134, 1145.805, 1166.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.593}, "reply_to": "21037__0_108", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_110", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But that... was that not until after the injury had occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1166.818], "stop_times": [1170.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.818}, "reply_to": "21037__0_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21037__0_111", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "After her injury occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1170.042], "stop_times": [1171.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.042}, "reply_to": "21037__0_110", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_112", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, let's just take it at that point.\nI had a problem with your brief, because you were saying, we have a terrible problem here.\nWe had the first predicate act, and then the injury, and then the second predicate act.\nWell, I kept asking myself, where is there a RICO injury at all if there's no second predicate act at the time the injury occurs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1171.982, 1173.514, 1178.427, 1183.569], "stop_times": [1173.514, 1178.427, 1183.569, 1190.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.982}, "reply_to": "21037__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21037__0_113", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "There are... Justice Kennedy, there are a number of predicate acts alleged in the complaint.\nThe first injury from several predicate acts is only to her.\nIn December of 1990, when she discovers that the same scheme was designed to defraud others, it occurs to her at that point that there is a pattern.\nThat is her--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1190.715, 1197.51, 1203.133, 1214.12], "stop_times": [1197.51, 1203.133, 1214.12, 1215.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.715}, "reply_to": "21037__0_112", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_114", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, but in fact there may well have been a pattern already.\nThere was the filing of the bankruptcy petition with the fraudulent intent, as she alleges, and there was the transfer of the assets.\nThat's the second thing.\nSo we already see a pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1215.282, 1218.965, 1228.299, 1229.711], "stop_times": [1218.965, 1228.299, 1229.711, 1231.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.282}, "reply_to": "21037__0_113", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_115", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1231.812], "stop_times": [1233.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1231.812}, "reply_to": "21037__0_114", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_116", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And whether she understands the cause of action correctly is something this Court has said doesn't matter.\nYou don't have to understand the medical malpractice law to have the statute start to run.\nIf she knows the acts, and if those acts add up to a cause of action, then okay, you can start the statute running.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1233.404, 1239.945, 1245.97], "stop_times": [1239.945, 1245.97, 1254.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.404}, "reply_to": "21037__0_115", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_117", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1254.125], "stop_times": [1255.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.125}, "reply_to": "21037__0_116", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_118", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "She doesn't have to understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1255.197], "stop_times": [1258.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.197}, "reply_to": "21037__0_117", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_119", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1258.809], "stop_times": [1259.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.809}, "reply_to": "21037__0_118", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_120", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "She doesn't have to understand what all would be considered as part of the pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1259.44], "stop_times": [1263.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.44}, "reply_to": "21037__0_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_121", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No, but I do think that it was... it's only fair to suggest that she would have a difficult time proving continuity and relationship and threat of continued activity if it was just a dispute between her and her husband.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1263.953], "stop_times": [1280.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.953}, "reply_to": "21037__0_120", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_122", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Then it seems to me that you should go back and say what I thought you did not say before, and that is, Justice O'Connor, your suggestion is not well-taken.\nThere was no pattern, and there was no pattern until the second victim came into the picture, but that's not what you said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1280.636, 1289.721], "stop_times": [1289.721, 1298.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1280.636}, "reply_to": "21037__0_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21037__0_123", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1298.157], "stop_times": [1298.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.157}, "reply_to": "21037__0_122", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_124", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And I think you've got to choose what your pattern view is, because if you accept Justice O'Connor's suggestion and my suggestion, I guess, then it seems to me you're out, even on the more favorable rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1298.567], "stop_times": [1309.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.567}, "reply_to": "21037__0_123", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21037__0_125", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, I don't want to say that under no circumstances could a single scheme with multiple predicate acts constitute a pattern.\nThat's what you decided in H.J.--\nWhat we are saying is that in this case the individual predicate acts only resulting in injury to her did not constitute a pattern, and if I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1309.994, 1318.52, 1320.32], "stop_times": [1318.52, 1320.32, 1331.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.994}, "reply_to": "21037__0_124", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_126", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1331.619], "stop_times": [1332.097], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.619}, "reply_to": "21037__0_125", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21037__0_127", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Because there was only one victim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1332.097], "stop_times": [1334.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.097}, "reply_to": "21037__0_126", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_128", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But that's not dispositive, we agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1334.949], "stop_times": [1337.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.949}, "reply_to": "21037__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21037__0_129", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I understand.\nThat is not dispositive, but there was one victim for a short period of time, and basically what it was was a dispute growing out of a divorce case in which the husband tried to get out of his obligations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1337.483, 1338.602], "stop_times": [1338.602, 1350.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.483}, "reply_to": "21037__0_128", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_130", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But what this seems to boil down to is what Justice O'Connor was suggesting a moment ago.\nShe simply didn't recognize it fast enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1350.11, 1354.344], "stop_times": [1354.344, 1356.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.11}, "reply_to": "21037__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21037__0_131", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1356.975], "stop_times": [1359.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.975}, "reply_to": "21037__0_130", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_132", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "You're saying that it happened in a short time.\nIt just grew out of this domestic dispute.\nIf the pattern is there, it seems to me the law is... has got to require the plaintiff to be nimble enough to see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1359.957, 1361.359, 1363.24], "stop_times": [1361.359, 1363.24, 1373.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.957}, "reply_to": "21037__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21037__0_133", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--But I think in fairness the way that this Court has defined pattern and required the plaintiff to find some sort of continuity and a relationship, and the threat of continued criminal activity, in the short period of time when she recognizes that her husband has tried to defraud her out of her debt, it would be our position that that is not sufficient for her to conclude, even if she's omniscient, that there is in fact a pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1373.067], "stop_times": [1402.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.067}, "reply_to": "21037__0_132", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_134", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "So if you have... I think I agree with you, but if I have a very complicated scheme to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge... you'd be too wise.\nYou wouldn't buy it, but there are five or six others who might buy it.\nNow, suppose instead of one person buying it it turns out five are putting up the money.\nIs there suddenly a RICO violation?\nI mean, is there a RICO violation because the same activity hurt five people rather than just one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1402.566, 1409.602, 1412.534, 1417.118, 1419.82], "stop_times": [1409.602, 1412.534, 1417.118, 1419.82, 1425.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.566}, "reply_to": "21037__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_135", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1425.074], "stop_times": [1426.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.074}, "reply_to": "21037__0_134", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_136", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Why does that create a pattern?\nI don't understand pattern here, in other words, which is what's causing me the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1426.876, 1428.285], "stop_times": [1428.285, 1431.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.876}, "reply_to": "21037__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_137", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1431.447], "stop_times": [1431.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.447}, "reply_to": "21037__0_136", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_138", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I don't understand why seven complicated acts which lead to the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge comprise two predicates, and I don't understand, if they don't, why the fact that three people buy the Brooklyn Bridge rather than one makes a difference for RICO purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1431.797], "stop_times": [1447.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.797}, "reply_to": "21037__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_139", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, I think that it's the issue that this Court dealt with in H.J., that the... a single scheme, even if there are a number of predicate acts within a short period of time, where really in essence it's a dispute between a husband and wife, doesn't constitute the kind of continued criminal activity that this Court contemplated when it defined a pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1447.088], "stop_times": [1474.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.088}, "reply_to": "21037__0_138", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_140", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "So you're saying, I think, in answer to Justice Breyer it's when they sell the bridge twice, not when they sell it once to five people.\nThat's when it becomes clear.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1474.096, 1480.998, 1482.33], "stop_times": [1480.998, 1482.33, 1482.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.096}, "reply_to": "21037__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21037__0_141", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I think in a common sense approach most plaintiffs and practitioners would start to think of a pattern when you have different and multiple victims of the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1482.871], "stop_times": [1493.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.871}, "reply_to": "21037__0_140", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_142", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Did they sell the bridge here twice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1493.488], "stop_times": [1494.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.488}, "reply_to": "21037__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_143", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1494.78], "stop_times": [1496.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1494.78}, "reply_to": "21037__0_142", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_144", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "In the 170 pages, despite its detail, a complaint longer than any antitrust complaint I've seen, including the most complex, I still couldn't find in this detail what the facts were.\nThat is, what are the facts that lead to the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge twice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1496.149, 1508.106], "stop_times": [1508.106, 1514.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.149}, "reply_to": "21037__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__0_145", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "The facts, I think, simply stated are that the attempted fraudulent transfer and the reorganization of the medical practice was designed to defraud Joanne, the wife, and one of the partners, and some of the junior shareholders, so the answer is yes, there were three intended victims of the same pattern of using the medical practice as an enterprise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1514.012], "stop_times": [1544.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1514.012}, "reply_to": "21037__0_144", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_146", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, you say pattern, but as I understand it it is simply a conveyance, was it not, of property for less than fair value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1544.662], "stop_times": [1553.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.662}, "reply_to": "21037__0_145", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_147", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "It was a... yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1553.287], "stop_times": [1555.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1553.287}, "reply_to": "21037__0_146", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_148", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I mean, that's one act.\nI mean, what more happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1555.788, 1556.469], "stop_times": [1556.469, 1558.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.788}, "reply_to": "21037__0_147", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__0_149", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1558.9], "stop_times": [1559.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.9}, "reply_to": "21037__0_148", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_150", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "There was a lot more, wasn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1559.521], "stop_times": [1561.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.521}, "reply_to": "21037__0_149", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_151", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--There was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1561.043], "stop_times": [1561.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1561.043}, "reply_to": "21037__0_150", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_152", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Vincent was paid a continuing salary that was as much or more than he had earned before.\nThere was a continued operation of this new enterprise and it put more money in his pocket than he had had before.\nThis went on and on.\nNow, that, under our case law at least, can establish a pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1561.972, 1567.405, 1574.141, 1575.523], "stop_times": [1567.405, 1574.141, 1575.523, 1580.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.972}, "reply_to": "21037__0_151", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__0_153", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--It can establish a pattern if it goes... if it goes on and on and if there's a threat... well, I think, Justice O'Connor, what happened is, at a point only a year after... in May of '89 she finds out about the fraudulent transfer.\nA year later, in December of 1990, she finds out that there are other victims of the fraud.\nIn some circuits that would not be enough time to allege a pattern.\nIn some circuits the requirement is that the activity needs to go on for 2 years.\nI would like to reserve my... the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1580.506, 1597.645, 1604.401, 1609.774, 1614.118], "stop_times": [1597.645, 1604.401, 1609.774, 1614.118, 1616.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1580.506}, "reply_to": "21037__0_152", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__0_154", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Very well, Mr. Sauber.\nMr. Lacovara.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1616.78, 1618.15], "stop_times": [1618.15, 1619.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.78}, "reply_to": "21037__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__1_000", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn order to understand why the district court and the court of appeals properly dismissed this claim on the basis of the statute of limitations, it may be important both to mention the four possible statute of limitations rules that the briefs frame, under three of which I think the colloquy with my learned friend would show this judgment must be affirmed, but it's also important to go back and find out what this case is actually about as it was pled before the district court and the court of appeals.\nIn this Court, it seems to be transformed into a lost debt bankruptcy case.\nThat is emphatically not the reason alleged in the district court or, indeed, in the bankruptcy court in 1989 that led to the claim that the petitioner, Ms. Siragusa, had actually incurred substantial and measurable injury as of 1987.\nLet me refer if I may to the joint appendix.\nLet's start first with the bankruptcy... with the adversary complaint, because that is the date... that's May 1989... by which time both the district court and the court of appeals found she had adequate notice of any RICO claim.\nMay 1989, more than 4 years before she filed the bankruptcy... the RICO case.\nAlthough there's been some discussion here denying the existence of a pattern, or suggesting there may have been only one or two predicate acts, in May of 1989 Ms. Siragusa filed the adversary complaint that among other things lists--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1619.452, 1623.693, 1656.905, 1661.728, 1684.083, 1687.746, 1706.447, 1712.43], "stop_times": [1623.693, 1656.905, 1661.728, 1684.083, 1687.746, 1706.447, 1712.43, 1728.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1619.452}, "reply_to": "21037__0_154", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_001", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "This is an adversary complaint in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1728.502], "stop_times": [1729.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.502}, "reply_to": "21037__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__1_002", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--In the bankruptcy court, yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1729.952], "stop_times": [1731.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.952}, "reply_to": "21037__1_001", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_003", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--And what, strictly speaking, is an adversary complaint in the bankruptcy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1731.785], "stop_times": [1735.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.785}, "reply_to": "21037__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__1_004", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "It's in effect a civil claim that is in some way related to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.\nIt's a claim that may be made either by the trustee against a third party, or it may be made by an outsider against the debtor and some third parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1735.217, 1741.349], "stop_times": [1741.349, 1750.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1735.217}, "reply_to": "21037__1_003", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_005", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--And seeking some sort of remedy against the assets of the bankrupt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1750.446], "stop_times": [1756.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.446}, "reply_to": "21037__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__1_006", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, it can also be, as it was in this case, Mr. Chief Justice, a request for a personal remedy against individuals and, indeed, the individuals in the bankruptcy case included the very respondents before the court today, the lawyer defendants.\nIn May of 1989 Ms. Siragusa claimed that there had been what she called a fraudulent course of conduct, and if you look on page... beginning on page 191 of the joint appendix, beginning on paragraph 21, she then uses this as a defined term.\nThe debtor, beginning in 1983, never intended to make marital payments but undertook a fraudulent and deceptive course of conduct... that paragraph continues on... in which the other defendants ultimately joined.\nShe then goes on, just to refer to Justice Kennedy and Justice Breyer's question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1756.119, 1772.521, 1798.967, 1813.838], "stop_times": [1772.521, 1798.967, 1813.838, 1818.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.119}, "reply_to": "21037__1_005", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_007", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And what you're reading from is the adversary complaint in bankruptcy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1818.41], "stop_times": [1822.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1818.41}, "reply_to": "21037__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__1_008", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Filed in May 1989.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1822.183], "stop_times": [1823.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.183}, "reply_to": "21037__1_007", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_009", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Not the complaint in the present action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1823.625], "stop_times": [1825.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.625}, "reply_to": "21037__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__1_010", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No.\nI'll get to that in a moment, Mr. Chief Justice.\nShe then goes on, beginning in paragraph 33, to allege, beginning in at least 19... July 1987, approximately 2 years before this complaint was filed, a series of fraudulent misstatements by mail and wire made by Vincent and made, she alleges, by the counsel for the Heart Institute entities.\nThat's Patricia Brown, the respondent, and ultimately the firm with which she was affiliated, the Beckley Singleton firm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1825.356, 1825.826, 1827.175, 1855.224], "stop_times": [1825.826, 1827.175, 1855.224, 1862.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.356}, "reply_to": "21037__1_009", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_011", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "What paragraph?\nI thought you said 33.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1862.859, 1863.86], "stop_times": [1863.86, 1864.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.859}, "reply_to": "21037__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_012", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Paragraph 33, and then if you continue on to subparagraph B--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1864.771], "stop_times": [1869.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.771}, "reply_to": "21037__1_011", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_013", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1869.413], "stop_times": [1870.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.413}, "reply_to": "21037__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_014", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--C, D.\nYou'll see references to the Heart Institute's counsel saying this, that and the next thing.\nThen go over to page 198 in the joint appendix.\nShe then says the debtor filed certain schedules in January 1988 taking an unbelievable position.\nShe attributes that to the Heart Institute counsel.\nThat's respondent Patricia Brown.\nShe says in paragraph I on 99 that the schedules prepared by the respondent purportedly described certain transactions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1870.024, 1872.115, 1876.478, 1880.061, 1888.276, 1890.867, 1893.318], "stop_times": [1872.115, 1876.478, 1880.061, 1888.276, 1890.867, 1893.318, 1902.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.024}, "reply_to": "21037__1_013", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_015", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "So what is your point in reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1902.625], "stop_times": [1903.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.625}, "reply_to": "21037__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_016", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--The point is that the... there are several points, Justice O'Connor.\nThe key point is there was a pattern that existed as of this point, because she has alleged by this time several years of allegedly fraudulent activity, wire fraud, mail fraud, and fraudulent bankruptcy petition.\nThe bankruptcy petition had been filed in 1987.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1903.975, 1909.04, 1924.998], "stop_times": [1909.04, 1924.998, 1927.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.975}, "reply_to": "21037__1_015", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_017", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Was there an injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1927.372], "stop_times": [1928.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.372}, "reply_to": "21037__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_018", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, and that's the next point to get to.\nShe alleges in that complaint that she was specifically injured and incurred financial damage as a result of the scheme.\nNow, the scheme that she alleges there... and this is important as well... is exactly the same scheme as both the district court and the court of appeals here understood that she alleged in the RICO case.\nIt was not the fraudulent discharge of the debt.\nShe alleged in the bankruptcy complaint in 1989 exactly what she alleged in the RICO complaint in November 1993, that the object of the scheme and the nature of the injury was the fraudulent transfer out from under her security interest of her husband's interest in the medical practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1928.321, 1930.762, 1941.451, 1952.247, 1955.72], "stop_times": [1930.762, 1941.451, 1952.247, 1955.72, 1979.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.321}, "reply_to": "21037__1_017", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_019", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Mr. Lacovara, may I ask you to clarify this?\nAs I understood the Ninth Circuit's opinion, Judge Hall's opinion, she said there's a statute of limitations question here, and my circuit's position for 10 years has been injury, whether or not you know it's a pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [1979.388, 1982.747], "stop_times": [1982.747, 2000.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.388}, "reply_to": "21037__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_020", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2000.769], "stop_times": [2001.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.769}, "reply_to": "21037__1_019", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_021", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Other circuits have the injury plus pattern.\nIf the Ninth Circuit had that rule, this complaint would be timely, but, she said, our rule is injury, period.\nAm I wrong in understanding that that's what Judge Hall said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2001.49, 2005.942, 2019.152], "stop_times": [2005.942, 2019.152, 2022.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.49}, "reply_to": "21037__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_022", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I think Judge Hall left open the question whether or not the petitioner would prevail under the injury-plus-pattern recognition point.\nOur argument today, however, is as the colloquy with several of the justices has indicated, even under that rule... that's the third of the fourth that the briefs frame... this case had to be dismissed, because petitioner--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2022.254, 2032.712], "stop_times": [2032.712, 2047.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.254}, "reply_to": "21037__1_021", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_023", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But that's not something that the Ninth Circuit dealt with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2047.061], "stop_times": [2049.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.061}, "reply_to": "21037__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_024", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2049.134], "stop_times": [2050.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.134}, "reply_to": "21037__1_023", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_025", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "The Ninth Circuit said, our rule, in contrast to the rule in other circuits, is simply injury, and it doesn't matter that you didn't know at that point there was any pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2050.013], "stop_times": [2059.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.013}, "reply_to": "21037__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_026", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That's correct, but I do want to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2059.35], "stop_times": [2062.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2059.35}, "reply_to": "21037__1_025", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_027", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And on what you're telling us now, it seems like this isn't the right case for us to decide that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2062.092], "stop_times": [2068.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2062.092}, "reply_to": "21037__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_028", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, I can only speak as the respondent.\nWe opposed certiorari, Justice Ginsburg, and I can say that the Court appears to have taken certiorari to decide, in the existence of a real conflict, what the correct accrual rule is in civil RICO claims.\nThere are three rules that we think clearly bar this complaint.\nThe fourth one, only the fourth one... that's the Third Circuit's last predicate act rule... is the only one that would save it.\nThe one that we think, as even the petitioner in her brief seems to recognize, would clearly command affirmance here, and we think is the correct rule, is the pure Clayton Act accrual rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2068.916, 2072.259, 2086.737, 2091.042, 2097.156], "stop_times": [2072.259, 2086.737, 2091.042, 2097.156, 2110.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.916}, "reply_to": "21037__1_027", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_029", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But I thought that the debate between the parties was not about the Third Circuit rule but between the injury or injury-plus-pattern rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2110.564], "stop_times": [2121.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.564}, "reply_to": "21037__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_030", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, in... up through the Ninth Circuit, since Ninth Circuit law was quite clear, it was sufficient to argue that petitioner's RICO complaint was barred by the Ninth Circuit's injury discovery principle, but now in this Court I take it that the issue before you is, what is the right rule to lay down for all civil RICO claims whether or not it's the one that was adopted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2121.83], "stop_times": [2148.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.83}, "reply_to": "21037__1_029", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_031", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, and there's another aspect to the rule.\nDo we look at whether the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and/or the pattern, or do we just look at whether there was actual knowledge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2148.469, 2150.739], "stop_times": [2150.739, 2164.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.469}, "reply_to": "21037__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_032", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, I think the way the injury rule has been defined, it's either an actual or imputed or constructive injury.\nThe first rule... and I don't want this to get lost in the discussion.\nThe first rule and the one that we think is correct is the Clayton Act accrual rule which petitioner acknowledges has no injury... has no knowledge or discovery element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2164.008, 2176.016, 2179.139], "stop_times": [2176.016, 2179.139, 2189.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.008}, "reply_to": "21037__1_031", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_033", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No should-have-known component.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2189.134], "stop_times": [2190.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.134}, "reply_to": "21037__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_034", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Exactly, or even actual knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2190.476], "stop_times": [2192.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.476}, "reply_to": "21037__1_033", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_035", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And yet, in circumstances where fraud is an element, the courts have fairly often applied the should-have-known thing, and RICO often involves claims that turn on fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2192.536], "stop_times": [2205.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.536}, "reply_to": "21037__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_036", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, but that was an argument that was specifically rejected, or the implication of that argument was specifically rejected in Agency Holding v. Malley-Duff, in which the Court said the proper statute of limitations for civil RICO cases is not the fraud statute, even if it happens to be a fraud predicate that's invoked in a particular case.\nCongress, when it fashioned the civil RICO section, specifically borrowed the pattern from the... section 4 of the Clayton Act, and the Court held therefore we will borrow the section 4 of the Clayton Act statute of limitations, and the reason I say that that should make this an easy case to dispose of is that it's been settled since 1919, including by this Court in Zenith v. Hazeltine, as the petitioner acknowledges in her brief, that the... there is no discovery principle at all under Clayton Act section 4 civil damage cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2205.526, 2228.671], "stop_times": [2228.671, 2269.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.526}, "reply_to": "21037__1_035", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_037", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "What about a fraudulent concealment?\nIs there fraudulent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2269.077, 2270.459], "stop_times": [2270.459, 2270.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.077}, "reply_to": "21037__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_038", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That's a tolling doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2270.96], "stop_times": [2271.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.96}, "reply_to": "21037__1_037", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_039", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2271.741], "stop_times": [2272.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.741}, "reply_to": "21037__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_040", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And we concede that under any principle of accrual there will be a tolling if there's been active concealment designed to mislead the potential claimant into believing that she has no claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2272.141], "stop_times": [2287.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.141}, "reply_to": "21037__1_039", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_041", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Mr. Lacovara, what troubles me about just applying the Clayton Act rule is that the Clayton Act does not have a provision like RICO which refers to predicate acts, the last of which occurred within 10 years after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.\nI... there's some problem, it seems to me, of reconciling a sudden death knowledge of the... or injury rule with the obvious expectation in this statute that there would be a long lapse of time of 10 years between predicate acts that are the basis of the suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2287.362, 2306.413], "stop_times": [2306.413, 2326.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.362}, "reply_to": "21037__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_042", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I don't think that that's necessarily a necessary assumption in the statute.\nWhat Congress has done is to say, it may be possible to look to predicate acts taking place as far apart as over a 10-year period to determine whether or not there has been a pattern of racketeering.\nBut in the H.J. case, in which the Court unanimously agreed that all the pattern requirement requires is some relationship between or among the predicate acts and the threat of continuing criminal activity, it is unlikely that a predicate act in year one and a predicate act in year 10 would show a sufficient continuity to give rise to a pattern.\nBut the point is, Justice Scalia, that only relates to whether or not a civil RICO claim arises.\nI don't think it really has any bearing on when the claim should be viewed as accruing for purposes of a statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2326.646, 2332.699, 2345.169, 2369.415, 2375.469], "stop_times": [2332.699, 2345.169, 2369.415, 2375.469, 2382.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.646}, "reply_to": "21037__1_041", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_043", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But on that point you do tell us that in this... this is an academic case, because whether you apply your rule, which is injury, or injury plus pattern, this complaint is untimely, and if we take that view, then we can say, well, we haven't got a real case to deal with any more, since either rule would lead to the same judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2382.702], "stop_times": [2407.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.702}, "reply_to": "21037__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_044", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, that's conceivable.\nI would not suggest that on this ground a disposition that applies what we consider the correct rule, which is the Clayton Act no discovery principle, or even the Ninth Circuit's discovery of injury principle, would be academic or moot, even though the plaintiff... the petitioner would also lose under the pattern discovery principle because she knew as of May 1989 that there had been, according to her allegations, yearsworth of mail frauds, wire frauds leading up to the fraudulent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2407.8, 2408.791], "stop_times": [2408.791, 2441.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.8}, "reply_to": "21037__1_043", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_045", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Under your proposed rule, does there have to have been the pattern in existence when the injury occurred in order for the injury to start the statute running?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2441.124], "stop_times": [2449.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.124}, "reply_to": "21037__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_046", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--That's a debatable question.\nI think Justice Breyer raised that question, whether the injury must take place after the pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2449.56, 2451.951], "stop_times": [2451.951, 2457.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.56}, "reply_to": "21037__1_045", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_047", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, otherwise it's a very strange statute you have, because it allows you 10 years between the... you know, the two predicate acts.\nYou could have the first predicate act, the injury occurs immediately, 4 years go by, the statute has run, and then the second predicate act occurs, which is still within 10 years but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2457.083, 2465.761], "stop_times": [2465.761, 2476.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.083}, "reply_to": "21037__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_048", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I would think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2476.818], "stop_times": [2478.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.818}, "reply_to": "21037__1_047", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_049", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--And there would be no cause of action if it's... under RICO at the time of the first injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2478.107], "stop_times": [2481.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.107}, "reply_to": "21037__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_050", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--That issue isn't squarely framed here, because she... the injury that she alleges, and I would like to cite to the passages where she describes her injuries as of 1989, indeed, 1987, but I think the correct interpretation of the statute, Justice Scalia, would be that for any RICO claim to accrue there must have been a pattern of racketeering and then injury from a predicate act that occurred, otherwise it would be hard to reconcile the language of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2481.28], "stop_times": [2511.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.28}, "reply_to": "21037__1_049", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_051", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And the rule would be 4 years from the time of discovery or from the commission of the second predicate act, whichever occurs the later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2511.96], "stop_times": [2520.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.96}, "reply_to": "21037__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_052", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I would not agree with the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2520.607], "stop_times": [2522.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.607}, "reply_to": "21037__1_051", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_053", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2522.617], "stop_times": [2523.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.617}, "reply_to": "21037__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_054", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--discovery point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2523.168], "stop_times": [2523.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2523.168}, "reply_to": "21037__1_053", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_055", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, I didn't say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2523.779], "stop_times": [2524.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.779}, "reply_to": "21037__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_056", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Under one of the rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2524.831], "stop_times": [2525.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.831}, "reply_to": "21037__1_055", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_057", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I didn't say discovery.\nI said the rule would be, I take it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2525.592, 2526.41], "stop_times": [2526.41, 2528.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.592}, "reply_to": "21037__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_058", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2528.701], "stop_times": [2529.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.701}, "reply_to": "21037__1_057", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_059", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--it would be 4 years from the injury, right, or the commission of the second predicate act, whichever occurs the later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2529.051], "stop_times": [2539.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.051}, "reply_to": "21037__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_060", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No.\nI think under the discussion I was having with Justice Scalia there would not be a RICO injury unless there had been a RICO pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2539.43, 2540.0], "stop_times": [2540.0, 2547.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.43}, "reply_to": "21037__1_059", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_061", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I don't see the need for that.\nThat is to say, why couldn't a person who burns down somebody's house as part of a plan to burn down three people's houses, which occur 5 years later, why couldn't the person whose house is burned down to begin with recover?\nI mean, it would seem odd that Congress wouldn't want them to recover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2547.904, 2549.605, 2565.156], "stop_times": [2549.605, 2565.156, 2568.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.904}, "reply_to": "21037__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_062", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2568.699], "stop_times": [2569.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2568.699}, "reply_to": "21037__1_061", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_063", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And a rule that would allow that person 4 years from the time of injury, or the time the second house burns down, would I think be a just rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2569.21], "stop_times": [2577.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.21}, "reply_to": "21037__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_064", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--There is something--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2577.013], "stop_times": [2577.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.013}, "reply_to": "21037__1_063", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_065", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--and consistent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2577.163], "stop_times": [2577.714], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.163}, "reply_to": "21037__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21037__1_066", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--There is something to be said for that, but it may not be the way Congress defined the statute, because at the time of the injury to the first person, there was the injury as a result of an arson but not necessarily the result of RICO, because there may not yet have been a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2577.714], "stop_times": [2592.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.714}, "reply_to": "21037__1_065", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_067", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Of course, there's a claim here that there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2592.193], "stop_times": [2593.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2592.193}, "reply_to": "21037__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_068", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--But that's not this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2593.996], "stop_times": [2594.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.996}, "reply_to": "21037__1_067", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_069", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--There's a claim now that there's no injury at all, that in fact... and there's some evidence that petitioner Joanne is better off now than ever before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2594.897], "stop_times": [2609.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.897}, "reply_to": "21037__1_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_070", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, we're in an odd position, Justice O'Connor.\nFor the last 8 or 9 years the petitioner has been working through several different court systems claiming that she was injured to a very sizeable degree by virtue of the fraudulent transfer of her interest in the medical practice and the violation of her right to foreclose under her lien, and now, after the complaint has been dismissed by Federal courts and the State court and bankruptcy court she says, oh, by the way, I haven't been injured at all yet, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2609.516, 2612.168], "stop_times": [2612.168, 2641.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.516}, "reply_to": "21037__1_069", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_071", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2641.898], "stop_times": [2642.509], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.898}, "reply_to": "21037__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21037__1_072", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--in fact the injury won't mature until the bankruptcy case is over, so we'll know in the next millennium--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2642.509], "stop_times": [2648.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.509}, "reply_to": "21037__1_071", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_073", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And the bankruptcy case is not in fact over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2648.412], "stop_times": [2651.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.412}, "reply_to": "21037__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_074", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--It's still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2651.274], "stop_times": [2652.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.274}, "reply_to": "21037__1_073", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_075", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "There has been no final discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2652.116], "stop_times": [2653.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.116}, "reply_to": "21037__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_076", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nThere has been a revocation of the discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2653.648, 2654.276], "stop_times": [2654.276, 2657.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.648}, "reply_to": "21037__1_075", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_077", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2657.699], "stop_times": [2658.269], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.699}, "reply_to": "21037__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21037__1_078", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "So that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2658.269], "stop_times": [2658.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.269}, "reply_to": "21037__1_077", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_079", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And it's not over.\nThere's been no final distribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2658.75, 2659.561], "stop_times": [2659.561, 2661.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.75}, "reply_to": "21037__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_080", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2661.082], "stop_times": [2661.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2661.082}, "reply_to": "21037__1_079", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_081", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And who are creditors remaining?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2661.893], "stop_times": [2663.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.893}, "reply_to": "21037__1_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_082", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Joanne is the only creditor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2663.873], "stop_times": [2665.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.873}, "reply_to": "21037__1_081", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_083", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "She is the only one now remaining?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2665.295], "stop_times": [2667.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.295}, "reply_to": "21037__1_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_084", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, and that is shown--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2667.206], "stop_times": [2667.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.206}, "reply_to": "21037__1_083", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_085", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "There's no bank, or anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2667.817], "stop_times": [2668.388], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.817}, "reply_to": "21037__1_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21037__1_086", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--No.\nThat is shown in the record.\nAttached to the summary... the dismissal and summary judgment papers in this case was the opinion from February 1993 of the bankruptcy judge recommending the withdrawal of the reference over the adversary complaint, and it recites in recommending that that complaint be dismissed that Joanne as of that time... that all of the creditors had been paid, and Joanne was the only remaining creditor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2668.388, 2668.969, 2670.338], "stop_times": [2668.969, 2670.338, 2694.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.388}, "reply_to": "21037__1_085", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_087", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, does it follow... may I just be sure to get one little... does it follow as night follows the day if she's the only beneficiary, and if she's not been injured, then neither has the trustee been injured?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2694.624], "stop_times": [2705.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.624}, "reply_to": "21037__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__1_088", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That's correct, and the... again if I may go outside the record.\nThis is judicially noticeable... the bankruptcy court has dismissed the trustee's claims on that theory, namely that she's the only creditor.\nHe cannot maintain any pre-petition claim for fraud because the allegation is Vincent, in whose shoes the trustee stands, was an active participant in that fraud, and therefore he is barred from suing anybody else in Vincent's stead.\nBut if I may just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2705.611, 2711.297, 2720.293, 2737.253], "stop_times": [2711.297, 2720.293, 2737.253, 2738.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2705.611}, "reply_to": "21037__1_087", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_089", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Mr. Lacovara--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2738.682], "stop_times": [2739.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.682}, "reply_to": "21037__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_090", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2739.554], "stop_times": [2739.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.554}, "reply_to": "21037__1_089", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_091", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--aside from the inconsistency between saying, you know, for 9 years that she's injured and now she's not injured, when was she right, in those 9 years or now?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2739.924, 2747.65], "stop_times": [2747.65, 2748.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.924}, "reply_to": "21037__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_092", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Oh, I'm perfectly prepared to say she was right in 1989 for purposes of this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2748.541], "stop_times": [2754.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2748.541}, "reply_to": "21037__1_091", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_093", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Now... now... but I'm not prepared to say for... I mean, we have an obligation to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2754.434], "stop_times": [2758.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.434}, "reply_to": "21037__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_094", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "She... I didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2758.257], "stop_times": [2759.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.257}, "reply_to": "21037__1_093", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_095", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Do we have a case or controversy before us, or is this case not proper for us to entertain, is what I'm asking you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2759.237], "stop_times": [2766.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.237}, "reply_to": "21037__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_096", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--On the basis of the complaint that she filed... the civil RICO complaint, and let's turn to that, she alleges as of 1993 various kinds of losses and injuries, and these are injuries that she said she incurred in 1987 when the fraudulent transfers defeated her security interest, her lien, which is property under Nevada law, and prevented her from foreclosing on the business and realizing what she later claimed to be $6 million worth of profits that she would have been able to earn if she'd been allowed to foreclose in 1987.\nThe other tangible injury that she alleged in this complaint, and I refer you to page 47 of the joint appendix and to page 70 of the joint appendix, in which she itemizes the\n\"losses suffered in the Siragusa medical practice interest scheme. \"\nshe says the losses currently exceeding... currently as of 1993 exceeding $6 million, the failure to receive the marital payment, that's the $1.3 million judgment that she had obtained against Vincent in September of 1987, and the impairment of her ability to execute and foreclose on Siragusa's medical practice as a result of the alleged fraudulent transfer in 1987.\nSo as she alleged a civil RICO claim with a pattern of racketeering, which is detailed, Justice Breyer, in five exhibits attached to this prolix complaint, this thing in which she claims dozens or maybe hundreds of acts of wire fraud and mail fraud, she said she lost property in a tangible amount in 1987--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2766.202, 2806.818, 2820.846, 2826.652, 2856.509], "stop_times": [2806.818, 2820.846, 2826.652, 2856.509, 2878.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2766.202}, "reply_to": "21037__1_095", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_097", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "And subsequent events rendered those alleged damages nonexistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2878.655], "stop_times": [2883.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.655}, "reply_to": "21037__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_098", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--We have suggested in the respondents' briefs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2883.977], "stop_times": [2886.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.977}, "reply_to": "21037__1_097", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_099", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Notably the elimination of the discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2886.989], "stop_times": [2889.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.989}, "reply_to": "21037__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_100", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--The latest theory of the case presented in this Court is that this is really a bankruptcy discharge case, not a challenge to a fraudulent conveyance, not the fraudulent reduction of her--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2889.591], "stop_times": [2906.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2889.591}, "reply_to": "21037__1_099", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_101", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I see--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2906.424], "stop_times": [2906.744], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.424}, "reply_to": "21037__1_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21037__1_102", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--$1.4 million verdict.\nBut the... since the time the original litigation began, as the record shows, and we have attached as an appendix to the Beckley Singleton respondent's brief, the petitioner has received approximately $1.9 million as the result of the settlement with Dr. Bowers, as the result of the redefined alimony award to replace the discharged marital payment and the $200,000 or so that Vincent paid in 1994 when he settled the case.\nNow, petitioner says maybe she's entitled to more than that because maybe she has a claim of interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2906.744, 2908.294, 2946.509], "stop_times": [2908.294, 2946.509, 2952.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2906.744}, "reply_to": "21037__1_101", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_103", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, Mr. Sauber said she's entitled to several thousand more than that, and you're not disputing... that maybe right and that may be wrong, but there's a controversy about it, is there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2952.623], "stop_times": [2962.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.623}, "reply_to": "21037__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_104", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I think it would be hard to say without knowing whether interest was running on her original $1.3 million judgment from 1987, and if so at what rate, but it does look as if she has been at least made more than whole.\nBut the other point is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2962.571, 2976.509], "stop_times": [2976.509, 2978.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.571}, "reply_to": "21037__1_103", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_105", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, but if the RICO claim were valid I guess treble damages would be in order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2978.111], "stop_times": [2983.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.111}, "reply_to": "21037__1_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21037__1_106", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--The case law so far in the lower courts, and this Court has never addressed this, is that the treble damage, the trebling takes place on the damage award that the jury renders and therefore, if the victim in a financial case has been made whole before trial, then there's nothing to treble, so the trebling doesn't arise in the air.\nIt only arises as a calculation on a verdict, and so if she has been made whole the lower court cases suggest there is no basis for a RICO trebling.\nBut the other point that I would make about the posture of the case in this Court, and this is the other basis for possibly treating it either as moot or as recognizing that there isn't any claim, in her opening brief, main brief on the merits in this Court, in order to sidestep the statute of limitations problems with the injuries about which she is complaining below, the injuries that took place in 1987, petitioner argues that no injury has occurred yet, we won't know until the bankruptcy case is closed, and we have until the next millennium to bring a RICO case based on this divorce case.\nShe said if Vincent is eventually denied a discharge for any of these reasons, Joanne's debt owed by Vincent will survive in full unaffected by the bankruptcy proceedings, mainly the alleged bankruptcy fraud.\nQuote from page 16 and 17, the moment of injury is by definition the final discharge of the defendant's legal obligation to pay the debt.\nThe RICO injury may not occur unless or until a discharge is granted.\nAnd my brother and I agree that in 1994 Judge Riegle, the bankruptcy judge, granted the stipulation to which Vincents consented revoking the discharge, so on the basis of petitioner's claim in this Court recharacterizing this as a bankruptcy fraud lost debt case, not only isn't there an injury, there never will be.\nIn either event, affirmance or dismissal under Rule 46 as moot would seem to be appropriate.\nNow, my brother said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [2983.184, 3006.188, 3016.536, 3057.273, 3070.042, 3079.827, 3085.831, 3111.879, 3119.696], "stop_times": [3006.188, 3016.536, 3057.273, 3070.042, 3079.827, 3085.831, 3111.879, 3119.696, 3121.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2983.184}, "reply_to": "21037__1_105", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_107", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "How about dismissal as improvidently granted, if we thought this was a case squarely presenting what is the split in the circuits between on the one hand the injury rule, on the other the injury-plus-pattern rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3121.205], "stop_times": [3133.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.205}, "reply_to": "21037__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__1_108", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Well, I do think, Justice Ginsburg, that the case is in that perspective alive enough to decide which is the right accrual rule, because conceivably I think... well, I would view it as almost inconceivable, but there is at least a theoretical possibility that the Court might decide that the Third Circuit is correct, in which case the last predicate act rule would have kept the claim alive for civil RICO purposes, so the Court does have the authority to decide the issue on which it granted cert, namely which of the four rules--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3133.253], "stop_times": [3173.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3133.253}, "reply_to": "21037__1_107", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_109", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, we'd only have to decide whether the fourth is not the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3173.242], "stop_times": [3178.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3173.242}, "reply_to": "21037__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_110", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--That... I think that's correct.\nThat's why you'd have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3178.072, 3180.194], "stop_times": [3180.194, 3181.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3178.072}, "reply_to": "21037__1_109", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_111", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "You'd still leave the other three rattling around out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3181.346], "stop_times": [3183.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.346}, "reply_to": "21037__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_112", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3183.897], "stop_times": [3186.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3183.897}, "reply_to": "21037__1_111", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_113", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "So... but from your point of view dismissal is improvidently granted because we couldn't pick which of the three is something that you have no objection to, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3186.478], "stop_times": [3195.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3186.478}, "reply_to": "21037__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__1_114", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Certainly from the respondents' standpoint we'd be happy with that disposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3195.744], "stop_times": [3200.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3195.744}, "reply_to": "21037__1_113", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_115", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But if we do go ahead and decide it, which of the three do you think is the best?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3200.198], "stop_times": [3205.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3200.198}, "reply_to": "21037__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__1_116", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I think the right one, Justice Stevens, is the Clayton Act accrual rule.\nIn Malley Duff the Court held that Congress patterned the civil damage remedy of RICO on the Clayton Act.\nIt's been clear for now 80 years that the Clayton Act rule does not have any discovery principle.\nIt's worked quite well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3205.412, 3209.794, 3217.709, 3225.274], "stop_times": [3209.794, 3217.709, 3225.274, 3226.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3205.412}, "reply_to": "21037__1_115", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_117", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "It hasn't been clear for 80 years because section 4 wasn't enacted till the 1950's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3226.055], "stop_times": [3230.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.055}, "reply_to": "21037__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__1_118", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No, no, section 4 dates back--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3230.737], "stop_times": [3233.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3230.737}, "reply_to": "21037__1_117", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_119", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "The statute of limitations part of it wasn't enacted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3233.148], "stop_times": [3234.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.148}, "reply_to": "21037__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__1_120", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nBut the Court in Zenith cites cases, district court cases going back to 1919, because there had been a civil remedy from 1914 forward, section 4 itself, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3234.991, 3235.441], "stop_times": [3235.441, 3248.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3234.991}, "reply_to": "21037__1_119", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_121", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, but they were all construing State statutes of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3248.569], "stop_times": [3250.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.569}, "reply_to": "21037__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__1_122", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--That's right, but they all construed them as running from the time of injury without regard to any discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3250.742], "stop_times": [3256.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3250.742}, "reply_to": "21037__1_121", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_123", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I thought you conceded that you would modify the Clayton Act rule to some degree to say that the injury has to have occurred after the second predicate act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3256.116], "stop_times": [3270.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3256.116}, "reply_to": "21037__1_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_124", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I was saying that it is arguable that there was no RICO violation or no RICO injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3270.063], "stop_times": [3276.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3270.063}, "reply_to": "21037__1_123", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_125", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Until--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3276.148], "stop_times": [3276.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.148}, "reply_to": "21037__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_126", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Until there is a RICO pattern--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3276.759], "stop_times": [3278.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3276.759}, "reply_to": "21037__1_125", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_127", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3278.429], "stop_times": [3279.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.429}, "reply_to": "21037__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_128", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--and an injury following a predicate act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3279.049], "stop_times": [3281.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3279.049}, "reply_to": "21037__1_127", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_129", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3281.44], "stop_times": [3281.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.44}, "reply_to": "21037__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_130", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "At that point.\nBut in the colloquy with Justice Breyer I conceded that that's not necessarily the correct construction of the statute, but it's certainly one that's academic here, because by petitioner's own pleading there were ample predicate acts well before the fraudulent transfer and the defeat of her security interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3281.861, 3282.462], "stop_times": [3282.462, 3303.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.861}, "reply_to": "21037__1_129", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_131", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Depending on what a pattern is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3303.376], "stop_times": [3305.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3303.376}, "reply_to": "21037__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__1_132", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Well, I'll take H.J. It was agreed upon unanimously.\nI know Justice Scalia you had a characteristically pungent concurrence that it's still frustrating, but nevertheless you said the Court had done the best it could with Congress' handiwork.\nIt certainly doesn't mean that multiple schemes are necessary.\nIt certainly doesn't mean, as Justice Souter's opinion for the Court emphasized, that there have to be multiple victims.\nSo a whole lot of different criminal acts... mail fraud, wire fraud and bankruptcy fraud directed at defeating and injuring Joanne Siragusa's property interest would, I think it's clear, constitute a pattern if ever there was one, and what she has been alleging for the last 7 or 8 or 9 years was her injury took place as a result of that, or the culmination of that pattern, even if other acts continued that affected, may have affected other persons such as Dr. Heeren.\nIf there are no further questions, I'll submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3305.026, 3308.339, 3318.216, 3323.078, 3330.745, 3362.555], "stop_times": [3308.339, 3318.216, 3323.078, 3330.745, 3362.555, 3365.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3305.026}, "reply_to": "21037__1_131", "speaker": "philip_a_lacovara"}
{"id": "21037__1_133", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lacovara.\nMr. Sauber, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3365.627, 3367.417], "stop_times": [3367.417, 3369.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3365.627}, "reply_to": "21037__1_132", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21037__2_000", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I want to make three points quickly.\nNumber 1, Joanne still has not received her $1.4 million that was the debt when Vincent went into bankruptcy.\nSome of that money went to the trustee, others of it went to the estate.\nShe's still not received her full amount.\nIn answer, Justice Ginsburg, to your question about Judge Hall's opinion, it's clear that Judge Hall agreed with our rendition of what the pattern was because she decided in her opinion that if the Ninth Circuit decided that the injury-and-pattern discovery rule was applicable, the cause of action in this case would be timely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3369.871, 3374.694, 3382.327, 3385.829, 3388.541], "stop_times": [3374.694, 3382.327, 3385.829, 3388.541, 3410.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3369.871}, "reply_to": "21037__1_133", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__2_001", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But she could assume that without... that wasn't what was before her.\nShe could say, even if the pattern didn't exist until that later date, still this complaint is not timely because it's when she knew or should have known she was injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3410.988, 3415.67], "stop_times": [3415.67, 3431.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.988}, "reply_to": "21037__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21037__2_002", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, but I think in choosing between those two rules the Ninth... Judge Hall and the Ninth Circuit clearly decided that had they gone the other way and chosen the injury-and-pattern discovery rule, her complaint would have been timely, and it's not an issue in this case when the second pattern occurred.\nOur argument is when a plaintiff can reasonably be said to be on notice that a pattern has occurred, which is one of the key elements and one of the unique elements of this statute.\nIn answer, Justice Scalia, to your question and Justice Breyer's question, an injury discovery rule with a racketeering statute is completely unworkable for this reason.\nA plaintiff may be injured by the first predicate act.\nAt that point she is now on notice, inquiry notice, and yet the cause of action doesn't exist.\nSo now instead of being diligent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3431.959, 3450.412, 3462.539, 3474.988, 3478.571, 3485.186], "stop_times": [3450.412, 3462.539, 3474.988, 3478.571, 3485.186, 3487.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3431.959}, "reply_to": "21037__2_001", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__2_003", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Yes, but may I interrupt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3487.698], "stop_times": [3489.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3487.698}, "reply_to": "21037__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__2_004", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3489.007], "stop_times": [3489.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3489.007}, "reply_to": "21037__2_003", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__2_005", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "You're assuming the answer to something your opponent thinks we need not decide.\nYou're assuming that a person can't have a RICO cause of action based on an injury before the statute was violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3489.388, 3491.871], "stop_times": [3491.871, 3498.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3489.388}, "reply_to": "21037__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__2_006", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "I'm sorry, say that again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3498.036], "stop_times": [3501.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3498.036}, "reply_to": "21037__2_005", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__2_007", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "You're assuming that a plaintiff may have a RICO cause of action based on an injury that occurred before the statute was violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3501.345], "stop_times": [3508.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3501.345}, "reply_to": "21037__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__2_008", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No, I'm not assuming that at all, and let me explain.\nIf... it really is a question of adopting an injury discovery rule that is completely unworkable, and that's our point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3508.601, 3511.873], "stop_times": [3511.873, 3520.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3508.601}, "reply_to": "21037__2_007", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__2_009", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "But if we add a version to that, that discovery or the second thing occurs, whichever comes later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3520.709], "stop_times": [3527.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3520.709}, "reply_to": "21037__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21037__2_010", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Right, and if you take the fact that the first predicate act is the discovery that you've been injured by the first predicate act, and the pattern or the other predicate acts come later, you've in essence created two classes of plaintiffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3527.415], "stop_times": [3541.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3527.415}, "reply_to": "21037__2_009", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__2_011", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "No.\nYou're still saying... I'm suggesting to you that you're assuming you can have a RICO cause of action before the violation occurs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3541.443, 3541.924], "stop_times": [3541.924, 3547.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3541.443}, "reply_to": "21037__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21037__2_012", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Absolutely.\nThat... I'm not assuming that, but that is the problem with the injury discovery rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3547.837, 3548.656], "stop_times": [3548.656, 3553.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3547.837}, "reply_to": "21037__2_011", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__2_013", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "That's not the rule your friend is arguing, by the way.\nHe's arguing for an injury rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3553.752, 3557.556], "stop_times": [3557.556, 3559.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3553.752}, "reply_to": "21037__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21037__2_014", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "He's arguing for an injury rule which in our view is completely inappropriate to the racketeering statute, which has as many of the predicate acts fraud claims, which this court has already decided in Holmberg v. Yonquist means that in a fraud claim you must be able to discover the fraud before the statute of limitations starts running.\nWhen you lay on top of that a requirement to discover and plead a pattern, and all of the difficulties and the intricacies in both defining and finding a pattern, you really have created a cause of action which by its nature is a fraud case, by its nature is a case that has as some of its elements concealment and continuity, and it seems unfair to say that the statute of limitations, when you're required to plead all of those elements, starts to tick before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3559.468, 3580.339], "stop_times": [3580.339, 3612.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3559.468}, "reply_to": "21037__2_013", "speaker": "richard_sauber"}
{"id": "21037__2_015", "conversation_id": "21037", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sauber.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1723", "start_times": [3612.212, 3612.993], "stop_times": [3612.993, 3614.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3612.212}, "reply_to": "21037__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__0_000", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1621, Harbor Tug & Barge Company v. John Papai.\nMr. Danoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [0.0, 9.587], "stop_times": [9.587, 22.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__0_001", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents two distinct legal issues.\nThe first is whether an injured maritime worker who has received LHWCA, Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act benefits pursuant to an award by an administrative law judge can thereafter seek seaman's remedies or whether that person is precluded.\nThe second issue is whether an injured maritime worker's status as a seaman or not is dependent upon his job assignment at the time when he is injured or can be dependent upon his prior work history for other employers or for the same employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [22.425, 25.528, 29.381, 47.013], "stop_times": [25.528, 29.381, 47.013, 66.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 22.425}, "reply_to": "20292__0_000", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_002", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Mr. Danoff, as a preliminary question, if the Court were to address the second question and conclude that we do not look at the prior relationship with other tug owner employers but confine the fleet principle to the same owner of the vessels being worked on, if we were to do that, do we have to reach the first question, or would that become advisory?\nI mean, what would happen if we were to decide the second issue in your favor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [66.674, 100.047], "stop_times": [100.047, 105.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.674}, "reply_to": "20292__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_003", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The case could be decided on either one of the two questions in our favor and that could end the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [105.65], "stop_times": [114.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.65}, "reply_to": "20292__0_002", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_004", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And should it end the case?\nI mean, do we have any business offering alternative holdings, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [114.566, 116.239], "stop_times": [116.239, 120.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.566}, "reply_to": "20292__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_005", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I think in this case yes, and the reason is that there is a significant and clear split in the circuits on both issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [120.47], "stop_times": [128.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.47}, "reply_to": "20292__0_004", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_006", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, there's a split on both, but answering both might make something advisory, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [128.668], "stop_times": [134.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.668}, "reply_to": "20292__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_007", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I think it would not be... if the decision were made on both issues, as I think it should be, it would eliminate the problems we have raised in the brief with duplicative litigation in the case of each issue, and it would resolve the split in the circuits in each issue.\nThe case could be decided on narrow grounds, but I don't think it has to be decided on narrow grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [134.634, 152.613], "stop_times": [152.613, 157.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.634}, "reply_to": "20292__0_006", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_008", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Which of the two is the more important issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [157.198], "stop_times": [159.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.198}, "reply_to": "20292__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__0_009", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [159.261], "stop_times": [160.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 159.261}, "reply_to": "20292__0_008", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_010", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--to those who are in the field?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [160.283], "stop_times": [162.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 160.283}, "reply_to": "20292__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__0_011", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Well, it's actually somewhat different fields.\nI think people who are in purely deep water, or seaman issues, the second issue would be more important.\nTo those who are involved in administration of LHWCA and paying benefits under the LHWCA, the first issue is more important.\nI think they're equally important to different segments of the industry, and to some extent to a group that it overlaps for, so I do think it is important to resolve both issues.\nThe preclusion issue, the first issue involving the benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, I wanted to underscore the difference between this case and the Gizoni case which was argued strenuously by the other side.\nIn the Gizoni case, the worker who had been injured had not received any sort of compensation order, whether by an administrative law judge or by a section 8(i) settlement or by the district director.\nHe was simply receiving benefits essentially voluntarily, at the same time seeking seaman status.\nThe difference between that case and this one is that in this case there is a compensation order, and that triggers section 905(a), which talks of... of the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, which talks about the employer's liability is exclusive under the act, and the issue is what makes the employer liable?\nIn the case of the LHWCA, it's a compensation order, whether it's by settlement by the administrative law judges in this case.\nIn this case, there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [162.843, 165.387, 171.542, 179.268, 191.097, 206.586, 221.987, 228.19, 250.144, 260.262], "stop_times": [165.387, 171.542, 179.268, 191.097, 206.586, 221.987, 228.19, 250.144, 260.262, 261.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.843}, "reply_to": "20292__0_010", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_012", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Mr. Danoff, would you explain to me... I know you have a literal interpretation of 905(a), but standing back from that, you mentioned the Gizoni case.\nThat says the employer who pays voluntarily under the Longshore Act would be amenable to a later Jones Act case.\nOn the other hand, if the employer says, not a penny until you drag me before some forum, they go into the Workers Compensation, the Longshore mold because it's the fastest, and in that case you would say there can't be any Jones Act, but in the other case where the employer was much more solicitous of the employee there could be?\nWhat sense would that make?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [261.404, 272.75, 282.127, 311.886], "stop_times": [272.75, 282.127, 311.886, 313.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.404}, "reply_to": "20292__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_013", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Well, the employer would not always get protection if it voluntarily paid, that's true.\nOn the other hand, from the employer's point of view they have... if they feel that the Jones Act suit is inappropriate, that status needs to be determined, they would have to object because the worker is seeking seaman status in the Department of Labor forum, and at that point get an adjudication of status.\nSooner or later there has to be an adjudication of status.\nIt may be some employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [313.608, 319.312, 340.725, 343.717], "stop_times": [319.312, 340.725, 343.717, 345.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.608}, "reply_to": "20292__0_012", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_014", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes, but you know, the big problem as I see it here is that provision in title 33 section 903(e).\nNow, I guess that's in the Longshoreman and Harbor Workers Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [345.34, 354.185], "stop_times": [354.185, 357.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.34}, "reply_to": "20292__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_015", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [357.748], "stop_times": [358.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.748}, "reply_to": "20292__0_014", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_016", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And it says, notwithstanding any other provision of law any amounts paid to an employee for the same injury, disability, or death for which benefits are claimed under this chapter, the longshoreman workers case, pursuant to the Jones Act, seaman act case, shall be credited against any liability imposed by this chapter.\nNow, this Court expressed some reliance on that section in Gizoni, and presumably it's a section to which we have to give some effect, and I don't know how it would apply under your proposed rule.\nWhat would be the purpose of this section?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [358.56, 388.059, 407.551], "stop_times": [388.059, 407.551, 410.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.56}, "reply_to": "20292__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_017", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The section to which you refer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [410.472], "stop_times": [413.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.472}, "reply_to": "20292__0_016", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_018", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [413.485], "stop_times": [413.715], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 413.485}, "reply_to": "20292__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20292__0_019", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--talked about not the case we have here where there's an LHWCA finding of status and then a Jones Act case, but the reverse, and the... to construe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [413.715], "stop_times": [425.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.715}, "reply_to": "20292__0_018", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_020", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, I don't know if it's the reverse.\nIt says, any amounts paid to an employee for the same injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [425.104, 426.003], "stop_times": [426.003, 431.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.104}, "reply_to": "20292__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_021", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Pursuant to the Jones Act or State Workers Compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [431.088], "stop_times": [434.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.088}, "reply_to": "20292__0_020", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_022", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [434.61], "stop_times": [434.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.61}, "reply_to": "20292__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_023", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "As opposed to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [434.988], "stop_times": [435.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.988}, "reply_to": "20292__0_022", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_024", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "So you would confine that section only to the voluntary payment of benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [435.979], "stop_times": [442.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.979}, "reply_to": "20292__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_025", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--To the voluntary payment of a Jones Act settlement or to payments of State Workers Compensation.\nI think it would be very... a very strained reading to take 903(e), which doesn't say anything about exclusive liability of the employer, who has been adjudicated to have to pay under the LHWCA, and say 903(e) retracted that immunity without any statement in 903(e) that it is intending to retract that immunity and without any legislative history--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [442.124, 448.189], "stop_times": [448.189, 472.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.124}, "reply_to": "20292__0_024", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_026", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [472.355], "stop_times": [472.686], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 472.355}, "reply_to": "20292__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20292__0_027", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--saying that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [472.686], "stop_times": [473.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.686}, "reply_to": "20292__0_026", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_028", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--What about the court's reliance on the section in Gizoni?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [473.848], "stop_times": [477.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.848}, "reply_to": "20292__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_029", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, in Gizoni again there was no adjudication yet of the individual's status and therefore section 905(a) never came into play.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [477.972], "stop_times": [488.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.972}, "reply_to": "20292__0_028", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_030", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, you think that whatever remedy is first obtained by a final court judgment is the one that governs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [488.08], "stop_times": [500.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.08}, "reply_to": "20292__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_031", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [500.948], "stop_times": [501.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.948}, "reply_to": "20292__0_030", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_032", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Is it a race to the courthouse for a judgment kind of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [501.349], "stop_times": [505.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.349}, "reply_to": "20292__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_033", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, it's really in the control of the injured worker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [505.082], "stop_times": [508.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.082}, "reply_to": "20292__0_032", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_034", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [508.275], "stop_times": [508.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.275}, "reply_to": "20292__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_035", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Because he has the right to decide which forum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [508.883], "stop_times": [511.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.883}, "reply_to": "20292__0_034", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_036", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "How can you say that based on--\n--Here, the injured worker presumably went to a Longshoreman and Harbor Workers administrative judge and asserted that he was in fact a Longshoreman and Harbor Workers worker and wanted benefits, got that order, and it was not appealed.\nIt has become final.\nBut in the interim the injured worker also went to court under the Jones Act and said, contrary to the claim in the longshoreman administrative proceeding, that he was in fact a seaman and entitled to recover.\nIs that the situation we have here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [511.307, 512.706, 535.232, 536.714, 553.033], "stop_times": [512.706, 535.232, 536.714, 553.033, 554.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.307}, "reply_to": "20292__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_037", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Almost.\nHe actually had the district court judge try the status first and then went and had status--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [554.825, 555.376], "stop_times": [555.376, 562.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.825}, "reply_to": "20292__0_036", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_038", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It was on appeal, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [562.992], "stop_times": [563.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.992}, "reply_to": "20292__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_039", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Well, it wasn't on appeal.\nThe case had not been concluded because he still had a 905(b) action.\nIt was an interlocutory decision.\nThe trial of the 905(b) action had not taken place, and was about to take place when the ALJ made his decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [563.683, 564.593, 569.248, 571.19], "stop_times": [564.593, 569.248, 571.19, 578.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.683}, "reply_to": "20292__0_038", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_040", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But when you say it's the worker's choice, this worker chose the Jones Act route, and it was only when the district judge said, I'm sorry you don't fit under the Jones Act that he then went to the Workers Compensation tribunal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [578.885], "stop_times": [598.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.885}, "reply_to": "20292__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_041", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's really not entirely accurate, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [598.028], "stop_times": [600.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.028}, "reply_to": "20292__0_040", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_042", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, which claim did he file first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [600.529], "stop_times": [603.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 600.529}, "reply_to": "20292__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_043", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [603.223], "stop_times": [603.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.223}, "reply_to": "20292__0_042", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_044", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Did he file first in the district court or first before the longshore?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [603.972], "stop_times": [608.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.972}, "reply_to": "20292__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_045", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Under the Longshore Act the claimant doesn't actually have to file something.\nIt's the employer's obligation to file when an injury is reported, and in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [608.756, 612.118], "stop_times": [612.118, 617.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.756}, "reply_to": "20292__0_044", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_046", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes, but when did he pursue... when did he pursue benefits, in what order?\nDidn't he first pursue the Jones Act remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [617.464, 621.424], "stop_times": [621.424, 625.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.464}, "reply_to": "20292__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_047", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--The employer was voluntarily paying and he was receiving longshore benefits, and then pursued the Jones Act litigation for a status finding first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [625.959], "stop_times": [635.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.959}, "reply_to": "20292__0_046", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_048", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And did he... he did not invoke the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act until the district court had ruled against him in the Jones Act case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [635.515], "stop_times": [645.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.515}, "reply_to": "20292__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_049", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I don't mean to quibble with the word invoked.\nThe employer has the obligation to make payments without--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [645.913, 647.974], "stop_times": [647.974, 650.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.913}, "reply_to": "20292__0_048", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_050", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "You said that it's the employee's choice which route he wants to go, so is it not the case that this employee chose the Jones Act first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [650.936], "stop_times": [662.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 650.936}, "reply_to": "20292__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_051", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--He chose to have his status decided first by the district court in the Jones Act case, and actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [662.494], "stop_times": [668.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.494}, "reply_to": "20292__0_050", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_052", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And then he was stuck because it wasn't a final judgment.\nHe couldn't appeal, and then he asked for the adjudication under the longshore workers.\nIsn't that just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [668.829, 671.783, 679.018], "stop_times": [671.783, 679.018, 680.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.829}, "reply_to": "20292__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_053", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [680.44], "stop_times": [680.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.44}, "reply_to": "20292__0_052", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_054", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--a history of the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [680.881], "stop_times": [682.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.881}, "reply_to": "20292__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_055", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [682.093], "stop_times": [682.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 682.093}, "reply_to": "20292__0_054", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_056", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--And that's not debatable that his first choice was the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [682.3], "stop_times": [686.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.3}, "reply_to": "20292__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_057", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.\nHe wanted to have his seaman status determined in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [686.504, 687.395], "stop_times": [687.395, 691.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.504}, "reply_to": "20292__0_056", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_058", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, that could have remained his first choice, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [691.299], "stop_times": [693.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.299}, "reply_to": "20292__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__0_059", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [693.85], "stop_times": [694.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.85}, "reply_to": "20292__0_058", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_060", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Why could that not have remained his first choice?\nIs there some... was he under some compulsion to come back under the Harbor Workers Act and ask for adjudication there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [694.901, 697.853], "stop_times": [697.853, 705.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 694.901}, "reply_to": "20292__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__0_061", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "No, he was not.\nHe could have waited--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [705.357, 706.218], "stop_times": [706.218, 707.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.357}, "reply_to": "20292__0_060", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_062", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "He could have pursued the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [707.11], "stop_times": [708.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.11}, "reply_to": "20292__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__0_063", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--He could have pursued the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [708.301], "stop_times": [710.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.301}, "reply_to": "20292__0_062", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_064", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Without pressing the harbor workers claim, so it was within his power to maintain his first choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [710.372], "stop_times": [715.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.372}, "reply_to": "20292__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__0_065", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [715.715], "stop_times": [715.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.715}, "reply_to": "20292__0_064", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_066", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "He couldn't appeal.\nHe tried to get a 1292(b) and he was turned down by the court of appeals, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [715.935, 716.225], "stop_times": [716.225, 721.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.935}, "reply_to": "20292__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_067", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [721.29], "stop_times": [721.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.29}, "reply_to": "20292__0_066", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_068", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "So he was stuck for a long time.\nHe could have ultimately appealed, though, if the decision were adverse to him in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [721.691, 723.2], "stop_times": [723.2, 728.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.691}, "reply_to": "20292__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_069", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.\nAs soon as the 905(b) trial was over he could have appealed not only the findings of that trial but his status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [728.584, 728.834], "stop_times": [728.834, 735.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.584}, "reply_to": "20292__0_068", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_070", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "In the meantime, he has to live.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [735.669], "stop_times": [737.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.669}, "reply_to": "20292__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_071", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [737.021], "stop_times": [739.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.021}, "reply_to": "20292__0_070", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_072", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Could he have found--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [739.021], "stop_times": [740.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.021}, "reply_to": "20292__0_071", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_073", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "He was in the same position as any other seaman who claims he's a seaman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [740.083], "stop_times": [743.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.083}, "reply_to": "20292__0_072", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_074", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes, but could he have found himself in the position, pending an appeal in the Jones Act case in which the employer ceased the voluntary payments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [743.346], "stop_times": [752.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.346}, "reply_to": "20292__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_075", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [752.291], "stop_times": [753.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.291}, "reply_to": "20292__0_074", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_076", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--and did he hedge against that, was a reasonable hedge against that by bringing the harbor workers claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [753.152], "stop_times": [758.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.152}, "reply_to": "20292__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_077", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Well, if the employer had ceased payments, then he could have said no, I am entitled to the payments, and sought an adjudication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [758.325], "stop_times": [766.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 758.325}, "reply_to": "20292__0_076", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_078", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "He--\n--But he wouldn't have gotten anything until the administrative adjudication was final.\nIn other words, I assume there's no provision in there that the mere filing of a claim under the harbor workers act obligates the employer to start making payments pending an ultimate adjudication of liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [766.242, 767.053, 772.238], "stop_times": [767.053, 772.238, 785.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.242}, "reply_to": "20292__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_079", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "If the employer controverts the duty to pay, he is not obligated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [785.759], "stop_times": [789.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.759}, "reply_to": "20292__0_078", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_080", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [789.492], "stop_times": [789.712], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 789.492}, "reply_to": "20292__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20292__0_081", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--to pay pending the adjudication.\nThere are penalties if he is wrong, but yes, there could be a period where the worker is not receiving longshore benefits, but if, in fact, he is a seaman, that just puts him in the same position as all other seamen and all other tort victims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [789.712, 792.023], "stop_times": [792.023, 805.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.712}, "reply_to": "20292__0_080", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_082", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "If it had gone the other way before the ALJ... suppose the ALJ said, I find this person's a sailor, would that be issue preclusive in the district court litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [805.562], "stop_times": [817.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.562}, "reply_to": "20292__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_083", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I believe it would be.\nI think it's not you know, in question necessarily in this case, but I think as a matter of logic it would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [817.562, 818.363], "stop_times": [818.363, 823.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.562}, "reply_to": "20292__0_082", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_084", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Even though... in this very scenario, where they went to the district court first, the district court said, you're not a sailor, then goes to the longshore route and gets a determination there, you are a sailor, and doesn't contest that, comes back to the district court and says, see, now I've got a final adjudication that I'm not entitled to longshore benefits because I'm a sailor, and you say the district court then, despite the district court's earlier ruling, would... that it would be issue preclusive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [823.908], "stop_times": [856.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.908}, "reply_to": "20292__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_085", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Because it was an interlocutory ruling and the first final ruling on status is the one that should govern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [856.189], "stop_times": [861.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.189}, "reply_to": "20292__0_084", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_086", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Do the administrative law judges routinely say, you are a sailor, or do they just say that you are or you are not a longshore worker?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [861.753], "stop_times": [870.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.753}, "reply_to": "20292__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__0_087", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Technically it's the latter, but if the only issue is, are you a seaman or are you a longshore worker, ALJ's will from time to time say we find he is not a longshore worker he is a seaman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [870.889], "stop_times": [883.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.889}, "reply_to": "20292__0_086", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_088", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, there could be some instances, or could they, correct me if I'm wrong, where you're neither?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [883.796], "stop_times": [887.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.796}, "reply_to": "20292__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__0_089", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Where you're neither?\nYes, definitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [887.369, 889.061], "stop_times": [889.061, 890.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 887.369}, "reply_to": "20292__0_088", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_090", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "All right.\nSo what the--\n--What are those?\nWhat are those?\nI wasn't aware that there were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [890.292, 890.653, 892.236, 892.426, 893.037], "stop_times": [890.653, 892.236, 892.426, 893.037, 895.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.292}, "reply_to": "20292__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_091", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, you could be too inland to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [895.668], "stop_times": [898.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.668}, "reply_to": "20292__0_090", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_092", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Well, like me.\nI'm neither one, right?\nI could bring a lawsuit and be found to be neither one.\n[Laughter]\nIt has to be possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [898.66, 899.782, 900.452, 902.955, 903.236], "stop_times": [899.782, 900.452, 902.955, 903.236, 904.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.66}, "reply_to": "20292__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__0_093", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Somebody has to be a maritime worker and there's a long and involved situs and status determination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [904.718], "stop_times": [911.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.718}, "reply_to": "20292__0_092", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_094", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "So you mean somebody who might be under State Workers Compensation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [911.454], "stop_times": [914.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.454}, "reply_to": "20292__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_095", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Right, exactly.\nThose are the three categories.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [914.065, 914.786], "stop_times": [914.786, 917.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 914.065}, "reply_to": "20292__0_094", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_096", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--I--\n--The big problem comes up with these people who may be sailors and may be longshore workers.\nHow big is the problem?\nI didn't have a sense of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [917.448, 917.798, 924.129, 926.733], "stop_times": [917.798, 924.129, 926.733, 928.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.448}, "reply_to": "20292__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_097", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "There are hundreds and hundreds of cases every year in which seaman's status is debated.\nThis isn't even outside the record.\nIt was quoted in our petition for certiorari.\nThere are many, many cases where the status issue is a very difficult issue, and where it is litigated, and if this case is allowed to stand will be litigated twice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [928.726, 934.249, 935.441, 937.464], "stop_times": [934.249, 935.441, 937.464, 949.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 928.726}, "reply_to": "20292__0_096", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_098", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But Mr. Danoff, I understood you to say a moment ago that the only exact issue in the administrative proceeding is whether one is a longshore worker or not, and you say, you know, as a practical matter if everybody agrees there are only two choices the adjudication is frequently made in the form of saying, you're a sailor, but the only issue that technically arises under the act is longshore worker or not longshore worker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [949.892], "stop_times": [975.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.892}, "reply_to": "20292__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_099", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [975.959], "stop_times": [976.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.959}, "reply_to": "20292__0_098", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_100", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Okay.\nIf that is the only thing that the court is technically empowered to decide, if that is the only issue under that statute, then why is there a preclusive effect if the court goes the further step and says not only you're not a longshore worker, but by the way, you are a sailor?\nWhy should that frolic be preclusive?\nWell, I guess this Court has addressed that very question, has it not, in a sense, and has said the acts are intended to be one or the other, not both.\nYes, but there could be... yes, but that means there can't be both, but it's also consistent--\n--It could be neither.\n--with being neither, exactly, and the usual rules of preclusion I think operate only with respect to what is necessary for the judgment in the first action, and a determination that he is a seaman as you have explained it to us is not necessary for the judgment in the first action and therefore, under the normal preclusion rules, I suppose it would not raise an estoppel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [976.439, 976.67, 997.123, 1001.807, 1013.715, 1019.729, 1019.949], "stop_times": [976.67, 997.123, 1001.807, 1013.715, 1019.729, 1019.949, 1043.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.439}, "reply_to": "20292__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_101", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And that will be a question I'm sure some day the Court will have to address.\nNamely, when the Court has said repeatedly that the two acts are mutually exclusive, if somebody gets an award under the Jones Act, for instance, first, is that mutually exclusive of the Longshore Act.\nIn the case of this case, where the first action is under the Longshore Act, the statute itself says the employer's liability is exclusive in law or at admiralty.\nI don't know what that could mean, other than there's no Jones Act remedy allowed to follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1043.404, 1048.198, 1064.671, 1078.511], "stop_times": [1048.198, 1064.671, 1078.511, 1083.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1043.404}, "reply_to": "20292__0_100", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_102", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, Justice Souter is not contiadicting that.\nHe's just saying that you're never going to have the assurance of only one determination either under the Longshoreman Act or in the district court, because to be sure, if you are found in the first action to be either a seaman or a longshore worker, the other one is precluded and the case is over, but if in the first action you are found not to be a harbor worker, or not to be a seaman, you're still going to have a second action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1083.654, 1086.295], "stop_times": [1086.295, 1114.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.654}, "reply_to": "20292__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__0_103", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That may be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1114.435], "stop_times": [1115.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.435}, "reply_to": "20292__0_102", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_104", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It doesn't affect your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1115.884], "stop_times": [1116.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.884}, "reply_to": "20292__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_105", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1116.395], "stop_times": [1117.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.395}, "reply_to": "20292__0_104", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_106", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Once you're found to be a harbor worker.\nBut what you have here is an adjudication that this person was in fact--\n--Yes.\n--a longshoreman, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1117.807, 1118.007, 1122.469, 1122.769], "stop_times": [1118.007, 1122.469, 1122.769, 1124.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.807}, "reply_to": "20292__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__0_107", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1124.74], "stop_times": [1125.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.74}, "reply_to": "20292__0_106", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_108", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1125.441], "stop_times": [1126.072], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.441}, "reply_to": "20292__0_107", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20292__0_109", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1126.072], "stop_times": [1128.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.072}, "reply_to": "20292__0_108", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_110", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "If you prevail and we adopt the rule of issue preclusion where there is a finding in the agency as to longshore status, would the district court in a Jones Act suit be correct in acting within its discretion to defer proceedings until the administrative hearings were concluded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1128.173], "stop_times": [1152.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.173}, "reply_to": "20292__0_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__0_111", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--That is a possibility if there are two pending proceedings, that one or the other tribunal would stay its action pending the resolution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1152.008], "stop_times": [1165.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1152.008}, "reply_to": "20292__0_110", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_112", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The district court would say there is a possibility that this issue will be resolved conclusively in favor of longshore status, so I'll just wait.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1165.489], "stop_times": [1174.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.489}, "reply_to": "20292__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__0_113", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--And some States, including California, where some of these cases are filed in State court, the Jones Act cases have rules of their own which say which action gets precedence first.\nThe first filed action often gets precedence.\nSome States don't have that rule, and then the district court would have to make a discretionary decision whether to await the ALJ's finding or to make its own finding, and if the case is over, then the ALJ would be bound by it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1174.595, 1185.724, 1188.185], "stop_times": [1185.724, 1188.185, 1200.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1174.595}, "reply_to": "20292__0_112", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_114", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I believe you said that there were provisional remedies for the employee who was in this situation.\nThis is the employee's dilemma.\nI want the Jones Act because I think I can prove negligence and I want the pain and suffering, but I certainly want something, and my employer is not being cooperative.\nWhat does an... what does someone do who's in that dilemma, who thinks he's got a good Jones Act claim, but needs the interim maintenance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1200.143, 1208.511, 1210.533, 1224.072], "stop_times": [1208.511, 1210.533, 1224.072, 1233.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.143}, "reply_to": "20292__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_115", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "At that... both tribunals, both the courts and the ALJ, in the case of hardship, have the procedural tools to make an early status decision.\nThe claimant should go to whichever tribunal he wants to decide the issue and say, this is a hardship case, I need a quick decision.\nThat issue can be severed... it's simply the status question, not the liability or the merits.\nIt's often a one-day proceeding... and get an early status decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1233.959, 1243.956, 1251.37, 1256.804], "stop_times": [1243.956, 1251.37, 1256.804, 1260.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.959}, "reply_to": "20292__0_114", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_116", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But the problem is that that's essentially what happened here but then there was no immediate appeal because he also had the claim against the employer as shipowner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1260.337], "stop_times": [1271.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1260.337}, "reply_to": "20292__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_117", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But when it was... of course, he was receiving in this case the compensation benefits throughout, and when the district judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1271.116], "stop_times": [1277.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1271.116}, "reply_to": "20292__0_116", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_118", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Only for the knee.\nNot for the further injury, right?\nDidn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1277.489, 1278.609, 1280.341], "stop_times": [1278.609, 1280.341, 1281.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.489}, "reply_to": "20292__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_119", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Right, but that... actually the amount he would have obtained is the same.\nThe back, the second injury, the back injury had more to do with his final, total, permanent disability than his interim benefits.\nHis interim benefits would be the same.\nSo he did receive benefits throughout, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1281.411, 1284.433, 1290.457, 1292.169], "stop_times": [1284.433, 1290.457, 1292.169, 1297.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1281.411}, "reply_to": "20292__0_118", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_120", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--And I guess there's even a third cause of action, is there, for the employee against the owner of the vessel, and that's not affected by any of this discussion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1297.152], "stop_times": [1306.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.152}, "reply_to": "20292__0_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_121", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--It's part of the package that the injured worker has under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act.\nHe not only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1306.468, 1313.043], "stop_times": [1313.043, 1314.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.468}, "reply_to": "20292__0_120", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_122", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But you agree that can go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1314.282], "stop_times": [1315.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.282}, "reply_to": "20292__0_121", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_123", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Oh, yes, and... it can go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1315.795], "stop_times": [1317.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.795}, "reply_to": "20292__0_122", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_124", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And is it going forward?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1317.357], "stop_times": [1319.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.357}, "reply_to": "20292__0_123", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_125", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It went forward to the district court to a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1319.198], "stop_times": [1322.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.198}, "reply_to": "20292__0_124", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_126", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1322.41], "stop_times": [1323.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.41}, "reply_to": "20292__0_125", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_127", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And there was a trial of that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1323.441], "stop_times": [1323.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.441}, "reply_to": "20292__0_126", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_128", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1323.772], "stop_times": [1324.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.772}, "reply_to": "20292__0_127", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_129", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "He had a negligence action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1324.723], "stop_times": [1325.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.723}, "reply_to": "20292__0_128", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_130", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1325.034], "stop_times": [1325.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.034}, "reply_to": "20292__0_129", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_131", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--which he pursued to conclusion.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1325.534, 1326.884], "stop_times": [1326.884, 1329.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.534}, "reply_to": "20292__0_130", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_132", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "May I ask you a... I don't want to... I want to ask a question about the other issue, but are you finished?\nIs this a good time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1329.278, 1333.732], "stop_times": [1333.732, 1335.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.278}, "reply_to": "20292__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__0_133", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--I'd be happy to answer your question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1335.294], "stop_times": [1336.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1335.294}, "reply_to": "20292__0_132", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_134", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1336.176], "stop_times": [1336.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.176}, "reply_to": "20292__0_133", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_135", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--about the other issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1336.616], "stop_times": [1337.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.616}, "reply_to": "20292__0_134", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_136", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "If the... Joe Smith is a carpenter on a boat tied up at the dock and hurts himself, but this is his... he's had 10 trips on the same boat, ship, as a sailor, he's a sailor, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1337.568], "stop_times": [1357.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.568}, "reply_to": "20292__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__0_137", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "If he has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1357.031], "stop_times": [1359.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.031}, "reply_to": "20292__0_136", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_138", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "He just happened to be hammering some nails and so forth.\nHe's worked for, however, the same employer, 10 trips, this is the 11th one, and I take it we'd call him a sailor under our cases, even though the only thing that changed is he happens to have been hurt when he was painting, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1359.413, 1362.415], "stop_times": [1362.415, 1373.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.413}, "reply_to": "20292__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__0_139", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes.\nIf he had a long-term assignment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1373.784, 1374.405], "stop_times": [1374.405, 1377.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.784}, "reply_to": "20292__0_138", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_140", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1377.407], "stop_times": [1377.678], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.407}, "reply_to": "20292__0_139", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20292__0_141", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--that was a seaman's job--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1377.678], "stop_times": [1378.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1377.678}, "reply_to": "20292__0_140", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_142", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1378.859], "stop_times": [1379.09], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.859}, "reply_to": "20292__0_141", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20292__0_143", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--the fact that he is doing something while the ship's tied to the dock--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1379.09], "stop_times": [1381.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1379.09}, "reply_to": "20292__0_142", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_144", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And now, in fact, the situation is the same, except the earlier trips were on different ships owned by the same person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1381.4], "stop_times": [1389.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.4}, "reply_to": "20292__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__0_145", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--No, it really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1389.255], "stop_times": [1390.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.255}, "reply_to": "20292__0_144", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_146", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Same result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1390.697], "stop_times": [1391.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.697}, "reply_to": "20292__0_145", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__0_147", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--It really is different, because if each job assignment is a different job assignment he could be assigned one time to a ship for a voyage and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1391.148], "stop_times": [1403.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.148}, "reply_to": "20292__0_146", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_148", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "What I'm really trying to get at, and I'll be more frank about it, is if in fact we have a person who is a sailor because he has worked 10 times for different ships of the same company in sailing capacity, why does it make any difference if those 10 previous trips were for different companies but hired out of the same union hiring hall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1403.836], "stop_times": [1426.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.836}, "reply_to": "20292__0_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__0_149", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--It's because the status of an individual has... first of all of that individual has never been by precedent judged by other than his current assignment, whether it's with one or more vessels or with a single employer, and the reason for that is, he would make every worker who was a seaman in the past potentially a seaman now.\nThe Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1426.611, 1454.808], "stop_times": [1454.808, 1455.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.611}, "reply_to": "20292__0_148", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_150", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, I guess we addressed... the closest case might be Chandris.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1455.249], "stop_times": [1460.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.249}, "reply_to": "20292__0_149", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_151", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1460.272], "stop_times": [1460.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1460.272}, "reply_to": "20292__0_150", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_152", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Where this Court acknowledged with respect to an employer a fleet doctrine could be applicable, but that was in a situation where the employee's job had not changed.\nIn fact, dealing with an employee who had been hired as a seaman to go on voyages as the chief engineer or the communications expert or something and to work in that capacity.\nDid the Court acknowledge that an assignment could change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1460.923, 1476.924, 1492.154], "stop_times": [1476.924, 1492.154, 1497.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.923}, "reply_to": "20292__0_151", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_153", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1497.611], "stop_times": [1498.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1497.611}, "reply_to": "20292__0_152", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_154", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And that if the assignment, indeed, changed and the worker was then going to just be asked to come on board to paint when the vessel was tied to the dock to do repairs on a daily basis, that would be a change of assignment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1498.242], "stop_times": [1513.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.242}, "reply_to": "20292__0_153", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_155", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1513.843], "stop_times": [1514.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.843}, "reply_to": "20292__0_154", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_156", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Even if it were the same employer, much less a different one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1514.233], "stop_times": [1517.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.233}, "reply_to": "20292__0_155", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_157", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--The Chandris case had, I think, a beautiful example illustrating this, which is a seaman who is transferred to the office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1517.376], "stop_times": [1523.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.376}, "reply_to": "20292__0_156", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_158", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "What I'm driving at... yes... is that if, in fact... there are so many variables, but hold them all constant, and if he's a seaman because of the fleet doctrine should it suddenly make a difference if everything else is the same but it isn't this employer's fleet, it's the union hiring hall.\nThat's what I'm trying to get at.\nDoes the simple fact... if everything else would make him a seaman but for the fact that he's hired out of the union hiring hall and works on the ships of different employers in the past, that's the only difference, why does that make a legal difference?\nWhy should it make a legal difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1523.382, 1543.144, 1545.356, 1560.048], "stop_times": [1543.144, 1545.356, 1560.048, 1561.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.382}, "reply_to": "20292__0_157", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__0_159", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It's not his being hired out of the union hiring hall that makes a difference.\nThat makes no difference.\nIt's the work for other employers, because clearly his job will have changed.\nHis job assignment will have changed when he changes employers and works on different vessels.\nHe has a new job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1561.58, 1564.491, 1565.762, 1571.026, 1576.51], "stop_times": [1564.491, 1565.762, 1571.026, 1576.51, 1577.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1561.58}, "reply_to": "20292__0_158", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_160", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Then why do we speak in terms of status rather than in terms of a continuing employment relationship as a seaman with a given fleet employer?\nWhy does it help to talk about status, on your view, because status apparently is something that has no reference, can have no reference except with respect to the relationship between the employer and a given... employee and a given employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1577.632, 1584.517], "stop_times": [1584.517, 1600.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.632}, "reply_to": "20292__0_159", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_161", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Because you need the status of seaman to have the seaman remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1600.846], "stop_times": [1606.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1600.846}, "reply_to": "20292__0_160", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_162", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, that's right.\nThat's what we've said.\nBut why does it make sense to talk in terms of status?\nWhy did it make sense for Congress, why does it make sense for us, if all we're really concerned with is the duration or repetition of a relationship between the worker and a particular employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1606.59, 1607.051, 1607.782, 1611.826], "stop_times": [1607.051, 1607.782, 1611.826, 1626.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.59}, "reply_to": "20292__0_161", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_163", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I'm not sure I'm following the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1626.108], "stop_times": [1628.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1626.108}, "reply_to": "20292__0_162", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_164", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well hasn't this Court said it's determined on the basis of the status of the employee?\nHaven't we made that the rule under the statutes, or haven't we interpreted the statutes as making that the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1628.569, 1633.801], "stop_times": [1633.801, 1639.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1628.569}, "reply_to": "20292__0_163", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_165", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.\nThe seaman's remedies are only allowed to people with seaman status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1639.855, 1640.366], "stop_times": [1640.366, 1644.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1639.855}, "reply_to": "20292__0_164", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_166", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And is someone who is hired temporarily to go paint a tug while it's at the dock ever going to be a seaman by virtue of that employ, no matter how many days he goes and paints?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1644.44], "stop_times": [1657.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.44}, "reply_to": "20292__0_165", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_167", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Not... no, he would not be in our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1657.329], "stop_times": [1659.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1657.329}, "reply_to": "20292__0_166", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_168", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But if we... if he is in fact acting... if there is a question as to whether he is in a given case acting as a seaman, and it is appropriate to look to his prior kinds of jobs, why do we look to his prior kinds of jobs only if they are for a given employer rather than his prior kinds of jobs for like employers if our concern is with status rather than the details of the employment relationship between a given employer and a given employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1659.54], "stop_times": [1689.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.54}, "reply_to": "20292__0_167", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_169", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--It's because the relationship that has always been considered determinative of status is with the given employee, because it has always been considered that the current job assignment governs in the case of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1689.82], "stop_times": [1703.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1689.82}, "reply_to": "20292__0_168", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_170", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But why should that make a difference if status is the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1703.05], "stop_times": [1706.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.05}, "reply_to": "20292__0_169", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_171", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Because it would... the seaman remedies cover seamen in being, not former seamen who are now not seamen.\nSeamen remedies are limited to people who are subject to the perils of the sea, who have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1706.292, 1714.957], "stop_times": [1714.957, 1719.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1706.292}, "reply_to": "20292__0_170", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_172", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Then why do we look... if you carry your logic to its extreme, why do we ever look to a prior job assignment at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1719.59], "stop_times": [1727.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.59}, "reply_to": "20292__0_171", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_173", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--I don't think we should unless it's part of a continuing employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1727.574], "stop_times": [1731.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1727.574}, "reply_to": "20292__0_172", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_174", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, I thought we did for purposes of determining the substantiality of the satisfaction of the two criteria for seamen status.\nWell, I suppose we did, did we, when the person is hired generally to be like the engineer on whatever vessel is at sea by the employer, but then one time while the vessel was parked in the harbor the employer said, by the way, go paint the deck, and we looked to the overall job with the employer, I assume--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1731.458, 1742.327], "stop_times": [1742.327, 1767.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.458}, "reply_to": "20292__0_173", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__0_175", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.\nIf there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1767.432, 1767.572], "stop_times": [1767.572, 1767.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1767.432}, "reply_to": "20292__0_174", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_176", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--to determine whether he was a seaman, not just whether at that moment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1767.923], "stop_times": [1771.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.923}, "reply_to": "20292__0_175", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__0_177", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--If there is a long-term employment, then you can look at the entirety of that long-term employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1771.996], "stop_times": [1778.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1771.996}, "reply_to": "20292__0_176", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_178", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Is there any long-term employment in this setup?\nThe Solicitor General said that these... this operation has no permanent crews, so it's not like a vessel that goes off with a crew and then... that has a long-term relationship.\nTell me, what is the fact?\nIs it true that this tug has no permanent crew, and that even when it's at sea, these are pickup workers from the hiring hall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1778.752, 1780.652, 1795.851, 1800.627], "stop_times": [1780.652, 1795.851, 1800.627, 1811.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.752}, "reply_to": "20292__0_177", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_179", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "They do pick up workers from the hiring hall to do a voyage basis for a specific timelimited basis.\nIt could be 1 day, it could be a week on that particular tug.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1811.225, 1818.399], "stop_times": [1818.399, 1821.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1811.225}, "reply_to": "20292__0_178", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_180", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "So all their employees are picked from this hiring hall for a per-job, on a per-job basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1821.872], "stop_times": [1828.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.872}, "reply_to": "20292__0_179", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__0_181", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.\nAlthough the job may be more than 1 day, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1828.978, 1830.18], "stop_times": [1830.18, 1832.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1828.978}, "reply_to": "20292__0_180", "speaker": "eric_danoff"}
{"id": "20292__0_182", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Danoff.\nMr. Boyle, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1832.093, 1833.826], "stop_times": [1833.826, 1836.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.093}, "reply_to": "20292__0_181", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_000", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAs was stated previously, this Court has already held that voluntary payment of longshore benefits does not preclude a Jones Act award.\nNeither should it... neither should the formal award that was made in this case preclude this Jones Act suit.\nBefore I get into that, though, one thing I have to make clear is that this scenario never occurs except in one very, very specific instance.\nThat's when the employer owns the ship.\nThe employer must own the ship to have this problem.\nAnd when the motion for summary judgment was made as against the Jones Act complaint here, defendant also... petitioner also made a motion for summary judgment that this plaintiff did not have a 905(b) action for negligence, and when the judge decided there was no Jones Act case, the judge also decided that there was a 905(b) case, thereby deciding that this man was a longshoreman, so the judge, the district judge decided that this man was in the Longshore Act before he ever went over to the ALJ.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1836.746, 1842.13, 1853.227, 1863.855, 1873.65, 1876.234, 1879.684], "stop_times": [1842.13, 1853.227, 1863.855, 1873.65, 1876.234, 1879.684, 1915.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.746}, "reply_to": "20292__0_182", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_001", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's simply a denial of summary judgment.\nThat's not a determination of fact by the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1915.978, 1918.78], "stop_times": [1918.78, 1922.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.978}, "reply_to": "20292__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_002", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the district judge determined that because of the circumstance of this man's employment he could proceed with a 905(b) action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1922.333], "stop_times": [1932.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.333}, "reply_to": "20292__1_001", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_003", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "What order did the district court enter, denial of a motion for summary judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1932.691], "stop_times": [1937.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.691}, "reply_to": "20292__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_004", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "A partial... a partial denial of the motion for summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1937.594], "stop_times": [1942.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.594}, "reply_to": "20292__1_003", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_005", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "On the 905(b)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1942.567], "stop_times": [1943.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.567}, "reply_to": "20292__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_006", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1943.307], "stop_times": [1943.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.307}, "reply_to": "20292__1_005", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_007", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That simply means there's enough evidence to go to trial.\nIt doesn't mean that the district court is making a factual finding one way or the other.\nIn fact, district courts don't make factual findings on summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1943.647, 1946.759, 1950.032], "stop_times": [1946.759, 1950.032, 1953.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.647}, "reply_to": "20292__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_008", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "No.\nBut Your Honor, in order to even maintain a 905(b) action one has to be a longshoreman.\nOne may not be a seaman.\nBecause the Longshore Act provides a lien as against the 905(b) action, and that was already determined in the district court.\nIt was not determined by the ALJ.\nThe ALJ mistakenly redetermined it.\nThe district judge had already determined it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1953.595, 1953.785, 1958.957, 1960.84, 1969.616, 1971.669, 1974.203], "stop_times": [1953.785, 1958.957, 1960.84, 1969.616, 1971.669, 1974.203, 1976.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.595}, "reply_to": "20292__1_007", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_009", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Excuse me.\nWould the district judge have to find that he is surely a seaman and probably has a valid cause of action under 905(b), or does he only have to determine that he is at least arguably a seaman and arguably has a cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1976.233, 1976.674], "stop_times": [1976.674, 1992.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.233}, "reply_to": "20292__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_010", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "You mean arguably a longshoreman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1992.526], "stop_times": [1994.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.526}, "reply_to": "20292__1_009", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_011", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Arguably a longshoreman and arguably has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1994.028], "stop_times": [1995.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.028}, "reply_to": "20292__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_012", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, I think the court... the case is dismissable.\nDefendant... petitioner argued that the man had no 905(b) action along with no Jones Act cause of action, and the judge decided that in view of the circumstances that he was a longshoreman within the Longshore Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [1995.567, 1998.031], "stop_times": [1998.031, 2013.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.567}, "reply_to": "20292__1_011", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_013", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--He arguably had a 905... it didn't say he had a 905(b), that he arguably did, which means he's arguably a longshoreman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2013.391], "stop_times": [2021.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.391}, "reply_to": "20292__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_014", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Your Honor, there is no determination by the finder of fact that a 905(b) action as to whether or not the worker is a longshoreman is given that he is a longshoreman.\nNo finder of fact decides longshore status in a 905(b) case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2021.976, 2032.241], "stop_times": [2032.241, 2036.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2021.976}, "reply_to": "20292__1_013", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_015", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2036.315], "stop_times": [2037.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.315}, "reply_to": "20292__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_016", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2037.016], "stop_times": [2037.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.016}, "reply_to": "20292__1_015", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_017", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "What do you mean, it's given?\nWho gives--\n--Who gives it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2037.577, 2038.187, 2038.938], "stop_times": [2038.187, 2038.938, 2039.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.577}, "reply_to": "20292__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_018", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, it's just like... it's in the nature of in a diversity action you allege that you're a citizen of State A, and you allege defendant is a citizen of State B.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2039.269], "stop_times": [2051.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.269}, "reply_to": "20292__1_017", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_019", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And that can't be controverted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2051.165], "stop_times": [2052.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.165}, "reply_to": "20292__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_020", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes, it can, and the defendant did controvert it in this case.\nThey said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2052.958, 2056.05], "stop_times": [2056.05, 2056.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.958}, "reply_to": "20292__1_019", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_021", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Mr. Boyle, I'm not following your argument--\n--Well--\n--because we never got to the 905(b) case until the district case first threw out the Jones Act case.\nThe district judge did say, you're not a sailor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2056.659, 2058.203, 2058.422, 2065.476], "stop_times": [2058.203, 2058.422, 2065.476, 2068.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.659}, "reply_to": "20292__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__1_022", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2068.58], "stop_times": [2069.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.58}, "reply_to": "20292__1_021", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_023", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And then said, because you're not a sailor, and that's... although it was interlocutory that was out of the case, and then they went over to the 905(b) case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2069.369], "stop_times": [2079.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.369}, "reply_to": "20292__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__1_024", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And as part of the 905(b) case went to the ALJ at the Department of Labor to get the lien established.\nThat's why he went to the Department of Labor, not to get benefits but to get the lien established.\nIt was part of the 905(b) process.\nIt was a ticket to be punched in the 905(b) action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2079.967, 2088.355, 2093.378, 2097.101], "stop_times": [2088.355, 2093.378, 2097.101, 2099.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.967}, "reply_to": "20292__1_023", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_025", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Then how do we get the adjudication of benefits by the ALJ?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2099.993], "stop_times": [2104.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.993}, "reply_to": "20292__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__1_026", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Because the ALJ didn't recognize that he was already precluded from making another determination about status by virtue of the district judge's decision and undertook to make a new determination, and then made a new determination, which he should not have made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2104.905], "stop_times": [2122.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.905}, "reply_to": "20292__1_025", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_027", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I don't follow--\n--Are you getting into this as an alternative basis for affirmance of the Ninth Circuit?\nThe Ninth Circuit said the question before us is whether the plaintiff's receipt of compensation benefits under the LHWCA precludes him from also recovering as a seaman under the Jones, but he took it as a given that that had happened, and they don't go into this thing you're talking about at all.\nWe ordinarily take the Ninth Circuit's findings as we receive them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2122.727, 2123.388, 2128.651, 2145.0], "stop_times": [2123.388, 2128.651, 2145.0, 2150.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.727}, "reply_to": "20292__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_028", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe only reason I got into this is because there was a lot of colloquy during Mr. Danoff's argument about people being seamen, being longshoreman, and being neither, and that's the only reason why I brought this up.\nThat's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2150.616, 2151.728, 2164.327], "stop_times": [2151.728, 2164.327, 2165.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.616}, "reply_to": "20292__1_027", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_029", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Can I ask about the main collateral estoppel issue, something that's bothering me that I don't see answered.\nMaybe there's an obvious answer to it.\nBut in your opinion, if the injured employee goes to the longshoreman people first and they say you're a longshoreman, then the person should be able to sue under the Jones Act and say, no, I'm a seaman, and that doesn't bind me.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2165.319, 2171.063, 2172.395, 2190.186], "stop_times": [2171.063, 2172.395, 2190.186, 2190.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.319}, "reply_to": "20292__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__1_030", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2190.767], "stop_times": [2191.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.767}, "reply_to": "20292__1_029", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_031", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Okay.\nWhat happens in your opinion if the first... if what happens is that he wants to... is the employer bound similarly, or not bound similarly?\nIn other words, what happens if they say in the first proceeding you're not a longshoreman, you're a seaman, and then the injured person goes into court and the employer who just won says, oh, no, you're not a seaman, you're a longshoreman, and then the man ends up with nothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2191.188, 2191.758, 2201.483], "stop_times": [2191.758, 2201.483, 2219.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.188}, "reply_to": "20292__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__1_032", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2219.636], "stop_times": [2219.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.636}, "reply_to": "20292__1_031", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_033", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Because the court says he's a longshoreman and the ALJ said he's a seaman, and there he is, not a penny.\nSo how is this supposed to work, or is it possible that the employer would be bound but the employee wouldn't?\nThat doesn't seem very fair.\nHow does this whole thing work out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2219.976, 2226.069, 2235.216, 2236.748], "stop_times": [2226.069, 2235.216, 2236.748, 2238.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.976}, "reply_to": "20292__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__1_034", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Well, the way it works out is that if the employer went before... in front of the ALJ and vigorously argued that the worker was a seaman, regardless of what the ALJ decided, the arguments, the conduct advanced by that litigant in front of the ALJ, principles of equitable estoppel would prevent the employer from going in front of the district judge and taking an opposite position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2238.441], "stop_times": [2266.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.441}, "reply_to": "20292__1_033", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_035", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well then, why wouldn't it equally bind the employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2266.839], "stop_times": [2269.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.839}, "reply_to": "20292__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__1_036", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, because in this case and in all of these cases you never have an employee go in and vigorously argue that they're a longshoreman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2269.91], "stop_times": [2278.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.91}, "reply_to": "20292__1_035", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_037", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Will we measure the vigor of the argument in determining collateral estoppel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2278.826], "stop_times": [2283.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.826}, "reply_to": "20292__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_038", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, to the extent that one of the guidelines of the Astoria Savings case versus Solimino is the incentive to vigorously or aggressively pursue a position.\nNow, there are five things about this ALJ determination and ALJ awards of longshore benefits that indicate that they are not entitled to administrative collateral estoppel, and the first of those was mentioned in Mr. Danoff's argument, is in the statute itself, the longshore statute, 903(e) that talks about credit for Jones Act payments in making longshore awards.\nIf it goes in that direction one way, it should go the other direction also.\nThe second one is 913(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2283.421, 2298.181, 2325.459, 2329.703], "stop_times": [2298.181, 2325.459, 2329.703, 2333.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.421}, "reply_to": "20292__1_037", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_039", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Excuse me, I don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2333.115], "stop_times": [2334.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.115}, "reply_to": "20292__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_040", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, in this Court's opinion in Gizoni, on 502 U.S. page 91, the Court stated that one of the reasons why receipt of longshore benefits should not preclude pursuit of Jones Act benefits was that section 903(e) of the Longshore Act says that any payments by reason... payments made under the Jones Act would be a credit to any liability imposed upon the employer under the Longshore Act, and in a footnote in that opinion it was mentioned that because of that there is no detrimental reliance upon any position that the employee takes because the employer gets credit for having paid moneys out under the Jones Act.\nThat being the situation, then the opposite of that should also be true, and it is true that the employer gets credit for any moneys paid under the Longshore Act in the pursuit of a Jones Act remedy.\nIt's one of the parts of the statute that indicates the coexistence of the Longshore Act and the Jones Act, but one.\nThere are four others.\nThe second one is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2334.536, 2390.254, 2402.312, 2410.878, 2412.337], "stop_times": [2390.254, 2402.312, 2410.878, 2412.337, 2415.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.536}, "reply_to": "20292__1_039", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_041", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Of course, that could just... what your opponent says here is that that could just handle the situation in which there has been a Jones Act determination without collateral estoppel effect, or the situation in which Jones Act damages are partly different but not entirely different from harbor worker damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2415.039], "stop_times": [2442.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.039}, "reply_to": "20292__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_042", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--It could, but what we're trying to determine here is whether Congress, when it enacted the various iterations of the Longshore Act, meant for an ALJ award to be preclusive or not.\nThis is just one of five circumstances in the act that indicates they didn't mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2442.547, 2458.419], "stop_times": [2458.419, 2463.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2442.547}, "reply_to": "20292__1_041", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_043", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Your view is it's preclusive if the employer wins, but it's not preclusive if the employee wins?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2463.211], "stop_times": [2468.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.211}, "reply_to": "20292__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__1_044", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--No.\nIt's not preclusive in either one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2468.807, 2469.048], "stop_times": [2469.048, 2470.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.807}, "reply_to": "20292__1_043", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_045", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "So then how are we going to deal with this worker, if it's not preclusive in either case?\nYou either have to on the one hand give a system of law where the worst that would happen to the worker is that sometimes he would not get quite as much money, or we take your system, and sometimes workers will get both with credit but sometimes they'll get nothing, and I have to admit that that last possibility, which seems a real one under your system, is something that I find difficult to square with what I think Congress had in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2470.159, 2474.794], "stop_times": [2474.794, 2503.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.159}, "reply_to": "20292__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__1_046", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, longshore benefits are paid voluntarily by employers.\nJones Act benefits are not paid voluntarily by employers.\nYou have to file a suit under the Jones Act.\nYou have to take the position you're a Jones Act seaman.\nIf you take the position you're a Jones Act seaman, you're entitled to a trial by jury if you present a prima facie case that you're a Jones Act seaman.\nI believe that that's what this plaintiff did here, and the judge got into factual circumstances beyond the prima facie case and granted summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2503.892, 2508.464, 2511.736, 2514.718, 2517.05, 2525.295], "stop_times": [2508.464, 2511.736, 2514.718, 2517.05, 2525.295, 2536.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.892}, "reply_to": "20292__1_045", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_047", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But isn't it also true, just to throw this in, there are situations in which the plaintiff will recover under neither scheme, because if he is in fact a seaman he can't recover as a longshoreman, and he may not be able to prove negligence, in which event he won't recover under the Jones Act either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2536.801], "stop_times": [2552.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.801}, "reply_to": "20292__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20292__1_048", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's right, and that's the choice the litigant takes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2552.052], "stop_times": [2556.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2552.052}, "reply_to": "20292__1_047", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_049", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, if he's neither, maybe he's entitled to State Worker's Comp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2556.937], "stop_times": [2560.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.937}, "reply_to": "20292__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__1_050", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Definitely not, because he's injured on board a vessel, and the situs of his injury would not entitle him to State Comp under any circumstances.\nI want to get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2560.23, 2570.397], "stop_times": [2570.397, 2572.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.23}, "reply_to": "20292__1_049", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_051", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Just one point.\nIf he's a seaman but there's no negligence, he still gets something because the vessel is unseaworthy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2572.658, 2573.97], "stop_times": [2573.97, 2580.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.658}, "reply_to": "20292__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_052", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2580.284], "stop_times": [2580.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2580.284}, "reply_to": "20292__1_051", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_053", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Or maintenance in cure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2580.764], "stop_times": [2581.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.764}, "reply_to": "20292__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_054", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Maintenance in cure has nothing to do with unseaworthy.\nIt has to do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2581.555, 2583.306], "stop_times": [2583.306, 2584.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.555}, "reply_to": "20292__1_053", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_055", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But he does get that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2584.148], "stop_times": [2585.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.148}, "reply_to": "20292__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_056", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2585.37], "stop_times": [2585.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.37}, "reply_to": "20292__1_055", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_057", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--as a seaman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2585.67], "stop_times": [2586.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.67}, "reply_to": "20292__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_058", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes, as long as he's temporarily disabled.\nAs soon as he becomes permanently disabled, he gets nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2586.772, 2589.975], "stop_times": [2589.975, 2593.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2586.772}, "reply_to": "20292__1_057", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_059", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's $22 a week?\nWhat about a claim the vessel's unseaworthy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2593.578, 2594.95], "stop_times": [2594.95, 2596.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.578}, "reply_to": "20292__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_060", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It has nothing to do with... no, it isn't, it's $22 a day in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2596.981], "stop_times": [2599.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2596.981}, "reply_to": "20292__1_059", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_061", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And why is it it has nothing to do with it, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2599.832], "stop_times": [2602.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.832}, "reply_to": "20292__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_062", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Because that... it has... that's a tort remedy.\nThat's part of the seaman's tort, unseaworthiness and negligence.\nYou have to prove a case of unseaworthiness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2602.724, 2605.256, 2610.23], "stop_times": [2605.256, 2610.23, 2612.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.724}, "reply_to": "20292__1_061", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_063", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--In other words, that's comprised within the Jones Act claim of no negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2612.59], "stop_times": [2617.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.59}, "reply_to": "20292__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_064", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.\nUnseaworthiness is absolute liability, like products liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2617.624, 2618.224], "stop_times": [2618.224, 2622.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.624}, "reply_to": "20292__1_063", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_065", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's why I'm asking.\nWhy doesn't... Justice Stevens put to you the case, isn't it possible that you can be a seaman but there's no negligence.\nSo then I say, don't you still have a cause of action for unseaworthiness--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2622.517, 2623.318, 2628.884], "stop_times": [2623.318, 2628.884, 2633.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.517}, "reply_to": "20292__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_066", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Oh, yes, you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2633.586], "stop_times": [2633.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.586}, "reply_to": "20292__1_065", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_067", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--and you say it has nothing to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2633.817], "stop_times": [2635.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.817}, "reply_to": "20292__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_068", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Oh, no.\nYes, you have a cause of action for unseaworthiness.\nThat's also proving a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2635.306, 2635.677, 2637.529], "stop_times": [2635.677, 2637.529, 2639.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.306}, "reply_to": "20292__1_067", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_069", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2639.25], "stop_times": [2639.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.25}, "reply_to": "20292__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_070", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Just under a lesser standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2639.711], "stop_times": [2641.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.711}, "reply_to": "20292__1_069", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_071", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But that doesn't mean that he gets nothing then because he has a cause of action for unseaworthiness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2641.464], "stop_times": [2644.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.464}, "reply_to": "20292__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20292__1_072", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Unless he... if he can't prove negligence, the chances are that he... it's somewhat unlikely.\nWell, usually it goes the other way around.\nIt's easier to prove unseaworthiness than it is to prove negligence, but under negligence you get causation no matter how slight, so that if you prove negligence the causal connection between the accident and the injury has to be a lot... can be a lot thinner than it is under negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2644.913, 2652.528, 2654.289], "stop_times": [2652.528, 2654.289, 2669.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.913}, "reply_to": "20292__1_071", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_073", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, if he can't prove either unseaworthiness or negligence, perhaps he doesn't deserve to get anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2669.08], "stop_times": [2674.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.08}, "reply_to": "20292__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_074", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I think that's correct.\nThat's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2674.665, 2676.085], "stop_times": [2676.085, 2677.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2674.665}, "reply_to": "20292__1_073", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_075", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But that's nothing to do with... the longshore... Worker's Compensation is a no fault... unseaworthiness is still a form of liability.\nYou have to prove the ship was in an unseaworthy state.\nIt's not, I injured my knee so I collect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2677.837, 2687.394, 2689.907], "stop_times": [2687.394, 2689.907, 2693.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.837}, "reply_to": "20292__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__1_076", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2693.069], "stop_times": [2693.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.069}, "reply_to": "20292__1_075", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_077", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "So... but the usual tradeoff isn't to show... the employer pays Worker's Compensation and then is not at risk in a tort suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2693.589], "stop_times": [2704.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.589}, "reply_to": "20292__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__1_078", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2704.716], "stop_times": [2705.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2704.716}, "reply_to": "20292__1_077", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_079", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And yet you're saying that's not what works here.\nThe employer was subject to a compensation award, and then... but you say what flows from that doesn't follow here.\nThat is, the employer, despite having paid compensation, is still at risk in a negligence action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2705.057, 2706.939, 2718.807], "stop_times": [2706.939, 2718.807, 2725.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.057}, "reply_to": "20292__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__1_080", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, that's true in Gizoni anyway.\nThat's already been established, that the employer paying compensation does not cut off the Jones Act case.\nWhat we're talking about here is the employer... the employee obtaining a formal award, and whether that formal award is entitled to administrative collateral estoppel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2725.282, 2727.325, 2732.54], "stop_times": [2727.325, 2732.54, 2741.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.282}, "reply_to": "20292__1_079", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_081", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And you said there are five reasons why he cannot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2741.427], "stop_times": [2743.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.427}, "reply_to": "20292__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20292__1_082", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2743.901], "stop_times": [2744.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.901}, "reply_to": "20292__1_081", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_083", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And you've told us one of them.\nI'm curious to hear the other four.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2744.389, 2745.08], "stop_times": [2745.08, 2746.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.389}, "reply_to": "20292__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20292__1_084", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The second one is that under 913(d) of the Longshore Act the statute of limitations for filing a claim under the Jones Act is tolled while the employee pursues the Jones Act, and until such time as he's found to be not a seaman by the court, then he's relegated to the Longshore Act.\nBut up until that point the statute is... of limitations is tolled.\nThe third one is under 922 of the Longshore Act any formal award is... can be modified within a year after its making, which makes it different from other formal awards and other adjudications by the ALJ's, which is the third reason why this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2746.512, 2768.797, 2774.773], "stop_times": [2768.797, 2774.773, 2793.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.512}, "reply_to": "20292__1_083", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_085", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Can it be modified with respect to the determination of longshoreman status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2793.525], "stop_times": [2798.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.525}, "reply_to": "20292__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_086", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--I believe so.\nI don't think it's ever happened, but theoretically it can be, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2798.708, 2799.619], "stop_times": [2799.619, 2801.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.708}, "reply_to": "20292__1_085", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_087", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "What makes you believe so if it's never happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2801.952], "stop_times": [2804.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.952}, "reply_to": "20292__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_088", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Because the language of the statute says any aspect of any order entered by the deputy commissioner can be modified up to 1 year, and that means any.\nThe fourth reason is in the purpose of the Longshore Act itself.\nIf you do, as was mentioned by Justice Ginsburg during Mr. Danoff's argument, if you make a formal award preclusive and you remove any incentive there is for an employer to make voluntary payment... because this Court has already ruled that making of voluntary payments is not preclusive.\nIf you make a formal award preclusive, that's contrary to the purpose of the Longshore Act, which is to foster prompt payment of compensation and medical benefits to injured workers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2804.714, 2814.868, 2820.933, 2843.379], "stop_times": [2814.868, 2820.933, 2843.379, 2853.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.714}, "reply_to": "20292__1_087", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_089", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But that wouldn't be entirely out of accord with the whole purpose of these schemes, not just the Longshore Act but also State Workman's Compensation schemes.\nThey are intended to give the employee assurance and promptness at the expense of maybe waiving greater damages that he could have gotten.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2853.034, 2864.212, 2877.472], "stop_times": [2864.212, 2877.472, 2877.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.034}, "reply_to": "20292__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_090", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2877.913], "stop_times": [2878.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2877.913}, "reply_to": "20292__1_089", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_091", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--That's how those schemes are set up.\nThat's the deal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2878.163, 2879.004], "stop_times": [2879.004, 2879.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.163}, "reply_to": "20292__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_092", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--This isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2879.815], "stop_times": [2880.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2879.815}, "reply_to": "20292__1_091", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_093", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "You get it fast, you get it for sure, and in exchange for that you're giving up a shot at tort remedies that might get you a lot more bucks.\nNow, the fact that this should happen in the minicontext of this procedural dilemma doesn't trouble me very much, because that's part of the big deal as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2880.426, 2888.711], "stop_times": [2888.711, 2900.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.426}, "reply_to": "20292__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__1_094", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Well, the problem with that is that back in 1920 there were no Worker's Compensation laws, and back in 1927, in 1920 when the Jones Act was enacted, it was designed to give itinerant seamen a cause of action to be tried by a jury against their employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2900.608], "stop_times": [2917.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.608}, "reply_to": "20292__1_093", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_095", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, there were certainly lots of Workman's Compensation laws in 1920, State Worker's Compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2917.211], "stop_times": [2923.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.211}, "reply_to": "20292__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_096", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But the Congress decided that seamen would not be covered by State Worker's Comp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2923.716], "stop_times": [2929.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.716}, "reply_to": "20292__1_095", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_097", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, that may be one thing, but I thought you said there weren't any Workman's Compensation laws in 1920.\nThat simply is factually inaccurate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2929.312, 2934.415], "stop_times": [2934.415, 2936.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.312}, "reply_to": "20292__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__1_098", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, there was no Federal Worker's Compensation law in 1920, and what I was getting at is the purpose of the Jones Act, and this is the fifth reason, is to afford seamen a trial by jury... crew members, really, is what seamen are... a trial by jury of the issue not only of negligence but of their status.\nAnd in that trial by jury, after you have a prima facie case established, which I believe we did in this case under Chandris v. Latsis, which was that the worker had contributed to the function and mission of the vessel, and that he had a connection with the vessel which was substantial in both duration and in nature, then that goes to the jury, and the jury considers things like perils of the sea, or the jury considers whether you ate, slept, or lived on the vessel.\nA jury considers whether or not this is a day-by-day assignment.\nBut the prima facie case is made, and it's for the jury to consider all the circumstances.\nAn ALJ is not equipped to do that.\nNow, there's four things about this particular ALJ determination that in itself makes it nonpreclusive, and the second one of that is the laches that this defendant, this petitioner, after believing that Sharp governed this case, after believing that it would be preclusive, did not bring it to the attention of the district judge, but waited until we got to the court of appeals.\nThat's laches.\nThat prevents preclusion.\nAnd the fourth one is, if this Court decides to follow Sharp, this is a change in the law from back in 197... 1992.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [2936.278, 2954.061, 2984.329, 2987.622, 2992.456, 2995.037, 3016.003, 3016.894, 3018.513], "stop_times": [2954.061, 2984.329, 2987.622, 2992.456, 2995.037, 3016.003, 3016.894, 3018.513, 3027.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2936.278}, "reply_to": "20292__1_097", "speaker": "thomas_j_boyle"}
{"id": "20292__1_099", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Boyle.\nMr. Frederick, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3027.429, 3029.272], "stop_times": [3029.272, 3031.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.429}, "reply_to": "20292__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__2_000", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn Gizoni this Court recognized the unique interplay between the Longshore Act and the Jones Act.\nIn that case, the Court said that the Longshore Act\n\"clearly does not comprehend such a preclusive effect. \"\nbecause it specifically provides that any amounts paid to an employee for the same injury under the Jones Act\n\"shall be credited against any liability imposed-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3031.973, 3046.682, 3052.827, 3055.969, 3060.381, 3067.016], "stop_times": [3046.682, 3052.827, 3055.969, 3060.381, 3067.016, 3072.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3031.973}, "reply_to": "20292__1_099", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_001", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "So is it your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3072.903], "stop_times": [3073.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.903}, "reply_to": "20292__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_002", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--by the Longshore Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3073.931], "stop_times": [3074.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3073.931}, "reply_to": "20292__2_001", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_003", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Is it your view... this is the one thing that is bothering me, the same question.\nI mean, do you remember the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3074.612, 3079.816], "stop_times": [3079.816, 3081.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.612}, "reply_to": "20292__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_004", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The hardship question.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3081.468, 3082.169], "stop_times": [3082.169, 3082.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3081.468}, "reply_to": "20292__2_003", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_005", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "No.\nWell, the question basically is, is your rule, is the Government's rule which says that the proceeding, first proceeding does not bind the employee also applicable to the employer?\nYes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3082.768, 3082.989, 3097.069], "stop_times": [3082.989, 3097.069, 3099.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.768}, "reply_to": "20292__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_006", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--In the Longshore Act proceeding the finding would not be binding.\nWhether it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3099.941, 3104.713], "stop_times": [3104.713, 3105.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3099.941}, "reply_to": "20292__2_005", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_007", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3105.504], "stop_times": [3105.704], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.504}, "reply_to": "20292__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20292__2_008", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--is in the Jones Act would then be binding on the Longshore Act is a different question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3105.704], "stop_times": [3109.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3105.704}, "reply_to": "20292__2_007", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_009", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--No, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3109.465], "stop_times": [3109.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3109.465}, "reply_to": "20292__2_008", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_010", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--which would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3109.845], "stop_times": [3110.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3109.845}, "reply_to": "20292__2_009", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_011", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--There are a possibility of 16 boxes in a matrix, as I've worked out.\nYou can have all kinds of permutations and combinations.\nI am confining myself for this question to the instance where the longshoreman proceeding comes first, and here, one side could win or the other.\nThe Jones Act comes second, and I want to be certain it is the position of the Government that the first proceeding does not bind the seaman.\nThat's what you've argued in your brief... the employee.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3110.416, 3115.501, 3118.643, 3130.702, 3140.707, 3142.85], "stop_times": [3115.501, 3118.643, 3130.702, 3140.707, 3142.85, 3144.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.416}, "reply_to": "20292__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_012", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3144.359], "stop_times": [3144.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3144.359}, "reply_to": "20292__2_011", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_013", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's your brief.\nAnd I take it it is also your position that it does not bind the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3144.79, 3145.32], "stop_times": [3145.32, 3150.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.79}, "reply_to": "20292__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_014", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Justice Breyer, the answer to your question is that the Government's position is that an ALJ determination in a longshore award is not binding and does not have preclusive effect on a subsequent Jones Act suit brought by the employee.\nThere are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3150.604, 3163.904], "stop_times": [3163.904, 3164.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3150.604}, "reply_to": "20292__2_013", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_015", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "For either party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3164.732], "stop_times": [3166.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3164.732}, "reply_to": "20292__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_016", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--For... whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3166.234], "stop_times": [3167.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3166.234}, "reply_to": "20292__2_015", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_017", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "You won't say for either party, so now I'm getting worried.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3167.855], "stop_times": [3170.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.855}, "reply_to": "20292__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_018", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3170.326], "stop_times": [3170.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3170.326}, "reply_to": "20292__2_017", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_019", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "What.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3170.737], "stop_times": [3171.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3170.737}, "reply_to": "20292__2_018", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_020", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--The answer to your question is, did Congress intend for administrative estoppel to apply?\nOur position is that Congress did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3171.178, 3178.012], "stop_times": [3178.012, 3179.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3171.178}, "reply_to": "20292__2_019", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_021", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3179.884], "stop_times": [3180.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.884}, "reply_to": "20292__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_022", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3180.475], "stop_times": [3181.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3180.475}, "reply_to": "20292__2_021", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_023", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--intend it on either party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3181.006], "stop_times": [3182.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.006}, "reply_to": "20292__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_024", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3182.146], "stop_times": [3182.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3182.146}, "reply_to": "20292__2_023", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_025", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3182.997], "stop_times": [3183.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.997}, "reply_to": "20292__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_026", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Now, the second part of my answer to your question is, would principles of equitable estoppel apply?\nThat's a different issue as to whether or not the employer, who has not suffered detrimental reliance, as this Court said in footnote 5--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3183.498, 3189.212], "stop_times": [3189.212, 3196.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3183.498}, "reply_to": "20292__2_025", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_027", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And here I don't know, because I thought collateral estoppel was... I didn't know there was a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3196.307], "stop_times": [3201.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.307}, "reply_to": "20292__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_028", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--No, there's a difference between collateral estoppel and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3201.17], "stop_times": [3203.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3201.17}, "reply_to": "20292__2_027", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_029", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "If we called it issue preclusion there wouldn't be such confusion, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3203.44], "stop_times": [3207.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3203.44}, "reply_to": "20292__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__2_030", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3207.073], "stop_times": [3207.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3207.073}, "reply_to": "20292__2_029", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_031", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I took civil procedure years ago and we just used to say res judicata, and it had two parts, and I can't even remember it that well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3207.284], "stop_times": [3214.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.284}, "reply_to": "20292__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_032", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3214.609], "stop_times": [3215.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3214.609}, "reply_to": "20292__2_031", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_033", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Then I'm not--\n[Laughter]\nAll I know is, if I were an employer, I would want to know... I'm an employee, and now I was called a longshoreman, so now I bring my case, and the employee... er comes in and says, hey, this guy was called a longshoreman.\nThat's the end of this matter, and you say, no it isn't, right.\nNow I want to know, the opposite happens.\nThe person was called a seaman, and the employer comes in and says, hey... you understand the opposite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3215.078, 3216.239, 3216.75, 3232.261, 3236.794, 3238.627], "stop_times": [3216.239, 3216.75, 3232.261, 3236.794, 3238.627, 3247.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.078}, "reply_to": "20292__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_034", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes, and if I can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3247.312], "stop_times": [3248.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3247.312}, "reply_to": "20292__2_033", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_035", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Okay.\nNow, I want to know if it reaches exactly the same result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3248.063, 3248.263], "stop_times": [3248.263, 3250.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.063}, "reply_to": "20292__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_036", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--The same result, and let me answer the question about hardship.\nIf the ALJ decides that the worker is a member of the crew, and the district court decides that the person is not a member of the crew, the remedy is in 922, which calls for modification of awards.\nIn that instance, the person can go back to the longshore proceeding and say, I was unfairly rejected of my longshore benefits, and I would like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3250.654, 3253.636, 3266.816], "stop_times": [3253.636, 3266.816, 3276.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3250.654}, "reply_to": "20292__2_035", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_037", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "After a year?\nCan he do it after a year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3276.102, 3276.533], "stop_times": [3276.533, 3277.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.102}, "reply_to": "20292__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_038", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--He can do it within a year, but he can apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3277.902], "stop_times": [3280.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3277.902}, "reply_to": "20292__2_037", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_039", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I didn't ask whether he can do it within a year.\nI asked if he can do it after a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3280.214, 3281.746], "stop_times": [3281.746, 3283.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.214}, "reply_to": "20292__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_040", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--If within a year he files a notice with the Department of Labor that says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3283.379], "stop_times": [3287.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3283.379}, "reply_to": "20292__2_039", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_041", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "If it is not within a year, he cannot do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3287.879], "stop_times": [3289.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.879}, "reply_to": "20292__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_042", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--If he... oh, yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3289.692], "stop_times": [3291.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3289.692}, "reply_to": "20292__2_041", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_043", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Is that correct?\nIf he hasn't filed something within a year--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3291.082, 3291.453], "stop_times": [3291.453, 3293.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.082}, "reply_to": "20292__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_044", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--I would like to... Justice Scalia, the answer is all he has to do is file to seek a stay.\nIt would prolong the period of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3293.723, 3297.737], "stop_times": [3297.737, 3300.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3293.723}, "reply_to": "20292__2_043", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_045", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--He must do that within the year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3300.17], "stop_times": [3301.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.17}, "reply_to": "20292__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_046", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3301.471], "stop_times": [3301.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3301.471}, "reply_to": "20292__2_045", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_047", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And if he has not filed that paper within the year, it's over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3301.831], "stop_times": [3304.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.831}, "reply_to": "20292__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_048", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3304.963], "stop_times": [3305.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3304.963}, "reply_to": "20292__2_047", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_049", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3305.404], "stop_times": [3305.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3305.404}, "reply_to": "20292__2_048", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_050", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But Justice Scalia, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3305.834], "stop_times": [3306.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3305.834}, "reply_to": "20292__2_049", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_051", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's all I wanted to know.\nIt took a long time to get it, though, I must say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3306.693, 3307.083], "stop_times": [3307.083, 3310.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.693}, "reply_to": "20292__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_052", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Justice Scalia, all... if the district court action is proceeding, all he has to do is to file a notice with the Labor Department to say, I have this action proceeding in district court.\nPlease don't make my 1-year period toll.\nThat's all that he's got to do to keep open his modification of award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3310.106, 3319.763, 3323.176], "stop_times": [3319.763, 3323.176, 3326.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3310.106}, "reply_to": "20292__2_051", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_053", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It's automatic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3326.157], "stop_times": [3326.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3326.157}, "reply_to": "20292__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_054", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The district director has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3326.668], "stop_times": [3330.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3326.668}, "reply_to": "20292__2_053", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_055", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Has discretion to do it or not to do it, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3330.191], "stop_times": [3333.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.191}, "reply_to": "20292__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_056", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3333.974], "stop_times": [3334.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3333.974}, "reply_to": "20292__2_055", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_057", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "So it is not automatic.\nSo that is not all he has to do.\nHe has to do that and get somebody to graciously give him that extension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3334.505, 3335.216, 3336.586], "stop_times": [3335.216, 3336.586, 3341.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.505}, "reply_to": "20292__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_058", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's correct, but the... but this Court's decisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3341.1], "stop_times": [3344.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3341.1}, "reply_to": "20292__2_057", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_059", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Let's be precise about what his rights are here and not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3344.623], "stop_times": [3347.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3344.623}, "reply_to": "20292__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_060", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--His rights are to file for a modification of an award.\nThat's clear.\nAnd that's also clear, Justice Scalia, that the Congress did not intend for these ALJ proceedings to have a preclusive effect on subsequent Jones Act suits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3347.285, 3350.457, 3351.058], "stop_times": [3350.457, 3351.058, 3360.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3347.285}, "reply_to": "20292__2_059", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_061", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Does the opposite hold true, that... is it your view that the Jones Act suit is decided first?\nIt does have preclusive effects in the Longshoreman Act case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3360.645, 3366.84], "stop_times": [3366.84, 3370.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.645}, "reply_to": "20292__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_062", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "It's... yes, it is likely that that will be the case, but not always, and the reason is that you would be applying principles of judicial collateral estoppel rather than administrative collateral estoppel.\nIn the most likely scenario, the district court proceeding under the Jones Act will have preclusive effect because those principles of judicial collateral estoppel apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3370.962, 3384.042], "stop_times": [3384.042, 3393.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3370.962}, "reply_to": "20292__2_061", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_063", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Are you saying simply that administrative adjudications do not have as heavy an issue-preclusive effect as judicial proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3393.048], "stop_times": [3400.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3393.048}, "reply_to": "20292__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__2_064", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3400.665], "stop_times": [3400.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3400.665}, "reply_to": "20292__2_063", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_065", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And that's hornbook law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3400.963], "stop_times": [3402.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.963}, "reply_to": "20292__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20292__2_066", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3402.926], "stop_times": [3404.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3402.926}, "reply_to": "20292__2_065", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_067", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, what... what, then, invokes the intent of Congress?\nThat's... I take it that's just a general principle of procedure.\nYou said... you were arguing that Congress had a specific intent here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3404.576, 3408.82, 3412.672], "stop_times": [3408.82, 3412.672, 3416.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3404.576}, "reply_to": "20292__2_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__2_068", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Right.\nThere are two principles, two provisions that we would point to, the crediting provision, which makes clear that Congress anticipated these parallel proceedings would occur, and the second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3416.796, 3417.037], "stop_times": [3417.037, 3426.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3416.796}, "reply_to": "20292__2_067", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_069", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, maybe Congress just anticipated the normal rules of civil procedure, in which in one direction there wouldn't be a preclusion.\nThat would make sense of the congressional credit scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3426.771, 3435.587], "stop_times": [3435.587, 3438.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3426.771}, "reply_to": "20292__2_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20292__2_070", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--I don't... respectfully, I think, Justice Souter, the way the credit provision is worded by saying liability imposed, if you accepted petitioner's position, there would be no point in having the crediting provision, because the first tribunal to decide it would have preclusive effect.\nThere wouldn't be nothing... there would be nothing to credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3438.899, 3455.561], "stop_times": [3455.561, 3457.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3438.899}, "reply_to": "20292__2_069", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_071", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "You're saying 905(e) affected... or explain why it isn't the case, but that interpretation of 905(e) effectively repeals 905(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3457.553], "stop_times": [3468.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3457.553}, "reply_to": "20292__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_072", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "No, Justice Scalia.\n903(e), the crediting provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3468.852, 3470.063], "stop_times": [3470.063, 3473.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3468.852}, "reply_to": "20292__2_071", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_073", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The crediting provision, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3473.894], "stop_times": [3474.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3473.894}, "reply_to": "20292__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_074", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Is... simply says 905(a) means exclusivity means no double recovery in the Jones Act suit.\nWith respect to State tort remedies, exclusivity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3474.895, 3483.841], "stop_times": [3483.841, 3487.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3474.895}, "reply_to": "20292__2_073", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_075", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But that's not what (a) says.\n(a) says that this liability under the Harbor Worker's Act is exclusive, and you can't get any other recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3487.064, 3488.995], "stop_times": [3488.995, 3496.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3487.064}, "reply_to": "20292__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20292__2_076", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--As this Court pointed out in footnote 3 of Gizoni, that means if the person is covered by the Longshore Act.\nIt doesn't say who decides that, and our position is that the district court jury in the Jones Act suit would have the opportunity to decide whether the worker is a member of the crew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3496.41, 3503.884], "stop_times": [3503.884, 3517.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3496.41}, "reply_to": "20292__2_075", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_077", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "I'm still confused.\nI know you're at the end of the time, but I've had no opportunity to ask about it, to clarify, please, the point you tried to address previously for Justice Breyer.\nApparently you think that an employer could be equitably estopped for asserting contrary positions in one or the other forum... fora, but the employee never would be equitably estopped and can take inconsistent positions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3517.074, 3518.296, 3529.282], "stop_times": [3518.296, 3529.282, 3548.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3517.074}, "reply_to": "20292__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__2_078", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The question is one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3548.686], "stop_times": [3550.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3548.686}, "reply_to": "20292__2_077", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_079", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Is that... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3550.546], "stop_times": [3551.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3550.546}, "reply_to": "20292__2_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__2_080", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3551.047], "stop_times": [3551.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3551.047}, "reply_to": "20292__2_079", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_081", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "--Can't that be answered yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3551.387], "stop_times": [3553.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3551.387}, "reply_to": "20292__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__2_082", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Yes, it can, and the answer is yes because of detrimental reliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3553.028], "stop_times": [3557.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3553.028}, "reply_to": "20292__2_081", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_083", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, then it's... doesn't that give you just the opposite answer that I... I mean, I was interested in the practicalities of this.\nI just wanted to be sure that there was parallel treatment here, and so is it that there is going to be real parallel treatment, or that there isn't?\nI'm trying to think in general terms about the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3557.682, 3563.156, 3572.523], "stop_times": [3563.156, 3572.523, 3575.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3557.682}, "reply_to": "20292__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20292__2_084", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Let me... maybe if I'm concrete it would be helpful to the answer.\nIf this were brought in district court where the worker said, count 1, I'm a Jones Act seaman, or count 2, I'm a longshore worker, there wouldn't be any problem.\nThe jury could decide what the status is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3575.695, 3579.725, 3589.332], "stop_times": [3579.725, 3589.332, 3591.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3575.695}, "reply_to": "20292__2_083", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_085", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "But this real live case is, the employee says in the district court, I was a seaman when I was injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3591.385], "stop_times": [3600.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3591.385}, "reply_to": "20292__2_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__2_086", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3600.191], "stop_times": [3602.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3600.191}, "reply_to": "20292__2_085", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_087", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And the employer says, no you weren't.\nYou were, if anything, a longshoreman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3602.622, 3604.022], "stop_times": [3604.022, 3606.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3602.622}, "reply_to": "20292__2_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__2_088", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "And what has happened here, Justice O'Connor, is that instead of paying maintenance and cure, which under the boatman's agreement for deck hands in this case, the petitioner here did not pay maintenance and cure, which would be the traditional seaman's remedy, and now under petitioner's theory would have the leverage to say, I'm not going to pay you voluntary benefits under the Longshore Act either, and so the question of hardship really does arise for the injured worker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3606.265], "stop_times": [3635.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3606.265}, "reply_to": "20292__2_087", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_089", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Well, but it is voluntary, after all.\nThe employer does not have to pay under Longshoreman and Harbor Worker's Act predetermination benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3635.932, 3637.855], "stop_times": [3637.855, 3645.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3635.932}, "reply_to": "20292__2_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20292__2_090", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "May I answer the question, Mr. Chief Justice?\nOur position is that Congress did not intend for injured maritime workers to be left without any interim remedy while they pursued the status to which they are justly... should be awarded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3645.91, 3647.92], "stop_times": [3647.92, 3660.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3645.91}, "reply_to": "20292__2_089", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20292__2_091", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Frederick.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3660.117, 3662.05], "stop_times": [3662.05, 3663.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3660.117}, "reply_to": "20292__2_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20292__2_092", "conversation_id": "20292", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1621", "start_times": [3663.319], "stop_times": [3668.354], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3663.319}, "reply_to": "20292__2_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19941__0_000", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1340, Hughes Aircraft Company v. United States, on the relation of William J. Schumer.\nMr. Starr.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [0.0, 9.086], "stop_times": [9.086, 9.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19941__0_001", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case brings before the Court three issues under the False Claims Act that represents the Court's first occasion to address some of the myriad issues which have arisen under the 1986 amendments to that act, and beyond, it is this Court's first qui tam case since World War II.\nTwo of the issues, the meaning of the public disclosure provision of the 1986 amendments and the meaning of the pivotal bedrock statutory term, false claim, are of enduring and high practical significance to the law.\nThe threshold issue in the case is retroactivity, addressed, of course, in terms of first principles by this Court in Landgraf.\nIf the Court pleases, I will speak to the retroactivity issue before turning to the other two questions, which are looming large nationwide in Federal court litigation.\nAs to retroactivity, although issues of retroactivity and, indeed, its very meaning are not without difficulty, we believe that this case fits well within the Landgraf analysis.\nIn particular, the public disclosure provision of the 1986 amendments did something very specific.\nIt eliminated a defense, a very basic defense, namely the defense of Government knowledge.\nThat is, at the time of the conduct in question, Hughes' accounting practices under a variety of Government contracts, the fact that the Government had knowledge of the information or the allegations would constitute a complete bar to Mr. Schumer's lawsuit.\nThe 1986 amendments wipe this out, thereby expanding the circumstances under which a Government contractor could face liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [9.998, 13.39, 35.465, 55.579, 64.974, 77.561, 93.243, 103.451, 112.644, 135.789], "stop_times": [13.39, 35.465, 55.579, 64.974, 77.561, 93.243, 103.451, 112.644, 135.789, 150.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.998}, "reply_to": "19941__0_000", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_002", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Starr--\n--Do they wipe it out as to everyone, or do they wipe it out as to suit by the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [150.23, 150.888], "stop_times": [150.888, 154.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.23}, "reply_to": "19941__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_003", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, Government knowledge would not, of course, be a bar with respect to the Government.\nThe Government can, in fact, bring a False Claims Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [154.591, 159.925], "stop_times": [159.925, 164.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.591}, "reply_to": "19941__0_002", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_004", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So in fact he's liable.\nBoth then and now he was liable for the same conduct, regardless of the Government's knowledge.\nI think the argument made by the other side is that all the change does is to say in the future we're going to let private people bring that suit as well as the Government, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [164.359, 165.929, 174.585], "stop_times": [165.929, 174.585, 186.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.359}, "reply_to": "19941__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_005", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Your Honor, if I may, it seems to me that under the Landgraf analysis, the fact that you are permitting private parties theretofore barred to bring the action is indeed an additional burden using the judgmental process that this Court in Landgraf said is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [186.131], "stop_times": [206.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.131}, "reply_to": "19941__0_004", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_006", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Starr, the conduct that can be charged is the same, but in one case you have the Government as a prosecutor.\nNow you have added a private prosecutor.\nHow does that differ from a U.S. Attorney's Office that has no strike force at the time a crime is committed and then beefs up with a... just a tremendous high-powered crew?\nCan the defendant say, well, it was a thin prosecutor's office when I did it, and therefore you can't retroactively set the strike force after me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [206.107, 214.843, 219.003, 232.413], "stop_times": [214.843, 219.003, 232.413, 245.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.107}, "reply_to": "19941__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__0_007", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, we believe the key distinction is the fact that there is an expansion in your hypothetical of the public service, which is quite decidedly different, in our view, than empowering private individuals who do not take the oath of office and who do not operate, as this Court has noted in case after case, with the same sort of strictures that a public actor, a public official acts under.\nIt's altogether different if you're in fact facing the United States Government, including a beefedup United States Government, as opposed to a private relator who is motivated by an entirely different set of motivations.\nThis Court noticed... noted that in its 1943 opinion, decision in Marcus v. Hess.\nThere may be issues or motivations of greed, or an effort to seek vengeance and retribution with respect to a particular qui tam action.\nThose are inadmissible qualities of an orderly public prosecution function, and there are any number of safeguards in place to assure that the public prosecution function that you identified is in fact carried out within the context of a culture of regulations and procedures and, indeed, those procedures are very important.\nIt was Justice Frankfurter who reminded us that the history of liberty is in no small part the history of procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [245.701, 274.111, 287.799, 294.264, 305.42, 327.954], "stop_times": [274.111, 287.799, 294.264, 305.42, 327.954, 332.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.701}, "reply_to": "19941__0_006", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_008", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Starr, are you then saying that if the Government agency... let's say there's an antidiscrimination law that's put in the charge of a Government agency, and then Congress decides to add on to that a private right of action because the agency isn't well-enough staffed.\nThe private actors who are given a private right, they cannot reach any conduct that occurred before the private right was created?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [332.528, 349.639], "stop_times": [349.639, 361.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.528}, "reply_to": "19941__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__0_009", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "It seems to us that, while that is a more difficult question in terms of the creation of that sort of private right of action, yes.\nWe believe that under a Landgraf analysis that, in fact, is going to a very material change in the exposure of the defendants in an analytically distinct way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [361.326, 369.441], "stop_times": [369.441, 382.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.326}, "reply_to": "19941__0_008", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_010", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Starr, you're not really saying that they can't do that.\nYou're just saying that if Congress wants to do that it has to make it clear.\nCongress could say, this statute applies to acts committed before the private right of action is created.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [382.332, 384.993, 388.694], "stop_times": [384.993, 388.694, 394.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.332}, "reply_to": "19941__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_011", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [394.769], "stop_times": [396.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.769}, "reply_to": "19941__0_010", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_012", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So you're not speaking of the constitutionality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [396.299], "stop_times": [397.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.299}, "reply_to": "19941__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_013", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "No.\nThis is not a Turner-Ellicorn due process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [397.591, 397.861], "stop_times": [397.861, 400.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.591}, "reply_to": "19941__0_012", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_014", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [400.133], "stop_times": [400.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.133}, "reply_to": "19941__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_015", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--issue at all.\nWe are speaking of what is the default presumption, and we think, just in terms of fairness considerations, this Court went to some length in its Landgraf opinion to talk about fairness and the burdens to the parties who are affected by this, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [400.513, 401.064], "stop_times": [401.064, 416.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.513}, "reply_to": "19941__0_014", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_016", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, what fairness here seems to be, in effect, an estimate of the odds of getting prosecuted, or the odds of getting caught.\nThat is not what we normally mean by fairness in this context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [416.272, 422.797], "stop_times": [422.797, 426.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.272}, "reply_to": "19941__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19941__0_017", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--It is... I accept the point that the odds of getting caught would not, I believe, harkening back to Justice Ginsburg's hypotheticals, carry the day for me.\nJustice Souter, it is only if you accept what we believe is an established proposition in this Court's jurisprudence that an action by the sovereign is qualitatively different than an action by a private actor who is animated by a different set of considerations.\nThe Court has said it, and we believe that is indeed an additional burden that should call upon Congress, as Justice Scalia is suggesting.\nWhat we are talking about here is, what should be the default presumption?\nThere's no indication that Congress believed that it was enabling a new category of candidates to in fact look retrospectively, and especially in this context, where what was changed in the law... what was changed in the law was the fact that in the ongoing relationship between the Government contractor and the Government, if, in fact, 'in this relationship of information flow, if the Government contractor is flowing information to the Government in that relationship, that contractual relationship, no stranger to the relationship under the regime that existed since World War II could then come into Federal court and assail a particular practice.\nThat seems to us to be a fairness consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [426.541, 438.958, 456.3, 465.296, 469.947, 518.669], "stop_times": [438.958, 456.3, 465.296, 469.947, 518.669, 521.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.541}, "reply_to": "19941__0_016", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_018", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, it's not only fairness.\nI suppose it's depriving you of a defense you earlier had.\nWhat's your best case for the fact that if you're denied a defense, that this is a substantive expansion of the liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [521.412, 522.501, 526.444], "stop_times": [522.501, 526.444, 534.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.412}, "reply_to": "19941__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19941__0_019", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "This Court has said with respect to statutes of limitation in particular that the elimination of that kind of defense does, in fact, work a change, and should not, in fact, be retroactively applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [534.489], "stop_times": [547.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.489}, "reply_to": "19941__0_018", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_020", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "What's your best case for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [547.148], "stop_times": [547.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 547.148}, "reply_to": "19941__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19941__0_021", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I can get you that on rebuttal, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [547.639], "stop_times": [549.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.639}, "reply_to": "19941__0_020", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_022", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But that's a defense against everybody, isn't it, Mr. Starr, and this is not a defense against everybody, and it's a defense that doesn't have any relationship to the primary conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [549.421], "stop_times": [557.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.421}, "reply_to": "19941__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19941__0_023", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "It does have a relationship, Justice Souter, I believe, if I may beg to differ, with respect to what this bar is all about.\nIf one carefully reads 3730(a)(4)(A), it is about the disclosure of information.\nWho originally had the information?\nThe information, by definition, is in the hands of the Government contractor.\nThe Government contractor, under a regime that existed for 40 years, 43 years, knew that all it needed to do was to keep the Government informed, and that insulated it from qui tam relator exposure.\nThat, to us... if one doesn't accept that, that is our submission.\nWe think that is in fact looking to the underlying conduct of what the contractor is doing and the incentives--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [557.776, 566.402, 574.066, 576.306, 580.761, 594.879, 598.562], "stop_times": [566.402, 574.066, 576.306, 580.761, 594.879, 598.562, 604.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 557.776}, "reply_to": "19941__0_022", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_024", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes, but of course, your answer assumes that in any event, even under the old regime, the Government could have sued for precisely what this particular relator is suing on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [604.886], "stop_times": [615.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.886}, "reply_to": "19941__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19941__0_025", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--That is correct.\nThere is no question that the underlying issue could, in theory.\nI think it does bear noting that... and this moves me, if I may, to some of the other issues in the case, that... and what was Congress' policy that was being implicated here?\nCongress' policy concern was that there were not enough levels of activity with respect to ferreting out \"fraud\", that there was insufficient Government action.\nWhat this case represents, a sort of... the extreme of the most elaborate and careful exacting governmental scrutiny, and that in the context of highly sophisticated and sensitive Government contracts where there is, Justice Souter, a flowing of information continually, including with governmental auditors resident on premises.\nThat is a very different kind of regime that I think the concerns that were animating Congress, which was what?\nWe want to... and this moves me, if I may, to the public disclosure issue and the meaning of false claim.\nWith respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [615.593, 619.306, 623.087, 635.205, 647.934, 673.78, 679.794, 686.499], "stop_times": [619.306, 623.087, 635.205, 647.934, 673.78, 679.794, 686.499, 688.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.593}, "reply_to": "19941__0_024", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_026", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Before you leave that, could... if... suppose we were to disregard the label, jurisdictional or not, and look at it under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [688.142], "stop_times": [695.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 688.142}, "reply_to": "19941__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_027", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--I missed the first part of your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [695.085], "stop_times": [695.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.085}, "reply_to": "19941__0_026", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_028", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Suppose that in looking to see whether it's retroactive or not you don't necessarily look just to the label, which is what you want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [695.966], "stop_times": [703.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.966}, "reply_to": "19941__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_029", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Yes, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [703.69], "stop_times": [705.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.69}, "reply_to": "19941__0_028", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_030", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Suppose we were to look at whether there was fair notice, reasonable reliance, and the settled expectations of your client, all right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [705.072], "stop_times": [713.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.072}, "reply_to": "19941__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_031", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [713.337], "stop_times": [714.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.337}, "reply_to": "19941__0_030", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_032", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Landgraf.\nAll right.\nOn the one had, they know they're not supposed to make false statements, whoever can sue them, but you think that in fact this change as to who can sue makes a material difference as to how they behave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [714.058, 714.478, 714.887], "stop_times": [714.478, 714.887, 726.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.058}, "reply_to": "19941__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_033", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "It makes a material difference as to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [726.036], "stop_times": [728.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.036}, "reply_to": "19941__0_032", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_034", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "As to how they would have behaved had they only known.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [728.837], "stop_times": [730.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.837}, "reply_to": "19941__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_035", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--It makes a... sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [730.918], "stop_times": [731.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.918}, "reply_to": "19941__0_034", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_036", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "And what I want you to do is to explain how.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [731.63], "stop_times": [733.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.63}, "reply_to": "19941__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_037", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "It makes a material difference in terms of the incentives to keep the Government apprised.\nUnder the prior regime, one has an enormous amount of incentives, and obviously I'm speaking in the abstract, because responsible Covernment contractors keep the Government informed, and what is at issue here was an extraordinarily hypertechnical dispute as to disclosure, disclosure that was ultimately found, of course, not to not only cost the Government any money, but the underlying accounting practice actually saved the Government money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [733.49, 740.015], "stop_times": [740.015, 765.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.49}, "reply_to": "19941__0_036", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_038", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, you don't argue now and you don't argue in your brief that it gives them the incentive to disclose to some public group that there is a problem, and I suppose that that's because that's just unrealistic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [765.032], "stop_times": [775.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.032}, "reply_to": "19941__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19941__0_039", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "It is in the context of highly, shall I say sensitive and important projects.\nWhat it does do under the prior regime, and again, it troubles--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [775.62, 780.834], "stop_times": [780.834, 785.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.62}, "reply_to": "19941__0_038", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_040", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Let me put the question differently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [785.147], "stop_times": [786.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.147}, "reply_to": "19941__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_041", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [786.295], "stop_times": [787.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.295}, "reply_to": "19941__0_040", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_042", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--because I'm trying... suppose you find out that the Justice Department hires 50 more lawyers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [787.046], "stop_times": [790.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.046}, "reply_to": "19941__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_043", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [790.78], "stop_times": [792.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.78}, "reply_to": "19941__0_042", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_044", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Nobody would say that that makes any difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [792.63], "stop_times": [794.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 792.63}, "reply_to": "19941__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_045", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [794.613], "stop_times": [795.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.613}, "reply_to": "19941__0_044", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_046", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Although individuals might think, oh, boy, I better really be careful.\nAll right.\nHow is this different from that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [795.232, 798.585, 800.588], "stop_times": [798.585, 800.588, 801.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.232}, "reply_to": "19941__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_047", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [801.737], "stop_times": [802.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.737}, "reply_to": "19941__0_046", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_048", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "That is, what practical difference does it make to your client, had your client known in advance that this new law would have governed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [802.688], "stop_times": [809.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.688}, "reply_to": "19941__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_049", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Again, it seems--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [809.284], "stop_times": [810.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.284}, "reply_to": "19941__0_048", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_050", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Other than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [810.863], "stop_times": [811.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 810.863}, "reply_to": "19941__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_051", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [811.313], "stop_times": [811.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.313}, "reply_to": "19941__0_050", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_052", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--there are 50 more lawyers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [811.794], "stop_times": [812.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.794}, "reply_to": "19941__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_053", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "No, that the incentives again are, with respect to the underlying conduct, keep the Government fully informed.\nThere was an additional set of incentives under the Government knowledge bar, because as soon as you made the Government aware... there is a dispute as to whether the Government was aware or not with respect to what we were doing, but under the prior bar, as soon as you made the Government aware of it you were free and clear.\nIt was air-tight.\nThat strikes us as a material difference.\nWith respect, if I may, with the Court's permission, move to public disclosure.\nThe Ninth Circuit here in a very important ruling in this respect held that the disclosure of allegations concerning these accounting practices to employees, undisputed, of both Northrop and of Hughes did not trigger the public disclosure bar.\nNow, why did the Ninth Circuit conclude that?\nIt concluded that those employees operate within what the court called a closed loop of secrecy.\nThis holding, with all respect to the Ninth Circuit, is not moored to the statute at all.\nHere, and simply engaging in a textual analysis and then I would like to move briefly to the policy, there was a disclosure outside of the Government, and that took the form, or in the vehicle of an administrative audit, one of the enumerated categories of disclosure, and in an investigation, another enumerated category.\nThose categories we think are illuminating, because in contrast to other categories such as the news media, or a congressional hearing, or a congressional report, there is not going to be wide dissemination of a Government audit.\nIn particular, in the context of defense contracting... and this is undisputed.\nThe Government will not dispute this.\nThe DCAA, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which cleared Hughes totally and said thank you, you saved us lots of money, you're terrific, $15.4 million now goes to you.\nThat's a good thing.\nWhat DCAA also said is, we're not going to be issuing press releases with respect to that.\nWe do not disseminate.\nThat's DCAA regulations.\nCongress, of course, knows what its own entities do by way of practice and, thus, it is unrealistic to look to whether the general public would know.\nWhat we believe the statute contemplates is divulgence by the Government to a person outside of the Government in one of the vehicles that are enumerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [812.713, 819.439, 835.958, 837.3, 840.412, 845.075, 864.73, 866.76, 874.774, 881.489, 907.615, 925.227, 930.222, 932.262, 944.101, 946.121, 950.975, 952.535, 954.738, 966.854], "stop_times": [819.439, 835.958, 837.3, 840.412, 845.075, 864.73, 866.76, 874.774, 881.489, 907.615, 925.227, 930.222, 932.262, 944.101, 946.121, 950.975, 952.535, 954.738, 966.854, 978.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.713}, "reply_to": "19941__0_052", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_054", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Starr--\n--Mr. Starr--\n--With respect to that, just a... suppose the Government agency gives to the chief auditor of the company a report and says, I want to ask you some questions about this.\nThat's a person outside the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [978.592, 979.203, 979.503, 996.904], "stop_times": [979.203, 979.503, 996.904, 999.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.592}, "reply_to": "19941__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__0_055", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [999.545], "stop_times": [999.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.545}, "reply_to": "19941__0_054", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_056", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Is that a public disclosure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [999.996], "stop_times": [1001.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.996}, "reply_to": "19941__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__0_057", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes, it is.\nUnder our theory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1001.268, 1001.979], "stop_times": [1001.979, 1002.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.268}, "reply_to": "19941__0_056", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_058", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Just one person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1002.778], "stop_times": [1003.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.778}, "reply_to": "19941__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__0_059", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1003.659], "stop_times": [1003.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.659}, "reply_to": "19941__0_058", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_060", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--no matter how high up in the company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1003.99], "stop_times": [1005.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.99}, "reply_to": "19941__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__0_061", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes, it is, and the reason that, Your Honor, while that seems counterintuitive, we think a careful reflection of the... both congressional purposes but also, Your Honor, if one looks at the rest of 3730(e)(4)(A), there is a very important and forgotten person in the drama, and that's the original source.\nThis statute was designed... the 1986 amendments... and this Court has very recently said you want to look to the purpose of what Congress had in mind when it was changing a statute or enacting it.\nWhat Congress was getting at, and one can say, was it an artful way or not, but what Congress was getting at was to protect original sources, and those are defined in the statute, and the original sources, Justice Ginsburg, are not affected by your hypothetical.\nThat is to say, that would exclude anyone in the universe except an original source from coming forward with a quit tam action and as previously stated an obvious--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1005.5, 1023.672, 1036.14, 1052.39], "stop_times": [1023.672, 1036.14, 1052.39, 1062.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.5}, "reply_to": "19941__0_060", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_062", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But Congress did use the words, public disclosure, and the words public disclosure generally imply something more than tell one officer of the company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1062.037], "stop_times": [1071.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.037}, "reply_to": "19941__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__0_063", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--I could not agree more in the normal context.\nIf one simply... and our colleagues on the other side have very ably invited the Court to focus very specifically on two words.\nWe believe that's not a correct method of statutory interpretation.\nYou look at the entire provision, and then you also look at something that's very important.\nVery briefly, what Congress was trying to do in the 1986 amendments was to get the right balance.\nIt didn't just say anybody in the world filed a qui tam action.\nThat's terrific.\nIt was a balance, and what was that balance?\nThe balance was, we want to encourage true whistleblowers, those who are not opportunistically availing themselves of material that is already available, known to the Government.\nThat doesn't assist in ferreting out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1071.283, 1074.835, 1082.52, 1086.224, 1090.487, 1098.131, 1101.884, 1102.515, 1104.797, 1118.654], "stop_times": [1074.835, 1082.52, 1086.224, 1090.487, 1098.131, 1101.884, 1102.515, 1104.797, 1118.654, 1121.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1071.283}, "reply_to": "19941__0_062", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_064", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, what your interpretation may mean in effect is that for almost any Government investigation, or audit of some suspected fraud or false claim, if, in conducting the audit or the investigation anyone other than the wrongdoer is asked questions, other employees, sub-employees, any employee, then it seems under your interpretation it virtually wipes out an audit or an investigation for any qui tam action, ever, because inevitably I guess some employee would be talked to who wasn't party to the alleged wrongdoing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1121.656], "stop_times": [1170.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.656}, "reply_to": "19941__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__0_065", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--The apparent harshness of the regime that I am espousing and that you're discerning, Justice O'Connor, is upon reflection true to Congress' intent.\nIf one examines the background of these amendments, one sees that what really had Congress concerned... the National Association of Attorneys General was up in arms on this.\nThis is undisputed... was State of Wisconsin v. Dean, which embodied the value of the original whistleblower.\nThat's the true qui tam relator, Justice O'Connor.\nThat's the good qui tam relator.\nIt is not someone who is not adding value in the sense of bringing information to light that is otherwise hidden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1170.948, 1180.375, 1189.291, 1196.345, 1198.587, 1201.589], "stop_times": [1180.375, 1189.291, 1196.345, 1198.587, 1201.589, 1208.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.948}, "reply_to": "19941__0_064", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_066", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes, but there's another value, and that's the value of the prosecution.\nIt seems to me that the amendment allows for that value to a degree that the prior law perhaps did not.\nIt's not just information.\nIt's prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1208.514, 1212.024, 1217.31, 1218.55], "stop_times": [1212.024, 1217.31, 1218.55, 1219.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.514}, "reply_to": "19941__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19941__0_067", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I agree with that as well, because there is, in fact... but I don't think that that should change the Court's disposition, but the Second Circuit's approach is correct and the Ninth Circuit's approach is wrong, because, in fact, of the concern that in this balance that the public prosecution function is important, but it in fact needs to be supplemented by private relators.\nBut Congress has been making a qualitative judgment about who are good qui tam relators and who are not, and under, Justice Souter, your regime a relator is a good relator, but Congress didn't make that policy judgment.\nIt has said, no, we want to bar what otherwise would not be brought as a qui tam action save by an original source if there has been public disclosure in one of the exhibits, and that was its way of overruling State of Wisconsin--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1219.371, 1239.443, 1251.551], "stop_times": [1239.443, 1251.551, 1266.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.371}, "reply_to": "19941__0_066", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_068", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Starr, it's public disclosure in one of a series of different kinds of hearings and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1266.261], "stop_times": [1270.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.261}, "reply_to": "19941__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19941__0_069", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1270.605], "stop_times": [1271.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.605}, "reply_to": "19941__0_068", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_070", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Which is the category in which this public disclosure was made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1271.114], "stop_times": [1274.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.114}, "reply_to": "19941__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19941__0_071", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "In an administrative audit or investigation.\nThere were two forms, Justice Stevens.\nAir Force first classified audits, and then a series, all before the qui tam action was filed, and that's why the qui tam action here is utterly... not only worthless, it's counterproductive.\nThree DCAA audits, finally concluding again that, not that it's material to the disposition of the case, but that Hughes had in fact saved the Government money.\nThose were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1274.405, 1279.049, 1282.871, 1297.052, 1307.588], "stop_times": [1279.049, 1282.871, 1297.052, 1307.588, 1308.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.405}, "reply_to": "19941__0_070", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_072", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Starr, suppose Congress had written this statute 3729(a)(1) and (2), which is what you're addressing here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1308.369], "stop_times": [1314.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.369}, "reply_to": "19941__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_073", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1314.282], "stop_times": [1315.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.282}, "reply_to": "19941__0_072", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_074", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--without the word public in it, and it just said, no court shall have jurisdiction under this section based upon the disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing and a congressional blah, blah, blah, blah, and so forth.\nHow would that differ from the interpretation you were giving the provision with the word public in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1315.582, 1328.031], "stop_times": [1328.031, 1333.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.582}, "reply_to": "19941__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_075", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes.\nOur interpretation does not rob public of meaning but rather it seems to us that what Congress is getting at here is that disclosure outside the Government.\nWe believe that's the most natural meaning.\nWhereas, if it had simply said disclosure, but not public disclosure, that could very naturally be interpreted DCAA informs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1333.304, 1334.035, 1343.502, 1345.203], "stop_times": [1334.035, 1343.502, 1345.203, 1352.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.304}, "reply_to": "19941__0_074", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_076", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But an administrative investigation doesn't necessarily mean disclosure outside the Government, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1352.338], "stop_times": [1357.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.338}, "reply_to": "19941__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_077", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--No, it does not, but there has to be disclosure... the point is, as one takes the entirety of the provision, there must be a disclosure, then apply allegations or transactions in this... so under my interpretation of your redrafted statute, Justice Scalia, it might very well be that under this disclosure would have taken place if there was a communication from DCAA to the Air Force.\nWhereas public disclosure to us means a divulging of information outside the Government, which is what happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1357.55, 1381.436], "stop_times": [1381.436, 1387.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.55}, "reply_to": "19941__0_076", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_078", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But is there such a thing as an audit or investigation where they don't even tell the person audited?\nI mean, I don't know how you'd do that.\nI guess there could be such a thing, but... you're saying Congress could possibly have just wanted... it was trying to distinguish cases where you're... the very object of the investigation being told the result of the investigation, the wrongdoer, is enough to make it public in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1387.461, 1391.494, 1393.494], "stop_times": [1391.494, 1393.494, 1407.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1387.461}, "reply_to": "19941__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_079", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Your Honor, I think you have collapsed the object of the wrongdoer, which is a \"corporate entity\" with what Congress was trying to encourage--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1407.923], "stop_times": [1416.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.923}, "reply_to": "19941__0_078", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_080", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "No, I'm just saying in your view--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1416.709], "stop_times": [1417.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.709}, "reply_to": "19941__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_081", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--which is whistleblowers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1417.47], "stop_times": [1418.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1417.47}, "reply_to": "19941__0_080", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_082", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--In your view, it makes it public if you just tell the corporate entity being investigated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1418.031], "stop_times": [1422.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.031}, "reply_to": "19941__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_083", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I think it has to come to the attention of an individual who was... we believe the Second Circuit is right here, which is the most natural approach, someone who is not involved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1422.405], "stop_times": [1432.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1422.405}, "reply_to": "19941__0_082", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_084", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Fine.\nThen why isn't it a perfectly minimal definition of public to say that disclosure to the public at least means disclosure to a person who is not the wrongdoer, which could include an employee, provided he's being disclosed in his capacity as member of the public, such as he independently gets it.\nNow, why isn't that a perfectly clear, minimal definition, though I imagine you'd lose on that definition here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1432.27, 1432.701, 1452.162], "stop_times": [1432.701, 1452.162, 1457.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.27}, "reply_to": "19941__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_085", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--I would very much lose because of the last part of your definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1457.828], "stop_times": [1460.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1457.828}, "reply_to": "19941__0_084", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_086", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes, but if you're interested in, say, a clear rule of law that's minimal and satisfies all your requirements, why wouldn't that do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1460.069], "stop_times": [1466.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.069}, "reply_to": "19941__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__0_087", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Because I think that will strike a very different balance than what Congress struck, Justice Breyer, because what you will be doing is, in fact, encouraging, quote, whistleblowing actions by individuals who have no information to provide to the Government.\nRemember, what is the value here?\nIf the Court dwells on what Congress' purpose was, Congress' purpose was encourage whistleblowing.\nIn your hypothetical, Your Honor, there's no whistleblowing going on.\nThat's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1466.423, 1481.764, 1483.143, 1491.028, 1494.861], "stop_times": [1481.764, 1483.143, 1491.028, 1494.861, 1495.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1466.423}, "reply_to": "19941__0_086", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_088", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Why do you make the assumption that Congress did not also have the purpose to encourage prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1495.952], "stop_times": [1500.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.952}, "reply_to": "19941__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19941__0_089", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--It is a balance.\nI do agree by virtue of asserting my part of the balance, and I hope that when the other side stands up the other side will speak to the important part of the balance as well, which is avoiding nonvalue-laden qui tam actions.\nThere is simply no value, Congress has determined, if one does not come forward with information that is useful to the Government if the Government is already caught on the trail of fraud, save again, Your Honor, for the original source, which is pivotal to our argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1500.665, 1502.505, 1516.856], "stop_times": [1502.505, 1516.856, 1532.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.665}, "reply_to": "19941__0_088", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_090", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Will the fact that in fact it saved the Government money at the end of the day result in some reduction of the ultimate liability here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1532.415], "stop_times": [1540.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.415}, "reply_to": "19941__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__0_091", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "If there's a technical... this is... if I may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1540.231], "stop_times": [1542.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1540.231}, "reply_to": "19941__0_090", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_092", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "If it's technical, because I just don't understand the real effect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1542.824], "stop_times": [1545.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.824}, "reply_to": "19941__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__0_093", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1545.245], "stop_times": [1546.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.245}, "reply_to": "19941__0_092", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_094", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--if you allow the suit to go forward at the end of the day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1546.594], "stop_times": [1548.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.594}, "reply_to": "19941__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__0_095", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--The underlying problem, Your Honor, is in fact the Ninth Circuit's... which is our third argument, the definition of false claim as the Ninth Circuit has now defined it.\nWe believe that in the context of Government contracting that there must, in fact, be some effect, or potential effect on the Treasury, that you are submitting a claim for payment of money to which you are not entitled.\nSomething disentitles you.\nThe Ninth Circuit has held in this case that is not necessary, that an entirely regulatory violation could run afoul of the False Claims Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1548.817, 1557.323, 1573.181, 1575.455], "stop_times": [1557.323, 1573.181, 1575.455, 1584.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1548.817}, "reply_to": "19941__0_094", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_096", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, but the act doesn't just say false or fraudulent claim, it says a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1584.13], "stop_times": [1595.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.13}, "reply_to": "19941__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_097", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "That's exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1595.217], "stop_times": [1596.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1595.217}, "reply_to": "19941__0_096", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_098", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So if you seek approval of... you know, I assume that means approval that this portion of the job has been fully completed satisfactorily.\nWould that be covered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1596.689, 1605.594], "stop_times": [1605.594, 1606.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.689}, "reply_to": "19941__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_099", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "It depends upon whether it is, in fact, a condition of contracting and whether there is a falsity that affects your entitlement to claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1606.694], "stop_times": [1616.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.694}, "reply_to": "19941__0_098", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_100", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "It doesn't say that.\nIt says a claim for payment or approval.\nWhat, in your estimation, does or approval mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1616.01, 1617.142, 1620.164], "stop_times": [1617.142, 1620.164, 1622.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.01}, "reply_to": "19941__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_101", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "For approval simply means that the Government must, in fact, say, we are... we have your request, and we will now pay or approve its payment, and what we think, Your Honor, the difficulty in what the Ninth Circuit has done, is to take any kind of violation, whether it has an effect on your entitlement to the payment or approval for payment and says regardless, whether it's an environmental regulation, if it's not a condition for contracting, you've stated a False Claims Act, and Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1622.555], "stop_times": [1654.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1622.555}, "reply_to": "19941__0_100", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_102", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So you read approval to mean, approval for payment.\nIt states false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1654.235, 1656.017], "stop_times": [1656.017, 1658.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.235}, "reply_to": "19941__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_103", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Approval for payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1658.92], "stop_times": [1659.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1658.92}, "reply_to": "19941__0_102", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_104", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "It doesn't say that.\nThat's the only problem with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1659.678, 1661.37], "stop_times": [1661.37, 1663.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.678}, "reply_to": "19941__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__0_105", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, we think that the case law, Your Honor, is very clear with respect to what the nature of a claim is.\nIf you go to the nature... the definition of a claim, a claim is in fact a request for payment that money or property is owed by the Government to the claimant.\nIf I may, I'd like to reserve... the remainder of my time.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1663.361, 1669.015, 1680.782, 1683.965], "stop_times": [1669.015, 1680.782, 1683.965, 1684.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1663.361}, "reply_to": "19941__0_104", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_106", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Starr.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1684.756], "stop_times": [1685.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.756}, "reply_to": "19941__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19941__0_107", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I thank the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1685.594], "stop_times": [1686.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1685.594}, "reply_to": "19941__0_106", "speaker": "kenneth_w_starr"}
{"id": "19941__0_108", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Gold.\nMr. Gold, would you mind telling us what's in it for a plaintiff who at the end of the day is faced with the fact that this procedure that was followed here saved the Government money?\nIs the claimant's recovery diminished?\nAre we talking about attorney's fees and the nuisance of a suit?\nWhat are we talking about here in a case like this, where at the end of the day the Government saved money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1686.866, 1688.366, 1705.349, 1709.163, 1712.112], "stop_times": [1688.366, 1705.349, 1709.163, 1712.112, 1718.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.866}, "reply_to": "19941__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19941__1_000", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Two things, if I could, Justice O'Connor.\nFirst of all, when the case was brought, the audit reports within the Government had not reached the conclusion that the Government had saved money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1718.216, 1722.971], "stop_times": [1722.971, 1738.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1718.216}, "reply_to": "19941__0_108", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_001", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1738.96], "stop_times": [1739.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.96}, "reply_to": "19941__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__1_002", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--but rather that the Government had lost money.\nSecondly, if in the end the only claim left here is the claim based on the improper cost accounting disclosure statement, we presume that all that would be at issue in terms of the liability would be the penalty provision for filing a false claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1739.551, 1743.664], "stop_times": [1743.664, 1775.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1739.551}, "reply_to": "19941__1_001", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_003", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "And what is that penalty if no money is lost--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1775.514], "stop_times": [1778.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.514}, "reply_to": "19941__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__1_004", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, it is still... at the time it was $2,000... a false claim, and I think the point of this, Justice O'Connor, is shown first of all by the particular provision we have here in the background, or as we emphasize in our brief, a case like the Rohleder case in the Third Circuit, where the contractors certified that subcontracts had been let as was required by the Government regulations through competitive bidding, when in fact they hadn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1778.657], "stop_times": [1821.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.657}, "reply_to": "19941__1_003", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_005", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Mr. Gold, I expect the $2,000 is peanuts compared to what else you're entitled to, and that is the costs of the action, the costs of the civil action.\nI expect that by the time the discovery that the Government hadn't lost any money was made, the plaintiff here had invested well in excess of $2,000.\nYou do get your costs, don't you, as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1821.964, 1829.421, 1840.658], "stop_times": [1829.421, 1840.658, 1844.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.964}, "reply_to": "19941__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_006", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "And getting those from the plaintiff's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1844.239], "stop_times": [1847.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.239}, "reply_to": "19941__1_005", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_007", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1847.561], "stop_times": [1849.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.561}, "reply_to": "19941__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_008", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1849.062], "stop_times": [1849.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.062}, "reply_to": "19941__1_007", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_009", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1849.533], "stop_times": [1849.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.533}, "reply_to": "19941__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_010", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Well, but also from the point of view it is not... from the plaintiff's point of view it's not much of an enrichment.\nIt's a nonloss for having gone forward.\nI don't say it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1849.903, 1856.288, 1861.721], "stop_times": [1856.288, 1861.721, 1862.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.903}, "reply_to": "19941__1_009", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_011", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But that explains why the suit proceeds.\nYou would think that once it was found the Government hadn't lost any money, it would say, gee, it's not worth expending a lot more money prosecuting this suit for $2,000, but you're going to get the $2,000 plus all that you've spent up to now prosecuting it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1862.482, 1865.985], "stop_times": [1865.985, 1877.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.482}, "reply_to": "19941__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_012", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1877.383], "stop_times": [1878.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1877.383}, "reply_to": "19941__1_011", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_013", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Plus what you'll spend in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1878.071], "stop_times": [1878.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.071}, "reply_to": "19941__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_014", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "And if I could, and then I'd like to go back to the law issues here, the two issues left in this case.\nThe other one on which there are no audit findings, and on which if you compare the original Northrop request for an audit with the final audit reports there's nothing but confusion, is whether Hughes misled Northrop in terms of what costs would be charged to the radar development for the B-2, and whether that generated false claims.\nNow, there is nothing in... there is nothing but discord at this point, and that's why the Ninth Circuit sent that issue back, and therefore there may be real money here.\nThat's just not clear yet.\nThere are two claims, one of which rests on the issue that the... that Hughes has brought up here, the disclosure statement issue, and on that our position is that if the Government requires as a condition of contracting that you provide certain accurate information in order to safeguard the contracting system and to assure that the charges are proper charges, and if you knowingly provide false and incomplete and misleading statements and certifications, then there is a false claim, and that is true whether or not the claim is overstated.\nSo we think the answer to the sole question that the... that Hughes raises in this regard is no.\nIn that situation the False Claims Act does apply, and it generates at least the penalty which assures the integrity of the contracting system and provides the Government that kind of benefit, and that's true whether it's, you have to show us what your cost accounting system is, or you have to let subcontracts by competitive bidding, or you have to tell us what the qualifications of certain employees are if they're to be paid a premium.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [1878.903, 1885.387, 1925.853, 1939.342, 1941.332, 1996.238, 2005.585], "stop_times": [1885.387, 1925.853, 1939.342, 1941.332, 1996.238, 2005.585, 2040.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.903}, "reply_to": "19941__1_013", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_015", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--This is addressed to the third question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2040.6], "stop_times": [2042.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.6}, "reply_to": "19941__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19941__1_016", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "The third question.\nIf I can, now, going rapidly backwards, I'd like to turn to the first question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2042.169, 2043.479], "stop_times": [2043.479, 2052.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.169}, "reply_to": "19941__1_015", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_017", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "On that question, Mr. Gold, it seems to me just as a practical matter the board of directors of a defense corporation would say, you know, in the light of this new statute, we have an expanded new liability for punitive damages.\nWe're going to have to change our conduct in the way we disclose.\nA defense has been taken away from us so that the law has changed.\nIn lay terms, they would explain it that way.\nI have some difficulty, other than perhaps the Winfree case, in finding a case that would support that theory.\nThat's just what I'm thinking about this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2052.237, 2063.433, 2067.495, 2071.568, 2074.491, 2081.626], "stop_times": [2063.433, 2067.495, 2071.568, 2074.491, 2081.626, 2084.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.237}, "reply_to": "19941__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19941__1_018", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I don't think there is any doubt that when you change a jurisdictional bar, which we think it's fair to call this... I mean, it doesn't go to the merits... in a way which makes it easier for plaintiffs to bring suit, opens the courthouse door, you have some effect on the legal regime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2084.447], "stop_times": [2113.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.447}, "reply_to": "19941__1_017", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_019", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But it does take away a defense, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2113.268], "stop_times": [2116.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.268}, "reply_to": "19941__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19941__1_020", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I don't believe it takes away a defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2116.13], "stop_times": [2118.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.13}, "reply_to": "19941__1_019", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_021", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Because previously you had a defense if you disclosed to the Government.\nNow you don't have that defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2118.812, 2121.744], "stop_times": [2121.744, 2123.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.812}, "reply_to": "19941__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19941__1_022", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "You had a defense in terms of saying, this person cannot be a plaintiff.\nYou didn't have a defense if what you disclosed to the Government caused the Government to understand that you had made false claims on it, and... because the Government could sue.\nAnd the change here in terms of opening the door to the courthouse to individuals who would otherwise be subject to a bar is one which doesn't change the underlying rights, doesn't change the underlying duties, and in this case, since there can be only one suit for false claim, whether it's brought by the Government or a relator, it doesn't change the liability.\nIndeed, it doesn't even necessarily change the plaintiff, because the Government can take over any case brought by a relator, so I do think that what you have here is not a creation of a new cause of action as in the statute of limitation revivor case, but a true rule regulating the procedural and jurisdictional rules of the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2123.283, 2129.999, 2144.228, 2177.02], "stop_times": [2129.999, 2144.228, 2177.02, 2213.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.283}, "reply_to": "19941__1_021", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_023", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Gold, would you explain to me again how it could be under the old regime that if I was a contractor and I disclosed to the Government, I could nonetheless be held liable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2213.965], "stop_times": [2226.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.965}, "reply_to": "19941__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_024", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "You... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2226.872], "stop_times": [2229.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.872}, "reply_to": "19941__1_023", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_025", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--under the False Claims Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2229.753], "stop_times": [2231.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.753}, "reply_to": "19941__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_026", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--If you had a situation in which you disclosed to the Government your prior nondisclosure, the Government certainly could act to bring the suit.\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2231.155, 2255.66], "stop_times": [2255.66, 2256.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2231.155}, "reply_to": "19941__1_025", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_027", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Let's assume I disclose at the outset.\nI don't have any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2256.552, 2258.214], "stop_times": [2258.214, 2258.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.552}, "reply_to": "19941__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_028", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Well, there's simply no violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2258.722], "stop_times": [2260.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.722}, "reply_to": "19941__1_027", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_029", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Under the old regime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2260.975], "stop_times": [2262.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.975}, "reply_to": "19941__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__1_030", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Under any regime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2262.245], "stop_times": [2263.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.245}, "reply_to": "19941__1_029", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_031", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, you're not saying, Mr. Gold, that the statute made no change by eliminating a defense that had previously been available.\nThat's what we're trying to get at here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2263.737, 2274.884], "stop_times": [2274.884, 2276.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.737}, "reply_to": "19941__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19941__1_032", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "No, I... I would not want to say that.\nI don't think that's right.\nIt made a change in the rules concerning the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain suits brought by a private relator on behalf of the Government.\nIt did not change any underlying substantive rule, and it did not change in any way the Government's preexisting and pre-1986 and post-1986 rights to go into court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2276.784, 2279.715, 2280.937, 2297.848], "stop_times": [2279.715, 2280.937, 2297.848, 2317.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.784}, "reply_to": "19941__1_031", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_033", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So the effect of a disclosure before this change was exactly what it is after the change, and secondly you're saying there is no provision under the new statute for a relator to bring an action if the Government couldn't bring an action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2317.88], "stop_times": [2333.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.88}, "reply_to": "19941__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19941__1_034", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "There's no... if the Government brings the first case, there can be no relator.\nIf one relator brings a case there cannot be a second or third relator, and if a relator brings a case, the Government can always take it over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2333.321, 2343.169], "stop_times": [2343.169, 2352.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.321}, "reply_to": "19941__1_033", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_035", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But they're saying, I think, which is bothering me too, that it just isn't fair.\nYou see... and that's, I think, relevant, because after all a statute of limitations... suppose Congress passed a statute of limitations and tried to revive some action that expired in 1810?\nI mean, I don't think whatever you call it that would be so upsetting of reliance interests that we wouldn't permit it, and... I don't think... and so they're saying here, you see, it's unfair.\nWe had this defense against the private, and we had a course of action telling the Government everything, working it all out with the Government.\nWe're home free.\nAnd now we don't.\nSo is it... I mean, is there a way that you can address this question that they say they reasonably relied on the old statutes, it's unfair to upset that reasonable reliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2352.064, 2356.475, 2367.034, 2376.751, 2383.374, 2384.275, 2385.066], "stop_times": [2356.475, 2367.034, 2376.751, 2383.374, 2384.275, 2385.066, 2393.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.064}, "reply_to": "19941__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__1_036", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "The proposition that you can after the fact, which is what we're dealing with here, tell the Government something and save yourself from liability is simply an erroneous statement.\nThe Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2393.331, 2416.837], "stop_times": [2416.837, 2417.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.331}, "reply_to": "19941__1_035", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_037", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, but now you're ignoring, I think, the point, which is if you fail as a Government contractor to disclose something on the form that the Government said you should have put it on, and the contractor later realizes, oh, that should have been on that form 8929, and it wasn't, I'm going to tell the Government, I really goofed, I made the mistake, the Government can still sue, but you've told 'em.\nBut, under the new law, no qui tam action could have been brought by a third party for that because the contractor had told the Government.\nYes, the Government could file a suit, but a disgruntled employee could not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2417.828, 2444.635, 2454.14], "stop_times": [2444.635, 2454.14, 2458.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.828}, "reply_to": "19941__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__1_038", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2458.915], "stop_times": [2459.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.915}, "reply_to": "19941__1_037", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_039", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So to that extent there is a retroactive change, is there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2459.373], "stop_times": [2463.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.373}, "reply_to": "19941__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__1_040", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--There is a retroactive change in terms of the... the openness of the courts to the private party.\nIf that kind of change, which seems to me also to be true of taking the jurisdictional amount out of the Federal question jurisdiction which was done, or a change which otherwise creates the ability after the fact of somebody else to sue where before only the United States could sue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2463.958, 2478.225], "stop_times": [2478.225, 2518.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.958}, "reply_to": "19941__1_039", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_041", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, but isn't that what this petitioner is coming before us and alleging, that until the 1986 amendments we had assumed that while the Government could still complain, that no qui tam action could be brought by this particular relator, and they say that was this situation.\nNow, could it possibly be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2518.243, 2538.176], "stop_times": [2538.176, 2540.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.243}, "reply_to": "19941__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__1_042", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Well, two things, if I could, because I'm down to my last 5 minutes.\nOne is that there is no showing that Government contractors after the fact made these representations to the Government in order to cut off qui tam relators, and there's no showing that Hughes made any such showing.\nAll of this came out in the fullness of time, and no showing that the Government didn't act after the fact, if you came in and you said we knowingly gave you false statements, or we knowingly misled a contractor, and I don't think those kinds of expectations have ever been seen to be the kind that are protected by this rule of fairness on public disclosure.\nThe... it seems to us the critical points are that at no juncture in the evolution of the '86 jurisdictional bar provision were all Government disclosures a basis for prohibiting the going forward of a qui tam suit.\nAt every stage, the forms of disclosure which led to the bar were limited.\nThere was a set of negotiations which are not public, and in this instance as opposed to Landgraf after the discussions statutory language came out and nobody tried to explain it.\nEveryone seems to have kept their word that the statute would be the statute, and at that point the forms, or the means by which disclosure could be made, were expanded.\nBut at the very same time, the word public was added before the word disclosure for the first time, and it's just impossible, if you read the statute for what it tells you, to say that a disclosure within a contractual relationship marked confidential, for business purposes only, in the only way that a disclosure can be made to a fictitious entity which is the other contracting party, namely to its responsible officials, is a public disclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2540.497, 2545.33, 2571.786, 2606.401, 2641.834, 2651.869, 2670.071, 2686.032], "stop_times": [2545.33, 2571.786, 2606.401, 2641.834, 2651.869, 2670.071, 2686.032, 2730.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.497}, "reply_to": "19941__1_041", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_043", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But do you agree with the Solicitor General's definition, because as I read the briefs, you and the Solicitor General have a different approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2730.414], "stop_times": [2736.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.414}, "reply_to": "19941__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19941__1_044", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, in the peculiarities of this case, our approach and the Government's come down to the same thing.\nWe say a disclosure within the contractual relationship as such is not a public disclosure.\nThe Government says a disclosure to the allegedly wrongdoing party is not a public disclosure and here, because the allegedly wrongdoing party is a corporation, the disclosure to its responsible officers is the only way you can make such a disclosure.\nI would point out that the Government's position at least averts the problem that's inherent in the tiny bit of concession that the petitioner makes, namely that the petitioners would have you have a jurisdictional inquiry into who in the corporation was involved in the wrong, where the Government at least faces up to that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2736.906, 2749.875, 2757.419, 2782.717], "stop_times": [2749.875, 2757.419, 2782.717, 2814.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2736.906}, "reply_to": "19941__1_043", "speaker": "laurence_e_gold"}
{"id": "19941__1_045", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gold.\nMr. Waxman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2814.618, 2816.08], "stop_times": [2816.08, 2817.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.618}, "reply_to": "19941__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19941__2_000", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to take the issues presented in the reverse order, if I may.\nOn the merits as to the third point, the assertion Hughes now makes as opposed to the assertion it made in its petition that a claim under the False Claims Act is false and fraudulent only if it involves the submission of an inflated request for payment is quite wrong.\nAs this Court stated 30 years ago in United States v. Neifert-White Company,\n\"The act was intended to reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the Government. \"\n\"It covers all fraudulent attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money. \"\nThat interpretation was expressly endorsed in the Senate report accompanying the 1986 amendments, and it is consistent with virtually every decision applying the act.\nThus, in our view, whenever a... a claim is false or fraudulent within the meaning of the act whenever it knowingly misstates facts bearing on the claimant's entitlement to payment or a benefit, regardless of whether the misstatement relates to price, the character or quality of the goods or services provided, the eligibility of the claimant to receive the benefit, or compliance with governing laws, regulations, or contract terms.\nTurning to the second point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2817.889, 2824.896, 2828.315, 2845.676, 2850.521, 2858.206, 2863.538, 2874.156, 2903.135], "stop_times": [2824.896, 2828.315, 2845.676, 2850.521, 2858.206, 2863.538, 2874.156, 2903.135, 2905.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2817.889}, "reply_to": "19941__1_045", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_001", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Excuse me.\nWhat if there's just a violation of a contract term that is so minor that it would not be the basis for the Government's refusal to pay the contract price?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2905.477, 2905.997], "stop_times": [2905.997, 2916.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.477}, "reply_to": "19941__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_002", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Justice Scalia, if the misstatement could not as a matter of law have borne on the entitlements claimant, or entitlement to payment, it would not be a violation of the act, and there are many statements that might be false statements under 1001 that would not qualify.\nI mean, if I misstate my social security number, unless there is a very strange regulation that makes it a condition of receipt, it wouldn't be a false claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2916.973, 2934.825], "stop_times": [2934.825, 2942.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2916.973}, "reply_to": "19941__2_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_003", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, I mean, there also may be some provisions about you have to report this, that, and the other thing.\nLet's assume you don't report one thing.\nI wouldn't think in the ordinary case the result of that would be the Government can refuse to pay the entire contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2942.97, 2947.755, 2949.243], "stop_times": [2947.755, 2949.243, 2956.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.97}, "reply_to": "19941__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_004", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I think that's right.\nIn the ordinary case, unless it was made an express or implied, under the law, condition of payment, it wouldn't relate to a false claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2956.73, 2957.701], "stop_times": [2957.701, 2966.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2956.73}, "reply_to": "19941__2_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_005", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So you're willing to be committed to that.\nIt has to be the condition of payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2966.735, 2969.228], "stop_times": [2969.228, 2971.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.735}, "reply_to": "19941__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_006", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes.\nIt has to bear on the entitlement to payment in some way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2971.41, 2972.091], "stop_times": [2972.091, 2974.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2971.41}, "reply_to": "19941__2_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_007", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Is that another way of saying it must be material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2974.632], "stop_times": [2976.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.632}, "reply_to": "19941__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19941__2_008", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2976.012], "stop_times": [2977.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2976.012}, "reply_to": "19941__2_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_009", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2977.604], "stop_times": [2978.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.604}, "reply_to": "19941__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19941__2_010", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "In fact, I think, although the courts have torn themselves inside out trying to determine whether in this provision and the criminal false claims provision materiality is an element, in fact, to the extent materiality is an element, it really is embedded in the test of whether it bears on entitlement to payment or a benefit.\nI mean, taking this Court's definition from Gaudin and Kungys, the natural tendency to influence or be capable of influencing the decisionmaker seems to incorporate this test.\nAny fact that bears on entitlement is one that is capable of influencing.\nWith respect to the public disclosure bar, we believe that allegations and transactions are publicly disclosed by the Government whenever they are revealed to a member of the public outside the Government other than to the suspected wrongdoer.\nIn the context of a corporate wrongdoer, I will rush to the test that Justice Breyer identified as a clear minimal definition and state that, since corporations can only act through individuals, the test should be whether the persons to whom the Government disclosed the allegations or transactions received the information in his or her capacity as an employee or agent of the corporation, not just as an individual who happens to be an employee.\nFor example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [2978.754, 2996.845, 3008.292, 3013.007, 3028.128, 3058.325], "stop_times": [2996.845, 3008.292, 3013.007, 3028.128, 3058.325, 3059.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2978.754}, "reply_to": "19941__2_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_011", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "What about a disclosure to, say, not just to Hughes but to Northrop in a case like this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3059.266], "stop_times": [3063.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.266}, "reply_to": "19941__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19941__2_012", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Well, I think a disclosure to Northrop would be in most instances a public disclosure.\nNorthrop actually is the whistleblower in this case, and I think a disclosure to Northrop or Northrop employees would have to be considered a disclosure to a member of the public, in this case the paradigm qui tam relator.\nBut as to disclosures to employees, and I know it is very important for this Court to announce some sort of bright line rule so that we can apply this, this provision, let me give you some examples of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3063.2, 3068.963, 3081.93], "stop_times": [3068.963, 3081.93, 3095.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3063.2}, "reply_to": "19941__2_011", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_013", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, Mr. Waxman, before you do that, have you... are you changing your position from what the Government... I didn't understand that to be the Government's position in its briefs.\nI thought the brief was not whether it's disclosed to the employee as an employee or as a member of the public, but rather, whether the employee to whom it was disclosed had an obligation to keep it secret or was free to disclose it to the rest of the public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3095.08, 3101.535], "stop_times": [3101.535, 3116.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.08}, "reply_to": "19941__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_014", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--To the extent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3116.243], "stop_times": [3117.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3116.243}, "reply_to": "19941__2_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_015", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Wasn't that the test in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3117.494], "stop_times": [3118.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.494}, "reply_to": "19941__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_016", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--There was some language in our brief to that effect.\nWith all respect, I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3118.435, 3121.086], "stop_times": [3121.086, 3122.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3118.435}, "reply_to": "19941__2_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_017", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3122.178], "stop_times": [3122.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.178}, "reply_to": "19941__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_018", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--that was the burden of our statement, but we... in an effort to create a bright line--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3122.478], "stop_times": [3127.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3122.478}, "reply_to": "19941__2_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_019", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--So you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3127.922], "stop_times": [3128.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.922}, "reply_to": "19941__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_020", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--we are saying that if it's disclosed, either by the Government or by Hughes management, to someone in the corporation because they're a corporate employee, that's not public disclosure.\nOn the other hand, if someone who happens to be a public... a corporate employee files an FOIA request, and obtains it, that is a public disclosure.\nIf the Government, the Attorney General, pursuant to her authority under 3733, files a civil... sends a civil investigative demand out to persons who may have knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing and one of them happens to be a corporate employee, that is a public disclosure.\nIf a DCAA investigator goes out and talks to people, some of whom are corporate employees, and in the course of the interviews discloses allegations and transactions, that is a public disclosure.\nThat was the Second Circuit's test in Doe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3128.843, 3139.91, 3149.237, 3167.806, 3182.038], "stop_times": [3139.91, 3149.237, 3167.806, 3182.038, 3184.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3128.843}, "reply_to": "19941__2_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_021", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--As an employee means he acquires it by reason of his employment.\nIs that what your as an employee, receives it as an employee means?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3184.509, 3187.872], "stop_times": [3187.872, 3191.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.509}, "reply_to": "19941__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_022", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Receives it because he is an employee.\nIn other words, Hughes general counsel sends it to their director of auditing because he is their director of auditing and it's his responsibility to respond to the DCAA's charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3191.162, 3193.575], "stop_times": [3193.575, 3205.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3191.162}, "reply_to": "19941__2_021", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_023", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "What if somebody who happens to be a messenger in the company happens to see that?\nIt wasn't sent to him, but he sees it.\nHe wouldn't have seen it except that he's an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3205.233, 3208.675, 3210.445], "stop_times": [3208.675, 3210.445, 3213.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.233}, "reply_to": "19941__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_024", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "I was confident we would get into some hypotheticals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3213.147], "stop_times": [3218.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3213.147}, "reply_to": "19941__2_023", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_025", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Well, you say it's a clear line.\n[Laughter]\nThis is what I'm worried about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3218.029, 3220.783, 3220.002], "stop_times": [3220.783, 3220.002, 3221.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.029}, "reply_to": "19941__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_026", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "My clear line is that that would not be a public disclosure, because we need a clear line.\nThe employee was there because he was an employee.\nHe was performing his functions as an employee, and if he happens to see it, that's not a public disclosure, and what is... although this is a clear line, it leaves contractors like Hughes the ability to calibrate the universe of people it will allow to see these reports.\nHughes could decide that only the general counsel is going to receive this report, and no one else is going to see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3221.082, 3225.806, 3228.748, 3244.747], "stop_times": [3225.806, 3228.748, 3244.747, 3249.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3221.082}, "reply_to": "19941__2_025", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_027", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Unless it has nosy messengers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3249.562], "stop_times": [3250.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3249.562}, "reply_to": "19941__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_028", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3250.851], "stop_times": [3251.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3250.851}, "reply_to": "19941__2_027", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_029", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Unless it has nosy messengers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3251.802], "stop_times": [3253.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.802}, "reply_to": "19941__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_030", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Unless it has nosy messengers, and I think that this really is the test that does approximate as best as we can determine what Congress' intent was with respect to the changing of the... just changing of the qui tam bar from Government information to public disclosure.\nWith respect to retroactivity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3253.412, 3272.527], "stop_times": [3272.527, 3274.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3253.412}, "reply_to": "19941__2_029", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_031", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "On that point, with respect to retroactivity, assume this is not a jurisdictional bar.\nAssume we think that Congress has eliminated a defense.\nShould the statute be applied retroactively?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3274.005, 3277.458, 3281.051], "stop_times": [3277.458, 3281.051, 3284.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.005}, "reply_to": "19941__2_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19941__2_032", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--We think that the statute is not truly retroactive even taking your point about the defense as against a qui tam relator, because this Court stated in Landgraf that a statute has genuine retroactive effect only where the statute would either impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3284.363, 3311.312], "stop_times": [3311.312, 3312.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3284.363}, "reply_to": "19941__2_031", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_033", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So how does it work with the statute of limitations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3312.141], "stop_times": [3313.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.141}, "reply_to": "19941__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__2_034", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Here, application of the new qui tam provisions will not impair any legal rights that Hughes possessed when it acted, it will not increase any Hughes legal liability for its past conduct, and it will not impose any new legal duties on Hughes with respect to transactions already completed.\nWe think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3313.332, 3332.365], "stop_times": [3332.365, 3333.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3313.332}, "reply_to": "19941__2_033", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_035", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "As to number 2, that depends on whether you want to be realistic or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3333.265], "stop_times": [3336.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.265}, "reply_to": "19941__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19941__2_036", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--Well, yes, but this Court did say... I do want to be... I want to be very realistic, and I think this Court in Landgraf was realistic in saying a statute does not operate retrospectively merely because it upsets expectations based in prior law.\nThe test is whether it has new legal consequences, not practical consequences but new legal consequences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3336.157, 3351.157], "stop_times": [3351.157, 3357.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3336.157}, "reply_to": "19941__2_035", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_037", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "So you would say if there were additional punitive damages that would be no good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3357.941], "stop_times": [3361.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.941}, "reply_to": "19941__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__2_038", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3361.444], "stop_times": [3362.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3361.444}, "reply_to": "19941__2_037", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_039", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "That would up the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3362.303], "stop_times": [3362.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.303}, "reply_to": "19941__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__2_040", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3362.814], "stop_times": [3363.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3362.814}, "reply_to": "19941__2_039", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_041", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "But the fact that there are going to be more litigation costs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3363.605], "stop_times": [3365.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.605}, "reply_to": "19941__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19941__2_042", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "That is absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3365.926], "stop_times": [3367.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3365.926}, "reply_to": "19941__2_041", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_043", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "--So how does reviving an action by, say... statute limitations, 10 years later, 20 years later, Congress says, oh well, we'll change it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3367.769], "stop_times": [3376.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.769}, "reply_to": "19941__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19941__2_044", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "The cause of action here is a cause of action under the False Claims Act.\nThat action never lapsed, and... may I finish my answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3376.855, 3381.537], "stop_times": [3381.537, 3385.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3376.855}, "reply_to": "19941__2_043", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_045", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Finish your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3385.37], "stop_times": [3386.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.37}, "reply_to": "19941__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19941__2_046", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "And, indeed, even under the prior regime, if Mr. Schumer had filed an action, and it turned out the information was in the Government's files, we could have taken over the case and it would have proceeded.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3386.579, 3397.499], "stop_times": [3397.499, 3398.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3386.579}, "reply_to": "19941__2_045", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19941__2_047", "conversation_id": "19941", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Waxman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1340", "start_times": [3398.415, 3400.182], "stop_times": [3400.182, 3401.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3398.415}, "reply_to": "19941__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__0_000", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 94-1474, Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho.\nMr. Strong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [0.0, 8.026], "stop_times": [8.026, 9.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__0_001", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nAlthough States are part of the Union, they nonetheless retain certain attributes of sovereignty.\nTwo of those retained attributes of sovereignty, the States sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and a State's entitlement to lands beneath the beds and banks of navigable waters under the equal footing doctrine are at issue in this case.\nThe State of Idaho has been in possession of the beds and banks of the navigable waters of Lake Coeur d'Alene since Statehood.\nPursuant to that possession, the State, pursuant to its duty, has regulated those lands for the benefit of the public as a whole.\nThis action now by the Tribe seeks to divest the State of that possession and instead reside it with the Tribe.\nThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that this action by the Tribes with respect to quiet title claims was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and nonetheless, the court proceeded to allow the suit with respect to the State officers to proceed under the rationale of Ex parte Young.\nUnder the injunctive and declaratory relief sought by the Tribe, the Tribe would be awarded quiet title and exclusive possession of these lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [9.958, 13.77, 19.665, 32.262, 38.237, 44.151, 50.235, 66.276], "stop_times": [13.77, 19.665, 32.262, 38.237, 44.151, 50.235, 66.276, 75.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.958}, "reply_to": "19923__0_000", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_002", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But it would not, as I understand it, be a decree that would estop the State if the State later wanted to contest the title.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [75.743], "stop_times": [85.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 75.743}, "reply_to": "19923__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_003", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [85.508], "stop_times": [86.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 85.508}, "reply_to": "19923__0_002", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_004", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [86.64], "stop_times": [87.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 86.64}, "reply_to": "19923__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_005", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [87.211], "stop_times": [88.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 87.211}, "reply_to": "19923__0_004", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_006", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "You think the State would suffer preclusion from that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [88.62], "stop_times": [92.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 88.62}, "reply_to": "19923__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_007", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, by the very nature of these properties, it is impossible to separate the title from the possession of the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [92.163], "stop_times": [99.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 92.163}, "reply_to": "19923__0_006", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_008", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, yes, but in one sense it's always impossible to separate the officer from the State, but that's what Ex parte Young does, and I would have thought that the State's ultimate fear would be that if... if it had an ultimate fear, is that if the officers lost the suit, that the State would lose its title, and I would have thought if for no other reason than the very nature of the Eleventh Amendment claim that the State had, that there would be no issue preclusion against the State if the State either later wished voluntarily to litigate its question of title, or was sued in a State court for that purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [99.038], "stop_times": [141.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.038}, "reply_to": "19923__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_009", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, the very nature of this lands is what brings the difficult interplay with Ex parte Young.\nUnder the officer's suit rationale it is assumed that the State simply could bring another action to clear its title to these lands, but if the Tribe were awarded possession of these lands, under section 28 2409a, the Federal Quiet Title Act specifically precludes an action by the State against the United States Government for possessions of lands held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe.\nLikewise, tribal sovereign immunity would preclude the State from bringing an action against the tribal... against the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [141.237, 146.44, 167.693], "stop_times": [146.44, 167.693, 173.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.237}, "reply_to": "19923__0_008", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_010", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So you're saying it's the Quiet Title Act that would in effect require the preclusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [173.868], "stop_times": [179.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.868}, "reply_to": "19923__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_011", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--The Quiet Title Act would because of the language in the act that precludes an action by a State against the United States for lands that are held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe.\nThe act... the argument would be made--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [179.571, 188.717], "stop_times": [188.717, 190.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 179.571}, "reply_to": "19923__0_010", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_012", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No, but that's not the only way the State could perfect its title, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [190.818], "stop_times": [195.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.818}, "reply_to": "19923__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_013", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Your Honor, that would be the only way the State could perfect its title in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [195.52], "stop_times": [199.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 195.52}, "reply_to": "19923__0_012", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_014", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "He could walk in and seize the land, I presume, send in the State National Guard and wait for somebody to sue to get it off the land.\nCouldn't it do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [199.304, 204.596], "stop_times": [204.596, 205.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.304}, "reply_to": "19923__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19923__0_015", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, the State would be bound to abide by lawful orders of this Court.\nThe State officers are the ones that are being enjoined from possession of these lands--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [205.407, 209.542], "stop_times": [209.542, 212.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.407}, "reply_to": "19923__0_014", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_016", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "The whole theory is that that doesn't run against the State, it just runs against the State officers.\nYou've got to get some other State officer, that's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [212.901, 215.834], "stop_times": [215.834, 217.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.901}, "reply_to": "19923__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19923__0_017", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--But the State cannot act but through its officers.\nIf the officers are enjoined from proceeding, there is no way that the State can go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [217.346, 219.687], "stop_times": [219.687, 223.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.346}, "reply_to": "19923__0_016", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_018", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Supposing the State sends another crop of officers who haven't been named in this particular action, are they bound by the previous decree against the original State officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [223.059], "stop_times": [234.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.059}, "reply_to": "19923__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__0_019", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, the successors in office are the ones that would be bound by this particular order, but certainly they would suspect the tribe would immediately sue the State to enjoin those people from taking possession of the lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [234.215], "stop_times": [244.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.215}, "reply_to": "19923__0_018", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_020", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Now--\n--Of course, it works the other way around.\nIf you... if you prevail on the merits with a ruling by this Court that the President had no authority to convey away the lands, I take it you would have the benefit of that judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [244.163, 247.366, 248.094], "stop_times": [247.366, 248.094, 258.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.163}, "reply_to": "19923__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__0_021", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor, I don't understand the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [258.863], "stop_times": [261.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 258.863}, "reply_to": "19923__0_020", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_022", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Suppose Idaho... suppose the suit were to go forward and Idaho would prevail in this suit, or the officers would prevail in this suit, and it were held that the land had not been conveyed to the Tribes, that would work to your benefit, I take it.\nYou could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [261.995, 276.744], "stop_times": [276.744, 277.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.995}, "reply_to": "19923__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__0_023", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that would work to our benefit.\nThe nature of the Eleventh Amendment, or the Ex parte Young is a narrow exception to the Eleventh Amendment.\nAs an exception to the Eleventh Amendment, it must be interpreted in a way that accommodates the substantial sovereign interest at stake under the Eleventh Amendment, and as this Court has stated in the past--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [277.503, 279.937, 286.209], "stop_times": [279.937, 286.209, 296.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.503}, "reply_to": "19923__0_022", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_024", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--You think it always operates in such a way that in fact the State is not bound?\nI mean, I always thought Ex parte Young was just a great fiction, that in fact 99 percent of the time you can say the suit is only against the officers, but as a fact... as a practical matter the State is, you know, is precluded.\nYou don't think that's the way it works normally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [296.687, 303.503, 316.509], "stop_times": [303.503, 316.509, 319.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.687}, "reply_to": "19923__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19923__0_025", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--You're correct, Your Honor, it is a fiction, and the fiction is that the suit can go forward because it doesn't unnecessarily interfere with the State's actions, but in this instance, because of the very nature of the title of these lands, it interferes with the State action.\nThe lands that we're talking about here are lands that came to the State through the equal footing doctrine.\nThe lands that are specifically identified with sovereignty, as this Court stated in Oregon v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel, that when you're dealing with submerged lands you're not dealing with the issue of substantive property law, but rather with the constitutional sovereignty of the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [319.031, 332.882, 337.374], "stop_times": [332.882, 337.374, 353.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.031}, "reply_to": "19923__0_024", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_026", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So you're saying land and Treasury, land and Treasury we won't apply Ex parte Young?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [353.915], "stop_times": [358.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.915}, "reply_to": "19923__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19923__0_027", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, I'm saying in this context, sovereign lands is the same as the Treasury.\nYou should not allow an action to proceed against lands that the State receives as an incident of sovereignty, that incidence of sovereignty, because of the very nature of these lands, they're held open for the benefit of the public as a whole, the State receives lands under an equal footing doctrine, is required to manage those for the benefit of the public for commerce, navigation, and other purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [358.888, 363.139], "stop_times": [363.139, 383.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.888}, "reply_to": "19923__0_026", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_028", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But can't you say in any case in which a State officer suffers an injunction, that the State officer is thereby deflected from performing duties which in the judgment of the State would be better performed either for some other purpose, for the purpose that it... that the... that was enjoined, and that there is always a kind of frustration of State activity as a result of it, and I don't... for that reason, I don't see why there is some peculiar status of lands, even when the State has a sovereign purpose in holding the lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [383.134], "stop_times": [419.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.134}, "reply_to": "19923__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_029", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, these lands are identified directly with sovereignty of the State.\nAs this Court has said in the past--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [419.436, 424.532], "stop_times": [424.532, 427.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.436}, "reply_to": "19923__0_028", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_030", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, but the right to exercise any governmental function is identified with the sovereignty of the State, and yet the officer who is ordered by the State to perform that function can be enjoined under Young.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [427.403], "stop_times": [438.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.403}, "reply_to": "19923__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_031", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Your Honor, if the officers are enjoined in this action, however, the nature and title... the title isn't in the actual ownership of the property, but it's the regulation of that property for the benefit of the public as a whole.\nIf the officers are enjoined in the ability to manage and regulate these lands for the benefit of the whole, then the very sovereign nature of that title is entirely defeated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [438.79, 449.216], "stop_times": [449.216, 458.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 438.79}, "reply_to": "19923__0_030", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_032", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, it isn't entirely defeated if the State has, as I assumed it had, a right to contest the title in a forum of its own choosing, and therefore it seems to me that what the State is suffering boils down to the fact that if its officers lose this suit, the consequences of that may very well precipitate the State into having to litigate the title itself.\nBut what the Eleventh Amendment protects is not circumstances requiring the State as a practical matter to litigate, but rather, it protects it from being hauled into a particular forum to do its litigation, and therefore, if what the State is ultimately suffering is in effect the precipitation of litigation in the absence of which it will suffer in some way.\nI don't see that that is the Eleventh Amendment's concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [458.182, 480.778, 502.07], "stop_times": [480.778, 502.07, 505.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.182}, "reply_to": "19923__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_033", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, if the State officers are enjoined from the regulation of these lands, the point that I'm making is that the State does not have a remedy.\nThe State couldn't simply go out and commence another action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [505.252, 513.14], "stop_times": [513.14, 515.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.252}, "reply_to": "19923__0_032", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_034", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, you... let me put it this way.\nIf we were to hold, in explaining a judgment here, that the State would not be estopped as a result of this judgment against the officers if it wishes later on to litigate its title, then you would have no quarrel, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [515.419, 516.578], "stop_times": [516.578, 530.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.419}, "reply_to": "19923__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_035", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No, Your Honor, because this Court cannot grant the relief the State would need to bring the action because of the Federal Quiet Title Act, and assuming that the Tribe was successful in obtaining possession, the argument would be made that our action against the United States, the actual trustee of these lands, would be precluded because those lands were held in trust for the benefit of the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [530.78], "stop_times": [549.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.78}, "reply_to": "19923__0_034", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_036", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Okay.\nI understand your position... yes.\nSo you say that the respondent Tribe could not bring a quiet title action in State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [549.602, 550.082, 552.293], "stop_times": [550.082, 552.293, 559.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.602}, "reply_to": "19923__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_037", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIn fact the State's position has been that that is one of the alternative remedies available to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [559.749, 560.839], "stop_times": [560.839, 565.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.749}, "reply_to": "19923__0_036", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_038", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Despite the Federal Quiet Title Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [565.202], "stop_times": [567.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 565.202}, "reply_to": "19923__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__0_039", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Well, the Federal Quiet Title Act limits the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [567.353], "stop_times": [569.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.353}, "reply_to": "19923__0_038", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_040", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So it does not limit, in your view, the Tribe from filing a quiet title action in State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [569.756], "stop_times": [576.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.756}, "reply_to": "19923__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__0_041", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No.\nThe Federal Quiet Title Act would have no limitation on the Tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [576.659, 577.34], "stop_times": [577.34, 580.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.659}, "reply_to": "19923__0_040", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_042", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "And the State of Idaho has waived its sovereign immunity for such a suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [580.973], "stop_times": [584.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.973}, "reply_to": "19923__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__0_043", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, that... our courts would be available to the Tribe to fully pursue in the entirety the relief that they are seeking in this action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [584.695], "stop_times": [591.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.695}, "reply_to": "19923__0_042", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_044", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "What authority from this Court do you rely on for the proposition that the Eleventh Amendment bars adjudication of the State's sovereign title question in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [591.58], "stop_times": [602.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.58}, "reply_to": "19923__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__0_045", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, we look to Treasure Salvors.\nIn Treasure Salvors the... although there was a split plurality opinion, all four justices on each side of that plurality ultimately held that you cannot adjudicate a State's title in the context of the Eleventh Amendment.\nThat would be precluded.\nYou have to somehow be able to segregate the possession of the property under Treasure Salvors from the title to the property in order to move forward.\nThe point that we're making here is, is that under the presumption in Montana, which is a strong presumption of State ownership, that the only way you can determine that the... the Court can determine that the Tribe is entitled to possession of these lands is to first determine that the presumption of State ownership has been overcome, and that the United States abandoned its traditional policy in favor of holding these lands in trust.\nRather than the issue of taking tribal property, this case really presents an issue of whether the United States took the State's sovereign title and instead bestowed it upon the Tribe.\nThat is the very nature of this case, and because it involves the State's title is why it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [602.906, 605.898, 620.729, 621.68, 628.894, 649.747, 659.895], "stop_times": [605.898, 620.729, 621.68, 628.894, 649.747, 659.895, 665.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.906}, "reply_to": "19923__0_044", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_046", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Strong, I understood you to say that this case is about where the suit will be, and Idaho has a State court remedy, a State court where this disputed question can be tried out.\nIs that, the existence of that remedy, essential to your position?\nLet's suppose Idaho did not choose to consent to be sued on this matter at all, would your position be any different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [665.448, 682.028, 688.512], "stop_times": [682.028, 688.512, 695.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.448}, "reply_to": "19923__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__0_047", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No, Your Honor, our position would be no different.\nThe Eleventh Amendment precludes an action against the State, directly against the State, and since this is a determination of the State's title, it would be precluded by the Eleventh Amendment regardless of the unavailability of the forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [695.168, 697.008], "stop_times": [697.008, 707.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.168}, "reply_to": "19923__0_046", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_048", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So you're saying that Idaho has chosen to give the Tribe a remedy in Idaho's own courts, but doesn't have to, so we would be left with the anomaly, if Idaho hadn't consented to be sued in its own courts, of a dispute over title determined by Federal law, right, because both sides are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [707.446], "stop_times": [729.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.446}, "reply_to": "19923__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__0_049", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [729.71], "stop_times": [730.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.71}, "reply_to": "19923__0_048", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_050", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--staking their claim on Federal law, and no Federal court could hear it, and a State court has chosen not to hear it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [730.13], "stop_times": [738.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.13}, "reply_to": "19923__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__0_051", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No, Your Honor, there is another remedy that's available to the Tribe which also takes us outside the context of Ex parte Young.\nA Tribe is a dependent sovereign Nation, is... cannot hold legal title to these trust lands.\nLegal title is held by the United States on behalf of the Tribe, so the Tribe has a remedy here that's not traditionally available in an Ex parte Young--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [738.465, 746.181, 751.064], "stop_times": [746.181, 751.064, 760.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.465}, "reply_to": "19923__0_050", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_052", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But that's up to the United States to pursue that remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [760.38], "stop_times": [763.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.38}, "reply_to": "19923__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__0_053", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Your Honor, that is correct, but the Tribe can petition the United States to bring an action on its behalf, and if the United States fails to take such action, and the Tribe believes that it should be taking further action with respect to this property, it has a remedy against the United States to bring an action, breach of trust action against the United States to force it to either litigate the title, or compensate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [763.211], "stop_times": [782.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.211}, "reply_to": "19923__0_052", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_054", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Is there an action pending now which the United States has brought?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [782.794], "stop_times": [786.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.794}, "reply_to": "19923__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__0_055", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there is an action pending in the United States District Court in Idaho, and that action is properly brought under Texas v.... United States v. Texas.\nThe State has no objection to an action by the trustee of these lands as against the State of Idaho.\nThe law is very clear on that matter.\nThat action seeks to quiet title to the southern third of Lake Coeur d'Alene.\nIt again verifies the fact that there is a remedy available to the Tribe, and that is to petition the United States to bring an action on its behalf.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [786.848, 794.542, 800.118, 801.387, 804.85], "stop_times": [794.542, 800.118, 801.387, 804.85, 811.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.848}, "reply_to": "19923__0_054", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_056", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Of course, even if that remedy did not exist, as well as the remedy of suit in State court, which you say also exists, it still would not be a unique situation.\nPresumably... namely that the situation of the Tribe not being able to get relief would presumably not be unique, or relief in Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [811.675, 820.52], "stop_times": [820.52, 828.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.675}, "reply_to": "19923__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19923__0_057", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Would not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [828.595], "stop_times": [829.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.595}, "reply_to": "19923__0_056", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_058", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--because that's presumably the situation with respect to all claims to money from the State Treasury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [829.887], "stop_times": [834.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 829.887}, "reply_to": "19923__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19923__0_059", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe very nature of the Eleventh Amendment creates this tension where there may not be an available remedy, and the idea of Ex parte Young was to address that situation, but as I've demonstrated both through the action by the Tribe in State court, or by the action of the United States, the rationale for Ex parte Young is not applicable in the context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [834.66, 836.179], "stop_times": [836.179, 854.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.66}, "reply_to": "19923__0_058", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_060", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "How do you distinguish the old case of Tindal v. Wesley?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [854.212], "stop_times": [857.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.212}, "reply_to": "19923__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__0_061", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Tindal v. Wesley has been limited by the Larson case, and in that... what it basically says is that there has to be either an action by the officer acting ultra vires, Larson does, or alternatively that there has to be some violation of Federal law.\nThere is no allegation in this suit that the State officers were acting any... outside of their authority.\nIn fact, the State officers are doing exactly what was expected of them under the presumption of Federal ownership, that is, regulating these lands on behalf of the public as a whole.\nAs to the Federal question, as to whether there's a violation of Federal law, as I... this is not an instance where the State is taking tribal property but rather, the question is whether the United States took the State's entitlement and instead vested it to the Tribe, and so the very essence of the claim isn't a violation of Federal law, but a determination of what that Federal law means, and this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [857.483, 874.264, 879.38, 887.824], "stop_times": [874.264, 879.38, 887.824, 906.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.483}, "reply_to": "19923__0_060", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_062", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, but from the Tribe's point of view, I suppose if they have good title and the State occupies their land, they would be able to treat it as some form of inverse eminent domain, wouldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [906.966], "stop_times": [920.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.966}, "reply_to": "19923__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__0_063", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Your Honor, the State does not have an ability to take tribal land.\nIf these are tribal lands, State authority would not extend to them.\nThis case is most analogous to a tortious interference type situation where there is competing claims as to what Federal law means, and we're simply trying to resolve this, very much similar to, say, the Oregon v. Hitchcock case, in which the State claimed ownership of lands under, I believe the Submerged Lands Act, and the Court said no, that was prohibited because it was an action as to the title of lands in the United States.\nThe State would contend that the officer's suit, the traditional officer's suit as we think of it, going back to the United States v. Lee, is premised on the notion that it's a State affirmatively acting in... as a private citizen to take its property, and that it's a taking that brings those actions into play, and the rationale of Lee is that we need that kind of rule to avoid the tyranny of the Government simply confiscating State property... or, I mean, private property for benefit of State governmental actions.\nWe contend that under the equal footing doctrine that concern is not present in this case because the State entered into possession as a result of Statehood, and it's been in possession for over a century with respect to those lands, and so we simply don't have that problem before us today.\nLikewise, as to whether the conduct of the officer is unlawful, which is a premise of Ex parte Young, there is nothing in the conduct of the officers here that would suggest that they're violating any Federal law.\nIn fact, they're operating, as I've indicated in the past, consistent with the Federal premise of these equal footing doctrines to regulate them on behalf of the public as a whole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [920.646, 924.089, 927.429, 949.684, 980.963, 996.014, 1008.302], "stop_times": [924.089, 927.429, 949.684, 980.963, 996.014, 1008.302, 1016.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.646}, "reply_to": "19923__0_062", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_064", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, but if they're... if the Tribe is right on the merits, aren't they then violating some Federal rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1016.608], "stop_times": [1022.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.608}, "reply_to": "19923__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_065", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, if the Tribe is right on the merits there would be a violation of the Federal rights, but in this context you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1022.341], "stop_times": [1029.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1022.341}, "reply_to": "19923__0_064", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_066", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "It seems to me your argument is sort of proceeding on the assumption that they're wrong on the merits, an issue we don't reach until we decide the threshold question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1029.186], "stop_times": [1036.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.186}, "reply_to": "19923__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_067", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIn determining this case you must first consider the applicable law, and the applicable law under Montana v. United States is that you must presume State ownership of these submerged lands absent an express congressional conveyance, and until that is established, the State is entitled to operate as it has in the past, that it is entitled to the ownership of these beds and banks, and until that issue is resolved, it is impossible to state that the State officers are not acting consistent with Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1036.222, 1036.771], "stop_times": [1036.771, 1060.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.222}, "reply_to": "19923__0_066", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_068", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But isn't it correct... I know you say here there is both a Federal action pending where the United States is suing, and there's a State forum available, but if neither of those things were true, we had a different case, you would still say that there was no remedy here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1060.796], "stop_times": [1074.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.796}, "reply_to": "19923__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_069", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1074.246, 1075.296], "stop_times": [1075.296, 1075.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.246}, "reply_to": "19923__0_068", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_070", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So the Federal question could never be resolved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1075.756], "stop_times": [1077.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.756}, "reply_to": "19923__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_071", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--That's the very nature of the tension between the Eleventh Amendment and the compact made with the States and the Federal Government, is that the States are to be free from suits that will interfere with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1077.619], "stop_times": [1087.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.619}, "reply_to": "19923__0_070", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_072", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, but with the exception created by Ex parte Young.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1087.214], "stop_times": [1089.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.214}, "reply_to": "19923__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_073", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--That's correct, with the exception created by Ex parte Young, but as I am contending today, this action doesn't fall within Ex parte Young.\nThe purpose of Ex parte Young is to enjoin the unlawful enforcement of State laws, and before you can determine that the actions upon which the officers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1089.878, 1096.45], "stop_times": [1096.45, 1104.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1089.878}, "reply_to": "19923__0_072", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_074", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "They're unlawful in the sense that they violated a supreme Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1104.646], "stop_times": [1108.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.646}, "reply_to": "19923__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_075", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1108.197], "stop_times": [1109.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1108.197}, "reply_to": "19923__0_074", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_076", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1109.269], "stop_times": [1109.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.269}, "reply_to": "19923__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_077", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "And we don't know in this case whether there's a violation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1109.649], "stop_times": [1112.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.649}, "reply_to": "19923__0_076", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_078", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But we didn't know in Ex parte Young until after the case was tried whether there was a violation, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1112.29], "stop_times": [1116.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.29}, "reply_to": "19923__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_079", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--But we do know in this case that there is a presumption of State ownership in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1116.492], "stop_times": [1120.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.492}, "reply_to": "19923__0_078", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_080", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Which is a rebuttable presumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1120.115], "stop_times": [1121.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.115}, "reply_to": "19923__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_081", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--That is a rebuttable presumption, but nonetheless it's a strong presumption, and the Court is required to begin with that presumption in any analysis of an equal footing conveyance situation, and given that presumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1121.667], "stop_times": [1132.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.667}, "reply_to": "19923__0_080", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_082", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But isn't there also a presumption in the Ex parte Young area that State action is generally considered lawful and constitutional?\nYou always start with a presumption of constitutionality whenever you challenge State action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1132.574, 1137.456], "stop_times": [1137.456, 1141.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.574}, "reply_to": "19923__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_083", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Your Honor, the essence of what we're trying to contend before the Court today is that under Ex parte Young you start with the premise that a well pled complaint alleges a violation of some Federal law, a supremacy issue, and the contention we make today is that there is no Supremacy Clause question here, because if the State is correct and you are required to assume that the State is correct because of the presumption until it's litigated, then the State is acting consistent with Federal law.\nOnce that Federal law is determined, as it was in Treasure Salvors, then it would be appropriate for the Court to go forward and to evaluate the merits of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1141.56, 1171.02], "stop_times": [1171.02, 1177.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.56}, "reply_to": "19923__0_082", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_084", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I really don't understand why the presumption in the Montana case is any different from the general presumption that State action conforms with the Constitution.\nThat's where I'm not sure I follow your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1177.624, 1184.736], "stop_times": [1184.736, 1187.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.624}, "reply_to": "19923__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19923__0_085", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--I understand, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1187.799], "stop_times": [1189.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.799}, "reply_to": "19923__0_084", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_086", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, isn't your... isn't the essence of your argument, I guess, and your best answer to Justice Stevens, if I understood you earlier, that Ex parte Young is concerned with a situation in which the plaintiff claims under Federal law, and the officers sued are claiming under State law, and here you're saying both parties are claiming under Federal law, and that's why Young doesn't apply.\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1189.702, 1215.248], "stop_times": [1215.248, 1216.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.702}, "reply_to": "19923__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_087", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, in part that's our argument.\nWe contend that the question here is, whose interpretation of Federal law is correct?\nAnd until that interpretation is resolved, it's impossible to say the officers are in violation of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1216.54, 1218.941, 1223.632], "stop_times": [1218.941, 1223.632, 1229.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1216.54}, "reply_to": "19923__0_086", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_088", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, yes, but if we understand Ex parte Young simply to be a means of litigating a claim of Federal right against State officers, then it would not in any way be dispositive that the State officers were themselves claiming to be operating consistently with Federal law, or to be claiming affirmatively that they had a Federal right to do what they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1229.526], "stop_times": [1251.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.526}, "reply_to": "19923__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_089", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1251.021], "stop_times": [1253.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.021}, "reply_to": "19923__0_088", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_090", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So I mean, that would be the end of your argument, I take it, there, and I guess my question is going to be, doesn't every defendant in an Ex parte Young case say, I am operating consistently with Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1253.142], "stop_times": [1265.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.142}, "reply_to": "19923__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_091", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Well, certainly a party says that in an Ex parte Young situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1265.08], "stop_times": [1269.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1265.08}, "reply_to": "19923__0_090", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_092", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Okay, so that the only thing peculiar about this case is that they're pointing, in effect the State officers here are pointing, or are going to point if they have to, to a title claim rather than to some other basis in Federal law to say that they are acting lawfully within the meaning of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1269.243], "stop_times": [1285.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1269.243}, "reply_to": "19923__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_093", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1285.884], "stop_times": [1287.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.884}, "reply_to": "19923__0_092", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_094", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1287.015], "stop_times": [1287.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.015}, "reply_to": "19923__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_095", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--what they point to is, rather than an assertion that they're acting in conformance with Federal law, is a presumption under Federal law that they are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1287.824], "stop_times": [1294.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1287.824}, "reply_to": "19923__0_094", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_096", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--No, but that goes to the merits.\nI'm just saying, what are the issues that are being litigated, and the issue that's being litigated is, on the plaintiff's part, a claim of Federal right, on the defendant's part, a claim to be acting consistently with Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1294.43, 1295.0], "stop_times": [1295.0, 1306.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.43}, "reply_to": "19923__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_097", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1306.426], "stop_times": [1307.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.426}, "reply_to": "19923__0_096", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_098", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "And that is true of every Ex parte Young case that is ever litigated, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1307.197], "stop_times": [1310.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.197}, "reply_to": "19923__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_099", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But, Your Honor, the Eleventh Amendment serves the purpose of protecting the State in the operation of its sovereign duties.\nThese lands, as this Court has said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1310.841, 1317.125], "stop_times": [1317.125, 1319.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.841}, "reply_to": "19923__0_098", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_100", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No, it protects a State... it protects a State from being hauled into a Federal court under certain circumstances, and Ex parte Young says you can in those same circumstances sue the officer.\nEx parte Young cases are by nature based on claims of Federal right and defenses based on claims of consistency with Federal law.\nThat's what you've got here, isn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1319.327, 1332.774, 1342.091], "stop_times": [1332.774, 1342.091, 1344.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.327}, "reply_to": "19923__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__0_101", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Your Honor, what you have here is property that's been identified as an essential attribute of sovereignty.\nIf the Eleventh Amendment is to serve any purpose at all, it is to protect the sovereignty of the States from being sued in a court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1344.14, 1349.604], "stop_times": [1349.604, 1355.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1344.14}, "reply_to": "19923__0_100", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_102", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Givens, you raise two questions in your petition, and you have had no opportunity yet to get to the second one.\nI hope you'll take some time, if my colleagues allow you to get to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1355.428, 1361.742], "stop_times": [1361.742, 1364.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.428}, "reply_to": "19923__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__0_103", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nJust to complete that thought, the essence of the... if the Eleventh Amendment serves any purpose, it serves to protect the sovereignty of the State and its operations of its Government.\nIf... Ex parte Young cannot be used as a method to simply sue an officer and to infringe upon the State's authority.\nIn this action the only way relief can be granted is if you directly determine the State is without title.\nTurning to the second question that we have presented to the Court, we want to make... first make clear the issue that is before the Court.\nWe are not seeking a determination as to whether Congress took affirmative action in this case to defeat the State's equal footing title.\nRather, our contention is that the President cannot act without express congressional authority to defeat a State's equal footing title, and we point back to the Sioux Tribe case in which it is specifically stated that the authority of the President is limited directly to a delegation of power from Congress, because the operation of the Property Clause is vested exclusively in Congress.\nSo if in Sioux Tribe the Court found that it is impossible for the President to convey an interest in property to a tribe of uplands which are public lands... I want to emphasize it's public lands not submerged lands... then it's also likewise and even axiomatic that with regard to submerged lands, which are held in trust for the benefit of future States, that the President could not act to defeat that title.\nMr. Chief Justice, if I may, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1364.525, 1366.788, 1376.683, 1384.499, 1389.321, 1398.287, 1404.141, 1429.317, 1452.254], "stop_times": [1366.788, 1376.683, 1384.499, 1389.321, 1398.287, 1404.141, 1429.317, 1452.254, 1457.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1364.525}, "reply_to": "19923__0_102", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__0_104", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Very well, Mr. Strong.\nMr. Givens, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1457.075, 1458.608], "stop_times": [1458.608, 1460.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.075}, "reply_to": "19923__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_000", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, please the Court:\nThe State is really asking for... its State officers are asking for a new submerged land exception to pretty... very well-developed areas of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1460.178, 1474.717], "stop_times": [1474.717, 1488.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1460.178}, "reply_to": "19923__0_104", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_001", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "What... the complaint is rather sketchy as to what these officers are supposed to be doing.\nIt names the Governor and the Commissioner of lands, I believe, and the Secretary of State.\nDoes it set forth with any specificity, or do other pleadings, supplemental pleadings set forth with any specificity exactly what these officers are doing that is inconsistent with the ownership that you allege?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1488.325, 1494.789, 1499.515], "stop_times": [1494.789, 1499.515, 1515.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.325}, "reply_to": "19923__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__1_002", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "The short answer is no, there are no supplemental pleadings, Your Honor, and that's part of the difficulty of the whole case.\nWe're at... this case stems from the most preliminary procedures.\nThe Tribe filed its complaint... it is a generalized complaint.\nIt does specify certain statutes that they are... the State officers are operating under.\nThe Governor is holding a statutorily... State statutorily created water right.\nThe members of the land board that was... are enforcing a State statute that gives encroachment permits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1515.513, 1524.56, 1529.822, 1534.557, 1539.72, 1544.673], "stop_times": [1524.56, 1529.822, 1534.557, 1539.72, 1544.673, 1553.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1515.513}, "reply_to": "19923__1_001", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_003", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Is that set forth in the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1553.07], "stop_times": [1555.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.07}, "reply_to": "19923__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__1_004", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "In... yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1555.092], "stop_times": [1556.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1555.092}, "reply_to": "19923__1_003", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_005", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I didn't see that.\nIt's in your response at page--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1556.903, 1560.476], "stop_times": [1560.476, 1562.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.903}, "reply_to": "19923__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__1_006", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "At--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1562.737], "stop_times": [1564.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1562.737}, "reply_to": "19923__1_005", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_007", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Three.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1564.908], "stop_times": [1566.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.908}, "reply_to": "19923__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__1_008", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--our response to the petition for cert, page--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1566.21], "stop_times": [1568.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1566.21}, "reply_to": "19923__1_007", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_009", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Page... it begins at page 3--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1568.691], "stop_times": [1570.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.691}, "reply_to": "19923__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__1_010", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Page 12.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1570.782], "stop_times": [1571.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1570.782}, "reply_to": "19923__1_009", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_011", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--and then that's at page 12.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1571.292], "stop_times": [1572.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.292}, "reply_to": "19923__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__1_012", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Asking that the water right of 67... 4304 be declared invalid, and the rest of them, Your Honor, are really in more of a general way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1572.284], "stop_times": [1588.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1572.284}, "reply_to": "19923__1_011", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_013", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Which brings us--\n--Yes, but that simply sets forth the extent of the declaration that you choose.\nIt doesn't say that any particular officer is enforcing this in any particular respect.\nIt just seems to me if you're going to rely on the doctrine of Ex parte Young this is a very sketchy pleading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1588.626, 1590.505, 1596.3, 1601.393], "stop_times": [1590.505, 1596.3, 1601.393, 1608.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.626}, "reply_to": "19923__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__1_014", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "It should be... it needs to be amended, Your Honor, for... obviously for that reason.\nIf the State felt that there was... they didn't understand what we were suing about.\nOf course, there's the rule for asking for more specific statement.\nThe other reason the complaint needs to be amended is that when the complaint was filed we felt we had a theory because of the way Idaho defined its sovereignty as to not include quiet title actions that we could sue the State for quiet title.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1608.328, 1615.06, 1619.664, 1624.129], "stop_times": [1615.06, 1619.664, 1624.129, 1637.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1608.328}, "reply_to": "19923__1_013", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_015", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Not include what, quiet title actions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1637.737], "stop_times": [1640.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.737}, "reply_to": "19923__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19923__1_016", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes.\nThere are two Idaho supreme court cases that say that quiet title actions do not impact the sovereignty of the State, and we felt because of that the Eleventh Amendment was not applicable.\nThe Ninth Circuit felt otherwise.\nWe asked this Court to review that.\nIt chose not to, so it's not part of the case, so to get that out of the case we're going to have to amend on remand, and very well the complaint should be more specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1640.97, 1641.671, 1650.794, 1653.705, 1656.868], "stop_times": [1641.671, 1650.794, 1653.705, 1656.868, 1668.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1640.97}, "reply_to": "19923__1_015", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_017", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Can you just tell us briefly what the reasoning of that is, that quiet title actions don't impact the sovereignty of the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1668.335], "stop_times": [1677.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.335}, "reply_to": "19923__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__1_018", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "The cases are Roddy and the Lyons cases, and the... the thinking of the Idaho court was simply that quiet title actions were actions against the land, not against the sovereignty of the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1677.051], "stop_times": [1693.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.051}, "reply_to": "19923__1_017", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_019", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Was it the in rem personification notion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1693.033], "stop_times": [1695.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.033}, "reply_to": "19923__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__1_020", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "They didn't use those exact words, but that basic concept, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1695.844], "stop_times": [1699.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.844}, "reply_to": "19923__1_019", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_021", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, that's a pretty strange doctrine, isn't it?\nI mean, if the State claims sovereign title and the quiet title action deprives the State of it, how can it be said it doesn't affect the State in its sovereign capacity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1699.977, 1703.63], "stop_times": [1703.63, 1716.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.977}, "reply_to": "19923__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_022", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Maybe I didn't understand the question, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1716.418], "stop_times": [1721.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.418}, "reply_to": "19923__1_021", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_023", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, I don't see how the State could take the position that a quiet title action asserting that the State lacks title to lands that the State claims in its sovereign capacity, how can it be said that doesn't affect the State sovereign interests?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1721.42], "stop_times": [1741.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1721.42}, "reply_to": "19923__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_024", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "The Idaho court was... in the Roddy and Lyons cases were presented with a... claims against the State to quiet title, and they chose not to waive sovereign immunity judicially, which is what most States have done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1741.735], "stop_times": [1761.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.735}, "reply_to": "19923__1_023", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_025", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, but you do agree in any event that a quiet title action could be brought by the Tribe in State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1761.648], "stop_times": [1768.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.648}, "reply_to": "19923__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_026", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere is a very serious question of State court jurisdiction.\nOf course, there's the initial question of no State court jurisdiction over the tribe, personal jurisdiction, but there is also a very serious subject matter jurisdiction question.\nFrom the outset of the Indian law jurisprudence in this country, the courts have held that, generally, State courts have no jurisdiction over Indian lands--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1768.173, 1770.154, 1774.635, 1785.703], "stop_times": [1770.154, 1774.635, 1785.703, 1799.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1768.173}, "reply_to": "19923__1_025", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_027", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Even when the Indian tribe is the plaintiff?\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1799.012, 1801.272], "stop_times": [1801.272, 1801.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.012}, "reply_to": "19923__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_028", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Well... I'm not talking about personal jurisdiction, the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1801.743], "stop_times": [1810.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.743}, "reply_to": "19923__1_027", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_029", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But the subject matter jurisdiction, aren't the court... what is it, the circuit court, the superior court, the district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1810.439], "stop_times": [1817.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.439}, "reply_to": "19923__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_030", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "District--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1817.054], "stop_times": [1817.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1817.054}, "reply_to": "19923__1_029", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_031", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--The district court is a court of general subject matter jurisdiction, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1817.344], "stop_times": [1821.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.344}, "reply_to": "19923__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_032", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1821.377], "stop_times": [1821.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1821.377}, "reply_to": "19923__1_031", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_033", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I mean, it's not confined to certain types of cases.\nYou can bring any case you want, can't you, if... unless there's an amount in controversy requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1821.965, 1824.819], "stop_times": [1824.819, 1830.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.965}, "reply_to": "19923__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_034", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, I guess the problem, Your Honor, is that litigants cannot create subject matter jurisdiction upon a court that it doesn't otherwise have, and the only congressional act that... or the primary congressional act that conveyed subject matter jurisdiction on State courts to adjudicate Indian interests was Public Law 280, of course, and in that... in Public Law 280, as is discussed in Bryan/Itasca County, it's very clear that the statute... Congress specifically said that State courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate property determinations in Indian country against tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1830.561], "stop_times": [1873.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.561}, "reply_to": "19923__1_033", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_035", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So an Indian tribe couldn't go into the district court of Ada County or something like that and sue someone who is trespassing on tribal property, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1873.591], "stop_times": [1882.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.591}, "reply_to": "19923__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_036", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I guess it would be... the short answer to your question, Mr. Chief Justice, is there is a serious question of subject matter jurisdiction.\nIt would be like someone in Maryland going into a Virginia court and suing to quiet title against someone in Virginia for property in Maryland.\nThe Tribe's basis of the whole lawsuit in this case is, of course, the Tribe's title to the lake.\nIt is not... the Tribe is not trying to take anything away from the State.\nThe Tribe has always owned that lake, in the Tribe's position, and all that the Tribe is asking for is to have a Federal court hold that the State officers who are regulating on that lake are... should not be doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1882.657, 1892.034, 1901.379, 1908.853, 1913.796], "stop_times": [1892.034, 1901.379, 1908.853, 1913.796, 1931.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.657}, "reply_to": "19923__1_035", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_037", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "In fact, there is another suit pending right now that would determine the issue of title?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1931.989], "stop_times": [1938.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.989}, "reply_to": "19923__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_038", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "For... yes, Your Honor, for a portion of the lake.\nLake Coeur d'Alene is a long, skinny lake, and the United States has brought suit for a portion of the southern part of the lake.\nThe Tribes suit is for the entire lake, so part of it is covered by the U.S.'s suit, part of it is not.\nThe Tribe has been granted intervention status in that case, and we tried to expand it to the whole suit and the district court I think quite properly limited it to the parameters of the United States' complaint.\nAs to the Eleventh Amendment issue generally, if I could get to that, the thrust of the State's argument, State officer's argument, as we understand them, is that there is another remedy, just as we've been speaking of, this State court remedy, and the Tribe could go there like any other citizen could go to State court.\nWell, there may be problems with it we just discussed, but the State officers merge Federal officer suits and State officer suits and pick and choose bits and pieces of cases back and forth, when in reality when they're looked at carefully they really come from protecting different interests in the Eleventh Amendment or in a sovereign immunity context.\nThe Federal officer suits are designed to provide a remedy primarily in the takings area, and as Congress has provided those remedies, be it the quiet title act or some other remedy, then there is not the constitutional problem in Federal officer suits.\nIn the State officer suits, the problem has primarily been the supremacy of Federal law.\nThere have been a few State officer suits where the Federal law problem has been lack of a remedy, but that is not the situation in this case.\nThe State officers' position finds no support in the cases that actually provided the foundation for Ex parte Young, the Tindal, particularly Tindal.\nThere's... it is... unless there is a distinction made because this is submerged land as opposed to any other kind of land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [1938.163, 1940.584, 1948.4, 1954.394, 1966.062, 1999.532, 2027.792, 2047.304, 2054.509, 2063.974, 2082.226], "stop_times": [1940.584, 1948.4, 1954.394, 1966.062, 1999.532, 2027.792, 2047.304, 2054.509, 2063.974, 2082.226, 2091.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.163}, "reply_to": "19923__1_037", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_039", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Tindal tends to negate your statement that you distinguish sharply between State officer suits and Federal officer suits.\nDidn't they say there that a question whether a particular suit is won against the State within the meaning of the Constitution must depend on the same principles that determine whether a particular suit is won against the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2091.723, 2099.159], "stop_times": [2099.159, 2110.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.723}, "reply_to": "19923__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_040", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "The Federal... violation of Federal law, the supremacy interest that was being protected in Tindal in that case was a taking interest.\nThe... just as it was in Lee.\nThere wasn't... hadn't been provided a remedy, so to that context the two concepts merged.\nIn this case the Federal interest that is being protected is the constitutional primacy of Federal regulation, Federal control of Indian reservations.\nThe statutes which implemented various aspects of the creation of the Coeur d'Alene reservation is the executive order and the common law theory of aboriginal title of the tribes, so there... I mean, Mr. Chief Justice, it's one of those situations, I think, where you can say yes, this is like that, but really, when you look at it underneath, Tindal, just like all of the other State officer suits, are protecting the supremacy of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2110.675, 2121.282, 2125.115, 2129.689, 2146.719], "stop_times": [2121.282, 2125.115, 2129.689, 2146.719, 2177.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.675}, "reply_to": "19923__1_039", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_041", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "But in this case that's odd, because we're only talking about Federal law on both sides.\nThe usual justification for Young is that you have to vindicate the superior Federal law as against the inferior State law, but here both sides are advancing Federal law as the basis for their claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2177.54, 2183.613], "stop_times": [2183.613, 2198.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.54}, "reply_to": "19923__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__1_042", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Your Honor, there's no question but what the State officers thrust that forward as their argument, but I think the more appropriate way to analyze the issue here is that the Tribe claims ownership based on Federal law, and as a result of that claimed ownership, is asking the Federal court to enjoin State officers from their regulation of the Tribe's lake under State law.\nNow, then the State officers come back on the other hand and say well, no, we have a claim under Federal law why our officers are doing the right thing, and it... it's just as Justice Souter was describing in his question.\nIt's exactly the same sort of situation, really, that you always have in any Ex parte Young situation where the State officers are saying we are acting appropriately under Federal law, whether it be this particular one or some other Federal law that justifies our action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2198.262, 2229.864, 2249.296], "stop_times": [2229.864, 2249.296, 2267.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.262}, "reply_to": "19923__1_041", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_043", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Givens, could you... could the Tribes sue in Federal court just to determine title to this property, or do you concede that that is not... that the Eleventh Amendment would bar that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2267.268], "stop_times": [2282.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.268}, "reply_to": "19923__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_044", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, Your Honor, that's what we did, and the... that's what the Ninth Circuit said it could not do, because that would be an adjudication against the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2282.439], "stop_times": [2295.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2282.439}, "reply_to": "19923__1_043", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_045", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Do you accept that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2295.806], "stop_times": [2296.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.806}, "reply_to": "19923__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_046", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe State officers themselves, those are the only defendants that we're left with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2296.277, 2297.989], "stop_times": [2297.989, 2302.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.277}, "reply_to": "19923__1_045", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_047", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "All right, and you are not here arguing that the Tribe could bring a direct suit in Federal court to determine title.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2302.061], "stop_times": [2310.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.061}, "reply_to": "19923__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_048", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "That is correct.\nThat is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2310.415, 2312.288], "stop_times": [2312.288, 2313.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.415}, "reply_to": "19923__1_047", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_049", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, what are the attributes of title ownership?\nThey are the right to possess and control and regulate the property, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2313.287, 2317.982], "stop_times": [2317.982, 2323.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.287}, "reply_to": "19923__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_050", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Well, it's... I guess it's like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2323.165], "stop_times": [2327.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2323.165}, "reply_to": "19923__1_049", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_051", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "And won't that have to be determined basically by deciding who has the title?\nI mean, how would you ever be able to determine that the tribe has the right to possess, regulate, and exclusively do so without determining that the Tribe had title and that's the basis for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2327.509, 2332.882], "stop_times": [2332.882, 2346.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.509}, "reply_to": "19923__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_052", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--The issue of title will be an issue, just as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2346.44], "stop_times": [2351.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.44}, "reply_to": "19923__1_051", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_053", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, that being the case, I don't see why the Eleventh Amendment shouldn't be a bar here, because you are in essence asking the Court to do what you've conceded the Court can't do.\nI just don't see why the Eleventh Amendment doesn't kick in here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2351.394, 2364.883], "stop_times": [2364.883, 2368.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.394}, "reply_to": "19923__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19923__1_054", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--That is exactly the question that this Court addressed in Lee, it is exactly the question this Court addressed in Tindal, and in both instances they said no, we can separate the determination of title from the, in those cases trespass, in this case regulation by the State officers.\nThe litigation against the State officers does not preclude the State from later litigating title, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2368.646, 2388.027], "stop_times": [2388.027, 2396.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.646}, "reply_to": "19923__1_053", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_055", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Givens, Larson is more recent than those, and I thought it was made pretty clear in Larson, which was against the Federal Government, of course, that you can't proceed unless either the officers are acting beyond their authority ultra vires, or their action is unconstitutional.\nNow, that was a Federal case against the United States, but I thought that we made clear, or at least the various opinions made clear in Treasure Salvors that we would apply Larson in the State context as well.\nNow, would you meet the requirements of Larson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2396.572, 2416.628, 2430.655], "stop_times": [2416.628, 2430.655, 2433.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.572}, "reply_to": "19923__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19923__1_056", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--The officers... it is never within the officer's ability as a State officer to violate the Federal Constitution, and these... part of which is the Supremacy Clause, and that is where the State officer and Federal officer cases depart, Your Honor, and I think it is why it is so important to keep clearly in mind which interest is really being protected.\nIn the State officer cases the constitutional interest that is at issue is the supremacy of Federal law, it is not the... whether or not the State officer is acting within or without his authority.\nThat State officer can be acting within his authority under State law and still be acting in violation of Federal law unconstitutionally, and the thrust of all of Ex parte Young jurisprudence is that this... the Federal court still should appropriately provide a remedy not necessarily to test whether or not the officer is acting properly or improperly, but to uphold the supremacy of Federal law.\nThat is the underlying thrust of all the State officer cases.\nSo to the extent that the... this is... this factual situation is a little bit different than Larson, it is... the result should be different in Larson, it is because it rests on different underpinnings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2433.027, 2463.588, 2482.398, 2515.19, 2518.763], "stop_times": [2463.588, 2482.398, 2515.19, 2518.763, 2532.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2433.027}, "reply_to": "19923__1_055", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_057", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Givens... oh, I'm sorry.\nPlease.\nI wondered if... I'm slightly... I'd appreciate some clarification on this question of title versus what's going on here.\nMy understanding of it was that really this is a suit which someone who was not steeped in Eleventh Amendment law would say was a suit for title.\nI don't know what the State can do, if you win, with this submerged land.\nI don't know what laws it could enforce.\nIt sounds like you're getting the property.\nThe only reason I suppose that title came in is, in a case called Tindal the Court held that a suit just like this one wasn't really against the State, though it is, but nonetheless we give the State an escape hatch, that because of the last paragraph the State won't be bound as to title, thus they get an extra chance to come back and fight it if they want.\nIs that understanding correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2532.281, 2534.923, 2535.313, 2549.872, 2561.41, 2566.314, 2567.604, 2569.117, 2594.191], "stop_times": [2534.923, 2535.313, 2549.872, 2561.41, 2566.314, 2567.604, 2569.117, 2594.191, 2596.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2532.281}, "reply_to": "19923__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__1_058", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I think that would be correct, yes, Your Honor.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2596.613, 2599.497], "stop_times": [2599.497, 2600.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2596.613}, "reply_to": "19923__1_057", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_059", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Don't say it's correct if you don't really agree with it, because you're the expert in this area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2600.155], "stop_times": [2603.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.155}, "reply_to": "19923__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19923__1_060", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Oh, maybe I misunderstood exactly what you said, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2603.547], "stop_times": [2604.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2603.547}, "reply_to": "19923__1_059", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_061", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes... I mean, no, no, if you do agree, fine.\nI'm happy that that is correct, if it is, but I mean, I'm trying to follow through the intricacies.\nI got your argument before that you thought in reality Ex parte Young is simply a way of permitting in certain cases the assertion of the Federal interest in States obeying Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2604.879, 2606.18, 2611.392], "stop_times": [2606.18, 2611.392, 2625.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.879}, "reply_to": "19923__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19923__1_062", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2625.794], "stop_times": [2626.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2625.794}, "reply_to": "19923__1_061", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_063", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "And you think that you can't distinguish real property cases where the Federal law gives the property to Jones, or Smith, or the Indian tribe from cases involving mental hospitals, schools, churches, whatever.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2626.703, 2640.092], "stop_times": [2640.092, 2642.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.703}, "reply_to": "19923__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19923__1_064", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThey're both based on the supremacy of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2642.043, 2644.254], "stop_times": [2644.254, 2646.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.043}, "reply_to": "19923__1_063", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_065", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "All right, but then we run into this doctrine, and you think Tindal is strongly in support of you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2646.277], "stop_times": [2651.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.277}, "reply_to": "19923__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19923__1_066", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "It is to the extent, Your Honor that Tindal said clearly that you... the Federal court can enjoin a State officer who is holding property unconstitutionally without adjudicating the title to that property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2651.8], "stop_times": [2671.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.8}, "reply_to": "19923__1_065", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_067", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So what we have, is it fair to characterize... we have a fiction on a fiction.\nThere's the fiction of Ex parte Young, because it's simply a fictional way of allowing the assertion of Federal supremacy in an important number of cases.\nAnd then we have the fiction that that wasn't really a property State title, which it is, and now we get a new fiction which allows the State to come back and really sue for title, even though you win this case.\nYou win the case, the State isn't barred from bringing its title suit, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2671.102, 2674.804, 2683.6, 2697.298], "stop_times": [2674.804, 2683.6, 2697.298, 2701.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.102}, "reply_to": "19923__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19923__1_068", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2701.562], "stop_times": [2702.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2701.562}, "reply_to": "19923__1_067", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_069", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "All right.\nWhat good does it do you, then, to win this case if the State isn't bound?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2702.634, 2703.292], "stop_times": [2703.292, 2707.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.634}, "reply_to": "19923__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_070", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "The State officers can no longer regulate the Tribe's lake.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2707.386, 2714.852], "stop_times": [2714.852, 2718.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.386}, "reply_to": "19923__1_069", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_071", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "So you really... you... the benefit you get is, you get the same result as if you acquire the title.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2718.972], "stop_times": [2725.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.972}, "reply_to": "19923__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_072", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--There are very... there are similarities, Your Honor, there is no question about that, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2725.007], "stop_times": [2732.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.007}, "reply_to": "19923__1_071", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_073", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Givens, isn't it more than similar?\nIsn't... aren't you saying in effect you get... the result of your lawsuit, if it were allowed to go forward, would be, you'd have title as against all the world except the State of Ohio... Idaho?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2732.143, 2733.772], "stop_times": [2733.772, 2745.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.143}, "reply_to": "19923__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__1_074", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--The... after--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2745.901], "stop_times": [2751.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.901}, "reply_to": "19923__1_073", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_075", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Because you would have to establish your title, although one party, Idaho, wouldn't be bound by it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2751.755], "stop_times": [2759.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.755}, "reply_to": "19923__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__1_076", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--The... in determining this suit, the Court would adjudicate the Tribe's ownership.\nIt would not have to adjudicate the State's ownership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2759.322, 2768.357], "stop_times": [2768.357, 2771.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.322}, "reply_to": "19923__1_075", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_077", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, they both... I think we can agree that they both can't own the same land.\nIt either belongs to one or the other, and my question to you is, isn't the thrust of your lawsuit, we own it?\nThere's one party left out there who can contest that but no one else in the world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2771.847, 2777.952, 2784.716], "stop_times": [2777.952, 2784.716, 2789.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.847}, "reply_to": "19923__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__1_078", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "That's right, and as with any... anyone who files any quiet title action, if you don't sue Jones and Jones has a claim to it, you may get your quiet... your title quieted to everybody except Jones.\nJones can still come in and make a claim for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2789.058, 2801.516], "stop_times": [2801.516, 2804.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.058}, "reply_to": "19923__1_077", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_079", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Givens, may I go back to your answer to an earlier question from Justice Ginsburg?\nI'm not sure that this should be dispositive of anything in the case, but as I recall your answer, it was... in questioning whether this case fit within the Ex parte Young framework.\nYou said that in fact what the State officers were claiming here, were claiming rights to regulate in the enforcement of State law.\nIn other words, it wasn't merely a matter of two contesting titles, there was State law which had been enacted to determine just how the State would regulate, and what it would do, and that therefore the contest here was really a contest between a claim of superior title on the one hand and a claim to enforce particular State laws which ultimately implied a contrary claim of title, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2804.759, 2809.541, 2820.099, 2831.707], "stop_times": [2809.541, 2820.099, 2831.707, 2861.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.759}, "reply_to": "19923__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__1_080", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2861.427], "stop_times": [2862.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.427}, "reply_to": "19923__1_079", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_081", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Are we in a position to assess that answer, because I thought the very answer that you gave to Justice Kennedy earlier was that there are no specific detailed claims against State officers at this point, that's just not the state of the pleadings, and you said, well, we ought to go back and amend.\nSo, are we really in a position to accept your answer that what is being contested here are particular acts of regulation by particular State officers enforcing particular State laws?\nIs that really before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2862.028, 2883.449, 2897.221], "stop_times": [2883.449, 2897.221, 2900.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.028}, "reply_to": "19923__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19923__1_082", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "The... you may be correct, Your Honor.\nIt puts a litigant, of course, in a difficult position.\nYou plead a complaint with several different counts and theories, and the appellate court says, well, you lose on some of those, and there are some that's left, and instead of having the opportunity then to amend as you would on remand normally, all of a sudden you're up here on the remainder.\nThe preliminary nature of this case makes it very difficult to deal with this... not only this issue, but also the Property Clause issue, and if I could just address that for just a moment, the tension in the Property Clause that the State officers raise is really between the executive and the Congress.\nAnd, again, the State officers are asking for a unique exception to some very well settled law in this regard.\nThirty years ago in Arizona, California, this Court said that there was no difference between reservations, Indian reservations created by executive order and those created by treaty as to either land or water.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2900.042, 2907.067, 2912.33, 2927.748, 2954.707, 2963.051], "stop_times": [2907.067, 2912.33, 2927.748, 2954.707, 2963.051, 2977.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.042}, "reply_to": "19923__1_081", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_083", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Yes, but they weren't talking about the equal footing doctrine then, were they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2977.202], "stop_times": [2980.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.202}, "reply_to": "19923__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_084", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "They were not.\nThey were talking water rights, Your Honor.\nThe... 80 years ago--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2980.284, 2980.645, 2982.007], "stop_times": [2980.645, 2982.007, 2984.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.284}, "reply_to": "19923__1_083", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_085", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "And it's different... creating a reservation is much different than conveying land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2984.848], "stop_times": [2988.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.848}, "reply_to": "19923__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19923__1_086", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--The... well, the creation of the reservation can or cannot convey land, and there was little analysis in that case, there's no question about that, but it did cite to Midwest Oil, which was decided 80 years ago when this Court held that the congressional acquiescence could... or by congressional.\nacquiescence executive orders creating reservations, those reservations would be valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [2988.922, 3012.157], "stop_times": [3012.157, 3017.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2988.922}, "reply_to": "19923__1_085", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_087", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, Midwest Oil was certainly distinguished in the steel seizure case, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3017.921], "stop_times": [3022.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.921}, "reply_to": "19923__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_088", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "It... acquiescence is not a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3022.252], "stop_times": [3025.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.252}, "reply_to": "19923__1_087", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_089", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "A sure thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3025.685], "stop_times": [3029.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.685}, "reply_to": "19923__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_090", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--favored doctrine.\nHowever, Coeur d'Alene was cited as one of the 99 Indian reservations in Midwest Oil.\nOne hundred and twenty-five years ago in Holden this Court said that if there's an executive order and then later congressional acts that recognize that, and that's exactly what we have here.\nWe have four of them that were listed in the brief, all pre-Statehood, that specifically recognize the Coeur d'Alene reservation, specifically recognized the... what the executive had done.\nAnd probably most on point, in 1888 Congress asked the executive, does this reservation include some of this navigable waters, and should we send... appoint a negotiating team to go out and negotiate for the cession of some of that?\nThe executive branch said yes, it does, and if you do, you should pay them for it.\nThey then acted affirmatively upon that and appointed a negotiating team, so there is that later congressional recognition.\nFinally, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3029.078, 3029.518, 3036.371, 3050.171, 3058.256, 3074.538, 3079.671, 3088.075], "stop_times": [3029.518, 3036.371, 3050.171, 3058.256, 3074.538, 3079.671, 3088.075, 3089.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3029.078}, "reply_to": "19923__1_089", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_091", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Of course, you could have the reservation here by executive proclamation and simply not get the submerged land rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3089.476], "stop_times": [3095.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3089.476}, "reply_to": "19923__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_092", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--That's entirely possible, Your Honor, and the difficulty with even arguing this issue at this point is, it is at such a preliminary stage, and those questions need to be... I mean, that's the heart of the case.\nThey need to be developed, and that's... the place to do that is at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3095.452, 3107.688], "stop_times": [3107.688, 3110.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.452}, "reply_to": "19923__1_091", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_093", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, how further would you do... I mean, if, in fact, a presidential proclamation without the authority of Congress cannot cut off a State's rights under the equal footing doctrine, there's nothing that a trial is going to prove about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3110.941], "stop_times": [3124.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.941}, "reply_to": "19923__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_094", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Oh, yes, Your Honor.\nThe State concedes that there are several other theories which are pled in the Tribe's complaint which are not within the issue presented and which has to be remanded to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3124.56, 3125.93], "stop_times": [3125.93, 3134.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3124.56}, "reply_to": "19923__1_093", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_095", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, but at least that would decide this... if we were to hold that, that would decide this aspect of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3134.495], "stop_times": [3139.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.495}, "reply_to": "19923__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_096", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I've gotten lost in the words, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3139.09], "stop_times": [3146.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3139.09}, "reply_to": "19923__1_095", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_097", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Well, I... I won't detain you.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3146.794, 3148.356], "stop_times": [3148.356, 3149.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.794}, "reply_to": "19923__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__1_098", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I'd love it, Your Honor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3149.145, 3150.006], "stop_times": [3150.006, 3150.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3149.145}, "reply_to": "19923__1_097", "speaker": "raymond_c_givens"}
{"id": "19923__1_099", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Mr. Strong, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3150.827], "stop_times": [3152.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.827}, "reply_to": "19923__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__2_000", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nOne quick point with regard to the Eleventh Amendment issue.\nI would like to go back to a question, two questions that were posed by this panel to Mr. Givens, one by Justice O'Connor, and one by Justice Ginsburg.\nAs Justice Ginsburg rightly points out, what the Tribe seeks, and it's stated in their response brief on page 4, what remains in the suit is declaratory and injunctive relief against Idaho officers to stop their violation of Federal law and to quiet the title, the Tribe's title against the world other than Idaho and its departments.\nAnd as Justice O'Connor rightly observed, the essence of title to property is the opportunity to possess that property, and that's particularly true with respect to sovereign submerged lands.\nAs this Court said in Oregon v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel, submerged lands cannot be compared to substantive property law, but rather as an issue substantially related to constitutional sovereignty of the States.\nThe unique aspect of that sovereign title... there is a legal title and a public title... is the responsibility of the State to manage those lands for the benefit of the public.\nIf the officers are enjoined from carrying out that sovereign duty, how can it be said that the sovereignty of the State is not affected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3152.477, 3158.202, 3162.454, 3170.95, 3188.542, 3200.66, 3210.446, 3218.651], "stop_times": [3158.202, 3162.454, 3170.95, 3188.542, 3200.66, 3210.446, 3218.651, 3225.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3152.477}, "reply_to": "19923__1_099", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__2_001", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "And what's the answer on that point, on that very point in Tindal?\nI thought they got that from the last paragraph of Tindal, so what is the answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3225.026, 3230.079], "stop_times": [3230.079, 3234.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.026}, "reply_to": "19923__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19923__2_002", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3234.22], "stop_times": [3235.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3234.22}, "reply_to": "19923__2_001", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__2_003", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Where the Court... this Court seemed to divide all the aspects of title... I mean, with the fiction of the title itself, and says the State gets another chance to litigate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3235.382], "stop_times": [3243.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.382}, "reply_to": "19923__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19923__2_004", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "--Tindal is a much different case than the case we have before us, because in Tindal it was an issue where the officers through their actions came into possession of the property.\nThese officers have no relationship to the title here.\nThe title passed to the State on Statehood.\nWe've possessed it since that date, and so the officer's duties, what they're doing, have no relationship to title whatsoever, and so the only way you could bring in Tindal is to say that the officers are taking the property.\nHow can it be said that they're taking the property if they have never, by their own actions, took possession of the land, but rather, came into possession as a result of the constitutional presumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3243.236, 3251.253, 3253.484, 3255.664, 3266.561], "stop_times": [3251.253, 3253.484, 3255.664, 3266.561, 3274.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3243.236}, "reply_to": "19923__2_003", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__2_005", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Idaho could have no complaint, could they, except for a defense on the merits, if the United States in its suit had chosen to litigate on behalf of the Tribe for this entire... for all the land that the Tribe is now claiming, rather than just a part of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3274.788], "stop_times": [3292.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.788}, "reply_to": "19923__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__2_006", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Certainly not, Your Honor.\nIf the United States had felt that there was a basis for making a claim for the entire lake, it could have brought that action and the State would have no objection to that type of lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3292.029, 3293.699], "stop_times": [3293.699, 3300.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3292.029}, "reply_to": "19923__2_005", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__2_007", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "And there's nothing to indicate why the United States... in this record why the United States sued for less than what the Tribe is claiming in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3300.694], "stop_times": [3309.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.694}, "reply_to": "19923__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19923__2_008", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "No, Your Honor, but the reasonable assumption is that the United States has evaluated that claim and determined that there isn't a Federal interest in the northern two-thirds of the lake.\nTurning to the last or second question we presented to the Court, as Mr. Givens rightly points, that his theory is based upon the idea that Midwest Oil somehow gave the President authority by acquiescence of Congress, and it's our position that the Property Clause powers are vested exclusively within Congress, and then in the Sioux Tribe the only way that authority can be delegated to the President is by an express action of Congress.\nThis is particularly true with regard to the submerged lands, which are held in trust for the future States.\nIf a President can simply unilaterally take those lands out of trust, then what aspect of sovereignty is really being protected?\nIn fact, the sovereignty of States, they would have no way of protecting themselves against such a withdrawal.\nMoreover, Midwest Oil is a very unique case.\nIt's limited to the situation in which the President is withdrawing lands, public lands that are available for sale.\nIn Midwest Oil, the Court found acquiescence to be acceptable, because in that instance no third party was being injured.\nThe State of Idaho is being injured by this action because the lands were held in trust for the benefit of the State, and if they're taken out of trust and conveyed to the Tribe, then the State's sovereignty has been injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3309.01, 3314.983, 3343.103, 3348.867, 3354.541, 3360.554, 3363.497, 3369.6, 3375.524], "stop_times": [3314.983, 3343.103, 3348.867, 3354.541, 3360.554, 3363.497, 3369.6, 3375.524, 3384.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3309.01}, "reply_to": "19923__2_007", "speaker": "clive_j_strong"}
{"id": "19923__2_009", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Strong.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3384.798, 3386.08], "stop_times": [3386.08, 3386.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.798}, "reply_to": "19923__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19923__2_010", "conversation_id": "19923", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_94-1474", "start_times": [3386.08], "stop_times": [3390.08], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3386.08}, "reply_to": "19923__2_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20246__0_000", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-938, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Yueh-Shaio Yang.\nMs. Brinkmann, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [0.0, 11.04], "stop_times": [11.04, 23.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_001", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves respondent's request for a waiver of deportation under section 241(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.\nThe act commits that decision to the discretion of the Attorney General.\nExercising her discretion in this case, the Attorney General properly considered numerous frauds committed by respondent, including his fraudulent application for naturalization, fraudulent marriages, fraudulent divorce, and his participation in the fraudulent obtaining of documents for his wife's fraudulent entry into the country.\nThe Attorney General did not, again as a matter of discretion, consider the fraud respondent committed at entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [23.885, 25.407, 27.769, 37.617, 43.009, 67.456], "stop_times": [25.407, 27.769, 37.617, 43.009, 67.456, 75.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 23.885}, "reply_to": "20246__0_000", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_002", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I take it under the statute, the Attorney General would have been perfectly free to consider that fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [75.12], "stop_times": [80.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 75.12}, "reply_to": "20246__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_003", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and in fact the Seventh Circuit has expressly recognized that.\nIn Rodriguez-Barajas, Judge Easterbrook explained that the Attorney General's under no compulsion to disregard that initial fraud, and that any limitation on that has arisen out of the Attorney General's exercise of her discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [80.493, 84.427], "stop_times": [84.427, 98.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 80.493}, "reply_to": "20246__0_002", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_004", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, you think, then, that the statute places no outer limits whatever on the discretion of the Attorney General?\nIf the Attorney General took the position that the fact of a fraudulent entry by the alien is a factor weighing against waiver, then nobody would be entitled to a waiver any time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [98.836, 108.152], "stop_times": [108.152, 130.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 98.836}, "reply_to": "20246__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_005", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [130.446], "stop_times": [131.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 130.446}, "reply_to": "20246__0_004", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_006", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I mean, that condition exists in every one of these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [131.187], "stop_times": [135.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.187}, "reply_to": "20246__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_007", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe aliens that are in the pool of eligible aliens for this type of waiver share several common characteristics.\nThey all have three factors weighing in their favor.\nThey have to be the relative... the parent, son or daughter or spouse of a citizen or a permanent resident alien.\nThey also must have presented themselves for entry.\nThey have to have a validly, facially valid document, and they have to be otherwise admissible.\nThey also share the fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [135.1, 136.62, 142.703, 146.326, 155.373, 158.766, 163.588], "stop_times": [136.62, 142.703, 146.326, 155.373, 158.766, 163.588, 166.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.1}, "reply_to": "20246__0_006", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_008", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But for the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [166.87], "stop_times": [167.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.87}, "reply_to": "20246__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_009", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Yes.\nThey also share the fact that they all committed entry fraud.\nNow, looking at that pool of applicants, the Attorney General has to decide who amongst that she should exercise her discretion to give a waiver to, and our submission is that it's certainly proper for the Attorney General to favor a person who has been law-abiding since their initial entry over someone who's perpetrated a series of frauds.\nWe would also submit, Your Honor, although it has not come up in the typical kinds of cases that have come before the board, if, for example, the entry fraud was intertwined with violence, for example, we certainly think the Attorney General in her discretion could take that into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [167.771, 168.242, 171.723, 192.185], "stop_times": [168.242, 171.723, 192.185, 208.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 167.771}, "reply_to": "20246__0_008", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_010", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, could take into account the circumstances of the particular fraudulent entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [208.588], "stop_times": [214.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.588}, "reply_to": "20246__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_011", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [214.632], "stop_times": [215.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.632}, "reply_to": "20246__0_010", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_012", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But not the mere fact that there had been a fraudulent entry, I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [215.363], "stop_times": [220.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 215.363}, "reply_to": "20246__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_013", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I'd look to the... for example, the Court in the Rios-Pineda case, when the Court was looking at the Attorney General's authority whether or not to grant suspension of deportation there, I think characterizes looking to the nature and severity of the factor, so I would think that that would clearly be appropriate for the Attorney General to take into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [220.165], "stop_times": [242.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 220.165}, "reply_to": "20246__0_012", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_014", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, just because Congress has given the Attorney General the power to waive fraud, certainly you don't concede that the Attorney General couldn't say, I have the power but I decline to waive any kind of fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [242.24], "stop_times": [256.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.24}, "reply_to": "20246__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_015", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIn fact, particularly in the immigration context there may be other matters of foreign affairs or international relations that at a particular point in time the Attorney General would choose not to exercise her discretion in favor of waivers under this provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [256.958, 258.51], "stop_times": [258.51, 274.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.958}, "reply_to": "20246__0_014", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_016", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "The statute does circumscribe discretion in one respect, does it not, or perhaps not, because the sentence is difficult.\nThe last sentence of sub (H), a waiver of deportation for fraud granted under this subparagraph shall also operate to waive deportation based on the grounds of inadmissibility at entry.\nWhat's the function of that sentence, other than to circumscribe or control the discretion of the AG?\nMaybe you'll tell me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [274.501, 281.545, 296.174, 310.065], "stop_times": [281.545, 296.174, 310.065, 310.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 274.501}, "reply_to": "20246__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_017", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "If I under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [310.823], "stop_times": [312.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.823}, "reply_to": "20246__0_016", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_018", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--it's an interpretation of the discretion once exercised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [312.265], "stop_times": [315.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.265}, "reply_to": "20246__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_019", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--I think, if I understand your question correctly, Your Honor, it's clarifying some confusion that had existed under their previous provision, and it makes clear that if the Attorney General grants a waiver of deportation under this provision, that waiver of deportation waived the grounds of inadmissibility for the fraud and also for inadmissibility grounds that directly result from that, that being a fraudulent visa or fraudulent labor certification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [315.377], "stop_times": [348.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.377}, "reply_to": "20246__0_018", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_020", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Would that be relevant in a later application for citizenship, or something like that?\nIs that why it's important?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [348.35, 354.732], "stop_times": [354.732, 355.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.35}, "reply_to": "20246__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_021", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [355.944], "stop_times": [357.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.944}, "reply_to": "20246__0_020", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_022", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Because it seems to me to just restate that a waiver's a waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [357.075], "stop_times": [361.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.075}, "reply_to": "20246__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_023", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think I can give an example to explain it.\nThere is some fraud at entry that doesn't involve fraudulent documents or labor certificates.\nMisrepresenting your marital status, perhaps, in an interview.\nSome people obtain their visas based on false information at a consulate beforehand, and then when they arrive at the port of entry, they continue to stand by what's in that visa, but perhaps they've been unmarried... they've been divorced or married in the meantime, so they would be committing a fraud at entry, but that would not necessarily relate to any fraudulent document.\nIf they had an independently based fraudulent document, that could be a ground of inadmissibility, and it would not be waived because it would not directly result from their fraud, and I think what the statute was trying to get at was that any of the grounds of inadmissibility at the time of entry that directly result from the entry fraud are also waived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [361.907, 364.229, 369.101, 372.975, 391.237], "stop_times": [364.229, 369.101, 372.975, 391.237, 414.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.907}, "reply_to": "20246__0_022", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_024", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "May I--\n--But then that is a narrowing of the Attorney General's discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [414.264, 416.595], "stop_times": [416.595, 422.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.264}, "reply_to": "20246__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_025", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No.\nWe would simply say that describes what the effect of the grant of the waiver is.\nThe Attorney General grants a waiver, and it specifies that it waives deportation based on those grounds.\nThat's what the effect of a 241(a)(1)(H) waiver--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [422.87, 423.401, 429.345, 434.978], "stop_times": [423.401, 429.345, 434.978, 438.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.87}, "reply_to": "20246__0_024", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_026", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, it circumscribes the Attorney General to some extent in that it does control the extent of the waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [438.401], "stop_times": [446.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 438.401}, "reply_to": "20246__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_027", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--The effect of it, yes, Your Honor.\nOn the other hand, we would submit that as in my previous discussion of how the Attorney General could take into account the nature and severity of the initial fraud, the Attorney General certainly also as matter of discretion could take into account the nature and severity of the other grounds of inadmissibility on the fraudulent labor certificate or visa, the means by which that was procured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [446.057, 448.177], "stop_times": [448.177, 473.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 446.057}, "reply_to": "20246__0_026", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_028", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I have to confess I'm still a little puzzled about your answer to Justice O'Connor.\nI understood you to say that the Attorney General could not take into account the mere existence of some fraud, could take into account the nature of the fraud, but are you saying that if... say there's the mildest kind of form in the... fraud in the world, that the mere fact there was a fraud could not be taken into consideration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [473.025, 476.858], "stop_times": [476.858, 497.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.025}, "reply_to": "20246__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__0_029", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No, I'm sorry, I misspoke if I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [497.551], "stop_times": [499.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.551}, "reply_to": "20246__0_028", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_030", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No matter how mild it is, the Attorney General has discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [499.772], "stop_times": [502.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.772}, "reply_to": "20246__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__0_031", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [502.664], "stop_times": [503.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.664}, "reply_to": "20246__0_030", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_032", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Otherwise, it seems to me a person could commit a fraud and then claim a right to remain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [503.035], "stop_times": [507.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.035}, "reply_to": "20246__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__0_033", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--That's right, and in fact, Your Honor, one of the ironies of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in this case is, it really gives the type of open-ended immunity to aliens who enter by fraud.\nBy requiring that later frauds be considered as a part of or an extension of the entry fraud, those aliens are put at an advantage over an alien who enters lawfully and then commits later fraud which is not forgiven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [507.616, 518.615], "stop_times": [518.615, 533.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.616}, "reply_to": "20246__0_032", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_034", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But are you saying that the Attorney General would be within her discretion to say, I will never exercise my discretion to waive entry fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [533.825], "stop_times": [545.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.825}, "reply_to": "20246__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__0_035", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "We believe that if that were based on a reasonable exercise of her discretion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [545.022], "stop_times": [552.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.022}, "reply_to": "20246__0_034", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_036", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No, but that begs the question.\nThe only fact you know is that she says, I'm adopting a policy.\nI will never exercise discretion, no matter what the circumstances, to waive entry fraud.\nWould that be lawful or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [552.196, 554.199, 560.023, 566.304], "stop_times": [554.199, 560.023, 566.304, 567.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.196}, "reply_to": "20246__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__0_037", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, we believe it would be.\nI guess in my initial answer I was trying to think of an example in which that might be the case, and I come back to the example of perhaps there are other immigration interests and other quotas that are so... so important, and as a matter of policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [567.987, 569.529], "stop_times": [569.529, 583.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.987}, "reply_to": "20246__0_036", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_038", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No, but my question suggested that that was her across-the-board policy for all cases in which the statute might be applied.\nI'm not asking a question about subclasses.\nI'm talking about the entire class of possible waivers, and construed that broadly, would it be within her discretion to say, I will never exercise my discretion in favor of waiver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [583.488, 591.763, 595.586], "stop_times": [591.763, 595.586, 607.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.488}, "reply_to": "20246__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__0_039", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--You mean waivers under 241(a)(1)(H)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [607.944], "stop_times": [611.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.944}, "reply_to": "20246__0_038", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_040", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [611.107], "stop_times": [611.477], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 611.107}, "reply_to": "20246__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20246__0_041", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, we believe it would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [611.477], "stop_times": [612.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 611.477}, "reply_to": "20246__0_040", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_042", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But in any event, the BIA has adopted a different standard, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [612.496], "stop_times": [619.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.496}, "reply_to": "20246__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_043", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [619.482], "stop_times": [620.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.482}, "reply_to": "20246__0_042", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_044", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And unless that standard is changed, I assume the Government would abide by the standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [620.583], "stop_times": [626.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.583}, "reply_to": "20246__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_045", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [626.898], "stop_times": [627.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.898}, "reply_to": "20246__0_044", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_046", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--that's been adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [627.377], "stop_times": [628.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.377}, "reply_to": "20246__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_047", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [628.238], "stop_times": [629.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.238}, "reply_to": "20246__0_046", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_048", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [629.39], "stop_times": [629.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.39}, "reply_to": "20246__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20246__0_049", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct, and it's a reasonable approach.\nI think the board has found that the cases that have come before it, that entry fraud does seem to be of a common ilk, and has decided to treat like cases alike in that regard, and need not look at that initial factor.\nAs I mentioned earlier, if a case arose in which a different type of entry fraud was involved involving violence, for example, we believe that would be certainly something which the board may very well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [629.75, 631.83, 646.361], "stop_times": [631.83, 646.361, 657.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.75}, "reply_to": "20246__0_048", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_050", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But do you say you're free to depart from that rule and that practice at any time you want?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [657.248], "stop_times": [661.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.248}, "reply_to": "20246__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_051", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, I think to the extent that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [661.511], "stop_times": [665.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.511}, "reply_to": "20246__0_050", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_052", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "For no reason at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [665.183], "stop_times": [666.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.183}, "reply_to": "20246__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_053", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--I think to the extent that there is judicial review for abuse of discretion the board would be well advised to provide a reason.\nI have to hasten... have to... have to be quick to add at this point, Your Honor, at this point it's somewhat of a limited query, because the new statute that was passed a week and a half ago eliminates judicial review of the Attorney General's exercise of discretion under this provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [666.494, 676.209], "stop_times": [676.209, 698.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.494}, "reply_to": "20246__0_052", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_054", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But currently, do I understand it correct... I must say, I was quite surprised to discover this, but the situation is, if you commit entry fraud and are successful, so long as you don't commit any other fraud, you're okay.\nIs that the current position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [698.064, 711.184], "stop_times": [711.184, 713.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.064}, "reply_to": "20246__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_055", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "You're eligible for a waiver.\nThat doesn't mean you get it, Your Honor.\nAt that point you can apply to the Attorney General.\nYou have to be a relative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [713.084, 714.484, 716.087, 718.537], "stop_times": [714.484, 716.087, 718.537, 720.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.084}, "reply_to": "20246__0_054", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_056", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, you may not get it, but you won't be denied it simply because you got in fraudulently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [720.049], "stop_times": [724.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.049}, "reply_to": "20246__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_057", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--It will... when the Attorney General, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the immigration judge exercise their discretion, the practice at this point is not to take into account the initial entry fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [724.371], "stop_times": [735.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.371}, "reply_to": "20246__0_056", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_058", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I find that extraordinary, myself.\nNo matter how severe--\n--I--\n--I'm sorry.\nWhy is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [735.958, 738.25, 739.451, 741.024, 741.651], "stop_times": [738.25, 739.451, 741.024, 741.651, 743.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.958}, "reply_to": "20246__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_059", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "The fact of the matter is, Your Honors, when I've looked through all the cases, the typical case that has come forward involves very similar types of fraud, mainly people misrepresenting the fact they've been married, or been divorced, family relations.\nThere have not been cases which involve incidences of violence, for example, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [743.244, 756.132], "stop_times": [756.132, 761.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.244}, "reply_to": "20246__0_058", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_060", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, why is it that in those kinds of cases... why does the BIA disregard that fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [761.507], "stop_times": [767.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.507}, "reply_to": "20246__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_061", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Well, to an extent, Your Honor, I think that it's taken as a matter of treating like cases alike, and that that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [767.839], "stop_times": [775.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.839}, "reply_to": "20246__0_060", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_062", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, you could treat like cases alike and say we'll... we will not disregard it in any of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [775.995], "stop_times": [781.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 775.995}, "reply_to": "20246__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_063", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Right, and that's what the alien's coming forward to, as asking for forgiveness for, as the board has characterized it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [781.371], "stop_times": [788.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.371}, "reply_to": "20246__0_062", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_064", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, there was one time when this kind of waiver for initial entry fraud was mandatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [788.464], "stop_times": [797.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.464}, "reply_to": "20246__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__0_065", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [797.24], "stop_times": [797.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.24}, "reply_to": "20246__0_064", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_066", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And then it was urged that Congress drop it altogether.\nInstead, Congress came up with something in between.\nThey said the entry by fraud may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived, but if you can respond to the question that's been raised by several of the justices, why in the first place did Congress provide for initially a mandatory waiver and now a discretionary waiver for one who has gained entry by fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [797.75, 800.142, 803.064], "stop_times": [800.142, 803.064, 828.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.75}, "reply_to": "20246__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__0_067", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Your Honor, initially, this was enacted as section 7 of the Immigration Act in 1957, and it was responding to entry by... immigrants were fleeing repression in totalitarian regimes, and had made misrepresentations in order to avoid repression, and that's when the provision was first enacted, added to the statute.\nThen it was somewhat modified in 1961.\nIn between 1961 and 1981, that's when all the trouble and confusion started occurring, and that's what prompted Congress in 1981, or the proposals pending in Congress, to eliminate it altogether because it had caused such confusion.\nFor example, persons who entered by an innocent misrepresentation some courts had held were not eligible for the waiver, whereas aliens who had entered through fraudulent misrepresentations were.\nThat's something that the 1981 statute... amendment corrected.\nIt also, of course, made it discretionary.\nIt also made it clear, for example, that it was not going to waive deportation for aliens who entered without inspection.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [828.732, 853.537, 856.728, 871.25, 883.727, 887.69, 889.891, 899.097], "stop_times": [853.537, 856.728, 871.25, 883.727, 887.69, 889.891, 899.097, 901.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.732}, "reply_to": "20246__0_066", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_068", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--policy by discretion of the executive is that anyone who commits fraud successfully upon entry is okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [901.517], "stop_times": [913.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.517}, "reply_to": "20246__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_069", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--I wouldn't say it's okay, Your Honor, but it's enough like all of the other cases that have come before the board that it's a wash, and that the board look, and the immigration judges look at the other factors that underlie the interest in the stat... this provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [913.646], "stop_times": [928.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.646}, "reply_to": "20246__0_068", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_070", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "You get in under the provision of the law that says a spouse can get in, and you lie.\nYou say I'm married to somebody.\nYou are in fact not married to somebody.\nSo long as you persuade the officer of the truth of that lie, it's okay.\nOnce you're in, it's all right.\nThat's the policy we now have in place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [928.797, 934.95, 936.55, 938.482, 945.008, 947.539], "stop_times": [934.95, 936.55, 938.482, 945.008, 947.539, 950.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.797}, "reply_to": "20246__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_071", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Right.\nWell, it dates back to 1978, Your Honor.\nThere's a similar provision for waiver of exclusion grounds, and that's when the Commissioner of INS first articulated this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [950.2, 950.601, 953.493], "stop_times": [950.601, 953.493, 960.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.2}, "reply_to": "20246__0_070", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_072", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, I thought we were going to get serious about... about enforcing our borders, and I was really quite surprised to find that that's the policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [960.939], "stop_times": [973.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.939}, "reply_to": "20246__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_073", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I have to say I think that in light of the statute that was recently passed, that Your Honor... certainly it's a situation I think now where Congress has eliminated this provision from judicial review, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [973.348], "stop_times": [992.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.348}, "reply_to": "20246__0_072", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_074", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, that doesn't save anything.\nThe Attorney General can continue to let everybody in who's lied successfully, and there's no judicial review.\nIt may make it worse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [992.912, 994.552, 1000.646], "stop_times": [994.552, 1000.646, 1002.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.912}, "reply_to": "20246__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_075", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--I would hasten to add, Your Honor, I mean, this waiver of deportation does apply to a limited pool of people.\nIt applies to people who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, or permanent resident aliens, and the main thrust behind this provision was for family unification, as I initially pointed out to Justice Ginsburg, in '57, it had to do with the nature of countries that aliens were fleeing, but the real interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1002.108, 1007.912], "stop_times": [1007.912, 1025.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.108}, "reply_to": "20246__0_074", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_076", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Do they have to now be an immediate relative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1025.943], "stop_times": [1027.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.943}, "reply_to": "20246__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_077", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1027.994], "stop_times": [1028.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.994}, "reply_to": "20246__0_076", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_078", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I mean, suppose they lied when they came in and they said they were an immediate relative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1028.315], "stop_times": [1031.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.315}, "reply_to": "20246__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_079", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "They have to be one.\nThat's a statutory eligibility--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1031.767, 1033.588], "stop_times": [1033.588, 1035.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.767}, "reply_to": "20246__0_078", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_080", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "They have to be one now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1035.39], "stop_times": [1036.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1035.39}, "reply_to": "20246__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_081", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--At the time of the application for the waiver and the grant of the waiver, yes, Your Honor, and that was really the interest underlying, so although I think at first blush it may sound frivolous to permit people who have lied or misrepresented, I think that Congress really envisioned an overriding interest in the unification of families.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1036.359], "stop_times": [1052.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.359}, "reply_to": "20246__0_080", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_082", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Your position here, I take it, Ms. Brinkmann, is that although the Attorney General has exercised her discretion in this manner to forgive entry fraud, that she has control of just what that means, and it shouldn't be expanded by the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1052.732], "stop_times": [1068.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.732}, "reply_to": "20246__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_083", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1068.921], "stop_times": [1069.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1068.921}, "reply_to": "20246__0_082", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_084", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, but on the other hand, I take it that you're saying that what the Attorney General's position has been, which is to overlook the initial fraud, is suggested if not compelled by the statutory history.\nIsn't that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1069.992, 1086.112], "stop_times": [1086.112, 1086.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.992}, "reply_to": "20246__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_085", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "We don't believe that it is compelled by that, Your Honor, no.\nWe think that to the extent the Ninth Circuit authority can be read that way, they're clearly wrong.\nWe agree with Judge Easterbrook's opinion in the Seventh Circuit, which states that their statute imposes no compulsion on the Attorney General to disregard that initial fraud.\nThat simply is one of the eligibility requirements.\nThat's one of the factors I described earlier that all the aliens in the applicant pool have in common.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1086.913, 1090.456, 1094.938, 1105.535, 1109.507], "stop_times": [1090.456, 1094.938, 1105.535, 1109.507, 1116.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.913}, "reply_to": "20246__0_084", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_086", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, that would make a lot of sense to me but for the way the Attorney General has administered the statute to date.\nI can't understand where it gets... where that policy derives from, and I thought your earlier remarks indicated it derived from the statutory history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1116.192, 1122.416], "stop_times": [1122.416, 1130.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.192}, "reply_to": "20246__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_087", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No, I think it actually derives from the history before the agency itself, Your Honor.\nAs I explained, it actually piggybacks on an interpretation of waiver for exclusion under section 212(i) in 1978.\nThe Commissioner of the INS set forth this policy and that's what eventually was incorporated into the Attorney General's interpretation of the deportation waiver.\nWhen that first statement was made about the exclusion waiver, the deportation waiver was not yet discretionary.\nIt was mandatory.\nThe exclusion waiver has always been discretionary, so once the deportation waiver became discretionary in 1981, and the Attorney General came to start interpreting that, she looked back to the interpretation that had been given to the exclusion waiver that was always discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1130.992, 1136.274, 1146.942, 1157.749, 1164.875, 1165.664], "stop_times": [1136.274, 1146.942, 1157.749, 1164.875, 1165.664, 1183.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.992}, "reply_to": "20246__0_086", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_088", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Am I right, I thought... I might not be, but I... my reading of this was initially there were a group of people who did lie when they wanted to come in, particularly people who came from Iron Curtain countries, and they lied about what country they were coming from because they were afraid that they'd be sent back and killed possibly, and Congress initially passed this statute because it wanted to say that people like that who had families here should be permitted to stay here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1183.204], "stop_times": [1209.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.204}, "reply_to": "20246__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20246__0_089", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1209.864], "stop_times": [1211.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.864}, "reply_to": "20246__0_088", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_090", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And if that's so, then wouldn't it raise a legal question if the Attorney General said people just like that, or who tell equivalent lies to that, would all have to go back?\nThat's why I wonder if there isn't some limitation arising out of the circumstances in this, where the history of this, that there were certain lies that would be told and the need to reunite families was such that that would be a limitation on the AG's discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1211.765, 1221.86], "stop_times": [1221.86, 1238.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.765}, "reply_to": "20246__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20246__0_091", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "We don't believe so, Your Honor.\nI think looking at the text of this statute following the 1981 amendment, Congress was clear to write that the deportation may be waived in the discretion of the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1238.093, 1239.642], "stop_times": [1239.642, 1251.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1238.093}, "reply_to": "20246__0_090", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_092", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Regardless of the history, what the statute does is give the Attorney General discretion.\nThat's what it says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1251.84, 1255.664], "stop_times": [1255.664, 1256.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1251.84}, "reply_to": "20246__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_093", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.\nI think particularly against the backdrop of the history in 1981, where there had been proposals to eliminate it altogether.\nAlso, I would add, Congress did set out the statutory eligibility requirements we've already discussed, and did not include any other even factors to consider in many provisions of the Immigration Nationality Act.\nFor example, Congress has told the Attorney General specifically to consider hardship to family members and all that.\nThis waiver provision contains none of that, and we think that bolsters our interpretation that it's left to the sole discretion of the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1256.596, 1257.875, 1263.878, 1275.316, 1280.841], "stop_times": [1257.875, 1263.878, 1275.316, 1280.841, 1287.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1256.596}, "reply_to": "20246__0_092", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_094", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, may I go to the other end of the spectrum and make sure I understand you on one point, and that is, I understand you to have said that the policy of waiving any initial fraud applies to any initial fraud regardless of what it's circumstances may be.\nIn other words, there's no minor fraud versus major fraud.\nAll frauds are equal if they are initial fraud, initial entry frauds, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1287.254, 1304.975, 1309.449], "stop_times": [1304.975, 1309.449, 1314.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.254}, "reply_to": "20246__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__0_095", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "It's difficult to answer that question, Your Honor, because the cases all have very comparable types of fraud.\nThere just haven't been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1314.161, 1319.465], "stop_times": [1319.465, 1321.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.161}, "reply_to": "20246__0_094", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_096", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "All right, what if you had a fraud case in which you... it was shown that the documents were procured by the entrant by holding a gun to the head of officials in foreign countries to force them to produce the fraudulent documents, would that be like all other kinds of frauds?\nWould that be within the policy of waiving all initial entry frauds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1321.287, 1340.078], "stop_times": [1340.078, 1346.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.287}, "reply_to": "20246__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__0_097", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--I think that would be within... it would be within the discretion of the Attorney General, her delegates, to decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1346.171], "stop_times": [1350.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.171}, "reply_to": "20246__0_096", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_098", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No, but I want to know what her policy... I just want to understand what her policy is now, and would that fall within her policy of waiving initial entry fraud as you understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1350.846], "stop_times": [1360.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.846}, "reply_to": "20246__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__0_099", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That case simply has not come up, Your Honor, and I would not want to say that it would come within that, because I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1360.724], "stop_times": [1368.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.724}, "reply_to": "20246__0_098", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_100", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So maybe not all frauds are equal for... initial entry frauds are equal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1368.078], "stop_times": [1372.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1368.078}, "reply_to": "20246__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__0_101", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--They may not be, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1372.372], "stop_times": [1372.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.372}, "reply_to": "20246__0_100", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_102", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1372.843], "stop_times": [1373.173], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.843}, "reply_to": "20246__0_101", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20246__0_103", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I think that's true, and I think the Attorney General would be free to change her policy and explain that in the future any entry frauds that have to do with violence certainly are going to be weighed much more severely, in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1373.173], "stop_times": [1384.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.173}, "reply_to": "20246__0_102", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_104", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But that limitation doesn't exist right now.\nAs far as we know now, and this is what I got from the brief, all entry fraud is not taken into account.\nIsn't that the rule as it now exists?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1384.44, 1386.291, 1391.385], "stop_times": [1386.291, 1391.385, 1393.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.44}, "reply_to": "20246__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_105", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Frankly, Your Honor, we also don't know the other way, because the case just has not arisen, and the Attorney General has not been presented with that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1393.215], "stop_times": [1402.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.215}, "reply_to": "20246__0_104", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_106", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "You don't know of a single case of entry fraud that has been taken into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1402.672], "stop_times": [1406.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.672}, "reply_to": "20246__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_107", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No, Your Honor, certainly not in the reported cases I've seen.\nIt might be, Your Honor, because in situations like that, the alien is more than likely going to be not otherwise admissible, will be inadmissible on other grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1406.495, 1410.379], "stop_times": [1410.379, 1422.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1406.495}, "reply_to": "20246__0_106", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_108", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And there's also a question of what is the entry fraud.\nIf I understand the way this policy operates, in this case there was a sham divorce in Taiwan before the petitioner entered, and you count that as preentry fraud, so if I understand what the policy is correctly, all of the other... the later frauds postentry were just kind of surplus.\nIt was enough to be outside this policy that there was a preentry fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1422.397, 1426.18, 1458.821], "stop_times": [1426.18, 1458.821, 1466.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.397}, "reply_to": "20246__0_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__0_109", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Your Honor, these are certainly I think a totality of circumstances when the Attorney General exercises her discretion, and any type of misdeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1466.235], "stop_times": [1473.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1466.235}, "reply_to": "20246__0_108", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_110", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, I wasn't asking you that.\nI may understand her policy incorrectly, but I thought your explanation of the policy was, we will waive entry fraud but nothing before and nothing after, and here there was a before, and now you're saying no, I don't have it right, it's somehow a totality of the circumstances test and not, we'll zero in on the entry itself, I get there and say I'm from... I'm from Austria rather than from Poland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1473.641, 1474.519], "stop_times": [1474.519, 1511.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.641}, "reply_to": "20246__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__0_111", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor, I misunderstood.\nI wanted to say that the... some misdeed beforehand can certainly be considered.\nI just did not want to say that that was dispositive and meant that a waiver could not be granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1511.986, 1513.956, 1520.12], "stop_times": [1513.956, 1520.12, 1525.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.986}, "reply_to": "20246__0_110", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_112", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I must say, I don't understand this concept of preentry fraud.\nWho is the fraud being committed on?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1525.883, 1529.036, 1531.027], "stop_times": [1529.036, 1531.027, 1531.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.883}, "reply_to": "20246__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_113", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "On the United--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1531.457], "stop_times": [1532.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1531.457}, "reply_to": "20246__0_112", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_114", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1532.319], "stop_times": [1533.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.319}, "reply_to": "20246__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_115", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--States, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1533.25], "stop_times": [1533.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.25}, "reply_to": "20246__0_114", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_116", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--But it's only being committed on the United States at the time you present yourself for entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1533.638], "stop_times": [1538.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.638}, "reply_to": "20246__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_117", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1538.213], "stop_times": [1538.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.213}, "reply_to": "20246__0_116", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_118", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I mean, surely I can enter into a sham divorce if I want, and until such time as I applied for entry to the United States, it doesn't make any difference to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1538.663], "stop_times": [1550.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.663}, "reply_to": "20246__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_119", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Your Honor, respondent collaborated in obtaining fraudulent birth certificates and passports for his wife, and the reason that the divorce and remarriage under an assumed name that he also participated in was to commit a fraud in the United States of America as his wife coming in under the fraud of being a U.S. citizen.\nIf he had never come to this country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1550.501, 1571.034], "stop_times": [1571.034, 1572.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1550.501}, "reply_to": "20246__0_118", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_120", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "It was her wife's entry that was the fraud.\nIt wasn't the--\n--His wife's.\nI mean, it was the wife's entry that he assisted that was fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1572.974, 1574.136, 1574.945, 1575.757], "stop_times": [1574.136, 1574.945, 1575.757, 1580.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1572.974}, "reply_to": "20246__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__0_121", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--That's true, and he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1580.932], "stop_times": [1581.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1580.932}, "reply_to": "20246__0_120", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_122", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1581.77], "stop_times": [1582.301], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.77}, "reply_to": "20246__0_121", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20246__0_123", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Yes.\nI also wanted to point out that respondent in the court of appeals agreed with this view and admitted that the naturalization fraud, for example, its fraudulent application could be weighed, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1582.301, 1582.681], "stop_times": [1582.681, 1595.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1582.301}, "reply_to": "20246__0_122", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_124", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "There was a fraudulent application for citizenship here too, wasn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1595.38], "stop_times": [1599.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.38}, "reply_to": "20246__0_123", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_125", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--I'm sorry, that's what I meant, Your Honor.\nI misspoke.\nYes, in 1982.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1599.291, 1600.152, 1600.723], "stop_times": [1600.152, 1600.723, 1601.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1599.291}, "reply_to": "20246__0_124", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_126", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And the Ninth Circuit said that was improperly considered by the Attorney General?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1601.653], "stop_times": [1606.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.653}, "reply_to": "20246__0_125", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_127", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1606.377], "stop_times": [1606.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.377}, "reply_to": "20246__0_126", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_128", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "You advised Justice Scalia that this was a very small class.\nI would have thought that numerically it's quite significant.\nDo you have any specific numbers as to how small this class is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1606.988, 1610.699, 1615.574], "stop_times": [1610.699, 1615.574, 1619.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.988}, "reply_to": "20246__0_127", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_129", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I actually do have some statistics from the... from fiscal year '95, Your Honor.\nI've been informed by... this is from the Executive Office of Immigration Review.\nThese were decisions on... they classified them as 241(f) waivers, but it's now at 241 (a)(1)(H), and last year there were a total of 30... this was for immigration judge rulings, 37 waivers with a grant rate of approximately 84 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1619.524, 1626.049, 1630.553], "stop_times": [1626.049, 1630.553, 1649.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.524}, "reply_to": "20246__0_128", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_130", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1649.284], "stop_times": [1650.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.284}, "reply_to": "20246__0_129", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__0_131", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1650.346], "stop_times": [1651.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1650.346}, "reply_to": "20246__0_130", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_132", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Brinkmann.\nI take it you want to reserve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1651.047, 1654.7], "stop_times": [1654.7, 1655.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.047}, "reply_to": "20246__0_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__0_133", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I'd like to reserve the rest of my time.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1655.478, 1656.109], "stop_times": [1656.109, 1656.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1655.478}, "reply_to": "20246__0_132", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__0_134", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Mr. Hom.\nAm I pronouncing your name correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1656.579, 1657.64], "stop_times": [1657.64, 1659.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.579}, "reply_to": "20246__0_133", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_000", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere are two basic points that we need to address.\nNumber 1, this case, the facts of this case boils down to just one simple fact.\nMr. Yang's assumed identity as the husband of a United States citizen, just one basic fact.\nSecondly, this is not a case of abuse of discretion.\nThis is a case of statutory construction.\nThis is a case of statutory construction because the plain language of the statute, the INS's own interpretation, prior case precedents, legislative history, and the policy and the purpose behind this waiver all indicate that the original fraud must never be weighed in the decision to grant or deny a waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1659.823, 1661.132, 1669.908, 1674.392, 1682.426, 1690.023, 1693.723, 1696.205], "stop_times": [1661.132, 1669.908, 1674.392, 1682.426, 1690.023, 1693.723, 1696.205, 1723.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1659.823}, "reply_to": "20246__0_134", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_001", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "As a matter of... you say part of your argument to that effect is based on statutory construction.\nWhere in the statute do you find that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1723.733, 1729.567], "stop_times": [1729.567, 1731.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.733}, "reply_to": "20246__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_002", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes, it's subparagraph (ii) of 241(a)(1)(H), and the petitioner's brief at page 5a and 6a is the section of law, and in subparagraph (ii) on page 6a it states that the alien was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible, and that's the key phrase, otherwise admissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1731.958], "stop_times": [1758.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.958}, "reply_to": "20246__1_001", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_003", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well--\n--Why isn't the key phrase,\n\"fraud may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived? \"\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1758.464, 1759.866, 1761.447, 1764.229], "stop_times": [1759.866, 1761.447, 1764.229, 1764.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.464}, "reply_to": "20246__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_004", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Because the purpose of the waiver was to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1764.799], "stop_times": [1768.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.799}, "reply_to": "20246__1_003", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_005", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "We're talking about statutory construction now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1768.272], "stop_times": [1770.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.272}, "reply_to": "20246__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_006", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Oh, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1770.393], "stop_times": [1770.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.393}, "reply_to": "20246__1_005", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_007", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1770.994], "stop_times": [1771.345], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.994}, "reply_to": "20246__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20246__1_008", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Right.\nThe waiver serves to take away that fraud.\nThat's why that phrase, \"otherwise admissible\", that's what that refers to.\nOtherwise, other than the fraud.\nOtherwise admissible means other than the fraud that charges or that renders the alien to become excludable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1771.345, 1772.146, 1776.237, 1779.219, 1782.582], "stop_times": [1772.146, 1776.237, 1779.219, 1782.582, 1788.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.345}, "reply_to": "20246__1_007", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_009", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, that sets a condition upon the--\n--Yes.\n--exercise of discretion... but it does not, it seems to me, to address the substance of what that discretion may consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1788.215, 1794.51, 1794.82], "stop_times": [1794.51, 1794.82, 1799.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.215}, "reply_to": "20246__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__1_010", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "If I could answer the question this way, Your Honor, there are three steps in the processing of an application for a waiver before the immigration judge.\nThe first step is, is there a requisite family relationship, the second step, subparagraph (ii), is the alien otherwise admissible?\nIn other words, is he a criminal?\nHas he committed other heinous acts but he cannot be neither waivered because of the fraud, which is 212(a)(6)(C), and that's what otherwise admissible refers to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1799.772, 1808.959, 1817.835, 1821.608], "stop_times": [1808.959, 1817.835, 1821.608, 1834.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1799.772}, "reply_to": "20246__1_009", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_011", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, why do you... that isn't at all clear to me.\nI mean, why isn't the otherwise... just a threshold requirement, and once you meet that threshold, then you can invoke the Attorney General's discretion, but the statute doesn't say how it should be exercised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1834.046, 1837.278], "stop_times": [1837.278, 1850.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.046}, "reply_to": "20246__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_012", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nOnce we reach that threshold that the fraud is taken off the table and not to be considered in order for the alien to apply for the waiver, then for the Immigration Service to turn around and look at that very same act would really nullify subparagraph (ii).\nIt wouldn't even have to be there at all if the Attorney General had absolute unfettered discretion.\nThe language of the waiver would merely say, if the alien has a family relationship, then in the discretion of the Attorney General the waiver may be granted, so there must be some meaning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1850.936, 1851.427, 1868.03, 1873.983], "stop_times": [1851.427, 1868.03, 1873.983, 1884.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.936}, "reply_to": "20246__1_011", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_013", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So you say the fact that Congress has imposed additional conditions over and above the family relationships actually limits the Attorney General's discretion.\nThat seems rather strange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1884.799, 1895.348], "stop_times": [1895.348, 1897.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.799}, "reply_to": "20246__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_014", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--And that's why I say, it's not a matter of discretion, Your Honor, it's really a matter of statutory construction.\nSubparagraph (ii) takes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1897.348, 1902.061], "stop_times": [1902.061, 1904.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.348}, "reply_to": "20246__1_013", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_015", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But construing the statute, mustn't we take into account first the words that say\n\"may, in the discretion of the Attorney General. \"\nthen the history that at one time the waiver was mandatory, and Congress changed it to make it discretionary.\nYou seem to be... your statutory interpretation argument appears to be based on the pre-1981 statute, when the waiver was mandatory.\nAre you saying that Congress... that these words are meaningless?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1904.514, 1908.898, 1911.209, 1919.276, 1931.972], "stop_times": [1908.898, 1911.209, 1919.276, 1931.972, 1936.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.514}, "reply_to": "20246__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_016", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Your Honor, the change to add the word discretion in 1981 did not change the intent and purpose of the waiver.\nEven prior to the 1981 waiver change there was a separate exclusion ground with a parallel waiver, section 212(i), which permitted the Immigration Service to grant a waiver in its discretion for similar types of frauds.\nThe Immigration Service adopted the position in the parallel deportation waiver in now 241(a)(1)(H) that otherwise admissible means you put aside the initial fraud that renders him excludable in deciding whether or not to grant the waiver, and then the immigration judge, or the Immigration Service, may look at other adverse factors.\nFor example, if the immigrant had killed somebody to obtain that person's passport, or visa documentation, that would render the immigrant excludable under other acts, sections of the act, so that's the purpose of otherwise admissible, to account for the concern that Your Honors have expressed previously that there may be certain factors in the commission of the fraud that are so heinous that we as human beings would not accept.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [1936.407, 1943.94, 1962.254, 1988.71], "stop_times": [1943.94, 1962.254, 1988.71, 2021.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.407}, "reply_to": "20246__1_015", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_017", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, so then you're saying otherwise admissible is not important to your interpretation of the act because you've given it this other meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2021.953], "stop_times": [2028.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.953}, "reply_to": "20246__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__1_018", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I'm not sure if that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2028.417], "stop_times": [2031.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.417}, "reply_to": "20246__1_017", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_019", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's what your whole... I thought your whole case turned on the otherwise admissible language, and you've just given what to me is a very plausible interpretation of it that the man can't be a heinous criminal, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2031.708], "stop_times": [2042.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.708}, "reply_to": "20246__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__1_020", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Correct, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2042.827], "stop_times": [2043.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.827}, "reply_to": "20246__1_019", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_021", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I don't see how that helps your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2043.295], "stop_times": [2046.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.295}, "reply_to": "20246__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20246__1_022", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Well, we're saying that if the alien is... in the determination of the waiver we look at other factors other than the fraud factor, which is 212(a)(6)(C), which is not listed there, but you could see the parallel exceptions for (5)(A) and (7)(A) of the statute, so if an alien is encompassed within the grounds of 212(a)(6)(C), 212(a)(5)(A) and (7)(A), those disqualifying factors cannot be held against the immigrant in the determination of the waiver, so the immigration judge is permitted only to look at other factors, other than those three factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2046.736], "stop_times": [2091.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.736}, "reply_to": "20246__1_021", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_023", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "If that's so, I can understand... just... how you could say may means must in respect to the initial kinds of fraud that led Congress to grant the discretion in the first place, which is what you're arguing now, I think, but assuming for the sake of argument that that's so, how then do you get from the language which talks about a waiver being related... being a direct result of that fraud... it says, that fraud, and that fraud means the fraud that enabled the alien to procure a visa, which this alien procured in 1978.\nHow do you get from that to saying that the Attorney General cannot take into account her view of a different fraud, i.e., one that happened in 1982 that led to the procurement of naturalization papers?\nEven if you're going to say they're all part and parcel of the same thing, I don't see how you escape the language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2091.837, 2138.229, 2154.519], "stop_times": [2138.229, 2154.519, 2160.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.837}, "reply_to": "20246__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20246__1_024", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "If we look at the initial language of 241(a)(1)(H) on page 5a, the provisions of this paragraph relating to the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry as aliens, described in section 1182(6)(C).\nSo if you look at the classification described in 212(a)(6)(C), which is on the petitioner's brief at page 2a, the language there states... misrepresentation is the caption... any alien who by fraud or wilfully misrepresenting a material fact seeks to procure or has sought to procure or has procured a visa or other documentation or entry into the United States, those words there clearly show that acts could have occurred not just at the time of entry, but in the past in seeking the visa, or actually having obtained the visa, so it's very clear that the statute that grants the waiver is not limited to acts occurring at the time of entry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2160.533, 2181.086], "stop_times": [2181.086, 2225.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.533}, "reply_to": "20246__1_023", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_025", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "It's not the statute that grants the waiver, it's the statute that makes the immigrant eligible to request a waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2225.435], "stop_times": [2233.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.435}, "reply_to": "20246__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_026", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2233.732], "stop_times": [2234.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2233.732}, "reply_to": "20246__1_025", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_027", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2234.221, 2235.183], "stop_times": [2235.183, 2235.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.221}, "reply_to": "20246__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_028", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And the historical development of the act... of the waiver--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2235.944], "stop_times": [2240.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.944}, "reply_to": "20246__1_027", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_029", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "It's still referring to the fraud that led him to have procured the visa.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2240.548], "stop_times": [2248.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.548}, "reply_to": "20246__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20246__1_030", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Well, that's not inconsistent with 212(a)(6)(C).\nThe statutory language talks and uses words in terms of present tense and past tense, so that those acts which are related to the visa procurement, yes.\nIf there are other acts not related to the visa procurement, then he would be otherwise inadmissible and the waiver could be denied, so I don't see that as inconsistent with our position, and I think that that should lay to rest a lot of concerns that the waiver is carte blanche to let immigrants come in, commit heinous crimes, and get away with murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2248.362, 2254.877, 2267.236], "stop_times": [2254.877, 2267.236, 2288.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.362}, "reply_to": "20246__1_029", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_031", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Mr. Hom, if we looked at it from this point of view, let's say that there's something ambiguous about this, and a judge is trying to determine what the statute means and says, well... let's assume that one person who got into the United States without making any false representations, no fraud, and once in the United States engaged in the very same acts as occurred here, such a person would be deportable, but if in addition to engaging in those acts there had been a fraud at entry, that person is eligible for a waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2288.209], "stop_times": [2326.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.209}, "reply_to": "20246__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_032", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2326.914], "stop_times": [2327.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.914}, "reply_to": "20246__1_031", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_033", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Is that a reasonable way to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2327.335], "stop_times": [2328.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.335}, "reply_to": "20246__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_034", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2328.647], "stop_times": [2329.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.647}, "reply_to": "20246__1_033", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_035", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--to construe what Congress did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2329.438], "stop_times": [2331.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.438}, "reply_to": "20246__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_036", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe waiver that is being... the fraud that is being waived is the fraud to come to the United States.\nFrauds that are unrelated that occur afterwards... tax fraud, welfare fraud... all those are separate, independent acts which render the immigrant deportable under different sections of 241(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2331.06, 2331.761, 2338.865], "stop_times": [2331.761, 2338.865, 2351.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.06}, "reply_to": "20246__1_035", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_037", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "What about the 1982 fraud here, the citizenship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2351.093], "stop_times": [2354.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.093}, "reply_to": "20246__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_038", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Citizenship, on the application Mr. Yang repeated the same statements, that his wife is Mary Wong--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2354.515], "stop_times": [2363.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.515}, "reply_to": "20246__1_037", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_039", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But he repeated them 4 years later, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2363.311], "stop_times": [2366.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.311}, "reply_to": "20246__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_040", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nThis is a case of an assumed identity, where the immigrant comes to the United States with a new identity as the husband of Mary Wong, and everything that he does after that is as the husband of Mary Wong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2366.043, 2366.584], "stop_times": [2366.584, 2379.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.043}, "reply_to": "20246__1_039", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_041", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, he's just continuing to make fraudulent representations, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2379.504], "stop_times": [2384.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.504}, "reply_to": "20246__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_042", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "He repeats the same statement, Your Honor, that he is the husband--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2384.689], "stop_times": [2387.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.689}, "reply_to": "20246__1_041", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_043", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, but, you know, I can repeat the same statements to defraud people time after time.\nThat doesn't mean that all are subsumed under the first one.\nEach repetition is a new fraudulent representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2387.323, 2393.419, 2397.042], "stop_times": [2393.419, 2397.042, 2400.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.323}, "reply_to": "20246__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_044", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the... the INS has always interpreted the waiver to waive the conditions of the fraud, and until this case there has never been a slicing up of the fraud into subcomponents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2400.253], "stop_times": [2419.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.253}, "reply_to": "20246__1_043", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_045", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, but the INS didn't interpret it this way in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2419.387], "stop_times": [2422.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.387}, "reply_to": "20246__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_046", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2422.589], "stop_times": [2423.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.589}, "reply_to": "20246__1_045", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_047", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So I mean, this was not the Attorney General's view.\nThis was the view, the Ninth Circuit said the Attorney General has to do this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2423.35, 2426.053], "stop_times": [2426.053, 2429.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.35}, "reply_to": "20246__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_048", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--The Ninth Circuit looks at Mr. Yang's assumed identity as one fraud rather than individual acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2429.565], "stop_times": [2441.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2429.565}, "reply_to": "20246__1_047", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_049", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And why... where did they get the authority to do that, when the discretion resides in the Attorney General, not the Ninth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2441.173], "stop_times": [2448.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.173}, "reply_to": "20246__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_050", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Correct, but the statutory language and the intent of Congress in passing the waiver was to not only help displaced refugees, but there's a subsection that granted the waiver to people with family relations who may not have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2448.455], "stop_times": [2463.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2448.455}, "reply_to": "20246__1_049", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_051", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "It didn't grant the waiver.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2463.316, 2464.918], "stop_times": [2464.918, 2465.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.316}, "reply_to": "20246__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_052", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2465.447], "stop_times": [2466.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.447}, "reply_to": "20246__1_051", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_053", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--It... they could have the threshold, and then the Attorney General may grant the waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2466.168], "stop_times": [2473.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2466.168}, "reply_to": "20246__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_054", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct, and if... after the threshold is made, the Attorney General looks at other factors other than the fraud, because that is the act for which he is being forgiven for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2473.213], "stop_times": [2484.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.213}, "reply_to": "20246__1_053", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_055", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But surely the Attorney General can look at a fraud that was committed 4 years after entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2484.431], "stop_times": [2488.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.431}, "reply_to": "20246__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_056", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2488.883], "stop_times": [2490.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.883}, "reply_to": "20246__1_055", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_057", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Can the Attorney General look at a fraud that was committed 4 years after entry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2490.974], "stop_times": [2496.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.974}, "reply_to": "20246__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_058", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Only if it is not related to the initial entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2496.04], "stop_times": [2499.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.04}, "reply_to": "20246__1_057", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_059", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, where do you get that from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2499.78], "stop_times": [2501.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.78}, "reply_to": "20246__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_060", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "The concept of the fraud that exists at the time of entry.\nThis is the same fraud that exists at the time of entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2501.282, 2504.946], "stop_times": [2504.946, 2508.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.282}, "reply_to": "20246__1_059", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_061", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, it's the same fraudulent statement, but it's repeated 4 years later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2508.128], "stop_times": [2511.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2508.128}, "reply_to": "20246__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_062", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And for the same purpose of his immigration status.\nIt's not to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2511.708, 2515.732], "stop_times": [2515.732, 2516.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.708}, "reply_to": "20246__1_061", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_063", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "It wasn't to obtain entry, it was to obtain citizenship, so it isn't the same purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2516.433], "stop_times": [2522.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.433}, "reply_to": "20246__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_064", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Every immigrant, Your Honor, comes to America for the purpose of settling here permanently, and citizenship is the ultimate, is the final step in his process in coming to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2522.877], "stop_times": [2533.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2522.877}, "reply_to": "20246__1_063", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_065", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Even on your theory of relationship, how do you relate the misrepresentation about the financial status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2533.223], "stop_times": [2539.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.223}, "reply_to": "20246__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__1_066", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, that was a matter that the court of appeals remanded back to the immigration judge for redetermination.\nCases have held that false statements to the immigration judge are properly considered in the exercise of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2539.577, 2547.351], "stop_times": [2547.351, 2555.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.577}, "reply_to": "20246__1_065", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_067", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2555.078], "stop_times": [2556.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.078}, "reply_to": "20246__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__1_068", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "The general rule that false statements to the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2556.247], "stop_times": [2560.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.247}, "reply_to": "20246__1_067", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_069", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "You agree with that?\nYou do not contest that general rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2560.751, 2561.292], "stop_times": [2561.292, 2562.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.751}, "reply_to": "20246__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__1_070", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Statements to the judge, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2562.221], "stop_times": [2564.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2562.221}, "reply_to": "20246__1_069", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_071", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Mr. Hom, could you help me with the statute here?\nI have trouble reading it.\nIt's on page 5a and 6a of the Government's brief, and the crucial provision, the subsection (ii), Roman (ii), reads, was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of such entry except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A), and 1182(a) of this title, which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation... what is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2564.235, 2567.696, 2568.986], "stop_times": [2567.696, 2568.986, 2599.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.235}, "reply_to": "20246__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__1_072", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2599.498], "stop_times": [2600.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2599.498}, "reply_to": "20246__1_071", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_073", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That requires an antecedent, and I scanned this statute for any prior reference to fraud or misrepresentation, and I can't find any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2600.427], "stop_times": [2609.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.427}, "reply_to": "20246__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__1_074", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes, what that refers to, Your Honor, is that if the immigrant had applied... you have two situations.\nThe immigrant applies for his immigrant visa based upon a labor certification, for example, and he... if he properly processed that labor certification, but submitted fraudulent documents, then that is the kind of fraud that directs... directly results from that act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2609.113, 2616.169], "stop_times": [2616.169, 2631.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.113}, "reply_to": "20246__1_073", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_075", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So you say it should read, except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) which required labor certification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2631.378], "stop_times": [2641.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.378}, "reply_to": "20246__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__1_076", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2641.695], "stop_times": [2642.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.695}, "reply_to": "20246__1_075", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_077", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And section 1182, which is requirement of a visa.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2642.085], "stop_times": [2645.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.085}, "reply_to": "20246__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__1_078", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2645.507], "stop_times": [2646.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2645.507}, "reply_to": "20246__1_077", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_079", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Except for those grounds... let's see, which involved fraud or misrepresentation and were a direct result thereof, is how it should have read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2646.168], "stop_times": [2660.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.168}, "reply_to": "20246__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__1_080", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I'd like to... I think I hear what Your Honor's saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2660.949], "stop_times": [2664.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.949}, "reply_to": "20246__1_079", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_081", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "My problem is the word that, a direct result of that.\nWhat fraud or misrepresentation?\nThere's no fraud or misrepresentation mentioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2664.351, 2667.433, 2668.985], "stop_times": [2667.433, 2668.985, 2670.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.351}, "reply_to": "20246__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__1_082", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2670.815], "stop_times": [2671.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.815}, "reply_to": "20246__1_081", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_083", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Isn't it right that that's in (6)(C)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2671.326], "stop_times": [2673.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.326}, "reply_to": "20246__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20246__1_084", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Correct.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2673.049, 2673.87], "stop_times": [2673.87, 2674.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.049}, "reply_to": "20246__1_083", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_085", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And the reason that it's in (6)(C)... the reason that it's in (6)(C), as I read it, is in the preceding codification the words fraud and representation were at the top of (f), and they were broken out by Congress and moved to (6)(C), and so the antecedent for that is now (6)(C), is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2674.759], "stop_times": [2695.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.759}, "reply_to": "20246__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20246__1_086", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor, but there's also one other aspect of that.\nIf an immigrant had bought the visa outside of the consular context instead of in the process of applying for an immigration visa--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2695.084, 2697.254], "stop_times": [2697.254, 2706.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.084}, "reply_to": "20246__1_085", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_087", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But is what I said right?\nI don't want you to agree if it's not right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2706.792, 2707.62], "stop_times": [2707.62, 2708.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.792}, "reply_to": "20246__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20246__1_088", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Oh, that's correct, but there's another aspect to it.\nThere are two explanations.\nI was... that's one, and the second one is, where the fraudulent documentation, say the fake passport was a counterfeit that he'd purchased down the street, so it was not part of a fraud to the United States Government.\nAs Your Honor had pointed out earlier, if he had divorced his wife and had not made that representation or showed that divorce document to the consular officer at his visa interview, then that would not be the kind of fraud that's encompassed and would not be the kind of fraud that would be forgiven by this waiver, so this is not a charter of amnesty.\nThere are cases of frauds and bad acts that may be punished, and properly so.\nThere are criminal sanctions that would be available, and once criminal convictions are obtained, then the alien becomes inadmissible under various sections of 212(a), so that the integrity of the immigration system is preserved.\nThere are not a whole lot of waivers granted under this particular section.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2708.962, 2709.993, 2710.923, 2723.913, 2741.524, 2746.706, 2758.825], "stop_times": [2709.993, 2710.923, 2723.913, 2741.524, 2746.706, 2758.825, 2762.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.962}, "reply_to": "20246__1_087", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_089", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Mr. Hom, there's one problem that I have with your notion that the consistent repetition of the same misrepresentation is a wash.\nAs long as you say the same thing every time, then it all must be forgiven.\nThe statements about Mary Wong who was a dead soul, that were repeatedly made on documents signed by these people, were they not indictable crimes as false statements made to the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2762.979, 2775.123, 2782.66], "stop_times": [2775.123, 2782.66, 2805.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.979}, "reply_to": "20246__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_090", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Possibly, but that's the very waiver that is... the reason why the waiver is there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2805.355], "stop_times": [2811.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.355}, "reply_to": "20246__1_089", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_091", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So what you're saying is that you could have these people engage in repeated criminal conduct and nonetheless the Attorney General must ignore that in determining their eligibility for a waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2811.939], "stop_times": [2829.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.939}, "reply_to": "20246__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_092", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes, if the fraudulent conduct relates back to the initial one.\nThe appropriate solution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2829.821, 2834.273], "stop_times": [2834.273, 2836.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2829.821}, "reply_to": "20246__1_091", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_093", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So if there is any ambiguity you say yes, we should interpret Congress to mean that people who have committed in the United States repeated criminal acts nonetheless must be eligible for this waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2836.266], "stop_times": [2851.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.266}, "reply_to": "20246__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_094", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Incorrect.\nThe key phrase was eligible for the waiver.\nSubparagraph (ii) specifically states that if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2851.595, 2852.426, 2854.986], "stop_times": [2852.426, 2854.986, 2857.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.595}, "reply_to": "20246__1_093", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_095", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's what I said, eligible for the waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2857.887], "stop_times": [2859.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.887}, "reply_to": "20246__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_096", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Right, but he would not be eligible for the waiver because he would have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, which are other grounds enumerated in subparagraph (ii) which are not listed there, but that's what the reference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2859.219], "stop_times": [2870.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2859.219}, "reply_to": "20246__1_095", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_097", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So what you say is, although this conduct, signing a false statement, could be indicted, if it's not indicted, it must be treated as if it didn't happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2870.748], "stop_times": [2879.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.748}, "reply_to": "20246__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_098", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Not necessarily indicted.\nIf there are... if there's an admission that he had committed the elements of the act that involves--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2879.944, 2881.804], "stop_times": [2881.804, 2888.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2879.944}, "reply_to": "20246__1_097", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_099", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Is there... is... are you denying that Mr. Yang signed papers and presented them to immigration officials saying that he was the husband of Mary Wong, a citizen of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2888.739], "stop_times": [2907.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.739}, "reply_to": "20246__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_100", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--He did sign those documents, and that's the purpose of the waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2907.951], "stop_times": [2910.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2907.951}, "reply_to": "20246__1_099", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_101", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And was it not true that at the time he signed those documents Mary Wong was a very dead soul?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2910.555], "stop_times": [2915.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.555}, "reply_to": "20246__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_102", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct.\nHis wife, Mr. Yang's wife had assumed the identity of Mary Wong.\nHe did not represent that he was married to a deceased person.\nHe was saying that his wife, his current wife, who used a new name, and that's why I've been trying to explain that this is a matter of an assumed identity as opposed to a... another type of elaborate fraud, as Your Honors have eluded to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2915.607, 2916.517, 2920.26, 2924.032], "stop_times": [2916.517, 2920.26, 2924.032, 2937.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.607}, "reply_to": "20246__1_101", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_103", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, it seems to me extraordinary that Congress would mandate that the Attorney General not consider what is concededly repeated crimes of false statements to the United States Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2937.53], "stop_times": [2952.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2937.53}, "reply_to": "20246__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_104", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, Your Honor, in this case there was one immigration examiner who was indicted and convicted for having received bribes, or soliciting bribes in this respect, and that's in the brief.\nIf there was criminal acts that could be charged against Mr. Yang, I'm pretty sure that the FBI would have ferreted out those facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2952.41, 2964.549], "stop_times": [2964.549, 2972.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.41}, "reply_to": "20246__1_103", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_105", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, I've just asked you, did he sign a document in which he said he was the husband of Mary Wong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2972.664], "stop_times": [2976.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.664}, "reply_to": "20246__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_106", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Yes, he did, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2976.537], "stop_times": [2978.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.537}, "reply_to": "20246__1_105", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_107", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And he could not have been the husband of Mary Wong, as Mary Wong was dead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2978.319], "stop_times": [2982.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.319}, "reply_to": "20246__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20246__1_108", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nIf there was evidence to lead to a criminal conviction, one should have been brought, and then he should have been convicted and, if convicted, deported on that basis, and not deported based upon some exception or some misconstruction of a statute that has very salutary purposes behind it just because of potential prosecution.\nIf there was a prosecution, then he renders himself not to be otherwise admissible within the language of subparagraph (ii) and the person could be deported, so it's not a matter of denying the waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [2982.03, 2983.311, 3004.416], "stop_times": [2983.311, 3004.416, 3015.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.03}, "reply_to": "20246__1_107", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_109", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But something he does 4 years afterwards, that wouldn't bear on his admissibility, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3015.295], "stop_times": [3020.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.295}, "reply_to": "20246__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_110", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "The waiver focuses on two points.\nNumber 1, at the time of entry, is he within this classification of having committed this fraud, so he commits this one particular fraud, and he's warranted with it and it becomes an individual part of his new identity... there's just no way he could shake that.\nSo when the person applies for his social security card he puts down on the form he's married.\nWhen he applies for... when he submits his income tax returns he says he's married, and I'm sure he put down he was married to Mary Wong.\nAll these are incidental aspects of his having assumed this new identity in coming to America, and not some separate independent fraud that has no relationship.\nIf he committed other frauds, of tax fraud, for example, then he would be deportable on those independently, and so we're not talking about a denial of a waiver in those cases, but the fact that he's deportable on some other ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3020.417, 3024.948, 3037.358, 3041.652, 3048.437, 3058.842], "stop_times": [3024.948, 3037.358, 3041.652, 3048.437, 3058.842, 3072.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.417}, "reply_to": "20246__1_109", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_111", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, you're saying, as you've said before during your argument, that he can repeat the same fraud unendingly and there are no consequences to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3072.443], "stop_times": [3083.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.443}, "reply_to": "20246__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_112", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And that's the purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3083.51], "stop_times": [3086.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3083.51}, "reply_to": "20246__1_111", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_113", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And the Attorney General must grant a waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3086.281], "stop_times": [3088.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.281}, "reply_to": "20246__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_114", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Unless there are other adverse factors, other than that statement, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3088.222], "stop_times": [3092.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3088.222}, "reply_to": "20246__1_113", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_115", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Just repeating the fraud is not sufficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3092.786], "stop_times": [3095.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.786}, "reply_to": "20246__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_116", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's our position, Your Honor, the same fact.\nThe purpose of the waiver is not to relieve Mr. Yang of any obligations.\nHe could still be prosecuted criminally.\nHis citizenship was denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3095.167, 3096.678, 3104.773, 3107.385], "stop_times": [3096.678, 3104.773, 3107.385, 3108.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.167}, "reply_to": "20246__1_115", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_117", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Would you comment on... go back to sort of a basic point of the... the statute in... before its most recent amendment said that the provisions of 241 and so forth and so on shall not apply to an alien otherwise admissible.\nNow it says with respect to those, the Attorney General may, in her discretion, waive.\nHow do you get around the fact that one was a mandatory waiver and the other is a discretionary waiver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3108.885, 3125.398, 3130.3], "stop_times": [3125.398, 3130.3, 3137.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.885}, "reply_to": "20246__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_118", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "At the time there was a mandatory waiver of deportation.\nThere is also a discretionary waiver for exclusion, and the Immigration Service's interpretation or application of the discretionary waiver was also to disregard the fraud that renders him inadmissible in deciding discretion, so that's the stage that was set when Congress in 1981 passed the new legislation to add on the word discretion for the deportation waiver.\nIt conforms--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3137.366, 3140.568, 3166.885], "stop_times": [3140.568, 3166.885, 3168.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3137.366}, "reply_to": "20246__1_117", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_119", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And to take out the words, \"shall not apply\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3168.096], "stop_times": [3169.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.096}, "reply_to": "20246__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_120", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Correct, to make it discretionary, but nevertheless, that did not change Congress' understanding as to the interpretation, the proper application of the statute, because the Immigration Service had consistently in the Alonzo case in 1979, cited in our brief, where the Immigration Service said, yes, frauds--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3169.737], "stop_times": [3187.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.737}, "reply_to": "20246__1_119", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_121", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So the change meant absolutely nothing, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3187.227], "stop_times": [3190.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.227}, "reply_to": "20246__1_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__1_122", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--Relative to the initial fraud, correct.\nIt would permit the Attorney General to look at other factors, and we see from the discussion this morning that there are other factors that should render an alien inadmissible... excuse me, that should result in the waiver being denied, even though it does not render the alien deportable and inadmissible.\nSo there are acts which don't amount to a deportable act, but which nevertheless I think we are agreed are reprehensible acts and should be punished with the waiver being denied.\nBut in this particular case, we have to focus on the family.\nThe waiver was for the purpose, was designed for the purpose of preserving families.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3190.59, 3192.861, 3211.785, 3220.791, 3226.403], "stop_times": [3192.861, 3211.785, 3220.791, 3226.403, 3231.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3190.59}, "reply_to": "20246__1_121", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_123", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "What you're saying is that under the old statute reprehensible acts that were not sufficiently serious to be an independent ground of deportation could not be taken into consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3231.316], "stop_times": [3241.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.316}, "reply_to": "20246__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_124", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3241.524], "stop_times": [3242.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3241.524}, "reply_to": "20246__1_123", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_125", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That they may now be taken into consideration.\nThat, you say, is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3242.463, 3244.246], "stop_times": [3244.246, 3245.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.463}, "reply_to": "20246__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_126", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3245.135], "stop_times": [3245.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.135}, "reply_to": "20246__1_125", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_127", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--is the change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3245.526], "stop_times": [3245.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.526}, "reply_to": "20246__1_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_128", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "And there are some acts that are so reprehensible that even before the 1981 amendment to make it discretionary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3245.936], "stop_times": [3253.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.936}, "reply_to": "20246__1_127", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_129", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3253.091], "stop_times": [3253.392], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.091}, "reply_to": "20246__1_128", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20246__1_130", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--we see that persons who assisted in Nazi persecution or engaged in genocide were not permitted to apply for the waiver, and that was before it was made discretionary, so there were people who covered up their past involvement and came to the United States after World War II, and these people certainly should be thrown out of the country, but because the fraud was being forgiven, the INS had no way to deport those people.\nThey had the relatives, and the waiver had to be granted.\nSo Congress in 1978 added on paragraph (4)(D) relating to genocide and said those people, they do such terrible things, they don't even get a chance to talk about a waiver.\nOther people on the other hand, U.S. citizens' parents, children, spouses, they have a chance to ask that their loved ones be forgiven so that they may stay in this country, and that's the focus.\nIt's not to reward bad acts, but to preserve family ties, to consider the feelings of U.S. citizens, and not the alien who committed the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3253.392, 3280.378, 3282.601, 3294.95, 3306.857], "stop_times": [3280.378, 3282.601, 3294.95, 3306.857, 3317.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3253.392}, "reply_to": "20246__1_129", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_131", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But I think your opponent agrees that there was... there would have been discretion to decide the case the other way, take into... give a greater weight to the family ties and all the rest.\nAm I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3317.793, 3327.41], "stop_times": [3327.41, 3328.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.793}, "reply_to": "20246__1_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_132", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Well, in the determination of discretion the depth of the family ties certainly would be a factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3328.6], "stop_times": [3336.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3328.6}, "reply_to": "20246__1_131", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_133", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "In other words, the Attorney... the Immigration Service could have said, well, I think there were two separate frauds.\nThe 4-year-later business relating to citizenship, I'll treat that as separate.\nNevertheless, I think these family ties are so strong, and he's such a successful businessman and all these other things, I'm going to grant the waiver.\nThey could have granted the waiver even if there are two separate frauds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3336.376, 3341.209, 3345.439, 3353.717], "stop_times": [3341.209, 3345.439, 3353.717, 3356.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.376}, "reply_to": "20246__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__1_134", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3356.138], "stop_times": [3357.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3356.138}, "reply_to": "20246__1_133", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_135", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3357.028], "stop_times": [3357.408], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.028}, "reply_to": "20246__1_134", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20246__1_136", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's correct.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3357.408, 3358.35], "stop_times": [3358.35, 3361.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3357.408}, "reply_to": "20246__1_135", "speaker": "howard_hom"}
{"id": "20246__1_137", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hom.\nMs. Brinkmann, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3361.622, 3362.613], "stop_times": [3362.613, 3364.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3361.622}, "reply_to": "20246__1_136", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20246__2_000", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nThere are two points I'd like to make.\nOne goes to the separation of these frauds.\nIt's clear these are separate frauds because they're false statements made for... to obtain different types of benefits, certainly for naturalization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3364.604, 3366.204, 3367.776, 3370.448], "stop_times": [3366.204, 3367.776, 3370.448, 3376.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3364.604}, "reply_to": "20246__1_137", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__2_001", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Let me just interrupt if I may.\nIsn't it also true you'd take the same position even if they were the same fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3376.692, 3377.551], "stop_times": [3377.551, 3380.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3376.692}, "reply_to": "20246__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20246__2_002", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.\nI just wanted to respond to Justice Ginsburg's concern about the possible criminal prosecution.\nIt's clear that... well, depending on the actual facts that haven't been fully investigated, that they would have to be for a criminal prosecution.\nThere are at least three provisions in title 18 that could give rise to criminal prosecution.\n1001 for false statements to a U.S. agency, also 1015 having to do with fraud concerning naturalization, and then 1028 has to do with fraud related to identification documents, and depending on the scope of respondent's participation in the purchase of the fraudulent passport and birth certificate, that could also apply.\nAnd in sentencing, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3380.515, 3381.365, 3386.147, 3394.423, 3399.125, 3420.71], "stop_times": [3381.365, 3386.147, 3394.423, 3399.125, 3420.71, 3422.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3380.515}, "reply_to": "20246__2_001", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__2_003", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Some of those would also apply to the original fraud in obtaining entry in the first place, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3422.041], "stop_times": [3427.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3422.041}, "reply_to": "20246__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__2_004", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "--That's Your... correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3427.526], "stop_times": [3429.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3427.526}, "reply_to": "20246__2_003", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__2_005", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "So it doesn't prove anything.\nYou acknowledge that that's waivable.\nThe later one may be, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3429.076, 3429.486, 3430.888], "stop_times": [3429.486, 3430.888, 3432.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.076}, "reply_to": "20246__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20246__2_006", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "But there's certainly factors that can be taken into account by the Attorney General.\nIt's not that the Attorney General has to prosecute and imprison people rather than deporting them.\nCertainly if they can be taken into account, for example, in sentencing simply uncharged counts can also be taken into account under this waiver provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3432.959, 3436.111, 3440.653], "stop_times": [3436.111, 3440.653, 3447.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3432.959}, "reply_to": "20246__2_005", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__2_007", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "When the Attorney General forgets about this initial fraud as the policy is, he doesn't then prosecute it criminally, I assume.\nHe both allows the application under this provision and chooses not to prosecute, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3447.769, 3456.275], "stop_times": [3456.275, 3465.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.769}, "reply_to": "20246__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20246__2_008", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "I can't speak to that, Your Honor.\nI'm not aware of all instances.\nThe other point I wanted to make had to do with the textual question about otherwise admissible.\nThe... that term goes to other categories of people that are set forth in section 212 in 1182 as it's codified, of grounds of inadmissibility, excludability.\nThat has to do with categories that are related to health, to criminal history, stow-aways, smugglers, national security reasons, those are all reasons that statutorily an alien could be inadmissible, and that is what gives meaning to those words, otherwise admissible, in the statute.\nThank you.\nYour Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3465.68, 3468.172, 3469.671, 3474.115, 3488.766, 3507.198, 3508.16], "stop_times": [3468.172, 3469.671, 3474.115, 3488.766, 3507.198, 3508.16, 3508.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3465.68}, "reply_to": "20246__2_007", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20246__2_009", "conversation_id": "20246", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Brinkmann.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-938", "start_times": [3508.669, 3509.972], "stop_times": [3509.972, 3511.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3508.669}, "reply_to": "20246__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__0_000", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 95-1081, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.\nMr. Salloum, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [0.0, 12.059], "stop_times": [12.059, 26.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__0_001", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIf the opinion and judgment of the Fifth Circuit in this case is allowed to stand, it would defeat the purpose that Congress enacted section 33(g) of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act which was to protect an employer from increased compensation liability when a worker, or those claiming through him, settle a third party case for less than the compensation they would be entitled under the Longshore Act.\nIt would also defeat the purpose for which Congress passed section 33(f) of the Longshore Act which is the give an employer credit to the extent of net third party recoveries received by a worker or those claiming through him.\nThe facts of this case are that Jefferson Yates, between 1953 and 1967, worked as a ship fitter for Ingalls Shipyard.\nHe left Ingalls in 1967 and worked several land-based jobs for other employers.\n14 years after he left Ingalls, he was diagnosed with asbestosis in March of 1981.\nIn April of 1981, he filed a claim against Ingalls for compensation and medical benefits under the Longshore Act.\nIn May of 1981, his lawyers, who are the same lawyers that represent him in the compensation claim against Ingalls, filed a products liability suit in Federal court in Biloxi, Mississippi, seeking $6 million in actual and punitive damages against 23 asbestos manufacturers who he claimed made the asbestos to which he was exposed at Ingalls.\nLess than a year after his compensation claim was filed against Ingalls, Ingalls wrote the district director for the Sixth Compensation District and accepted his claim, voluntarily accepted his claim, under the Longshore Act and agreed to pay him medical benefits and tendered to him all benefits under the Longshore Act.\nIn May of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [26.329, 29.041, 54.147, 69.407, 78.523, 83.696, 91.673, 99.147, 122.983, 140.574], "stop_times": [29.041, 54.147, 69.407, 78.523, 83.696, 91.673, 99.147, 122.983, 140.574, 141.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 26.329}, "reply_to": "20144__0_000", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_002", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mr. Salloum, may I get you to... Salloum, may I get you to clarify for me how the employer is injured here?\nNow, I assume the employer could file suit against those third parties who were at fault for the employee's injuries to recover payments that you... the employer made... may have made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [141.596, 153.052], "stop_times": [153.052, 168.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 141.596}, "reply_to": "20144__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__0_003", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--If a Burnside action was filed separate and apart from the Longshore Act, the employer would be faced... if the employer sued the 23 asbestos manufacturers directly, the employer would be faced with certain common law defenses in the Burnside tort action, tort indemnity action, that the employer would not be faced in a direct action by the worker against those defendants under the Longshore Act.\nFor example, if the employer filed a direct suit outside the Longshore Act under the Burnside tort indemnity theory, the defendants, the asbestos manufacturers, could assert certain contributory negligence features of coworkers of Mr. Yates which would serve to reduce Ingalls' recovery against those asbestos manufacturers.\nMore important than that... and this Court made it clear in Bloomer... that an employer is entitled to receive back 100 percent of his compensation and medical benefits plus its attorney's fees.\nThat's provided by Congress under section 933 of the Longshore Act.\nIf an employer is required, because of some wrongful act of a worker, to file a separate Burnside tort indemnity lawsuit, the employer, in addition to being faced with common law defenses which would reduce its recovery in the Burnside action, would also be faced with having to bear its own attorney's fees and cost in the Burnside action which Congress has made it clear in section 933(e), as interpreted by this Court in Bloomer, that the employer has its inviolate right to have 100 percent of its compensation and medical benefits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [168.631, 195.118, 218.734, 231.593, 235.857], "stop_times": [195.118, 218.734, 231.593, 235.857, 267.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.631}, "reply_to": "20144__0_002", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_004", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "So, you say you might not be made whole or as whole as you would be otherwise.\nHow about recovering monies that you pay to Mrs. Yates out of the post-death settlements?\nYes, ma'am.\nYour Honor, Ingalls approved the post-death settlements.\nAnd I think the classic example of that and why section 933(g) and section 933(f) are so important is that after Ingalls accepted Mr. Yates' claim in June of 1992 and agreed to pay him lifetime benefits under the Longshore Act, Mr. Yates and Mrs. Yates between 1982, when Ingalls accepted the claim, and 1986 when he died, entered into four settlements with asbestos manufacturers in that third party case which Mrs. Yates released her wrongful death claims for Mr. Yates during his lifetime.\nA classic example of that is that those four settlements that were entered into between the time Ingalls accepted the claim and the time Mr. Yates died where she released her wrongful death claims totaled $30,000, which were much less--\n--And that money is not recoverable by the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [267.726, 273.841, 280.617, 281.144, 284.327, 322.151, 335.572], "stop_times": [273.841, 280.617, 281.144, 284.327, 322.151, 335.572, 339.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.726}, "reply_to": "20144__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__0_005", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nBut... that's exactly right, Your Honor, but the comparison that I'm making... and the reason why Congress felt it so important for an employer to have a right to consent to a third party settlement is that after Mr. Yates died, Mrs. Yates and her adult children... the next three settlements that they entered into after Mr. Yates died were for $105,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [339.285, 342.216], "stop_times": [342.216, 364.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.285}, "reply_to": "20144__0_004", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_006", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, you know, what you're basically saying is that the rule should kick in once the employer starts making payments, but that's not... it's not consistent with our holding in Estate of Cowart which said a person satisfies the prerequisites attached to the right and thus becomes a person entitled to compensation at the moment the right to recovery is vested, that is, at the time of the injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [364.4], "stop_times": [391.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.4}, "reply_to": "20144__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__0_007", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Your Honor, that's exactly what we're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [391.928], "stop_times": [393.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 391.928}, "reply_to": "20144__0_006", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_008", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But I think we've kind of decided Cowart and relatively recently.\nAre you asking us to reverse that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [393.268, 398.513], "stop_times": [398.513, 399.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 393.268}, "reply_to": "20144__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__0_009", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No, I'm not, Your Honor.\nI'm asking this Court to follow Cowart.\nI'm asking this Court to find--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [399.993, 401.135, 402.935], "stop_times": [401.135, 402.935, 404.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.993}, "reply_to": "20144__0_008", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_010", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, I would think if we followed Cowart, we would have to say that Mrs. Yates was not entitled or qualified for a benefit until her husband's death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [404.995], "stop_times": [417.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.995}, "reply_to": "20144__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__0_011", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--That I think, Your Honor, is a source of confusion for the Fifth Circuit.\nWhat this Court, as I understand Cowart, said was the right of Mr. Cowart to recover compensation arose at the time of his injury, not at the time that the employer acknowledged liability under the act and not at the time that he was found entitled to adjudication under the act.\nThis Court found in Cowart, as I understand Cowart, that his right to recover compensation arose when his injury arose.\nAnd we are simply saying that that principle should hold true for those claiming through Mr. Cowart, that the right of the worker and the right of those claiming through the worker arising... arises at the time of the worker's injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [417.214, 420.917, 436.437, 443.711], "stop_times": [420.917, 436.437, 443.711, 458.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.214}, "reply_to": "20144__0_010", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_012", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But do you think that Cowart would make Mrs. Yates a person entitled to compensation as soon as he knew he had been exposed to asbestos?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [458.832], "stop_times": [470.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.832}, "reply_to": "20144__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__0_013", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I am, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [470.148], "stop_times": [471.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.148}, "reply_to": "20144__0_012", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_014", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Because they might divorce.\nShe might predecease him.\nI didn't think that was consistent with Cowart, but you think it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [471.359, 472.471, 474.111], "stop_times": [472.471, 474.111, 477.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.359}, "reply_to": "20144__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__0_015", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I think it's very consistent with Cowart, Your Honor.\nI think what's... what the argument that the Director has posed in the courts below and I think the source of confusion is to take the vesting language out of Cowart, take it in vacuo, and ignore this Court's holding that Mr. Cowart became a person entitled to compensation at the time of his injury.\nThe fact that a wife of a worker may divorce, the fact that a wife of a worker may die before her husband becomes an irrelevant fact, if that happens, insofar as the employer is concerned because if the wife divorces or if the wife predeceases the husband, then her unapproved third party settlements for less than a compensation she would be entitled against the employer would not prejudice the employer because she would not have a claim against that employer.\nBut the fact of the matter here is that Mrs. Yates entered into these unauthorized third party settlements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [477.835, 479.194, 496.586, 527.417], "stop_times": [479.194, 496.586, 527.417, 533.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.835}, "reply_to": "20144__0_014", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_016", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, but the question that... I'm still not sure I understand your answer because the question is, when did she become a person entitled to compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [533.271], "stop_times": [539.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.271}, "reply_to": "20144__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_017", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Your Honor, she became a person entitled to compensation at the same time that her husband became a person entitled to compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [539.956], "stop_times": [546.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.956}, "reply_to": "20144__0_016", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_018", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Even if the next day she died.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [546.131], "stop_times": [548.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.131}, "reply_to": "20144__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_019", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, because the prejudice to the employer would not be there if she died.\nShe would not have the death claim against the employer.\nHer third party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [548.231, 555.037, 557.338], "stop_times": [555.037, 557.338, 558.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.231}, "reply_to": "20144__0_018", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_020", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "She would... there would be no prejudice to the employer unless she later became a person entitled to compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [558.676], "stop_times": [562.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.676}, "reply_to": "20144__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_021", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--No, sir.\nThere would be no prejudice to the employer until she claimed compensation by virtue of the occupational disease to her husband.\nShe became a person entitled to compensation at the same time as her husband when he was diagnosed with an occupational disease.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [562.91, 563.631, 572.477], "stop_times": [563.631, 572.477, 579.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.91}, "reply_to": "20144__0_020", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_022", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No, but supposing she did get a settlement of her contingent claim later on and then she died before he did but she had that money, you know, tucked away.\nShe got a settlement with the third party.\nWould the employer be prejudiced at all in that circumstance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [579.701, 588.907, 590.349], "stop_times": [588.907, 590.349, 593.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.701}, "reply_to": "20144__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_023", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No, that's exactly right, Your Honor, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [593.432], "stop_times": [595.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 593.432}, "reply_to": "20144__0_022", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_024", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "She wasn't a person entitled to compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [595.652], "stop_times": [597.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.652}, "reply_to": "20144__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_025", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Well, the purpose... if these questions are asked without consideration to the reason that 33(g) was enacted by Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [597.902], "stop_times": [605.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.902}, "reply_to": "20144__0_024", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_026", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "You sound like you're arguing the dissent in Cowart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [605.75], "stop_times": [607.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.75}, "reply_to": "20144__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_027", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI'm arguing the majority opinion in Cowart and that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [607.789, 609.56], "stop_times": [609.56, 612.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.789}, "reply_to": "20144__0_026", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_028", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "It's a very plain language, strictly literal interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [612.522], "stop_times": [615.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.522}, "reply_to": "20144__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_029", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--That is the plain language.\nThe plain language that was... I believe the Court was referring to in Cowart was not the phrase, person entitled to compensation.\nThe plain language that the Court was referring to in Cowart, as I understand Cowart, was the 1984 amendments where they... where Congress added the language that if you don't... if a worker does not receive an employer's consent to a third party settlement, then he is bound by the forfeiture provisions of 33(g) regardless of whether or not the employer has paid compensation or whether or not the employer has acknowledged liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [615.595, 617.237, 624.681], "stop_times": [617.237, 624.681, 650.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.595}, "reply_to": "20144__0_028", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_030", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, but the operative clause there was again a person entitled to compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [650.407], "stop_times": [655.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 650.407}, "reply_to": "20144__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__0_031", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That operative clause I believe was considered by this Court in the context of the addition by Congress in 1984 that they are barred regardless of whether the employer makes the payments or acknowledges liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [655.272], "stop_times": [672.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.272}, "reply_to": "20144__0_030", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_032", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Let me ask you something about the Burnside action or actions like that.\nIf the employer... if there's a settlement with a third party, and the employer then sues the third party, does the employer have a cause of action on the grounds that the settlement was somehow inadequate, or is it it just seeks indemnity based on the fault of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [672.022, 676.765], "stop_times": [676.765, 697.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.022}, "reply_to": "20144__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__0_033", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Your Honor, I believe it would be strictly based on tort indemnity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [697.049], "stop_times": [699.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.049}, "reply_to": "20144__0_032", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_034", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--And that's a State law cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [699.59], "stop_times": [701.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.59}, "reply_to": "20144__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__0_035", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "It's a State law cause of action, Your Honor.\nIt's been recognized by the Federal courts in Burnside to be a tort indemnity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [701.531, 703.351], "stop_times": [703.351, 707.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.531}, "reply_to": "20144__0_034", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_036", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "In other words, the third party has no duty to make an adequate settlement, no duty that runs to the employer?\nIt's just a strict indemnity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [707.445, 713.499], "stop_times": [713.499, 716.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.445}, "reply_to": "20144__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__0_037", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct, as I understand it, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [716.891], "stop_times": [718.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.891}, "reply_to": "20144__0_036", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_038", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "There's no breech by entering into a settlement that deprives the employer of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [718.732], "stop_times": [723.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.732}, "reply_to": "20144__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__0_039", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I think that representing a third party asbestos manufacturer that settles out from under an employer without that employer's consent runs the risk of paying twice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [723.626], "stop_times": [733.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.626}, "reply_to": "20144__0_038", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_040", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Well, but if that's true, then the act does have a policing mechanism.\nIt's not without teeth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [733.02, 737.595], "stop_times": [737.595, 739.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.02}, "reply_to": "20144__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__0_041", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, but, Your Honor, I believe the policing mechanism would be the Burnside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [739.396], "stop_times": [743.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.396}, "reply_to": "20144__0_040", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_042", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "And the policing will be I guess the third party.\nThe third party would be well advised to seek approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [743.679, 745.329], "stop_times": [745.329, 748.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.679}, "reply_to": "20144__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__0_043", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--The third party and the worker would be well advised to seek approval.\nThat's correct, Your Honor.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [748.572, 752.776, 753.504], "stop_times": [752.776, 753.504, 754.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 748.572}, "reply_to": "20144__0_042", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_044", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mr. Salloum, I'll ask what may be an embarrassing question but it goes to the reason that I'm not following your argument.\nYou say that the... in effect, for purposes of the statute, the wife becomes entitled or the spouse becomes entitled at the same time as the injured party, and you say that's the moment of injury.\nI thought the distinction was that, in essence, the claim of the immediately injured party arises because the injury is physical, whereas the claim of the spouse arises later because the injury is economic and it does not occur until the support or the right to support is eliminated in this case by the death.\nAm I... do I misunderstand the nature of the spousal claim here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [754.445, 761.38, 774.688, 800.427], "stop_times": [761.38, 774.688, 800.427, 805.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.445}, "reply_to": "20144__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_045", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe you're absolutely right on the nature of the spousal claim, but I believe that you will see under the Longshore Act that a claim for disability by a worker is purely economic.\nHe can have an occupational disease that's progressive in nature and continue to work where that disease does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [805.659, 815.444], "stop_times": [815.444, 822.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.659}, "reply_to": "20144__0_044", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_046", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I see.\nSo, you're saying if one economic injury arises at the moment of physical injury, the other one does too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [822.51, 823.361], "stop_times": [823.361, 828.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.51}, "reply_to": "20144__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_047", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [828.193], "stop_times": [828.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.193}, "reply_to": "20144__0_046", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_048", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [828.824], "stop_times": [829.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.824}, "reply_to": "20144__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_049", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd the Ninth Circuit in Cretan found just that.\nThey recognized that the phrase, quote, person entitled to compensation, was not defined by Congress in the Longshore Act.\nThey recognized that person entitled to compensation was capable of several different interpretations, but the interpretation that the courts must give to the phrase is in the context of the reason that the statute is there in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [829.305, 830.046, 833.577, 841.981], "stop_times": [830.046, 833.577, 841.981, 854.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.305}, "reply_to": "20144__0_048", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_050", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "All right.\nWith that in mind, what if... taking the earlier example in which the spouse dies or is divorced before the injured party's date... the primary injured party's date of death, if the injured party marries again, does the new spouse have any claim following death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [854.61, 855.281], "stop_times": [855.281, 877.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.61}, "reply_to": "20144__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_051", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No, Your Honor, and that's a very important point.\nThat's why we say that the rights of both the worker and those claiming through the worker arises at the time of his injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [877.137, 879.728], "stop_times": [879.728, 887.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.137}, "reply_to": "20144__0_050", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_052", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "What's your authority for that answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [887.932], "stop_times": [890.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.932}, "reply_to": "20144__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_053", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "It's section... it's the dependency provision of the Longshore Act that says that it's only the dependents of the worker at the time of his injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [890.033], "stop_times": [897.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.033}, "reply_to": "20144__0_052", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_054", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "At the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [897.43], "stop_times": [897.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.43}, "reply_to": "20144__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_055", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--that are entitled to recover under the Longshore Act.\nAnd that's why the Longshore Act is all based on the... all rights of the injured worker and his family, as well as all liabilities of the employer, begin at the moment of the injury not when he's... the worker is adjudicated entitled to compensation and not when he dies before his wife.\nThe Longshore Act states that the worker's rights and his average weekly wage upon which his compensation is based occurs at the time of his injury.\nIt says that all questions of dependency, that is, those who are ultimately entitled to recover under the Longshore Act in the event the worker dies from an employment-related problem... those rights of dependencies are determined at the time of his injury not at the time of his death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [897.96, 899.98, 917.472, 926.728], "stop_times": [899.98, 917.472, 926.728, 943.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.96}, "reply_to": "20144__0_054", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_056", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But they have to be dependent at both times, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [943.128], "stop_times": [946.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.128}, "reply_to": "20144__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__0_057", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct.\nThey have to be primarily... well, solely.\nThe operative part is dependent at the time of his injury.\nIf he were to die and he had other dependents that were not dependents of his at the time of the injury... for example, if he divorced his existing wife at the time of the injury and then remarried immediately prior to his death, that wife, that surviving wife, would not be entitled to benefits under the Longshore Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [946.151, 947.913, 950.784, 954.017], "stop_times": [947.913, 950.784, 954.017, 972.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.151}, "reply_to": "20144__0_056", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_058", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Neither spouse would benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [972.477], "stop_times": [973.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.477}, "reply_to": "20144__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__0_059", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [973.007], "stop_times": [973.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.007}, "reply_to": "20144__0_058", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_060", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Now, is your answer or is the dispositive character of your answer affected by the fact that the claim against the third party is not or need not be purely economic?\nOr let me put it this way.\nThe claim... if the harbor worker brought a claim against the third party, it would not be limited to economic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [973.818, 987.898, 991.471], "stop_times": [987.898, 991.471, 999.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.818}, "reply_to": "20144__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_061", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [999.255], "stop_times": [1000.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.255}, "reply_to": "20144__0_060", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_062", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Whereas if the spouse later brings one, it would be limited to economic.\nAnd is the... does the statute... when the statute refers to entitlement, is it talking about entitlement as against the third party as opposed to entitlement as against the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1000.216, 1003.84], "stop_times": [1003.84, 1013.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.216}, "reply_to": "20144__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_063", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "You know, last night, Your Honor, I was thinking about that, and looking at the purpose for which that statute is there, that same thought occurred to me because Congress could well... Congress speaks in terms of 933(a) which says a person entitled to compensation need not elect his remedy.\nHe can sue both in tort and he can seek compensation benefits provided those benefits, those compensation benefits, are for more than what he's recovered under the third party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1013.383, 1030.436], "stop_times": [1030.436, 1045.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1013.383}, "reply_to": "20144__0_062", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_064", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But if the entitlement refers to, in effect, a general tort law entitlement, then your argument would fail, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1045.156], "stop_times": [1052.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.156}, "reply_to": "20144__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_065", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, no, Your Honor.\nI think, as I read the statute, as I understand the statute, the person entitled to compensation... the status of a person entitled to compensation under the Longshore Act would make that person responsible for meeting the employer approval requirements of section 933(g).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1052.88, 1054.691], "stop_times": [1054.691, 1078.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.88}, "reply_to": "20144__0_064", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_066", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, that's right, but if entitlement to compensation is really... or if the entitlement that the statute speaks of is making reference to the tort liability, then there would be no entitlement on the part of the spouse prior to the death of the harbor worker.\nAnd therefore, you would lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1078.337, 1092.517], "stop_times": [1092.517, 1097.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.337}, "reply_to": "20144__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__0_067", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, I'm really... I'm not sure I follow you, Your Honor.\nIt may be just because I've lost your question, but I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1097.139, 1100.892], "stop_times": [1100.892, 1104.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.139}, "reply_to": "20144__0_066", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_068", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, you said you were thinking the same thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1104.025], "stop_times": [1105.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.025}, "reply_to": "20144__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__0_069", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Well, I was thinking the same thing in the context that a person entitled to compensation... I think Congress was looking at it in the context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1105.303], "stop_times": [1111.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.303}, "reply_to": "20144__0_068", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_070", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--You don't mean... when you refer to the person entitled to compensation, you mean just compensation under the act, not compensation in a tort action.\nIsn't that what you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1111.418, 1120.434], "stop_times": [1120.434, 1122.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.418}, "reply_to": "20144__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__0_071", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Well, I mean the section 933(g) speaks in terms of a person entitled to compensation having to comply with the employer approval requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1122.207], "stop_times": [1131.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.207}, "reply_to": "20144__0_070", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_072", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I know, but what does a person entitled to compensation mean?\nDoes it mean a person entitled to compensation under the act, or does it mean a person entitled to compensation in a separate tort action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1131.831, 1133.523], "stop_times": [1133.523, 1139.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.831}, "reply_to": "20144__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__0_073", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "It means a person entitled to compensation under the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1139.478], "stop_times": [1141.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1139.478}, "reply_to": "20144__0_072", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_074", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I think that's clear, isn't it, from 933(a) which says... which distinguishes between compensation and damages?\nIt ends... is liable... he need not elect whether to receive such compensation or to recover damages against such persons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1141.669, 1151.806], "stop_times": [1151.806, 1158.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.669}, "reply_to": "20144__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__0_075", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "It is clear, Your Honor, and you're correct.\nAnd I believe that if the Court... the Court has to apply the same interpretation to a person entitled to compensation under 933(a), 933(g), and 933(f).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1158.369, 1160.211], "stop_times": [1160.211, 1171.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.369}, "reply_to": "20144__0_074", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_076", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Can I ask you a couple of technical, very general questions that are... probably have a clear answer?\nIs it... suppose you're a covered employer and I'm a covered employee and I'm exposed to a cancer-causing substance that might or might not cause cancer 10 years hence.\nNow, if I leave your employ later on and I do get the cancer, I'm covered.\nRight?\nFrom you, not from some other person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1171.748, 1177.522, 1190.369, 1196.263, 1196.904], "stop_times": [1177.522, 1190.369, 1196.263, 1196.904, 1198.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.748}, "reply_to": "20144__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__0_077", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIf it is shown--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1198.737, 1199.576], "stop_times": [1199.576, 1200.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.737}, "reply_to": "20144__0_076", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_078", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Thank you.\nMy second question is that in the language in question, I would have thought reading it naturally, though I don't... this I guess is decided... that it seems to apply to an employer who is paying out to an employee some money under this statute and they have 6 months, the employee, to go and sue, and then thereafter you have 90 days to bring your own lawsuit if I don't.\nAnd it says as to... and I'm trying to get an idea of the purpose of that under that incorrect interpretation.\nBut that being so, the purpose of... why do I have to go to the employer to get his approval because, after all, if I settle for $1, what difference does it make?\nYou, the employer, can go bring you own lawsuit against the third party and get all the money back that you had to pay me, can't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1200.557, 1201.368, 1226.252, 1231.646, 1241.493], "stop_times": [1201.368, 1226.252, 1231.646, 1241.493, 1247.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.557}, "reply_to": "20144__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__0_079", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1247.877], "stop_times": [1248.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.877}, "reply_to": "20144__0_078", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_080", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Or is that your answer to Justice O'Connor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1248.558], "stop_times": [1250.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.558}, "reply_to": "20144__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__0_081", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1250.05], "stop_times": [1250.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1250.05}, "reply_to": "20144__0_080", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_082", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Okay, I got that one.\nAll right.\nNow, then the next thing that... and I take it you're arguing this, that once we reject the interpretation of the natural reading of the words, that we're thinking of the pay-out case.\nThen I can't find any basis hypothetically... I'm not saying really... but I can't... what is the basis for distinguishing between everybody in the world who might be hurt working for you?\nThat is, why does a person... what's the... how would you interpret these words?\nOnce you say the person entitled to compensation is not the person who has passed the starting gate, i.e., the starting gate when you start to pay me, then is it your view that then covers anyone who ever will be, will be, or is now entitled to compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1250.58, 1250.93, 1252.032, 1261.138, 1276.307, 1281.831], "stop_times": [1250.93, 1252.032, 1261.138, 1276.307, 1281.831, 1296.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.58}, "reply_to": "20144__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__0_083", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1296.54], "stop_times": [1297.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.54}, "reply_to": "20144__0_082", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_084", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "And you're saying your view is there's no way of drawing a line short of that.\nThe dissent in Cowart, which was I take it the position I said wasn't the law, which I take it... is that right, the dissent in Cowart is focusing on those people who are the people you're actually beginning to pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1297.221, 1299.733], "stop_times": [1299.733, 1312.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.221}, "reply_to": "20144__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__0_085", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That was the dissent in Cowart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1312.131], "stop_times": [1314.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.131}, "reply_to": "20144__0_084", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_086", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1314.172], "stop_times": [1314.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.172}, "reply_to": "20144__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__0_087", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1314.592], "stop_times": [1315.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.592}, "reply_to": "20144__0_086", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_088", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "And once you're past that position, once you're saying that's no good anymore, then it must encompass anybody who's hurt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1315.343], "stop_times": [1319.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.343}, "reply_to": "20144__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__0_089", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "It must encompass--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1319.334], "stop_times": [1320.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.334}, "reply_to": "20144__0_088", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_090", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--working for you I mean, you know, who might eventually be entitled to compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1320.446], "stop_times": [1323.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.446}, "reply_to": "20144__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__0_091", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--If the purpose of section 33 is to be accepted by this Court, 33(g) would apply to every worker and those claiming through that worker who file a claim for compensation under the Longshore Act, if they settle for less than the compensation they're entitled third party without the consent of the employer, they come within the requirements and allegations of section 33(g).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1323.989], "stop_times": [1347.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.989}, "reply_to": "20144__0_090", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_092", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mr. Salloum, your petition for certiorari presented two questions, and the second of them was, does the Director of the Office of Workmen's Compensation Programs have standing to respond in the court of appeals in opposition to a private party?\nAre you going touch on that in your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1347.324, 1359.751], "stop_times": [1359.751, 1361.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.324}, "reply_to": "20144__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__0_093", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1361.583, 1362.662], "stop_times": [1362.662, 1363.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.583}, "reply_to": "20144__0_092", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_094", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Before you do, could I ask one other question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1363.013], "stop_times": [1364.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.013}, "reply_to": "20144__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_095", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1364.575], "stop_times": [1364.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1364.575}, "reply_to": "20144__0_094", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_096", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "In a pre... when the wife settles before the husband dies and asks for approval of the settlement, how does... how do you decide whether she must ask for approval?\nBecause it's only if the settlement is for less than the amount she's entitled to, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1364.896, 1378.093], "stop_times": [1378.093, 1381.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.896}, "reply_to": "20144__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_097", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1381.526], "stop_times": [1383.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1381.526}, "reply_to": "20144__0_096", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_098", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "How can you say that she's entitled to anything more than zero at that time when she asks for the settlement to be approved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1383.169], "stop_times": [1389.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.169}, "reply_to": "20144__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_099", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well... I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1389.59], "stop_times": [1391.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.59}, "reply_to": "20144__0_098", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_100", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I mean, how... what is the standard by which you know the duty to ask for approval of the settlement arises?\nIn other words, it's less than she's entitled to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1391.102, 1397.086], "stop_times": [1397.086, 1398.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.102}, "reply_to": "20144__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_101", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, if it... the effect would be the same if it's... I guess the criteria would be based upon her age, her husband's age, his average weekly wage, other factors that enter into the compensation liability for both the husband and the wife.\nWhen it's all said and done, when the injury to the worker occurs, that employer's compensation liability is fixed at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1398.696, 1412.607], "stop_times": [1412.607, 1421.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.696}, "reply_to": "20144__0_100", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_102", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Even to... even as to the wife.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1421.851], "stop_times": [1423.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.851}, "reply_to": "20144__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_103", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Even as to the wife.\nThat's correct.\nThe only difference is is that when the husband dies, the payments to him stop and the employer starts paying the wife.\nI mean, that's the only change that's occurred.\nThere's some difference in the amount that's paid, but the employer's obligations is fixed at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1423.213, 1424.435, 1425.023, 1433.41, 1435.882], "stop_times": [1424.435, 1425.023, 1433.41, 1435.882, 1440.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1423.213}, "reply_to": "20144__0_102", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_104", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But the difference is that the wife gets less than the husband?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1440.614], "stop_times": [1444.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.614}, "reply_to": "20144__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_105", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, depending on the number of children that there are.\nThat's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1444.076, 1446.348], "stop_times": [1446.348, 1447.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1444.076}, "reply_to": "20144__0_104", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_106", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "What if she's... it seems to me there are variables in there.\nWell, anyway, I don't want to prevent you from addressing the other issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1447.239, 1451.5], "stop_times": [1451.5, 1454.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.239}, "reply_to": "20144__0_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_107", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1454.114], "stop_times": [1454.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1454.114}, "reply_to": "20144__0_106", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_108", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But I'm very much puzzled by that, exactly what is the standard that determines her duty to seek approval of a settlement that arguably is less than she might become entitled to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1454.773], "stop_times": [1463.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.773}, "reply_to": "20144__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__0_109", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes.\nThere are different factors such as age, the compensation rate that's being paid, the number of children she has, that sort of thing.\nVery quickly... and I'd like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.\nVery quickly, the second issue upon which certiorari was granted.\nIt was our position, in follow-up to this Court's opinion in the Newport News case, is that the Director of Office of Workers' Compensation Programs has no standing to participate actively in this appeal.\nWe would submit that section 921(c) of the Longshore Act only vests into persons who are adversely affected or aggrieved by a decision the right to appeal a case to the United States courts of appeals.\nCongress has defined person in the Longshore Act as not to include the Director or the Secretary of Labor.\nThe Director and Secretary of Labor have no financial stake in this case.\nThere is no regulation of the Director... there's no function of the Director that's at issue in this case.\nIt's strictly a private dispute involving a private compensation claim between a worker and his family and the employer.\nIf there are no further questions at this time, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1463.79, 1464.21, 1469.642, 1472.715, 1475.887, 1488.956, 1500.714, 1506.547, 1511.04, 1515.634, 1522.717], "stop_times": [1464.21, 1469.642, 1472.715, 1475.887, 1488.956, 1500.714, 1506.547, 1511.04, 1515.634, 1522.717, 1528.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.79}, "reply_to": "20144__0_108", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__0_110", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Very well, Mr. Salloum.\nMs. Brinkmann, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1528.801, 1530.363], "stop_times": [1530.363, 1531.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1528.801}, "reply_to": "20144__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__1_000", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nTwo questions are before the Court in this case.\nWe believe that the first question concerning the correct interpretation of section 33(g) is answered by the text and this Court's interpretation of that text in the Estate of Cowart case.\nThe Court there held that under the plain language of section 33(g), the term person entitled to compensation means a person who satisfies the prerequisites attached to the right to Longshore Act compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1531.683, 1535.827, 1538.999, 1549.294], "stop_times": [1535.827, 1538.999, 1549.294, 1561.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1531.683}, "reply_to": "20144__0_110", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_001", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, just last week we had a case involving the word employee in which the Government was arguing that the word employee sometimes in the statute can mean current employees and sometimes can mean current or past employees.\nNow, why can't that principle be applied here, that in some provisions here, the person entitled to such compensation means the worker who was injured, but in other provisions where it makes eminent sense, it can mean him or a person who will later be entitled to compensation, not the person now, but the one who may later be entitled to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1561.763, 1582.406], "stop_times": [1582.406, 1604.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.763}, "reply_to": "20144__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__1_002", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we believe that in this particular case, when you look at the structure of 33(g), there are many reasons why this cannot be interpreted to someone who has a potential entitlement.\nFirst of all, there are many prerequisites that Mrs. Yates would have to meet in order to become eligible.\nAnd I think this is what Justice Stevens was getting at.\nThis is one of the reasons that a person who's actually entitled to compensation is in a very different situation than Mrs. Yates for example.\nIn order to determine whether or not she would be entitled, not only would her husband have to die, she would have to outlive him, they would still have to be married at that time, and his death would have to be caused by the work-related injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1604.512, 1615.648, 1622.523, 1625.065, 1632.05], "stop_times": [1615.648, 1622.523, 1625.065, 1632.05, 1643.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1604.512}, "reply_to": "20144__1_001", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_003", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "And will the timing of his death affect the amount of her entitlement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1643.926], "stop_times": [1647.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.926}, "reply_to": "20144__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__1_004", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1647.088, 1648.09], "stop_times": [1648.09, 1648.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.088}, "reply_to": "20144__1_003", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_005", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Which is what I think Justice Stevens was getting at.\nHow could we figure it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1648.44, 1650.47], "stop_times": [1650.47, 1651.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.44}, "reply_to": "20144__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20144__1_006", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Exactly.\nIn fact, when you project out a... what a person entitled to... what a person would be entitled to under the act, you can project out on an actuarial table the life expectancy of the worker, but for someone not yet entitled, you would also have to find some way to project the likelihood of the employee's death resulting from the work-related injury, the likelihood--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1651.461, 1652.393], "stop_times": [1652.393, 1674.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.461}, "reply_to": "20144__1_005", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_007", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, if we said, or may be entitled to compensation, she would fit in that category.\nIf we... if the words meant person now or in the future, that would be a finite group because, as just was brought out in the colloquy, you must be a dependent at the time of the death, otherwise you're out.\nSo, everyone who's a dependent at the time of death is one who may be entitled.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1674.477, 1680.611, 1697.39, 1704.136], "stop_times": [1680.611, 1697.39, 1704.136, 1705.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1674.477}, "reply_to": "20144__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__1_008", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Actually, the widow... the wife does not have to be dependent in fact if she's married and living with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1705.097], "stop_times": [1711.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.097}, "reply_to": "20144__1_007", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_009", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, but she does have to be the wife at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1711.182], "stop_times": [1713.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.182}, "reply_to": "20144__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__1_010", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1713.763], "stop_times": [1714.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.763}, "reply_to": "20144__1_009", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_011", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "So, we know all... the entire universe of people who may be entitled we know at the time of injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1714.474], "stop_times": [1720.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.474}, "reply_to": "20144__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__1_012", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI'd have to say no, and I really want to correct I think a premise that was underlined in the earlier argument.\nThe worker's right to entitlement is based on disability, not injury.\nSo, at the time of the injury, that is not a person entitled to compensation.\nIt's only when that injury becomes disabling, it affects the worker's urge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1720.479, 1721.767, 1727.342, 1733.675, 1737.918], "stop_times": [1721.767, 1727.342, 1733.675, 1737.918, 1742.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.479}, "reply_to": "20144__1_011", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_013", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Wage earning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1742.082], "stop_times": [1743.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.082}, "reply_to": "20144__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__1_014", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--wage earning... thank you... capacity does that person become entitled to compensation.\nSo, under that interpretation, any employee that was ever injured might be entitled to compensation if they're eventually disabled by that.\nI think that there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1743.822, 1748.447, 1756.311], "stop_times": [1748.447, 1756.311, 1759.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.822}, "reply_to": "20144__1_013", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_015", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I was just making the point that we're talking about derivative liability and all the people who are derivative of the worker are known.\nSo, we're not dealing with the question of, well, you really can't tell until death who those dependents might be or who the spouse might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1759.002, 1767.409], "stop_times": [1767.409, 1776.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.002}, "reply_to": "20144__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__1_016", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--At the time of death, you would be able to tell whether or not she was the spouse at the time of death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1776.614], "stop_times": [1782.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.614}, "reply_to": "20144__1_015", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_017", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "And the children presumably are not beneficiaries if they have reached majority at the time of death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1782.868], "stop_times": [1789.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.868}, "reply_to": "20144__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__1_018", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1789.393], "stop_times": [1790.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.393}, "reply_to": "20144__1_017", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_019", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "So, you wouldn't know at the time of exposure to asbestos whether the children would ever be eligible.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1790.364, 1798.72], "stop_times": [1798.72, 1799.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.364}, "reply_to": "20144__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__1_020", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I believe that's right, Your Honor.\nAlso--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1799.681, 1800.9], "stop_times": [1800.9, 1801.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1799.681}, "reply_to": "20144__1_019", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_021", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Excuse me.\nHad you finished your answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1801.881, 1802.372], "stop_times": [1802.372, 1803.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.881}, "reply_to": "20144__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__1_022", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1803.44], "stop_times": [1803.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1803.44}, "reply_to": "20144__1_021", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_023", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "May I?\nWhat about the case in which the worker becomes entitled to compensation either because it's clear the injury is disabling or you fix the point of disability and he marries someone later?\nDoes that later-acquired wife possibly get widow's benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1803.971, 1804.362, 1813.158], "stop_times": [1804.362, 1813.158, 1817.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.971}, "reply_to": "20144__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__1_024", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, I believe so if that is the fact at the time of death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1817.78], "stop_times": [1820.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1817.78}, "reply_to": "20144__1_023", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_025", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But then you wouldn't know... you wouldn't be able to identify the universe of people later entitled to compensation even at the time of injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1820.204], "stop_times": [1825.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.204}, "reply_to": "20144__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__1_026", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct.\nThere are actually myriad examples, adopted children, children that are in utero.\nThere are a multitude, and that's why the words person entitled to compensation have a fixed meaning we believe.\nAnd we believe it would be... we have every reason to believe that Congress would have wanted to distinguish people who were actually entitled to compensation from those who were not for two... at least three reasons.\nOne is because of the calculus of the comparison of the amount of entitlement to the settlement.\nIt's just an incredibly complex and very speculative determination.\nBut in addition, the person settling the case is in a different position.\nIf the person is entitled to compensation, they have an option and a right to file a claim for disability benefits under the act, and what section 933 addresses is a person who, on account of a disability or death, has a right to payment of some compensation under the act.\nAnd it addressed whether or not that person had to choose between the options.\nThis person at the time of the settlement, Mrs. Yates, had no right to file a claim and indeed may never have one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1825.537, 1826.148, 1829.798, 1836.243, 1848.35, 1853.283, 1857.117, 1860.839, 1876.709, 1880.012], "stop_times": [1826.148, 1829.798, 1836.243, 1848.35, 1853.283, 1857.117, 1860.839, 1876.709, 1880.012, 1886.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.537}, "reply_to": "20144__1_025", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_027", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Why is it that she could?\nIf... suppose 33(f) and (g) don't apply because she's not a person entitled to compensation.\nThen how does she get any money?\nShe just gets it directly under 7, 8, and 9... 907, 8, and 9, the basic requirement?\nIs that how she gets it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1886.024, 1887.967, 1894.75, 1896.653, 1902.177], "stop_times": [1887.967, 1894.75, 1896.653, 1902.177, 1903.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.024}, "reply_to": "20144__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__1_028", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, under that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1903.436], "stop_times": [1904.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.436}, "reply_to": "20144__1_027", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_029", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Why is she entitled to that, whereas the worker who... let's say the ordinary case.\nThe worker is hurt.\nHe's paid out his paycheck.\nWithin 6 months, he wants to file a lawsuit.\nThe classic, ordinary case.\nHe goes to the employer.\nThe employer says I'm not going to approve this settlement.\nWhy is that worker not entitled to the basic compensation?\nThe statute says if the worker won't approve the settlement under (g), that he's not entitled to the (f) compensation.\nIt doesn't say a word about the basic compensation.\nSo, that's what I... do you see... I'm having trouble understanding if we hold with you on this, are we certain these people are going to be compensated at all?\nAnd if they're compensated, why isn't the ordinary person compensated when the employer refuses to approve the settlement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1904.708, 1911.824, 1912.913, 1914.305, 1916.977, 1918.968, 1920.62, 1923.291, 1927.442, 1935.218, 1938.491, 1947.007], "stop_times": [1911.824, 1912.913, 1914.305, 1916.977, 1918.968, 1920.62, 1923.291, 1927.442, 1935.218, 1938.491, 1947.007, 1954.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.708}, "reply_to": "20144__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__1_030", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Your Honor, I think if I'm understanding you correctly, my answer is that the person entitled to compensation does recover.\nEither they settle and get the settlement amount or they don't settle and they have their entitlement to rights under the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1954.912, 1961.095], "stop_times": [1961.095, 1967.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.912}, "reply_to": "20144__1_029", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_031", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "So, everyone whom... if an employer refuses to sign, the employer has to pay the full amount of compensation anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1967.329], "stop_times": [1977.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.329}, "reply_to": "20144__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__1_032", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, they have to pay the compensation that the person is entitled to under the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1977.525], "stop_times": [1981.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.525}, "reply_to": "20144__1_031", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_033", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Anyway, and that's with an ordinary worker who is hurt and they're paying out paychecks... paying out compensation checks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1981.197], "stop_times": [1986.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.197}, "reply_to": "20144__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__1_034", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Based on disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1986.791], "stop_times": [1987.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.791}, "reply_to": "20144__1_033", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_035", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Based on disability.\nThey have to... either they sign and they get the reduction of 933, or they don't sign and they have to pay the full thing.\nThat's the employer's choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1987.572, 1988.884, 1996.038], "stop_times": [1988.884, 1996.038, 1997.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.572}, "reply_to": "20144__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__1_036", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "There are many other choices, as people have already mentioned.\nThere's, of course, the Burnside action that the employer can recover from a third party also.\nAnd I think it's important, Your Honor brings up the other point that I wanted to make about why it would be reasonable for Congress to have differentiated between these two situations.\nIn the situation where the person is entitled compensation and pursues an action against the third party, the employer has a subrogation lien that this Court has recognized under Bloomer and other cases, and that then makes sense for that employer to have notice to be able to intervene in that action, to be able to have some input because they have a vested liability and a vested right to recoup.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [1997.33, 2001.692, 2005.734, 2014.78], "stop_times": [2001.692, 2005.734, 2014.78, 2037.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1997.33}, "reply_to": "20144__1_035", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_037", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Can I ask you one final question and that is this.\nGiven your answers to what I've asked, then what harm is done if you in fact interpret the statute the way your opponents want if you say it applies to everybody once they're hurt and could become entitled to compensation?\nBecause then those people, whenever they sue, go and try to enter into a settlement.\nIf the employer approves the settlement, the woman or man is fine.\nIf the employer doesn't approve the settlement, the woman or man eventually will get their full compensation when the disability turns up and hurts them.\nSo, what harm is done?\nAnd the good would be it makes sense administratively, you know, and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2037.475, 2039.486, 2054.495, 2059.748, 2064.723, 2074.199, 2075.989], "stop_times": [2039.486, 2054.495, 2059.748, 2064.723, 2074.199, 2075.989, 2080.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.475}, "reply_to": "20144__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__1_038", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mrs. Yates may never have gotten benefits.\nShe may have been trying to enter into a settlement at a particular time before.\nFor example, an employer was insolvent.\nOr she may have been trying to enter into a settlement for loss of consortium at a wrong... potential wrongful death action which she then is not entitled to any compensation because she divorces her husband or she predeceases her husband.\nBut she doesn't have that option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2080.752, 2083.293, 2086.636, 2088.639, 2100.647], "stop_times": [2083.293, 2086.636, 2088.639, 2100.647, 2102.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.752}, "reply_to": "20144__1_037", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_039", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "What harm is done?\nI... what harm is done?\nThat's what I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2102.306, 2102.927, 2104.949], "stop_times": [2102.927, 2104.949, 2106.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.306}, "reply_to": "20144__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__1_040", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "She--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2106.181], "stop_times": [2106.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.181}, "reply_to": "20144__1_039", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_041", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "The only harm I can see that's being done is that you're requiring her to go to the employer whereas in some situations that will be a vain act because she won't end up being the widow.\nBut apart from that, how is she prejudiced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2106.912, 2116.826], "stop_times": [2116.826, 2120.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.912}, "reply_to": "20144__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__1_042", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--It's part of the problem I think, Your Honor, with what Congress looked at when they eventually decided to not require workers to elect remedies anymore.\nShe's put in a situation of either taking a settlement that will forever preclude her from future potential compensation which she doesn't know if she's entitled to yet or being left... and being left empty-handed.\nBut she's being forced into a choice at the time of the settlement that she can't make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2120.95, 2129.304, 2143.774], "stop_times": [2129.304, 2143.774, 2149.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.95}, "reply_to": "20144__1_041", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_043", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Then I didn't understand your answer to my question.\nI don't understand.\nIf she goes and tries to get the settlement, like any other worker, if the employer approves it, she gets the settlement.\nNo problem.\nSuppose the employer disapproves it.\nAt that point I thought you said that he or she or anyone would be entitled to ordinary compensation under 906, 7, 8, and 9, the rest of the act.\nIs that not so or is it so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2149.558, 2151.849, 2152.771, 2159.655, 2160.605, 2163.096, 2173.914], "stop_times": [2151.849, 2152.771, 2159.655, 2160.605, 2163.096, 2173.914, 2175.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.558}, "reply_to": "20144__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__1_044", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "A person who's entitled to compensation would be because they have an entitlement, but if she is not yet entitled, she cannot go and file a claim, no.\nShe only becomes entitled to compensation after her husband dies, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2175.243, 2182.379], "stop_times": [2182.379, 2186.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.243}, "reply_to": "20144__1_043", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_045", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "You know, that position is inconsistent, is it not, with the rule that was promulgated after the '84 amendments?\nDidn't the Director take the position at that time that coverage of a death claim does not turn on when death is sustained?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2186.753, 2194.938], "stop_times": [2194.938, 2203.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.753}, "reply_to": "20144__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__1_046", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWe addressed that point I believe and it was raised in amicus briefs and in our brief.\nWhat the Director said was interpreting which employer would be liable for the compensation benefits, and under that it's the employer who was the employer at the time of the death or the injury.\nBut that doesn't mean that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2203.304, 2205.154, 2210.366, 2224.986], "stop_times": [2205.154, 2210.366, 2224.986, 2226.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.304}, "reply_to": "20144__1_045", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_047", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "At the time of the injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2226.278], "stop_times": [2227.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.278}, "reply_to": "20144__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__1_048", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--That doesn't mean that the person... Mrs. Yates' entitlement to compensation vested at that time.\nThere was all the other prerequisites that would have to occur before she could become entitled to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2227.78, 2232.342], "stop_times": [2232.342, 2236.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.78}, "reply_to": "20144__1_047", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_049", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Is it clear that if we rule, as you suggest, and the wife in this case is not a person entitled to compensation at the time she makes the settlement... is it true that when she does become a person entitled to compensation and brings a suit against the employer, that the employer cannot offset under 33(f)?\nWe don't have to decide that here, but it seems to me that that's at least an open question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2236.646, 2264.122], "stop_times": [2264.122, 2267.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.646}, "reply_to": "20144__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__1_050", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "You don't have to decide that, Your Honor, and we do think that that's an open question.\nI should say that once Mrs. Yates became entitled to compensation after her husband's death, she did obtain prior written approval from the employer for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2267.956, 2271.609], "stop_times": [2271.609, 2280.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.956}, "reply_to": "20144__1_049", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_051", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But I was talking about offset for the previous--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2280.865], "stop_times": [2282.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.865}, "reply_to": "20144__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20144__1_052", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Yes.\nThat's not before the Court in this case.\nPetitioners do not seek an offset in this case, and it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2282.745, 2283.586, 2285.748], "stop_times": [2283.586, 2285.748, 2288.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2282.745}, "reply_to": "20144__1_051", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_053", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--But you did take a position in your brief on it.\nYou said that they should... the words should be interpreted the same way in both sections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2288.539, 2290.269], "stop_times": [2290.269, 2294.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.539}, "reply_to": "20144__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__1_054", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, we did.\nWe think in light of the Court's holding in Cowart, that that is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2294.082, 2295.113], "stop_times": [2295.113, 2298.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.082}, "reply_to": "20144__1_053", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_055", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Let me ask you a very simpleminded question.\nIt was one that was brought up in the brief on the other side, and that is, if you try to envision what Congress was doing here, why would Congress want to say to the widow or the potential widow who settles shortly before the death, you can, in effect, recover twice, but to the one who settles after the husband dies, you can recover only once?\nWhat rationality is there to such a scheme?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2298.804, 2301.268, 2324.152], "stop_times": [2301.268, 2324.152, 2327.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.804}, "reply_to": "20144__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__1_056", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I think that it would be reasonable for Congress to have distinguished between someone who already has a vested right to compensation, a known alternative remedy, vis-a-vis a person who only has a potential, perhaps entitlement at a later point in time.\nAnd weighing that against an employer in the first situation which also has a vested liability and a vested lien and entitlement to recoup, giving that employer a right to prevent a settlement or to participate in that settlement, as opposed to in the latter situation where the employer has no liability nor lien at that point in time.\nAnd we also think again because of the very different nature of the determinations of what compensation the person would be entitled to under the act, in the one instance, when the person is entitled, it's a reasonably, generally knowable calculation that may involve actuarial tables, but in the other situation, it involves much more than actuarial tables, a lot of eventualities about outliving another person that... expectancy of the duration of a marriage.\nIf I could, Your Honor, I'd like to turn to the second question presented, whether or not the Director is entitled to participate as a party respondent in a court of appeals.\nWe believe that the Director is entitled to participate under rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which states that in each case the agency must be named respondent.\nThe Secretary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2327.054, 2339.272, 2359.085, 2382.15, 2390.985, 2402.102], "stop_times": [2339.272, 2359.085, 2382.15, 2390.985, 2402.102, 2403.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.054}, "reply_to": "20144__1_055", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_057", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's simply a procedural rule, isn't it, almost a pro forma type of rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2403.574], "stop_times": [2407.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.574}, "reply_to": "20144__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__1_058", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nI think that would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2407.798, 2409.518], "stop_times": [2409.518, 2410.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.798}, "reply_to": "20144__1_057", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_059", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Why would that control the outcome of something like this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2410.64], "stop_times": [2412.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.64}, "reply_to": "20144__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__1_060", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15 addresses specifically the situation where courts of appeals are reviewing agency actions, and that rule envisioned that someone from that agency would be in the court of appeals as a party respondent.\nIt's different than Article III standing, Your Honor.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2412.88, 2424.928, 2427.529], "stop_times": [2424.928, 2427.529, 2428.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2412.88}, "reply_to": "20144__1_059", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_061", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, do you think that, say, the rules... a rule could confer standing on a respondent party such as the Director here even though Congress had not... had indicated not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2428.371], "stop_times": [2439.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.371}, "reply_to": "20144__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__1_062", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--It's not standing, Your Honor.\nI think it's just like a rule about intervention.\nThere are rules for parties to intervene and the Federal rules permit that.\nThat's to bring someone who isn't a party.\nBut that's not giving somebody a right to petition or Article III standing to seek judicial review.\nThat's a very different scenario.\nI would also point out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2439.978, 2440.928, 2442.64, 2446.871, 2448.033, 2451.917, 2453.716], "stop_times": [2440.928, 2442.64, 2446.871, 2448.033, 2451.917, 2453.716, 2455.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.978}, "reply_to": "20144__1_061", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_063", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Excuse me.\nYou can intervene when you don't have standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2455.897, 2457.379], "stop_times": [2457.379, 2460.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.897}, "reply_to": "20144__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__1_064", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Under... in the district court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, there are different provisions... situations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2460.051], "stop_times": [2467.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.051}, "reply_to": "20144__1_063", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_065", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Surely you can't intervene in a suit unless you have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2467.815], "stop_times": [2469.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.815}, "reply_to": "20144__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__1_066", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--I guess it depends on how you describe standing, Your Honor.\nI think in the sense of Article III standing that you're bringing a case to the court where there's a case of controversy, I don't think that's required for intervention.\nA intervenor has to show an interest in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2469.438, 2473.989, 2482.585], "stop_times": [2473.989, 2482.585, 2486.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2469.438}, "reply_to": "20144__1_065", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_067", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "You don't think Article III standing is required for... on the part of the intervenor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2486.057], "stop_times": [2489.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.057}, "reply_to": "20144__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__1_068", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--I think under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it depends.\nThere's varying levels of interest and it may be that one person is entitled to intervene as of a right because there's a particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2489.581, 2492.742], "stop_times": [2492.742, 2499.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.581}, "reply_to": "20144__1_067", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_069", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, surely the Rules of Civil Procedure can't confer standing in the face of the Article III requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2499.127], "stop_times": [2504.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.127}, "reply_to": "20144__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__1_070", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--We agree with that, Your Honor.\nThat's correct.\nBut we think here the idea of having the Federal agency before the court of appeals when an agency action is being reviewed makes eminent sense.\nAnd in the Court's opinion in Caputto, it talked about when it did not reach expressly this issue... it talked about the lower court opinion in that case.\nAnd Judge Friendly's opinion there had pointed out that it would be a novel form of review of an agency action which did not include the Government as a party in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2504.71, 2506.571, 2507.342, 2515.878, 2524.193], "stop_times": [2506.571, 2507.342, 2515.878, 2524.193, 2533.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.71}, "reply_to": "20144__1_069", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_071", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Well, what about the Newport News case?\nIt surely points in the other direction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2533.689, 2536.651], "stop_times": [2536.651, 2539.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.689}, "reply_to": "20144__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__1_072", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Newport News addressed the question of whether or not within the statutory definition of a person adversely affected or aggrieved.\nThe Director in that particular case came within that.\nI think that all the parties in that case agreed, in fact, and the Court reserved the question.\nEven under that definition, the Director could well have Article III standing to petition for review under some situations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2539.652, 2547.347, 2550.019, 2555.194], "stop_times": [2547.347, 2550.019, 2555.194, 2562.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.652}, "reply_to": "20144__1_071", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_073", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Is the Tax Court... when we get cases that originated in the Tax Court, is the Tax Court a party before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2562.297], "stop_times": [2568.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.297}, "reply_to": "20144__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20144__1_074", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2568.531], "stop_times": [2569.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2568.531}, "reply_to": "20144__1_073", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_075", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I mean, surely it's different when the agency is set up as an adjudicator.\nI mean, if you have a legislative court, an Article I court, is that court a party to any proceeding of the private parties who then come before us to challenge what that Article I court did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2569.723, 2572.906], "stop_times": [2572.906, 2585.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.723}, "reply_to": "20144__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__1_076", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Your Honor, we believe that the board, for example, would not be an appropriate party for that very reason.\nThe board does not have a vested right to defend it.\nThe situation here in that the Department of Labor is very unusual.\nIt is not a unitary scheme as is the normal scheme under most agencies where rulemaking, adjudication, and policymaking are all in the same entity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2585.531, 2590.587, 2592.808, 2597.33], "stop_times": [2590.587, 2592.808, 2597.33, 2606.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.531}, "reply_to": "20144__1_075", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_077", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But it is the decree of the board... of... it is not the decree of the Labor Department, is it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2606.145], "stop_times": [2611.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.145}, "reply_to": "20144__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__1_078", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2611.071], "stop_times": [2611.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.071}, "reply_to": "20144__1_077", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_079", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--that entitles this person to compensation?\nIt's the decree of essentially an Article I court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2611.979, 2614.373], "stop_times": [2614.373, 2616.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.979}, "reply_to": "20144__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__1_080", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Under section 921(c), Your Honor, the Longshore Act itself makes clear that the court of appeals under that provision, once the Benefits Review Board opinion is petitioned to the court of appeals, the court of appeals has the authority and power to modify, reverse, to act on that board's opinion.\nWe think that's why it supports our view that it's not the board but the Director that is named the agency under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15.\nPrior to the change in '72 where the structure of the appellate review changed, it used to be into the district court, and then the Director could of course participate.\nIn '72 when it changed, it no longer identified who should be the respondent.\nIt identified a court.\nSeveral courts have pointed out that they believe in light of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure enactment, it was no longer necessary to identify the respondent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2616.112, 2633.854, 2641.11, 2649.325, 2653.449, 2654.917], "stop_times": [2633.854, 2641.11, 2649.325, 2653.449, 2654.917, 2661.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.112}, "reply_to": "20144__1_079", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20144__1_081", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Brinkmann.\nMr. Clark, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2661.513, 2662.995], "stop_times": [2662.995, 2665.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.513}, "reply_to": "20144__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__2_000", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI am asking the Court to follow Cowart, a decision decided 4 short years ago, which we submit teaches us three things.\nOne, in the words of Cowart, there's a basic and unexceptional rule that when a statute speaks clearly to a subject, judicial inquiry is no longer warranted, and that statute, section 33--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2665.506, 2678.266, 2688.574], "stop_times": [2678.266, 2688.574, 2703.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2665.506}, "reply_to": "20144__1_081", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_001", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "But judicial inquiry is warranted as to what the statute says I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2703.964], "stop_times": [2707.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.964}, "reply_to": "20144__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__2_002", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Yes, sir, but interpretation beyond the clear meaning of the statute is what I'm referring to.\nCowart teaches us two other things, and it's right there on page 2594 of the Supreme Court Reporter and page 2595.\nCowart teaches us that a... the person entitled to compensation status must be measured at the time of the third party settlements, and in this case we're talking about settlements made before Mrs. Yates became a widow, at the time she had no right to invoke the administrative machinery of the Longshore Act to file a Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation claim for death benefits.\nCowart teaches us a third thing, and it says this on page 2595.\nIt says that person entitled to the compensation means this, that the person satisfies the prerequisites for the right.\nThere are a couple of misstatements that I believe are just simply wrong that have made--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2707.587, 2712.991, 2721.666, 2751.826, 2756.848, 2765.534], "stop_times": [2712.991, 2721.666, 2751.826, 2756.848, 2765.534, 2770.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.587}, "reply_to": "20144__2_001", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_003", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mr. Wynn... Mr. Clark, one thing I think perhaps you can teach us, although if you think it's not relevant, let us know.\nWhy wasn't approval sought?\nWe had one person who was clearly a person entitled to compensation.\nThe settlement wasn't approved for the worker or for his potential widow.\nWhy not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2770.427, 2779.422, 2782.374, 2788.398, 2795.024], "stop_times": [2779.422, 2782.374, 2788.398, 2795.024, 2796.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.427}, "reply_to": "20144__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__2_004", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--With respect to the pre-death settlements, all parties were then operating under the Dorsey and O'Leary cases out of the Benefits Review Board, and they're cited in Cowart.\nAnd those cases said, which is something that Cowart made short work of, was that you have to be receiving compensation at the time in order to be a person entitled to compensation.\nThat's why there was no problem at that time.\nI might add too--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2796.684, 2807.022, 2819.2, 2823.401], "stop_times": [2807.022, 2819.2, 2823.401, 2824.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.684}, "reply_to": "20144__2_003", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_005", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "All of these settlements were... I thought... then I'm confused.\nI thought one of the other counsels said that some of these settlements were made after the worker was... yes, I think that... was it... Mr. Salloum said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2824.483, 2827.725], "stop_times": [2827.725, 2841.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.483}, "reply_to": "20144__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__2_006", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Yes, but they're still under the category of pre-death settlements, settlements made during the lifetime of Mr. Cowart, the traumatically injured worker... excuse me... occupationally injured worker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2841.454], "stop_times": [2850.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.454}, "reply_to": "20144__2_005", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_007", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, but there were... none of the settlements were approved although--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2850.769], "stop_times": [2855.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.769}, "reply_to": "20144__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__2_008", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "None of the pre-death settlements were approved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2855.743], "stop_times": [2857.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2855.743}, "reply_to": "20144__2_007", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_009", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Yes, although some of those settlements postdated the time when the worker himself began to receive benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2857.755], "stop_times": [2865.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.755}, "reply_to": "20144__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__2_010", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2865.278], "stop_times": [2865.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2865.278}, "reply_to": "20144__2_009", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_011", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "And no approval was sought for those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2865.929], "stop_times": [2867.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.929}, "reply_to": "20144__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__2_012", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No approval was sought, and may I add that no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2867.97], "stop_times": [2870.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.97}, "reply_to": "20144__2_011", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_013", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2870.502], "stop_times": [2871.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.502}, "reply_to": "20144__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__2_014", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--No approval was required, and it's right there in the petitioners' appendix to the petition for certiorari, pages 49 and 48 and 62 and 63, is because 33(g)(1) only applies when the, quote, person entitled to compensation, end of quote, settles for an amount less than the compensation to which he was entitled.\nThere was a section 8(i) settlement in May, May 5, 1983, which determined that the petitioner Ingalls paid Mr. Cowart... excuse me... Mr. Yates $15,000 and kept his medical benefits open.\nAt that point he knew... every... all the parties knew... what he was entitled to under the act.\nThe third party settlements... and we're talking about the pre-death settlements... netted $18,000 plus, and correctly the Benefits Review Board in the... at the pages I cite in the appendix noted that approval wasn't even required from Mr. Yates, much less Mrs. Yates who could never have invoked the administrative machinery of the act during the lifetime of her husband on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2871.093, 2892.818, 2908.628, 2915.842], "stop_times": [2892.818, 2908.628, 2915.842, 2940.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2871.093}, "reply_to": "20144__2_013", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_015", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "You have to make that evaluation at the time that the settlement is entered into.\nRight?\nAnd if it turns out that actuarially you were wrong and that in fact the worker gets more... was entitled to more from the employer, it's too bad.\nYou just look to the time of the settlement to determine that issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2940.87, 2945.552, 2946.012, 2957.52], "stop_times": [2945.552, 2946.012, 2957.52, 2961.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.87}, "reply_to": "20144__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__2_016", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Justice Scalia, you look at the time of the settlement under Cowart to determine person entitled to compensation status.\nTo determine actuarial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2961.463, 2967.317], "stop_times": [2967.317, 2968.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2961.463}, "reply_to": "20144__2_015", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_017", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2968.857], "stop_times": [2969.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2968.857}, "reply_to": "20144__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__2_018", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--To determine actuarial for the claim that Mrs. Yates is advancing, which is a mix and match approach for the petitioners, you do it after the husband has died and she at that time files a claim for compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2969.398], "stop_times": [2982.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.398}, "reply_to": "20144__2_017", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_019", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I hope we're talking about the same thing.\nI want to know what time you look to for purposes of determining whether the settlement is indeed less than what the person would be entitled to under this chapter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2982.545, 2984.078], "stop_times": [2984.078, 2992.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.545}, "reply_to": "20144__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__2_020", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "You look at it when the person entitled to compensation makes a third party settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2992.572], "stop_times": [2997.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.572}, "reply_to": "20144__2_019", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_021", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "At the time of the settlement.\nSo, you have to do actuarial calculations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [2997.174, 2998.225], "stop_times": [2998.225, 3000.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.174}, "reply_to": "20144__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__2_022", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Correct, yes, sir.\nYou have to be a person entitled to compensation first.\nThen there's the third party settlement, and then you look actuarial.\nAnd in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3000.208, 3000.617, 3003.519, 3006.921], "stop_times": [3000.617, 3003.519, 3006.921, 3008.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.208}, "reply_to": "20144__2_021", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_023", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "What happens if your actuarial calculations are wrong and the employer is in fact liable for more than what the settlement was?\nDoes he end up coughing it up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3008.043, 3017.069], "stop_times": [3017.069, 3018.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.043}, "reply_to": "20144__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__2_024", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Well, he... both the party... the actuarial determination would have to be made by the administrative judge in the formal hearing and if either party... yes, they can appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3018.569], "stop_times": [3028.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3018.569}, "reply_to": "20144__2_023", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_025", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No, no.\nBut it turns... in the event it is wrong, he lives longer and therefore is entitled to more money than we had guessed at the time of the settlement, what happens?\nThe employer has to pay that additional amount.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3028.495, 3029.156, 3041.613, 3043.616], "stop_times": [3029.156, 3041.613, 3043.616, 3044.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.495}, "reply_to": "20144__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__2_026", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3044.345], "stop_times": [3044.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.345}, "reply_to": "20144__2_025", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_027", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "The risk is on the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3044.625], "stop_times": [3045.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.625}, "reply_to": "20144__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__2_028", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3045.707], "stop_times": [3046.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.707}, "reply_to": "20144__2_027", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_029", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Why... if there had never been a settlement, she was... would have been entitled to compensation under some provision of the act other than 933(f).\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3046.177, 3053.752], "stop_times": [3053.752, 3054.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.177}, "reply_to": "20144__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_030", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "I don't I think I follow your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3054.042], "stop_times": [3056.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.042}, "reply_to": "20144__2_029", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_031", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "If there had never been any settlement at all, there never was a settlement offer, your client would have been entitled to compensation under the act, but not 933, some other provisions of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3056.165], "stop_times": [3064.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.165}, "reply_to": "20144__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_032", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "My client would have been entitled to compensation under section 9 of the Longshore Act for death benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3064.3], "stop_times": [3071.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.3}, "reply_to": "20144__2_031", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_033", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, but not 933(f), some other thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3071.212], "stop_times": [3073.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.212}, "reply_to": "20144__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_034", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Of course, not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3073.706], "stop_times": [3074.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3073.706}, "reply_to": "20144__2_033", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_035", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, of course, not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3074.154], "stop_times": [3074.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.154}, "reply_to": "20144__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_036", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3074.936], "stop_times": [3075.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3074.936}, "reply_to": "20144__2_035", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_037", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Now, if there is a settlement and it requires approval--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3075.376], "stop_times": [3077.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.376}, "reply_to": "20144__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_038", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3077.567], "stop_times": [3078.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.567}, "reply_to": "20144__2_037", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_039", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--and she didn't get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3078.439], "stop_times": [3079.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.439}, "reply_to": "20144__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_040", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "It requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3079.4], "stop_times": [3080.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.4}, "reply_to": "20144__2_039", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_041", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Suppose it did.\nSuppose you lost on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3080.118, 3081.04], "stop_times": [3081.04, 3082.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.118}, "reply_to": "20144__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_042", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--May I be precise?\nIt requires approval if settlement is less for the compensation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3082.211, 3083.321], "stop_times": [3083.321, 3087.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3082.211}, "reply_to": "20144__2_041", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_043", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3087.134], "stop_times": [3087.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.134}, "reply_to": "20144__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_044", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--for which she--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3087.825], "stop_times": [3088.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.825}, "reply_to": "20144__2_043", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_045", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Suppose that applied and she didn't get it.\nWhy isn't she still entitled to compensation under those same other provisions since (g) only blocks compensation under (f)?\n(g) only applies to not getting compensation under (f).\nIt doesn't apply to not getting compensation at all.\nSo, why isn't she still entitled to compensation under all the other provisions?\nThat's what I've been unable to figure out, and for whatever reasons I won't go into that would help me to understand that how the statute works.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3088.436, 3090.407, 3098.962, 3104.186, 3107.136, 3111.139], "stop_times": [3090.407, 3098.962, 3104.186, 3107.136, 3111.139, 3118.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.436}, "reply_to": "20144__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_046", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--I believe the shorthand answer to that is, one is that section 33(g)(2) says that failure to obtain a prior written consent from the employer and carrier terminates or forfeits your rights to compensation and medical benefits.\nAnd number two, the answer is that Cowart decided that issue adversely to the position that I think the situation you're addressing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3118.323, 3135.507], "stop_times": [3135.507, 3144.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.323}, "reply_to": "20144__2_045", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_047", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3144.951], "stop_times": [3145.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.951}, "reply_to": "20144__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__2_048", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Basically in the dissent.\nThe point is, if you look in... and it's right there in our briefs, pages 12 through 18.\nIt basically says this, that even the Ninth Circuit in the Witthuhn case cited in our brief says... and they use the words vest... that a widow's claim for death benefits under section 9 vest at the time of the death of the worker on whom she is dependent.\nAnd to address Justice Ginsburg's question a moment ago with some of the other counsel, it is possible... and it's on page 21 of the Director's brief.\nIt is possible for a wife to be living separate and apart under section 9 from her husband at the time of death as long as it's not due to her fault and not be dependent and still be entitled to section 9 benefits.\nThink of the things that could have prevented Mrs. Yates from ever being entitled to compensation: death.\nShe may have predeceased Mr. Yates, and Mrs. Yates today is 88 years old.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3145.782, 3147.014, 3151.896, 3171.378, 3179.315, 3193.273, 3199.348], "stop_times": [3147.014, 3151.896, 3171.378, 3179.315, 3193.273, 3199.348, 3205.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3145.782}, "reply_to": "20144__2_047", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_049", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That can be figured out actuarially just as when he is going to die can be figured out actuarially.\nSo, you could compute that into the calculation, couldn't you?\nNo?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3205.591, 3211.305, 3214.568], "stop_times": [3211.305, 3214.568, 3215.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.591}, "reply_to": "20144__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20144__2_050", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, sir, you could.\nBut what I'm referring to now is why, consistent with the cases cited in my brief on page 12 though 18, which go directly opposing... opposed to what the petitioner is advancing here.\nAs I understood it, they said that her entitlement... entitlement... arose at the same time as Mr. Yates' diagnosis with asbestosis, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3215.118, 3215.637, 3228.235], "stop_times": [3215.637, 3228.235, 3239.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3215.118}, "reply_to": "20144__2_049", "speaker": "wynn_e_clark"}
{"id": "20144__2_051", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Clark.\nMr. Salloum, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3239.382, 3240.624], "stop_times": [3240.624, 3243.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.382}, "reply_to": "20144__2_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__3_000", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI think it's very important--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3243.436, 3246.939], "stop_times": [3246.939, 3248.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3243.436}, "reply_to": "20144__2_051", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_001", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Mr. Salloum, Mrs. Brinkmann gave a different answer to the question about is... who is a potentially qualifying widow.\nShe seemed to suggest that somebody who came into the picture after the injury could be a qualifying widow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3248.338, 3255.705], "stop_times": [3255.705, 3262.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.338}, "reply_to": "20144__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20144__3_002", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Your Honor, that's the first thing I was going to address.\nI don't believe that's correct.\nThe act provides that it's the wife of the worker at the time of his injury that is entitled to compensation at his death.\nIf he was not married at the time of his injury or if he changed wives at the time... before the time of his death, that wife that married the worker after his injury would not be entitled to compensation.\nOnly the wife married to him at the time of the injury would be entitled to compensation.\nIf the Court holds, as the Government and as the respondents want the Court to hold, it would mean that no employer would be entitled to any credit for any third party recoveries made by a wife when she releases her wrongful death claims during the lifetime of her husband.\nThey would not be entitled to any credit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3262.069, 3263.489, 3264.511, 3272.805, 3281.291, 3284.923, 3305.177], "stop_times": [3263.489, 3264.511, 3272.805, 3281.291, 3284.923, 3305.177, 3307.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3262.069}, "reply_to": "20144__3_001", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_003", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Of course, that was the rule for 12 years prior to Cowart, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3307.068], "stop_times": [3309.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.068}, "reply_to": "20144__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__3_004", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3309.64], "stop_times": [3310.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3309.64}, "reply_to": "20144__3_003", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_005", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That was the rule that was generally applied for 12 years prior to Cowart, wasn't it, by the Benefit Review Board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3310.96], "stop_times": [3316.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.96}, "reply_to": "20144__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20144__3_006", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.\nAnd the Benefits Review Board since 1991 have changed their position on a person entitled to compensation four times: one in Force v. Director, one before the Fifth Circuit in Cowart.\nThey again changed their position before this Court after certiorari was granted in Cowart, and now they change their position for the fourth time in this case.\nWe think it's very important to call to the Court's attention, as we did in the briefing, that the Director has passed a regulation which is section 20 C.F.R. 702.281 that says that the employer approval requirements of section 33(g) and the employer credit entitlements under section 33(f) shall apply to every person claiming benefits under this act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3316.163, 3317.815, 3327.991, 3334.996], "stop_times": [3317.815, 3327.991, 3334.996, 3358.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3316.163}, "reply_to": "20144__3_005", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_007", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Why can't the employer just say no?\nIf the employer says, no, I won't approve the settlement... he says, no... then the woman never gets any money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3358.221, 3360.541], "stop_times": [3360.541, 3365.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.221}, "reply_to": "20144__3_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__3_008", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No, that's not correct, Your Honor.\nIf the employer says, I won't approve the settlement, she is guaranteed compensation from the employer under the Longshore Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3365.276, 3366.987], "stop_times": [3366.987, 3372.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3365.276}, "reply_to": "20144__3_007", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_009", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That... if the employer says, no, I won't approve the settlement, the employer has to pay the whole thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3372.379], "stop_times": [3376.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.379}, "reply_to": "20144__3_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__3_010", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "The whole thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3376.483], "stop_times": [3376.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3376.483}, "reply_to": "20144__3_009", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_011", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Okay.\nSo, if she notifies the employer, she just notifies the employer, and at that point the employer says, no, she gets all the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3376.984, 3377.445], "stop_times": [3377.445, 3384.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3376.984}, "reply_to": "20144__3_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__3_012", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "That's not correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3384.678], "stop_times": [3385.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3384.678}, "reply_to": "20144__3_011", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_013", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "If the employer says, no, she gets ordinary compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3385.78], "stop_times": [3388.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.78}, "reply_to": "20144__3_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20144__3_014", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIf she notifies the employer and says I have a third party settlement for less than the compensation I'm entitled, and the employer says no, and she settles regardless, under 33(g) she would be barred.\nBut if she says, okay, I won't accept the third party settlement, then the very least she would get would be her full compensation under the Longshore Act.\nThat's the least she would get.\nAll they have to do is come to the employer and say, I have a third party settlement.\nIt may be for more, it may be for less.\nWill you approve it?\nIf the employer does not approve it and she does not accept the third party settlement, the very minimum she would get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3388.301, 3388.942, 3400.398, 3408.213, 3409.685, 3413.857, 3416.09, 3417.149], "stop_times": [3388.942, 3400.398, 3408.213, 3409.685, 3413.857, 3416.09, 3417.149, 3423.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3388.301}, "reply_to": "20144__3_013", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_015", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Salloum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3423.174], "stop_times": [3424.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.174}, "reply_to": "20144__3_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20144__3_016", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3424.185], "stop_times": [3424.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3424.185}, "reply_to": "20144__3_015", "speaker": "richard_p_salloum"}
{"id": "20144__3_017", "conversation_id": "20144", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1081", "start_times": [3424.935], "stop_times": [3426.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3424.935}, "reply_to": "20144__3_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_000", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-491, Inter-Modal Rail Employees Association v. The Santa Fe Railway.\nMr. Schwartz, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [0.0, 9.606], "stop_times": [9.606, 46.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_001", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe railroad workers who are the petitioner in this case have been denied their day in court by the dismissal of their petition in the district court.\nThis case pleaded... presented today pleaded a unique, egregious conspiracy to deprive a particular group of employees of their welfare plan benefits.\nThey have pleaded specific intent to commit acts prohibited by section 510 of ERISA.\nThey have pleaded and their case involves the use of deceit leading to coercion used to implement this sham transaction.\nThe conduct pleaded fits squarely within the congressional intent in the enactment of section 510.\nThe railroad workers here have pleaded a conspiracy to interfere with the specificity sufficient to comply even with Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [46.195, 49.731, 57.753, 67.708, 73.346, 85.237, 94.712], "stop_times": [49.731, 57.753, 67.708, 73.346, 85.237, 94.712, 105.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 46.195}, "reply_to": "20046__0_000", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_002", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Mr. Schwartz, is it true that this employer could not use the change route that you say could have been used to accomplish this purpose?\nThat is, these benefits do not vest.\nTherefore, the plan could be amended to reduce them.\nThe benefits could be terminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [105.833, 117.791, 121.279, 125.064], "stop_times": [117.791, 121.279, 125.064, 127.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.833}, "reply_to": "20046__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_003", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, these benefits were contractually vested as part of a Nation-wide multiemployer bargaining pattern with the Teamsters Union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [127.933], "stop_times": [139.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 127.933}, "reply_to": "20046__0_002", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_004", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That... so you are... the answer to my question is there was no amendment route here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [139.824], "stop_times": [144.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.824}, "reply_to": "20046__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_005", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [144.359], "stop_times": [144.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.359}, "reply_to": "20046__0_004", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_006", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--because it was a multiemployer plan.\nTherefore, suppose an employer wants to accomplish that objective just as a matter of cutting costs.\nYou're saying it's impossible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [144.894, 146.66, 154.75], "stop_times": [146.66, 154.75, 156.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.894}, "reply_to": "20046__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_007", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "It would be possible only if they were willing and able to go back and bargain for a change in the contractually agreed benefits and then, pursuant to that, make the necessary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [156.785], "stop_times": [169.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.785}, "reply_to": "20046__0_006", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_008", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But the same thing that you are calling a conspiracy and... could have been done were this only a single employer plan as distinguished from a multiemployer plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [169.093], "stop_times": [178.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 169.093}, "reply_to": "20046__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_009", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--I do not believe that's correct, because we're still dealing with the element of the contractual vesting of the benefits, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [178.699], "stop_times": [187.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.699}, "reply_to": "20046__0_008", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_010", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Mr. Schwartz, some of us are having difficulty in hearing you.\nI wonder, could you speak up a little more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [187.654, 191.089], "stop_times": [191.089, 192.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.654}, "reply_to": "20046__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_011", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Certainly, Mr. Chief Justice, I will attempt to.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [192.541, 195.077], "stop_times": [195.077, 195.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 192.541}, "reply_to": "20046__0_010", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_012", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Now, if there were no union agreement the law clearly allows the employer to just get rid of these welfare benefits under the plan.\nIs that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [195.377, 205.183], "stop_times": [205.183, 206.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.377}, "reply_to": "20046__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_013", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Provided that there is appropriate compliance with the amendment procedures, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [206.016], "stop_times": [210.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.016}, "reply_to": "20046__0_012", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_014", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Right, and the problem here is that there is a union agreement under which the... under the terms of which the employer must provide these benefits.\nIs that the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [210.003, 221.043], "stop_times": [221.043, 222.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.003}, "reply_to": "20046__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_015", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That's certainly an element in our contention, that they could not legally have gone about doing this had they not resorted to this subterfuge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [222.061], "stop_times": [231.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 222.061}, "reply_to": "20046__0_014", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_016", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, they could have legally done it for purposes of the ERISA statute, but in so doing, would have violated the union agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [231.416], "stop_times": [241.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.416}, "reply_to": "20046__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_017", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "They would have run afoul--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [241.872], "stop_times": [243.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.872}, "reply_to": "20046__0_016", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_018", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [243.158], "stop_times": [243.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.158}, "reply_to": "20046__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_019", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [243.491], "stop_times": [243.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.491}, "reply_to": "20046__0_018", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_020", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, then you're saying in effect that they could do in a... with a single employer plan, no contrary collective bargaining agreement, they could do in two steps what you're saying they can't do in one step here, because number 1, they could simply eliminate the benefits, and having eliminated the benefits they could then eliminate their division or fire all those employees who had been getting the benefits, and so the different... it seems to me that your argument is a very formalistic argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [243.958], "stop_times": [270.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.958}, "reply_to": "20046__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_021", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Justice Souter, I believe that we need to make a proviso... and I believe that the Government may talk about this.\nThere is some basis, I believe, for the opinion that even plan amendments can't be made without... when they're done for a specific discriminatory purpose.\nI am not prepared to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [270.041, 278.481, 291.122], "stop_times": [278.481, 291.122, 292.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.041}, "reply_to": "20046__0_020", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_022", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, but why is it a discriminatory purpose simply to say I am... you know that they can be eliminated, period, can't they?\nThey're costing me too much.\nThere's no collective bargaining agreement that I would violate.\nThere's no multiemployer plan, so I have autonomy here, and I'm simply going to eliminate them.\nThat they can do as a general proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [292.491, 299.895, 303.78, 306.63, 312.969], "stop_times": [299.895, 303.78, 306.63, 312.969, 315.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.491}, "reply_to": "20046__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_023", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--As a general proposition, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [315.302], "stop_times": [317.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.302}, "reply_to": "20046__0_022", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_024", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "All right.\nAnd what, then... if they can do that, why does it then become discriminatory when, having eliminated those benefits they say, I probably would be better off to have an outside company doing this work, so I will eliminate the employees, too.\nHow does that suddenly turn the prior action into a discriminatory one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [317.271, 317.538, 333.715], "stop_times": [317.538, 333.715, 337.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.271}, "reply_to": "20046__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_025", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "We're dealing with a situation here, what is generally called a fire and hire situation.\nThey wanted to keep these employees.\nThey're highly trained and productive.\nBut they wanted to keep them without the benefits, and therefore they had to go through this elaborate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [337.684, 344.755, 346.773, 348.309], "stop_times": [344.755, 346.773, 348.309, 354.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.684}, "reply_to": "20046__0_024", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_026", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes, but they... on your theory I guess they didn't.\nAll they had to do was to say there won't be any more benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [354.296, 357.248], "stop_times": [357.248, 359.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 354.296}, "reply_to": "20046__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_027", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Well, I think it's a great deal more complicated than that.\nThey have to make the necessary plan amendments and, making plan amendments, they incur consequences with their own workforce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [359.95, 363.902], "stop_times": [363.902, 368.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.95}, "reply_to": "20046__0_026", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_028", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But if they wanted to go to the... oh, you are quite right there's a countervailing sort of political consideration within the marketplace because you then end up with a bunch of employees who are mad, but if, as a matter of law, they want to accept that burden, they can... the employer could do that and couldn't have... could have done it here, I take it, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [368.888], "stop_times": [388.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.888}, "reply_to": "20046__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_029", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Certainly I do not think it is correct that the employer here could have done it without modification of their contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [388.516], "stop_times": [396.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.516}, "reply_to": "20046__0_028", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_030", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "All right, because you had a CBA, yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [396.622, 399.074], "stop_times": [399.074, 399.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.622}, "reply_to": "20046__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_031", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That's absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [399.391], "stop_times": [400.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.391}, "reply_to": "20046__0_030", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_032", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "May I ask this question?\nI understood you to say earlier in your presentation that the rights at stake here had already vested, which puzzles me because you're relying on a statute that talks about being... losing... being discharged in order to prevent a right from becoming vested, or attainment and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [400.208, 402.693], "stop_times": [402.693, 418.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.208}, "reply_to": "20046__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_033", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [418.302], "stop_times": [418.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 418.302}, "reply_to": "20046__0_032", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_034", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Which is your view?\nAre the rights vested or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [418.669, 420.154], "stop_times": [420.154, 421.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.669}, "reply_to": "20046__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_035", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--We believe that the rights are contractually vested for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement.\nThis was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [421.104, 427.491], "stop_times": [427.491, 428.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.104}, "reply_to": "20046__0_034", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_036", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Oh, I see, being vested in an unusual sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [428.843], "stop_times": [431.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.843}, "reply_to": "20046__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_037", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [431.259], "stop_times": [431.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.259}, "reply_to": "20046__0_036", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_038", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And if you had a vested right, why don't you just sue to recover that right?\nYou don't need the statute, it seems to me, to recover... to get compensation for the destruction of a vested right.\nThe statute is designed to prevent, discharged in order to avoid vesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [431.759, 434.711, 441.198], "stop_times": [434.711, 441.198, 446.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.759}, "reply_to": "20046__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_039", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [446.185], "stop_times": [448.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 446.185}, "reply_to": "20046__0_038", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_040", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And I'm not quite clear exactly what your position is on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [448.335], "stop_times": [450.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.335}, "reply_to": "20046__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_041", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "The position is that they were vested for a limited period under the terms of the CBA, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [450.387], "stop_times": [458.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.387}, "reply_to": "20046__0_040", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_042", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "All right.\nGive me an example of a particular individual who had a vested right and is not able to just sue for that right without relying on the statute.\nMaybe he'd gone to the dentist and ran up a dental bill or something.\nHe had the right to have it paid.\nIs it that sort of thing you're saying?\nOr--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [458.742, 458.992, 466.146, 469.098, 470.05, 471.617], "stop_times": [458.992, 466.146, 469.098, 470.05, 471.617, 472.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.742}, "reply_to": "20046__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_043", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [472.05], "stop_times": [472.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.05}, "reply_to": "20046__0_042", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_044", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--the right in the future if he wants to go to the dentist it will be paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [472.586], "stop_times": [475.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.586}, "reply_to": "20046__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_045", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--It's important to understand that within the context of the CBA, of course, we're dealing with section 301.\nWe're dealing with a lot of elaborate grievance and arbitration machinery, and exclusive remedies.\nWe're also dealing here with a bankrupt Teamsters local that was not able to share those burdens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [475.002, 480.49, 486.06], "stop_times": [480.49, 486.06, 492.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.002}, "reply_to": "20046__0_044", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_046", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, Mr. Schwartz, the question presented in your petition for certiorari is based entirely, as I would read the question, on section 510 of ERISA, and that certainly was the basis for the Ninth Circuit's decision, and some of my colleagues I think are expressing the view what has the collective bargaining agreement and all that got to do with it if you're claiming under section 510?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [492.048], "stop_times": [514.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.048}, "reply_to": "20046__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_047", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "We are claiming exclusively under section 510.\nWe believe that the collective bargaining agreement, Mr. Chief Justice, is important in terms of understanding the context in which this arose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [514.828, 517.53], "stop_times": [517.53, 524.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.828}, "reply_to": "20046__0_046", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_048", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Those are kind of weasel words.\nThe... important in understanding the context in which it arose.\nIf it's based on 510, tell me specifically, if you would, what the collective bargaining agreement has to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [524.269, 527.887, 531.439], "stop_times": [527.887, 531.439, 538.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.269}, "reply_to": "20046__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_049", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I believe the collective bargaining agreement has to do with evaluating the respondent's arguments relating to targeting their claim for a judicially crafted exception to section 510.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [538.194], "stop_times": [551.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.194}, "reply_to": "20046__0_048", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_050", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, as I read the respondent's brief they no longer support the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in that respect, or at least they say you don't have to read the Ninth Circuit opinion in that view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [551.436], "stop_times": [561.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.436}, "reply_to": "20046__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_051", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Our understanding is that they no longer support the Ninth Circuit's rationale for the decision in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [561.144], "stop_times": [568.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.144}, "reply_to": "20046__0_050", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_052", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "You mentioned something about the bankrupt Teamsters Union, and as I understand it both the old employer, the Santa Fe group, and the new employer, the ITS, both were units that had Teamsters representing the workers.\nIs that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [568.148, 593.865], "stop_times": [593.865, 594.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.148}, "reply_to": "20046__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_053", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "These workers in large part were given a last minute opportunity to apply for reemployment with the substitute employer, respondent Internal Services.\nThe Teamsters Union signed them to a contract with greatly reduced benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [594.698, 608.708], "stop_times": [608.708, 614.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.698}, "reply_to": "20046__0_052", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_054", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Is it... was it the same Local in both cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [614.861], "stop_times": [617.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.861}, "reply_to": "20046__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_055", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [617.813], "stop_times": [620.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.813}, "reply_to": "20046__0_054", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_056", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And the union has not taken any position throughout these proceedings, these 510 proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [620.432], "stop_times": [625.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.432}, "reply_to": "20046__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_057", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "None whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [625.884], "stop_times": [626.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.884}, "reply_to": "20046__0_056", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_058", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Strange, when you, whether for background or whatever reason, talk about labor law rights, and the union has not been heard from.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [626.586], "stop_times": [639.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.586}, "reply_to": "20046__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_059", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I believe it has to do with the internal Teamster struggles locally in Los Angeles and nationally, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [639.827], "stop_times": [648.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.827}, "reply_to": "20046__0_058", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_060", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, what health and welfare benefits were actually reduced as a result of the restructuring of the work at Hobart Yard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [648.166], "stop_times": [660.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.166}, "reply_to": "20046__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_061", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "The health insurance coverage was dramatically reduced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [660.64], "stop_times": [664.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.64}, "reply_to": "20046__0_060", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_062", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Okay, but not for any coverage for things that had already occurred.\nWe're talking about future benefit opportunities.\nIs that what we're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [664.961, 669.663, 673.65], "stop_times": [669.663, 673.65, 676.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.961}, "reply_to": "20046__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_063", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "It occurred within a matter of a space of less than 2 weeks, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [676.083], "stop_times": [680.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.083}, "reply_to": "20046__0_062", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_064", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But we aren't talking about people who had incurred an injury and wanted medical benefits.\nWe're talking about people who might in the future incur injuries or illness and need medical benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [680.904, 691.195], "stop_times": [691.195, 697.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.904}, "reply_to": "20046__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_065", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "We... Justice O'Connor, we're talking about people who enjoyed for a period of at least 1 year longer before the implementation of this transaction an ongoing coverage of entire medical care.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [697.432], "stop_times": [708.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.432}, "reply_to": "20046__0_064", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_066", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, they had health insurance, but we're not talking about people who had gotten sick and incurred medical bills already, and then they weren't paid.\nWe're talking about future opportunity to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [708.304, 715.477], "stop_times": [715.477, 718.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.304}, "reply_to": "20046__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_067", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "As far as we are aware the multiemployer health plan which was administered principally by the union management group continued to pay properly accrued claims up until--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [718.679], "stop_times": [729.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.679}, "reply_to": "20046__0_066", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_068", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [729.285], "stop_times": [729.787], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 729.285}, "reply_to": "20046__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20046__0_069", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--the date of implementation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [729.787], "stop_times": [730.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.787}, "reply_to": "20046__0_068", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_070", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "So we are talking about future opportunities for health care.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [730.92], "stop_times": [734.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.92}, "reply_to": "20046__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_071", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "In addition, Justice O'Connor, we're dealing with a loss of vacation pay, a loss of sick pay, and the welfare--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [734.939], "stop_times": [745.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.939}, "reply_to": "20046__0_070", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_072", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But not vacation pay that had already... there would be an obligation to pay, just future vacation pay.\nIt's a reduction in the amount of vacation pay that would be paid in the future, rather than cutting off some that had already been earned, is that correct?\nYou're kind of vague in your answer.\nIt's helpful to us if we get a categorical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [745.413, 751.317, 758.923, 762.125], "stop_times": [751.317, 758.923, 762.125, 763.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.413}, "reply_to": "20046__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_073", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--The Teamsters contract is extremely elusive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [763.675], "stop_times": [764.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.675}, "reply_to": "20046__0_072", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_074", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--What is your answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [764.425], "stop_times": [766.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.425}, "reply_to": "20046__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_075", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "The Teamsters contract is extremely elusive, because they went from the nationally bargained Teamster contract to what is known as a white paper contract, which was a very short, specifically focused contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [766.091], "stop_times": [780.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.091}, "reply_to": "20046__0_074", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_076", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "We're trying to talk about section 510, though.\nWe're not trying to talk to you about the union contract, because the claim is made under section 510 of ERISA, and that's what we're trying to find out from you, how to make it fit under section 510 of ERISA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [780.367, 783.486], "stop_times": [783.486, 798.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.367}, "reply_to": "20046__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_077", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--We think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [798.979], "stop_times": [800.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.979}, "reply_to": "20046__0_076", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_078", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Your claim, that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [800.964], "stop_times": [802.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.964}, "reply_to": "20046__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__0_079", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, we think it's from the plain language and the underlying legislative history and the purpose of Congress in enacting ERISA that the second clause of section 510 covers this situation precisely.\nThe language, interference with the attainment of a right to which participant may become entitled--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [802.133, 820.444], "stop_times": [820.444, 825.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.133}, "reply_to": "20046__0_078", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_080", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Wouldn't you say attainment, though, suggested something that was to be... to happen in the future?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [825.146], "stop_times": [831.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.146}, "reply_to": "20046__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_081", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Yes, but it doesn't necessarily imply vesting, and in this particular situation, Mr. Chief Justice, we had a situation where people expected that if their children had doctor appointments in April or May they would be covered under the Teamsters plan.\nIf they needed to go in for a previously scheduled operation in June, that would have been covered prior to March 19, when the people were suddenly informed that they were going to have the opportunity with the new employer on April 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [831.985, 848.495], "stop_times": [848.495, 860.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.985}, "reply_to": "20046__0_080", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_082", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But I suppose the employer's argument is that if something had not been attained as of the date this action was taken, it didn't violate that section, section 510.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [860.987], "stop_times": [871.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.987}, "reply_to": "20046__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_083", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I hesitate to speak for Mr. Holzhauer, but it's our understanding with their... they have... I believe they have essentially conceded and would no longer take the position that the welfare, health and welfare benefits such as are involved here are not covered by the second clause of 510.\nI think that's apparent throughout their brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [871.944, 890.691], "stop_times": [890.691, 893.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.944}, "reply_to": "20046__0_082", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_084", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, I understood their argument to focus more on the phrase accompanying the word attainment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [893.224], "stop_times": [898.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.224}, "reply_to": "20046__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_085", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I... what we find is the more interesting and perhaps troublesome issues deal more with their argument relating to targeting, Mr. Chief Justice.\nClearly, attainment and may become entitled indicate some element of maturity, certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [898.928, 912.521], "stop_times": [912.521, 920.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 898.928}, "reply_to": "20046__0_084", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_086", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I mean, supposing you've been working at a place 11 months and you don't get medical benefits until you've been there for a year.\nIt seems to me that would fit very nicely under the attainment clause.\nYou're fired at the end of 11 months because the employee doesn't want you to get medical benefits.\nBut that really isn't this case, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [920.127, 926.281, 929.916, 935.97], "stop_times": [926.281, 929.916, 935.97, 938.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 920.127}, "reply_to": "20046__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__0_087", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, it's not, because here... it might be the case that if you were working at that hypothetical employer under a contract that had another year and... another 13 months to go, instead of being an at-will employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [938.255], "stop_times": [951.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.255}, "reply_to": "20046__0_086", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_088", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Can I ask you one hypothetical question?\nSupposing there's no union agreement or anything involved, and the employer finds out that a segment of his workforce performing one specific task, they... they're entitled to welfare... health and... health benefits, and they find out that if they subcontracted all that work out to others they would save the cost of those benefits, and they decide that's the reason they want to make that change, and they do it.\nHave they violated the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [951.396, 953.848, 973.595], "stop_times": [953.848, 973.595, 975.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.396}, "reply_to": "20046__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__0_089", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I believe that's... they have, Mr. Justice Stevens, and I believe that that's pretty much what occurred here.\nThe railroad targeted the one group in the entire railyard that was dealing with... that was covered by ERISA-protected benefits rather than living under the... explicitly under the railroad retirement plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [975.345, 982.95], "stop_times": [982.95, 996.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.345}, "reply_to": "20046__0_088", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_090", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But you would say, I take it, that if there had been further reasons, in addition merely to the cost of providing these benefits, for wanting to get rid of this division and contract out, that if the existence of those further reasons... say they were... they happened to have a bunch of very inefficient employees and so on... the existence of those further reasons would preclude a violation of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [996.008], "stop_times": [1024.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.008}, "reply_to": "20046__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_091", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I think it's possible to draw a bright line distinction between legitimate efficiencies versus mere benefits... gains from the avoidance of benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1024.544], "stop_times": [1035.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.544}, "reply_to": "20046__0_090", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_092", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, it is in theory, although it would be difficult in practice, because if you concede, and if we were to hold that so long as the avoidance of the medical... the cost of welfare benefits was only one among other reasons that that would be legitimate, then every employer who wanted to do what this employer did would simply claim other reasons, so it would be difficult of proof, even though in theory there would be a bright line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1035.252], "stop_times": [1058.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1035.252}, "reply_to": "20046__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_093", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Certainly I believe that the Court needs to be extremely careful not to open the floodgates to circumvention of the statute, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1058.249], "stop_times": [1066.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.249}, "reply_to": "20046__0_092", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_094", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, but I mean... don't you open... I don't know whether it's a floodgate or not, but don't you open the gate by conceding that if there are other reasons in addition to the ones given by the employer here, there wouldn't necessarily be any violation of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1066.521], "stop_times": [1080.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.521}, "reply_to": "20046__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_095", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I suppose we would get into the shifting burden analysis and whether the other reasons given are protectural--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1080.745], "stop_times": [1085.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.745}, "reply_to": "20046__0_094", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_096", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, but I just want to make sure I understand your argument.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but I thought you had conceded that, that if there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1085.733, 1087.768], "stop_times": [1087.768, 1095.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.733}, "reply_to": "20046__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_097", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--I hope I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1095.172], "stop_times": [1095.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1095.172}, "reply_to": "20046__0_096", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_098", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--a generalized desire to save money, or to get more efficient work... work done more efficiently, and the desire to save money on the welfare plan is only one component among several others that add up to the reasons for wanting to make this change, I thought you conceded that under those circumstances the employer could do what this employer did, and it would not violate the statute.\nAm I wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1095.539, 1119.454], "stop_times": [1119.454, 1120.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.539}, "reply_to": "20046__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_099", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Justice Souter, I... if I gave that impression I regret that I... I spoke in error.\nI believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1120.156, 1125.643], "stop_times": [1125.643, 1126.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.156}, "reply_to": "20046__0_098", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_100", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1126.876], "stop_times": [1127.093], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.876}, "reply_to": "20046__0_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20046__0_101", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--simply the identification of another... one or more purported efficiencies is not sufficient.\nI believe that the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1127.093, 1133.13], "stop_times": [1133.13, 1134.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.093}, "reply_to": "20046__0_100", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_102", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, let's... but let's assume it's at least real.\nForget the question of proof now.\nLet's just assume that there are these other reasons, but among them, one among them is the desire to save the cost of the welfare plan.\nDoes... and so the employer eliminates the division and contracts out.\nDoes that violate the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1134.097, 1136.416, 1139.034, 1147.723, 1152.293], "stop_times": [1136.416, 1139.034, 1147.723, 1152.293, 1153.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.097}, "reply_to": "20046__0_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__0_103", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--We would submit that in that situation the focus must and should be on whether or not the cost-savings reflect substantially more than the gain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1153.427], "stop_times": [1163.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.427}, "reply_to": "20046__0_102", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_104", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Mr. Schwartz, I thought your position was, this is a pleading case and you did allege the employer did this for the specific purpose of, and if that's... if this is a determination to be made on the face of the complaint, then whether there were other reasons that you might fail as a matter of proof, but at this stage you made the allegation that you say should get you through the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1163.316], "stop_times": [1186.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.316}, "reply_to": "20046__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__0_105", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--It is a pleadings case, and we believe it should be sufficient to give these railroad workers their day in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1186.682], "stop_times": [1192.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1186.682}, "reply_to": "20046__0_104", "speaker": "richard_e_schwartz"}
{"id": "20046__0_106", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schwartz.\nMs. Pillard.\nAm I pronouncing your name correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1192.252, 1193.787, 1196.572], "stop_times": [1193.787, 1196.572, 1201.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.252}, "reply_to": "20046__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__1_000", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.\nThank you.\nThank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOur position is that section 510 is not limited to pension rights or rights capable of vesting, but also covers rights to welfare benefits.\nThe court of appeals' holding to the contrary cannot be squared with the language of the statute.\nSection 510 uses the general term, employee benefit plans, which the statute defines to include both pension plans and welfare benefit plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1201.608, 1202.091, 1202.31, 1206.095, 1214.868, 1218.836], "stop_times": [1202.091, 1202.31, 1206.095, 1214.868, 1218.836, 1227.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1201.608}, "reply_to": "20046__0_106", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_001", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, the respondent seems to pretty well agree with this much of your argument.\nWhat do you do with my hypothetical case, just a clean-cut example of trying to cut costs among others by welfare... you know, by contracting out to save the money there?\nThat's clearly an economic motive, and there were no vested benefits in the sense that there were no unpaid medical bills based on injuries that had already occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1227.176, 1231.127, 1242.185], "stop_times": [1231.127, 1242.185, 1249.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.176}, "reply_to": "20046__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__1_002", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "In our view, generally that situation would not show proof of the prohibited purpose, with one caveat.\nIf the choice of the employees whose jobs were being contracted out were based on the fact that they were a group of employees who were imminently going to vest, or who the employer knew were ill, for example, as a result of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1249.624, 1257.361], "stop_times": [1257.361, 1270.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1249.624}, "reply_to": "20046__1_001", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_003", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, I'm assuming none of that... none of that.\nPure economic... everyone is healthy at the time that the decision is made, but it's just a little cheaper to do it this way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1270.87, 1272.937], "stop_times": [1272.937, 1278.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.87}, "reply_to": "20046__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__1_004", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--In our view that would not be covered.\nWhat is covered, however, and what we believe is a core case is a case of a person who the employer knows has become ill, and who is fired before that person has seen the doctor, and therefore before the right to medical care has actually accrued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1278.924, 1280.941], "stop_times": [1280.941, 1297.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1278.924}, "reply_to": "20046__1_003", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_005", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "This happens all the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1297.636], "stop_times": [1298.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.636}, "reply_to": "20046__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__1_006", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "This is a very common scenario, where an employer has offered health care coverage with particular coverage levels, and when an employee becomes ill, although the employer would be free generally to amend the plan to eliminate coverage for an illness that seems too expensive or burdensome, instead, the employee keeps the plan in place with respect to other employees but discharges the employee to interfere with the attainment of the right to claim coverage under the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1298.436], "stop_times": [1328.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1298.436}, "reply_to": "20046__1_005", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_007", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "If you told me those are real life situations that happen often, you've answered a question I was about to ask.\nThat is, I was... I understand that the text covers health plans as well as other plans, but I couldn't really understand what real life situation they were addressing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1328.322, 1333.476], "stop_times": [1333.476, 1345.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.322}, "reply_to": "20046__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__1_008", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1345.617], "stop_times": [1346.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1345.617}, "reply_to": "20046__1_007", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_009", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--because I didn't know... the Chief Justice gave a hypothetical of a company that has a health plan but you only come under it after 1 year.\nI'm not... you know, I don't think... I don't know of any that exist like that.\nYou could create one.\nBut I was trying to figure out what Congress had in mind bringing these other things in, and it's this situation that you've just described.\nOr, for example, an employee who has a child with a serious heart condition, and the employer knows that to take care of that child is going to cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of health care.\nNow, if that happens, does that cause the employer's premiums to go up, basically?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1346.117, 1353.389, 1357.007, 1358.124, 1364.078, 1376.052], "stop_times": [1353.389, 1357.007, 1358.124, 1364.078, 1376.052, 1381.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.117}, "reply_to": "20046__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__1_010", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--It might with an experience-related plan, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1381.171], "stop_times": [1383.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1381.171}, "reply_to": "20046__1_009", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_011", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And so the employer might have a motive to get rid of the employee who has a child that would cost a lot of health care benefits in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1383.623], "stop_times": [1392.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.623}, "reply_to": "20046__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__1_012", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That's exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1392.646], "stop_times": [1393.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1392.646}, "reply_to": "20046__1_011", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_013", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And that does happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1393.312], "stop_times": [1394.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.312}, "reply_to": "20046__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__1_014", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And that motive would arise even with the prospect of the medical care being undergone, and therefore before the right had itself accrued and become--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1394.228], "stop_times": [1402.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1394.228}, "reply_to": "20046__1_013", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_015", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But Ms. Pillard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1402.768], "stop_times": [1403.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.768}, "reply_to": "20046__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__1_016", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--an enforceable right under the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1403.368], "stop_times": [1404.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1403.368}, "reply_to": "20046__1_015", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_017", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--It wouldn't be a violation... if I understand your interpretation correctly, it wouldn't be a violation if you fire the employee after the child has already received some benefits, or if you fire the employee who himself has a serious condition after he's already gotten some of the benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1404.201], "stop_times": [1420.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.201}, "reply_to": "20046__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__1_018", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That would be a violation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1420.711], "stop_times": [1421.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1420.711}, "reply_to": "20046__1_017", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_019", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1421.913], "stop_times": [1422.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.913}, "reply_to": "20046__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__1_020", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Justice Scalia, under the first clause of section 510--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1422.33], "stop_times": [1425.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1422.33}, "reply_to": "20046__1_019", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_021", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Ms. Pillard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1425.531], "stop_times": [1426.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.531}, "reply_to": "20046__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__1_022", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--which prohibits discharge for the purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1426.314], "stop_times": [1427.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1426.314}, "reply_to": "20046__1_021", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_023", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Attaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1427.649], "stop_times": [1429.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.649}, "reply_to": "20046__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__1_024", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--as a result of exercising a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1429.016], "stop_times": [1430.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1429.016}, "reply_to": "20046__1_023", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_025", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Of exercising a right.\nI hope we can get to this case, because the examples you've been given of retaliation, of discharging a particular employee because that employee is going to cost too much, there are a number of court of appeals cases dealing with that discrimination, but here we have something different.\nWe have not, we're going to discharge employee A because we've heard he has a heart disease.\nIt is en masse.\nIt is faceless.\nIt says, all of the workers in this unit go, and then we're going to have a subcontract.\nThat's quite different than what Congress had in mind when it says, don't fire the guy just before his pension vests, and you say that same thinking transposes to health and welfare benefits, but what about the significant difference that this isn't a case about discharging a particular employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1430.435, 1431.968, 1447.897, 1453.349, 1455.051, 1455.717, 1460.371], "stop_times": [1431.968, 1447.897, 1453.349, 1455.051, 1455.717, 1460.371, 1481.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.435}, "reply_to": "20046__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__1_026", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That's right, Justice Ginsburg, and I do want to get to this case, but I would note that as a prudential matter we don't think the Court should reach the alternative grounds, because they were not argued in the court of appeals.\nThey were not decided by that court.\nThey weren't raised in the petition, and they were not briefed in the brief in opposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1481.118, 1492.092, 1493.609], "stop_times": [1492.092, 1493.609, 1497.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1481.118}, "reply_to": "20046__1_025", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_027", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But aren't they troubling... isn't that issue troubling courts all over the land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1497.211], "stop_times": [1501.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.211}, "reply_to": "20046__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__1_028", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "In fact, there's very little development on the issue in the courts of appeals, and so that's one of the reasons that we think the Court need not read that issue, but I do want to address that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1501.282], "stop_times": [1508.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1501.282}, "reply_to": "20046__1_027", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_029", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, but the question presented certainly covers that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1508.868], "stop_times": [1511.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.868}, "reply_to": "20046__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__1_030", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--As a... yes, I think you're right that it is encompassed, it's fairly encompassed within the question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1511.97], "stop_times": [1516.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1511.97}, "reply_to": "20046__1_029", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_031", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And if we accept the argument... assuming that, and if we accept the argument or the distinction that I thought you were drawing before, that distinction seemed to be that the... at least with respect to welfare benefits violation or not turned on whether there was a specific employee in mind, whether there was a specific accrual of benefit in mind, and if that's the case, then I suppose what the employer did here would be perfectly permissible under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1516.374], "stop_times": [1546.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.374}, "reply_to": "20046__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_032", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Justice Souter, in our view the core case includes the case where the employer has a specific employee in mind, but it also includes our case.\nIt's important to note that the court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1546.393, 1553.964], "stop_times": [1553.964, 1556.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1546.393}, "reply_to": "20046__1_031", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_033", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, if it includes our case, then why do we bother about the specificity of the employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1556.682], "stop_times": [1563.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.682}, "reply_to": "20046__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_034", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--It's important to note that the court of appeals held that there was a claim for interference with pension benefits without any additional allegations beyond a general allegation of purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1563.07], "stop_times": [1571.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1563.07}, "reply_to": "20046__1_033", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_035", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1571.409], "stop_times": [1571.542], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.409}, "reply_to": "20046__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20046__1_036", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And if that's enough on that side without a targeting or identification of an individual employee, we submit that it should be enough on this side.\nNow, what we have here is a difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1571.542, 1578.013], "stop_times": [1578.013, 1580.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1571.542}, "reply_to": "20046__1_035", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_037", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "So that the targeting of the individual is not essential to the answer, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1580.279], "stop_times": [1582.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.279}, "reply_to": "20046__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_038", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Right.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1582.815, 1583.048], "stop_times": [1583.048, 1583.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1582.815}, "reply_to": "20046__1_037", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_039", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1583.581], "stop_times": [1584.083], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.581}, "reply_to": "20046__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20046__1_040", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Although we have here, at the pleading stage we don't have the facts developed and so it's very difficult to say what kind of proof would suffice to be proof of purpose, really a lot of the discussion about whether targeting is required, or a foreseeable rise in cost is required, is a discussion that really goes to what counts as proof of purpose, whereas here we're at the pleading stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1584.083], "stop_times": [1602.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1584.083}, "reply_to": "20046__1_039", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_041", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I thought the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1602.211], "stop_times": [1602.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.211}, "reply_to": "20046__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20046__1_042", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Given that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1602.678], "stop_times": [1603.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1602.678}, "reply_to": "20046__1_041", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_043", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Justice Kennedy I think has a question for you.\nI thought your answer to Justice Stevens at the outset that if for sheer cost standpoints, because welfare benefits were expensive, these employees were terminated, the work was sent elsewhere, that that would not be a violation, and I want to know what is the test that you have that leads you to give him that answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1603.078, 1605.913], "stop_times": [1605.913, 1625.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.078}, "reply_to": "20046__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20046__1_044", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Our test is that the purpose has to be a purpose to interfere with the attainment of benefits in the sense that the action has to be taken not just in spite of its impact on benefits but because of the impact on benefits.\nIt has to be a specific focus on benefits.\nNow, let me focus on this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1625.91, 1641.336, 1642.955], "stop_times": [1641.336, 1642.955, 1644.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1625.91}, "reply_to": "20046__1_043", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_045", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, but that, it seemed to me Justice Stevens' case covered that.\nSure, that's the whole purpose, yes.\nIn my hypothetical that was the whole purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1644.155, 1647.157, 1647.74], "stop_times": [1647.157, 1647.74, 1651.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.155}, "reply_to": "20046__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20046__1_046", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Not to focus on benefits as such.\nHere you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1651.042, 1653.994], "stop_times": [1653.994, 1654.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1651.042}, "reply_to": "20046__1_045", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_047", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, his hypothetical was the benefits are expensive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1654.677], "stop_times": [1657.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.677}, "reply_to": "20046__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20046__1_048", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Right, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1657.163], "stop_times": [1657.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1657.163}, "reply_to": "20046__1_047", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_049", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And they look at these benefits and say, we can't afford these things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1657.613], "stop_times": [1660.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.613}, "reply_to": "20046__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20046__1_050", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--That's right, and there's a general desire to save costs, and where the incidental effect of that, where the employer is indifferent as between saving those costs out of benefits or saving those costs in other ways, through greater efficiency or through diminution in salary, or what have you, there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1660.015], "stop_times": [1673.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1660.015}, "reply_to": "20046__1_049", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_051", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, but that's changing Justice Stevens' hypo.\nHe... Justice Stevens' hypo as I understood it was, the only reason is to save these costs.\nHe may not wish his employees ill, perhaps, but his only reason is to save the costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1673.641, 1675.057, 1680.627], "stop_times": [1675.057, 1680.627, 1686.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.641}, "reply_to": "20046__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_052", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1686.948], "stop_times": [1687.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1686.948}, "reply_to": "20046__1_051", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_053", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Now, you can't split it as fine, it seems to me, in his case as you're trying to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1687.398], "stop_times": [1692.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.398}, "reply_to": "20046__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_054", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Here... here you have more, Justice Souter.\nHere you have a situation in which the employer had promised to continue to pay benefits at a certain level for a year, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1692.102, 1693.735], "stop_times": [1693.735, 1700.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1692.102}, "reply_to": "20046__1_053", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_055", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Under the CBA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1700.291], "stop_times": [1701.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.291}, "reply_to": "20046__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_056", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--and it states... an instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1701.758], "stop_times": [1703.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1701.758}, "reply_to": "20046__1_055", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_057", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Under the CBA.\nAll right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1703.16, 1703.66], "stop_times": [1703.66, 1704.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.16}, "reply_to": "20046__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_058", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--This transaction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1704.126], "stop_times": [1704.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1704.126}, "reply_to": "20046__1_057", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_059", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "What has the CBA got to do with the meaning of 510?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1704.36], "stop_times": [1705.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.36}, "reply_to": "20046__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_060", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--It has to do with this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1705.86], "stop_times": [1706.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1705.86}, "reply_to": "20046__1_059", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_061", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Maybe it's a violation of the CBA.\nWhat's it got to do with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1706.695, 1707.912], "stop_times": [1707.912, 1708.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.695}, "reply_to": "20046__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_062", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "It has to do with this.\nThe section does not cover any conceivable rights to which an employee may become entitled in the future, but it does cover the situation in which the employee has a concrete expectation.\nIn the individual case, that concrete expectation is supplied by the fact that the plan is continuing with respect to the other employees, and that expectation drops out when the plan is legitimately amended.\nIn this case, the concrete expectation is provided by the fact that the employer has bargained with, has promised the employees that it will continue the coverage for an additional year.\nWhere that's the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1708.828, 1709.411, 1719.35, 1728.706, 1739.447], "stop_times": [1709.411, 1719.35, 1728.706, 1739.447, 1740.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1708.828}, "reply_to": "20046__1_061", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_063", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Why is the expectation any more concrete simply because there happens also to be a CBA?\nWhy isn't there an equally concrete expectation when he simply establishes the plan and says, you work for me, you get the benefits of the plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1740.447, 1744.751], "stop_times": [1744.751, 1751.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.447}, "reply_to": "20046__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__1_064", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--There's not that concrete expectation precisely because where action is taken with respect to the whole workforce the plan could simply be terminated and in fact if the employer wanted to protect itself as a formal matter maybe it would terminate the plan and then fire the employees, or lay the employees off.\nHere you have a situation that was structured to strip these employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1751.405, 1764.296], "stop_times": [1764.296, 1768.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1751.405}, "reply_to": "20046__1_063", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_065", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Pillard.\nYour--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1768.081, 1768.664], "stop_times": [1768.664, 1769.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.081}, "reply_to": "20046__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__1_066", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--of the rights they would have had for the additional year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1769.164], "stop_times": [1770.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1769.164}, "reply_to": "20046__1_065", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_067", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Ms. Pillard, your time has expired, and I expect you to sit down when I tell you your time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1770.447], "stop_times": [1775.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.447}, "reply_to": "20046__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__1_068", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I apologize, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1775.085], "stop_times": [1776.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1775.085}, "reply_to": "20046__1_067", "speaker": "cornelia_t_l_pillard"}
{"id": "20046__1_069", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Mr. Holzhauer, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1776.251], "stop_times": [1778.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.251}, "reply_to": "20046__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20046__2_000", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nPetitioners claim that Santa Fe violated section 510 of ERISA by contracting out work in order to reduce benefit costs, exactly as Justice Stevens presented in his hypothetical.\nAssuming for now that those allegations were correct, they do not state a claim under section 510 of ERISA.\nSection 510 should not be interpreted to require employers to ignore a very real element of labor costs when they make fundamental business decisions about the scope and nature of their operation and whether they're going to do work in-house or subcontract work, whether they're going to have something done at all, or decide to close a particular operation.\nThe language of the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1778.287, 1782.839, 1793.647, 1800.533, 1821.364], "stop_times": [1782.839, 1793.647, 1800.533, 1821.364, 1823.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.287}, "reply_to": "20046__1_069", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_001", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, Mr. Holzhauer, you take the position that the employer may decide that the cost of welfare benefits under the Railway Labor Workers Act is just too expensive, and if we can get rid of that whole requirement, we will be better off economically, and so we'll have this termination here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1823.566], "stop_times": [1851.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.566}, "reply_to": "20046__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_002", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1851.233], "stop_times": [1852.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.233}, "reply_to": "20046__2_001", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_003", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And that that is not prohibited by section 510.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1852.418], "stop_times": [1855.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.418}, "reply_to": "20046__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_004", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That's correct.\nThe employer here, an employer can determine that its obligation to continue its benefit costs, no matter where they're from, are too expensive, and we found out that we can subcontract the work and reduce those costs.\nThat does not violate section 510.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1855.62, 1856.12, 1869.547], "stop_times": [1856.12, 1869.547, 1872.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.62}, "reply_to": "20046__2_003", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_005", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "So what do we do with the attainment... for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right language in 510?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1872.147], "stop_times": [1879.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.147}, "reply_to": "20046__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_006", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, the attainment language, interfering with the attainment of any right to which a participant may become entitled talks about becoming eligible, or in our view refers to becoming eligible, arriving at, or attaining a ripe old age is the way Black's defined it, citing some old cases, reaching or becoming eligible for a benefit.\nAnd in section 510, like elsewhere in ERISA, attain and attainment are used regularly to talk about attaining a particular age, attaining years of service, attaining a qualification that's necessary to become eligible for a benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1879.402, 1899.899], "stop_times": [1899.899, 1912.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.402}, "reply_to": "20046__2_005", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_007", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "So the act has to be specific to the employee?\nIn other words, if it is specific to the employee... A is about to become 60 years old, B is about to have a tooth extracted, what-not.\nThat is the kinds of attainment that you're talking about here, and therefore the line is drawn between acts intended to... in effect to preclude benefits to specific individuals as opposed to acts on a more global scale.\nIs that where you draw the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1912.707, 1916.092, 1923.264, 1938.791], "stop_times": [1916.092, 1923.264, 1938.791, 1940.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.707}, "reply_to": "20046__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__2_008", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I think that's generally correct, although I would say this.\nFirst of all, I think the tooth extraction case might come under the exercising part of section 510, but in the Third Circuit case, the Gavelette case, the Court determined that the employer decided that a large group of employees at one plant were about to become vested at one point, or were subject to vesting and were about to reach the vesting point, which is possible, considering that vesting is over time.\nIt might be a plant that was just opened 5 years ago.\nUnder those circumstances I think an argument, a strong argument can be made that section 510 has been violated even though the decision is not on an individual basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1940.124, 1941.809, 1964.258, 1966.291], "stop_times": [1941.809, 1964.258, 1966.291, 1973.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.124}, "reply_to": "20046__2_007", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_009", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But I don't see how this squares with your attainment argument.\nYou began by saying attain means that you're about to reach something.\nThis is the Black's Law Dictionary.\nBut then you said, now of course this doesn't apply to... you had a wisdom tooth hypothetical, or Justice O'Connor's hypothetical of a very expensive particular case.\nSuppose that that employee was receiving benefits.\nHe or she had attained the right in that sense, and the employer terminates in order to avoid the coverage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [1973.947, 1977.899, 1981.601, 1982.953, 1993.611, 1999.23], "stop_times": [1977.899, 1981.601, 1982.953, 1993.611, 1999.23, 2008.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.947}, "reply_to": "20046__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20046__2_010", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, I think that could quite likely be a violation of the exercising clause of section 510.\nThe attainment clause talks about attaining rights to which the participant may become entitled, and I think that's another future-oriented kind of reference in that provision.\nClearly, it would violate section 510 to fire someone because they filed a claim, an expensive claim relating to having their wisdom teeth extracted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2008.37, 2014.191, 2023.73], "stop_times": [2014.191, 2023.73, 2032.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.37}, "reply_to": "20046__2_009", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_011", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But isn't it equally clear... let me just be sure I get one thing clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2032.503], "stop_times": [2034.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2032.503}, "reply_to": "20046__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__2_012", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2034.319], "stop_times": [2034.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.319}, "reply_to": "20046__2_011", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_013", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That if you took my hypothetical and said, instead of health benefits, we're concerned that 90 percent of these people are about to reach 20 years of service and therefore have vested benefits, and you took out the whole division and substituted with a contract, that would clearly violate it, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2034.636], "stop_times": [2048.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.636}, "reply_to": "20046__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__2_014", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That would be correct.\nI think vesting, the maximum period for vesting now is 10 years in a multiemployer, between 5 and 8 in other plans, but if it was on the cliff for vesting, and you said everybody in that plant... this plant was just opened 5 years ago, and everybody in that plant is about to vest, and therefore I'm going to close that plant and maybe open it up again next week or subcontract out the work or whatever, I think that would be a section 510 violation.\nNow, Justice Kennedy, in your question, the person that had the tooth extracted clearly would violate section 510, the exercising clause, to fire him because he filed a claim.\nI think a strong argument can be made that if the employer sees him coming down the hall with his claim form and a stack of medical bills with it, it might violate 510 then as well, and it might violate 510, the exercising clause, if the employee... employer knew that that employee has a particular illness or particular condition that is going to require, or has already required large expenditures or benefits.\nBut that's not what we have here.\nWhat we have here is something very close, as counsel for petitioners acknowledge, to Justice Stevens' hypothetical, an employer who decides that benefit costs are too high.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2048.161, 2048.661, 2068.54, 2079.614, 2103.047, 2104.113], "stop_times": [2048.661, 2068.54, 2079.614, 2103.047, 2104.113, 2113.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.161}, "reply_to": "20046__2_013", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_015", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But why is that any different?\nI mean, that's just like a lot of individual people who are submitting too many claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2113.771, 2115.405], "stop_times": [2115.405, 2120.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.771}, "reply_to": "20046__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_016", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "It's not like a lot of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2120.342], "stop_times": [2121.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.342}, "reply_to": "20046__2_015", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_017", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--and you said earlier that if you have a lot of individual people who are about to vest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2121.575], "stop_times": [2126.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.575}, "reply_to": "20046__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_018", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2126.245], "stop_times": [2127.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.245}, "reply_to": "20046__2_017", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_019", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--that would be a violation if you closed down that plant.\nWhy is it any different if you close down a plant because you have a lot of individual people who have already vested and are just sucking the money out of the company with a lot of claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2127.145, 2129.911], "stop_times": [2129.911, 2138.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.145}, "reply_to": "20046__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_020", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "The reason why I think the Gavelette kind of situation, where people are about to vest, is different is because it focuses on the fact that a large number of people are about to attain eligibility for a benefit.\nIt's not that they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2138.251, 2150.158], "stop_times": [2150.158, 2150.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.251}, "reply_to": "20046__2_019", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_021", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "There's an exercise clause as well, as you've just acknowledged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2150.926], "stop_times": [2153.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.926}, "reply_to": "20046__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_022", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--There is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2153.043], "stop_times": [2153.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.043}, "reply_to": "20046__2_021", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_023", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "It's not just that clause.\nIt's also the exercise clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2153.643, 2154.412], "stop_times": [2154.412, 2155.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.643}, "reply_to": "20046__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_024", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--There is an exercising clause here, and perhaps one could make an argument that if a particular group of employees were exercising their benefits in a way that were different from other groups, or so forth.\nBut here what you have is a group that said, benefits are just too expensive.\nI'm not going to pay those benefits, or I'm not going to pay that rich a benefit program.\nI'm going to subcontract out work because subcontracting out work is going to reduce my benefit costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2155.645, 2165.151, 2169.222, 2172.007], "stop_times": [2165.151, 2169.222, 2172.007, 2177.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.645}, "reply_to": "20046__2_023", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_025", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Suppose Joe Jones is a person who, the employer looks one day and says, I'm afraid that fellow is going to get wisdom teeth pulled out, and before he even thinks about it, I'm going to cancel this benefit in his plan, which is there, before he gets the wisdom tooth problem.\nHasn't the employer fired him, or cancelled the benefit, or sent him somewhere else, in order to prevent him from attaining a right that he otherwise would have under the plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2177.142, 2194.253], "stop_times": [2194.253, 2205.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.142}, "reply_to": "20046__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_026", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2205.478], "stop_times": [2206.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.478}, "reply_to": "20046__2_025", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_027", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2206.045], "stop_times": [2206.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.045}, "reply_to": "20046__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_028", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, he hasn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2206.578], "stop_times": [2207.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.578}, "reply_to": "20046__2_027", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_029", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2207.013], "stop_times": [2207.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.013}, "reply_to": "20046__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_030", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Attainment of a right to which an employee or a participant may become entitled to, that language, and using that language, and considering that language in light of the particular context Congress was concerned with, refers to becoming eligible for a benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2207.48], "stop_times": [2221.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.48}, "reply_to": "20046__2_029", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_031", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Is there any reason... assuming you could read it either way, and... I mean, I don't think it's contrary to English to say, I have a right to $2,000 of dental expenses if I get wisdom teeth pulled out, and my employer, before I have any toothache, says I'm going to fire him.\nI don't want him to get that.\nI think in English you could say he's fired me to prevent me from obtaining... or attaining... obtaining... you can do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2221.773, 2240.401, 2242.068], "stop_times": [2240.401, 2242.068, 2249.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.773}, "reply_to": "20046__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_032", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2249.524], "stop_times": [2249.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2249.524}, "reply_to": "20046__2_031", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_033", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "So I mean, it's more natural to say obtaining a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2249.874], "stop_times": [2252.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.874}, "reply_to": "20046__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_034", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2252.459], "stop_times": [2252.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.459}, "reply_to": "20046__2_033", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_035", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But you can say attaining a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2252.859], "stop_times": [2253.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.859}, "reply_to": "20046__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_036", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2253.926], "stop_times": [2254.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.926}, "reply_to": "20046__2_035", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_037", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "It's not English, not bad English.\nSo if I think it's fairly good English, or reasonable English, is there any reason Congress wouldn't have wanted to protect me in such a situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2254.428, 2255.661], "stop_times": [2255.661, 2264.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.428}, "reply_to": "20046__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_038", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Well, first of all I think that flip from attaining or obtaining is very interesting, because I think that is one of the differences between the kind of language we're using here.\nCongress was concerned about a particular circumstance, and we know that the language might not be limited to that circumstance, but becoming eligible for pension benefits, and vesting on pension benefits.\nWhether the exercise clause might help that employee, I'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2264.767, 2271.836, 2282.478], "stop_times": [2271.836, 2282.478, 2288.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.767}, "reply_to": "20046__2_037", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_039", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, but I mean, why wouldn't, as long as... you know, I mean, these things are written in Congress.\nThe lawyers all look at them, and so they might have talked a lot about pensions, but they would have thought, it applies to welfare, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2288.898, 2292.5], "stop_times": [2292.5, 2298.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.898}, "reply_to": "20046__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_040", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, it applies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2298.921], "stop_times": [2300.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.921}, "reply_to": "20046__2_039", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_041", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And unless there's some reason why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2300.19], "stop_times": [2301.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.19}, "reply_to": "20046__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_042", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2301.323], "stop_times": [2301.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2301.323}, "reply_to": "20046__2_041", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_043", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--And it applies in my situation, the toothache situation.\nNow, unless there's some reason why it wouldn't, why wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2301.756, 2304.058], "stop_times": [2304.058, 2307.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.756}, "reply_to": "20046__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_044", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, it applies in welfare situations.\nThere's a very strong reason why it wouldn't apply in your kind of situation, I think the same reason why it wouldn't apply in the situation that's before the Court.\nEmployers are not prohibited by ERISA, should not be prohibited by ERISA from making legitimate, cost-based economic decisions, and that's reflected in ERISA itself, the debates over ERISA, and the Court's decisions over ERISA.\nERISA involved a balancing of interests, particularly in the welfare--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2307.76, 2310.062, 2316.465, 2331.725], "stop_times": [2310.062, 2316.465, 2331.725, 2334.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.76}, "reply_to": "20046__2_043", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_045", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And then what they've said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2334.494], "stop_times": [2337.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.494}, "reply_to": "20046__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_046", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2337.113], "stop_times": [2337.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.113}, "reply_to": "20046__2_045", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_047", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--I just would like your response on that point, is sure, you have a point.\nIt was made to Congress, and so Congress passes a statute to say you're worried about money?\nCancel the plan.\nGo through steps A, B, and C.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2337.563, 2340.498, 2345.385, 2347.269], "stop_times": [2340.498, 2345.385, 2347.269, 2349.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.563}, "reply_to": "20046__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_048", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2349.504], "stop_times": [2350.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2349.504}, "reply_to": "20046__2_047", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_049", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Reduce the benefits.\nBut what we don't want you to do is this other way of trying to achieve a similar result, firing everybody, rehiring them.\nThat's a burden for you.\nYou have some burdens and you have some benefits.\nIt's a compromise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2350.137, 2350.789, 2358.292, 2359.728, 2361.644], "stop_times": [2350.789, 2358.292, 2359.728, 2361.644, 2362.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.137}, "reply_to": "20046__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_050", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Well, of course, there's nothing in section 510 that talks about employers being required to amend or terminate plans, but in many situations that's not going to be practically possible.\nWe might have a situation, for example, where an employer's obligations under a collective bargaining agreement require the employer to pay benefits and is not going to be able to unilaterally amend or terminate their plan, but that collective bargaining agreement might also provide that the employer is entitled to subcontract work, or the National Labor Relations Act might give them a right to subcontract work.\nSame thing happens with wages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2362.346, 2372.036, 2391.414], "stop_times": [2372.036, 2391.414, 2392.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.346}, "reply_to": "20046__2_049", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_051", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "So if you want to have this right, you work it out with the union.\nI mean, that's normal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2392.365, 2395.984], "stop_times": [2395.984, 2397.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.365}, "reply_to": "20046__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_052", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2397.417], "stop_times": [2397.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.417}, "reply_to": "20046__2_051", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_053", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, all right.\nBring it up on the table.\nSay what we can do.\nAmend the plan.\nWhy... why is it a problem for the employer?\nI mean, I understand what they'd like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2397.936, 2398.953, 2400.003, 2401.055, 2401.838, 2405.44], "stop_times": [2398.953, 2400.003, 2401.055, 2401.838, 2405.44, 2406.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.936}, "reply_to": "20046__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_054", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Sure.\nWell, in some circumstances the employer might also take this position with regard to wages.\nThe union contract sets a certain wage but allows the employer to subcontract.\nThe employers... the collective bargaining agreement sets certain benefits, but the employer is allowed to subcontract, or the National Labor Relations Act gives a procedure or mechanism for subcontracting out work.\nThere are other circumstances where it makes no sense to amend or terminate a plan.\nOften insurance contracts, if it's an insured plan, will provide that we want to cover all your employees.\nWe don't want you to carve out little groups of employees because we're afraid you might do it in a way that's to our disadvantage, or we just want the big business or no business at all.\nUnder those circumstances the employer may not be able to amend or terminate.\nIt also might not solve the situation at all in a variety of circumstances.\nSuppose an employer had two different plants, and it had to decide which one to close.\nThey both had health insurance benefits, but one was very costly, and one was less costly, perhaps because of the region of the country they were in.\nUnder those circumstances that would be a violation of section 510 to make that decision based on benefit costs if you followed the petitioner's argument, but it would be just a legitimate economic decision based on what's more expensive for the employer.\nThere's no evidence in the legislative history of ERISA, and there's certainly no requirement, even if we can flip from obtain to attain and argue that that clause can be read much more broadly than it is, there's certainly no requirement in section 510, no language that would dictate that we reach a result that would require employers to ignore very real economic costs that they face, and costs that employers base very similar decisions on every day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2406.625, 2406.959, 2411.244, 2415.481, 2425.504, 2430.575, 2435.526, 2442.382, 2447.0, 2451.238, 2455.106, 2461.594, 2475.619], "stop_times": [2406.959, 2411.244, 2415.481, 2425.504, 2430.575, 2435.526, 2442.382, 2447.0, 2451.238, 2455.106, 2461.594, 2475.619, 2501.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.625}, "reply_to": "20046__2_053", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_055", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Mr. Holzhauer, I take it from your argument, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the reasoning you've just developed, the motive is simply to cut cost, not to retaliate against any employees, would apply to pensions that haven't yet vested as well as health and welfare arrangements, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2501.087], "stop_times": [2521.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.087}, "reply_to": "20046__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__2_056", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "It would apply to pension benefits generally in the sense that, suppose we had a workforce that had vested pensions, or not vested pensions, but were just accruing pension benefits rateably over time.\nThere was no circumstance where we were focusing on people who were about to vest, but we just decided that the benefit costs of that plan are too expensive, and the benefit costs that we were concerned about in that plan were pension benefits.\nUnder those circumstances I still say that that would not violate section 510.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2521.75, 2534.558, 2545.283], "stop_times": [2534.558, 2545.283, 2549.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.75}, "reply_to": "20046__2_055", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_057", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "So you're rejecting the Ninth Circuit line in two ways.\nFirst you say that there isn't this distinction between pension plans and health and welfare plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2549.068, 2552.77], "stop_times": [2552.77, 2559.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.068}, "reply_to": "20046__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__2_058", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2559.423], "stop_times": [2562.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.423}, "reply_to": "20046__2_057", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_059", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, and that as far as the pension plan goes, the Ninth Circuit was wrong, although you didn't take a cross-appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2562.106], "stop_times": [2569.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.106}, "reply_to": "20046__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__2_060", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, the Ninth Circuit held... again, the Ninth Circuit's treatment of both of these issues was rather cursory, so it's really hard to understand exactly what their reasoning was, but quoting Ingersoll-Rand, the Ninth Circuit held that 510 protects plan participants from termination motivated by an employer's desire to prevent a pension from vesting.\nSanta Fe saw no need to cross-petition on that issue, because it's quite confident that when it goes back on remand it's going to be able to show that it didn't take any action to prevent pensions from vesting.\nWe thought that that's what the Court talked about as the pension part of 510, on remand we'll be fine.\nIf they're using the term more broadly than they say they were using it, the same argument would apply.\nNow, section 510 was adopted as a corollary to ERISA's vesting requirement, which was essential to the statutory scheme put in place by Congress, and for the first time Congress required that pension benefits become nonforfeitable after a set period of time.\nCongress recognized that employers might circumvent that vesting requirement by discharging employees who were about to become vested, and they installed section 510 to deal with that problem.\nIt makes perfect sense in that context to say it protects you, the attainment clause of section 510 protects you until you become eligible for the benefits, but doesn't provide you with meaningful protection thereafter, although the exercising clause might.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2569.695, 2589.942, 2601.25, 2607.82, 2613.641, 2635.054, 2648.897], "stop_times": [2589.942, 2601.25, 2607.82, 2613.641, 2635.054, 2648.897, 2662.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.695}, "reply_to": "20046__2_059", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_061", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, do you say that it covers the individual situation, where the employer foresees that a given employee is going to be very costly in terms of medical care, either the employee or a member of the employee's family?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2662.055], "stop_times": [2676.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.055}, "reply_to": "20046__2_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_062", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "If the employee is already eligible for those benefits, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2676.648], "stop_times": [2680.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.648}, "reply_to": "20046__2_061", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_063", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, the employee is covered by a health plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2680.016], "stop_times": [2684.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.016}, "reply_to": "20046__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_064", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Right.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2684.32, 2684.67], "stop_times": [2684.67, 2684.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.32}, "reply_to": "20046__2_063", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_065", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "The employee has a child, and the child then is diagnosed as having a very serious--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2684.92], "stop_times": [2691.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.92}, "reply_to": "20046__2_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_066", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Right.\nUh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2691.141, 2691.441], "stop_times": [2691.441, 2691.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.141}, "reply_to": "20046__2_065", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_067", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--medical condition that is going to cost megabucks, and the employer says, I don't want to have that effect on my health costs.\nYou're out of here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2691.741, 2699.93], "stop_times": [2699.93, 2700.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.741}, "reply_to": "20046__2_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_068", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I think under those circumstances the employer would already be eligible for those benefits.\nIf there was a violation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2700.797, 2704.817], "stop_times": [2704.817, 2705.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2700.797}, "reply_to": "20046__2_067", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_069", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Not eligible, will become--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2705.917], "stop_times": [2708.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.917}, "reply_to": "20046__2_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_070", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2708.935], "stop_times": [2709.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.935}, "reply_to": "20046__2_069", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_071", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--eligible when the child goes to the doctor for surgery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2709.269], "stop_times": [2715.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.269}, "reply_to": "20046__2_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_072", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--I think the attainment clause talks about whether the employer... the employee will become eligible for health insurance, will become eligible for dental insurance, will become eligible for a pension, or a vested pension.\nUnder the way I interpret section 5--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2715.106, 2725.481], "stop_times": [2725.481, 2727.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2715.106}, "reply_to": "20046__2_071", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_073", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Just answer my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2727.597], "stop_times": [2728.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.597}, "reply_to": "20046__2_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_074", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2728.733], "stop_times": [2728.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.733}, "reply_to": "20046__2_073", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_075", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Under that circumstance, is section 510 violated if the employer says, you're fired because I don't want that obligation in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2728.999], "stop_times": [2737.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.999}, "reply_to": "20046__2_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_076", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.\nThe exercising clause could be violated by that.\nThe attainment clause, no.\nI don't believe that would involve the attainment clause, because that would not involve becoming eligible for benefit.\nI also disagree with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2737.372, 2737.922, 2742.324, 2743.342, 2748.227], "stop_times": [2737.922, 2742.324, 2743.342, 2748.227, 2749.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.372}, "reply_to": "20046__2_075", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_077", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--I'm not sure that the exercise clause would kick in either, because the child hasn't gone to the hospital for the surgery yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2749.579], "stop_times": [2755.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.579}, "reply_to": "20046__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20046__2_078", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Well, I think that a strong argument can be made, and it's not involved in this case at all, but a strong argument can be made certainly that... well, clearly it would violate section 510 to fire that employee just after they file that claim, because they filed that expensive claim.\nCan an employer circumvent the exercising clause by doing it just before they file the claim?\nI think one can make a strong argument that it would.\nI also strongly disagree with the Government's representation that that hypothetical is in any sense real.\nThe reality of that hypothetical ignores COBRA benefits.\nAn employer, once an employee is terminated, the employee generally is entitled to COBRA benefits which will keep insurance in place--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2755.899, 2769.141, 2775.295, 2777.445, 2782.365, 2786.0], "stop_times": [2769.141, 2775.295, 2777.445, 2782.365, 2786.0, 2794.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.899}, "reply_to": "20046__2_077", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_079", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But they're not... they're often less than what the plan would give.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2794.272], "stop_times": [2798.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.272}, "reply_to": "20046__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__2_080", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Often... more often they get exactly what the plan gives.\nThe most common COBRA benefits is exactly the health insurance that they get.\nThey don't get the other kinds of benefits, but they would get the health insurance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2798.743, 2801.862, 2805.73], "stop_times": [2801.862, 2805.73, 2808.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.743}, "reply_to": "20046__2_079", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_081", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Mr. Holzhauer, given your response to Justice O'Connor's question, of what use is the application of the attainment clause to plans other than pension plans?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2808.016], "stop_times": [2822.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.016}, "reply_to": "20046__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_082", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Justice Scalia, earlier you asked whether it was ever... whether it was common to have plans that allow you to get health insurance after being there for a year, or after passing a probationary period, which might be 90 days.\nIt's very common.\nThat's common throughout industry, and that could very well be the kind of situation.\nAn employee often has to work a certain period of time in the sense of hours per week, or hours over an accumulated period of time, in order to become a full-time employee for benefits purposes.\nIt could violate section 510's attainment clause to stop somebody from working over that threshold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2822.609, 2836.583, 2837.618, 2841.753, 2851.259], "stop_times": [2836.583, 2837.618, 2841.753, 2851.259, 2857.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2822.609}, "reply_to": "20046__2_081", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_083", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And you think that's what Congress was worried about, that there are a lot of employers who keep--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2857.247], "stop_times": [2861.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.247}, "reply_to": "20046__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_084", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2861.401], "stop_times": [2862.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.401}, "reply_to": "20046__2_083", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_085", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--90 days, firing people after 89 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2862.484], "stop_times": [2865.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.484}, "reply_to": "20046__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_086", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--I think Congress was concerned about vesting pension benefits, but Congress talked about employee benefit plans, and I think there could be analogous circumstances under which section 510's attainment clause would apply to welfare benefits as well, and that's one very analogous circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2865.269], "stop_times": [2881.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2865.269}, "reply_to": "20046__2_085", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_087", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "But you insist it applies only to eligibility.\nBut then why, in answer to Justice O'Connor, did you get into the question of circumvention?\nYou've either attained or you haven't attained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2881.647, 2883.547, 2889.468], "stop_times": [2883.547, 2889.468, 2891.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.647}, "reply_to": "20046__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20046__2_088", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I was talking about circumventing the exercise clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2891.753], "stop_times": [2894.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.753}, "reply_to": "20046__2_087", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_089", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "The exercise clause.\nIf we allow that the exercise clause can be circumvented, how do we draw... that circumvention of the exercise clause would state a violation, how do we draw the line?\nWhy doesn't that swallow the attainment issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2894.122, 2894.872, 2905.744], "stop_times": [2894.872, 2905.744, 2909.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2894.122}, "reply_to": "20046__2_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__2_090", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, I think the exercising clause was intended to deal with a kind of individual... not global plant closing or plan design situation, but an individual situation where you were focusing and targeting a particular individual and saying, that person's going to be too expensive.\nI am going to terminate that person because their benefits are too high.\nClearly, it does violate the exercising clause by any reading to do that after the employee has started filing those benefits... oh, he's exercised his right to benefits too much, I'm going to fire him as a consequence of doing that.\nThe question is whether, in the very same circumstances, where you're looking at an individual employee who's about to file a lot of claims because he has bad wisdom teeth, or he has other problems, whether that would violate the exercising clause in section 510, and I think an argument could be made that it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2909.632, 2926.891, 2930.093, 2942.686], "stop_times": [2926.891, 2930.093, 2942.686, 2958.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.632}, "reply_to": "20046__2_089", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_091", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "So do it on the specific employee basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2958.378], "stop_times": [2960.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2958.378}, "reply_to": "20046__2_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20046__2_092", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "The specific employee, rather than a global, cost-based organizational change.\nWhat has been going on in this case was a fundamental change in the way Santa Fe operated its business.\nIt was no longer going to be using its own employees to do that work.\nIt was subcontracting that work out to other employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2960.48, 2964.366, 2970.42, 2973.372], "stop_times": [2964.366, 2970.42, 2973.372, 2977.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2960.48}, "reply_to": "20046__2_091", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_093", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Which clause is it that covers if my pension benefit's vested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2977.157], "stop_times": [2980.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.157}, "reply_to": "20046__2_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_094", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2980.609], "stop_times": [2981.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.609}, "reply_to": "20046__2_093", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_095", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I'm entitled to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2981.192], "stop_times": [2982.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.192}, "reply_to": "20046__2_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_096", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2982.026], "stop_times": [2982.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.026}, "reply_to": "20046__2_095", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_097", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And by the way, if I worked 2 more years and have a promotion, it doubles in amount, so they fire me so I don't get the doubling in amount.\nNow, which part of the... is that the fail to exercise clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2982.478, 2990.715], "stop_times": [2990.715, 2994.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.478}, "reply_to": "20046__2_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_098", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2994.0], "stop_times": [2994.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.0}, "reply_to": "20046__2_097", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_099", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Is that failure to attain a benefit, or do you think they could do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2994.551], "stop_times": [2997.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.551}, "reply_to": "20046__2_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_100", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--I think that there certainly... there are circumstances... generally speaking, pension benefits are required under the statute to accrue rateably over time, not to have these kinds of cliffs in which you're entitled under the plan to additional money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [2997.57], "stop_times": [3011.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2997.57}, "reply_to": "20046__2_099", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_101", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "You see what I'm driving at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3011.145], "stop_times": [3012.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.145}, "reply_to": "20046__2_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_102", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.\nThere are circumstances... for example, I think the Heath case was one of those, in the Seventh Circuit, where an employee was entitled to early retirement, additional benefits if they reached a certain age, and I think that he would become eligible for those benefits if they stayed on the workforce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3012.58, 3012.947], "stop_times": [3012.947, 3027.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3012.58}, "reply_to": "20046__2_101", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_103", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "What you're saying the Court did say there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3027.923], "stop_times": [3029.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.923}, "reply_to": "20046__2_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_104", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3029.542], "stop_times": [3029.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3029.542}, "reply_to": "20046__2_103", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_105", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "It's an attainment matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3029.925], "stop_times": [3030.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.925}, "reply_to": "20046__2_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_106", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "That's an attainment matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3030.892], "stop_times": [3031.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.892}, "reply_to": "20046__2_105", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_107", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And therefore the normal thing in getting an amount of money when a certain event happens under a plan that has vested, at least in the pension area, seems to be to call it an attainment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3031.425], "stop_times": [3041.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.425}, "reply_to": "20046__2_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_108", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3041.516], "stop_times": [3042.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3041.516}, "reply_to": "20046__2_107", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_109", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, if you follow the same reasoning here, you're going to say getting that amount of money under a plan that has vested when the toothache occurs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3042.132], "stop_times": [3049.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.132}, "reply_to": "20046__2_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_110", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "No, no.\nWe're not talking about getting that amount of money.\nWe're talking about becoming eligible for a new benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3049.67, 3052.122, 3053.824], "stop_times": [3052.122, 3053.824, 3055.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3049.67}, "reply_to": "20046__2_109", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_111", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--All right.\nAll right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3055.307, 3055.64], "stop_times": [3055.64, 3055.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.307}, "reply_to": "20046__2_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_112", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "An employee who was not entitled to an early retirement benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3055.89], "stop_times": [3059.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.89}, "reply_to": "20046__2_111", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_113", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "All right.\nDid you have something you wanted to say about purpose, because the only reason I ask that is that seems to have come up, and I'm not certain we should reach it here, but I know it's been argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3059.394, 3059.861], "stop_times": [3059.861, 3068.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.394}, "reply_to": "20046__2_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_114", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3068.515], "stop_times": [3068.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3068.515}, "reply_to": "20046__2_113", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_115", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And maybe you'd be better to do it with facts, or with amici, or whatever, but if you did make a point about it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3068.967], "stop_times": [3075.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.967}, "reply_to": "20046__2_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20046__2_116", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, I think the purpose of the overall statute was to deal with the vesting circumstance, and then to prevent people from circumventing someone from vesting, and I think when there are analogous circumstances like someone about to become eligible for early retirement benefits, under those circumstances that would be a similar eligibility threshold, and crossing that eligibility threshold would be involved, but nothing like that is going on here.\nThis is a global prospects change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3075.954, 3098.236], "stop_times": [3098.236, 3099.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.954}, "reply_to": "20046__2_115", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_117", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--So are you saying that the D.C. Circuit approach in the Andes case, they didn't even need to get to anything like, what does the word discharge mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3099.769], "stop_times": [3105.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3099.769}, "reply_to": "20046__2_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20046__2_118", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes, I agree with that.\nI found that decision puzzling, because the Court said on the one hand these employees weren't discharged and we didn't... Congress didn't use the words layoff and termination in that case, but then it said that well, there might be some circumstances where a particular attribute of that workforce might call it into play.\nI assume they were referring to the Gavelette case, or that kind of hypothetical in their situation, where it would apply.\nWell, if it's not a termination to subcontract out work under these circumstances, how would it be a termination or a discharge under those second set of circumstances?\nI think the D.C. Circuit was struggling with what several other courts have struggled with as how to fit section 510, how to square section 510 with these kinds of fundamental business changes, cost-based changes that employers ordinarily do, and this is very much like the kind of change that Peter Drucker talked about in his Wall Street Journal article some years, Sell the Mailroom.\nThese kinds of changes are not the kind of thing that ERISA was intended to encompass.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3105.14, 3107.092, 3124.886, 3130.588, 3139.461, 3160.727], "stop_times": [3107.092, 3124.886, 3130.588, 3139.461, 3160.727, 3165.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.14}, "reply_to": "20046__2_117", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_119", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Would your attainment test have resolved the Andes case in favor of the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3165.594], "stop_times": [3171.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.594}, "reply_to": "20046__2_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20046__2_120", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes, it would have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3171.782], "stop_times": [3172.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3171.782}, "reply_to": "20046__2_119", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_121", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "I wonder, because in paragraph 30 they specifically argue, or allege that benefits... they suffered a reduction of benefits from their pension plan and health and welfare plans.\nThere's that allegation in the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3172.867, 3182.306], "stop_times": [3182.306, 3184.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.867}, "reply_to": "20046__2_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__2_122", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3184.675], "stop_times": [3185.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3184.675}, "reply_to": "20046__2_121", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_123", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And how do you... I mean, if that's true, that's a vested right that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3185.108], "stop_times": [3188.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3185.108}, "reply_to": "20046__2_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__2_124", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, they claim that they suffered welfare... they claim that they were... that Santa Fe took this action in order to reduce a wide spectrum of benefits, salary, vacation, sick leave benefits, things that are not ERISA-included.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3188.877], "stop_times": [3201.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3188.877}, "reply_to": "20046__2_123", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_125", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--It covered at least some hypothetical cases of individual vestings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3201.886], "stop_times": [3207.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.886}, "reply_to": "20046__2_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__2_126", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, they... I don't think it does.\nI don't think the pleading covers individuals.\nIt talks about terminating welfare and pension--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3207.188, 3208.454, 3209.988], "stop_times": [3208.454, 3209.988, 3212.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3207.188}, "reply_to": "20046__2_125", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_127", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Suffered a reduction of contributions to and benefits from pension plans and health and welfare plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3212.606], "stop_times": [3219.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.606}, "reply_to": "20046__2_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__2_128", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "--Right.\nWhat they were talking about is the fact that under the new ITS Teamsters contract there was a reduction in contributions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3219.079, 3219.346], "stop_times": [3219.346, 3225.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3219.079}, "reply_to": "20046__2_127", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_129", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, but they say benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3225.565], "stop_times": [3227.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.565}, "reply_to": "20046__2_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__2_130", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "And a commensurate reduction in benefits, but it was not something that interfered with their attainment of eligibility for a particular category of benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3227.232], "stop_times": [3234.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3227.232}, "reply_to": "20046__2_129", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_131", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, that is the difference between you and the Government on how you read that paragraph, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3234.255], "stop_times": [3237.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.255}, "reply_to": "20046__2_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20046__2_132", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Well, it could be, but I think if you look at the entire complaint, you look at what petitioners have said in their briefs and in this argument, it's clear that basically what this case comes down to is the hypothetical you raised early on in the argument.\nIf there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3237.64, 3248.681], "stop_times": [3248.681, 3252.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3237.64}, "reply_to": "20046__2_131", "speaker": "james_d_holzhauer"}
{"id": "20046__2_133", "conversation_id": "20046", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Holzhauer.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-491", "start_times": [3252.05, 3254.067], "stop_times": [3254.067, 3255.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3252.05}, "reply_to": "20046__2_132", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__0_000", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-292, Marian Johnson v. Kristine Fankell.\nMr. Gilmore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [0.0, 9.026], "stop_times": [9.026, 16.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__0_001", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nToday the Court is presented with the question whether the qualified immunity defense is as powerful in State courts as it is in Federal courts, or whether its scope and its protection may vary among the States, or between Federal district courts and one State, and State trial courts in the same State.\nThirty-six States are involved in this, between the amicus and the petitioners, because of the importance of the qualified immunity defense to the practical functioning of State government, and because of the value of this defense to the employees and officers of State and local governments throughout the Nation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [16.423, 20.195, 41.327], "stop_times": [20.195, 41.327, 64.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 16.423}, "reply_to": "20151__0_000", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_002", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Do you think, Mr. Gilmore, that if the Idaho legislature had amended its judicial code to allow appeals in this kind of case that you say the Federal statute requires the supreme court of Idaho would have entertained this appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [64.794], "stop_times": [78.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.794}, "reply_to": "20151__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__0_003", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That's a very difficult question to answer, Your Honor, because the Idaho supreme court in three instances had ruled that its court rules take precedence over statutes in the area of conflict in rules of procedure, rules of evidence, and rules regarding a special statutory court that was established to adjudicate water rights in the Snake River basin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [78.082], "stop_times": [103.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 78.082}, "reply_to": "20151__0_002", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_004", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But it hasn't extended... the court has not said the same with respect to appellate rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [103.14], "stop_times": [108.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 103.14}, "reply_to": "20151__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__0_005", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That is an open question.\nIt has not addressed that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [108.612, 109.434], "stop_times": [109.434, 110.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.612}, "reply_to": "20151__0_004", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_006", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, it seemed to... you know, the one sense... I believe in one sense orders seemed to say this was not a final, whatever it is that the Idaho stature requires.\nMy concern is that since these qualified immunity is designed to protect State officials I would think the Idaho legislature could probably extend the appeal right if it wanted to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [110.405, 120.95], "stop_times": [120.95, 134.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.405}, "reply_to": "20151__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__0_007", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I simply cannot concede that, because the entire recent jurisprudence in Idaho has been for the State supreme court to say its rules preempt statutes are inconsistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [134.36], "stop_times": [145.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.36}, "reply_to": "20151__0_006", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_008", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But in any case, however the State speaks, whether it speaks through the legislature or it speaks through the supreme court, there is an agency of the State which is capable of valuing the State's interest here, and if it believes that the State's interest really does require the appealability of a qualified immunity ruling, there's some agency of a State that can say, that's the regime we will have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [145.968], "stop_times": [169.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.968}, "reply_to": "20151__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__0_009", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The Idaho supreme court could adopt an appellate rule that would explicitly provide for appealability of denial of absolute or qualified immunity motions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [169.554], "stop_times": [178.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.554}, "reply_to": "20151__0_008", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_010", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "So that ultimately the responsibility for the nonappealability is with the State itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [178.91], "stop_times": [183.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.91}, "reply_to": "20151__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__0_011", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "It is with one of the branches of State government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [183.662], "stop_times": [185.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.662}, "reply_to": "20151__0_010", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_012", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Yes.\nNow, what do you say to the argument that the justification for immediate appealability is a justification which rests ultimately not on individual interests but on State interests, and therefore, if the State doesn't want to take advantage of it, why, indeed, should a Federal court interfere with that decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [185.866, 186.086], "stop_times": [186.086, 206.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.866}, "reply_to": "20151__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__0_013", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Because the defendants in this case, or the petitioners here, are sued in their individual capacities.\nThey are not sued as State officers, as such, in their official capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [206.027, 214.342], "stop_times": [214.342, 219.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.027}, "reply_to": "20151__0_012", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_014", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But if they were merely individuals there wouldn't be any kind of immunity that they could lay hold of.\nIt's only because they're State officers that they have this qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [219.587, 226.16], "stop_times": [226.16, 230.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.587}, "reply_to": "20151__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_015", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That is correct, only governmental officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [230.514], "stop_times": [234.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 230.514}, "reply_to": "20151__0_014", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_016", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But let me ask one anterior question about where the rule-making authority is.\nI don't recall the Idaho counterpart to 1292(b) that gives the discretion only at the appellate level, is that a rule of the court, that the courts made up, or is it a legislative enactment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [234.607, 242.231], "stop_times": [242.231, 255.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.607}, "reply_to": "20151__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_017", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "It's Rule 12(a) of the Idaho supreme court, and the Idaho supreme court decision of Todd v. Budell states that that was modeled upon 1292.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [255.959], "stop_times": [263.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.959}, "reply_to": "20151__0_016", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_018", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But the source of it is the Idaho supreme court, not the Idaho legislature?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [263.716], "stop_times": [267.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 263.716}, "reply_to": "20151__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_019", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [267.099], "stop_times": [267.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.099}, "reply_to": "20151__0_018", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_020", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "What was your answer to Justice Souter?\nI mean, I take it quite specifically, why are the States filing amicus briefs?\nIt's up to the States.\nI mean, there's no Federal interest here.\nIf the State wants to subject its people to good procedural advantage, they can.\nIf they don't, they don't.\nThe Federal Government doesn't care, so what's the answer to that?\nThat's what I take it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [267.927, 271.12, 274.603, 275.735, 278.234, 283.208, 284.82, 290.283], "stop_times": [271.12, 274.603, 275.735, 278.234, 283.208, 284.82, 290.283, 291.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.927}, "reply_to": "20151__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__0_021", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The answer to that is, the State officers who the Attorney General must represent want to assert these personal defenses that you have held as a matter of Federal law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [291.713], "stop_times": [302.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 291.713}, "reply_to": "20151__0_020", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_022", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--What is it as a matter of... no, I take it the Federal law is that 1983, in giving liability, imposing liability, in helping plaintiffs attain certain things, doesn't reach as far as the area where what the State person did was lawful or uncertain.\nIt only reaches the area where what the State officer did was clearly illegal.\nNow, that's what this Court has held often.\nQualified immunity in fact arose under State law, and Congress bought into it, so that's the Federal interest.\nHow is that Federal interest hurt in any way at all by some States giving these people some procedural advantage and others not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [302.853, 321.482, 327.086, 329.739, 337.374], "stop_times": [321.482, 327.086, 329.739, 337.374, 344.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.853}, "reply_to": "20151__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__0_023", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--In a literal sense, the Federal interest is not hurt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [344.878], "stop_times": [349.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.878}, "reply_to": "20151__0_022", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_024", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, if that's so, then isn't that the end of the matter, because... well, why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [349.052], "stop_times": [353.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.052}, "reply_to": "20151__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__0_025", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Because... because all of these officers of the State of Idaho are Federal citizens and have citizens' rights.\nThe Federal Government, I suppose, could be indifferent to all kinds of... all kinds of violations of rights or immunities of Federal citizens unless it enacts a law to take care of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [353.233, 359.567], "stop_times": [359.567, 373.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.233}, "reply_to": "20151__0_024", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_026", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Mr. Gilmore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [373.428], "stop_times": [373.828], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 373.428}, "reply_to": "20151__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20151__0_027", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [373.828], "stop_times": [374.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 373.828}, "reply_to": "20151__0_026", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_028", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--I thought that the qualified immunity Federal rule did not just apply to Federal officers but also applied to State officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [374.498], "stop_times": [383.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.498}, "reply_to": "20151__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__0_029", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "It applies to all State, local, Federal Government officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [383.282], "stop_times": [386.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.282}, "reply_to": "20151__0_028", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_030", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "So then there is some Federal interest, or at least when we discerned that rule we thought that was, or when Congress enacted the statutes relying on prior historical practice Congress thought there was a Federal interest in allowing State officers to have immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [386.785], "stop_times": [407.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.785}, "reply_to": "20151__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__0_031", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "There's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [407.68], "stop_times": [408.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.68}, "reply_to": "20151__0_030", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_032", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "We do give State officers immunity in Federal courts, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [408.22], "stop_times": [410.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.22}, "reply_to": "20151__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__0_033", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--Yes.\nThere's a Federal interest that's been described in both the Bivens cases and the 1983 cases, preventing unfounded distraction of Government officers and disruption of effective Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [410.622, 411.042], "stop_times": [411.042, 424.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.622}, "reply_to": "20151__0_032", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_034", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "All of those--\n--Suppose a State were to say that we don't... for State law purposes have this immunity.\nOur officers don't have this immunity.\nUnder 1983, would the State officer nonetheless be able to claim an immunity that his State as a matter of State policy thinks the officer should not have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [424.211, 425.641, 432.265, 435.077], "stop_times": [425.641, 432.265, 435.077, 447.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.211}, "reply_to": "20151__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_035", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No.\nAs I understand the Court's precedent, State officers can only claim Federal immunities, not State immunities.\nFor example, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [447.436, 448.245, 452.919], "stop_times": [448.245, 452.919, 454.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.436}, "reply_to": "20151__0_034", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_036", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No, I mean his 1983 immunity which he would get is a Federal source, but the State says, just as municipalities can waive their sovereign immunity, that we don't want our officers to be any less responsible than anyone else for the torts they commit, so our officers will not be shielded by immunity.\nNow, would there be a Federal interest in saying, State, in defiance of your policies, we are going to insist that in 1983 cases these people be shielded by qualified immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [454.479, 478.175], "stop_times": [478.175, 491.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.479}, "reply_to": "20151__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_037", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--Yes.\nI think there are several Federal interests.\nOne is that there be identical decisions in the 1983 case between the Federal district court and the State courts in the same State.\nI think our interest in 1983 be applied uniformly throughout the Nation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [491.034, 491.485, 493.366, 502.181], "stop_times": [491.485, 493.366, 502.181, 507.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.034}, "reply_to": "20151__0_036", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_038", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, isn't the interest stronger than that?\nIsn't the interest that the citizen is liable for a judgment under 1983 under a Federal statute, and that is a Federal immunity that appertains to that person as an individual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [507.163, 509.216], "stop_times": [509.216, 521.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.163}, "reply_to": "20151__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__0_039", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Yes, and that's the interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [521.294], "stop_times": [523.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.294}, "reply_to": "20151__0_038", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_040", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "As part of the contours of the 1983 right.\nThe liability of the officer personally does not extend so far as to avoid an immunity that the Federal Government grants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [523.063, 524.905], "stop_times": [524.905, 534.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.063}, "reply_to": "20151__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__0_041", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--The Federal Government has an interest in all of its citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [534.842], "stop_times": [537.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.842}, "reply_to": "20151__0_040", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_042", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But you're saying the Federal interest, then, is superior, that even though a State can waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, the State cannot waive this federally granted immunity for its officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [537.424], "stop_times": [548.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.424}, "reply_to": "20151__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_043", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [548.49], "stop_times": [549.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.49}, "reply_to": "20151__0_042", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_044", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That the Federal policy in shielding the State officer is... tugs against the State policy no matter how strong that State policy is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [549.301], "stop_times": [557.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.301}, "reply_to": "20151__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_045", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--The State cannot waive its Federal officers... excuse me.\nThe State cannot waive its officers or employees' rights as Federal citizens.\nThis is a right that every citizen of the United States has if they work for a Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [557.937, 562.491, 566.725], "stop_times": [562.491, 566.725, 571.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 557.937}, "reply_to": "20151__0_044", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_046", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Is there a right?\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [571.457, 573.277], "stop_times": [573.277, 573.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.457}, "reply_to": "20151__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__0_047", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "An immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [573.588], "stop_times": [574.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.588}, "reply_to": "20151__0_046", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_048", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--Say Federal statutes allow me or you or anybody to sue certain groups of people under myriad circumstances, and in each of those statutes there are thousands and thousands of ways in which the person might not be liable.\nThat's because the statute doesn't cover the situation.\nIs there then some Federal interest in making certain that the procedures that are used to decide each way he's not liable is going to be the same in every State, the Federal Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [574.479, 589.569, 593.03], "stop_times": [589.569, 593.03, 602.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.479}, "reply_to": "20151__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__0_049", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [602.377], "stop_times": [603.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.377}, "reply_to": "20151__0_048", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_050", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Because that's the problem I have.\nOnce I see the case that way, and I have... obviously have been seeing it that way.\nOnce I see it that way, I find it difficult to articulate the Federal interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [603.148, 604.618, 607.909], "stop_times": [604.618, 607.909, 611.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.148}, "reply_to": "20151__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__0_051", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The Federal interest is in preservation of the State actors' Federal immunities created under Federal law, and the prevention of a loss of those Federal immunities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [611.863], "stop_times": [625.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 611.863}, "reply_to": "20151__0_050", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_052", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "May I ask a hypothetical question?\nDo you think the State could pass a statute that was patterned after 1983 and said, State court shall entertain claims for violations of Federal constitutional rights and everything else the same as in 1983, and add to it, and the State... and the defendant shall not be allowed to plead qualified immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [625.34, 628.672], "stop_times": [628.672, 646.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.34}, "reply_to": "20151__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20151__0_053", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I think the State would have the constitutional authority to pass such a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [646.725], "stop_times": [651.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.725}, "reply_to": "20151__0_052", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_054", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, what if the Federal courts... what if Congress passed a law saying, unlike the law as written at present, that when we say there can only be an appeal from the final judgment, we mean it, and there are no exceptions.\nIs there some constitutional reason why we can't give that effect in a Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [651.83, 672.882], "stop_times": [672.882, 680.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.83}, "reply_to": "20151__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20151__0_055", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "If Federal law prohibited appeal from qualified immunity motions from the denial of qualified immunity motions in the Federal courts, we would not be here today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [680.148], "stop_times": [693.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.148}, "reply_to": "20151__0_054", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_056", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, but we've just given them a right in the Federal courts to appeal based on an interpretation of the law that Congress has applied, not as a matter of constitutional law, have we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [693.298], "stop_times": [705.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.298}, "reply_to": "20151__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20151__0_057", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No, I do not believe the qualified immunity defense has been characterized as a matter of constitutional law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [705.863], "stop_times": [712.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.863}, "reply_to": "20151__0_056", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_058", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "What if the double jeopardy defense, which, you know, has more of a constitutional basis, obviously, than qualified immunity, in the Abney case that we decided some time ago, we said a defendant could appeal that in the Federal system on an interlocutory basis.\nDo you think Congress could say, no, we're not going to allow that kind of an appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [712.648, 732.071], "stop_times": [732.071, 736.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.648}, "reply_to": "20151__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__0_059", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I am not an expert in this area of relations between Federal courts and the Federal Congress, but for the purposes of this case, I think I would say yes, only to try to outline the contours of what we're looking for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [736.655], "stop_times": [759.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.655}, "reply_to": "20151__0_058", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_060", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Congress could regulate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [759.269], "stop_times": [760.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.269}, "reply_to": "20151__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__0_061", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [760.711], "stop_times": [761.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.711}, "reply_to": "20151__0_060", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_062", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "On that subject, it seems to me that if you prevail here, States must give Abney appeals in all double jeopardy cases.\nDo the States generally do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [761.56, 771.237], "stop_times": [771.237, 772.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.56}, "reply_to": "20151__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__0_063", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--When I did my research in that area, a majority of the States that I was able to identify allowed an Abney appeal, and then there was a further safety valve.\nThree of the circuits in cases where there are no... in which there are States located that have not allowed Abney appeals, have found an exception to Younger abstention and have handled the practical difficulties of dealing with double jeopardy claims in the State courts by proceeding to enjoin the criminal prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [772.519, 783.085], "stop_times": [783.085, 804.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 772.519}, "reply_to": "20151__0_062", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_064", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, it does follow from your position here, I suppose, that Abney appeals would be mandated on the States in all double jeopardy cases if you prevail here.\nIt would seem to me a parallel principle, perhaps a principle of even more importance, as the Chief Justice has indicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [804.509, 811.482], "stop_times": [811.482, 816.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.509}, "reply_to": "20151__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__0_065", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I think there are theoretical parallels.\nThere may be practical differences in the sense that I've just been talking about.\nThere already may be an existing safety valve that the circuits have created.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [816.688, 820.118, 823.961], "stop_times": [820.118, 823.961, 828.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.688}, "reply_to": "20151__0_064", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_066", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But if the... this is a right that does have a constitutional underpinning, double jeopardy, and I think the precedent you cited said States might very well want to adopt that policy as their own, but it seemed to me it wasn't your brief, it was I think the State's brief in support of you that just cited Abney and... sort of en passant, but that would be a pretty big thing to say, yes, we want the officer to be shielded here in 1983, even though we recognize the price might be that the States no longer have a choice that some of them thought they had about double jeopardy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [828.124], "stop_times": [866.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.124}, "reply_to": "20151__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_067", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I think if you look at the Kentucky amicus, that is something the Court must weigh in the balance, but I would hesitate to say that the Court must reach that issue in this proceeding I think because of the practicalities of administration of Abney, in particular, modification in Richardson with the notion of a colorable double jeopardy claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [866.721], "stop_times": [891.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.721}, "reply_to": "20151__0_066", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_068", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "There's another oddity here that in addition to the States saying their own State court is not sufficiently the guardian of the State officer's rights, it's that these cases are removable by the defendant, are they not?\nSo if you're complaining about Idaho procedure being less generous to the defendant, why couldn't the defendant remove?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [891.925, 909.526], "stop_times": [909.526, 917.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.925}, "reply_to": "20151__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_069", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "At the time this case was brought, we had no reason to believe Idaho procedure would be less generous, and there are practical reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [917.563], "stop_times": [925.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.563}, "reply_to": "20151__0_068", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_070", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, you didn't know about that they had this final judgment, firm final judgment rule and that they didn't allow interlocutory appeals except in specified cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [925.317], "stop_times": [935.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.317}, "reply_to": "20151__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_071", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--No.\nWe knew that the language of Idaho Appellate Rule 11(a) was, you may take appeal from judgments, orders, or decrees which are final, and this was an order, and this Court's precedent had discussed the finality of denial of qualified immunity orders many times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [935.083, 935.404], "stop_times": [935.404, 949.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.083}, "reply_to": "20151__0_070", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_072", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, does Idaho have the collateral order rule?\nDoes it have it in Cohen v. Beneficial, because you would have know about that one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [949.854, 954.846], "stop_times": [954.846, 960.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.854}, "reply_to": "20151__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_073", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "To the best of my knowledge, Idaho has never addressed Beneficial, to adopt or reject the collateral order rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [960.08], "stop_times": [964.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.08}, "reply_to": "20151__0_072", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_074", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But you could have removed... in any case, wouldn't one factor, if one wants... if a Federal court is going to tell... if this case is going to tell the State, change your procedure for these cases only, that the defendant who is asking for that could have gotten himself into the Federal forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [964.333], "stop_times": [985.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.333}, "reply_to": "20151__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_075", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "One cannot always get in the Federal forum, and many 1983 cases will be a suit against a number of officers, perhaps city, county, and State, and without concurrence of all the defendants, there is no right of removal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [985.167], "stop_times": [1001.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.167}, "reply_to": "20151__0_074", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_076", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Apart from the... if you have multiple defendants and they... what interest would any of them have in not getting into Federal court on a question of the qualified immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1001.087], "stop_times": [1012.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.087}, "reply_to": "20151__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_077", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Maybe not legal interest, but practical interest.\nIdaho's a big State.\nIt has 44 county seats.\nI was looking at a map yesterday.\nOne of them... the two fish and game officers in Salmon, Idaho, for example, were sued in State district court and attempted to remove, the nearest Federal district courthouse to them would be in Pocatello, 209 miles away, so if they were looking at trial, they'd be looking at leaving their family and friends, having a 2-1/2 to 3-hour drive with the new speed limits on a sunny, clear day, and 5 or 6 hours on a snowy day through mountain roads.\nThere are real interests in keeping things in the State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1012.135, 1016.005, 1018.118, 1020.619, 1022.38, 1051.508], "stop_times": [1016.005, 1018.118, 1020.619, 1022.38, 1051.508, 1054.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.135}, "reply_to": "20151__0_076", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_078", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But don't they have influence with the legislature in Idaho?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1054.28, 1057.132], "stop_times": [1057.132, 1057.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.28}, "reply_to": "20151__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__0_079", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But I think to elaborate on Justice Ginsburg's question, the answer is the same as the plaintiffs in Felder.\nThey could have filed in Federal district court if they didn't want to worry about Wisconsin's notice of claim statute, but the answer in there was, when you are in State court applying Federal law, you apply all the Federal law, not some of the Federal law, and these defendants have the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1057.393, 1066.249], "stop_times": [1066.249, 1084.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.393}, "reply_to": "20151__0_078", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_080", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, let me ask how far you would take that, because there's one respect in which Idaho is more generous in allowing interlocutory appeals, and that is from a new trial order, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1084.251], "stop_times": [1094.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.251}, "reply_to": "20151__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_081", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1094.007], "stop_times": [1094.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.007}, "reply_to": "20151__0_080", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_082", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "So suppose we had a case where a plaintiff had prevailed, and then the judge, the trial judge said, sorry, I'm going to wipe that out... let me see if I've got that reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1094.778], "stop_times": [1116.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.778}, "reply_to": "20151__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_083", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I think I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1116.183], "stop_times": [1117.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.183}, "reply_to": "20151__0_082", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_084", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Yes, so where it would be... the State procedure would be to the defendant's advantage to take the interlocutory appeal, but we wouldn't be allowed that in the Federal system.\nCan the plaintiff then say, no interlocutory appeal from the new trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1117.173, 1132.183], "stop_times": [1132.183, 1138.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.173}, "reply_to": "20151__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_085", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That's a close call, and I can't find anything in the Court's precedents and things like FELA or 1983 to really answer that.\nI guess the only answer there is like development in FELA, or development in 1983, that's going to require a case-by-case analysis.\nI don't see that as being a black-and-white issue.\nWhat I think is black and white is that if you don't get your appeal from denial of a qualified immunity motion, and you should prevail later but you've gone to trial in the meantime, you've lost the benefits of your qualified immunity, and that is a black-and-white issue, not a gray issue.\nI think one of the essential underpinnings that we're looking for in this case is even-handedness between treatments of plaintiff's rights and claims in 1983 in State courts and defendant's immunities.\nFelder v. Casey has been decided, so Idaho's notice of claim statute allow this case to be brought in State court.\nIf State courts would be taken as they found them, the plaintiffs wouldn't be here at all.\nBoth, it's time to, we think, look at the other hand, look at the question of what happens to defendants who find themselves in State courts for whatever reasons... they prefer the forum for convenience, they can't get concurrence of all the defendants to remove to Federal court... they should be given the same benefits of Federal law as plaintiffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1138.567, 1147.823, 1156.599, 1158.019, 1173.871, 1199.067, 1209.123, 1213.724], "stop_times": [1147.823, 1156.599, 1158.019, 1173.871, 1199.067, 1209.123, 1213.724, 1235.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.567}, "reply_to": "20151__0_084", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_086", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Mr. Gilmore, here's what troubles me.\nWe do have language in our opinions to say that the immunity right is a right not to be tried, not just a right to be acquitted, or found innocent.\nHowever, we said that for the purpose of deciding whether the policy expressed in 1983 was sufficient to overcome what would be the normal operation of a Federal statute.\nI'm not sure that it's the same question whether that policy is strong enough to overcome the State's ability to manage procedures in its own courts.\nDon't you think they're really two different questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1235.4, 1239.734, 1252.741, 1267.059, 1279.017], "stop_times": [1239.734, 1252.741, 1267.059, 1279.017, 1282.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.4}, "reply_to": "20151__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__0_087", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I don't, because I think the policy we're talking about is what immunities can citizens of the United States assert, and how can they protect them, and that's a policy that this court says overrides under the collateral order doctrine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1282.11], "stop_times": [1296.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.11}, "reply_to": "20151__0_086", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_088", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No, but the procedure that's followed doesn't reach the question whether you will ultimately prevail on the immunity issue.\nIf you do have the immunity, you will ultimately win the lawsuit, but you will have the burden of a trial that you will otherwise avoid, a burden that is a burden on the State judicial system as well as on the parties to the case, and the top officers of the State judicial system say we're willing to pay that price in order to save the appellate courts the premature adjudication burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1296.582, 1301.433], "stop_times": [1301.433, 1323.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.582}, "reply_to": "20151__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20151__0_089", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--I think the answer there was given in Behrens last term.\nIn that case, Behrens said... the opinion in Behrens was that when you talk about appealability you don't talk about whether you're going to succeed or not succeed, whether you've got a good case or a frivolous one.\nYou talk about categories of orders.\nAnd here is a category of order, a black and white category, denial of a motion for qualified immunity, be it 12(b)(6) or summary judgment, and that is so important... so important under Federal law that that's considered final.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1323.487, 1327.821, 1340.039, 1341.639], "stop_times": [1327.821, 1340.039, 1341.639, 1359.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.487}, "reply_to": "20151__0_088", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_090", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Mr. Gilmore, in the reverse situation in cases, Erie cases in Federal court where State law is governing just as 1983 Federal law is governing, the decisions of this Court have said there is an essential character to the Federal court system, and things that pertain to that essential character don't give way to the States.\nI mean, think of if a State allowed an interlocutory appeal whenever the lawyers liked it.\nYou had... you've got diversity cases certainly wouldn't have the Federal courts copy that, so is there a... should there be some kind of symmetry?\nJust as the Federal courts don't have to make themselves over in the State court's image, the State courts ought to be allowed their essential characteristics, including how firm they want their final judgment rule to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1359.05, 1388.479, 1394.714, 1404.341], "stop_times": [1388.479, 1394.714, 1404.341, 1417.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.05}, "reply_to": "20151__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__0_091", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Symmetry should hold up to the Supremacy Clause and either the burdening or in this case the extinguishment of a Federal immunity.\nWhat we're talking about here is the complete elimination of a Federal immunity of discovery from trial should there be an erroneous trial court ruling, and there's always going to be an asymmetry between these two situations because of the Supremacy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1417.519, 1427.636], "stop_times": [1427.636, 1442.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1417.519}, "reply_to": "20151__0_090", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_092", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Mr. Gilmore, you have repeatedly characterized the right which is at stake here as being a personal right of United States citizens.\nThe difficulty I have with that is this.\nAs I understand our analysis of qualified immunity up to this point, it is an analysis which has recognized the immunity number 1, because it was thought to be recognized at common law when 1983 went in, and that common law background is supposedly the basis for our interpretation.\nBut number 2, because the interest which that immunity protects is the public or State interest against having its officers made timid or distracted, and so on.\nMy understanding is we have never recognized the interest as being a separate, individual interest.\nThe individuals get the benefit because that's the necessary implication of the State getting the benefit.\nAm I right in my understanding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1442.204, 1452.453, 1455.705, 1473.765, 1486.334, 1493.95, 1498.352], "stop_times": [1452.453, 1455.705, 1473.765, 1486.334, 1493.95, 1498.352, 1500.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.204}, "reply_to": "20151__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__0_093", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "You have always tied the individuals' interest to their function in the State or local government, or National Government in the Bevins case.\nI see that my time is running.\nIf there are no further questions from the bench at this moment, I will reserve the remainder for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1500.993, 1507.938, 1516.284], "stop_times": [1507.938, 1516.284, 1521.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.993}, "reply_to": "20151__0_092", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__0_094", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Very well, Mr. Gilmore.\nMr. Latta, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1521.517, 1522.909], "stop_times": [1522.909, 1524.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.517}, "reply_to": "20151__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_000", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe qualified immunity that is recognized in Harlow, and the procedure set out in Mitchell, are benefits offered to the States, including Idaho, by Congress.\nIn this matter, the State has declined twice the benefit of the ability to take an interlocutory appeal from a qualified immunity denial.\nFirst, Idaho's longstanding finality rule and its nonrecognition of the collateral order doctrine are State policies by the proper parties in Idaho at least.\nThe Idaho supreme court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1524.319, 1535.517, 1547.262, 1559.01, 1572.22], "stop_times": [1535.517, 1547.262, 1559.01, 1572.22, 1574.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1524.319}, "reply_to": "20151__0_094", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_001", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, when you say nonrecognition of the collateral order doctrine, Mr. Latta, do you mean that the supreme court of Idaho has rejected it, or simply has never confronted it one way or the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1574.872], "stop_times": [1584.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.872}, "reply_to": "20151__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_002", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--It has never confronted it, and based on the jurisprudence as... and I believe Mr. Gilmore and I both read it it would be unlikely that they would do it because the door is open by another means, Appellate Rule 12, that allows for permissive appeals to bring those up.\nThe permissive appeal rule is the... would be the preferred, under Budell v. Todd, matter to bring this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1584.548, 1601.89], "stop_times": [1601.89, 1611.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1584.548}, "reply_to": "20151__1_001", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_003", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "And what does the permissive appeal rule provide, briefly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1611.226], "stop_times": [1616.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.226}, "reply_to": "20151__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_004", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--In this case, to illustrate, having received the order denying qualified immunity from the trial judge here, the State could go back to the trial judge and ask for its order permitting a permissive appeal to the supreme court.\nThe court would issue its order.\nThat order would not be binding on the appellate court because... the Idaho supreme court.\nThe supreme court would make its own decision in light of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1616.809, 1632.46, 1634.43, 1639.223], "stop_times": [1632.46, 1634.43, 1639.223, 1642.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1616.809}, "reply_to": "20151__1_003", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_005", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "It's like Federal 1292(b), the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1642.515], "stop_times": [1646.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.515}, "reply_to": "20151__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_006", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--Exactly.\nNot... excuse me, not exactly, but that was the model Rule 12 is modeled on, 1292.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1646.188, 1646.839], "stop_times": [1646.839, 1653.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1646.188}, "reply_to": "20151__1_005", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_007", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--Does the trial court have to give its permission to have the ruling appealed under that discretionary regime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1653.752], "stop_times": [1658.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.752}, "reply_to": "20151__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__1_008", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No, it would not.\nIt could say this would be a frivolous appeal and deny it, just as it could deny a 54(b) certificate if it were asked, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1658.637, 1659.947], "stop_times": [1659.947, 1666.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.637}, "reply_to": "20151__1_007", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_009", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I'm trying to ascertain what role does the trial judge have in establishing whether or not there may be a permissive appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1666.751], "stop_times": [1676.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.751}, "reply_to": "20151__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__1_010", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--His role under Rule 12 is to look at requests for the order and say it should or should not be the subject of a permissive appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1676.028], "stop_times": [1684.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1676.028}, "reply_to": "20151__1_009", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_011", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "And if he says that it should not, then that ends the matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1684.363], "stop_times": [1687.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.363}, "reply_to": "20151__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__1_012", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No.\nThat is not binding on the supreme court.\nYou look at... there are two separate decisions made, one by the trial judge to say yes or no, and then the supreme court acts on its own in light of what the trial judge has said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1687.846, 1688.127, 1689.687], "stop_times": [1688.127, 1689.687, 1701.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.846}, "reply_to": "20151__1_011", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_013", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, I suppose, then, if we were to say that this is a substantive, very significant right, the right to have an interlocutory ruling, then it would be then an abuse of discretion of Idaho law not to take the appeal, and so at least the right could be enforced under the existing procedural structure in Idaho.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1701.435], "stop_times": [1726.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.435}, "reply_to": "20151__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__1_014", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I would agree it could be under that scenario.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1726.351], "stop_times": [1729.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.351}, "reply_to": "20151__1_013", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_015", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Mr. Latta, I thought that Idaho's creation of that rule, which does modify 1292(b), is to make it totally discretionary on its part.\nIdaho has a firm final judgment rule.\nIt's enacted a provision for interlocutory review at its sole pleasure.\nNot the trial judge's approval but just... so how could it abuse its discretion when it's deliberately created a rule that gives it a prerogative to do as it pleases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1729.183, 1737.768, 1740.4, 1747.134], "stop_times": [1737.768, 1740.4, 1747.134, 1759.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.183}, "reply_to": "20151__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__1_016", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I was unfortunately mixing the two court systems.\nThe abuse of discretion rule that I was thinking of would be abusing this Court's discretion in failing to accept that permissible appeal.\nThe Idaho Appellate Rule 12 is wholly permissive in nature, but it would be an abuse of this court's discretion not to accept a interlocutory appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1759.944, 1762.884, 1773.903], "stop_times": [1762.884, 1773.903, 1784.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.944}, "reply_to": "20151__1_015", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_017", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Who's going to enforce that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1784.608], "stop_times": [1786.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.608}, "reply_to": "20151__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20151__1_018", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "It might be... it might occur only in the circumstance that brings us here, where we are in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1786.959], "stop_times": [1795.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.959}, "reply_to": "20151__1_017", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_019", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "If we don't take a case, how are you going to get here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1795.174], "stop_times": [1798.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.174}, "reply_to": "20151__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20151__1_020", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--In... it is not likely that I would be the one who needed to get here.\nIt would be the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1798.136, 1802.57], "stop_times": [1802.57, 1803.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.136}, "reply_to": "20151__1_019", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_021", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, just focusing on the Idaho court based on your comments to Justice Ginsburg I assume no one could tell the Idaho court that it has to take... has to exercise its discretion to take the appeal.\nLet's assume that we think that it's very, very important that there be an interlocutory appeal.\nI was asking whether or not that could be accommodated within the existing Idaho structure, and suggested that maybe it would be an abuse of discretion for Idaho supreme court not to take the appeal, and then Justice Ginsburg points out, well, the whole point of this is so they can have complete control over their docket.\nThey're not answerable to anybody.\nAnd so it does seem to me that there is then a problem if we agree with the petitioner's case that this is such a significant right that it has to be enforced in the State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1803.401, 1816.629, 1822.205, 1839.105, 1841.897], "stop_times": [1816.629, 1822.205, 1839.105, 1841.897, 1853.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.401}, "reply_to": "20151__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20151__1_022", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, the... because it is permissive as to the Idaho supreme court, then it would only be answerable to this Court on an abuse of discretion theory, but the solution to the problem presented by the permissive nature of Idaho Appellate Rule 12 is in what was suggested by Justice Ginsburg earlier, and that is that this represents and tells us that the first opportunity to exercise the ability to get exactly what you want in the way of the interlocutory appeal is to take this Court's... excuse me, take Congress' route, and that is to remove it to Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1853.824], "stop_times": [1897.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1853.824}, "reply_to": "20151__1_021", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_023", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Which might be equally inconvenient for your client, given the distance that Mr. Gilmore just told us about, that the State court is much more accessible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1897.773], "stop_times": [1908.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.773}, "reply_to": "20151__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__1_024", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "There are three Federal courtrooms in Idaho, and for a large number of people in Idaho it's a very long haul to a Federal courtroom, but if the State believes on behalf of its actors that it must have the right of interlocutory appeal, then the answer is to go to Federal court, not to be subjected to the discretion of the Idaho supreme court where they may not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1908.139], "stop_times": [1939.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.139}, "reply_to": "20151__1_023", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_025", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I had though maybe the closest case supporting petitioner was Felder v. Casey.\nHow do you distinguish that case and the reasons for it with the situation here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1939.54, 1947.085], "stop_times": [1947.085, 1954.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.54}, "reply_to": "20151__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20151__1_026", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--I take solace in the language of Felder v. Casey, because it talks in that case of the natural and permissible consequences of the otherwise uniformly applicable State rule.\nFelder does not dictate that there shall be an interlocutory appeal rule in State court.\nThis finality rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1954.951, 1969.15, 1977.816], "stop_times": [1969.15, 1977.816, 1979.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.951}, "reply_to": "20151__1_025", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_027", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, it wasn't dealing with the appeal problem, it was dealing with a notice problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1979.946], "stop_times": [1987.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.946}, "reply_to": "20151__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20151__1_028", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1987.082], "stop_times": [1987.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.082}, "reply_to": "20151__1_027", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_029", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But the principle, at least, there was that there were times when we were going to impose certain requirements on State courts in connection with 1983 suits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [1987.971], "stop_times": [2001.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.971}, "reply_to": "20151__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20151__1_030", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That's right.\nThe... but those burdens that you impose on State courts under Felder are the burdens on the plaintiff's exercise of her rights as opposed to the State actors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2001.331, 2001.771], "stop_times": [2001.771, 2013.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2001.331}, "reply_to": "20151__1_029", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_031", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That was... I mean, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.\nI really don't see how you can say, well, those were plaintiffs and these are defendants.\nSo what?\nI mean, the... if that's all it is, if they're plaintiffs and here's the defendants, when I read Felder... but you're going to agree with what I say is the problem, and you'd better not agree with it because it will turn out it's wrong.\nI want to know why... I mean, when I read Felder, I thought that Felder follows from Rose, because Rose is a case that says you can't just kick a 1983 actions out of your court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2013.449, 2018.482, 2022.334, 2022.795, 2033.642], "stop_times": [2018.482, 2022.334, 2022.795, 2033.642, 2043.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.449}, "reply_to": "20151__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__1_032", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2043.947], "stop_times": [2044.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.947}, "reply_to": "20151__1_031", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_033", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "And Felder was a case where they said the plaintiff has to show that he's hurt within 120 days, and they say that's such a short time, 120 days to notify that you're hurt, that it's about the same thing, kicking it out.\nAll right.\nI don't know if that's a correct distinction or not, but if you're just going to distinguish... unless you find something like... I mean, can you say a little more about well, we're plaintiffs and they're defendants?\nI mean, that, to me, doesn't work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2044.528, 2055.467, 2056.197, 2068.795], "stop_times": [2055.467, 2056.197, 2068.795, 2069.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.528}, "reply_to": "20151__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__1_034", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, the State interest that's being protected by the immunity rule belongs to the States, not to the individuals, as has been offered by petitioners as a reason for applying this Federal rule and this Federal procedure in State court.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2069.996, 2085.588], "stop_times": [2085.588, 2087.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.996}, "reply_to": "20151__1_033", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_035", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, I suppose that would be true if everybody knew that the State was going to pay the judgment.\nSuppose the individual's going to pay the judgment?\nCan the Federal Government not condition the terms on which a person is liable for a violation of the Constitution of the United States under a Federal statute and say we're not going to make you liable if the law was not clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2087.949, 2093.121, 2095.385], "stop_times": [2093.121, 2095.385, 2110.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.949}, "reply_to": "20151__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__1_036", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--The choice of how the State is going to exercise its actors' immunities is up to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2110.833], "stop_times": [2124.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.833}, "reply_to": "20151__1_035", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_037", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, I'm sure that's true if it's a State... if it's a State liability scheme, but this is a Federal liability scheme.\nThe Federal Government has said you as a person are individually liable for violating 1983, but we'll give you a defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2124.513, 2131.556], "stop_times": [2131.556, 2139.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.513}, "reply_to": "20151__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__1_038", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "And the State can elect to expand on that defense by paying for the Office of the Attorney General to defend them or indemnifying them, or, as was suggested earlier, telling the State actors when they come to work, you may be subject to a civil rights case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2139.222], "stop_times": [2157.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.222}, "reply_to": "20151__1_037", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_039", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, but suppose the State doesn't indemnify the persons, or the State treasury is insufficient?\nI don't think the State can abolish a Federal defense that this Court and the Congress by inference have granted to a defendant, an individual defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2157.884, 2163.367], "stop_times": [2163.367, 2174.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.884}, "reply_to": "20151__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__1_040", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The State has not abolished the Federal defense in this case.\nIf the Federal defense is immunity from liability, that has to be distinguished from immunity from the burdens of trial that they're trying to obtain by imposing this interlocutory appeal rule on the Idaho appellate system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2174.646, 2181.649], "stop_times": [2181.649, 2199.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.646}, "reply_to": "20151__1_039", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_041", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, but the State of Idaho does recognize the doctrine of qualified immunity, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2199.371], "stop_times": [2205.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.371}, "reply_to": "20151__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_042", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Very much so, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2205.445], "stop_times": [2206.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.445}, "reply_to": "20151__1_041", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_043", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "So that all Idaho is denying that the Federal courts give is the interlocutory appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2206.346], "stop_times": [2212.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.346}, "reply_to": "20151__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_044", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That is correct, and the distinction that's of importance here is the manner in which the interlocutory appeal is taken in the Federal system compared to the State system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2212.54], "stop_times": [2226.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.54}, "reply_to": "20151__1_043", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_045", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Then you... I don't want to interrupt.\nAre you finished?\nI want you to finish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2226.088, 2228.479, 2229.24], "stop_times": [2228.479, 2229.24, 2229.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.088}, "reply_to": "20151__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__1_046", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I wanted to answer... excuse me.\nThe interlocutory appeal under the Federal system is pursuant to 1291 and to the Cohen collateral order doctrine, and those are first ideas that a statute that doesn't apply, an idea that does not... has not been accepted by the Idaho courts for application in State courts, and that provides the complete remedy that the petitioners seek, because there's a court system that allows for the interlocutory appeal that this case... excuse me, this Court has created in Mitchell.\nSo if they're objecting that... if their objection is that we want our interlocutory appeal, the whole answer is, the case can be, should have been removed because that's where you know you're going to get your interlocutory appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2229.871, 2232.162, 2268.066], "stop_times": [2232.162, 2268.066, 2282.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2229.871}, "reply_to": "20151__1_045", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_047", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But why wasn't it a complete answer in Felder, then, to say well, you could have filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, rather than in the circuit court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2282.576], "stop_times": [2293.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.576}, "reply_to": "20151__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_048", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "My understanding of the distinction here would be that if you could have filed in the Federal district court in Wisconsin you would have still been subject to the 120-day rule, and that was what... that limitation on bringing the State's rights was what was fatally wrong with the Wisconsin notice of claim statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2293.303], "stop_times": [2314.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2293.303}, "reply_to": "20151__1_047", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_049", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I thought what was wrong in Felder was that in the State court, by imposing the time requirement, the right in effect was shrunk a little bit, and they said you can't shrink these rights against the wishes of those who assert them.\nIn this case, the party that is protected by the appealability rule in a qualified immunity case is the State, and the State says through its official agencies, I don't care.\nIt's okay with me.\nI don't want that right.\nIsn't that a distinction between this case and Felder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2314.416, 2336.541, 2352.29, 2353.342, 2354.584], "stop_times": [2336.541, 2352.29, 2353.342, 2354.584, 2358.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.416}, "reply_to": "20151__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20151__1_050", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "It has been exercised, yes.\nThe State's position, as reflected in Idaho Appellate Rule 11, is that it does not want to hear interlocutory appeals, and it may exercise that right with respect to the State's interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2358.435, 2361.219], "stop_times": [2361.219, 2374.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2358.435}, "reply_to": "20151__1_049", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_051", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, if this is an optional thing with the State, then I suppose the State could decide not to accept the qualified immunity doctrine at all, if it thinks its officers don't need it, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2374.956], "stop_times": [2385.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.956}, "reply_to": "20151__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_052", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That is correct.\nThey could do that.\nThey could direct the Attorney General, perhaps through legislation, likely through legislation, not to assert the defense, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2385.602, 2386.393, 2387.204], "stop_times": [2386.393, 2387.204, 2395.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.602}, "reply_to": "20151__1_051", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_053", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, I suppose--\n--If a 1983 action were brought, the defendant would... I mean, he could tell the Attorney General not to, but he couldn't tell the individual who's being sued for his private fortune not to assert a defense that he has.\nYou think the State could do that, say you offered us this.\nIt was for the benefit of the State, and we don't think we need it so we're not going to let our State officers do it.\nYou don't think they could do that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2395.62, 2396.499, 2410.38, 2412.982, 2417.292], "stop_times": [2396.499, 2410.38, 2412.982, 2417.292, 2418.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.62}, "reply_to": "20151__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_054", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--They could direct or make a policy decision not to use the benefit of the qualified immunity defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2418.324], "stop_times": [2427.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.324}, "reply_to": "20151__1_053", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_055", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I'm not talking about the executive.\nI'm talking about the State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2427.881, 2429.11], "stop_times": [2429.11, 2430.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.881}, "reply_to": "20151__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_056", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "In the State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2430.352], "stop_times": [2431.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.352}, "reply_to": "20151__1_055", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_057", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "In the State courts?\nThe State courts could say, the Federal Government's been very kind to offer us this immunity defense, but speaking for the State, thanks but no thanks, and you're liable under 1983 without any immunity?\nThat's your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2431.374, 2432.045, 2444.552], "stop_times": [2432.045, 2444.552, 2445.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.374}, "reply_to": "20151__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_058", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The... if the question, if I understand the question, if it's collapsing the interlocutory appeal rule into the qualified immunity issue, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2445.313], "stop_times": [2458.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.313}, "reply_to": "20151__1_057", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_059", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Oh, I mean... they go together, it seems to me.\nIf you... you're asserting a doctrine of waiver, I guess, or... I don't know, declination of offer, and you say that the Federal Government has essentially offered the State the advantage to its officers of having an immediate interlocutory appeal, and the State is saying we don't think we need it.\nWell, if they could do it for that element of qualified immunity, why can't they do it for the whole doctrine and just say, we will not allow that as a defense to a 1983 suit.\nI think your position is, yes, they can do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2458.081, 2459.52, 2477.523, 2487.791], "stop_times": [2459.52, 2477.523, 2487.791, 2490.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.081}, "reply_to": "20151__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_060", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--At the fullest extent the answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2490.272], "stop_times": [2491.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.272}, "reply_to": "20151__1_059", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_061", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "You certainly don't have to take that position to defend this case, because there's a vast difference between giving up a procedural right that does not affect the ultimate outcome of the case and giving up a defense that would change the outcome in many, many cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2491.992], "stop_times": [2505.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.992}, "reply_to": "20151__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20151__1_062", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I would agree with you, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2505.77], "stop_times": [2507.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.77}, "reply_to": "20151__1_061", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_063", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "And in Felder, of course, part of the analysis was that the statute affected the outcome in a significant number of cases, and that's not true here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2507.102], "stop_times": [2514.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2507.102}, "reply_to": "20151__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20151__1_064", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--That's why I looked at the distinction between qualified immunity as a defense and the interlocutory appeal, because irrespective of not being able to exercise the interlocutory appeal that they seek by imposing 1291 on the State, the immunity defense will never go away, and it wouldn't matter what kind of a recovery the plaintiff would obtain down below if the State was, in fact, immune from suit the Supreme Court would so hold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2514.536], "stop_times": [2540.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.536}, "reply_to": "20151__1_063", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_065", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Yes, but in one respect it does go away, because the one element of the immunity defense is the element not to have to stand trial, and that does go away.\nIf the only time you can raise qualified immunity is after trial, then you have lost that element of the immunity, and that... to that degree it is outcome-determinative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2540.665, 2550.279], "stop_times": [2550.279, 2559.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.665}, "reply_to": "20151__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20151__1_066", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "If... I would disagree.\nWe've looked at that outcome-determinative issue as hard as we can, and if the answer is, does it determine the outcome of the lawsuit, the answer is no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2559.165, 2562.348], "stop_times": [2562.348, 2571.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.165}, "reply_to": "20151__1_065", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_067", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No, but it determines the outcome of whether they have to stand trial or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2571.534], "stop_times": [2575.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.534}, "reply_to": "20151__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__1_068", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2575.317], "stop_times": [2575.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2575.317}, "reply_to": "20151__1_067", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_069", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "In that respect there is a determination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2575.898], "stop_times": [2578.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.898}, "reply_to": "20151__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__1_070", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "There is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2578.189], "stop_times": [2578.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.189}, "reply_to": "20151__1_069", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_071", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--that the bell cannot be unrung.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2578.469], "stop_times": [2579.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.469}, "reply_to": "20151__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20151__1_072", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--With respect to the trial bell, yes, it cannot be unrung, and if you don't want to hear that chimed in the background, either change Rule 11 or remove it to Federal court where you're guaranteed to be in a position to take the interlocutory appeal that they seek.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2579.818], "stop_times": [2595.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2579.818}, "reply_to": "20151__1_071", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_073", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, it really doesn't deny the right not to stand trial, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2595.129], "stop_times": [2598.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.129}, "reply_to": "20151__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_074", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2598.883], "stop_times": [2600.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.883}, "reply_to": "20151__1_073", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_075", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The person has that right not to stand trial.\nThe only issue is, when the district judge makes a mistake in the course of adjudication and finds that right not to be applicable, what is the procedural remedy?\nYou don't have to concede that the right not to stand trial has been abrogated by the State, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2600.405, 2602.665, 2617.406], "stop_times": [2602.665, 2617.406, 2623.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.405}, "reply_to": "20151__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_076", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "No, not at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2623.449], "stop_times": [2624.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.449}, "reply_to": "20151__1_075", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_077", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2624.368], "stop_times": [2625.039], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.368}, "reply_to": "20151__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20151__1_078", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2625.039], "stop_times": [2625.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2625.039}, "reply_to": "20151__1_077", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_079", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--The district court here, the District Court of Bonner County, entertained a motion for summary judgment at the beginning of this case, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2625.53], "stop_times": [2635.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.53}, "reply_to": "20151__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_080", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--Yes, it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2635.106], "stop_times": [2636.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.106}, "reply_to": "20151__1_079", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_081", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "And one of the grounds for summary judgment was qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2636.136], "stop_times": [2639.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.136}, "reply_to": "20151__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_082", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2639.979], "stop_times": [2640.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.979}, "reply_to": "20151__1_081", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_083", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "So it's not as if Idaho said, we will never recognize any qualified immunity defense until the day before trial.\nThe district court heard the claim and simply decided against you, and all the other people are being denied, the State people, is the right to appeal that decision before trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2640.76, 2649.616], "stop_times": [2649.616, 2660.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.76}, "reply_to": "20151__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__1_084", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The district court decided the issue in our favor, thinking that there had been a violation of clearly established law, and at this juncture what the petitioners want is to take their interlocutory appeal, but they're not in a court system that's otherwise available 200 miles to the south in Moscow to take that appeal, and that's the... the problem that they're faced with is having made the decision, they're now objecting to the effect of staying in the State system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2660.171], "stop_times": [2692.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.171}, "reply_to": "20151__1_083", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_085", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I suppose your case would be harder if Congress had written into 1983, made it a nice neat package with a substantive right and a procedural right all rolled into one, but the interlocutory appeal that we're talking about comes not from the Bivens claim or the 1983 claim, it comes from the standard 1291, the collateral order that applies as a matter of Federal procedural law to all Federal courts on all questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2692.804], "stop_times": [2724.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2692.804}, "reply_to": "20151__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__1_086", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That is exactly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2724.355], "stop_times": [2725.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.355}, "reply_to": "20151__1_085", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_087", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Nothing unique to 1983 about 1291 and the collateral order rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2725.515], "stop_times": [2728.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.515}, "reply_to": "20151__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__1_088", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--That is correct.\nJohnson v. Jones shows us that very explicitly.\nQualified immunity is not an issue... excuse me.\nThe interlocutory appeal is not an issue of 1983.\nIt's a creature of 1291, and in your analysis, we see it the same way.\nWhen the statute was passed there were rights and immunities, and at some point... I believe it's 114 years later... Mitchell comes down from this court, and now we have interlocutory appeals under 1292 and under Cohen that apply in State court, and if the Office of the Attorney General wants to take advantage of the second benefit offered along with the immunity itself, and that is the interlocutory appeal recognized by this Court, they can do so by removal.\nWe don't think that they can do so by engrafting 1291 into Idaho Appellate Rule 11.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2728.647, 2730.067, 2732.791, 2736.672, 2739.674, 2746.59, 2776.379], "stop_times": [2730.067, 2732.791, 2736.672, 2739.674, 2746.59, 2776.379, 2782.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.647}, "reply_to": "20151__1_087", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_089", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Well, you might even go so far, I suppose, as saying there's no right to even have an appellate structure at all in Idaho for a civilian civil dispute like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2782.143], "stop_times": [2796.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2782.143}, "reply_to": "20151__1_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20151__1_090", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "This Court earlier in the MLB decision acknowledged that there was no right, there's no requirement that the State provide civil appeals, and so the answer to your question is that is correct.\nWe could go that far.\nThe practicalities are is that is not what has happened here.\nWe do have a civil system, but that civil system has chosen to look at the finality rule, and we can look at this case in the Federal court system the same way.\nIf Congress were to amend 1291 and make it a final judgment order decree rule as opposed to a final decision rule, then the underpinnings in Mitchell for allowing interlocutory appeals for statutory underpinning at least, would go away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2796.932, 2812.793, 2814.013, 2817.686, 2829.134], "stop_times": [2812.793, 2814.013, 2817.686, 2829.134, 2847.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.932}, "reply_to": "20151__1_089", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_091", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Mr. Latta, do you think your case might be weaker if Cohen hadn't decided that there are exceptions which this Court can carve out to the final decision rule?\nIn other words, suppose the Federal statute were categorical and this Court had said, well, yes, the procedural statute is categorical, but it seems to come into conflict with the right set forth in 1983, and since it comes into conflict with it, we think the rights set forth in 1983 must prevail, and despite a final judgment absolute rule, we think that statute prevails.\nIf it would prevail over the Federal statute, wouldn't it prevail over the State statute as well, if it were that strong a Federal policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2847.064, 2864.696, 2887.921], "stop_times": [2864.696, 2887.921, 2899.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.064}, "reply_to": "20151__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_092", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "It would be a much more difficult case for us to argue here.\nInterestingly, under Cohen, of course, the number of things that now fit into final decisions that this Court is going to look at keeps growing.\nIt's not shrinking, and there's no hint that the Congress is going to move to a stricter rule than the final decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2899.02, 2903.693, 2913.4], "stop_times": [2903.693, 2913.4, 2922.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2899.02}, "reply_to": "20151__1_091", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_093", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I suppose another--\n--It's moving at a slower rate, though.\nYes, I think we're not leaking quite as much as we used to.\nI suppose another way of phrasing Justice Scalia's question is whether the appealability rule adopted in Mitchell is a construction of 1291 or a construction of 1983, and I suppose the answer's obvious because Mitchell wasn't even a 1983 case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2922.395, 2923.457, 2924.356, 2928.079], "stop_times": [2923.457, 2924.356, 2928.079, 2942.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.395}, "reply_to": "20151__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20151__1_094", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "That is correct.\nWhen we look at the Idaho State structure, the two opportunities that the State had to take their interlocutory appeal first as a matter of policy and second as a matter of tactics that are to be applied in this case, we suggest that the Court decline the invitation to apply 1291 to Idaho Appellate Rule 11.\nCongress provided a complete remedy in the removal statute.\nIt left to the State their choices on how to conduct their business and balance these competing State interests, and the balance is to be struck for the States, not in favor of engrafting a Federal statute.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2942.848, 2943.978, 2967.583, 2971.627, 2985.485], "stop_times": [2943.978, 2967.583, 2971.627, 2985.485, 2986.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2942.848}, "reply_to": "20151__1_093", "speaker": "w_b_latta_jr"}
{"id": "20151__1_095", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Latta.\nMr. Gilmore, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2986.557, 2988.377], "stop_times": [2988.377, 2990.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.557}, "reply_to": "20151__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__2_000", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Thank you.\nThe State court balance has already been upset.\nThis case is in the State court.\nIt would not be in the State court but for Felder v. Casey, and I think we've really got a core issue.\nWhat's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [2990.511, 2992.431, 2999.984, 3003.137, 3009.081], "stop_times": [2992.431, 2999.984, 3003.137, 3009.081, 3011.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2990.511}, "reply_to": "20151__1_095", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__2_001", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "But Felder v. Casey just matches what happens on the diversity side, doesn't it?\nYou've got Rule 3 that says the case commences when you file the complaint, but if the State law says that's not good enough, you have to serve it.\nThat State rule will apply in the Federal court in a diversity case, so Felder's just the match for that, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3011.074, 3015.916, 3023.74], "stop_times": [3015.916, 3023.74, 3035.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.074}, "reply_to": "20151__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__2_002", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I think not.\nWhen you talk about Rule 3, you're talking about something that can be complied with that does not extinguish a substantive right.\nIn this case, the substantive right at issue, the right not to go to trial, will be absolutely extinguished if there's an erroneous--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3035.708, 3037.01, 3043.914], "stop_times": [3037.01, 3043.914, 3050.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3035.708}, "reply_to": "20151__2_001", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__2_003", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Not the immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3050.227], "stop_times": [3051.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.227}, "reply_to": "20151__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__2_004", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "--The immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3051.178], "stop_times": [3051.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3051.178}, "reply_to": "20151__2_003", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__2_005", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Not... and the difference in Felder is, if you didn't give that notice that the State had, you don't get your foot in the door in court at all.\nIt's quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3051.949, 3060.115], "stop_times": [3060.115, 3061.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.949}, "reply_to": "20151__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__2_006", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "I would contend that it's just the same.\nYou don't get your foot in the door for appellate review to protect your immunity, there's no procedure you didn't comply with.\nIn Felder at least, you could have made it there in 120 days.\nThe way the Idaho supreme court has ruled, there's nothing that could have been done to get you there as a matter of right.\nIn Federal court, this Court has never said you must try to go under 1292 rather than 1291 if you want to get a review of a qualified immunity order, and there's no reason to impose that possibility of having an opportunity, maybe, for appellate review in the State courts.\nIt should be the same in both court systems in order to preserve the benefits of the immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3061.577, 3064.559, 3071.134, 3074.507, 3080.691, 3101.495], "stop_times": [3064.559, 3071.134, 3074.507, 3080.691, 3101.495, 3106.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3061.577}, "reply_to": "20151__2_005", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__2_007", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The extent to which these finality notions are tied into Federal substantive rights is strained, isn't it, when one of the threads that you're tugging is the collateral order rule comes out of Cohen v. Beneficial, which I think was a diversity case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3106.948], "stop_times": [3124.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3106.948}, "reply_to": "20151__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20151__2_008", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "It was a diversity case.\nBut the finality is tied to the substance of what is going on, and in here it's the Court's characterization of qualified immunity that determines whether it's final.\n1291 doesn't tell you whether it's final.\nIt's the Court's characterization of the qualified immunity, the immunity not to go to trial, that is the key to finality.\n1291 doesn't tell you what's final.\nThe Court's 1983 precedents tell you what's final, and this is a final order under those precedents.\nJust one or two other points... oh, I see my time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3124.809, 3125.971, 3143.232, 3145.683, 3152.959, 3154.429, 3161.625], "stop_times": [3125.971, 3143.232, 3145.683, 3152.959, 3154.429, 3161.625, 3168.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3124.809}, "reply_to": "20151__2_007", "speaker": "michael_s_gilmore"}
{"id": "20151__2_009", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gilmore.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3168.588, 3169.55], "stop_times": [3169.55, 3171.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.588}, "reply_to": "20151__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20151__2_010", "conversation_id": "20151", "text": "The Honorable Court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-292", "start_times": [3171.143], "stop_times": [3177.008], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.143}, "reply_to": "20151__2_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19880__0_000", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-203, Joyce Johnson v. The United States.\nMr. Sheppard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [0.0, 8.856], "stop_times": [8.856, 12.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__0_001", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nPetitioner Joyce Johnson was tried and convicted on a single count of perjury, in violation of 18 United States Code 1623.\nHer conviction occurred 6 months prior to this Court's holding in Gaudin.\nHer trial was conducted in total reliance on the then-existing and long-standing precedent of the Eleventh Circuit, which for more than 50 years had removed the element of materiality from the jury.\nThat precedent further provided that the judge would instruct the jury that the element of materiality had been found in favor of the Government.\nTrial counsel's entire preparation, strategy, and performance in the trial was dictated by this now-overruled precedent.\nThis reliance on the wrong precedent from beginning to end of the proceedings caused an infection of the proceedings and rendered them totally different than what our Constitution requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [12.459, 15.701, 25.378, 31.064, 49.083, 59.741, 71.079], "stop_times": [15.701, 25.378, 31.064, 49.083, 59.741, 71.079, 89.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 12.459}, "reply_to": "19880__0_000", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_002", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Sheppard, the element was still in the case.\nIt was just believed to be materiality was for the judge, not that you didn't have to prove materiality, so what was the difference in the proof you said that shaped trial attorney's strategy?\nThe element has to be proved.\nWhat was different about the proof that was presented of the materiality here from what it would have been if the trier had been a jury rather than a judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [89.601, 95.475, 109.194, 111.425], "stop_times": [95.475, 109.194, 111.425, 122.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 89.601}, "reply_to": "19880__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__0_003", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, we agree that the element was there and the Government had the duty to prove it, albeit a footnote under Eleventh Circuit precedent was questionable as to what the standard of proof was, but I submit that when a lawyer gets a case, what he does, he looks to see what are the elements of the case, and I think that's the first thing that a lawyer does.\nHe pulls the statute.\nHe then goes to the standard jury instructions, and what happened here was that counsel had to persuade a judge, and was... his opportunity to persuade a jury was taken away, and I submit that cases are tried based on elements starting from beginning to end, with the questions that you prepare to submit to a district judge to ask in voir dire, when we get up and make opening statements.\nInevitably, those opening statements focus on elements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [122.792, 147.188, 148.49, 175.608], "stop_times": [147.188, 148.49, 175.608, 179.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.792}, "reply_to": "19880__0_002", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_004", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, for example, could you show us what trial counsel might have made of the materiality of these statements were the matter tried to a jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [179.679], "stop_times": [191.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.679}, "reply_to": "19880__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__0_005", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Yes, ma'am, I believe I can.\nMs. Johnson in her grand jury testimony was never asked directly, did you receive the money that went into the renovation of your home from the target of this grand jury investigation, or we assume it is, Mr. Fields?\nShe told the grand jury that she got money for the renovation of her home from her mama, when indeed she was never asked directly did it come from Fields.\nWell, if it came from a third source... suppose she'd robbed a bank and put the money in.\nIt would not have been material as to any investigation of Mr. Fields.\nSecondly, I believe that the cross-examination of the jury foreman, and even more specifically of Special Agent William Stull of the FBI, who testified that the... about what the grand jury was investigating, that cross-examination was severely limited because counsel knew that 50 years of precedent in his circuit and 70 years of precedent in all of the circuits as it relates to a perjury prosecution, that that element was taken away from him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [191.76, 193.259, 207.509, 219.145, 225.089, 229.473], "stop_times": [193.259, 207.509, 219.145, 225.089, 229.473, 257.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.76}, "reply_to": "19880__0_004", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_006", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, the Eleventh Circuit certainly didn't... doesn't agree with your precedent... they said after reviewing the record in this case, we find overwhelming evidence of the materiality of Johnson's statement.\nNo reasonable juror could conclude that Johnson's false statements about the source of the money were not material.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [257.981, 266.817], "stop_times": [266.817, 274.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.981}, "reply_to": "19880__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__0_007", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I agree that that's what they said, Mr. Chief Justice.\nHowever, they aren't the individuals that our history and the precedent of this Court says ought to be answering those kinds of questions, and as this Court unanimously held in Gaudin, and respectfully, the Eleventh Circuit is just squarely wrong when they say that the right to a jury trial, which is the first codified law in this Nation, isn't a substantial right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [274.291, 277.183], "stop_times": [277.183, 302.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.291}, "reply_to": "19880__0_006", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_008", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "They're not... they may have said that, they may not have, but I was simply reading what they said about the evidence of materiality, which was what you were talking about.\nYou say it should have been determined by a jury, but that's a different thing from saying that it was a very thin case for materiality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [302.591, 312.646], "stop_times": [312.646, 319.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.591}, "reply_to": "19880__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__0_009", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I'm not here to argue that this was a thin case.\nI was responding to Justice Ginsburg's case... question.\nI'm here to argue that the right to a jury trial for the citizens in this country is so historically in place, and the jurisprudence of this Court has reinforced time and time again the Eleventh Circuit is wrong, just as the Government is wrong.\nThey say we've waived this right or forfeited it by not objecting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [319.181, 321.702, 325.235, 341.306], "stop_times": [321.702, 325.235, 341.306, 345.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.181}, "reply_to": "19880__0_008", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_010", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "No, every day of the week it's a common thing for a judge to misinstruct a jury on an element of a defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [345.207], "stop_times": [350.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.207}, "reply_to": "19880__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_011", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "This is not a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [350.891], "stop_times": [351.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 350.891}, "reply_to": "19880__0_010", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_012", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "In which case the jury has not considered whether or not the person did or did not commit that element.\nThat happens every day of the week, very common.\nNow, how is this case different from that?\nNo one thinks it deprives a person who doesn't object of a right to a jury trial in that case.\nHow does this case differ from that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [351.943, 358.798, 360.879, 363.891, 368.924], "stop_times": [358.798, 360.879, 363.891, 368.924, 371.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.943}, "reply_to": "19880__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_013", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--In two respects, Justice Breyer.\nOne, in this case the court did not misinstruct about the element.\nIt totally omitted the element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [371.614, 373.858, 379.111], "stop_times": [373.858, 379.111, 381.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.614}, "reply_to": "19880__0_012", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_014", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, that's true, but so what is the difference?\nSometimes that would be more fair, sometimes less fair than a misinstruction.\nYour case is one where it wasn't all that unfair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [381.502, 384.414, 388.257], "stop_times": [384.414, 388.257, 390.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.502}, "reply_to": "19880__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_015", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [390.347], "stop_times": [390.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.347}, "reply_to": "19880__0_014", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_016", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "In other cases misinstructions are disastrous, but... so how... is that... why should we draw that line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [390.868], "stop_times": [397.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 390.868}, "reply_to": "19880__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_017", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, if I could go back to your earlier question to answer it first, sir, the second thing that is different in this case than just a misinstruction on an element, in addition to totally omitting it, the Eleventh Circuit pattern jury instruction number 43, which was taken from cases, and that's found in the Joint Appendix, Your Honor, at page 67, that instruction, which was taken from precedent of the old... of the Fifth Circuit, prior to Congress creating the Eleventh Circuit and carrying over the precedent of the Fifth to the Eleventh provided, and this jury was indeed instructed, that the materiality of the matter involved in the alleged false testimony is not a matter with which you are concerned, but rather is a question for the court to decide.\nAnd then went on, you are instructed that the questions asked the defendant as alleged constituted material matters in the grand jury proceedings referred to in the indictment, and respectfully, Justice Breyer, that is a partial directed verdict in a criminal case.\nIt's not just a misdescription of an element.\nAnd the way cases are tried from voir dire to opening statement to closing argument to instructions are all within the structural framework of elements.\nThat's just the way we lawyers do it, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [397.523, 446.064, 461.474, 463.906, 476.585], "stop_times": [446.064, 461.474, 463.906, 476.585, 479.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.523}, "reply_to": "19880__0_016", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_018", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, it's also true, is it not, counsel... isn't it true that in this trial, when the Government tried to put on evidence of materiality before the jury and the court, that the petitioner's own trial lawyer wouldn't allow it on the grounds that it was for the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [479.636], "stop_times": [501.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.636}, "reply_to": "19880__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19880__0_019", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [501.761], "stop_times": [502.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 501.761}, "reply_to": "19880__0_018", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_020", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Who said, absolutely keep that evidence out of here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [502.28], "stop_times": [505.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.28}, "reply_to": "19880__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19880__0_021", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "And even before the trial, trial counsel was filing motions in limine because trial counsel and the lawyers who try these cases, we believe in precedent, and we believe that when you're in the face of longstanding precedent, that it is not principled lawyering to waste time making frivolous objections--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [505.182], "stop_times": [524.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.182}, "reply_to": "19880__0_020", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_022", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, could invited error in some case defeat the petitioner's subsequent claim if the petitioner himself had said, you may not consider materiality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [524.817], "stop_times": [535.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.817}, "reply_to": "19880__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19880__0_023", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I don't think in the face of 50 years of precedent in that circuit that that would be the appropriate way to handle it.\nYou can't invite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [535.713, 542.658], "stop_times": [542.658, 543.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.713}, "reply_to": "19880__0_022", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_024", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I would have thought that invited error could defeat such a claim.\nNow, the Eleventh Circuit didn't decide that issue, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [543.968, 548.891], "stop_times": [548.891, 552.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.968}, "reply_to": "19880__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19880__0_025", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--No, ma'am, and I believe that the Solicitor General has indicated that it doesn't urge that position, but I still... even if they did, I don't think invited error can be invited without waiver or stipulation, and there wasn't.\nThere were motions in limine prior to trial in this case seeking to limit evidence going to the jury on the grounds that it would only be relevant as to materiality, and why should the Government be allowed, in violation of rule 403, to put on evidence that was not relevant, and was nothing but prejudicial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [552.554, 572.947], "stop_times": [572.947, 596.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.554}, "reply_to": "19880__0_024", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_026", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "But the judge has to make a materiality determination, and it's relevant to the judge's determination.\nYou don't exclude the jury while the judge hears the materiality evidence, or do you?\nMaybe I'm wrong.\nI don't think you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [596.952, 601.437, 606.57, 606.96], "stop_times": [601.437, 606.57, 606.96, 607.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.952}, "reply_to": "19880__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19880__0_027", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, you know, from reading the cases, Justice Kennedy, that's a good question.\nI think they're all tried differently in about three or four different protocols, depending upon which circuit you're in.\nBut respectfully, I was... or the trial counsel was seeking to exclude the evidence that could only be relevant as to materiality from going to the jury, and trial counsel was doing that because he was in the face of massive precedent that's dictated.\nNot only is this element not going to be going to the jury, but I am also affirmatively going to direct a verdict in favor of the Government if I find it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [607.999, 611.172, 616.674, 635.128], "stop_times": [611.172, 616.674, 635.128, 643.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.999}, "reply_to": "19880__0_026", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_028", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, to be frank, I guess what's troubling us is that if you had a really strong materiality case the evidence would have come in and you would have argued it either before the judge with the jury absent or with the jury present, and an instruction to the jury that this is not really of their concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [643.273], "stop_times": [659.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.273}, "reply_to": "19880__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19880__0_029", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, respectfully--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [659.012], "stop_times": [660.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.012}, "reply_to": "19880__0_028", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_030", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "It's just a little hard for us to grasp the plain error aspect, reversible error aspect in this case when we didn't think the materiality was at question either before the judge or the jury, even under this wall of precedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [660.923], "stop_times": [674.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.923}, "reply_to": "19880__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19880__0_031", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, but respectfully, the wrong entity is judging the defendant guilty.\nThe trial judge took away from the jury 25 percent of her jury trial.\nShe got... it would be like going to a four-dog dog fight and you only get three, because we're going to take that one away from you, and respectfully, the wrong entity is judging the defendant guilty, and respectfully, I believe the error goes up the next line to the circuit court of appeals when they'd say the three of us are going to substitute these 12 citizen jurors' opinion of what that evidence might be, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [674.153, 681.597, 687.992], "stop_times": [681.597, 687.992, 713.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.153}, "reply_to": "19880__0_030", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_032", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Is it your position that there simply couldn't be any harmless error analysis in this situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [713.67], "stop_times": [718.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.67}, "reply_to": "19880__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__0_033", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--There is nothing for harmless error analysis to attach to.\nThere is no jury verdict.\nThere is no object upon which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [718.783, 722.616, 724.016], "stop_times": [722.616, 724.016, 725.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.783}, "reply_to": "19880__0_032", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_034", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, there is a jury verdict finding the person guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [725.749], "stop_times": [728.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.749}, "reply_to": "19880__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__0_035", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, but it's not a valid jury verdict if it's only three-quarters of what the Constitution in the history of our country says to us we have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [728.299], "stop_times": [736.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.299}, "reply_to": "19880__0_034", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_036", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, but there is a valid jury verdict on the other elements, and it could be possible, could it not, that as we've said in some of our earlier cases, the jury that found elements 1, 2, and 3, would necessarily have found element 4?\nIf that were established, then there would be no problem, would there?\nWouldn't that establish harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [736.365, 751.594, 755.916], "stop_times": [751.594, 755.916, 757.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.365}, "reply_to": "19880__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__0_037", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [757.838], "stop_times": [758.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 757.838}, "reply_to": "19880__0_036", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_038", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I mean, when the jury has never been given a... an instruction as to what is, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what one of our earlier cases involved, then you have a jury that said nothing at all.\nBut this jury said three things.\nIt's conceivable that those three things could automatically and implicitly include the fourth, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [758.778, 770.536, 772.228], "stop_times": [770.536, 772.228, 778.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.778}, "reply_to": "19880__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__0_039", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I don't think so in a directed verdict case, as we have here, or a partial directed verdict.\nNot only was this taken away from the jury, but the judge told them, don't be bothered with it, don't concern yourself with it, and I find it so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [778.112, 783.374], "stop_times": [783.374, 793.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.112}, "reply_to": "19880__0_038", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_040", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Who asked for that instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [793.382], "stop_times": [794.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.382}, "reply_to": "19880__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__0_041", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Both the defense and the Government.\nThat instruction had been in place in the Fifth Circuit, or the Eleventh Circuit pattern jury instructions since 1985, when the District Judges Association promulgated such instructions, and it's interesting, in some circuits... and you know you have the Tenth Circuit and Ninth Circuit en banc ruling that this is harmful error and per se reversal... they take different approaches, but these types of cases fall into two distinct categories.\nSome circuits' pattern jury instructions only say, don't concern yourself with materiality.\nI would want to rephrase that and say there's three distinct.\nSome of them say, don't concern yourself with materiality.\nSome of the pattern jury instructions that are used say nothing to the jury.\nThey just instruct the jury on the other three elements of perjury.\nOath, false statement, knowing, say nothing about false statements.\nIn the Eleventh Circuit, and we submit adds a double injury to the plaintiff, or to the defendant in this case, the judge says, don't you be concerned with materiality, and I find it, and those are the most egregious instructions, and those that I respectfully submit for two different theories require reversal.\nThey're both violations of the Fifth... or, they're a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [794.652, 798.275, 828.465, 835.097, 838.509, 842.463, 847.065, 849.989, 854.441, 875.535], "stop_times": [798.275, 828.465, 835.097, 838.509, 842.463, 847.065, 849.989, 854.441, 875.535, 879.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.652}, "reply_to": "19880__0_040", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_042", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Sheppard, sometimes evidence on a particular element is so strong that the defendant would rather not have the jury confront that element, and we had such a case this term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [879.366], "stop_times": [891.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 879.366}, "reply_to": "19880__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__0_043", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I'm familiar with Old Chief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [891.207], "stop_times": [892.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.207}, "reply_to": "19880__0_042", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_044", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "So if we're told that the element, at least the Eleventh Circuit thought that the proof was overwhelming, and we have a trial record where the defense counsel is saying, please, judge, don't say the word materiality to the jury, how do we know that this case isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [892.125], "stop_times": [913.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.125}, "reply_to": "19880__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__0_045", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Because you're the wrong entity to be making that decision.\nIn addition, prior to that occurring in the trial, or during the trial... I won't say it was prior because I don't frankly recall, but the record is clear that counsel made a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal and directed that 29 motion to materiality.\nMateriality was hotly litigated throughout the course of this case, returning to my earlier point, with motions in limine, objections, motion for a judgment of acquittal, but it was all done with a mind set knowing what the judge was going to do when he instructed the jury, and that's just a structural defect in these proceedings that render it absolutely meaningless.\nThere is no meaningful jury verdict.\nThere is no case, I submit, that anybody can cite that says in a homicide case the court can just take away one of the elements.\nThat isn't the way we work.\nWe have the whole idea of the jury's conscience.\nThe conscience of the citizens is greater than that of judges, and that's why, in the early colonial times in this country, that the right to jury trial was just hammered.\nIt's the only right I've located in the Federal Constitution that is explicitly pointed out in three different places.\nIf you ask 100 lawyers, where do we get the right to a jury trial, they will tell you the Sixth Amendment, not knowing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [913.76, 920.933, 939.827, 962.12, 964.153, 973.95, 976.301, 981.286, 992.042, 997.575], "stop_times": [920.933, 939.827, 962.12, 964.153, 973.95, 976.301, 981.286, 992.042, 997.575, 1004.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.76}, "reply_to": "19880__0_044", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_046", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I don't think anyone disputes the importance of the jury trial, but where I'm... my difficulty is that there are only a handful of things that this Court has said is a structural right, just a handful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1004.651], "stop_times": [1015.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.651}, "reply_to": "19880__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_047", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1015.398], "stop_times": [1015.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.398}, "reply_to": "19880__0_046", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_048", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "And I don't find anywhere in that handful in any of the case law, though I grant you it's somewhat open, though I think in the Roy... we removed it in the habeas context and made clear it wasn't structural in that context, so why should it be structural the fact that the judge decided a matter that the jury should have decided?\nI grant you that's a wrong thing to do, but why is it equivalent to the using a... you know, not beyond reasonable doubt, failing to do that?\nI mean, why is it one of the handful of things that's of critical importance?\nIn your case, it doesn't seem to have been wrong that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1015.718, 1035.71, 1045.237, 1050.661], "stop_times": [1035.71, 1045.237, 1050.661, 1053.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.718}, "reply_to": "19880__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_049", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, in order to rule for the Government, you'd have to go along with the Eleventh Circuit, which is to say we're not going to grant relief here because counsel didn't object.\nIf we'd have made a frivolous objection... and isn't this the legal irony--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1053.762, 1065.008], "stop_times": [1065.008, 1068.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.762}, "reply_to": "19880__0_048", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_050", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--What I'm looking for, actually, is the miscarriage of justice kind of standard here.\nThat's what I'm focusing on... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1068.441, 1072.765], "stop_times": [1072.765, 1074.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.441}, "reply_to": "19880__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_051", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, the constitutional right to a jury trial embodies a profound judgment about the way in which the law should be enforced and justice administered.\nIt is a structural guarantee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1074.425, 1081.161], "stop_times": [1081.161, 1083.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.425}, "reply_to": "19880__0_050", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_052", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Sheppard, but we know that all kinds of things go wrong in jury trials, and judges give the most opaque charges, that you could look at the jury and they don't know what the heck the judge is talking about, and we accept that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1083.462], "stop_times": [1097.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.462}, "reply_to": "19880__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__0_053", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, certainly we do, because that's our system, and it is--\n[Laughter]\nAnd that happens.\nThere's no doubt that it happens.\nBut if you ask 100 laymen, if you went to a four-dog fight and you only got to have three dogs in the fight against the Government... and remember that part of the value of the jury trial is to protect the citizens against the Government.\nPerjury can only be against the Government.\nIt's one of those specific crimes that is only against the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1097.25, 1101.634, 1101.865, 1103.986, 1105.618, 1119.356, 1121.046], "stop_times": [1101.634, 1101.865, 1103.986, 1105.618, 1119.356, 1121.046, 1124.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.25}, "reply_to": "19880__0_052", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_054", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Sheppard, let me test whether you think this thing is structural in the narrow sense that our opinions have used it.\nLet's assume a prosecution for burglary, and evidence is introduced that the window was broken, that the... you know, there was an entry.\nThe defendant does not counter that argument.\nHis only defense, introduced by other people, is that he was somewhere else.\nHe has an alibi defense.\nThe judge forgets to tell the jury that in order to convict it must find that the defendant knowingly broke and entered the house.\nNow, here's a broken window, and the guy walked in, somebody walked in, you know, in the dark, very carefully took things out of the house.\nIt's possible, I suppose... well, it's not possible.\nIt's simply not possible that a jury who found that there was a breaking and entering, and that this fellow did it, would not have also found that he did it knowingly.\nOn that evidence, it's just... the one finding implicitly includes the other.\nNow, would you say that that conviction has to be reversed because the judge did not tell the jury that you have to find that this was knowingly done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1124.529, 1131.334, 1142.811, 1149.355, 1153.767, 1155.189, 1166.596, 1173.502, 1176.972, 1186.219, 1191.103], "stop_times": [1131.334, 1142.811, 1149.355, 1153.767, 1155.189, 1166.596, 1173.502, 1176.972, 1186.219, 1191.103, 1198.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.529}, "reply_to": "19880__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__0_055", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Probably not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1198.116], "stop_times": [1201.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.116}, "reply_to": "19880__0_054", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_056", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, then, it's not structural.\nIf you say no, then it's not a structural error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1201.779, 1203.081], "stop_times": [1203.081, 1205.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.779}, "reply_to": "19880__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__0_057", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, but it is... knowing is different than materiality.\nThey are different elements, totally, and I respectfully submit that in order to follow the reasoning in the Eleventh Circuit you've got to call the right to a jury trial a nonsubstantial right, that it's not a substantial right, and respectfully I don't think it can be.\nBut I think here, that the directed verdict is not opaque.\nIt's clear.\nSo you have a two-step analysis here, or two-step deprivation here, not only the omission of the knowing, but I'm going to tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that he knew it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1205.512, 1208.755, 1227.896, 1233.29, 1233.659], "stop_times": [1208.755, 1227.896, 1233.29, 1233.659, 1244.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1205.512}, "reply_to": "19880__0_056", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_058", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Yes, but your client--\n--But Mr. Sheppard, supposing in Justice Scalia's example, the judge did just that and said, don't you worry about the knowing.\nI'm going to tell you the evidence is strong enough to establish that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1244.358, 1245.487, 1250.091], "stop_times": [1245.487, 1250.091, 1253.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.358}, "reply_to": "19880__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19880__0_059", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I think it's a total denial of the right to a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1253.623], "stop_times": [1256.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1253.623}, "reply_to": "19880__0_058", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_060", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, then you should answer no to Justice Scalia on that one, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1256.307], "stop_times": [1258.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.307}, "reply_to": "19880__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19880__0_061", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "And I appreciate your correction, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1258.947, 1260.559], "stop_times": [1260.559, 1260.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.947}, "reply_to": "19880__0_060", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_062", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "No, but if you... the trouble with answering no--\n--I like a man who accepts help when it's offered.\n[Laughter]\nWell, I don't.\nThe trouble with answering it that way is your client in fact is better off under what happened in Justice Scalia's hypothetical... in this case, rather, than would be the case under the hypothetical, because here an actual finding is being made about materiality, whereas in the hypothetical what... whether it's knowing or not is simply ignored.\nYour client is better off here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1260.769, 1264.052, 1268.303, 1266.113, 1268.604, 1293.601], "stop_times": [1264.052, 1268.303, 1266.113, 1268.604, 1293.601, 1295.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1260.769}, "reply_to": "19880__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__0_063", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, I agree with that.\nI believe that here the taking away and then the affirmative statement, coupled with the entire framework in which this case traveled because of the longstanding precedent, I respectfully submit that the fundamental structure of this trial was wrong because counsel relied on longstanding precedent, which has been overruled, and under Griffith, that ruling in Gaudin is retroactive to these proceedings because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1295.702, 1297.605], "stop_times": [1297.605, 1328.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.702}, "reply_to": "19880__0_062", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_064", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, yes, but so you're saying it's better to ignore an element completely than it is to have a finding on an element if the finding is a nonjury finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1328.294], "stop_times": [1336.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.294}, "reply_to": "19880__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19880__0_065", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I think all elements must be found by a jury.\nI think that's what Gaudin stands for, and Sullivan, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1336.828, 1340.451], "stop_times": [1340.451, 1343.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.828}, "reply_to": "19880__0_064", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_066", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Then why shouldn't your answer have been different on the knowing example, because in the knowing example the jury never made a finding of knowingly, never thought about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1343.633], "stop_times": [1352.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.633}, "reply_to": "19880__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19880__0_067", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I think our case is stronger simply because of the affirmative direction of the verdict, of the partial verdict.\nBut returning to Justice Breyer's question, this Court has ticked off a few rights that are structural rights that are per se reversible, and I think it's time for this Court to put teeth into the language of cases that go back to 1945 in Screws, and go back to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1352.379, 1363.446], "stop_times": [1363.446, 1386.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1352.379}, "reply_to": "19880__0_066", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_068", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "But you see the problem I'm actually having, suppose he told the jury, jury, you know what materiality means?\nIt means, well, sort of likely maybe to make a difference.\nThen you wouldn't be up here, well, how does that fit?\nIs that a structural error, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1386.03, 1390.975, 1394.427, 1397.209], "stop_times": [1390.975, 1394.427, 1397.209, 1397.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.03}, "reply_to": "19880__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_069", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--If I'd have had the opportunity to argue it to a jury, no one can say that I could not have prevailed, or that Ms. Johnson could not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1397.938], "stop_times": [1404.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.938}, "reply_to": "19880__0_068", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_070", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "He just... really, he says what materiality is, jury, is that materiality means, well, it has something to do with it, a little bit.\nI'm trying to focus you on what's bothering me the most, which is how one would draw a distinction... though it's there in some cases, how one would draw a distinction between misinstructions, really stupid instructions, off-the-wall instructions, no instructions... it seems like a bog to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1404.002, 1410.557], "stop_times": [1410.557, 1429.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.002}, "reply_to": "19880__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_071", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1429.68], "stop_times": [1430.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.68}, "reply_to": "19880__0_070", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_072", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "And if we accept your view, we're right in the middle of it.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1430.58, 1433.54], "stop_times": [1433.54, 1434.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.58}, "reply_to": "19880__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__0_073", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, I think you have to draw the line, because I think that's the way these cases, these post Gaudin cases are going to come through the system.\nNumber 1, I think if there's an omission and a directed verdict for sure the defendant prevails.\nIf there is merely an omission, I'm not so sure, but I know at that extreme, given the trial of the case totally based on precedent that was so longstanding, that affected the entire performance, strategy, thinking, handling of the case, handling of the witnesses, handling of the jury instructions, had I been clairvoyant and known that you were going to do what you did in Gaudin, do you think I would have asked for jury instruction number 43?\nOnly if I was totally ineffective, because without that this petitioner did not have the right entity making the decision that caused her conviction.\nI'll reserve my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1434.882, 1440.286, 1448.461, 1479.282, 1493.211], "stop_times": [1440.286, 1448.461, 1479.282, 1493.211, 1494.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1434.882}, "reply_to": "19880__0_072", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__0_074", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Sheppard.\nMr. Dreeben.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1494.272, 1495.902], "stop_times": [1495.902, 1496.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.272}, "reply_to": "19880__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__1_000", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd first like to address why the plain error rule applies in this case, and then turn to the question of why petitioner is not entitled to relief under the plain error rule.\nNow, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure impose a contemporaneous objection requirement on any party that wishes to assign an error either to the trial court or on appeal, and those provisions are set forth in our brief at the appendix, page 3a.\nThe first rule is Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30, which states that no party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission there from unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict.\nRule 51 amplifies that requirement by stating that exceptions are not necessary, but that it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or the order of the court is made, makes known to the court the action which this party... which that party desires the court to take.\nPetitioner did not comply with those two provisions.\nShe did not object to the court's instruction on materiality.\nIndeed, she had sought it, and she did not make the argument, which was being widely made by defendants around the country at the time of this trial, that materiality should be decided by the jury rather than the judge, and as a result of failing to comply with the contemporaneous objection requirement for these two rules, the source for reviewing any claim of error that she now wishes to make is Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1496.754, 1502.988, 1514.163, 1534.177, 1548.937, 1567.98, 1572.773, 1577.187], "stop_times": [1502.988, 1514.163, 1534.177, 1548.937, 1567.98, 1572.773, 1577.187, 1605.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1496.754}, "reply_to": "19880__0_074", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_001", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, I take it that in the Ninth Circuit and maybe some other circuit also the court of appeals rule is that you don't have to make a Rule 30 instruction when it would be futile if you've got clear circuit precedent in point going the other way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1605.724], "stop_times": [1620.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.724}, "reply_to": "19880__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__1_002", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I think what the Ninth Circuit did in its Keys decision in stating the principle that you just articulated is actually to simply say, we allow people to raise claims as if they were preserved error, even if there were no objection, not actually that defense counsel are instructed, don't object.\nBut if one takes the Ninth Circuit's rule as being an instruction to defense counsel not to object, or that there is no need to object, then I think that the Ninth Circuit has simply violated Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 30 and 51.\nThe Ninth Circuit cannot announce a supervisory rule of procedure that is in direct conflict with what the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1620.364, 1644.62, 1659.951], "stop_times": [1644.62, 1659.951, 1668.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.364}, "reply_to": "19880__1_001", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_003", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "What would your approach be to the case if this case were tried before the Ninth Circuit came out with its decision before cert was applied for here?\nLet's assume all of the circuits were of the same view, that materiality is a question for the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1668.797, 1677.853], "stop_times": [1677.853, 1683.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.797}, "reply_to": "19880__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19880__1_004", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I think it makes no difference whatsoever, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1683.746], "stop_times": [1687.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1683.746}, "reply_to": "19880__1_003", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_005", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I thought that's what your answer would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1687.126], "stop_times": [1688.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.126}, "reply_to": "19880__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19880__1_006", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "The reason is this.\nIf one looks at the way the judicial system works from an appellate perspective, this Court rarely, if ever, will entertain a claim that was not raised and preserved below both in the trial court and in the court of appeals, even if there is on-point authority against the potential petitioner at that time.\nThe court expects that parties will comply with relevant contemporaneous objection rules even if the objection at the time might be deemed futile under governing authority, and there are good reasons for that.\nThe first is that it shows that the party really cares about the issue.\nIn this case, if petitioner had really wanted the jury to resolve the materiality issue, petitioner would have manifested that not by acquiescing in an instruction or requesting an instruction taking materiality away from the jury, but by doing everything the petitioner could to make the point that she wanted the jury to decide material--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1688.478, 1689.709, 1708.781, 1720.689, 1725.862], "stop_times": [1689.709, 1708.781, 1720.689, 1725.862, 1744.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1688.478}, "reply_to": "19880__1_005", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_007", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, at least in the regime that we're hypothesizing, where there's no... I think the trial judge would have been quite amazed at the request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1744.285], "stop_times": [1752.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.285}, "reply_to": "19880__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19880__1_008", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, I don't think that the trial judge would have been amazed at the request at the time that this trial took place in 1995.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1752.029], "stop_times": [1759.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1752.029}, "reply_to": "19880__1_007", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_009", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, I'm talking about our hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1759.865], "stop_times": [1761.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.865}, "reply_to": "19880__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19880__1_010", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Talking about the hypothetical, there are plenty of examples where petitioners have preserved claims in the trial court, brought them up to this Court, and won by overruling Supreme Court precedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1761.146], "stop_times": [1771.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.146}, "reply_to": "19880__1_009", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_011", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Would that trial judge have been able to grant the request?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1771.044], "stop_times": [1775.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.044}, "reply_to": "19880__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__1_012", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "No.\nThe trial judge would have been barred by circuit law from granting the request, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1775.055, 1775.376], "stop_times": [1775.376, 1779.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.055}, "reply_to": "19880__1_011", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_013", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "So you're saying he must make a request which he knows cannot be granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1779.109], "stop_times": [1782.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.109}, "reply_to": "19880__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__1_014", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1782.911], "stop_times": [1784.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.911}, "reply_to": "19880__1_013", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_015", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "A strange position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1784.02], "stop_times": [1785.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.02}, "reply_to": "19880__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__1_016", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, I think that it's not strange at all because it shows, Justice Scalia, one that it's important to this petitioner, which is of value in itself.\nthe second reason is that it will prompt the petitioner to make an offer of proof or whatever supplementation of the record the petitioner feels is appropriate to show what that petitioner would have done differently if the law had been in its favor, which facilitates subsequent review by the court of appeals or by this Court of whether any error that occurred--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1785.452, 1791.527], "stop_times": [1791.527, 1812.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.452}, "reply_to": "19880__1_015", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_017", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, that seems a bit odd, Mr. Dreeben.\nI take it proof on materiality would be either cross-examining Government witnesses... I'm not sure you'd do it greatly differently before a jury than you would before a judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1812.552, 1815.894], "stop_times": [1815.894, 1826.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.552}, "reply_to": "19880__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__1_018", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--You would not necessarily do it differently, Chief Justice Rehnquist, but it would show what, if any, theory the petitioner had that she wanted to present to the jury, and in this case there was no demonstration of what the petitioner would have done differently.\nWe've heard today that the course of the trial would have been differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1826.77, 1843.129], "stop_times": [1843.129, 1846.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.77}, "reply_to": "19880__1_017", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_019", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "How does the doctrine of invited error fit into this whole picture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1846.592], "stop_times": [1851.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.592}, "reply_to": "19880__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19880__1_020", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, I think, Justice O'Connor, that had the Government made and preserved a claim of invited error that might well be the correct way for this case to be resolved under cases such as Johnson v. The United States in 318 U.S.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1851.375], "stop_times": [1866.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.375}, "reply_to": "19880__1_019", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_021", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Did the Government here at no point raise that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1866.825], "stop_times": [1870.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.825}, "reply_to": "19880__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19880__1_022", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--We did not argue invited error in the court of appeals.\nIn the district court, everybody operated on the assumption that materiality would be decided by the judge.\nWhen Gaudin was decided, petitioner for the first time raised a claim that materiality was decided by the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1870.578, 1872.609, 1878.893], "stop_times": [1872.609, 1878.893, 1886.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.578}, "reply_to": "19880__1_021", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_023", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "And that was before the case became final.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1886.51], "stop_times": [1888.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.51}, "reply_to": "19880__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19880__1_024", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Correct, so petitioner is entitled to say that based on this Court's intervening precedent error occurred, and then the question becomes how do you analyze the consequences of that, and our submission is that the text of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure themselves require that it be analyzed as plain error unless we had had available to us an invited error argument and had made it, which we did not.\nPetitioner's argument is that you should just disregard the text of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure either because an objection would be deemed futile, or because the error here should be characterized as structural and that somehow structural errors are exempt from contemporaneous objection requirements.\nNeither of those submissions are correct.\nIn our view, there is no textual exception in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for objections later deemed futile, and this Court indeed, in considering the analogous issue in the habeas context, has held that futility is not a ground for excusing procedural default in failing to raise a claim before the relevant tribunal in the State system.\nIn Engle v. Isaac the Court squarely held that even if a claim is perceived correctly by a litigant to be futile, it is not cause for failing to raise it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1888.831, 1911.565, 1930.188, 1932.008, 1954.692], "stop_times": [1911.565, 1930.188, 1932.008, 1954.692, 1964.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.831}, "reply_to": "19880__1_023", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_025", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "But didn't those cases turn heavily on the fact there was collateral review, and here you're on direct review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1964.069], "stop_times": [1969.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.069}, "reply_to": "19880__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19880__1_026", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, yes, Justice Stevens, those cases are on collateral review, but I think the point is that the Court thought that there are benefits to requiring a party to object before the relevant tribunal with power to decide even if on-point governing law at the time was adverse, and it did not carve out, even in an exercise of its discretionary authority, an exception from the procedural default rule for claims that would be perceived as futile.\nI think this case follows a fortiori, because here we have express provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that contain no futility exception, and it would be even more of a step for the Court to carve out of an express text of a rule an exception for something that it has not even recognized in its discretionary capacity on habeas review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [1969.404, 1998.172], "stop_times": [1998.172, 2020.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1969.404}, "reply_to": "19880__1_025", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_027", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I have a hard time imagining, or understanding how your rule would play out.\nMaybe it would be of no practical consequence.\nOn the other hand, you might be asking us to have a practice where every attorney has a list and says, Your Honor, I make the following list of futile objections.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2020.286, 2027.161, 2029.813, 2038.348], "stop_times": [2027.161, 2029.813, 2038.348, 2038.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.286}, "reply_to": "19880__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19880__1_028", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy, we too are concerned not with attorneys who would want to try to preserve every conceivable claim in the chance that some day the court might reverse it.\nWhat we're dealing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2038.578, 2053.257], "stop_times": [2053.257, 2053.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.578}, "reply_to": "19880__1_027", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_029", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I know a few who would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2053.989], "stop_times": [2054.79], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.989}, "reply_to": "19880__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19880__1_030", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I think that those few probably would no matter what this Court told them, but the point here is that the class of claims that are likely to result in a reversal of existing precedent between the time of trial and appeal, such that a petitioner similarly situated to the petitioner here might say the law is changed.\nI didn't object below because the claim would have been futile.\nNow I have a good claim on my hands.\nThat class is not a large claim... large class of claims, and astute defense counsel who care about the issue will watch it.\nDefense counsel were raising the materiality objection that this Court excepted in Gaudin all over the country, even before the en banc Ninth Circuit decision came down.\nCertainly after that decision came down it was being raised widely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2054.79, 2076.935, 2079.476, 2081.357, 2087.891, 2097.95], "stop_times": [2076.935, 2079.476, 2081.357, 2087.891, 2097.95, 2101.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.79}, "reply_to": "19880__1_029", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_031", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Dreeben--\n--Was this case tried before or after the Ninth Circuit decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2101.731, 2102.432], "stop_times": [2102.432, 2105.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.731}, "reply_to": "19880__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__1_032", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "This case was tried 6 months after the Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling in Gaudin and 6 months before this Court's ruling affirming that ruling in Gaudin, so petitioner was clearly on notice that this was a claim that had been excepted not only by a Federal court of appeals but by several State courts, and was clearly an issue that was in play.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2105.644], "stop_times": [2125.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.644}, "reply_to": "19880__1_031", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_033", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, has any circuit accepted your interpretation of Rule 52, and absolutely refused to consider any claim not raised below even where the circuit law was clear?\nBecause if anybody has, I guess we could tell from the experience in that circuit whether the horrors that some anticipate will occur if such a rule is enforced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2125.026, 2140.058], "stop_times": [2140.058, 2150.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.026}, "reply_to": "19880__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__1_034", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "No, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2150.884], "stop_times": [2152.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.884}, "reply_to": "19880__1_033", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_035", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--if 52 is enforced the way it's written.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2152.765], "stop_times": [2154.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2152.765}, "reply_to": "19880__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__1_036", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, I think that there are two separate points.\nOne is, is she within rule 52 at all because she... 52(b), plain error... because she did not object.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2154.297, 2156.747], "stop_times": [2156.747, 2163.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.297}, "reply_to": "19880__1_035", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_037", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2163.71], "stop_times": [2164.281], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.71}, "reply_to": "19880__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19880__1_038", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "To my knowledge, every circuit but the Tenth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit has accepted that view.\nIn other words, all of the circuits that have addressed this issue except for the en banc Tenth Circuit and the en banc Ninth Circuit have held that if you do not object at trial, even if the objection was futile, you are within the plain error provisions of Rule 52, and the claim must be evaluated for plain error and not reversed unless it is plain error.\nTwo circuits have said plain error is out of balance.\nThat's the position that I say is squarely incorrect.\nNow, turning to the question of how Rule 52(b) is applied if this is treated as a plain error case, we have two arguments on why this error at the trial should not be reversed under the plain error rule.\nThe first is that the plain error rule should be read to require that the error be plain both at the time of trial and at the time of appeal, not simply at the time of appeal.\nNow, as to that claim, Justice Scalia, I will acknowledge that the courts of appeals have not gone down that route.\nThe D.C. Circuit does read Rule 52 the same way that we do, and has required parties to raise... has said that if the claim is clear at the time of appeal it must also be clear at the time of trial in order to come within Rule 52, so the D.C. Circuit agrees with us on that point, but then the D.C. Circuit has improvised what it calls a supervening decision doctrine that allows it to review claims when new law comes along at the time of appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2164.281, 2169.434, 2187.977, 2190.798, 2194.181, 2209.101, 2219.947, 2226.973], "stop_times": [2169.434, 2187.977, 2190.798, 2194.181, 2209.101, 2219.947, 2226.973, 2258.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.281}, "reply_to": "19880__1_037", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_039", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "It seems to me sort of counterintuitive to say that it has to be clear at the time of trial, because what you're saying then is that you're going to forgive counsel for not raising an objection that clearly should have been raised.\nHe'll be able to get it in later under the... but if he... if it was, you know, not clear at that time, then his failure to raise it is going to be conclusive against him.\nIsn't it just the opposite of what you'd expect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2258.272, 2273.232, 2283.34], "stop_times": [2273.232, 2283.34, 2285.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.272}, "reply_to": "19880__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__1_040", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I don't think so, Justice Scalia.\nI think that the purpose of the plain error rule as described by this Court in United States v. Frady is to permit the court of appeals to remedy error that was so gross and so egregious that the trial judge himself was derelict for not noticing it, even though the defense counsel or the prosecutor had not brought it to his attention.\nAnd in a case like this the trial court was certainly not derelict in its duties in not sending materiality--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2285.38, 2286.823, 2305.967], "stop_times": [2286.823, 2305.967, 2312.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.38}, "reply_to": "19880__1_039", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_041", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "So you're saying it depends on kind of the frame of mind of the judge, of the trial judge as to whether an error is plain or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2312.962], "stop_times": [2320.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.962}, "reply_to": "19880__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__1_042", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--No.\nIt depends on, Chief Justice Rehnquist, on the clarity of the law at the time of trial.\nIf the law at the time of trial is clear, so that the trial judge is on notice that what I'm supposed to do is send materiality to the jury, and if the defendant and the prosecutor both fail to bring that to the trial court's attention, the trial court is nonetheless under an obligation to comply with the governing law.\nAnd as this Court described in Frady, we then have a situation where the court of appeals may notice that plain error, because the trial judge should have figured it out on his own even though the parties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2320.165, 2320.526, 2325.278, 2344.272], "stop_times": [2320.526, 2325.278, 2344.272, 2354.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.165}, "reply_to": "19880__1_041", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_043", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "What would worry me about that is it sounds from the history of the plain error rule that it was meant to codify cases from this Court that described it as a kind of grab bag, not having a clear definition but designed to permit a court of appeals to correct a really serious problem that can be serious for... it was described in one case as a matter of fairness, integrity, or public confidence in the proceeding.\nYou know, general, but what it shares in common is that something really important went wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2354.797, 2378.864], "stop_times": [2378.864, 2385.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.797}, "reply_to": "19880__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_044", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I think that, Justice Breyer, that the cases from this Court with perhaps only one exception, did involve errors that were clear to the trial judge at the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2385.469], "stop_times": [2396.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.469}, "reply_to": "19880__1_043", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_045", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Yes, but it could be a terribly bad... I mean, it depends on what it is.\nI... you couldn't say in advance you could never have a terrific miscarriage of justice but for the circumstance where the trial judge knew what was going on.\nI mean, why restrict it in that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2396.905, 2399.657, 2407.213], "stop_times": [2399.657, 2407.213, 2410.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.905}, "reply_to": "19880__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_046", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I... the first reason is, I think that the language of Rule 52(b) itself contemplates that what was not brought to the attention of the trial judge is the same thing that is now being recognized on appeal, namely, obvious error, and it is hard to say that it is obvious error for the trial judge to miss a claim like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2410.256], "stop_times": [2432.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.256}, "reply_to": "19880__1_045", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_047", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "No, but his basic point is, as I take it, that look, if it's the language of the rule, this is error that was plain at the time of appeal, so the judge isn't foreclosed from dealing with it.\nMoreover he says the appellate court should have realized this is a structural error.\nThere was an element of the crime that the jury never considered at all.\nEveryone would say if the judge had said I'm not going to submit the whole case to the jury, that's a pretty big problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2432.459, 2441.966, 2446.659, 2450.23], "stop_times": [2441.966, 2446.659, 2450.23, 2457.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.459}, "reply_to": "19880__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_048", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2457.286], "stop_times": [2458.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.286}, "reply_to": "19880__1_047", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_049", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "It's the same with an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2458.435], "stop_times": [2459.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.435}, "reply_to": "19880__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_050", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2459.487], "stop_times": [2459.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.487}, "reply_to": "19880__1_049", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_051", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "It's the same with an element, and therefore we should hold that it is a matter of the integrity of the proceeding and just say it's automatically reversible.\nNow, your response to that is first that... this requirement you just mentioned, and then you have a second response.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2459.877, 2467.632], "stop_times": [2467.632, 2474.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.877}, "reply_to": "19880__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_052", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, my first response, just to clarify, is that I think the language of the rule itself does not say plain at the time of appeal.\nIt describes the character of error that is both not called to the judge's attention and raised on appeal as plain error, and in our view that requires that the error be obvious at both stages.\nNow, there may be other forums for a defendant to raise a claim that a horrible miscarriage of justice occurred, but the question is whether this rule is the vehicle for that, and our submission is that it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2474.106, 2480.43, 2492.809], "stop_times": [2480.43, 2492.809, 2503.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.106}, "reply_to": "19880__1_051", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_053", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Isn't the difficulty with the plain error analysis, though, Mr. Dreeben, that the plain error rule I think we would all agree was simply not devised to address the situation of the new rule, and therefore you either take the tack... if you're going to apply it to the new rule situation, you either take the tack that you do, says it has to have been plain at the time of trial, in which case there will be, any new-rule case is automatically going to be decided in the Government's favor... it's like sort of a Teague bar in a case in which there was no objection below... or we're going to say, well, we're not going to cut him off like that, so we'll say it's sufficient if it's plain at the time of appeal, and then the real issue is going to be decided on the fourth Olano prong.\nAnd would it make more sense to say, this isn't truly a plain error case, and simply have a rule for new rule cases and go right to something like the fourth Olano prong, or something like the harmless error standard if it's not structural?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2503.896, 2555.27], "stop_times": [2555.27, 2574.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.896}, "reply_to": "19880__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_054", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, I think that if the Court is going to ultimately ask the same question that is comprehended by the fourth prong of Olano, and considering all the circumstances, is it an infringement on the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings to affirm this conviction, so long as that inquiry is part of the mix, at the end of the day I think the Government could live with a formulation such as Your Honor is describing.\nThe point about the obviousness at the time of trial is that we are dealing with a rule with a text, and there are various situations that can arise under that rule where the error was not clear at the time of trial but is clear at the time of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2574.943, 2602.892], "stop_times": [2602.892, 2616.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.943}, "reply_to": "19880__1_053", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_055", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Oh, I quite agree.\nI think the only point I'm trying to make is, maybe we simply cannot sensibly make this into a situation covered by the rule.\nMaybe we've got to devise something on our own here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2616.771, 2617.712, 2626.565], "stop_times": [2617.712, 2626.565, 2629.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.771}, "reply_to": "19880__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_056", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Well, I don't think that the Court has general authority to essentially take this kind of a case out of the rule.\nThat was the point of my description of Rules 30 and 51.\nShe did not object.\nTherefore, she did not preserve her error.\nTherefore, Rule 52(b) is the essential source for reviewing her claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2629.307, 2636.091, 2640.115, 2641.875, 2644.006], "stop_times": [2636.091, 2640.115, 2641.875, 2644.006, 2648.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.307}, "reply_to": "19880__1_055", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_057", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, but structural errors that we discussed in Fulminante... we did not find that that was structural error... might well be something that's just different than plain error, as Justice Souter has suggested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2648.78], "stop_times": [2661.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.78}, "reply_to": "19880__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_058", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I think this Court has already crossed that bridge, Justice Kennedy.\nThe Court has held that discrimination in the selection of a grand jury is a structural error, and that's Vasquez v. Hillery, but the Court has twice held, both in the Shotwell case and in the Davis case, that if a party fails to make a contemporaneous objection to the racial composition of the jury, that party may well forfeit any opportunity to get relief from such a claim, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2661.179, 2664.252], "stop_times": [2664.252, 2688.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2661.179}, "reply_to": "19880__1_057", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_059", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, of course, there the right was known and was established.\nWhat we're talking about here is the hypothesis... we don't know we'll hold this way... the hypothesis of a structural right that had not been established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2688.047, 2692.018], "stop_times": [2692.018, 2701.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.047}, "reply_to": "19880__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_060", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--I accept the hypothesis that the structural right that's claimed... I don't agree that it is structural, but I'll take that in a second... that the right that's established didn't become known to the world until this Court ruled in Gaudin, but by hypothesis, this Court did not invent the constitutional right.\nThat constitutional right was one that was possessed at the time of trial and was being actively asserted by litigants around the country who wanted to have that ruling applied to their cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2701.536, 2721.447], "stop_times": [2721.447, 2732.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2701.536}, "reply_to": "19880__1_059", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_061", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, as a matter of art, when we wrote Gaudin it seemed to me that it would have been rather difficult to say, and this was plain error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2732.015], "stop_times": [2739.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.015}, "reply_to": "19880__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_062", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, the Court did not reach the question of plain error.\nThat's the question that we have before us today.\nThe rules themselves, however, do not provide any room for the Court to say, we simply are not going to enforce the contemporaneous objection requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2739.189, 2744.552, 2746.635], "stop_times": [2744.552, 2746.635, 2756.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.189}, "reply_to": "19880__1_061", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_063", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Why not?\nWhy... I... you've said that several times now.\nI don't see that it says... if the rule read, errors that were plain, or defects affecting substantial rights, then I would understand your argument, but it doesn't say that.\nIt says plain errors may be noticed.\nI think that's susceptible of the interpretation that errors that at the time you evaluate them are plain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2756.643, 2757.004, 2758.843, 2771.941, 2774.795], "stop_times": [2757.004, 2758.843, 2771.941, 2774.795, 2782.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.643}, "reply_to": "19880__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__1_064", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Justice Scalia, you're reading Rule 52(b)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2782.93], "stop_times": [2786.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.93}, "reply_to": "19880__1_063", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_065", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Yes, and that's not what you're referring to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2786.223], "stop_times": [2788.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.223}, "reply_to": "19880__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__1_066", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "No.\nI was referring to the contemporaneous objection requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2788.123, 2788.343], "stop_times": [2788.343, 2790.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2788.123}, "reply_to": "19880__1_065", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_067", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Oh, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2790.394], "stop_times": [2790.795], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.394}, "reply_to": "19880__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19880__1_068", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I'm... I was discussing with Justice Kennedy the question of whether the Court should treat this as a plain error case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2790.795], "stop_times": [2796.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.795}, "reply_to": "19880__1_067", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_069", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2796.818], "stop_times": [2797.138], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.818}, "reply_to": "19880__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19880__1_070", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--or whether it should just analyze it as if the error had been preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2797.138], "stop_times": [2801.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.138}, "reply_to": "19880__1_069", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_071", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "All right.\nIf it is a plain error case, just assume for the sake of argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2801.981, 2802.211], "stop_times": [2802.211, 2804.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.981}, "reply_to": "19880__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_072", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "It is a plain error case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2804.843], "stop_times": [2805.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.843}, "reply_to": "19880__1_071", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_073", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--that I think plain error can be like a grab-bag, including errors that are plain only to the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2805.244], "stop_times": [2810.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.244}, "reply_to": "19880__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_074", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2810.927], "stop_times": [2811.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.927}, "reply_to": "19880__1_073", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_075", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Now, on that assumption... on that assumption, then do you lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2811.148], "stop_times": [2814.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.148}, "reply_to": "19880__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19880__1_076", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "No.\nWe then proceed to our second argument on why the error in this case does not entitle petitioner to relief under the plain error rule.\nThe fourth and final prong of Olano requires the Court to examine whether correcting the error serves the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.\nMore precisely, the Court has said the error shall not be corrected unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.\nIt is our view that when you have a case like this one, it would not serve the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings to reverse.\nPetitioner has never articulated a theory on which a properly instructed jury might have returned a determination that the statements here were not material.\nUntil her reply brief in this Court, she never even articulated anything that she would say on that issue.\nIn the trial itself, she objected when evidence of materiality was put on.\nI think that a fair reading of the record is that there was no defense to materiality in this case.\nThe evidence of Earl Fields' drug-dealing which was being investigated by the grand jury was deemed by the petitioner to be prejudicial to her interests, and she wanted if at all possible for the jury not to hear that and not to think about it.\nHer defense was that the statements were true.\nShe had an opportunity to argue to the trial judge that these statements were immaterial.\nHer sole argument consisted of a one-sentence remark, I think that these statements are immaterial.\nThe trial judge who heard the evidence and examined her record concluded that the statements were material.\nThe court of appeals agreed.\nI think that as a bedrock principle, when you have a case like this one, where there is no reasonable probability that a retrial would produce a different outcome, that the plain error rule dictates affirmance, not reversal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2814.971, 2815.201, 2823.025, 2835.102, 2845.411, 2855.757, 2866.754, 2872.728, 2877.702, 2883.425, 2896.173, 2898.376, 2903.379, 2909.363, 2914.895, 2916.718], "stop_times": [2815.201, 2823.025, 2835.102, 2845.411, 2855.757, 2866.754, 2872.728, 2877.702, 2883.425, 2896.173, 2898.376, 2903.379, 2909.363, 2914.895, 2916.718, 2931.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.971}, "reply_to": "19880__1_075", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_077", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, are you then saying this is a case-by-case determination, so that the court of appeals would have to look at the record and see how much evidence there was of materiality so that the materiality evidence was controversial then send it back for a new trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2931.949], "stop_times": [2948.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.949}, "reply_to": "19880__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__1_078", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nI think that the right balance of interests, if the Court doesn't accept our argument on obviousness at the time of trial, and one is looking at this from the overall weighing process at the final step of Olano, that the question that should be foremost in the Court's mind is, is there any reasonable probability that this constitutional error made any difference in the outcome of the trial?\nIf there is no reasonable probability of that, and by that I don't mean that it's more likely than not that the jury might have acquitted, it's just is the Court confident that this is a fair verdict, then the Court should affirm.\nIf the Court believes that the evidence is such that the jury might have come out the other way, the petitioner had a plausible theory, the trial judge didn't agree but maybe the jury would, then the interests of justice probably do counsel in favor of giving the petitioner a new trial, and this is how all of the courts, except for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, have approached the issue.\nThe Ninth and Tenth Circuits have concluded that an instructional error like this is structural error.\nWe don't think so.\nWe think that a structural error is the kind of error that affects the entire integrity of the proceedings and is not susceptible to harmless error analysis at all.\nErrors that relate to one jury instruction in a trial are not of that species.\nThis Court has held that over and over again, most recently in California v. Roy, so the premise that this error is structural in our view is incorrect.\nSo whatever rule the Court might think would be appropriate in cases of true structural error that emerged only at the time of appeal, this case is not that case.\nWhen you then turn to the question of whether it serves the interests of justice to give petitioner a new trial, all of the courts of appeals except the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have concluded that it doesn't if there really was no case to be made on the issue of materiality before the jury.\nThat is frequently the case, because the issue of materiality is often proved up, as the Court well knows, by the testimony of the grand jury foreman who says, we were looking at drug-dealing and money-laundering by this person, and we therefore asked these questions to find out the answers to those things, and then the testimony was given, and now the jury is going to decide whether the testimony was true or false.\nMateriality is not the centerpiece of most of these cases.\nOccasionally, there is a case in which materiality is hotly contested, and a court of appeals might feel that in cases where there's a hot contest and the case might have come out differently, a new trial is in order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [2948.701, 2949.36, 2971.004, 2981.79, 3000.854, 3005.827, 3006.918, 3015.654, 3020.336, 3029.753, 3038.859, 3054.489, 3074.702, 3078.005], "stop_times": [2949.36, 2971.004, 2981.79, 3000.854, 3005.827, 3006.918, 3015.654, 3020.336, 3029.753, 3038.859, 3054.489, 3074.702, 3078.005, 3090.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2948.701}, "reply_to": "19880__1_077", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_079", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Was there some indication in the record that the trial judge might have not have applied the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to materiality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3090.233], "stop_times": [3095.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.233}, "reply_to": "19880__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19880__1_080", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "I honestly do not think it's clear, Justice Kennedy, what the trial judge thought about the standard that he applied to it.\nThe Eleventh Circuit had never expressly spoken to that question.\nBefore this Court's decision in Gaudin, all of the courts of appeals except the Ninth Circuit said materiality is a legal question.\nSome courts nonetheless said well, the appropriate thing to do is to decide it as a question of law.\nOther courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3095.757, 3104.061, 3107.484, 3114.179, 3119.202], "stop_times": [3104.061, 3107.484, 3114.179, 3119.202, 3120.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.757}, "reply_to": "19880__1_079", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_081", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3120.033], "stop_times": [3120.972], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.033}, "reply_to": "19880__1_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19880__1_082", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--just treated it as a question that got decided beyond a reasonable doubt.\nWhat is clear from this trial judge's findings is that he reviewed the record, he understood what the focus of the grand jury investigation was, he understood why it was relevant to the grand jury to know the source of funds for a house that petitioner purchased potentially with laundered drug money from her boyfriend, said all of that on the record, and he then articulated the standard in what I think is the correct legal standard for materiality.\nHe said, this may have been within the purview of what the grand jury was investigating, which I think was a loose fashion, per se.\nThis was reasonably calculated to affect the decision of the grand jury.\nPetitioner, of course, never objected in the trial court and said, oh, no, you're applying the wrong standard of materiality.\nNor did petitioner ever say you haven't found it to the requisite degree of proof, and I don't think that there's any real question that the trial judge was firmly convinced that this false testimony was material, as was the court of appeals.\nSo our final submission to this Court is that in a case like this the appropriate response is to apply the plain error rule because the objection was not preserved at trial, to treat the error as nonstructural in character, to examine what its actual impact was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3120.972, 3124.094, 3147.959, 3155.105, 3159.687, 3165.671, 3178.641], "stop_times": [3124.094, 3147.959, 3155.105, 3159.687, 3165.671, 3178.641, 3194.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3120.972}, "reply_to": "19880__1_081", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_083", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3194.289], "stop_times": [3195.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3194.289}, "reply_to": "19880__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__1_084", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3195.721], "stop_times": [3196.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3195.721}, "reply_to": "19880__1_083", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19880__1_085", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Sheppard, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3196.462], "stop_times": [3199.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.462}, "reply_to": "19880__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__2_000", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI think the language in Bollenbach v. United States and in Cabana v. Bullock... if I may refresh the Court: in other words the question is not whether guilt may be spelled out in the record, but whether guilt has been found by a jury according to the procedures and standards appropriate for criminal trials.\nThat was in Bollenbach.\nIn Cabana, the language: findings made by a judge cannot cure deficiencies in the jury's findings as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant resulting from the court's failure to instruct it to find an element of the crime.\nThe entire rationale of the plain error rule is to prevent lawyers from sand-bagging.\nIs it sand-bagging to follow a half-a-century of precedent?\nCertainly not.\nTo follow the Government's argument here is going to cause lawyers, experienced lawyers to object to everything, and for the Solicitor to say that there was a lot of precedent out there going on in the country before this trial is flat wrong.\nIf you read the Ninth Circuit opinion in Gaudin, you will find that's a 1001 case.\nThis Court characterized the Ninth Circuit as a maverick circuit on that issue and, finally in that regard, the Ninth Circuit case was a 1001 case.\nThis is a 1623 case, and at the time of this trial the precedent in the Ninth Circuit was that materiality on a perjury case was different than 1001, and that is not an argument that helps this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3199.084, 3200.724, 3222.98, 3224.392, 3237.231, 3242.765, 3246.036, 3248.497, 3263.318, 3269.412, 3280.139], "stop_times": [3200.724, 3222.98, 3224.392, 3237.231, 3242.765, 3246.036, 3248.497, 3263.318, 3269.412, 3280.139, 3294.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3199.084}, "reply_to": "19880__1_085", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__2_001", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Sheppard, what do you say to the Government's argument that most circuits had adopted the rule that if you don't raise the objection you come within these provisions even if the objection would have been futile, and it hasn't produced, apparently, in those circuits the flood of futile objections that you contend will occur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3294.747], "stop_times": [3318.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.747}, "reply_to": "19880__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19880__2_002", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Well, I would respectfully submit that in at least two circuits they've got stay orders on en banc cases awaiting the decision in this case, so I don't know that any lawyer knows what to do in those circuits yet, and I think this is an important case to signal to the trial bar what to do.\nAs to the structural matter, I would ask the Court to harken to the language in Duncan v. Louisiana, which is the case that applied the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.\nIt is a structural guarantee that reflects a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power, a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges, and if you apply 52(b)... 52(a) here, that is indeed what you are doing.\nYou are pulling the rug out of the Sixth Amendment, and that is contrary to our history, and I think history... and we tried to set forth some history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3318.083, 3332.281, 3345.622, 3367.845], "stop_times": [3332.281, 3345.622, 3367.845, 3378.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3318.083}, "reply_to": "19880__2_001", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__2_003", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Mr. Sheppard, isn't it so that in the cases where there were complaints about a Sixth Amendment violation because women weren't being put on juries that the only defendants who got the benefit of that rule were the ones who had made a contemporaneous objection?\nI'm thinking particularly of Doran v. Missouri.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3378.132, 3390.13], "stop_times": [3390.13, 3392.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.132}, "reply_to": "19880__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19880__2_004", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "And I cannot in good conscience answer that question directly, because I do not know, but I respectfully submit that many of these cases, the structural cases, had objections and some didn't, but I say that if the rule requiring a contemporaneous objection--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3392.862], "stop_times": [3411.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3392.862}, "reply_to": "19880__2_003", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__2_005", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sheppard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3411.993], "stop_times": [3412.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3411.993}, "reply_to": "19880__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__2_006", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3412.854], "stop_times": [3413.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3412.854}, "reply_to": "19880__2_005", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__2_007", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3413.305], "stop_times": [3414.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3413.305}, "reply_to": "19880__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19880__2_008", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3414.638], "stop_times": [3415.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3414.638}, "reply_to": "19880__2_007", "speaker": "william_j_sheppard"}
{"id": "19880__2_009", "conversation_id": "19880", "text": "The Honorable Court is now adjourned until tommorow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-203", "start_times": [3415.688], "stop_times": [3420.357], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.688}, "reply_to": "19880__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19987__0_000", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1649, Kansas v. Leroy Hendricks, and 95-9075, Leroy Hendricks v. Kansas.\nGeneral Stovall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [0.0, 12.649], "stop_times": [12.649, 13.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__0_001", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThroughout the decades, the States have developed three basic ways to deal with persons who commit sex crimes: criminal punishment, treatment in lieu of sentencing, and the law that you have before you today, Kansas's Sexually Violent Predator law, which is a hybrid of both.\nLeroy Hendricks has experienced all three during his 40-year history of sexually molesting children.\nIt was the goal of the Kansas legislature by providing for treatment subsequent to punishment that we could succeed where the other procedures have failed, enabling Kansas to reduce the risk that Leroy Hendricks poses to our children.\nThe civil commitment of sex offenders who suffer from a mental condition linked to their sex crimes has been approved by this Court on two prior occasions, by Pearson in 1940 and Allen in 1986.\nThe Court's guidance in what is the constitutional minimal for an acceptable level of mental condition for commitment is found in the Addington decision, wherein the Court proscribed confinement for merely idiosyncratic behavior, or conduct that is not within the generally acceptable bounds of conduct.\nSurely no one would argue that Leroy Hendricks was engaging in merely idiosyncratic behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [13.811, 16.234, 32.846, 39.62, 54.591, 68.341, 86.721], "stop_times": [16.234, 32.846, 39.62, 54.591, 68.341, 86.721, 93.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 13.811}, "reply_to": "19987__0_000", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_002", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "General Stovall, may I ask you whether... how you fit this kind of a law into any situation with which we have previously dealt?\nIt seems to be kind of a new category of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [93.075, 105.195], "stop_times": [105.195, 108.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.075}, "reply_to": "19987__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_003", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Only insofar as that we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [108.046], "stop_times": [110.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 108.046}, "reply_to": "19987__0_002", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_004", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [110.577], "stop_times": [111.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.577}, "reply_to": "19987__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_005", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--treated subsequent to punishment, Your Honor, instead of treatment in lieu of sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [111.248], "stop_times": [115.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 111.248}, "reply_to": "19987__0_004", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_006", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "How would this be cabined in the future, do you think, if we uphold it?\nCould a State lock up any kind of violent offender who's diagnosed as having a mental abnormality of some kind, not mentally ill, and at the same time be likely to commit more crimes in the future?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [115.002, 124.017], "stop_times": [124.017, 139.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.002}, "reply_to": "19987__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_007", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I think, Justice O'Connor, as long as the State could show that there's a medical justification for a diagnosis and that we can show dangerousness--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [139.908], "stop_times": [147.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 139.908}, "reply_to": "19987__0_006", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_008", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Not of mental illness, but of some kind of mental aberration or personality disorder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [147.394], "stop_times": [154.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.394}, "reply_to": "19987__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_009", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Well, the term mental illness is one that this Court has certainly used in its decisions but never defined and, in fact, in Addington, where the language of mental illness was used, the Court also used mental disorder, mental disease, emotional disorder, emotional disturbance, almost synonymously and interchangeably, and so I would submit the mental abnormality that Kansas has in our statute is not different from those things that you have previously approved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [154.801], "stop_times": [178.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 154.801}, "reply_to": "19987__0_008", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_010", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, General Stovall, don't you think in using those terms in our opinions we are certainly lay people from a medical point of view, and they probably are not used in any strict medical sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [178.654], "stop_times": [192.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.654}, "reply_to": "19987__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__0_011", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And I'm a lay person in that regard, too, Your Honor, but when you look, Mr. Chief Justice, at the DSM, where we... where the psychiatric profession describes particular kinds of condition, the things that the medical community tends to understand would fit within this definition would be two paraphilias, which are pedophilia and sexual sadism, which are terms that have been recognized by the community and still would fit within this definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [192.125], "stop_times": [217.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 192.125}, "reply_to": "19987__0_010", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_012", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "General Stovall, can I clarify that you are not trying to... you're not suggesting that this Court ought to establish some kind of national standard for what is mental illness or mental abnormality.\nHaven't those definitions been left to the States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [217.14, 228.937], "stop_times": [228.937, 231.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.14}, "reply_to": "19987__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__0_013", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that's exactly right, and that's what the State of Kansas would ask us... ask you to do, so long as we still have a mental justification, a medical justification for commitment and we show dangerousness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [231.601], "stop_times": [242.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 231.601}, "reply_to": "19987__0_012", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_014", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, I take it that even the DSM says that these categories have no real operational consistency, and that you look to the diagnosis or the prognosis on a case-by-case basis after clinical evaluation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [242.91], "stop_times": [256.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.91}, "reply_to": "19987__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_015", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That's true, Justice Kennedy, and in fact the DSM in the beginning of the introduction part says that this was not created for legal use or for forensic meaning, but it's to aid the psychiatric profession in making some diagnosis that they then can apply to this definition in the Kansas statute of mental abnormality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [256.216], "stop_times": [272.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 256.216}, "reply_to": "19987__0_014", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_016", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "You begin by saying, and this was part of Justice O'Connor's line of questioning, too, that this is a hybrid between a criminal statute and a civil statute.\nI should think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [272.46, 281.286], "stop_times": [281.286, 285.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.46}, "reply_to": "19987__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_017", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It's a hybrid... I'm sorry.\nIt's a hybrid between criminal sentencing and treatment in lieu of punishment, but it's clearly a civil commitment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [285.196, 285.806], "stop_times": [285.806, 291.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 285.196}, "reply_to": "19987__0_016", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_018", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Yes, and I was going to say it seems to me that your argument in your brief at least is one in which you can justify this statute strictly as a civil commitment.\nIf your statutory scheme were changed somewhat and you had an adequate prognosis of dangerous sexual behavior, civil commitment could follow under your argument, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [291.79, 300.997], "stop_times": [300.997, 314.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.79}, "reply_to": "19987__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_019", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes.\nIn fact, this Court has specifically approved in Baxstrom in 1966 being able to civilly commit mentally ill inmates at the conclusion of their prison sentence, and so this is no different than what you have approved previously, except that we have crafted out a very specific mental commitment statute for this particular group of offenders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [314.437, 315.676], "stop_times": [315.676, 334.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 314.437}, "reply_to": "19987__0_018", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_020", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And also that there's no difference in this man than there was the day he went into prison.\nThat's what's unusual about this, isn't it?\nIf he is in this category of having a mental abnormality, he's no more or less abnormal at the time he finishes his criminal sentence than he was the day he began to serve it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [334.719, 339.101, 341.814], "stop_times": [339.101, 341.814, 354.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.719}, "reply_to": "19987__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__0_021", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that would be true for Leroy Hendricks, who certainly is the respondent here, but Kansas in our prison system has the ability and, in fact, requires inmates that are convicted of sex offenses to go through treatment, so they do have the ability while receiving treatment in prison to shed themselves not of the diagnosis of pedophilia, for example, but of the later part of the definition, which is being likely to continue to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence, because they've gone through treatment.\nAnd so we have seen that happen, that if they complete treatment, they might not have the abnormality on the inside, whereas your question was, are they going to come in with it.\nThey're not going to develop one while they're in, so if they come in with one, then they will have that before they enter the prison--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [354.011, 380.009, 388.878], "stop_times": [380.009, 388.878, 393.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 354.011}, "reply_to": "19987__0_020", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_022", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, I--\n--Do you have some studies that we could refer to to support that?\nMy impression was that the psychiatrists cannot really, or clinicians, certify the patient as being unlikely to repeat unless they observe him in a normal environment, and he's not in a normal environment when he's in prison, so it's just somewhat circular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [393.983, 394.223, 397.774], "stop_times": [394.223, 397.774, 417.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 393.983}, "reply_to": "19987__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_023", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--There are many studies that were cited in our brief, Justice Kennedy.\nTwo that come to mind talk about the efficacy of treatment of a cognitive behavioral-based treatment which is what we provide, and that is certainly the state of the art now in the psychiatric community for sex offenders.\nOne study would show that people that went through treatment had an 8-percent rate of recidivism, whereas people that didn't go through had a 20-percent rate, and that was coming out of a State hospital in California, so it was a confined environment.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [417.549, 421.699, 432.488, 445.626], "stop_times": [421.699, 432.488, 445.626, 446.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 417.549}, "reply_to": "19987__0_022", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_024", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Is 8 percent high enough?\nI mean, what if the State says, you know, 8 percent is still too high a risk?\nAt what percentage of unlikelihood to commit more of these offenses does the State release these individuals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [446.176, 447.188, 450.17], "stop_times": [447.188, 450.17, 457.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.176}, "reply_to": "19987__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_025", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Justice Scalia, that would be a question for the judge and jury to decide.\nA psychiatric professional would have to make the determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [457.366, 460.538], "stop_times": [460.538, 463.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 457.366}, "reply_to": "19987__0_024", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_026", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, what do you tell the jury, you know?\nIs there no chance that this individual will commit acts of these... of this sort again if he's released, or is there an 8-percent chance, or a... what do you tell the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [463.7, 464.621], "stop_times": [464.621, 474.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.7}, "reply_to": "19987__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_027", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "The jury instructions in Kansas just simply ask them to find whether or not he is likely to continue to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.\nThe testimony at the trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [474.358, 481.755], "stop_times": [481.755, 482.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 474.358}, "reply_to": "19987__0_026", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_028", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Likely.\nWhat was that, 49 percent would not do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [482.774, 483.054], "stop_times": [483.054, 486.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.774}, "reply_to": "19987__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_029", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I would be willing to assert that it's 51 percent, Justice Scalia, and the testimony at the trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [486.626], "stop_times": [490.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 486.626}, "reply_to": "19987__0_028", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_030", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That's pretty generous.\nIf it's, you know, 51-49 that he'll continue to do this you let him lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [490.389, 491.22], "stop_times": [491.22, 495.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.389}, "reply_to": "19987__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_031", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--There has been no determination as to what percent that is, and we don't give that guidance to the jury in Kansas, but Dr. Befort, who testified at the sex predator trial, testified in his view that... he was saying that Mr. Hendricks would reoffend within a 51-percent chance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [495.895], "stop_times": [510.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 495.895}, "reply_to": "19987__0_030", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_032", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, you don't define reasonable doubt in criminal cases in terms of 15 percent, or 12 percent.\nWe've never required that sort of precision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [510.724, 516.048], "stop_times": [516.048, 518.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.724}, "reply_to": "19987__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__0_033", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That's true, Mr. Chief Justice, and we don't give any more of that decision within our statute as well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [518.578], "stop_times": [523.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 518.578}, "reply_to": "19987__0_032", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_034", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And what if it's clear that treatment will not be effective?\nWhat if the convicted defendant puts on psychiatric testimony that says, you know, you can talk about treating this all you like, but there's no effective treatment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [523.594, 526.396], "stop_times": [526.396, 535.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.594}, "reply_to": "19987__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_035", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--What Kansas has done is to provide for treatment, and I think that's all that we have to do, and not show that Mr. Hendricks, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [535.712], "stop_times": [541.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 535.712}, "reply_to": "19987__0_034", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_036", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Even when treatment is ineffective.\nYou generously provide for treatment when there's no reason to think the treatment's going to do any good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [541.876, 544.538], "stop_times": [544.538, 550.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.876}, "reply_to": "19987__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_037", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Let me clarify, Justice Scalia.\nDo you mean for the particular person being--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [550.304, 551.185], "stop_times": [551.185, 552.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 550.304}, "reply_to": "19987__0_036", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_038", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "For the particular person.\nSuppose the evidence is clear that, yes, he will do it again if he's released, but treatment is not going to help that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [552.427, 553.348], "stop_times": [553.348, 560.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.427}, "reply_to": "19987__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_039", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I think in that case we still have the ability to commit an individual, because we're providing for the treatment.\nWe're doing everything that we can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [560.652, 566.185], "stop_times": [566.185, 567.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 560.652}, "reply_to": "19987__0_038", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_040", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, the Court--\n--Because you're providing for a treatment that is not going to do any good?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [567.857, 568.248], "stop_times": [568.248, 570.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 567.857}, "reply_to": "19987__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_041", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--But we don't... I don't know that we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [570.619], "stop_times": [572.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 570.619}, "reply_to": "19987__0_040", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_042", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I mean, I can understand your position we can commit him, treatment or not, just because he's dangerous, you know, and we can commit him and not even provide any treatment.\nI can understand that.\nBut I can't understand the position that we can only commit him if we provide treatment, even though it's entirely clear that treatment will do entirely no good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [572.319, 580.335, 581.265], "stop_times": [580.335, 581.265, 591.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.319}, "reply_to": "19987__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_043", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--The Court has never required, in my understanding, for a State to be able to show that a cure is guaranteed for somebody or that they will necessarily benefit from it, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [591.003], "stop_times": [599.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 591.003}, "reply_to": "19987__0_042", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_044", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But that's not necessarily this case, I take it, because you're at least claiming that this man is treatable to some degree.\nI don't know how much, but you're claiming that there is some treatability in his condition, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [599.34, 605.973], "stop_times": [605.973, 611.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.34}, "reply_to": "19987__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_045", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [611.549], "stop_times": [612.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 611.549}, "reply_to": "19987__0_044", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_046", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Now... so that in the challenge that we've got before us we would not, in order to hold your way, have to go beyond saying, I suppose, that this was mental illness within the meaning of the term as we used it in Foucha, because of two things.\nNumber 1, it fell into at least a recognized psychiatric category, which gets us away from a purely idiosyncratic judgment about one individual's dangerousness, and it is a treatable condition, and that's all you would need to win.\nAm I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [612.318, 631.661, 651.764], "stop_times": [631.661, 651.764, 652.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.318}, "reply_to": "19987__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_047", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "As long as we show dangerousness as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [652.986], "stop_times": [657.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 652.986}, "reply_to": "19987__0_046", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_048", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "So far as the mental illness category... yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [657.517, 658.058], "stop_times": [658.058, 658.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.517}, "reply_to": "19987__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_049", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I mean, I think we have that obligation as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [658.459], "stop_times": [659.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 658.459}, "reply_to": "19987__0_048", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_050", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "So we could... if we ruled your way we could leave for another day the question of what to do under, we'll say, the Foucha rule, in a case in which there was a recognized psychiatric category of abnormality but one that was totally untreatable, one that was permanent.\nNothing could be done about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [659.277, 678.612], "stop_times": [678.612, 679.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.277}, "reply_to": "19987__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_051", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I would agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [679.764], "stop_times": [681.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 679.764}, "reply_to": "19987__0_050", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_052", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "So you don't have to have as broad a rule as you were speaking--\n--May I clarify one thing?\nThe court below indicated that Kansas contemplated in the future some kind of treatment, but wasn't providing any.\nHas that changed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [681.476, 684.747, 686.389, 694.116], "stop_times": [684.747, 686.389, 694.116, 695.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.476}, "reply_to": "19987__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_053", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Justice O'Connor, what the Kansas supreme court did was look at one prior district court ruling in the... a motion for a new trial which found that there was treatment.\nA subsequent habeas corpus proceeding at the trial level found there was treatment in Kansas.\nThe supreme court seemed to not question that there was some level of treatment in Kansas but questioned the efficacy of treatment in the community in general.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [695.975, 704.372, 709.235], "stop_times": [704.372, 709.235, 718.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 695.975}, "reply_to": "19987__0_052", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_054", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, could you just answer the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [718.412], "stop_times": [719.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.412}, "reply_to": "19987__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_055", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [719.774], "stop_times": [719.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 719.774}, "reply_to": "19987__0_054", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_056", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Is Kansas providing any treatment for these people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [719.954], "stop_times": [722.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.954}, "reply_to": "19987__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_057", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Absolutely, Justice O'Connor.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [722.395, 722.625], "stop_times": [722.625, 722.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 722.395}, "reply_to": "19987__0_056", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_058", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And what kind of treatment, other than locking them up in a special ward?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [722.826], "stop_times": [725.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.826}, "reply_to": "19987__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_059", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Cognitive behavioral-based treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [725.867], "stop_times": [728.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 725.867}, "reply_to": "19987__0_058", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_060", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "What is that?\nIt doesn't mean anything to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [728.03, 728.44], "stop_times": [728.44, 729.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.03}, "reply_to": "19987__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_061", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It didn't to me in the beginning of this case either, Justice O'Connor.\nIt is a... it's a method of looking at the cognitive distortion somebody has, the maladaptive thinking patterns that lead them to commit maladaptive behavior.\nWithin this context it's sexual behavior.\nIn addition to that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [729.941, 732.765, 742.032, 744.523], "stop_times": [732.765, 742.032, 744.523, 745.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 729.941}, "reply_to": "19987__0_060", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_062", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "What kind of treatment is that?\nI just don't understand.\nAre you trying to train people to think differently, or what is the treatment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [745.702, 746.894, 748.196], "stop_times": [746.894, 748.196, 754.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.702}, "reply_to": "19987__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__0_063", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Part of it does have to do with stopping those thinking patterns, helping them identify, for one thing, what their thinking patterns are that are maladaptive and not like the rest of us, and then how to stop the behavior, how to stop the thinking patterns from leading directly into that behavior, and there is certainly some level of behavior modification in the program.\nThey receive 31-1/2 hours of treatment per week.\nPart of it is this cognitive-based theory as well as the general issues of social skills, self-esteem, anger management, rebuilding relationships, family issues, value clarifications, the gamut of treatment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [754.821, 772.623, 775.764], "stop_times": [772.623, 775.764, 788.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 754.821}, "reply_to": "19987__0_062", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_064", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "General Stovall--\n--I thought... maybe I'm wrong.\nI thought the whole point of the DSM was that this is not a cognitive disorder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [788.823, 789.254, 790.456], "stop_times": [789.254, 790.456, 795.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.823}, "reply_to": "19987__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_065", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--But the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [795.501], "stop_times": [797.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 795.501}, "reply_to": "19987__0_064", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_066", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I mean... you know, correct me if that's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [797.382], "stop_times": [800.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.382}, "reply_to": "19987__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_067", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--The definition of mental abnormality in our Kansas statute is that it is a congenital or an acquired condition, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [800.734], "stop_times": [807.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 800.734}, "reply_to": "19987__0_066", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_068", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But that's not cognitive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [807.319], "stop_times": [808.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 807.319}, "reply_to": "19987__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_069", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--You're correct, Justice O... Justice Kennedy.\nThe treatment is a combination of both cognitive restructuring as well as behavior modification, and so they need to initially be able to identify the cognitive... the thinking distortions that occur instead of just... like, 30 years ago all we would have done is sort of the 12-step addiction model, try to deal with the behavior and not the thought processes that preceded that behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [808.812, 810.521], "stop_times": [810.521, 831.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 808.812}, "reply_to": "19987__0_068", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_070", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "May I ask you a question about this statute and what the State's position is?\nThe statute defines a sexually violent predator as a person who has been convicted or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.\nWould this statute be constitutional, in your view, if it left out the requirement that there be a prior conviction, if it were like the Illinois statute on which you rely?\nJust, they come in with an indictment of this and say, in addition we think he's likely to do it in the future.\nWould that be constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [831.774, 835.908, 850.54, 859.673, 864.107], "stop_times": [835.908, 850.54, 859.673, 864.107, 865.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.774}, "reply_to": "19987__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_071", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I think so, Justice Stevens.\nwhat Kansas has chosen to do, though--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [865.707, 866.949], "stop_times": [866.949, 868.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 865.707}, "reply_to": "19987__0_070", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_072", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "So really the prior convictions are merely the evidentiary support under the statute for the finding that it's more likely than not that this person will be violent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [868.729], "stop_times": [876.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.729}, "reply_to": "19987__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_073", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--It's somewhat evidence of that, as well as it's a limiting of Kansas' decision who to commit.\nWe can't just pick somebody off the street--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [876.205, 881.31], "stop_times": [881.31, 883.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 876.205}, "reply_to": "19987__0_072", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_074", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But why not?\nThat's what puzzles me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [883.003, 883.413], "stop_times": [883.413, 884.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.003}, "reply_to": "19987__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_075", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Oh, constitutionally I think that we could, but the legislature chose to very narrowly define--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [884.335], "stop_times": [888.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 884.335}, "reply_to": "19987__0_074", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_076", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Only those who have previously been punished, or ones who would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [888.979], "stop_times": [891.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.979}, "reply_to": "19987__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_077", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Because the idea is that we're trying to identify those that pose the greatest risk to the community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [891.381], "stop_times": [896.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 891.381}, "reply_to": "19987__0_076", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_078", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--But I don't understand why a person who's indicted on very strong evidence, probable cause, shouldn't be subjected to exactly the same treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [896.443], "stop_times": [903.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.443}, "reply_to": "19987__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_079", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "There are certainly those that would argue, Justice Stevens, that we should have more expanded the law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [903.478], "stop_times": [907.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 903.478}, "reply_to": "19987__0_078", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_080", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [907.211], "stop_times": [907.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.211}, "reply_to": "19987__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_081", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--to include more people in it, but that's not what the legislature chose to do, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [907.452], "stop_times": [910.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 907.452}, "reply_to": "19987__0_080", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_082", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "You agree that it is a preponderance standard that's determinative here.\nIt has to be more likely than not than the person will engage in this kind of conduct in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [910.644, 913.887], "stop_times": [913.887, 918.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.644}, "reply_to": "19987__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_083", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "More likely than not about the dangerousness, but the State has a beyond a reasonable doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [918.351], "stop_times": [921.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 918.351}, "reply_to": "19987__0_082", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_084", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Oh, beyond a reasonable doubt of proving that he's likely to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [921.954], "stop_times": [924.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.954}, "reply_to": "19987__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_085", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [924.758], "stop_times": [925.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 924.758}, "reply_to": "19987__0_084", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_086", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Which boils down to a preponderance standard, of course.\nDo you agree that, at least under the law as it exists this morning, if you were providing no treatment at all, and that could be shown, that an individual would be entitled to release on habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [925.266, 927.509], "stop_times": [927.509, 938.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.266}, "reply_to": "19987__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_087", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I think this Court has... as I read decisions of the Court has never been extremely clear as to whether or not treatment is absolutely required.\nI'm fortunate that we don't have that issue in Kansas because we do provide for treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [938.667, 947.732], "stop_times": [947.732, 952.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 938.667}, "reply_to": "19987__0_086", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_088", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [952.326], "stop_times": [952.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.326}, "reply_to": "19987__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_089", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [952.586], "stop_times": [953.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 952.586}, "reply_to": "19987__0_088", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_090", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nAt least for purposes of the case that you've brought to us it would be sufficient to decide the case, I suppose, on the mental illness ground to say that this was a treatable condition and therefore qualified as mental illness within the meaning of the term in Foucha, and that implies treatability, I presume.\nAnd I suppose the treatability in a way is kind of a quid pro quo for the capacity of the State to lock somebody up, so that if we went no further than the Foucha rule and no further than the rule that would cover the case that you've brought to us this morning, I would suppose that a failure or a refusal to treat would be grounds for release.\nWould you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [953.067, 954.018, 972.932, 994.857], "stop_times": [954.018, 972.932, 994.857, 995.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.067}, "reply_to": "19987__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_091", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--And Mr. Hendricks' certainly would have the ability to file a habeas action in either State or Federal court challenging that if he were not getting any sort of treatment at all, or if he was unable to be released without... for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [995.969], "stop_times": [1007.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 995.969}, "reply_to": "19987__0_090", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_092", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes.\nWell, I suppose the quid pro quo for locking him up, or the reason for locking him up is that he's a danger to others, and that treatability bears on the fairness of the conditions of his confinement.\nThat is to say, it is thought that it is unfair to confine him without treatment if there's any likelihood of success.\nIs that the underlying rationale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1007.108, 1007.338, 1021.709, 1029.705], "stop_times": [1007.338, 1021.709, 1029.705, 1033.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.108}, "reply_to": "19987__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_093", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, it is for us.\nIt's an easy call to make for us, Justice Kennedy, because we do provide for treatment.\nWhether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1033.279, 1034.608, 1037.832], "stop_times": [1034.608, 1037.832, 1038.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1033.279}, "reply_to": "19987__0_092", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_094", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I'm talking about the general rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1038.323], "stop_times": [1042.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.323}, "reply_to": "19987__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_095", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I think that that's correct, that that's... the decisions have indicated by some justices that there need to be some level of treatment and others have sort of left the door open, but from Kansas' standpoint it's an easier call because we clearly do provide treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1042.165], "stop_times": [1060.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1042.165}, "reply_to": "19987__0_094", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_096", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "General Stovall, will you be devoting some of your oral argument to a response to the cross-petitioner's claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1060.639], "stop_times": [1066.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.639}, "reply_to": "19987__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__0_097", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "If I have the opportunity to do that, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1066.492], "stop_times": [1068.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1066.492}, "reply_to": "19987__0_096", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_098", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes.\nLet's hope you do.\nAnd perhaps you could also respond to how far does this spread?\nCould you apply the same theory to, say, arsonists?\nIt is something new in the preventative detention line, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1068.993, 1069.183, 1070.405, 1075.869, 1079.381], "stop_times": [1069.183, 1070.405, 1075.869, 1079.381, 1086.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.993}, "reply_to": "19987__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__0_099", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It is somewhat, although for the last 60 years States have been dealing with a way to be able to civilly detain sex offenders in particular.\nThey've not looked to do that for arsonists or others, but in the... in 1940 this Court approved the Pearson decision that did allow for commitment of someone with a sex offense.\nBut I think Justice O'Connor in the beginning asked the question that I think relates to this, and that is, I think as long as a State can demonstrate that there is a medically justified condition and that there is a manifestation of a threat to be the dangerousness element, that a State probably could do that if there was some level of harm that they were trying to prevent and identify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1086.197, 1094.663, 1103.301], "stop_times": [1094.663, 1103.301, 1121.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1086.197}, "reply_to": "19987__0_098", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_100", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "When you say--\n--May I just ask, then why isn't this case covered by Addington v. Texas, where you require clear and convincing evidence, and you only require more likely than not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1121.74, 1122.33], "stop_times": [1122.33, 1131.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.74}, "reply_to": "19987__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_101", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I think clear and convincing would be sufficient from a constitutional perspective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1131.056], "stop_times": [1135.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1131.056}, "reply_to": "19987__0_100", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_102", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But, see, you don't provide that.\nYou just say it has to be likely that it'll do this.\nIt's beyond a reasonable doubt that it'll be likely, but it's really a preponderance standard, which is not... doesn't comply with Addington.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1135.7, 1136.471, 1138.693], "stop_times": [1136.471, 1138.693, 1146.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.7}, "reply_to": "19987__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_103", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But only one of the elements, though, of the definition would be likely to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1146.427], "stop_times": [1150.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1146.427}, "reply_to": "19987__0_102", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_104", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, the fact that likely do the... commit the harm to the... to children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1150.681], "stop_times": [1154.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.681}, "reply_to": "19987__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_105", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Right, and the other is the mental abnormality, and taken in totality we have beyond a reasonable doubt to show that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1154.865], "stop_times": [1159.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1154.865}, "reply_to": "19987__0_104", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_106", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But a key element doesn't require beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe key element of the definition just requires that they be likely to do it.\nThat's a preponderance standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1159.49, 1162.422, 1166.366], "stop_times": [1162.422, 1166.366, 1167.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.49}, "reply_to": "19987__0_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_107", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, I still think overall the State has to be able to sustain that burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1167.929], "stop_times": [1172.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1167.929}, "reply_to": "19987__0_106", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_108", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It has to prove that it's likely beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's... you can't... you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1172.593], "stop_times": [1177.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.593}, "reply_to": "19987__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_109", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I think even if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1177.186], "stop_times": [1178.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1177.186}, "reply_to": "19987__0_108", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_110", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--That's still 51 percent.\nWhen you speak of a... I think you spoke of a medically... you didn't use the word medically recognized category.\nWhat was the term you used?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1178.958, 1179.619, 1189.623], "stop_times": [1179.619, 1189.623, 1190.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.958}, "reply_to": "19987__0_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_111", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Medically justified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1190.804], "stop_times": [1191.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1190.804}, "reply_to": "19987__0_110", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_112", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Medically justified.\nDo you mean by that a category which is recognized in some standard medical literature like the DSM manual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1191.265, 1191.876], "stop_times": [1191.876, 1200.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.265}, "reply_to": "19987__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_113", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I don't think we are limited, Justice Souter, just to the DSM, but I think certainly the psychiatric community has to believe that this is a condition that they can identify and diagnose, but it would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1200.293], "stop_times": [1210.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1200.293}, "reply_to": "19987__0_112", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_114", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "You don't take the position that the... or maybe you do, that the legislature of any State could say, we recognize a category of mental abnormality or mental illness.\nIt hasn't been recognized in any medical or psychiatric literature, but we're recognizing it now, and that satisfies the rule that requires some mental illness element.\nYou wouldn't say that a State could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1210.129, 1222.527, 1233.667], "stop_times": [1222.527, 1233.667, 1235.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.129}, "reply_to": "19987__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_115", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--That would not be the argument the State would make.\nWe're very comfortable with the fact that what we're describing is medically justified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1235.606, 1236.447], "stop_times": [1236.447, 1240.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1235.606}, "reply_to": "19987__0_114", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_116", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "What is the function of this medical recognition as you understand it under Foucha?\nWhy do we have this element?\nWhy do we... why would you say... why do you say that in order to satisfy the mental illness element under Foucha there has got to be a medically recognized category within which the particular individual falls?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1240.621, 1245.953, 1248.786], "stop_times": [1245.953, 1248.786, 1262.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.621}, "reply_to": "19987__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_117", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I think so that the Court doesn't worry that we confine merely for dangerousness or merely for a class of people that we don't want to be around.\nWe need to... to be able to civilly commit and provide treatment for them it has to be a medically recognized condition, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1262.095, 1270.002], "stop_times": [1270.002, 1275.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1262.095}, "reply_to": "19987__0_116", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_118", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It's less likely to be abused if there's a categorical approach rather than a purely individual approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1275.448], "stop_times": [1280.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.448}, "reply_to": "19987__0_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_119", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--That would be correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1280.72], "stop_times": [1281.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1280.72}, "reply_to": "19987__0_118", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_120", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Do you know of any medically recognized condition that has been medically determined to be nontreatable?\nIs there any such thing as a medically recognized condition which the medical profession is willing to say is nontreatable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1281.281, 1289.236], "stop_times": [1289.236, 1297.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.281}, "reply_to": "19987__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_121", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Not that I'm aware of.\nThey would say that they're not curable, but not necessarily not treatable.\nPerhaps I should try to take the discussion to the criminal side of things and address the issues that you accepted the cross-petition on of Mr. Hendricks.\nThe State maintains that this is not a criminal sanction as Leroy Hendricks indicates.\nA prior... the Allen v. Illinois case in 1986 is the one that we would ask you to turn the attention to, because it is so similar.\nWhile it did provide for commitment instead of punishment, admittedly, there's no reason from a constitutional perspective that that should be significant.\nWhen you looked at the Allen decision, the similarities between the Illinois statute and Kansas statutes are so great, and you found that to be a civil statute.\nEven though it was triggered by the commission of a crime, you found that that only limited the group of people that it applied to.\nIt didn't make it criminal.\nEven though the State in that case had beyond a reasonable doubt for a burden, even though Illinois extended to the potential sexually dangerous person the same criminal protections in terms of being able to call their own witnesses, having an attorney, a jury trial and the like, you still found that that wasn't criminal, and even putting the individual in the custody of the Secretary of Corrections and putting them in a maximum secured facility for treatment was not held to be criminal.\nThose are all the same kinds of things that we do in the State of Kansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1297.301, 1299.444, 1301.987, 1310.502, 1315.716, 1323.473, 1332.411, 1340.267, 1345.812, 1346.463, 1369.897], "stop_times": [1299.444, 1301.987, 1310.502, 1315.716, 1323.473, 1332.411, 1340.267, 1345.812, 1346.463, 1369.897, 1373.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1297.301}, "reply_to": "19987__0_120", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_122", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Hadn't a similar situation applied to Hendricks at one stage?\nI mean, you said everything that happened to him.\nHe'd been put in prison.\nHe'd been put in a mental institution.\nWhat was... was the other incarceration like the one in Allen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1373.06, 1379.755, 1380.867, 1381.979, 1384.95], "stop_times": [1379.755, 1380.867, 1381.979, 1384.95, 1388.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.06}, "reply_to": "19987__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__0_123", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Justice O'Connor... I'm sorry.\nJustice Ginsburg, it was in 1964 in the State of Washington, and he was sent there under a psychopathic personality statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1388.764, 1390.276], "stop_times": [1390.276, 1398.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1388.764}, "reply_to": "19987__0_122", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_124", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But that was a civil commitment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1398.143], "stop_times": [1400.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.143}, "reply_to": "19987__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__0_125", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1400.303], "stop_times": [1401.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1400.303}, "reply_to": "19987__0_124", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_126", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But not under this current statute that was under some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1401.044], "stop_times": [1405.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.044}, "reply_to": "19987__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__0_127", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "In Washington now, you mean?\nIt was in 1964 and it was a different kind of commitment.\nWashington just has their sexually violent predator statute like we have since 1990, so this would have been a much earlier forerunner of what the current version is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1405.276, 1406.618, 1409.509], "stop_times": [1406.618, 1409.509, 1418.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1405.276}, "reply_to": "19987__0_126", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_128", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Could you address the cross-petition question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1418.826], "stop_times": [1421.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.826}, "reply_to": "19987__0_127", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_129", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Thank you for the opportunity, Justice Kennedy.\nThe... we think that if you use the Ursery test, which Mr. Hendricks' counsel supported as well, you look to see what the legislative intent was.\nWas it civil or criminal?\nThe language in our preamble and throughout the statute talks about civil, so if it's established it's criminal on the face, then Mr. Hendricks has the burden to show by the clearest proof that the application is so punitive that it becomes criminal.\nBut in looking at the Kennedy factors, there is only one of those that you can answer yes to, and that is that indeed we have a disability, an affirmative restraint of his liberty.\nWe don't find it to be a fundamental restraint, but admittedly it's a restraint.\nBut the rest of the categories, in terms of whether this commitment process has ever been historically viewed as punishment, we would answer no.\nWe've never looked at civil commitment as punishment.\nIt does not come into play only on the criminal conviction.\nWe have to have more than that.\nWe have to have the mental abnormality and there has to be the likelihood of predatory act.\nIt doesn't serve the traditional aims of punishment or retribution or deterrence, but it serves the aim on the civil side of incapacitation and treatment so we can change this behavior.\nThere are... when you run through the seven other factors there, they are distinct differences as to why it's not found to be criminal.\nThe Allen v. Illinois statute is again extremely important in being able to make those distinctions between civil and criminal, and we would ask that those be the kinds of issues that you look at in making this decision.\nWhen you look at the rights that are afforded to the mentally ill inmates and the sexually violent predators that are in Kansas custody they are very similar.\nIn fact, the sexually violent predators are extended the same bill of rights that the mentally ill patients have.\nThat's not the case, though, when you look at Department of Correction inmates and the way that they are treated versus our sexually violent predators.\nThere is distinct differences in their clothing, their personal property, their telephone and visitation privileges and the like, and so there's a tremendous difference there as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1421.958, 1423.731, 1430.654, 1431.715, 1444.734, 1453.51, 1456.642, 1463.507, 1465.68, 1470.012, 1471.364, 1475.848, 1485.796, 1493.079, 1507.488, 1514.814, 1519.97, 1527.667], "stop_times": [1423.731, 1430.654, 1431.715, 1444.734, 1453.51, 1456.642, 1463.507, 1465.68, 1470.012, 1471.364, 1475.848, 1485.796, 1493.079, 1507.488, 1514.814, 1519.97, 1527.667, 1534.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1421.958}, "reply_to": "19987__0_128", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_130", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "If you have a minute, could you go back to Justice Stevens' question?\nIn Addington, I take it the Court held that you must have... you must say, based on clear and convincing evidence, does Frank Addington require hospitalization in a mental hospital for the protection of others?\nHow does the Kansas statute meet that requirement in respect to requiring hospitalization for the protection of others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1534.692, 1538.776, 1555.616], "stop_times": [1538.776, 1555.616, 1565.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.692}, "reply_to": "19987__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19987__0_131", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Because one of the requirements in our definition is that the individual go to a secure facility, a securely confined facility, so that would be similar to the hospitalization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1565.573], "stop_times": [1575.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1565.573}, "reply_to": "19987__0_130", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_132", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "No, I'm not worried about the part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1575.719], "stop_times": [1577.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.719}, "reply_to": "19987__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19987__0_133", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1577.451], "stop_times": [1579.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1577.451}, "reply_to": "19987__0_132", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_134", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I'm worried about how, by clear and convincing evidence, to show that he is dangerous to others, because what I thought you said is in Kansas you don't have to show this by clear and convincing evidence.\nYou have to show it by a preponderance of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1579.272, 1591.229], "stop_times": [1591.229, 1595.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.272}, "reply_to": "19987__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19987__0_135", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It is one of the elements, Justice Breyer, that we have to show, but again I think the overall burden of proof of being beyond a reasonable doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1595.202], "stop_times": [1602.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1595.202}, "reply_to": "19987__0_134", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_136", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Suppose we disagree with you.\nSuppose we think that the burden of proof that you impose is the preponderance of the evidence.\nThen don't you lose the case under our previous precedents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1602.556, 1603.768, 1608.312], "stop_times": [1603.768, 1608.312, 1611.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.556}, "reply_to": "19987__0_135", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_137", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--The Addington decision clearly talked about, for civil commitment you had to show it by clear and convincing.\nYou're right but it was more than just simply the dangerousness element.\nIt also was that you had to show the mental illness, as I understand it, that standard itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1611.945, 1624.583, 1627.677], "stop_times": [1624.583, 1627.677, 1631.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1611.945}, "reply_to": "19987__0_136", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_138", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Both.\nIt looks like both.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1631.911, 1632.141, 1632.472], "stop_times": [1632.141, 1632.472, 1632.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.911}, "reply_to": "19987__0_137", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__0_139", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Right, and we clearly do that in terms of the mental abnormality, and I understand that's where the issue is for the Court, but you still have to show the likelihood of committing that harm is beyond a reasonable doubt, and so it's showing a 51-percent burden by an 80-percent burden--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1632.862], "stop_times": [1648.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1632.862}, "reply_to": "19987__0_138", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_140", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "What did we mean by dangerousness in that case?\nMight not we have meant by dangerousness simply the same thing that's the test here, that he's likely to harm somebody--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1648.293, 1650.296], "stop_times": [1650.296, 1657.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.293}, "reply_to": "19987__0_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_141", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1657.321], "stop_times": [1657.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1657.321}, "reply_to": "19987__0_140", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_142", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--which would have converted that into a preponderance standard as well, if you follow that reasoning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1657.962], "stop_times": [1662.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.962}, "reply_to": "19987__0_141", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__0_143", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That would be exactly right, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1662.166], "stop_times": [1664.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1662.166}, "reply_to": "19987__0_142", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_144", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That's not what the opinion says, if you read it carefully.\n[Laughter]\nBut the Kansas... your State courts have not construed the standard to be a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in the classic sense, has it?\nIn other words, we could say... the Court could say, look, proving likelihood beyond a reasonable doubt really means prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that he will do thus and so, but that isn't what your courts have said, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1664.147, 1665.627, 1667.389, 1676.586], "stop_times": [1665.627, 1667.389, 1676.586, 1689.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.147}, "reply_to": "19987__0_143", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__0_145", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "There has only been one court in Kansas that would have looked at this issue, and that was the... the Kansas supreme court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1689.715], "stop_times": [1696.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1689.715}, "reply_to": "19987__0_144", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_146", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1696.1], "stop_times": [1696.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.1}, "reply_to": "19987__0_145", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19987__0_147", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--made that final determination, and that's not part of their decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1696.31], "stop_times": [1698.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1696.31}, "reply_to": "19987__0_146", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_148", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That's not in their opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1698.603], "stop_times": [1698.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.603}, "reply_to": "19987__0_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19987__0_149", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "They relied just on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1698.813], "stop_times": [1699.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1698.813}, "reply_to": "19987__0_148", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_150", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Could I ask you another question, assuming this is not an obstacle.\nImagine an armed robber who has committed many armed robberies, and a psychologist who says he has a sociopathic personality.\nNow, under those circumstances, do you believe it would be constitutional, since he may... lots of testimony... commit many more armed robberies, and you have some psychologists who say he has sociopathic personality, would it be constitutional for a State to keep him under the correct standard... clear and convincing, review every year, we're going to look at this over and over... confined in a mental hospital, and how do you distinguish that case from this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1699.842, 1702.665, 1711.831], "stop_times": [1702.665, 1711.831, 1740.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.842}, "reply_to": "19987__0_149", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19987__0_151", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--One of the distinctions is the level of personality disorder that is there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1740.061], "stop_times": [1745.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1740.061}, "reply_to": "19987__0_150", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_152", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Go ahead and answer the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1745.884], "stop_times": [1747.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1745.884}, "reply_to": "19987__0_151", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__0_153", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "The indication in the Foucha decision, for example, was that simply a personality disorder might not be enough for commitment, and that's clearly not what the State has in this condition.\nWe have a pedophile, a recognized mental disorder that is subject to the commitment, and so the mental condition, the medically justified condition is so much greater than in your example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1747.656, 1759.025], "stop_times": [1759.025, 1768.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1747.656}, "reply_to": "19987__0_152", "speaker": "carla_j_stovall"}
{"id": "19987__0_154", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Thank you, General Stovall.\nMr. Weilert.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1768.521, 1770.164], "stop_times": [1770.164, 1773.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.521}, "reply_to": "19987__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_000", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe State of Kansas is extending the incarceration of Mr. Hendricks beyond the term of sentence imposed in the plea agreement he reached with the State of Kansas in 1984.\nThe State should not be allowed to circumvent the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto and double jeopardy by calling for an effectively permanent incapacitation that's imposed, based upon the commission of criminal acts, a civil commitment for treatment.\nNeither should the strict limits of preventive detention outside of the criminal law be broadened to allow such a confinement to prevent the possibility of the commission of a criminal offense at some unspecified point in the future.\nTo do so would fundamentally undermine a constitutionally guaranteed right of liberty.\nWe suggest that the Sexually Violent Predator Act is, in fact, a criminal enactment, even though the legislature labeled it a civil proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1773.216, 1781.0, 1791.977, 1809.998, 1825.089, 1830.732], "stop_times": [1781.0, 1791.977, 1809.998, 1825.089, 1830.732, 1842.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1773.216}, "reply_to": "19987__0_154", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_001", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, didn't the Court in Baxstrom uphold essentially the notion that the State could commit people after they were released from prison in a civil commitment proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1842.35], "stop_times": [1856.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.35}, "reply_to": "19987__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_002", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I believe the Court upheld that they could commit after a... pardon me.\nAfter a criminal sentence if they were mentally ill, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1856.911, 1861.225], "stop_times": [1861.225, 1864.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1856.911}, "reply_to": "19987__1_001", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_003", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes, and we have left largely to the States to define what constitutes a mental illness within that framework.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1864.457], "stop_times": [1875.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.457}, "reply_to": "19987__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_004", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That is correct, however--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1875.035], "stop_times": [1877.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1875.035}, "reply_to": "19987__1_003", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_005", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And so maybe this boils down to whether this particular condition of pedophilia, or however you pronounce it, qualifies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1877.236], "stop_times": [1886.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.236}, "reply_to": "19987__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_006", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't believe that the constitutional standard for mental illness can be the equivalent of any diagnosis that might come out of the DSM, and that is essentially what the State, I believe, is trying to argue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1886.683], "stop_times": [1903.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1886.683}, "reply_to": "19987__1_005", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_007", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, let's talk about this specific condition of pedophilia and whether that is open to the State to include within the broad concept of some kind of mental illness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1903.803], "stop_times": [1918.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.803}, "reply_to": "19987__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_008", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Pedophilia, as I understand it, is diagnosed based upon prior commission of criminal acts.\nIf pedophilia was sufficient to form the basis for a civil commitment, then any other act such as Justice Breyer was speaking of... armed robbery, or any number of other criminal acts which would be the diagnostic basis for an antisocial personality disorder... would also be sufficient to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1918.655, 1924.567], "stop_times": [1924.567, 1945.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1918.655}, "reply_to": "19987__1_007", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_009", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "This Court has suggested that may not be so, but is this a different kind of category of mental aberration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1945.222], "stop_times": [1953.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.222}, "reply_to": "19987__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_010", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Pedophilia as opposed to any other of the DSM--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1953.74], "stop_times": [1956.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1953.74}, "reply_to": "19987__1_009", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_011", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "As opposed to a tendency to have an antisocial personality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1956.772], "stop_times": [1961.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.772}, "reply_to": "19987__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_012", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I don't believe there's anything that I have read which would indicate that it is any different than an antisocial personality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1961.246], "stop_times": [1967.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1961.246}, "reply_to": "19987__1_011", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_013", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, suppose you had a paranoid schizophrenia acute type, and the diagnosis was that the person was dangerous to himself and to others, could you commit there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1967.53], "stop_times": [1976.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.53}, "reply_to": "19987__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_014", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That would be acceptable under the normal civil commitment statute, Your Honor, where the commitment is based upon the inability of the person to take care of themselves and make rational decisions about their treatment, and then because the commitment is for the person's own good, he can be civilly committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1976.556], "stop_times": [1996.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1976.556}, "reply_to": "19987__1_013", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_015", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, rationality is not a part of the civil commitment preconditions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [1996.681], "stop_times": [2003.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.681}, "reply_to": "19987__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_016", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Generally, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2003.307], "stop_times": [2006.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2003.307}, "reply_to": "19987__1_015", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_017", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Why is it that you can commit the paranoid schizophrenic and not this person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2006.799], "stop_times": [2011.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.799}, "reply_to": "19987__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_018", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Because the treat... pardon me.\nThe commitment of the paranoid schizophrenic is for his own good, to help him to overcome his--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2011.623, 2013.275], "stop_times": [2013.275, 2018.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2011.623}, "reply_to": "19987__1_017", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_019", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But suppose the condition, the condition for his incarceration was he was dangerous to others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2018.55], "stop_times": [2024.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.55}, "reply_to": "19987__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_020", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I don't believe that a paranoid schizophrenic could be committed unless there was first a finding that the commitment would be for his own good.\nI believe commitment strictly because of the dangerousness would be unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2024.376, 2035.383], "stop_times": [2035.383, 2039.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2024.376}, "reply_to": "19987__1_019", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_021", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, the supreme court of Kansas, Mr. Weilert, in its opinion, which upheld your... the majority upheld your point of view, said the State could get around... could handle it by simply imposing a life sentence on these people and there would be no constitutional problem.\nDoes that really solve any problem to say that the State can't do what it does here but it can come back and impose a life sentence on a person for the first pedophilic offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2039.766, 2058.409], "stop_times": [2058.409, 2069.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.766}, "reply_to": "19987__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_022", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Your Honor, it is a decision that the State can make under its criminal... or, criminal powers.\nIf the State would choose to impose a life sentence on a first-timer there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but even in this case there are a number of things the State can do other than commit some person for a second time because of the criminal actions he's committed.\nThey can place very restrictive parole conditions.\nThey can even enact some criminal legislation which would make it illegal for someone with a sex offense to have contact with children in a public place, go around schoolyards, and enforce that criminally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2069.438, 2076.952, 2091.991, 2096.356], "stop_times": [2076.952, 2091.991, 2096.356, 2108.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2069.438}, "reply_to": "19987__1_021", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_023", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Why is all that okay?\nI don't understand.\nI mean, if the principle you're arguing for is correct, why aren't those restrictions just as improper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2108.584, 2109.583, 2110.484], "stop_times": [2109.583, 2110.484, 2116.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.584}, "reply_to": "19987__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__1_024", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "The restrictions that I spoke of as far as parole or conditional release in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2116.818], "stop_times": [2122.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2116.818}, "reply_to": "19987__1_023", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_025", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It's a restriction of his physical liberty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2122.421], "stop_times": [2124.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.421}, "reply_to": "19987__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__1_026", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--It's a restriction of his liberty, but it's not a confinement that is a massive curtailment of that liberty, and I believe that's the distinction, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2124.364], "stop_times": [2134.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2124.364}, "reply_to": "19987__1_025", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_027", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But life imprisonment certainly would be, and one of the arguments that the State makes is, we're doing something gentler and kinder here, that instead of locking him up in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life, we say there's a criminal sentence and maybe... there's not much chance of it, but maybe he'll be all right at the end of the term.\nIf he's not at the end of the term we put him in another confinement, form of confinement.\nWhy does the Constitution force the most harsh solution, I suppose is what the State is urging?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2134.63, 2158.726, 2165.521], "stop_times": [2158.726, 2165.521, 2174.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.63}, "reply_to": "19987__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__1_028", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "The Constitution does not force that, the most harsh remedy.\nThe State of Kansas at the time of Mr. Hendricks' commission of these acts in 1984 had a procedure, and still does have a procedure where he could be psychologically evaluated and committed for care, if that was in fact necessitated or recommended by that evaluation.\nThe only limitation on that term of care and treatment, if needed, would be the maximum sentence that could have been imposed by the criminal act, or on the criminal acts, which in this case in 1984 was 45 to 180 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2174.917, 2180.61, 2197.621], "stop_times": [2180.61, 2197.621, 2214.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2174.917}, "reply_to": "19987__1_027", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_029", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Maybe the State has to take the harsher course because the harsher course is the only one that is less manipulable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2214.294], "stop_times": [2220.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.294}, "reply_to": "19987__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__1_030", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2220.348], "stop_times": [2221.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2220.348}, "reply_to": "19987__1_029", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_031", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I mean, isn't there some fear about... you know, totalitarian regimes don't put people in jail for crimes.\nThey commit them for mental treatment.\nIt's a very hard thing to nail down, isn't it, who's mentally ill and who's finally been cured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2221.75, 2228.456, 2230.749], "stop_times": [2228.456, 2230.749, 2235.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.75}, "reply_to": "19987__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__1_032", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I believe that is a very astute observation, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2235.664], "stop_times": [2239.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2235.664}, "reply_to": "19987__1_031", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_033", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And so mainly to... perhaps to protect against that, the State, if it wants to protect itself, has to take the harsher course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2239.727], "stop_times": [2245.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.727}, "reply_to": "19987__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__1_034", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It is certainly the... or, pardon me, an avenue open to the State to do it that way.\nIt's not necessarily required, though, because the State could provide for an indeterminate sentence, also, which would be dependent upon the person then proving to the parole authorities that he was safe to be at large.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2245.989, 2251.953], "stop_times": [2251.953, 2265.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2245.989}, "reply_to": "19987__1_033", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_035", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But surely that would be manipulable, too, if that is to be part of the test, if the parole authorities are to have that sort of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2265.463], "stop_times": [2274.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.463}, "reply_to": "19987__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_036", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, certainly the parole authorities would have to have some discretion, but it would be... it would not be manipulative in the same way that the States could formulate a plan to commit persons based solely upon dangerousness, which we believe this act provides that opportunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2274.27], "stop_times": [2292.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2274.27}, "reply_to": "19987__1_035", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_037", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "What's the... your best authority from this Court for the proposition that you can only have a civil commitment for the best interests of the person and not for the safety of society?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2292.701], "stop_times": [2303.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.701}, "reply_to": "19987__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_038", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It is... in Addington v. Texas the Court basically said the commitment is for those who cannot take care of themselves, and that is where the being in the best interests of the person comes from.\nThe Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2303.458, 2318.649], "stop_times": [2318.649, 2319.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2303.458}, "reply_to": "19987__1_037", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_039", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "What is the rationale... if that is the correct reading of Addington, what is the explanation for it, that everyone has a constitutional right to commit a crime once before he can be committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2319.72], "stop_times": [2332.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.72}, "reply_to": "19987__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_040", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I don't believe anyone has a constitutional right to commit a crime.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2332.557, 2337.031], "stop_times": [2337.031, 2337.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2332.557}, "reply_to": "19987__1_039", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_041", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Before he can be committed civilly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2337.532], "stop_times": [2339.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.532}, "reply_to": "19987__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_042", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--It would not require the commission of a crime to be committed civilly, but it would require the finding of a mental disease or mental illness and the finding of dangerousness both by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2339.124], "stop_times": [2354.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2339.124}, "reply_to": "19987__1_041", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_043", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "No, but you say he can only be committed if it's for his own good, if we're talking about civil commitment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2354.354], "stop_times": [2360.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.354}, "reply_to": "19987__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_044", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I believe that that is the underlying basis for civil commitment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2360.278], "stop_times": [2364.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2360.278}, "reply_to": "19987__1_043", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_045", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "No, I thought Addington said dangerous to others, didn't it, as well as dangerous to himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2364.349], "stop_times": [2368.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.349}, "reply_to": "19987__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_046", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "It does say that it is dangerous to himself or others, and that is in conjunction with the need that... or, pardon me, in conjunction with the fact that he is unable to care for himself and needs commitment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2368.863], "stop_times": [2382.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2368.863}, "reply_to": "19987__1_045", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_047", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But Addington was just talking about the burden of proof when you're going ahead with civil commitment.\nIt didn't purport to categorize every single situation which would justify a civil commitment, if you met the burden of proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2382.471, 2388.166], "stop_times": [2388.166, 2395.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.471}, "reply_to": "19987__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_048", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "While Addington was a procedural due process case, I believe the concept that a civil commitment has to be based upon dangerousness and mental illness was carried into fruition by this Court in Foucha v. Louisiana.\nWe would suggest that the primary reason for the Kansas statute having been passed was to continue the incarceration of persons who were being released from confinement following their conviction and sentence on sexual offenses.\nThat finding was made by the Kansas supreme court, where it said that the primary objective was to continue incarceration and that treatment was incidental at best.\nThat's further--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2395.292, 2413.774, 2436.508, 2447.706], "stop_times": [2413.774, 2436.508, 2447.706, 2448.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2395.292}, "reply_to": "19987__1_047", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_049", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Mr. Weilert, are you complaining just about timing, and suppose Mr. Hendricks is charged, indicted, found guilty, and then instead of having the ordinary criminal incarceration, at that point we have this SVP proceeding, and so although he has a criminal conviction he's never... the time that he served has been pursuant to this special proceeding.\nWould there be anything unconstitutional about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2448.816, 2482.057], "stop_times": [2482.057, 2484.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.816}, "reply_to": "19987__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__1_050", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--That's the situation in Colorado v. Specht, or Specht v. Colorado, where the Court approved that type of situation, where instead of a specific term of criminal incarceration it allowed for an indeterminate term and found that it was, in fact, a criminal incarceration even though it was for the purpose of incapacitation rather than retribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2484.22], "stop_times": [2508.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2484.22}, "reply_to": "19987__1_049", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_051", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But that raised... that... correct me if I'm wrong.\nI thought that case raised a procedural due process question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2508.878, 2512.47], "stop_times": [2512.47, 2515.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2508.878}, "reply_to": "19987__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__1_052", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That was a procedural claim, Your Honor, where there was not a hearing for that second sentencing procedure, but that would be an appropriate type... Kansas could make the decision at the time of the original conviction to go to a sexual psychopath type law, much as it could have done back in 1984 when Kansas did have such a law in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2515.873], "stop_times": [2539.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2515.873}, "reply_to": "19987__1_051", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_053", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "So you're saying that they could have done it on the spot, but they can't do it 5 years later.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2539.709, 2545.786], "stop_times": [2545.786, 2546.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.709}, "reply_to": "19987__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__1_054", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--It's now 12 years later, Your Honor, and the reason they can't do it now is because first of all it is a continue... a second incarceration for the same conviction, the same criminal act that he committed back in 1984.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2546.377], "stop_times": [2561.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2546.377}, "reply_to": "19987__1_053", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_055", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Secondly, we are talking about a situation where, if... even though this act is purported to be civil, it's in fact criminal, because the intent and purpose and effect of the legislation is criminal, and I would suggest that even back in 1984, if the only thing that the State had to prove was a mental abnormality, that there would be some question about whether the commitment could have occurred at that time, rather than proving a mental illness which could be treated.\nSo you're modifying the answer that you first gave.\nYou're not so sure that it could have been done immediately after the conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2561.638, 2600.413, 2605.068], "stop_times": [2600.413, 2605.068, 2609.312], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2561.638}, "reply_to": "19987__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19987__1_056", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "There could have been a civil, or a commitment for treatment done in 1984, yes, if there had been a... if there had not been a criminal sentence imposed at that time.\nIn the Kansas supreme court's decision, it went on, after saying that the main purpose of the incarceration, or the... yes, the incarceration was for punishment and not for treatment, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2609.312, 2624.283], "stop_times": [2624.283, 2651.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2609.312}, "reply_to": "19987__1_055", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_057", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, they didn't use those words, punishment, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2651.149], "stop_times": [2654.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.149}, "reply_to": "19987__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_058", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Pardon me, for incapacitation rather than treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2654.562], "stop_times": [2658.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2654.562}, "reply_to": "19987__1_057", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_059", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2658.406], "stop_times": [2658.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.406}, "reply_to": "19987__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_060", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And incapacitation has been recognized by the Court as one of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2658.743], "stop_times": [2664.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2658.743}, "reply_to": "19987__1_059", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_061", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And do you say that no treatment is being provided now to your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2664.347], "stop_times": [2669.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.347}, "reply_to": "19987__1_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_062", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--The record reflects that the Kansas supreme court made that finding based upon the evidence presented both at the trial court and the habeas court, where the head of the treatment facility said that the persons there were receiving essentially no treatment other than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2669.762], "stop_times": [2686.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2669.762}, "reply_to": "19987__1_061", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_063", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "And what about today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2686.335], "stop_times": [2687.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2686.335}, "reply_to": "19987__1_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_064", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Today, it's my understanding there is some group therapy being given.\nThere... I don't believe there's any indication on the record that such therapy is effective or has any hope of being effective to overcome the condition of pedophilia, primarily because, as the State's expert testified, pedophilia is a diagnosis that, once made, remains with the person forever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2687.905, 2694.7], "stop_times": [2694.7, 2716.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2687.905}, "reply_to": "19987__1_063", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_065", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, there's no question, I gather, that this man is very much likely to commit sexual offenses against children in the future, if released.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2716.865], "stop_times": [2729.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.865}, "reply_to": "19987__1_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_066", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "There is certainly no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2729.783], "stop_times": [2731.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2729.783}, "reply_to": "19987__1_065", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_067", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Strong evidence to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2731.195], "stop_times": [2732.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.195}, "reply_to": "19987__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_068", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--There's certainly no doubt that Mr. Hendricks presents a risk of committing further crimes if released.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2732.825], "stop_times": [2737.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2732.825}, "reply_to": "19987__1_067", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_069", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "To children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2737.71], "stop_times": [2739.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.71}, "reply_to": "19987__1_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_070", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "To children.\nThat is what his previous crimes have been, yes.\nBut I don't believe that we can incarcerate people solely because they have the possibility of committing a criminal act at some point in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2739.4, 2740.381, 2742.922], "stop_times": [2740.381, 2742.922, 2752.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2739.4}, "reply_to": "19987__1_069", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_071", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "So what's the State supposed to do, just wait till he goes out and does it again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2752.578], "stop_times": [2755.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.578}, "reply_to": "19987__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_072", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "No, Chief... Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe State has other opportunities, or, pardon me, other means available to it.\nIt can, you know, impose very stringent conditions of parole, have him repeat... pardon me, report very frequently, require him to stay away from children, require him to stay away from schoolyards.\nIt can, for people who have not yet been convicted, of course, do all sorts of things with the sentencing guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2755.34, 2757.673, 2762.047, 2776.597], "stop_times": [2757.673, 2762.047, 2776.597, 2786.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2755.34}, "reply_to": "19987__1_071", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_073", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, we have a person here who's been convicted at least of two offenses most immediately and, I gather, some in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2786.214], "stop_times": [2793.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.214}, "reply_to": "19987__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_074", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I believe a total of five, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2793.46], "stop_times": [2795.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2793.46}, "reply_to": "19987__1_073", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_075", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2795.119], "stop_times": [2795.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.119}, "reply_to": "19987__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_076", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "That is correct, and... but the State still has the ability to put restrictions on that person to lesson the risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2795.63], "stop_times": [2803.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2795.63}, "reply_to": "19987__1_075", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_077", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, I guess we all know as a practical matter that's not very effective, many times.\nWe read about it every day, and I guess we don't have to avoid that kind of general awareness of concern about just saying on a piece of paper, don't go near a schoolyard and don't do this again.\nIt just isn't very effective with someone with this abnormality, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2803.525, 2808.169, 2823.51], "stop_times": [2808.169, 2823.51, 2827.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.525}, "reply_to": "19987__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_078", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Your Honor, the only way to be totally effective would be to lock up anyone who would possibly commit a criminal action in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2827.974], "stop_times": [2837.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2827.974}, "reply_to": "19987__1_077", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_079", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "No, no.\nNo, we're talking--\n--Mr. Weilert, I assume that many... I don't know what the statistics are, but within a certain age group the recidivism rate for anybody released from prison may be as high as 80 percent, so you could say for everybody walking out of prison he's likely to commit the same crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2837.02, 2837.63, 2838.869], "stop_times": [2837.63, 2838.869, 2853.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.02}, "reply_to": "19987__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__1_080", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I believe that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2853.029], "stop_times": [2854.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2853.029}, "reply_to": "19987__1_079", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_081", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Isn't that the case?\nI guess we could--\n--And maybe we could preventively detain everybody that's released because he's committed one crime and is likely to commit another one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2854.401, 2854.781, 2856.101], "stop_times": [2854.781, 2856.101, 2862.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.401}, "reply_to": "19987__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__1_082", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "In order to do that, Your Honor, we would have to be talking about a preventive detention--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2862.376], "stop_times": [2868.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2862.376}, "reply_to": "19987__1_081", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_083", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I'm being facetious, Mr. Weilert.\n[Laughter]\nI'm puzzled about your response to Justice O'Connor.\nYou said that they could put all these other restraints on the individual.\nOn a preponderance of the evidence that somebody's likely to commit a rime, can you put all these restraints on people, they can't go near schoolyards, and so forth, or are you talking about as part of a sentence after being convicted of a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2868.13, 2870.373, 2870.514, 2873.546, 2877.359], "stop_times": [2870.373, 2870.514, 2873.546, 2877.359, 2891.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.13}, "reply_to": "19987__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19987__1_084", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Stevens.\nAs a part of the parole conditions after being released from incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2891.17, 2892.612], "stop_times": [2892.612, 2896.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2891.17}, "reply_to": "19987__1_083", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_085", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes, but the statute is dealing with the problem presented by someone who's served his sentence entirely, and the criminal punishment, power to punish him criminally has been exhausted.\nThere's still a threat there, and I frankly don't see the difference between that case and one where you just indict somebody who's been caught but never convicted, and the question is, can you do those other things to that person without some kind of proof of a mental abnormality by some standard?\nI don't think the difference between going to jail and being subjected to a lot of other restraints can just answer this case, because the basic question in the case is what is the threshold showing that must be made to treat such a person, or take him out of society, other than as punishment for a crime?\nAnd I think we're all assuming that this is not... I mean, that the punishment for a crime has already been done, and I don't... as I say, I don't see why it makes any difference whether the person's been punished or hasn't... or has just been indicted.\nFrankly, I don't see the constitutional distinction there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2896.666, 2905.802, 2919.852, 2940.076, 2952.835], "stop_times": [2905.802, 2919.852, 2940.076, 2952.835, 2955.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.666}, "reply_to": "19987__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__1_086", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "If... pardon me, Your Honor.\nThe commitment could not occur simply because someone has been indicted, I believe, unless there was a showing that the person was mentally ill.\nIn Allen v. Illinois the Court found that the... that Mr. Allen was mentally ill.\nI believe he had schizophrenia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2955.466, 2958.759, 2967.374, 2975.562], "stop_times": [2958.759, 2967.374, 2975.562, 2976.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2955.466}, "reply_to": "19987__1_085", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_087", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Yes, but what's the magic to the term mentally ill?\nWhy can't they call it having XYZ personality factor, and they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that the person with that factor in all probability, beyond a reasonable doubt or beyond clear and convincing evidence, will do bad things, rob banks, hurt children?\nWhy isn't that enough, if the XYZ factor is something to do with the person's character, whether you call it mentally illness or not?\nI don't quite understand the magic to the term, mentally ill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [2976.864, 2978.984, 2998.788, 3005.463], "stop_times": [2978.984, 2998.788, 3005.463, 3007.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.864}, "reply_to": "19987__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19987__1_088", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Your Honor, I don't believe there is any magic to the term mentally ill, but there is a point, I believe, at which the State cannot commit someone simply because they have a history of prior commitment, or criminal act, and based upon those prior commitments is, they're predicted to commit another criminal act in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3007.777], "stop_times": [3030.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3007.777}, "reply_to": "19987__1_087", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_089", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Everyone agrees with that, I think.\nThe issue is, in addition, you have to be mentally ill, and it's like civil commitment, and how do you decide whether for legal purposes a person is sufficiently mentally ill?\nI suppose there are some people who are very dangerous, whom every psychiatrist would say are crazy beyond a doubt and are going to murder 15 other people unless they're locked up, and I'm assuming that it would be possible to lock up that person, but not lock up somebody who commits a lot of crimes, whom every psychiatrist would say there's nothing wrong with except he's a sociopath, which means he commits a lot of crimes, all right.\nI take that as an assumption.\nSo what's the definition distinguishing the one from another, and what I'm going to ask you about is the ALI's definition, which had for a different purpose to say that a person was insane if, as a result in part of a mental defect, he lacked substantial capacity, in this case it would be to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, which would suggest a kind of irresistible impulse, a compulsion.\nAnd we know that there is in one of the psychiatric associations' brief evidence that some psychiatrists call this a kind of compulsion, so is the ALI test a possible test?\nIf not, what is, and if we have some psychiatrists saying this is somewhat compulsive, and others saying not, what do we do?\nI think your response is that we tried this test for criminal conviction and it turned out to be a mess.\nIs there any reason it's likely to be better for psychiatric commitment?\nIt's always possible to get somebody to come in with evidence on one or the other side of that irresistible compulsion rule.\nThe courts adopted that for criminal... for insanity defenses and it turned out to be chaos.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3030.751, 3032.662, 3043.868, 3068.205, 3069.987, 3098.807, 3112.996, 3122.784, 3133.77, 3137.353, 3146.429], "stop_times": [3032.662, 3043.868, 3068.205, 3069.987, 3098.807, 3112.996, 3122.784, 3133.77, 3137.353, 3146.429, 3153.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.751}, "reply_to": "19987__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19987__1_090", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I believe that is correct, Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3153.172, 3156.224], "stop_times": [3156.224, 3156.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3153.172}, "reply_to": "19987__1_089", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_091", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "So your view, then, is that you could not lock up a person whom every psychiatrist would say has a totally uncontrollable compulsion to murder people, and they want civilly to commit him... civilly to commit him, as... or a person who's going to kill herself, or himself, uncontrollable impulse, though the person otherwise seems rational.\nWe could not civilly commit such a person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3156.855, 3180.32], "stop_times": [3180.32, 3183.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3156.855}, "reply_to": "19987__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19987__1_092", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--In that circumstance, Your Honor, I believe that the civil commitment might be appropriate because it would be for the good of the person being committed to prevent him from killing himself and for the protection of society, but it would be based upon the original finding that the civil commitment had to be based upon a mental illness rather than simply the prior commission of a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3183.462], "stop_times": [3224.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3183.462}, "reply_to": "19987__1_091", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_093", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "In any event, you agree with General Stovall, don't you, that this matter of what the mental state is, subject to constitutional limitations, is for the State to decide, and the State here has defined something called mental abnormality that's short of mental illness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3224.118], "stop_times": [3244.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3224.118}, "reply_to": "19987__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19987__1_094", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I believe that the State has latitude in deciding whatever the condition is for civil commitment so long as it is something more than just a condition based upon the prior commission of crime and the risk of commission of crime again in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3244.972], "stop_times": [3267.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3244.972}, "reply_to": "19987__1_093", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_095", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, what's the ethical calculus that makes the dangerousness to oneself so much of a higher order of priority than dangerous to 10 other people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3267.108], "stop_times": [3277.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.108}, "reply_to": "19987__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_096", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I... if I stated that I did not mean to do so.\nI believe that danger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3277.596, 3287.133], "stop_times": [3287.133, 3288.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3277.596}, "reply_to": "19987__1_095", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_097", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, I mean, that's the logical consequence of your answer that you must find that it's in the person's own welfare, and I suppose we could say it's in your own welfare to prevent you from committing crimes, but leaving that aside, you seem to say it must be in the patient's own welfare to be committed before there can be a civil commitment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3288.094], "stop_times": [3304.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3288.094}, "reply_to": "19987__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_098", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--I believe that's correct, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3304.225], "stop_times": [3306.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3304.225}, "reply_to": "19987__1_097", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_099", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I'm asking you why that is so.\nWhy is that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3306.626, 3307.967], "stop_times": [3307.967, 3308.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.626}, "reply_to": "19987__1_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_100", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Because the person is unable to care for themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3308.798], "stop_times": [3312.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3308.798}, "reply_to": "19987__1_099", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_101", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "But what's the reason for--\n--Why limit it to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3312.861, 3314.07], "stop_times": [3314.07, 3315.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.861}, "reply_to": "19987__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19987__1_102", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "If we do not limit it to that, I believe we then... there's no logical stopping place where we can say that a commitment for dangerousness alone would not be sufficient, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3315.542], "stop_times": [3332.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3315.542}, "reply_to": "19987__1_101", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_103", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, what about Justice Breyer's example of someone who's said by every psychiatrist who has seen him, if he's at large he's going to murder people?\nNow, do you say that person can or cannot be civilly committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3332.122, 3340.347], "stop_times": [3340.347, 3344.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.122}, "reply_to": "19987__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_104", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Well, as I understand the ALI definition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3344.13], "stop_times": [3347.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3344.13}, "reply_to": "19987__1_103", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_105", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, no, I'm not talking about the ALI.\nI'm just asking, all the psychiatrists find a person is going to... if he's at large he's going to murder people.\nNow, can that person be civilly committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3347.884, 3349.055, 3355.299], "stop_times": [3349.055, 3355.299, 3358.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.884}, "reply_to": "19987__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_106", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Based on that alone?\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3358.121, 3359.543], "stop_times": [3359.543, 3360.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3358.121}, "reply_to": "19987__1_105", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_107", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, and that it's a form of mental illness, as one would hope they would find.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3360.074], "stop_times": [3364.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.074}, "reply_to": "19987__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19987__1_108", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe we would be treading on very thin ice, because that in effect is allowing for a commitment based upon what someone might do in the future, and it would have to be based upon a finding of mental illness, which we once again come back to that has to be based upon something more than the commission of the crime in the past and the possibility of committing a crime in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3364.746], "stop_times": [3390.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3364.746}, "reply_to": "19987__1_107", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_109", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, Allen v. Illinois certainly upheld a civil commitment of persons charged with sexual offenses who are sexually dangerous persons suffering from a mental disorder and having criminal propensities to the commission of sex offenders... offenses, particularly, in that case, sexual molestation of children.\nNow, the Court upheld that notion, and referred to a mental disorder.\nThe only difference was that in that case it was offered as an alternative to incarceration for the criminal offense as opposed to here, where it is proposed subsequent to serving the sentence.\nNow, does that make a big difference if it in fact is a civil commitment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3390.432, 3417.38, 3423.044, 3440.047], "stop_times": [3417.38, 3423.044, 3440.047, 3445.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.432}, "reply_to": "19987__1_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_110", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Your Honor, in Allen the commitment there was in lieu of a criminal prosecution.\nHere, the State has already had a criminal prosecution, and in Allen the justification the Court gave was that it disavowed... Allen... or, pardon me, Illinois disavowed any interest in punishment in lieu of the civil commitment.\nIn this case, the same procedure could have perhaps been used, except the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3445.322, 3453.948, 3467.127], "stop_times": [3453.948, 3467.127, 3475.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3445.322}, "reply_to": "19987__1_109", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_111", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "I'm just asking you if that one factor should make a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3475.893], "stop_times": [3480.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3475.893}, "reply_to": "19987__1_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_112", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, it should.\nThe commitment in Allen was of a person who was... had a treatable mental illness, a schizophrenic.\nIn this case there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3480.525, 3482.638, 3491.975], "stop_times": [3482.638, 3491.975, 3493.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3480.525}, "reply_to": "19987__1_111", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_113", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Well, but the statute doesn't refer to that.\nIt speaks in terms of a mental disorder, having criminal propensities to the commission of sex offenses, and it's not at all this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3493.888, 3496.8], "stop_times": [3496.8, 3507.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3493.888}, "reply_to": "19987__1_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19987__1_114", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "--But in Allen the... this... the distinction was that it disavowed punishment.\nIn this case, the State does not.\nIt was for treatment.\nIn this case there's no treatment, and that would conclude.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3507.938, 3513.142, 3514.714, 3515.916, 3521.382], "stop_times": [3513.142, 3514.714, 3515.916, 3521.382, 3521.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3507.938}, "reply_to": "19987__1_113", "speaker": "thomas_j_weilert"}
{"id": "19987__1_115", "conversation_id": "19987", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Weilert.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1649", "start_times": [3521.562, 3522.603], "stop_times": [3522.603, 3523.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3521.562}, "reply_to": "19987__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__0_000", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-663, Marvin Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corporation.\nMr. Bird.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [0.0, 8.908], "stop_times": [8.908, 10.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__0_001", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe last predicate, criminal last predicate act rule of accrual is the most appropriate rule for civil racketeering claims for three reasons.\nFirst, it takes account of the unique elements of this cause of action.\nSecondly, it is consistent with the congressional objectives and underlying policies of the law.\nThird, it greatly reduces the administrative and judicial burden and the economic burden upon the parties because of its ease of application.\nSelection of a rule of accrual in RICO must first of all take account of the sui generis nature of this cause of action and its unique pattern element.\nIn a garden variety tort case, say a car accident, for example, all of the elements are present at the beginning.\nThis explains the normal, or traditional rule of accrual.\nIn a RICO case this is not true, because the injury must arise out of a pattern of racketeering activity, and the pattern itself must also be perpetrated by a RICO enterprise.\nThese--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [10.008, 15.181, 25.197, 31.562, 37.877, 47.703, 61.531, 69.776, 75.621, 90.699], "stop_times": [15.181, 25.197, 31.562, 37.877, 47.703, 61.531, 69.776, 75.621, 90.699, 92.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.008}, "reply_to": "20655__0_000", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_002", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, you're assuming... when you say that all of the elements don't have to be present at the beginning, you're assuming that if I am injured by the first of three predicate acts I have suffered a RICO injury, aren't you?\nI mean, I agree if I'm injured by the second of three predicate acts I have suffered a RICO injury, but we've never held that the person who is injured by the first of what later becomes a series of predicate acts has suffered a RICO injury, have we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [92.051, 111.484], "stop_times": [111.484, 130.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.051}, "reply_to": "20655__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_003", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well... no, this Court has not held that.\nHowever, I think an analysis of what a pattern of racketeering is would help in answering that question.\nIf you want me to go on I will, but my understanding of a pattern of racketeering activity is that it is simply a definition that can only be determined in retrospect, such that even two predicate acts, for example, don't necessarily constitute a pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [130.205, 133.039, 140.413], "stop_times": [133.039, 140.413, 158.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 130.205}, "reply_to": "20655__0_002", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_004", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "But if the injury precedes the pattern it's rather hard to say that it was a RICO injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [158.664], "stop_times": [164.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.664}, "reply_to": "20655__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__0_005", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [164.148], "stop_times": [165.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.148}, "reply_to": "20655__0_004", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_006", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And I'm not sure that that's necessary in your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [165.49], "stop_times": [168.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 165.49}, "reply_to": "20655__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__0_007", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--No, it's not necessary in our case, but let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [168.852], "stop_times": [170.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.852}, "reply_to": "20655__0_006", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_008", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "It is necessary to the theory of statute of limitations you're pressing upon us, however.\nThe argument you were just making assumes that, assumes that the first injury constitutes a RICO injury even though at that time there's no pattern and you have not been injured, when you're injured, by a pattern of racketeering activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [170.542, 175.627], "stop_times": [175.627, 190.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.542}, "reply_to": "20655__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_009", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--If I may explain, the way I view the structure of the statute and the definition itself, it assumes already in place, and the only way by definition that we can conclude that a pattern exists is that we have a beginning and that we have an end.\nIt can only be decided whether or not it exists in retrospect.\nOnce we determine that it exists, then that first predicate act is just as much a part of the pattern as the last predicate act, and that's our contention here, and that's why trying to determine when a RICO pattern along this continuum which Congress has defined somehow is borne or springs to life, if you will, under the H.J. Inc. rule of continuity plus relationship, that's an extremely difficult thing for anybody to follow, and certainly difficult for a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [190.167, 207.177, 211.448], "stop_times": [207.177, 211.448, 245.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 190.167}, "reply_to": "20655__0_008", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_010", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That still leaves the metaphysical question, or maybe the legal question of why there can be a RICO injury before there's a RICO in existence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [245.433], "stop_times": [253.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.433}, "reply_to": "20655__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__0_011", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--The... it is a metaphysical question, I grant you, but the way the Congress has defined pattern of racketeering activity and the way this Court has interpreted it, it can only be decided whether or not it existed in the past, and what the framework of your question is, that somehow we need to be able to identify it in prospect, and it can't be done, and that's the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [253.817], "stop_times": [286.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 253.817}, "reply_to": "20655__0_010", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_012", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, I don't see it that way myself.\nThe normal default rule for when a statute of limitations begins to run is that it runs from when the cause of action accrues, when it exists, right?\nThat's the normal rule.\nOnce all the elements of the cause of action exists, then the statute of limitations period begins to run.\nThat's the normal rule, right?\nWill you concede that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [286.299, 290.082, 303.139, 304.27, 311.624, 313.257], "stop_times": [290.082, 303.139, 304.27, 311.624, 313.257, 314.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.299}, "reply_to": "20655__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__0_013", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, I would not concede that, because in Havens Realty this Court has indicated that where we have a continuing tort the proper rule of accrual can be from the last predicate act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [314.526], "stop_times": [326.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.526}, "reply_to": "20655__0_012", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_014", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, it could be, but the normal rule as I understand it is that the statute of limitations will begin to run as of the time the cause of action comes into existence, and under RICO, it doesn't come into existence until all the elements are present, injury, predicate acts, and pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [326.724], "stop_times": [349.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.724}, "reply_to": "20655__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__0_015", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [349.811], "stop_times": [351.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.811}, "reply_to": "20655__0_014", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_016", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And as of that moment, then, it could start to run, the statute of limitations, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [351.551], "stop_times": [358.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.551}, "reply_to": "20655__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__0_017", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well, I have two answers to that.\nFirst of all I think the normal rule of accrual, at least in present day law, is a discovery rule, discovery of the elements, or certainly discovery of the injury, and that rule is modified to require--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [358.327, 362.03], "stop_times": [362.03, 377.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.327}, "reply_to": "20655__0_016", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_018", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I think some courts have applied such a rule.\nI would not say that that is the normal rule for accrual of causes of action and running of statute of limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [377.301, 380.181], "stop_times": [380.181, 389.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.301}, "reply_to": "20655__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__0_019", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well, that may be, and... I guess I've forgotten what the original question was, if you could restate it, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [389.789], "stop_times": [397.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.789}, "reply_to": "20655__0_018", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_020", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, as applied to your case I don't see why the statute wouldn't begin to run once you can say all the elements of the RICO cause of action are in existence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [397.723], "stop_times": [408.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.723}, "reply_to": "20655__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__0_021", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "All right, and if I may get to that, I think what this Court has said, for example, in Havens Realty is, if we have a continuing violation the concerns that we typically have for a statute of limitations such as repose and staleness, they fade away.\nWhat we have here is a congressional objective as stated by this Court in Turkette, Russello, and a number of other cases, which recognizes that long-term pattern felonious conduct is a bane on our economy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [408.51, 426.432], "stop_times": [426.432, 443.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.51}, "reply_to": "20655__0_020", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_022", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, this statute is patterned after the antitrust law, the Sherman Act, and that also can involve a continuing stream of conduct by the violator, and what rule have we applied there for statute of limitations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [443.933], "stop_times": [461.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 443.933}, "reply_to": "20655__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__0_023", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I understand that, but I think applying... adopting the statute of limitations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [461.935], "stop_times": [466.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.935}, "reply_to": "20655__0_022", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_024", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "What rule have we applied there, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [466.269], "stop_times": [468.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.269}, "reply_to": "20655__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__0_025", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--As I understand it, the antitrust rule is... runs from the date of injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [468.891], "stop_times": [473.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.891}, "reply_to": "20655__0_024", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_026", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, so... and if this action, RICO is patterned after that, why shouldn't it be the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [473.114], "stop_times": [480.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.114}, "reply_to": "20655__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__0_027", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Because the rule of accrual is different than the statute of limitations, and I think that the rule of accrual that the Court selects must take account of the elements, and one of the unique elements of RICO is pattern, and that's not... that doesn't exist in the antitrust laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [480.188], "stop_times": [498.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.188}, "reply_to": "20655__0_026", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_028", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr. Bird, as I understand it the principal difference between your case and others is the principal problem that you have is the identification of the source, and in Clayton Act cases generally it's known who it is, but here, it isn't a question of injury or pattern, it's a question of, you didn't know the source, and that's why I found your argument rather puzzling.\nIt seemed to me the Eighth Circuit test, which was injury and source, discovery of injury and source plus pattern was the rule, and that your disagreement really was about the identification of the source, because if those three elements are there, then on... as I understand your claim, you would be within the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [498.72, 527.959], "stop_times": [527.959, 557.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.72}, "reply_to": "20655__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__0_029", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, we would.\nWe are... we claim that under whatever rule this Court selects we think we're within it, but the fact remains that the Klehrs were not able to identify the source of their injury, and they did everything within their power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [557.709, 560.29], "stop_times": [560.29, 575.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 557.709}, "reply_to": "20655__0_028", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_030", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And that's the whole thing of your case is they knew they were hurt, and then they knew that there had been all this advertising, but they didn't connect the pattern with the source of the injuries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [575.881], "stop_times": [589.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.881}, "reply_to": "20655__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__0_031", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's correct.\nThey did not connect the pattern with the source of the injury.\nBut there is a larger question here should the Court choose to address it, and that is, why should this Court or Congress be interested at all in granting repose to a criminal enterprise that's engaged in a long-term continuous pattern of felonious activity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [589.761, 590.55, 593.132], "stop_times": [590.55, 593.132, 614.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.761}, "reply_to": "20655__0_030", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_032", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, of course, that assumes the question.\nPart of the statute of limitations design is so that people that are not guilty of being in a criminal activity have the evidence that's fresh to rebut your allegation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [614.607, 616.129], "stop_times": [616.129, 625.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.607}, "reply_to": "20655__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__0_033", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And that is true, but if... if... let's assume that the RICO plaintiff is able to establish that and meets the pattern element, which is a strict element that this Court has imposed under the H.J. case, two acts are not necessarily enough.\nWe need continuity plus relationship, and if we assume, for example, a 30-year pattern and somebody suing on the act that takes place in the first year and he can pass that hurdle of identifying a pattern, which under most circuits needs to be pled, then what's happened is we have a 30-year pattern of criminal felonious conduct that nobody's stepped up to the plate to stop, and I think in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [625.612, 645.848], "stop_times": [645.848, 673.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.612}, "reply_to": "20655__0_032", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_034", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I wouldn't have that problem if I wouldn't allow the first suit, right?\nYou're back to that issue again, whether the first person has a RICO cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [673.265, 677.208], "stop_times": [677.208, 683.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.265}, "reply_to": "20655__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_035", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [683.542], "stop_times": [684.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.542}, "reply_to": "20655__0_034", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_036", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I'll give you 10 years, not 30.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [684.392], "stop_times": [685.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.392}, "reply_to": "20655__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_037", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well, of course, the definition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [685.984], "stop_times": [688.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.984}, "reply_to": "20655__0_036", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_038", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That is the distance between the first predicate act and the second, so the person who is injured 10 years later after the first one clearly has a RICO cause of action, and the first predicate act occurred 10 years ago.\nThat's the outside time of it, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [688.415, 699.862], "stop_times": [699.862, 702.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 688.415}, "reply_to": "20655__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_039", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--What I... of course, I tried to address that, and what I'm saying is that once we are able to identify the pattern, that is... and understand what I'm saying here is that being able to identify a pattern is only a matter of perception, and that means that we have a judge or an attorney or a RICO plaintiff saying, I'm looking back in time, and what is... what can I perceive from what's gone on in the past, and that implies, of course, discovery.\nYou're in possession of facts from which you should conclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [702.042, 734.825], "stop_times": [734.825, 737.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.042}, "reply_to": "20655__0_038", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_040", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "It seems to me your clients were incredibly obtuse not to have discovered this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [737.746], "stop_times": [743.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.746}, "reply_to": "20655__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__0_041", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well, I disagree with that.\nI disagree with that, and I certainly think a fact question exists, and the mere fact that the silo may not have met their economic expectations does not necessarily cause them to question the underlying concept that... of oxygen limiting, which was the basis for the sale here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [743.379, 747.182], "stop_times": [747.182, 770.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.379}, "reply_to": "20655__0_040", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_042", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr. Bird, I agree that all of the elements have to have been in existence, as Justice O'Connor suggested, but why do you think all of the elements have to be known, including the existence of the pattern?\nLet's take, you know, a garden variety tort action for a physical injury to someone.\nSuppose the physical injury occurs.\nDoesn't the statute begins to run immediately?\nAnd let's assume the injury was intentional so that the individual could sue for assault, but he didn't know it was intentional at the time.\nHe just thought it was negligent.\nNow, he later finds out, 3 years later, that it was in fact intentional.\nDoes he have a longer statute of limitations for assault than he would have had for negligence, assuming the jurisdiction has the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [770.939, 783.197, 789.26, 791.912, 795.435, 803.79, 805.761, 812.887], "stop_times": [783.197, 789.26, 791.912, 795.435, 803.79, 805.761, 812.887, 821.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.939}, "reply_to": "20655__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_043", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [821.042, 822.043], "stop_times": [822.043, 822.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.042}, "reply_to": "20655__0_042", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_044", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--the same 2-year statute for both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [822.524], "stop_times": [823.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.524}, "reply_to": "20655__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_045", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [823.432], "stop_times": [823.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.432}, "reply_to": "20655__0_044", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_046", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "It's his problem.\nIndeed, he didn't know that it was intentional, and that made it a higher species of tort, just as the... a series of RICO violations makes this a higher species of tort, but that's too bad, so once he learned of the injury he should have sued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [823.913, 825.344], "stop_times": [825.344, 844.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.913}, "reply_to": "20655__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_047", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I agree with your hypothetical that that wouldn't extend the statute of limitations, but here it's within his power to make that investigation and to find out.\nWhat we're dealing with here, and this is... we have a whole new way of attacking a problem, and I'm suggesting that we can't get by with using what's termed the traditional rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [844.345, 855.575], "stop_times": [855.575, 870.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.345}, "reply_to": "20655__0_046", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_048", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No, but even on the traditional rule, isn't it your position also that because one of the elements is fraud, and because fraud at least will normally be accorded a discovery rule, that therefore you have until the point of reasonable discovery, even under the traditional rule, or a traditional analysis, without regard to the peculiarity of RICO itself.\nIsn't that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [870.272, 897.661], "stop_times": [897.661, 899.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.272}, "reply_to": "20655__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_049", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, I think part of our position... that is part of our position, but understand, the rule we're advocating, which is the criminal last predicate act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [899.003], "stop_times": [907.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.003}, "reply_to": "20655__0_048", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_050", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Oh, I quite realize that, but if you take the hypothetical that Justice Scalia gave you, and you substitute for the intentional versus negligent act a fraudulent act, I take it your position would be that even though so far as the element of failure to supply what they offered or any conventional tort, as to that the statute might run immediately.\nNonetheless, as to the fraudulent element I thought it was your position that the statute would not run until the moment of reasonable discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [907.548, 942.131], "stop_times": [942.131, 952.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.548}, "reply_to": "20655__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_051", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--That is true, as... and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [952.198], "stop_times": [954.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.198}, "reply_to": "20655__0_050", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_052", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "So that you may very well lose the case conceptually by the adoption of a Clayton kind of analysis here, and yet if there were a traditional... if traditional treatment were given to the discovery aspect of the fraudulent element, you might still be in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [954.458], "stop_times": [973.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 954.458}, "reply_to": "20655__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_053", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [973.092], "stop_times": [974.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.092}, "reply_to": "20655__0_052", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_054", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "You might still go back and have something to litigate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [974.772], "stop_times": [976.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.772}, "reply_to": "20655__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_055", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Yes.\nYour answer to that... the answer to that question is yes.\nThe RICO plaintiff under our analysis is put into a, sort of a classic catch 22, because all of the circuits are requiring significant pleading not only in terms of pattern but also identification of the underlying acts, and if you don't plead enough you're going to be out under Rule 9, and if you wait long enough so that you've got all the knowledge and crystallization that you need to be in order to satisfy this, the motivation of the defendant, RICO defendant is going to be to come in and say, well, we've been doing this for 50 years.\nAll of the elements existed a long time ago, and here's all the proof of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [976.704, 978.165, 980.625, 1017.31], "stop_times": [978.165, 980.625, 1017.31, 1020.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.704}, "reply_to": "20655__0_054", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_056", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, but he wouldn't... that wouldn't help if the injury was within the statutory period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1020.973], "stop_times": [1024.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.973}, "reply_to": "20655__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__0_057", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's true.\nIt would not help if the injury were in the statutory period, but the problem, or the catch 22 may get him beyond that time before he can understand that... and plead and prove the pattern element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1024.844, 1026.617], "stop_times": [1026.617, 1041.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.844}, "reply_to": "20655__0_056", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_058", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "What is it... is it your view, then, the statute would run forever, there's no statute, or is it 13 years, or what is it?\nI mean, you say the last act.\nWell, all right, there's an act... separate out the problem of discovery, which I think is the same for any fraud, so imagine everybody knows everything.\nNow, I'm hurt yesterday.\nAll right, now do I go back for 1,000 years?\nI mean, this was the last act.\nIt turns out that every 5 years they committed one act since 1940.\nDo I go back to 1940?\nIs that your idea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1041.205, 1049.131, 1052.013, 1061.099, 1063.309, 1067.544, 1071.263, 1075.768, 1077.628], "stop_times": [1049.131, 1052.013, 1061.099, 1063.309, 1067.544, 1071.263, 1075.768, 1077.628, 1078.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.205}, "reply_to": "20655__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__0_059", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Let's assume... your hypothetical necessarily assumes that since 1940 the RICO enterprise has been engaged in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1078.6], "stop_times": [1087.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1078.6}, "reply_to": "20655__0_058", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_060", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, one act every 5 years.\nThat's what they do.\nIt's a bank, and what they've done is they've told one lie or one fraud in a loan application every 5 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1087.876, 1089.406, 1090.077], "stop_times": [1089.406, 1090.077, 1096.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.876}, "reply_to": "20655__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__0_061", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Right, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1096.222], "stop_times": [1097.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.222}, "reply_to": "20655__0_060", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_062", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And it's the same person, and he's done it year after year, so what do we do under your theory?\nI'm just trying to find out whether there's no statute of limitations in effect, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1097.003, 1101.835], "stop_times": [1101.835, 1105.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.003}, "reply_to": "20655__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__0_063", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1105.899], "stop_times": [1106.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.899}, "reply_to": "20655__0_062", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_064", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--whether it's... there's none, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1106.35], "stop_times": [1107.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.35}, "reply_to": "20655__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__0_065", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.\nThe answer is that the statute runs from the time of the last predicate act, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1107.298, 1107.799], "stop_times": [1107.799, 1112.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.298}, "reply_to": "20655__0_064", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_066", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "All right.\nNow, why is it the case that in RICO there should be effectively no statute of limitations, but with price-fixing there is a statute of limitation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1112.961, 1113.362], "stop_times": [1113.362, 1121.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.961}, "reply_to": "20655__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__0_067", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well, there is a statute of limitations, and it's 4 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1121.666], "stop_times": [1125.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.666}, "reply_to": "20655__0_066", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_068", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No, but I mean... and if I have a price-fixing case I take it that if they've been engaged in fixing the prices of their electrical conduits for 30 years and I've been hurt, I can go back only... is it 3, or is it... 3, I think.\nAll right, so why would it, if we're copying the Clayton Act, where you have a price-fixing case you only can go back 3 years, but if it's RICO you can go back a million years, or let's be honest about it.\nYou go back 15, 20, whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1125.02, 1140.74, 1152.187], "stop_times": [1140.74, 1152.187, 1154.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.02}, "reply_to": "20655__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__0_069", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Right, and the answer to that question is that the congressional intent, as stated in the preamble and also is recognized by this Court, is in part under Turkette to divest the enterprise of all its ill-gotten gains.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1154.078], "stop_times": [1169.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1154.078}, "reply_to": "20655__0_068", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_070", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "All right.\nIn price-fixing we don't like that particularly.\nI mean, I take it this Court, when it decided to adopt the Clayton Act as the model, looked at the congressional intent and thought that the congressional intent is best served by copying the Clayton Act.\nNow, is there something you could point to specifically that would say in this aspect we shouldn't copy the Clayton Act, though in others we should?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1169.94, 1170.851, 1173.362, 1186.182], "stop_times": [1170.851, 1173.362, 1186.182, 1194.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.94}, "reply_to": "20655__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__0_071", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, and I think it's the congressional policies and objectives that are contained in the structure of the statute itself, as well as the policies underlying the law.\nAnd if... the structure of the statute shows no concern for the twin issues of repose and staleness and, indeed, a RICO plaintiff is required to prove past injuries well... that are well in the past, and a RICO defendant is required to defend those, not only the injuries but the predicate acts themselves.\nWhat would be the policy justification for not allowing... for allowing a RICO defendant to get out of divesting themselves of the older ill-gotten gains?\nAny other rule would permit the RICO defendant to want to continue, because as long as he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1194.826, 1204.571, 1226.446, 1238.243], "stop_times": [1204.571, 1226.446, 1238.243, 1247.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1194.826}, "reply_to": "20655__0_070", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_072", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That argument was raised in Malley-Duff.\nI mean, I raised it, in fact.\nYou know, I... in a dissent I said there shouldn't be a statute of limitations for RICO.\nYou either use the State statute or use none at all in this case.\nThat was rejected, however.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1247.079, 1249.13, 1251.632, 1259.379, 1262.17], "stop_times": [1249.13, 1251.632, 1259.379, 1262.17, 1264.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.079}, "reply_to": "20655__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_073", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1264.06], "stop_times": [1265.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1264.06}, "reply_to": "20655__0_072", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_074", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "We have adopted a 4-year statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1265.152], "stop_times": [1266.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.152}, "reply_to": "20655__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_075", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "You have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1266.652], "stop_times": [1267.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.652}, "reply_to": "20655__0_074", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_076", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Surely it has to have some meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1267.293], "stop_times": [1268.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.293}, "reply_to": "20655__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_077", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1268.883], "stop_times": [1269.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.883}, "reply_to": "20655__0_076", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_078", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And it has no meaning if in Justice Breyer's hypo the thing can be rejuvenated every 5 years, every time there's a new predicate act.\nEven though the 4-year statute has already passed since the last predicate act, as soon as there's a new predicate act 1 year later the whole thing comes to life again.\nThat's not a statute of limitations of any sort that I ever heard of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1269.985, 1279.441, 1288.968], "stop_times": [1279.441, 1288.968, 1293.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1269.985}, "reply_to": "20655__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_079", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "What... the policy advanced there is that if you adopt a rule of accrual, once the defendant makes up his own mind that I'm going to stop this criminal activity he knows that 4 years later his liability's over.\nIf he's foolish enough in year 5--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1293.45, 1312.333], "stop_times": [1312.333, 1314.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.45}, "reply_to": "20655__0_078", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_080", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Unless he changes his mind 5 years later, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1314.313], "stop_times": [1316.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.313}, "reply_to": "20655__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_081", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Then if he's foolish enough to do what you just said, which I think is a little bit unlikely, but let's assume that it takes place, why shouldn't we get him for it?\nWhy should he be able to get away with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1316.434, 1327.733], "stop_times": [1327.733, 1329.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.434}, "reply_to": "20655__0_080", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_082", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "What other statute of limitations works that way, where the statute has run and then someone does something again and somehow it's all... the statute has ceased running.\nI mean, ordinarily you would have, if there's a 4-year statute of limitations and I libel you or I do something, it's... the 4 years expires.\nIf I libel you again, it's a new cause of action, a new... but you can't resurrect the old libel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1329.904, 1341.702, 1350.308], "stop_times": [1341.702, 1350.308, 1357.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.904}, "reply_to": "20655__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__0_083", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, I differ with that.\nI think that again in Havens Realty the Court just... did just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1357.47, 1361.944], "stop_times": [1361.944, 1365.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.47}, "reply_to": "20655__0_082", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_084", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, Havens was an unusual case.\nThe Court acknowledged as much, didn't it?\nI suspect it's not likely to be repeated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1365.317, 1367.167, 1369.03], "stop_times": [1367.167, 1369.03, 1372.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.317}, "reply_to": "20655__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__0_085", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1372.23], "stop_times": [1375.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.23}, "reply_to": "20655__0_084", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_086", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr. Bird, I continue to be troubled by the abstract quality of your discussion, because here it wasn't every 5 years.\nIt was constant.\nThere was this sales pitch going on constantly.\nSo let me ask you this question.\nSuppose a veterinarian had come to the Klehrs' farm in 1978 and said, you know what causing your cattle to sicken?\nIt's that silo.\nHow much time would you have to sue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1375.334, 1384.588, 1385.359, 1388.081, 1389.713, 1399.979, 1401.681], "stop_times": [1384.588, 1385.359, 1388.081, 1389.713, 1399.979, 1401.681, 1404.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.334}, "reply_to": "20655__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__0_087", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Under the last predicate act rule we would still be timely, and I think that that's... there are a myriad of reasons why a person who suffers some type of injury might not sue at the beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1404.062], "stop_times": [1416.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1404.062}, "reply_to": "20655__0_086", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_088", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "What was the last predicate act?\nYou're saying that there is a new predicate act every time the person who has committed a fraud denies that he's committed a fraud--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1416.509, 1418.512], "stop_times": [1418.512, 1427.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.509}, "reply_to": "20655__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_089", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1427.978, 1428.376], "stop_times": [1428.376, 1428.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1427.978}, "reply_to": "20655__0_088", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_090", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--and tells the seller, that's a perfectly good silo?\nIs that a new fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1428.796, 1431.3], "stop_times": [1431.3, 1432.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.796}, "reply_to": "20655__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_091", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--That's a new predicate act, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1432.3], "stop_times": [1434.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.3}, "reply_to": "20655__0_090", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_092", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Why is it a new predicate act?\nThe seller has the $64 thou.\nIt's in his pocket.\nHe's not getting any more money.\nWhy is there a new fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1434.27, 1435.522, 1438.193, 1439.375, 1440.936], "stop_times": [1435.522, 1438.193, 1439.375, 1440.936, 1442.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.27}, "reply_to": "20655__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_093", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well, I think he is getting more money from the overall marketing scheme and strategy.\nThere is money being generated not only by the dealer franchise fees but also by way of sales of repairs on the project, sales of collateral--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1442.618, 1449.111], "stop_times": [1449.111, 1458.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.618}, "reply_to": "20655__0_092", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_094", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Sales to other people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1458.667], "stop_times": [1459.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.667}, "reply_to": "20655__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_095", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--And repairs to the Klehrs themselves.\nThere were repairs within the statutory period, for example, to the silo, that they were motivated to continue to use, operate, and maintain the silo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1459.679, 1463.511], "stop_times": [1463.511, 1475.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.679}, "reply_to": "20655__0_094", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_096", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "They charged for these repairs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1475.827], "stop_times": [1476.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.827}, "reply_to": "20655__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_097", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Certainly.\nThe dealer charged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1476.818, 1477.389], "stop_times": [1477.389, 1478.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1476.818}, "reply_to": "20655__0_096", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_098", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "They made a profit on it, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1478.651], "stop_times": [1479.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.651}, "reply_to": "20655__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_099", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1479.11], "stop_times": [1479.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1479.11}, "reply_to": "20655__0_098", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_100", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "They made a profit on these repairs?\nDo we know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1479.531, 1481.093], "stop_times": [1481.093, 1482.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.531}, "reply_to": "20655__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_101", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I don't think... I don't think there's anything in the record that says they made a profit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1482.172], "stop_times": [1489.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.172}, "reply_to": "20655__0_100", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_102", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, I'm concerned with... your brief makes this point both for extending the RICO statute and also for asserting that even if we don't adopt your position as to the last predicate act there was in fact a new and separate injury when these later... when these later--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1489.548], "stop_times": [1508.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1489.548}, "reply_to": "20655__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_103", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1508.939], "stop_times": [1509.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1508.939}, "reply_to": "20655__0_102", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_104", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--representations were made, a new accrual, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1509.33], "stop_times": [1512.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.33}, "reply_to": "20655__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_105", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Okay.\nLet me address separate accruals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1512.191, 1512.592], "stop_times": [1512.592, 1514.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.191}, "reply_to": "20655__0_104", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_106", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, I'd like you to do that.\nThat's what I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1514.092, 1515.414], "stop_times": [1515.414, 1515.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.092}, "reply_to": "20655__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_107", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Of course, the circuits are really in a big state of confusion regarding this rule of accrual, and does it require separate and independent injury, or does it require a new predicate act, does it require both, and if so what is a separate and independent injury and what is a new predicate act?\nI mean, the... if we're dealing with the separate and independent injury question... if I may, a very short hypothetical of my own.\nAssume I own a nursing home and I buy a humidifier, and... the last 2 months of a 6-month period, and I only use it during the winter and the spring.\nIt creates a condition of molds because I don't have the right filter, and it spews toxins out and two of my patients die, and... who would say that those were not separate and independent injuries?\nWhat we have here is a silo that when it's filled is filled with very good feed.\nAs the year goes by, and the silo starts to go down, starts to empty, the defect is such that it begins to create this cauldron, this witches brew underneath the dome which in the last months of operation starts to injure not only the new feed but also the different cattle that eat the feed.\nAnd they don't all get the same disease.\nThey all get different types of diseases every year and different types of conditions and symptoms which are not identifiable.\nDoes that constitute separate and independent injury?\nI believe it does, and it would meet the test of and surpass the test of Glessner v. Kenney that was the one case that discussed this, and Bingham v. Zault.\nNow, do we have a separate predicate act, and I think we do, because under the RICO predicate acts that we're talking about, which is mail fraud, the mail fraud itself is any mailing in furtherance of a fraud, or any use of the interstate wires, and we certainly have that in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1515.904, 1533.636, 1546.814, 1556.06, 1570.74, 1575.435, 1598.779, 1601.52, 1609.776, 1614.05, 1624.255], "stop_times": [1533.636, 1546.814, 1556.06, 1570.74, 1575.435, 1598.779, 1601.52, 1609.776, 1614.05, 1624.255, 1648.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.904}, "reply_to": "20655__0_106", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_108", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--They don't have to obtain anything further?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1648.621], "stop_times": [1650.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.621}, "reply_to": "20655__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_109", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1650.082], "stop_times": [1650.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1650.082}, "reply_to": "20655__0_108", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_110", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "They don't have to obtain anything further?\nSimply, in effect, an intentionally false statement through the mail, intended to conceal their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1650.542, 1652.743], "stop_times": [1652.743, 1659.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.542}, "reply_to": "20655__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_111", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "In furtherance of a fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1659.999], "stop_times": [1661.381], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.999}, "reply_to": "20655__0_110", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20655__0_112", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1661.381], "stop_times": [1661.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.381}, "reply_to": "20655__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_113", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That would meet the requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1661.888], "stop_times": [1663.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1661.888}, "reply_to": "20655__0_112", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_114", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "How is that in furtherance of a fraud?\nThe fraud has already occurred.\nIt's in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1663.23, 1664.692, 1665.532], "stop_times": [1664.692, 1665.532, 1666.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.23}, "reply_to": "20655__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_115", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No, but it's still ongoing, and you have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1666.413], "stop_times": [1670.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1666.413}, "reply_to": "20655__0_114", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_116", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "You answered no.\nI thought the answer was it was intended to conceal it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1670.447, 1671.275], "stop_times": [1671.275, 1674.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.447}, "reply_to": "20655__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_117", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Oh, yes.\nYes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1674.017, 1675.389], "stop_times": [1675.389, 1676.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1674.017}, "reply_to": "20655__0_116", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_118", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Is that enough on the mail fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1676.14], "stop_times": [1678.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.14}, "reply_to": "20655__0_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_119", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, it's a new predicate act that's part of the pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1678.301], "stop_times": [1682.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1678.301}, "reply_to": "20655__0_118", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_120", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No, I just want the definition of mail fraud for the moment.\nIf they make the fraudulent representation through the mail for the purpose of concealing their prior fraud, does that satisfy all the elements of mail fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1682.552, 1685.935], "stop_times": [1685.935, 1698.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.552}, "reply_to": "20655__0_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_121", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I believe it does, if the concealment itself is fraudulent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1698.915], "stop_times": [1702.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1698.915}, "reply_to": "20655__0_120", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_122", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And is it concealment simply to deny that the product sold earlier was defective?\nThat's a pretty lose definition of concealment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1702.888, 1708.862], "stop_times": [1708.862, 1712.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.888}, "reply_to": "20655__0_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_123", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1712.332], "stop_times": [1713.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1712.332}, "reply_to": "20655__0_122", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_124", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "To keep on insisting no, that's a perfectly good silo, that is concealment?\nI can understand if you say well, you know, they doctored reports about whether the cattle were sick or something like that.\nThat is concealment.\nBut just insisting that there's nothing wrong with the silo, that's concealment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1713.073, 1717.067, 1724.501, 1725.442], "stop_times": [1717.067, 1724.501, 1725.442, 1729.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.073}, "reply_to": "20655__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__0_125", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--I don't think in all circumstances it would, but I... there are some situations in which it would, and it would depend upon the circumstances under which that statement was made, and I would hate to have a rule that says that it couldn't be under any circumstances, and I agree with you that a construct could be made such that it would not constitute fraudulent concealment, and so... I don't know what else to say about that.\nI would like to reserve, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1729.413, 1756.05], "stop_times": [1756.05, 1758.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1729.413}, "reply_to": "20655__0_124", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_126", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, because it might not be fraudulent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1758.183], "stop_times": [1759.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.183}, "reply_to": "20655__0_125", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_127", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "It might not be fraudulent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1759.833], "stop_times": [1761.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1759.833}, "reply_to": "20655__0_126", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_128", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "They could make that statement thinking they had a great silo out there, and that wouldn't be mail fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1761.736], "stop_times": [1765.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.736}, "reply_to": "20655__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_129", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's true, for the dealer, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1765.818], "stop_times": [1768.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1765.818}, "reply_to": "20655__0_128", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_130", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "But if they knew the silo was bad, and a fortiori, if they knew at the time they sold it that in fact it would not do what they represented, then there would be a fraudulent concealment on your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1768.199], "stop_times": [1783.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.199}, "reply_to": "20655__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_131", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1783.65], "stop_times": [1784.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1783.65}, "reply_to": "20655__0_130", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_132", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And the mail fraud would be the predicate act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1784.1], "stop_times": [1786.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.1}, "reply_to": "20655__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_133", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1786.4], "stop_times": [1787.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.4}, "reply_to": "20655__0_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_134", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1787.121], "stop_times": [1787.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.121}, "reply_to": "20655__0_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__0_135", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I'd like to reserve, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1787.732], "stop_times": [1789.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1787.732}, "reply_to": "20655__0_134", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__0_136", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Very well, Mr. Bird.\nMr. Ennis, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1789.152, 1790.134], "stop_times": [1790.134, 1792.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.152}, "reply_to": "20655__0_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__1_000", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe majority of the circuits have decided that the most appropriate accrual rule for civil RICO claims is the same discovery of injury rule that Federal courts use for civil claims in general.\nThat is a particularly sensible rule for civil RICO for three reasons.\nFirst, the rule focuses on injury, which Congress made the distinguishing element of a civil RICO claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1792.658, 1804.045, 1820.494, 1826.628], "stop_times": [1804.045, 1820.494, 1826.628, 1835.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1792.658}, "reply_to": "20655__0_136", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_001", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "But Mr. Ennis, you have to have a cause of action in existence, don't you, under RICO?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1835.654], "stop_times": [1840.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.654}, "reply_to": "20655__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__1_002", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's correct, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1840.798], "stop_times": [1842.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.798}, "reply_to": "20655__1_001", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_003", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "There has to be a pattern, and the predicate acts, and the injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1842.34], "stop_times": [1844.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.34}, "reply_to": "20655__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__1_004", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Absolutely, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1844.751], "stop_times": [1847.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.751}, "reply_to": "20655__1_003", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_005", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "So we're not talking about anything that starts before those things are present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1847.023], "stop_times": [1851.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.023}, "reply_to": "20655__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__1_006", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Not at all.\nUnder the basic rule that we are proposing, the cause of action accrues when all the elements of a civil RICO claim exist, whether the plaintiff knows all the elements or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1851.245, 1852.124], "stop_times": [1852.124, 1863.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.245}, "reply_to": "20655__1_005", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_007", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Does that include injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1863.824], "stop_times": [1865.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.824}, "reply_to": "20655__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_008", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And the plaintiff has discovered injury.\nThat's the rule we propose, which is the basic discovery of injury rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1865.154, 1869.238], "stop_times": [1869.238, 1872.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.154}, "reply_to": "20655__1_007", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_009", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "All right, now what if it involves fraud.\nDo we apply the reasonably-should-have-discovered-the-fraud rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1872.359, 1873.879], "stop_times": [1873.879, 1881.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.359}, "reply_to": "20655__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__1_010", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat's the general rule for the discovery-of-injury rule.\nAll the circuits that have used the discovery-of-injury rule, and that's the majority, have interpreted that rule to mean that the cause of action accrues when all the elements exist and the plaintiff discovers or should reasonably have discovered his injury.\nDiscovery of injury is sufficient to induce a reasonably diligent plaintiff to investigate the cause of the injury and to determine all the elements needed to plead the claim within the 4-year period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1881.286, 1881.716, 1883.737, 1900.016], "stop_times": [1881.716, 1883.737, 1900.016, 1911.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.286}, "reply_to": "20655__1_009", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_011", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "What do we do about the situation of additional mailing later on?\nIs there a new cause of action, possibly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1911.935, 1918.549], "stop_times": [1918.549, 1922.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.935}, "reply_to": "20655__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__1_012", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Justice O'Connor, there are two aspects to your question, if I understand it correctly.\nFirst, if you're asking, what if there's one act that injures the plaintiff but there's not a second or third predicate act constituting a pattern yet, I think that's not really a question of accrual.\nThat's a question, a substantive question of what constitutes a RICO claim.\nThe rule we propose would apply equally whichever way the Court resolves that question.\nBut the other part of your question touches on the doctrine of separate accrual, and there, too, we propose the traditional Federal rule of separate accrual which nine circuits have applied to civil RICO claims, and under that rule, as State Farm recognized and other courts recognized, the separate accrual rule means that when there are new separate and different injuries within the limitations period, that will start a new claim, a new cause of action.\nThat rule does not apply to this case, because both lower courts, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to petitioners, concluded that petitioners suffered no new injuries within 4 years of suit, in fact, no injuries within 6 years of suit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [1922.971, 1926.063, 1937.97, 1942.165, 1947.677, 1980.74], "stop_times": [1926.063, 1937.97, 1942.165, 1947.677, 1980.74, 2000.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.971}, "reply_to": "20655__1_011", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_013", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2000.733], "stop_times": [2001.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.733}, "reply_to": "20655__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__1_014", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--so the separate accrual rule does not help these petitioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2001.744], "stop_times": [2003.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2001.744}, "reply_to": "20655__1_013", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_015", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Mr. Ennis, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the rule was the discovery rule was injury plus source, not merely injury, and here, as I said to Mr. Bird, it seems to me the whole problem was not injury, was not pattern, but source.\nThese were farmers who knew they had a terrible problem, but they didn't know what caused it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2003.173, 2021.856], "stop_times": [2021.856, 2026.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.173}, "reply_to": "20655__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__1_016", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, to be as candid as I can, I think there's confusion in the lower courts on whether the discovery-of-injury rule means discovery of the injury or, as a few courts have said, discovery of the injury and the source of the injury, meaning who caused it.\nThe majority of the lower courts say the discovery-of-injury rule means discovery of injury.\nI think that's... your opinion for the D.C. Circuit in Conners noted that point, and that should be sufficient to induce a reasonably diligent person to find out the source and all the other elements of the injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2026.839, 2043.942, 2049.255], "stop_times": [2043.942, 2049.255, 2061.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.839}, "reply_to": "20655__1_015", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_017", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "You don't need 4 years if you know both the injury and the source.\nPresumably the 4 years is intended to give you time after you've discovered the injury to find the source.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2061.771, 2066.255], "stop_times": [2066.255, 2071.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.771}, "reply_to": "20655__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_018", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2071.588], "stop_times": [2072.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.588}, "reply_to": "20655__1_017", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_019", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Otherwise we could have a 1-month statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2072.69], "stop_times": [2075.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.69}, "reply_to": "20655__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_020", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--I think that's completely correct, and is the reason why the other competing rule, the discovery-of-injury and discovery-of-pattern rule is not as appropriate for civil RICO as the rule we propose.\nOnce you have discovered both that you have been injured and by a pattern of racketeering activity, there's no reason to give you an additional 4 years after you know all that you know, need to know in order to file a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2075.802, 2088.041], "stop_times": [2088.041, 2101.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2075.802}, "reply_to": "20655__1_019", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_021", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "When you speak of the pattern of racketeering activity, are you speaking of a pattern of racketeering activity which includes, to your knowledge, fraud?\nIn other words, is the fraud element included in what you know when you say you have discovered a pattern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2101.177, 2109.963], "stop_times": [2109.963, 2115.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.177}, "reply_to": "20655__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_022", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "It could be, Justice Souter.\nOf course, not all RICO actions involve fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2115.487, 2118.369], "stop_times": [2118.369, 2120.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.487}, "reply_to": "20655__1_021", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_023", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2120.991], "stop_times": [2121.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.991}, "reply_to": "20655__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_024", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "They could involve arson, or embezzlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2121.512], "stop_times": [2123.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.512}, "reply_to": "20655__1_023", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_025", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, when it does.\nWhen it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2123.254, 2123.725], "stop_times": [2123.725, 2124.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.254}, "reply_to": "20655__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_026", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "When it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2124.276], "stop_times": [2124.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.276}, "reply_to": "20655__1_025", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_027", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "The discovery of a pattern is simply, as you're using the term, means discovery of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2124.774], "stop_times": [2127.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.774}, "reply_to": "20655__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_028", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "It means discovery of the acts, which in law would constitute a fraud.\nBut there's another... your question raises another good reason to apply the general discovery-of-injury rule, because that rule has been found to be a fair and workable rule when applied in a very wide variety of circumstances to a wide variety of acts, and that makes real sense in civil RICO, given the enormous variety of acts that can constitute a pattern of racketeering activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2127.986, 2133.532], "stop_times": [2133.532, 2157.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.986}, "reply_to": "20655__1_027", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_029", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Mr.... I'm not... I've never understood this fully, but I'm not certain that we have to go into... I'm not certain we have to go into the question of fraudulent... when you discover it and... what is it called, fraudulent concealment, but if we do, what is it you have to know?\nI received the letter from the fake real estate company that says, Dear So-and-so, your investment is now worth nothing, because unfortunately there was bad conditions, all right?\nSo I know that.\nI know the source.\nDoes it start to run?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2157.916, 2178.63, 2194.581, 2195.82, 2196.872], "stop_times": [2178.63, 2194.581, 2195.82, 2196.872, 2197.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.916}, "reply_to": "20655__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_030", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Your Honor, I believe it would start to run.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2197.843], "stop_times": [2201.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.843}, "reply_to": "20655__1_029", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_031", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, how does it work, for example, in price-fixing?\nI go out and I buy a toothbrush, and the toothbrush cost $2.\nAll right, I'm injured.\nIt should have cost $1.\nBut I don't know anything about... and I know the source.\nThe source is the toothbrush company, all right.\nNow, how... I have no... I don't investigate that kind of thing.\nNobody does.\nAnd if you get a letter from your bank which says, we're very sorry, but your account is overch... you know, I mean, you don't investigate most frauds.\nAll you know is you're paying more money, or you're... so how does it work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2201.045, 2203.106, 2207.818, 2208.92, 2210.881, 2213.612, 2216.284, 2219.927, 2220.959, 2229.363], "stop_times": [2203.106, 2207.818, 2208.92, 2210.881, 2213.612, 2216.284, 2219.927, 2220.959, 2229.363, 2232.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.045}, "reply_to": "20655__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_032", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Justice Breyer, that is the Clayton Act rule, the basic Clayton Act rule.\nThe cause of action accrues upon the occurrence of the injury even if the plaintiff has no knowledge that he has been injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2232.866, 2238.689], "stop_times": [2238.689, 2245.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2232.866}, "reply_to": "20655__1_031", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_033", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, but there's a thing called fraudulent concealment which operates in order to prevent the very problem that I'm focusing on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2245.495], "stop_times": [2252.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.495}, "reply_to": "20655__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_034", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's a different doctrine.\nNow, let me try to address that doctrine.\nThe doctrine of fraudulent concealment is not applicable in the circumstances of this case for two reasons.\nAll courts agree... all courts agree that the doctrine only applies when the defendant's acts actually conceal the elements of the claim.\nThere's a distinction between whether they can be self-concealing acts or affirmative acts that conceal, but all courts agree the defendant's acts must conceal the elements of the claim.\nHere, both lower courts found, viewing the evidence most favorably to petitioners, defendants did not commit any acts which concealed the elements of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2252.538, 2253.75, 2255.049, 2261.775, 2272.052, 2283.059], "stop_times": [2253.75, 2255.049, 2261.775, 2272.052, 2283.059, 2293.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.538}, "reply_to": "20655__1_033", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_035", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "So in other words, if I'm thinking conceptually, is this right, in cases like price-fixing or fraud, it starts to run from the moment that you discovery your injury, i.e., you wrote a bigger check.\nSome courts say you also have to know the source.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2293.044, 2306.655], "stop_times": [2306.655, 2310.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.044}, "reply_to": "20655__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_036", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2310.527], "stop_times": [2310.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.527}, "reply_to": "20655__1_035", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_037", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Which isn't hard to know.\nBut then, if there is fraudulent concealment, as there often would be in price-fixing or fraud, that tolls the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2310.895, 2312.567], "stop_times": [2312.567, 2321.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.895}, "reply_to": "20655__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_038", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "If there is actual fraudulent concealment, which has two components, first that the defendant's acts actually concealed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2321.293], "stop_times": [2328.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.293}, "reply_to": "20655__1_037", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_039", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2328.188], "stop_times": [2328.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.188}, "reply_to": "20655__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_040", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--the elements of the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2328.639], "stop_times": [2329.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.639}, "reply_to": "20655__1_039", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_041", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2329.45], "stop_times": [2330.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.45}, "reply_to": "20655__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_042", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That was not this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2330.312], "stop_times": [2331.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.312}, "reply_to": "20655__1_041", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_043", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2331.153], "stop_times": [2331.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.153}, "reply_to": "20655__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_044", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Second, that's not this case for a second reason.\nBoth lower courts found, and in fact nine circuits, at least nine circuits agree, that even when the defendant's acts do actually conceal the elements of the claim, the plaintiff must nevertheless be diligent, and if a diligent plaintiff would nevertheless have discovered the elements of the claim despite the defendant's acts of fraudulent concealment, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2331.603, 2333.974], "stop_times": [2333.974, 2359.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.603}, "reply_to": "20655__1_043", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_045", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Why do you say there's no actual concealment here?\nCertainly one of the elements of fraud is that you knew that the product you sold was not going to do what you said it did, otherwise it's just negligence, and you're subject to breach of warranty, I suppose, but not to a fraud claim.\nNow, didn't the seller here, A. O. Smith, indicate that it did... it believed that this silo was a properly working silo?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2359.129, 2362.201, 2375.802], "stop_times": [2362.201, 2375.802, 2389.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.129}, "reply_to": "20655__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_046", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Absolutely, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2389.33], "stop_times": [2390.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2389.33}, "reply_to": "20655__1_045", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_047", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "So why isn't that concealment of the element of knowledge that it wasn't a properly working silo?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2390.1], "stop_times": [2395.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.1}, "reply_to": "20655__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_048", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--First of all, as Justice Kennedy's question earlier suggested, that question assumes that it is fraud, and that my client, A. O. Smith, knows that the silos won't work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2395.824], "stop_times": [2406.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2395.824}, "reply_to": "20655__1_047", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_049", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, of course it does.\nWhen you get to the issue of whether there's concealment or not, you're assuming there was a fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2406.5, 2407.081], "stop_times": [2407.081, 2412.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.5}, "reply_to": "20655__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_050", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, in this case the reason it doesn't conceal, even if you assume it's a fraud, is that the claims here are based on allegations that my client misrepresented the benefits of this silo.\nB-2 of the appendix to the cert petition lists the alleged misrepresentations.\nThe lower courts found that long before, 6 years before they filed, petitioners should have known that all of the representations on which they claim to rely had not materialized, and there was nothing the defendants could do to conceal that reality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2412.295, 2424.803, 2429.876], "stop_times": [2424.803, 2429.876, 2447.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2412.295}, "reply_to": "20655__1_049", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_051", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "You're retreating to the second item that you raised in your response to Justice Breyer, namely that even where there is concealment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2447.669], "stop_times": [2455.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.669}, "reply_to": "20655__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_052", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2455.935], "stop_times": [2457.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.935}, "reply_to": "20655__1_051", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_053", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--it does not excuse you if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2457.294], "stop_times": [2460.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.294}, "reply_to": "20655__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_054", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2460.046], "stop_times": [2461.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.046}, "reply_to": "20655__1_053", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_055", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--or it doesn't work to the plaintiff's advantage if a diligent plaintiff would have discovered it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2461.529], "stop_times": [2465.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.529}, "reply_to": "20655__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_056", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2465.402], "stop_times": [2465.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.402}, "reply_to": "20655__1_055", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_057", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "You're saying a diligent plaintiff would have discovered it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2465.689], "stop_times": [2468.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.689}, "reply_to": "20655__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_058", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.\nMaybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2468.261, 2468.561], "stop_times": [2468.561, 2471.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.261}, "reply_to": "20655__1_057", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_059", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, I didn't understand you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2471.105], "stop_times": [2471.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.105}, "reply_to": "20655__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_060", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--I'm trying to address the first part of your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2471.653], "stop_times": [2473.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.653}, "reply_to": "20655__1_059", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_061", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Whether there's concealment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2473.986], "stop_times": [2474.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.986}, "reply_to": "20655__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_062", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "There's no concealment at all, because there is nothing the defendant did or could do that could conceal from the petitioners that the representations on which they relied were not materializing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2474.515], "stop_times": [2487.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.515}, "reply_to": "20655__1_061", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_063", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "But that only goes to the contract description.\nIt doesn't go to the misrepresentation which is an element of the cause of action, and the fact that more than 6 years before they brought this suit they realized that the silo was not working as advertised does not support the proposition that they knew that Smith had misrepresented the silo's capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2487.324, 2490.427], "stop_times": [2490.427, 2508.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.324}, "reply_to": "20655__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_064", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Justice Souter, they claim... if you look at B-2 of the appendix to the cert petition, they claim that the... the representations which they alleged were fraudulent included representations that this silo would make it possible for them to eliminate protein supplements.\nThey knew that never happened.\nThat... one of the misrepresentations was that they would be able to increase their milk production 3 to 5 pounds of milk per cow a day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2508.439, 2524.46, 2525.578], "stop_times": [2524.46, 2525.578, 2533.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.439}, "reply_to": "20655__1_063", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_065", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Right, and when did they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2533.524], "stop_times": [2534.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.524}, "reply_to": "20655__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_066", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That never happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2534.285], "stop_times": [2534.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.285}, "reply_to": "20655__1_065", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_067", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--When did they not merely know that those representations were proving to be untrue, but when did they also know that Smith knew they were untrue when they made them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2534.666], "stop_times": [2545.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.666}, "reply_to": "20655__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_068", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, no one ever knows for sure whether a defendant in a fraud case knows that claims are true or untrue until you've brought the trial and win or lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2545.762], "stop_times": [2555.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.762}, "reply_to": "20655__1_067", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_069", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, it's a question of circumstantial evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2555.488], "stop_times": [2557.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.488}, "reply_to": "20655__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_070", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2557.41], "stop_times": [2557.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.41}, "reply_to": "20655__1_069", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_071", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--like a great deal else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2557.85], "stop_times": [2558.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.85}, "reply_to": "20655__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_072", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2558.421], "stop_times": [2558.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2558.421}, "reply_to": "20655__1_071", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_073", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And I think the only point that I'm making is, on the fraudulent concealment rule, it does not answer the fraudulent concealment rule issue to say they should have known that the silo was not living up to its description.\nIf the question is, when should they have known that the silo was also the subject of a fraudulent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2558.932, 2573.501], "stop_times": [2573.501, 2582.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.932}, "reply_to": "20655__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_074", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2582.928], "stop_times": [2583.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2582.928}, "reply_to": "20655__1_073", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_075", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--description or representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2583.737], "stop_times": [2585.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.737}, "reply_to": "20655__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20655__1_076", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, both lower courts, answering that second question, which was the second question in Justice Scalia's question, by concluding that doing the evidence most favorably for the petitioners they knew or should have known all of the elements of their RICO claim, including that this was fraud--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2585.109], "stop_times": [2601.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.109}, "reply_to": "20655__1_075", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_077", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr. Ennis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2601.418], "stop_times": [2602.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.418}, "reply_to": "20655__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__1_078", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--if it was fraud, more than 6 years before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2602.078], "stop_times": [2604.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.078}, "reply_to": "20655__1_077", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_079", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Explain that to me, because as a matter of fact, and I don't think this is disputed, these farmers consulted a veterinarian.\nThey had a nutritionist.\nThey wanted to know why their cattle were sick, and no one tipped them off to a possible relationship between the sickness of the cattle and the silo.\nThey knew the silo wasn't working, but they didn't know that that's what caused the sickness in the animals.\nSo they knew they had a problem.\nThey consulted people.\nWhy wasn't that diligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2604.37, 2612.357, 2613.276, 2625.064, 2633.091, 2636.841, 2638.844], "stop_times": [2612.357, 2613.276, 2625.064, 2633.091, 2636.841, 2638.844, 2641.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.37}, "reply_to": "20655__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__1_080", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Your Honor, this case involves a lot of facts not all of which are in the cert petition or the appendix, but after reviewing all those facts, including the facts that the petitioners could simply have taken feed from the silo to be tested, which is a normal regular thing that most farmers do at least twice a year, which would have showed them that the feed from the silo either was good quality or bad quality... they didn't do that.\nThere were many things available to a reasonably diligent plaintiff whose milk production was going down for 19 years, whose protein supplements did not improve for 19 years, that they could have done to investigate and find out all the elements of their claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2641.305, 2671.827], "stop_times": [2671.827, 2688.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.305}, "reply_to": "20655__1_079", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_081", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr.--\n--If all that is correct... let's assume... I'm not sure that this happened.\nLet's just assume that within 4 years of the time the action was filed a representative of the company came out and he looked at the feed with the farmer and he said, oh, that's that brown stuff, you want that, that's really good, knowing that that's not true, knowing that this is exactly what was hurting the cattle, would that have revived the cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2688.657, 2689.157, 2694.53], "stop_times": [2689.157, 2694.53, 2716.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.657}, "reply_to": "20655__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__1_082", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.\nIt's the same answer, Your Honor.\nIt's the same thing as if they say this is a great silo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2716.763, 2717.144, 2718.466], "stop_times": [2717.144, 2718.466, 2721.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2716.763}, "reply_to": "20655__1_081", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_083", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Because if you should have discovered the fraud earlier, the fact that there are new acts of fraud are... is irrelevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2721.237], "stop_times": [2726.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.237}, "reply_to": "20655__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_084", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Unless those new acts cause separate injuries within the limitations period.\nThese did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2726.36, 2731.313], "stop_times": [2731.313, 2732.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2726.36}, "reply_to": "20655__1_083", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_085", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, suppose this continued to lull them into thinking there's nothing wrong with the silo and he lost 10 more cows?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2732.004], "stop_times": [2739.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.004}, "reply_to": "20655__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_086", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, Your Honor, this case, both courts found... and those findings I don't think are properly before the Court, because although petitioner in their brief raises a question about whether the lower courts properly applied the summary judgment standard they did not raise that question in the petition for rehearing in the Eighth Circuit, in their cert petition, the questions presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2739.46], "stop_times": [2762.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.46}, "reply_to": "20655__1_085", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_087", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "But just... just with reference to my question, let's assume they came out within 4 years, said oh, this is great feed, knowing that it wasn't, and that 10 more cows were sick or died, and that the plaintiff was lulled into believing that the silo was okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2762.845], "stop_times": [2783.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.845}, "reply_to": "20655__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_088", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--That would simply be a continuation of the damages that flowed from the initial fraudulent act if it was fraudulent, inducing him to buy the silo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2783.389], "stop_times": [2792.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.389}, "reply_to": "20655__1_087", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_089", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Why isn't that a repeated injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2792.836], "stop_times": [2796.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.836}, "reply_to": "20655__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_090", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, it's not a new injury.\nIt's not a new, different, and separate injury, Your Honor.\nThat's the... that's a critical point in the separate accrual doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2796.168, 2798.56, 2802.249], "stop_times": [2798.56, 2802.249, 2805.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.168}, "reply_to": "20655__1_089", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_091", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "So in Justice Breyer's case, where a bank is defrauding people on credit cards, if you should have found out 15 years ago but they keep doing it you can't sue for the last 4 years, or for the period within the statute of limitations since the new acts have occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2805.111], "stop_times": [2820.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.111}, "reply_to": "20655__1_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_092", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's correct.\nThat's the general--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2820.692, 2821.644], "stop_times": [2821.644, 2822.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.692}, "reply_to": "20655__1_091", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_093", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "But I thought you said you could recover for the 10 more cows, assuming that it's a new misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2822.425], "stop_times": [2828.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.425}, "reply_to": "20655__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_094", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--If it's a new misrepresentation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2828.519], "stop_times": [2831.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.519}, "reply_to": "20655__1_093", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_095", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2831.971], "stop_times": [2832.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.971}, "reply_to": "20655__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_096", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--within 4 years--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2832.209], "stop_times": [2833.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.209}, "reply_to": "20655__1_095", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_097", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Right.\nYes, you can recover for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2833.561, 2833.952], "stop_times": [2833.952, 2834.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.561}, "reply_to": "20655__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_098", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--which causes injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2834.483], "stop_times": [2835.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.483}, "reply_to": "20655__1_097", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_099", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2835.261], "stop_times": [2835.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.261}, "reply_to": "20655__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_100", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--within 4 years you could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2835.672], "stop_times": [2836.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.672}, "reply_to": "20655__1_099", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_101", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "So with the bank, you can... with the bank--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2836.793], "stop_times": [2838.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.793}, "reply_to": "20655__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_102", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2838.113], "stop_times": [2838.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.113}, "reply_to": "20655__1_101", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_103", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--if the bank keeps doing it, you recover you just go back 4 years at a time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2838.463], "stop_times": [2841.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2838.463}, "reply_to": "20655__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20655__1_104", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's not this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2841.776], "stop_times": [2842.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.776}, "reply_to": "20655__1_103", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_105", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "But fraudulent concealment, you don't necessarily need a new injury.\nThat can toll the statute of limitations, can't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2842.888, 2847.51], "stop_times": [2847.51, 2850.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.888}, "reply_to": "20655__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__1_106", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Fraudulent concealment can toll, if there are affirmative acts that actually conceal, if there are acts that actually conceal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2850.372], "stop_times": [2856.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.372}, "reply_to": "20655__1_105", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_107", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "And the second question presented is whether respondent's fraudulent self-concealing conduct, acts of fraudulent concealment, suspend the statute of limitations, so at least that portion of the fraud claim is presented in the petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2856.415], "stop_times": [2869.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.415}, "reply_to": "20655__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__1_108", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "We don't dispute that the fraudulent concealment issue is presented.\nWe do dispute that any question about whether the lower courts properly applied the summary judgment standard is presented.\nLet me just make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2869.885, 2873.178, 2879.44], "stop_times": [2873.178, 2879.44, 2880.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2869.885}, "reply_to": "20655__1_107", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_109", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "May I ask you... may I ask you question kind of going back to the beginning for a minute?\nI just want to know what your view is... it's perhaps a substantive question rather than a tolling question, but assume that they sold three silos, each of which was defective and they knew they were defective within the 5-year period, and the first purchaser is the first predicate act altogether, does he have a cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2880.252, 2883.353], "stop_times": [2883.353, 2903.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.252}, "reply_to": "20655__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20655__1_110", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Again, Justice Stevens, I think that's a substantive question of RICO--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2903.335], "stop_times": [2907.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.335}, "reply_to": "20655__1_109", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_111", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Right.\nWhat's your view of the substantive question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2907.248, 2907.769], "stop_times": [2907.769, 2908.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.248}, "reply_to": "20655__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20655__1_112", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--It's different from the accrual rule.\nPersonally, I think that the first person injured by an act, the first predicate act which later turns out to be a pattern, would have a civil RICO claim once the pattern emerges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2908.59, 2910.181], "stop_times": [2910.181, 2924.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.59}, "reply_to": "20655__1_111", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_113", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Even though there had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2924.238], "stop_times": [2924.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.238}, "reply_to": "20655__1_112", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_114", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "But that's my personal belief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2924.989], "stop_times": [2925.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.989}, "reply_to": "20655__1_113", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_115", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Even though there had been no violation of RICO at the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2925.73], "stop_times": [2928.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.73}, "reply_to": "20655__1_114", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_116", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "At that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2928.563], "stop_times": [2929.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.563}, "reply_to": "20655__1_115", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_117", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--of his injury.\nIt's retroactively created?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2929.113, 2929.902], "stop_times": [2929.902, 2932.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.113}, "reply_to": "20655__1_116", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_118", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's right, and I reach that conclusion because this is a remedial statute, and Congress understood that some of the patterns could take as much as 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2932.115], "stop_times": [2941.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.115}, "reply_to": "20655__1_117", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_119", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Is there any parallel doctrine for that, or is that unique to RICO?\nIt's just strange to me that a RICO injury happens, and then the RICO pattern is completed later.\nI just find that very odd.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2941.74, 2945.393, 2951.227], "stop_times": [2945.393, 2951.227, 2952.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.74}, "reply_to": "20655__1_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20655__1_120", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "It is odd, Justice Kennedy, and I don't know of any parallel, and I don't know what lower courts would say in answer to that question.\nLet me make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2952.559, 2960.013], "stop_times": [2960.013, 2962.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.559}, "reply_to": "20655__1_119", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_121", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "It's so odd that I'm inclined, if you really believe that, to think that the 4-year statute of limitations should be interpreted with similar oddity.\n[Laughter]\nWhat good is a 4-year statute of limitations if you don't know for even 10 years until--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2962.374, 2971.85, 2973.802], "stop_times": [2971.85, 2973.802, 2979.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.374}, "reply_to": "20655__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_122", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2979.226], "stop_times": [2980.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.226}, "reply_to": "20655__1_121", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_123", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--whether you have... before you have a cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2980.465], "stop_times": [2982.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.465}, "reply_to": "20655__1_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_124", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--let me just... let me just note--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2982.688], "stop_times": [2983.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.688}, "reply_to": "20655__1_123", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_125", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2983.417], "stop_times": [2984.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.417}, "reply_to": "20655__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_126", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--I'm sure it's clear, but that question is not raised by the facts of this case, because the pattern quite clearly existed well before the purchase of the silo in 1974.\nThey allege there were at least 20 acts of mail fraud on which they relied before 1974.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [2984.028, 2994.236], "stop_times": [2994.236, 3001.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.028}, "reply_to": "20655__1_125", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_127", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "I understand that, but I'm quite serious that my view of the statute of limitations has to depend to some extent upon my view of what RICO does, and if there is in every case a 10-year, I don't know, limbo period--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3001.158], "stop_times": [3016.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.158}, "reply_to": "20655__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_128", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No, that wouldn't be true.\nThe fact that the pattern might not emerge for 10 years would not mean you could not have a pattern of acts some of which are every 2 or 3 years apart that go on for 20 or 30 years.\nThat's a separate question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3016.209, 3017.43, 3027.977], "stop_times": [3017.43, 3027.977, 3029.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.209}, "reply_to": "20655__1_127", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_129", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--No, but your view would permit the conclusion that the statute of limitations would run before the statute was violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3029.499], "stop_times": [3034.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.499}, "reply_to": "20655__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20655__1_130", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.\nNo, Justice Stevens.\nI... if that's the answer you... I didn't mean to suggest that at all.\nThe statute of limitations would only begin to run when there was discovery of injury and all the elements of a RICO claim were in existence.\nNow, the Court may answer that in existence question one way or the other.\nOur rule would apply whichever way the Court answered that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3034.612, 3035.042, 3035.984, 3039.844, 3050.852, 3055.475], "stop_times": [3035.042, 3035.984, 3039.844, 3050.852, 3055.475, 3058.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3034.612}, "reply_to": "20655__1_129", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_131", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That would mean that if you had a victim of the first predicate act and then three more predicate acts that occur over a 5 or 6-year period, the statute, the cause of action would accrue at the end of the 6 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3058.467], "stop_times": [3069.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.467}, "reply_to": "20655__1_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20655__1_132", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "That's correct, Justice Stevens.\nThat's correct.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3069.914, 3071.136, 3071.975], "stop_times": [3071.136, 3071.975, 3072.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.914}, "reply_to": "20655__1_131", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_133", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr. Ennis, there's one more piece of this about the discovery of the source.\nThere was the continuing sales pitch, but there was also, it was alleged, was it not, that the company had done testing on its own, and that testing showed that the silo was not performing as advertised, and yet no one who had purchased this silo was told, your cattle may sicken and even die.\nIsn't that relevant to the discovery of the source?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3072.906, 3080.753, 3102.396], "stop_times": [3080.753, 3102.396, 3108.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.906}, "reply_to": "20655__1_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20655__1_134", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well, there are two things I'd like to say about that, Justice Ginsburg.\nFirst, that's not what those internal studies show.\nThis company has sold 83,000 of these silos.\nThere have been 270 claims.\n3/10ths of 1 percent have experienced problems.\nThat's not what the internal studies show.\nBut even if they did show that, that would not qualify as fraudulent concealment under the fraudulent concealment doctrine that almost all circuits apply, because those acts would do nothing to prevent the petitioners from discovering the elements of their claim.\nThe elements of their claim are, the representations on which they relied proved to be false.\nTheir cows were not doing well.\nThey were injured, and there was a pattern of activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3108.7, 3112.092, 3114.924, 3117.736, 3119.226, 3121.689, 3123.569, 3141.412, 3147.105, 3149.746], "stop_times": [3112.092, 3114.924, 3117.736, 3119.226, 3121.689, 3123.569, 3141.412, 3147.105, 3149.746, 3152.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3108.7}, "reply_to": "20655__1_133", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_135", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Known to be false by the seller.\nYou have to add that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3152.608, 3155.33], "stop_times": [3155.33, 3156.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.608}, "reply_to": "20655__1_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_136", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, you can add that, Justice Scalia, if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3156.652], "stop_times": [3159.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3156.652}, "reply_to": "20655__1_135", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_137", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "You must add that for fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3159.423], "stop_times": [3161.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.423}, "reply_to": "20655__1_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_138", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--You have to be able to allege that, that's correct.\nIt has to be able to plead--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3161.214, 3164.586], "stop_times": [3164.586, 3165.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3161.214}, "reply_to": "20655__1_137", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_139", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--prove it at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3165.897], "stop_times": [3166.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.897}, "reply_to": "20655__1_138", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20655__1_140", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Now, let me... I've not got to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3166.556], "stop_times": [3169.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3166.556}, "reply_to": "20655__1_139", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_141", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes, but again if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3169.12], "stop_times": [3169.518], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3169.12}, "reply_to": "20655__1_140", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20655__1_142", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--central point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3169.518], "stop_times": [3169.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.518}, "reply_to": "20655__1_141", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_143", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3169.939], "stop_times": [3170.64], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3169.939}, "reply_to": "20655__1_142", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20655__1_144", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--I'd like to make, if I could, about why the criminal RICO rule, which is the only rule the petitioners urge, Justice Souter.\nThey do not urge a discovery rule at all.\nIf you look at their motion for a divided... response to the motion for a divided argument that's crystal clear.\nIt's also clear on pages 20 and 21 of their brief.\nThey don't urge a discovery rule.\nThe critical problem with the criminal last act rule, like the civil last predicate act rule, is that it would enable a fully knowledgeable plaintiff who knows everything to delay filing for many, many years.\nIt is not tied to the injury component of civil RICO, because the last violation under the criminal rule, or the last predicate act under the civil rule, don't have to have injured the plaintiff at all.\nThey don't have to have injured anyone at all.\nNow, that makes no sense to use that rule, which is adrift from concepts of injury, in civil RICO, where Congress itself determined that the gravamen of a civil RICO claim is injury and a specific kind of injury, injury to the business or property of the plaintiff.\nThe fact that the last act might injure someone else is totally irrelevant to the plaintiff's civil RICO claim.\nThat's why any rule this Court adopts for civil RICO should be tied directly to injury.\nNow, there are other reasons that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3170.64, 3178.895, 3180.587, 3185.439, 3188.802, 3190.521, 3206.454, 3220.142, 3222.803, 3242.637, 3249.51, 3255.635], "stop_times": [3178.895, 3180.587, 3185.439, 3188.802, 3190.521, 3206.454, 3220.142, 3222.803, 3242.637, 3249.51, 3255.635, 3258.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3170.64}, "reply_to": "20655__1_143", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_145", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Although you acknowledge that it can be tied to an injury to somebody else if the injured plaintiff is the first one in the series of RICO acts.\nIn that situation, you don't insist on injury to this plaintiff.\nYou will wait 10 years to see if any other plaintiff is injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3258.567, 3271.555, 3275.79], "stop_times": [3271.555, 3275.79, 3279.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.567}, "reply_to": "20655__1_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_146", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Actually, the other plaintiff doesn't even have to be injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3279.029], "stop_times": [3283.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3279.029}, "reply_to": "20655__1_145", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_147", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Doesn't even have to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3283.814], "stop_times": [3284.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.814}, "reply_to": "20655__1_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_148", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "There can be a predicate act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3284.235], "stop_times": [3284.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3284.235}, "reply_to": "20655__1_147", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_149", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--Okay.\nSo to that extent you're willing to buy into the criminal rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3284.853, 3285.244], "stop_times": [3285.244, 3288.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.853}, "reply_to": "20655__1_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_150", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Well, to that limited extent, Justice Scalia, but in the normal run of these cases, particularly where you're talking about an ongoing pattern of activity, the pattern would exist roughly at the same time as the first injury.\nThe second reason why the rule we propose makes more sense than later accruing rules is that it is more consistent with the private Attorney General function of civil RICO.\nThe point of the private Attorney General function, since the civil plaintiff can only recover his own damages and cannot punish the defendant for any injuries inflicted on others, is not financial.\nIt's to expose and deter ongoing patterns of racketeering activity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3288.947, 3302.387, 3312.883, 3325.191], "stop_times": [3302.387, 3312.883, 3325.191, 3329.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3288.947}, "reply_to": "20655__1_149", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_151", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Mr. Ennis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3329.934], "stop_times": [3330.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3329.934}, "reply_to": "20655__1_150", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__1_152", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--before they injure others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3330.815], "stop_times": [3331.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3330.815}, "reply_to": "20655__1_151", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_153", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--You don't ask for the more strict rule of just, once the cause of action exists, that's it.\nYou start the statute running.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3331.286, 3338.239], "stop_times": [3338.239, 3340.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.286}, "reply_to": "20655__1_152", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__1_154", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "The Clayton rule, Justice O'Connor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3340.052], "stop_times": [3341.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3340.052}, "reply_to": "20655__1_153", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_155", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3341.071], "stop_times": [3341.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3341.071}, "reply_to": "20655__1_154", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20655__1_156", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "We don't ask for it, but of course we'd be happy with it, since we would win under that rule.\nThis claim would have accrued in 1974, and it would be barred in 1978, but we don't urge the Clayton rule for two reasons.\nOne, the Clayton rule, although that's the basic Clayton rule, that occurrence-of-injury rule has not proved satisfactory even for all Clayton Act violations, which are much narrower in scope than RICO violations, so many Clayton courts have actually imposed different rules, and we think it makes sense to have a single rule for RICO that is broad enough to encompass all the acts that violate RICO.\nSecond, frankly, we think that the Clayton rule is a little harsher to plaintiffs than this remedial statute was probably intended to be.\nWe think that what Congress probably presumed, if it presumed anything at all, was that the general Federal accrual rule would apply, and that rule is discovery of injury, and we don't think that in the context of this statute there's anything in the text or purpose of RICO that would mean that Congress would have intended a harsher rule for civil RICO than the general Federal rule of accrual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3341.551, 3347.054, 3355.421, 3377.344, 3388.893], "stop_times": [3347.054, 3355.421, 3377.344, 3388.893, 3412.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3341.551}, "reply_to": "20655__1_155", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_157", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Of course, if Congress was reading our cases it would not have expected a Federal statute of limitations to apply at all, much--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3412.998], "stop_times": [3420.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3412.998}, "reply_to": "20655__1_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_158", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "If they'd read your dissent, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3420.442], "stop_times": [3422.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3420.442}, "reply_to": "20655__1_157", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_159", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "--We came to that later, didn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3422.054], "stop_times": [3423.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3422.054}, "reply_to": "20655__1_158", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_160", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3423.566], "stop_times": [3423.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3423.566}, "reply_to": "20655__1_159", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_161", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "So I don't think it's very helpful to talk about what Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3423.895], "stop_times": [3426.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.895}, "reply_to": "20655__1_160", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20655__1_162", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "No.\n[Laughter]\nNo, but putting entirely aside congressional intent, in Federal courts it's judge-made law almost always to adopt accrual rules, but those rules are supposed to be consistent with and tied to the purpose of the underlying statute, regardless of what the congressional intent was, and for that reason we think since civil RICO the distinguishing element is injury, it should be discovery of injury that triggers the accrual.\nLet me conclude by saying that the Havens Realty case, which has been mentioned here in argument, actually proves our point.\nIn Havens Realty... it wasn't a unique case, Justice Rehnquist, but in Havens Realty this Court rejected the continuing violations doctrine when applied to a claim that required proof of direct injury to the plaintiff, a misrepresentation claim.\nIt found the continuing violation doctrine not appropriate in that circumstance, only appropriate in the quite different circumstance of discriminatory practices which have indirect injury to the plaintiff even if they do not directly injure the plaintiff.\nThat is not this case.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3426.947, 3427.408, 3429.201, 3454.996, 3461.561, 3478.842, 3493.281, 3494.27], "stop_times": [3427.408, 3429.201, 3454.996, 3461.561, 3478.842, 3493.281, 3494.27, 3495.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3426.947}, "reply_to": "20655__1_161", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20655__1_163", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ennis.\nMr. Bird, you have about a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3495.262, 3497.195], "stop_times": [3497.195, 3499.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3495.262}, "reply_to": "20655__1_162", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20655__2_000", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "A minute... oh.\nJust two brief points.\nOur case is not based on these misrepresentations of future benefits.\nYou can look at our complaint, which is probably 50, 60 pages long, and you won't find any of those allegations in there.\nOur case is based upon the fraud relating to the oxygen-limiting nature of the silo.\nSecondly, given the variables of farming, there is no way, and we have the expert affidavit in our proof from Dr. Olson.\nIt's on... if you would care to look at pages 168 through 170 of the joint appendix, it's fully explained in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3499.208, 3500.347, 3504.691, 3511.036, 3517.891, 3523.792, 3536.111], "stop_times": [3500.347, 3504.691, 3511.036, 3517.891, 3523.792, 3536.111, 3545.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3499.208}, "reply_to": "20655__1_163", "speaker": "charles_a_bird"}
{"id": "20655__2_001", "conversation_id": "20655", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Bird.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-663", "start_times": [3545.848, 3546.99], "stop_times": [3546.99, 3548.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3545.848}, "reply_to": "20655__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__0_000", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-5658, Cary Michael Lambrix v. Harry K. Singletary.\nMr. Lawry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [0.0, 8.654], "stop_times": [8.654, 9.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__0_001", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nEverybody agrees that the proceedings by which petitioner was sentenced to death violated the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.\nEspinosa v. Florida so holds.\nThe issue before the Court is whether the settled principles of Eighth Amendment law applied to the Florida system in 1992 in Espinosa were themselves compelled by existing precedent in 1986.\nThat the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [9.806, 15.843, 23.615, 26.567, 41.041], "stop_times": [15.843, 23.615, 26.567, 41.041, 42.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.806}, "reply_to": "20822__0_000", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_002", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Another way of appraising it is the way we phrased it in the Butler case, isn't it, Mr. Lawry, that could a reasonable jurist have decided otherwise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [42.327], "stop_times": [50.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 42.327}, "reply_to": "20822__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__0_003", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, that is another way of phrasing it.\nThat the Espinosa result was compelled in 1986 can be explained very briefly, in 30 seconds or less.\nAs Stringer explains, as of 1985 an unadorned jury instruction on heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating factor was unconstitutional.\nAn uncorrected jury weighing of such a factor required resentencing.\nMoreover, jury weighing of such a factor could be corrected or cured only by harmless error analysis or by independent reweighing by a court that was untainted by the original error.\nEspinosa simply applied those settled principles to the Florida sentencing scheme.\nTo elaborate somewhat on these points, I would like to describe in a bit more detail why the result in Espinosa was compelled by this Court's decisions in Proffitt, Godfrey, and Stringer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [50.997, 54.301, 62.539, 74.798, 80.785, 93.51, 100.247], "stop_times": [54.301, 62.539, 74.798, 80.785, 93.51, 100.247, 113.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.997}, "reply_to": "20822__0_002", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_004", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "You... I don't want to interrupt the sequence that you want to follow, but are you going to address also Baldwin in Alabama, because Baldwin held in '85, I think--\n--Five, yes.\n--that there was a question about just how intense the reweighing had to be if that were to supersede a jury error, and I would have supposed that that would be factored into the question of just how clearly anticipatable Espinosa was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [113.256, 125.897, 127.063], "stop_times": [125.897, 127.063, 147.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.256}, "reply_to": "20822__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_005", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, sir.\nYes, sir, I think it does factor in, if I can explain the way that I think it factors in.\nWe have to start with Proffitt v. Florida in 1976, and in fact respondent has quoted one of the key passages from Proffitt in their brief at page 13.\nThe Court was discussing whether the Florida sentencing scheme was basically constitutional, and it said that it was basically constitutional as long as adequate guidance was provided, and I'm quoting here, to those charged with the duty of recommending... that is, the jury... or imposing death sentences.\nSo in Proffitt this Court recognized that the jury has sentencing authority and must be adequately guided, and I would see Baldwin as more or less a reminder that the Florida sentencing scheme does work in that way.\nIt's different from Alabama, which at the time gave no real consideration to what the jury did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [147.477, 148.343, 153.38, 168.557, 189.737, 206.515], "stop_times": [148.343, 153.38, 168.557, 189.737, 206.515, 212.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 147.477}, "reply_to": "20822__0_004", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_006", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, that may... you know, that might be the better view, but isn't it also the case that one could reasonably read Baldwin as saying that it's not clear whether the subsequent act of the sentencing judge in the Florida scheme constituted an adequate reweighing even on the assumption... which, of course, we never really know under the Florida scheme... even on the assumption that that factor was found by the jury and was one of the bases for the jury's recommendation.\nCouldn't it reasonably have been argued that Baldwin had left that question open?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [212.835, 241.419], "stop_times": [241.419, 246.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.835}, "reply_to": "20822__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_007", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, yes, I don't think that Baldwin... Baldwin itself decided that decision.\nI think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [246.39, 252.727], "stop_times": [252.727, 254.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.39}, "reply_to": "20822__0_006", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_008", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But didn't Baldwin signal that there was a real issue to this effect, and that issue, at least so far as the particular Florida scheme was concerned, did not get resolved until... or at least resolved in part until Espinosa came along?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [254.079], "stop_times": [271.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.079}, "reply_to": "20822__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_009", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--No, I... well, I think that Baldwin itself does not decide the issue.\nI think that's correct.\nI think that the way to decide... because Baldwin was not looking at the Florida scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [271.105, 279.694, 280.813], "stop_times": [279.694, 280.813, 286.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 271.105}, "reply_to": "20822__0_008", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_010", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [286.217], "stop_times": [286.217], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 286.217}, "reply_to": "20822__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20822__0_011", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "The way to decide the issue is to look at how the Florida sentencing scheme actually works, applying this Court's settled principles, and if you look at the way that the Florida sentencing scheme works, you have to start with the Florida supreme court's 1975 decision in Tedder, and respondent virtually ignores Tedder in their brief because that's the only way that you can really seriously argue that the Florida jury does not have any sentencing authority.\nProffitt says that the jury does have sentencing authority, that it has to be guided, and that's exactly what this Court picked up on in Espinosa.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [286.217, 315.736], "stop_times": [315.736, 326.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.217}, "reply_to": "20822__0_010", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_012", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But the question, it seems to me, that you've got to wrestle with here under Teague is whether, assuming we were correct, and I happen to think we were insofar as evaluating the significance of the jury's function, you still have to wrestle with the question whether the subsequent act of the judge, who is presumed to know the Proffitt standard, in effect adequately supersedes what the jury had done, and I would have thought that that was the difficult question.\nAnd one reason why that was a question upon which people could reasonably disagree was that Baldwin had said we're not telling you yet just what kind of subsequent act or how intense or de novo a subsequent reweighing will be required, and I would have thought that was the sticking point under Teague.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [326.775, 358.746], "stop_times": [358.746, 383.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.775}, "reply_to": "20822__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_013", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I think that Stringer answers the question about what significance the trial court's actions have.\nStringer says that as of 1985, in order to cure weighing error before a jury, it's necessary to either have harmless error review or independent reweighing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [383.627, 394.833], "stop_times": [394.833, 410.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.627}, "reply_to": "20822__0_012", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_014", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But in Mississippi it was the jury that sentenced, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [410.759], "stop_times": [413.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.759}, "reply_to": "20822__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__0_015", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "It was the jury that sentenced, yes, and because the Florida jury has sentencing authority, the same result applies in Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [413.878], "stop_times": [424.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.878}, "reply_to": "20822__0_014", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_016", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, but the sentencing authority is divided in Florida, is it not, between the jury and the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [424.334], "stop_times": [431.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.334}, "reply_to": "20822__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__0_017", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [431.154], "stop_times": [431.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.154}, "reply_to": "20822__0_016", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_018", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "In Mississippi it wasn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [431.154], "stop_times": [432.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.154}, "reply_to": "20822__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__0_019", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "That's true, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [432.87], "stop_times": [434.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.87}, "reply_to": "20822__0_018", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_020", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I'm not sure how you read... you read Proffitt to say that the jury is the sentencer as well?\nIs that my interpretation of your argument thus far?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [434.356, 445.462], "stop_times": [445.462, 448.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.356}, "reply_to": "20822__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_021", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, I do read it in that fashion.\nIn fact, it refers to sentencing authorities in the plural, and two or three times it talks about adequate guidance, adequate direction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [448.664, 450.882], "stop_times": [450.882, 459.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.664}, "reply_to": "20822__0_020", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_022", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, but three or four times it says the trial judge is the sentencing authority, and so forth.\nI guess we can quarrel over the reading of it.\nI certainly don't think it's clearly to the effect that you state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [459.071, 463.875, 466.325], "stop_times": [463.875, 466.325, 471.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.071}, "reply_to": "20822__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_023", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--I think that it's clear from Proffitt that the sentencing authority is divided.\nCertainly the judge ultimately imposes the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [471.795, 481.301], "stop_times": [481.301, 484.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.795}, "reply_to": "20822__0_022", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_024", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "It says the basic difference between the Florida system and the Georgia system is that in Florida the sentence is determined by the trial judge rather than by the jury, and there are like phrases... there are like phrases throughout the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [484.955], "stop_times": [499.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.955}, "reply_to": "20822__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_025", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "That's correct, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [499.381], "stop_times": [501.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.381}, "reply_to": "20822__0_024", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_026", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Counsel, Espinosa was a per curiam decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [501.381], "stop_times": [507.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.381}, "reply_to": "20822__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__0_027", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--That's correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [507.801], "stop_times": [508.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.801}, "reply_to": "20822__0_026", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_028", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Which lends, I suppose, a little support to your theory that this Court didn't think there was some wide division on the issue, or it might not have handled it as a per curiam.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [508.737], "stop_times": [519.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.737}, "reply_to": "20822__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__0_029", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I think that's correct, and certainly nothing had changed in the law in the intervening period, and I think it was obvious to this Court in Espinosa that the Florida sentencing scheme in fact gives sentencing authority to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [519.092], "stop_times": [539.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.092}, "reply_to": "20822__0_028", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_030", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, we had heard that point in Soklar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [539.189], "stop_times": [542.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.189}, "reply_to": "20822__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_031", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "That's correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [542.641], "stop_times": [544.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.641}, "reply_to": "20822__0_030", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_032", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And I suppose one explanation for the per curiam is that the Court had heard the arguments on it in Soklar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [544.641], "stop_times": [549.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.641}, "reply_to": "20822__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_033", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [549.711], "stop_times": [551.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.711}, "reply_to": "20822__0_032", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_034", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Does Florida law require the sentencing judge to place great weight on the recommendation of the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [551.644], "stop_times": [561.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.644}, "reply_to": "20822__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__0_035", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Exactly.\nThat's what Florida law requires, and that's whether the jury's recommendation is life or death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [561.167, 562.102], "stop_times": [562.102, 568.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.167}, "reply_to": "20822__0_034", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_036", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But Mr. Lawry, you also said that harmless error plays a part in this, and this trial judge did say that the facts speak for themselves.\nDoesn't that indicate that he reweighed without reference to the jury verdict?\nIsn't that a signal that what we're talking about is really academic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [568.256, 582.23, 588.551], "stop_times": [582.23, 588.551, 592.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.256}, "reply_to": "20822__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__0_037", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, no, Your Honor, I don't think so.\nI... first it's very difficult to determine exactly what the trial judge found when he said the facts speak for themselves, but even if it's assumed that the trial judge was finding that the facts fit within the Dixon limiting construction in Florida, which I don't think can be assumed, but even if we were to assume that, merely a finding by the judge that the facts... that he believes the facts fit within the aggravating circumstance doesn't mean that the jury necessarily would have.\nIt's certainly not a finding of harmless error, because he doesn't recognize that there was any error, and it's also not any kind of independent reweighing, which is what Stringer would require, because the judge in his weighing process must give great weight to what the jury did, and what the jury did was tainted by the invalid instruction, so it's not possible for the trial court in Florida to cure the error because the trial court has to weigh the error.\nYou can't cure the error by weighing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [592.287, 595.906, 628.311, 661.032], "stop_times": [595.906, 628.311, 661.032, 663.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.287}, "reply_to": "20822__0_036", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_038", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But if he said... this trial judge had said, now, I know what heinous, atrocious conduct is, and I find that that standard is met here, these facts speak for themselves, would that be... is that... would that be adequate then to amount to harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [663.332], "stop_times": [684.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.332}, "reply_to": "20822__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__0_039", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "No, Your Honor, not without determining the effect of the error upon the jury, because the jury may not view the facts in the same light.\nThey may not believe that the facts are unnecessarily tortuous.\nUnless you go to that step and say that the facts are... that the jury necessarily would have, or by some standard would have found that... the case unnecessarily tortuous, then you're not applying harmless error analysis, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [684.898, 694.919, 698.371], "stop_times": [694.919, 698.371, 713.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.898}, "reply_to": "20822__0_038", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_040", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Would it be harmless only if the judge disassociated himself from what the jury did and said, I'm looking at this de novo and here's how I come out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [713.464], "stop_times": [722.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.464}, "reply_to": "20822__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__0_041", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Yes, that's right, and furthermore, in the Florida system the Florida supreme court's review, both what the trial court does is virtually controlled by the jury's recommendation.\nSo is the Florida supreme court's review, because if a death sentence is imposed after a jury recommendation of death, the Florida supreme court does a normal form of deferential appellate review to see if the trial court's findings are supported by the evidence.\nIf a death sentence is imposed after a jury recommendation of life, the Florida supreme court will affirm only if virtually no reasonable person could differ as to the appropriateness of the sentence.\nSo that many, many times the Florida supreme court reverses the trial court's imposition of a death sentence after a jury recommendation of life when the trial court did not make any error.\nThe trial court did not err in any of its findings, but the Florida supreme court nevertheless reverses and imposes life because of the jury's life recommendation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [722.152, 735.877, 752.506, 765.479, 779.323], "stop_times": [735.877, 752.506, 765.479, 779.323, 789.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.152}, "reply_to": "20822__0_040", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_042", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Mr. Lawry, there's also an issue of procedural bar in this case.\nAre you going to address that at all?\nI mean, as I understand it the Florida supreme court held in this litigation specifically that Lambrix did not raise the issue of the trial court's failure to include his special instruction on his direct appeal, and consequently Lambrix's Espinosa claim is procedurally barred.\nThat's the last word of the Florida supreme court on that subject.\nWhy is that not dispositive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [789.881, 794.249, 795.349, 812.877, 817.412], "stop_times": [794.249, 795.349, 812.877, 817.412, 819.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.881}, "reply_to": "20822__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__0_043", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, it's not dispositive for several reasons.\nFirst, in the initial round of post conviction proceedings there was what the district court found was a merits ruling on this claim, and so this was a second review after remand from the Eleventh Circuit.\nNow, whether that was... whether what the Florida supreme court did on its second look, whether that was an adequate and independent State bar, is a very complicated issue that's tied up with Florida rules and practice, and it's not been ruled on by any court, and so it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [819.114, 822.816, 839.694], "stop_times": [822.816, 839.694, 859.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 819.114}, "reply_to": "20822__0_042", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_044", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I thought it was ruled on by the Florida supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [859.989], "stop_times": [862.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.989}, "reply_to": "20822__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__0_045", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--No... yes, Your Honor.\nI mean, it hasn't... whether that was an adequate and independent State bar has not been ruled on by any Federal court is what I should have said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [862.655, 864.124], "stop_times": [864.124, 871.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.655}, "reply_to": "20822__0_044", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_046", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I find it hard to get around the statement by the supreme court of the State that the objection wasn't raised on appeal, and there is a procedural bar.\nThat's what it said, and you say there's a later lower court opinion in the State which contradicts the supreme court statement that there was a procedural bar?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [871.028, 882.717], "stop_times": [882.717, 892.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.028}, "reply_to": "20822__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__0_047", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "No.\nThere was... the claim was previously raised in the 3850 proceedings, and in those proceedings there was what the district court found amounted to a merits ruling, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [892.089, 892.422], "stop_times": [892.422, 905.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.089}, "reply_to": "20822__0_046", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_048", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "By a lower Florida court.\nThe supreme court of Florida's ruling came after that, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [905.03, 906.849], "stop_times": [906.849, 909.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.03}, "reply_to": "20822__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__0_049", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--It came... yes.\nIt came after the case had gone to Federal habeas proceedings, proceeded to the Eleventh Circuit.\nThe Eleventh Circuit then remanded because it wanted the State's views on the merits of the Espinosa claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [909.884, 911.584, 917.654], "stop_times": [911.584, 917.654, 922.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.884}, "reply_to": "20822__0_048", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_050", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Was the merits ruling in the State system in the... I forget the number that you... 38 something, the collateral proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [922.956], "stop_times": [931.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.956}, "reply_to": "20822__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_051", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "3850, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [931.046], "stop_times": [932.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 931.046}, "reply_to": "20822__0_050", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_052", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Was that by an intermediate appellate court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [932.212], "stop_times": [934.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.212}, "reply_to": "20822__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_053", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "That was by... it was by the trial court, and it was not... it was not disturbed by what the Florida supreme court did on appeal, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [934.498], "stop_times": [946.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.498}, "reply_to": "20822__0_052", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_054", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "So the argument is that that's an implied affirmance, or validation of the trial court's merits ruling even though it hasn't been raised on appeal to the Florida supreme court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [946.972], "stop_times": [963.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.972}, "reply_to": "20822__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_055", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Well, it was raised on the 3850 appeal.\nThe point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [963.031, 966.885], "stop_times": [966.885, 969.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 963.031}, "reply_to": "20822__0_054", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_056", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But I thought Florida required that it be raised on direct review and that that's the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [969.051], "stop_times": [974.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.051}, "reply_to": "20822__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_057", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Ordinarily it does, but there were several cases during this time period where claims were raised in 3850 proceedings.\nIt happened in Glock, for example, also.\nThe point that I'm trying to make is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [974.222, 983.661, 986.78], "stop_times": [983.661, 986.78, 988.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 974.222}, "reply_to": "20822__0_056", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_058", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But even in that proceeding the Florida supreme court didn't pass on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [988.563], "stop_times": [992.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.563}, "reply_to": "20822__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__0_059", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--That's correct, but if the lower court has ruled on the merits and the appellate court does not disturb that, then under Ylst this Court will look back to the original ruling and say that's a merits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [992.85], "stop_times": [1008.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.85}, "reply_to": "20822__0_058", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_060", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Even where the appellate court has previously said before the lower court went back to the merits, even where the appellate court has previously said this claim is procedurally barred?\nI mean, that's a different situation, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1008.525, 1019.583], "stop_times": [1019.583, 1023.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.525}, "reply_to": "20822__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__0_061", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThe court... the appellate court has to say that it's barred in the proceedings in the case that we're talking about, not a... a general rule that will apply a procedural bar doesn't have any effect unless it's actually applied in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1023.868, 1024.701], "stop_times": [1024.701, 1044.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.868}, "reply_to": "20822__0_060", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_062", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, but the procedural bar arises from the original trial.\nIf that is procedurally barred as a result of what was done at the original trial, the mere fact that you have different later proceedings certainly wouldn't alter the judgment of whether there's a procedural bar or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1044.829, 1048.531], "stop_times": [1048.531, 1059.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1044.829}, "reply_to": "20822__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__0_063", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "No.\nThe procedural bar goes away, though, if the State courts rule on the merits.\nWhat I'm trying to get at is that it's a very complex issue, the procedural bar here.\nIt hasn't been ruled on... the adequacy hasn't been ruled on by any Federal court.\nIt's really not included in the question presented, but even... and even if the Court thinks that the ruling was an adequate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1059.487, 1060.337, 1063.955, 1070.275, 1074.327], "stop_times": [1060.337, 1063.955, 1070.275, 1074.327, 1082.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.487}, "reply_to": "20822__0_062", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_064", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "You don't think the other issue is complex?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1082.25], "stop_times": [1084.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.25}, "reply_to": "20822__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__0_065", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1084.166], "stop_times": [1084.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.166}, "reply_to": "20822__0_064", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_066", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "You don't think the other issue you were talking about is complex?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1084.999], "stop_times": [1088.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.999}, "reply_to": "20822__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__0_067", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "The Teague issue?\nThe Teague issue is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1088.218, 1090.486], "stop_times": [1090.486, 1090.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.218}, "reply_to": "20822__0_066", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_068", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes.\nThe merits issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1090.486, 1091.002], "stop_times": [1091.002, 1091.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.486}, "reply_to": "20822__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__0_069", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Yes.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1091.652, 1092.319], "stop_times": [1092.319, 1092.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.652}, "reply_to": "20822__0_068", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_070", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I'd really like to hear your explanation in sort of an uninterrupted fashion if I could, because it's a rather difficult issue.\nWould you start over on why you don't think the procedural bar requires us to dismiss the... to rule against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1092.319, 1100.389], "stop_times": [1100.389, 1107.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.319}, "reply_to": "20822__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__0_071", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Yes.\nThe claim was raised in the 3850 State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1107.079, 1110.197], "stop_times": [1110.197, 1116.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.079}, "reply_to": "20822__0_070", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_072", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1116.851], "stop_times": [1116.984], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.851}, "reply_to": "20822__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20822__0_073", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--post conviction proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1116.984], "stop_times": [1117.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.984}, "reply_to": "20822__0_072", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_074", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "What claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1117.917], "stop_times": [1118.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.917}, "reply_to": "20822__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__0_075", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "The claim that the jury instructions were unduly vague and unconstitutional.\nIt was denied on the merits by the State trial court.\nIt was appealed to the Florida supreme court.\nThe Florida supreme court did not pass on it.\nWe went to Federal habeas.\nThe Federal district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1118.834, 1125.488, 1130.058, 1133.26, 1136.212, 1139.33], "stop_times": [1125.488, 1130.058, 1133.26, 1136.212, 1139.33, 1140.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.834}, "reply_to": "20822__0_074", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_076", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Did they also not rule on the procedural bar issue at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1140.513], "stop_times": [1143.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.513}, "reply_to": "20822__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__0_077", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1143.965], "stop_times": [1144.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.965}, "reply_to": "20822__0_076", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_078", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1144.798], "stop_times": [1145.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.798}, "reply_to": "20822__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__0_079", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "The Federal district court said that all of the claims were ruled... were denied on the merits in State court, and therefore it reached the merits.\nThe Eleventh Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1145.631, 1157.003], "stop_times": [1157.003, 1158.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1145.631}, "reply_to": "20822__0_078", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_080", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And did it also... and therefore there is no procedural bar?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1158.605], "stop_times": [1161.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.605}, "reply_to": "20822__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__0_081", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1161.391], "stop_times": [1162.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.391}, "reply_to": "20822__0_080", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_082", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1162.291], "stop_times": [1162.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.291}, "reply_to": "20822__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__0_083", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--no procedural bar, and if any procedural bar had been applied it wouldn't have been adequate and independent.\nThe Eleventh Circuit then remanded the case back to State court, where the State supreme court said that there was a bar.\nThe case returned to the Eleventh Circuit.\nThe Eleventh Circuit ruled only on Teague.\nSo our argument is that there was no regularly applied bar, that the bar... or that the bar went away when the State courts ruled on the merits in the first instance.\nYou can't go back after the fact.\nThe State's bar may be nothing more than applying a rule that we're not going to consider the merits in a successive proceeding.\nAnd furthermore, even if there is... even if the Court thinks that there's an adequate and independent bar, there's also a cause in prejudice argument, because if we win on Teague, then it's clear that this law was dictated as of the time of the direct appeal, and so competent counsel should have raised it.\nThe Eleventh Circuit hasn't ruled on any of this.\nThe Eleventh Circuit is closer to State law and State practice than this Court is, and the appropriate disposition would be to remand to the Eleventh Circuit to let it figure out the procedural bar issues as well as any other issues remaining after this Court's disposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1162.641, 1167.794, 1177.316, 1178.852, 1181.137, 1198.08, 1200.015, 1210.287, 1229.951, 1232.153], "stop_times": [1167.794, 1177.316, 1178.852, 1181.137, 1198.08, 1200.015, 1210.287, 1229.951, 1232.153, 1246.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1162.641}, "reply_to": "20822__0_082", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_084", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "If I may ask you this: the first even that you recounted was that the vagueness was raised in the trial court, I take it post trial, or pre-trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1246.162], "stop_times": [1255.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1246.162}, "reply_to": "20822__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_085", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Post trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1255.768], "stop_times": [1256.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1255.768}, "reply_to": "20822__0_084", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_086", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Post trial, all right, and then you said, it was appealed to the Georgia supreme court.\nWhen you... was the case appealed with that issue in it, when you say it was appealed?\nThe Florida supreme court.\nExcuse me, the Florida supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1256.701, 1262.605, 1267.759, 1269.092], "stop_times": [1262.605, 1267.759, 1269.092, 1270.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.701}, "reply_to": "20822__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_087", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1270.359, 1270.877], "stop_times": [1270.877, 1271.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.359}, "reply_to": "20822__0_086", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_088", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "It being the vagueness issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1271.361], "stop_times": [1274.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.361}, "reply_to": "20822__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_089", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Right.\nYes, Your Honor.\nIt was raised... these proceedings were under death warrant.\nIt was raised... in a recognized and sandtioned practice in Florida it was raised by filing a motion for stay of execution in the State supreme court and attaching all of the claims that were raised in the trial court and saying, these are the claims, please give us a stay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1274.496, 1275.713, 1277.531, 1281.15], "stop_times": [1275.713, 1277.531, 1281.15, 1297.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.496}, "reply_to": "20822__0_088", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_090", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Specifically including this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1297.361], "stop_times": [1298.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.361}, "reply_to": "20822__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_091", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1298.544], "stop_times": [1299.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.544}, "reply_to": "20822__0_090", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_092", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "May I ask one other question, just to be sure... did the State in its opposition to your petition for certiorari argue procedural bar?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1299.044], "stop_times": [1306.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.044}, "reply_to": "20822__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__0_093", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1306.134], "stop_times": [1306.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.134}, "reply_to": "20822__0_092", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_094", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "It did.\nOkay.\nCounsel, how many other cases are there like this petitioner's case, Lambrix, in Florida that would have to be overturned if you are correct on the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1306.984, 1307.4, 1307.9], "stop_times": [1307.4, 1307.9, 1321.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.984}, "reply_to": "20822__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__0_095", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Your Honor, I have no idea the answer to that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1321.291], "stop_times": [1324.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1321.291}, "reply_to": "20822__0_094", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_096", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Are there many?\nAren't you involved in public defender's work, generally?\nNo?\nYes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1324.326, 1326.026, 1330.897, 1331.747], "stop_times": [1326.026, 1330.897, 1331.747, 1332.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.326}, "reply_to": "20822__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__0_097", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes.\nYes, although no longer in Florida, but yes, there are probably quite a few cases in which one of the unduly vague instructions on heinous, atrocious, or cruel was given.\nThere... whether they would all have to be overturned would depend on a number of things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1332.48, 1333.765, 1348.173], "stop_times": [1333.765, 1348.173, 1354.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.48}, "reply_to": "20822__0_096", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_098", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "On whether there's a procedural bar, perhaps?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1354.077], "stop_times": [1356.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.077}, "reply_to": "20822__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__0_099", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes.\nIf there are no further--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1356.193, 1357.029], "stop_times": [1357.029, 1361.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.193}, "reply_to": "20822__0_098", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_100", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Would you like to say anything about the amicus brief's arguments?\nI thought they were pretty good... a pretty good brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1361.081, 1364.216], "stop_times": [1364.216, 1366.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.081}, "reply_to": "20822__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__0_101", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Is there a particular point in there that concerns--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1366.566], "stop_times": [1373.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1366.566}, "reply_to": "20822__0_100", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_102", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "No.\nI thought that their basic point was that as you go back to that period of time, the late eighties and so forth, it wasn't really clear the extent to which the Constitution required States to follow what one would have thought of as ordinary legal harmless error rules, and that perhaps all that was happening was that the judge was being told, you go look at this case where there's a HAC error, and you make up your own mind.\nWe have to have a judge saying that this case is the kind of case that isn't cruel and unusual, heinous, aggravated or cruel on the ground that all murders are like that.\nThere has to be something special about it.\nBut as long as the judge has gone and looked at the facts and said there's something special about it, that's good enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1373.47, 1374.253, 1402.82, 1414.628, 1416.678], "stop_times": [1374.253, 1402.82, 1414.628, 1416.678, 1421.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.47}, "reply_to": "20822__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__0_103", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, that contention is completely antithetical to Stringer v. Black.\nStringer was a case that the Mississippi supreme court said would meet... was... would fall within the definition of heinous, atrocious, or cruel, it was an aggravated case, and this Court in Stringer said that as of 1985, it was compelled that the failure to do harmless error analysis or reweighing meant that the error had not been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1421.782, 1428.352], "stop_times": [1428.352, 1452.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1421.782}, "reply_to": "20822__0_102", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_104", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Was Stringer decided after your case was tried or not?\nWhat's the timing there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1452.883, 1458.204], "stop_times": [1458.204, 1459.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.883}, "reply_to": "20822__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__0_105", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Stringer was decided in 1992, but it says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1459.687], "stop_times": [1462.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.687}, "reply_to": "20822__0_104", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_106", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "So then they'd say well, Stringer wasn't obvious, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1462.489], "stop_times": [1465.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.489}, "reply_to": "20822__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__0_107", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1465.941], "stop_times": [1466.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1465.941}, "reply_to": "20822__0_106", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_108", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "How many members of the Court, by the way... in answering Justice Breyer's question, how many members of the Court concurred in the Stringer holding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1466.407], "stop_times": [1474.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.407}, "reply_to": "20822__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__0_109", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--I believe it was six, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1474.38], "stop_times": [1475.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.38}, "reply_to": "20822__0_108", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_110", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes.\nI just knew Justice Souter didn't.\n[Laughter]\nI think he thought it wasn't obvious.\nI think he thought Clemons wasn't obvious.\nThat's... and I'm just trying to get what I take perhaps wrongly to be the thrust of the amicus brief to see what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1475.997, 1476.563, 1478.349, 1479.765, 1482.301, 1484.117], "stop_times": [1476.563, 1478.349, 1479.765, 1482.301, 1484.117, 1491.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.997}, "reply_to": "20822__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__0_111", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I think that... yes, I think that the thrust of the amicus brief is that Stringer is wrongly decided, because Stringer says that the result was compelled as of 1985.\nSo if there's no further questions, I'd like to save my remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1491.521, 1501.977], "stop_times": [1501.977, 1507.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.521}, "reply_to": "20822__0_110", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__0_112", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Lawry.\nMs. Dittmar, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1507.364, 1509.081], "stop_times": [1509.081, 1510.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.364}, "reply_to": "20822__0_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__1_000", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere are two fundamental reasons why this Court should affirm the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit in this case.\nThe first issue is the Eleventh Circuit's conclusion that Teague v. Lane bars Espinosa review in a Federal habeas proceeding, and that conclusion is correct.\nThe second reason is the procedural bar that exists, and I'd like to start by addressing the procedural bar.\nFirst--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1510.833, 1516.136, 1522.623, 1531.812, 1537.632], "stop_times": [1516.136, 1522.623, 1531.812, 1537.632, 1539.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1510.833}, "reply_to": "20822__0_112", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_001", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Which the Eleventh Circuit didn't address, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1539.632], "stop_times": [1541.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.632}, "reply_to": "20822__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__1_002", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--That's correct.\nThe Eleventh Circuit obeyed the command of treating retroactivity as a threshold issue and decided the case solely on Teague, so they did not address the State's procedural bar argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1541.801, 1542.267], "stop_times": [1542.267, 1552.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1541.801}, "reply_to": "20822__1_001", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_003", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "You raised it there, though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1552.889], "stop_times": [1554.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.889}, "reply_to": "20822__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__1_004", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt was raised there numerous times, including, even on a motion for rehearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1554.325, 1554.925], "stop_times": [1554.925, 1560.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1554.325}, "reply_to": "20822__1_003", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_005", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Was it also raised in the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1560.043], "stop_times": [1561.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.043}, "reply_to": "20822__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_006", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1561.662], "stop_times": [1562.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1561.662}, "reply_to": "20822__1_005", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_007", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And it was ruled on there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1562.479], "stop_times": [1563.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1562.479}, "reply_to": "20822__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_008", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, it was.\nThe district court... as to the Godfrey claim that had been raised back in the district court, the State argued at that time that there was a procedural bar based on several different reasons.\nOne of the reasons, and this is in the joint appendix on pages 46 to 49 in the State's response, the primary reason was this was a direct appeal issue in the State of Florida, and it had not been raised in Mr. Lambrix's direct appeal.\nThe next... the other argument put forth by the State at that time was that although it had been raised in the motion for post conviction relief, the trial judge in that motion did not decide the merits of that issue, and furthermore, when it went to the Florida supreme court, the Florida supreme court did not have that particular issue before it, because the Florida supreme court opinion from the appeal of the post conviction motion clearly says there are two issues before this Court.\nBoth of them relate to the defendant's state of intoxication at the time of the crime.\nSo that specific issue was not addressed in the post conviction appeal as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1563.781, 1564.681, 1577.004, 1592.181, 1621.883, 1627.104], "stop_times": [1564.681, 1577.004, 1592.181, 1621.883, 1627.104, 1631.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.781}, "reply_to": "20822__1_007", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_009", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "How does that square with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1631.406], "stop_times": [1634.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.406}, "reply_to": "20822__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__1_010", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "What the district court found?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1634.691], "stop_times": [1636.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1634.691}, "reply_to": "20822__1_009", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_011", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--what the petitioner's counsel has told us that it was specifically included in the grounds that were presented in the collateral... in the appeal from the denial of collateral relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1636.841], "stop_times": [1647.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.841}, "reply_to": "20822__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__1_012", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Based on Florida procedure is how the district court reached that conclusion.\nWhat happened is, the Godfrey claim that was raised in post conviction... and this was a claim that the Florida supreme court had inconsistently interpreted this aggravating factor, and therefore the factor was invalid.\nThat claim was raised in the post conviction motion for the first time, and the State responded at that time that it was a direct appeal issue.\nThe circuit court judge, the trial judge in Florida, did not specifically address that issue.\nIn his order he merely concluded that Mr. Lambrix was not entitled to relief.\nHe does not say, based on the merits, or based on the procedural law in Florida.\nHe just says his conclusion is Mr. Lambrix is not entitled to relief.\nThat is what the Federal district judge in the habeas proceeding found to be a ruling on the merits, his conclusion.\nWhen that was appealed to the Florida supreme court, there is a particular statute... I'm sorry, a rule of procedure in Florida that when a post conviction motion is determined summarily by a trial judge without an evidentiary hearing, that what is... goes to the Florida supreme court or whatever the appellate court is, is simply the record that was before the lower court, and that there is no briefing or argument in that appeal.\nIt's basically a review of what the trial judge had before him.\nIf there is an evidentiary hearing held on the post conviction motion, it is treated as an ordinary appeal where the parties file briefs and orally argue the case, and then the court decides it.\nBecause there had been no evidentiary hearing on the post conviction motion, the petitioner has argued to the Federal district court successfully that under the Florida rule that says everything goes up to the Florida supreme court, even though in this particular case there were briefs filed and there was oral argument held, that under the rule, you have to look at the entire record and not just what was argued in the briefs and argued to the court, and that's what the district court found when he found that there was a ruling on the merits by the trial judge, and that that ruling on the merits was undisturbed by the Florida supreme court.\nTherefore, he found that it was reviewed, and central to his holding... of course, this is prior to the time that the Espinosa claim went back and was found to be procedurally barred by the Florida supreme court.\nCentral to the district court was the idea that no State court had ever specifically said this is procedurally barred.\nHe was looking for that language in one of the State court opinions and he did not find it.\nBased on the lack of that statement, he said that there was a ruling on the merits.\nSo the State has maintained consistently that this was a direct appeal issue that should have been raised in the direct appeal and it wasn't.\nThis same issue in the Sochar case, this Court declined to address it, because it was procedurally barred in that case, and that was a direct review case, so you really can't come back on a collateral case on habeas review and address the procedurally barred issue that's the same issue that you didn't address earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1647.849, 1653.652, 1665.46, 1672.864, 1679.6, 1684.171, 1688.539, 1692.71, 1700.531, 1726.681, 1730.402, 1740.774, 1776.764, 1786.87, 1793.607, 1798.309, 1803.463, 1810.7], "stop_times": [1653.652, 1665.46, 1672.864, 1679.6, 1684.171, 1688.539, 1692.71, 1700.531, 1726.681, 1730.402, 1740.774, 1776.764, 1786.87, 1793.607, 1798.309, 1803.463, 1810.7, 1829.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.849}, "reply_to": "20822__1_011", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_013", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But we would have to decide this issue of Florida law here to conclude there is a procedural bar, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1829.162], "stop_times": [1836.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.162}, "reply_to": "20822__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__1_014", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I think it's a very straightforward issue, though.\nI don't think it's as complicated as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1836.899, 1838.582], "stop_times": [1838.582, 1840.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.899}, "reply_to": "20822__1_013", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_015", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Even though the Eleventh Circuit hasn't addressed it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1840.017], "stop_times": [1842.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.017}, "reply_to": "20822__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__1_016", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Right, but the... we have the clear statement from the Florida supreme court applying the bar, and we don't have any State court decision ever even addressing the Federal question or addressing the merits of it, or even recognizing or acknowledging that this issue has ever been raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1842.969], "stop_times": [1858.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.969}, "reply_to": "20822__1_015", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_017", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But is it not correct that it could be a procedural bar but still... I mean, at least theoretically not be an independent and adequate State ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1858.812], "stop_times": [1865.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.812}, "reply_to": "20822__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_018", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Theoretically that argument could be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1865.898], "stop_times": [1866.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.898}, "reply_to": "20822__1_017", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_019", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "It's unlikely, I understand, but at least it's theoretically possible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1866.998], "stop_times": [1870.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.998}, "reply_to": "20822__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_020", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1870.116], "stop_times": [1870.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.116}, "reply_to": "20822__1_019", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_021", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--on the grounds it's not consistently applied, or they waived it by addressing the merits later, or something like that.\nIt's at least theoretically possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1870.25, 1875.318], "stop_times": [1875.318, 1876.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.25}, "reply_to": "20822__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_022", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Theoretically, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1876.77], "stop_times": [1879.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.77}, "reply_to": "20822__1_021", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_023", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "It should be an opportunity to show, though, that, if there's an allegation that the Florida court has not consistently applied, although they could have, this as a procedural bar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1879.103], "stop_times": [1890.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.103}, "reply_to": "20822__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__1_024", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--That's true, but I don't think Mr. Lambrix can cite to you any cases where the Florida supreme court has not consistently applied the procedural bar that they applied in this case.\nI don't think they can find any cases where the Florida supreme court has not applied a procedural bar when the argument was not presented in the appeal, because that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1890.511, 1898.848], "stop_times": [1898.848, 1907.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.511}, "reply_to": "20822__1_023", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_025", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Why do you suppose the Eleventh Circuit didn't rule on it, if it's this clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1907.271], "stop_times": [1911.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.271}, "reply_to": "20822__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_026", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--I suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1911.739], "stop_times": [1914.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1911.739}, "reply_to": "20822__1_025", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_027", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Because they know more about Florida law than we do.\nThat much is clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1914.239, 1916.274], "stop_times": [1916.274, 1917.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.239}, "reply_to": "20822__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_028", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Well, I think they were just satisfied with the Teague ruling, and they just didn't address the State's procedural bar argument at all, and I think that there are cases that say the threshold issue is retroactivity, and I think they felt like once that was resolved and they could thoroughly analyze that issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1917.241], "stop_times": [1933.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1917.241}, "reply_to": "20822__1_027", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_029", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Of course, if we agreed with you on the Teague issue you'd probably be happier with that disposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1933.851], "stop_times": [1938.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.851}, "reply_to": "20822__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_030", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Well, either way I'd be happy, but the--\n[Laughter]\nI think the Teague issue is standing out there.\nIt's something that needs to be decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1938.57, 1941.856, 1942.556, 1944.808], "stop_times": [1941.856, 1942.556, 1944.808, 1946.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.57}, "reply_to": "20822__1_029", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_031", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Do you know how many Florida convictions or sentences would have to be set aside if we were to agree with the petitioner on the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1946.391], "stop_times": [1958.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.391}, "reply_to": "20822__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__1_032", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, ma'am.\nI would say less than a dozen cases, not necessarily set aside but at least considered in the habeas proceeding.\nMost of the cases in Florida where this has come up have either been decided since the time of Espinosa, and obviously at that point the Florida supreme court was well aware of the issue and they had consistently applied Espinosa to the cases that have come before them.\nIt really only affects the cases prior to Espinosa that had already gone into Federal court, and there would have to be the preservation of error and, in fact, the Florida supreme court, if it was raised in the trial court, an issue, and argued on appeal, the Florida supreme court is granting collateral relief in those cases.\nSo if it has not been procedurally barred, even though the conviction may be final in Florida, they can still get relief from the Florida supreme court without having to turn to the Federal court.\nThere are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [1958.616, 1959.299, 1965.12, 1980.046, 1999.174, 2007.946], "stop_times": [1959.299, 1965.12, 1980.046, 1999.174, 2007.946, 2008.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.616}, "reply_to": "20822__1_031", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_033", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Relief under Espinosa?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2008.496], "stop_times": [2010.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.496}, "reply_to": "20822__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__1_034", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2010.231], "stop_times": [2010.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.231}, "reply_to": "20822__1_033", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_035", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "For cases that were tried before Espinosa was decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2010.765], "stop_times": [2014.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.765}, "reply_to": "20822__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__1_036", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.\nIf they argued to the trial judge that the instruction was incorrect, and also argued that on appeal to the Florida supreme court, and those arguments were rejected at that time because Espinosa had not been decided, then the Florida supreme court is granting relief in those cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2014.767, 2015.7], "stop_times": [2015.7, 2029.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2014.767}, "reply_to": "20822__1_035", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_037", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, that indicates maybe the procedural bar might be the best thing for this Court to consider first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2029.527], "stop_times": [2036.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.527}, "reply_to": "20822__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__1_038", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "In this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2036.18], "stop_times": [2036.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2036.18}, "reply_to": "20822__1_037", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_039", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--as a preliminary matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2036.18], "stop_times": [2037.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.18}, "reply_to": "20822__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__1_040", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I think the procedural bar is an important threshold issue in this case.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2037.696, 2041.564], "stop_times": [2041.564, 2042.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.696}, "reply_to": "20822__1_039", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_041", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "When the lower--\n--How many people on Florida's death row now were tried before Espinosa?\nDo you have any statistics to that effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2042.898, 2043.6, 2051.504], "stop_times": [2043.6, 2051.504, 2054.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.898}, "reply_to": "20822__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__1_042", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--I don't have any statistics to that effect.\nI... of the Federal habeas proceedings that I'm aware of that are now going on in the State of Florida, I would say there are less than a dozen cases where this is potentially an issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2054.206, 2056.658], "stop_times": [2056.658, 2067.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.206}, "reply_to": "20822__1_041", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_043", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But I dare say there are more than a dozen case in Florida of people on death row who were tried before 1992, are there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2067.215], "stop_times": [2074.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2067.215}, "reply_to": "20822__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__1_044", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Certainly.\nCertainly there are more than a dozen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2074.952, 2075.452], "stop_times": [2075.452, 2077.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.952}, "reply_to": "20822__1_043", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_045", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I think you want to get to the Teague issue and should, but one more question on the procedural bar... one more question from me.\nWhen the circuit court says that Teague is a threshold issue, do they do this... do thy say this in the context where a procedural bar argument is presented?\nDo they say it's threshold even to a procedural bar?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2077.004, 2083.824, 2093.864], "stop_times": [2083.824, 2093.864, 2096.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.004}, "reply_to": "20822__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__1_046", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, actually, this Court has said it's a threshold issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2096.197], "stop_times": [2099.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.197}, "reply_to": "20822__1_045", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_047", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Even to a procedural bar?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2099.686], "stop_times": [2100.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.686}, "reply_to": "20822__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__1_048", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I don't believe that specific circumstance has been addressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2100.936], "stop_times": [2104.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2100.936}, "reply_to": "20822__1_047", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_049", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I thought it was threshold to the merits.\nThat's--\n--I would think so.\n--what I understood it to mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2104.721, 2106.423, 2106.706, 2107.806], "stop_times": [2106.423, 2106.706, 2107.806, 2108.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.721}, "reply_to": "20822__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__1_050", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I think that that is how it is, but the cases... I think the cases where this Court has said that have not been cases where there was a procedural bar to consider or to decide whether a procedural bar takes priority over a Teague issue.\nI think that fundamentally the procedural bar is an issue that needs to be addressed as a threshold issue by any Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2108.542, 2121.682], "stop_times": [2121.682, 2130.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.542}, "reply_to": "20822__1_049", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_051", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But it would be extraordinary for this Court to take it up in the first instance, when it hasn't been taken up in the lower Federal courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2130.371], "stop_times": [2139.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.371}, "reply_to": "20822__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__1_052", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I don't think it would be that extraordinary.\nIn Gray v. Netherland this Court found a procedural bar on the Brady claim, despite the fact that the circuit court in Gray had never reached the procedural argument on that claim.\nThe district court in Gray had found a procedural bar on the Brady claim.\nThe circuit court did not address it at all, and when Gray came up to this Court, this Court addressed the procedural bar that applied on that claim, so I don't think it's so unique that it can't be done, and I certainly don't think it's something that's beyond this Court's ability to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2139.394, 2142.763, 2152.369, 2155.956], "stop_times": [2142.763, 2152.369, 2155.956, 2170.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.394}, "reply_to": "20822__1_051", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_053", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "What's the advantage to you as a prosecutor from that?\nIt's... I mean, suppose we said you're right on the procedural bar.\nThere are other cases in front of us, I think, that raise this same Espinosa retroactivity issue, and if that were so we'd have to take one of those, if there are, and then decide the same issue in that other case, and all we would have done with the two cases is simply decided on a matter unique to this case that the Eleventh Circuit's perfectly capable of deciding anyway.\nI mean, so how do you benefit from that, except you might have two arguments instead of one or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2170.615, 2173.282, 2176.602, 2194.481], "stop_times": [2173.282, 2176.602, 2194.481, 2198.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.615}, "reply_to": "20822__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_054", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I think this Court can address both issues in this case.\nI don't think you're limited to only addressing one issue.\nThe Eleventh Circuit applied the Teague bar, and I think that gives the Court reason to look at the Teague issue and to decide the Teague issue.\nI think that you can say that there are two reasons to affirm the Eleventh Circuit, and one of them is a procedural bar, and one of them is the Teague issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2198.35, 2201.968, 2205.837, 2212.074], "stop_times": [2201.968, 2205.837, 2212.074, 2220.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.35}, "reply_to": "20822__1_053", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_055", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "On the Teague issue, it... if... is the reading of Proffitt dispositive of the case?\nIf we disagree with petitioner's counsel and say Proffitt was very, very clear that the judge is the sentencer, is that the end of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2220.179, 2229.619], "stop_times": [2229.619, 2238.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.179}, "reply_to": "20822__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__1_056", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I think that is... a great deal of the case is Proffitt, but also the other sentencing opinions out of Florida that has come from this Court, including Spaziano, where you were looking at the constitutionality of the judge imposing a death sentence when the judge had recommended a life sentence.\nAnd in Spaziano you talk about how that jury recommendation is only advisory, and again you refer to Florida as a judge-sentencing State, and even up through the time of the Walton decision in Arizona, which was decided the same year that Espinosa was decided, this Court continuously refers to Florida as a judge-sentencing State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2238.408, 2254.77], "stop_times": [2254.77, 2274.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.408}, "reply_to": "20822__1_055", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_057", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But Ms. Dittmar, may I just ask this question?\nSometimes you put things in neat categories, either a judge State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2274.398, 2276.266], "stop_times": [2276.266, 2279.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.398}, "reply_to": "20822__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_058", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2279.818], "stop_times": [2280.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.818}, "reply_to": "20822__1_057", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_059", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--or a jury State and so forth, and we use those labels, but is it not correct that as a matter of Florida law the verdict of the jury is a significant part of the procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2280.135], "stop_times": [2288.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.135}, "reply_to": "20822__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_060", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "It is an important part of the procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2288.991], "stop_times": [2291.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.991}, "reply_to": "20822__1_059", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_061", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And it will have an impact presumptively on what the judge does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2291.526], "stop_times": [2295.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.526}, "reply_to": "20822__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_062", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I think necessarily a life recommendation will have a graver impact on what the judge does than a death recommendation.\nThe Florida supreme court in Tedder has said, you have to look at a life recommendation and find whether or not it was a reasonable... there was a reasonable basis to that recommendation.\nIn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2295.578, 2303.267, 2314.225], "stop_times": [2303.267, 2314.225, 2315.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.578}, "reply_to": "20822__1_061", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_063", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Therefore we should assume that if the jury had come in with a life recommendation here, if it... presumably a properly instructed jury might have done so, that would have an impact on the judge, some impact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2315.359], "stop_times": [2327.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.359}, "reply_to": "20822__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_064", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--I think it would have had some impact on the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2327.032], "stop_times": [2329.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.032}, "reply_to": "20822__1_063", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_065", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2329.532], "stop_times": [2329.984], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.532}, "reply_to": "20822__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20822__1_066", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2329.984], "stop_times": [2330.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.984}, "reply_to": "20822__1_065", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_067", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And in fact the judge, as a matter of Florida law, would have had a duty to pay attention to what the jury had said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2330.434], "stop_times": [2335.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.434}, "reply_to": "20822__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_068", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Right.\nWell, as a matter of Florida law the judge still has to make his own independent determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2335.452, 2335.769], "stop_times": [2335.769, 2339.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.452}, "reply_to": "20822__1_067", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_069", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right, I understand, but he doesn't do it as though there were no jury recommendation out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2339.054], "stop_times": [2343.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.054}, "reply_to": "20822__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_070", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "That's correct.\nHe has to take into account the jury recommendation, and I think particularly when the jury is recommending something that differs from his independent analysis of the situation, he has to consider it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2343.422, 2344.072], "stop_times": [2344.072, 2356.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.422}, "reply_to": "20822__1_069", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_071", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "So it's not really independent.\nI mean, these words don't make any sense.\nHe makes his own independent determination, but he has to take into account the jury's determination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2356.064, 2357.48, 2360.099], "stop_times": [2357.48, 2360.099, 2364.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.064}, "reply_to": "20822__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__1_072", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I think he can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2364.634], "stop_times": [2365.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.634}, "reply_to": "20822__1_071", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_073", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--if it disagrees with his independent determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2365.501], "stop_times": [2366.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.501}, "reply_to": "20822__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__1_074", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--I think he can make an independent determination first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2366.501], "stop_times": [2369.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.501}, "reply_to": "20822__1_073", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_075", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Okay, but that won't suffice.\nHe... his own independent determination may be overcome by the fact that the jury's determination to the contrary was a reasonable one.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2369.267, 2372.203, 2381.677], "stop_times": [2372.203, 2381.677, 2382.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.267}, "reply_to": "20822__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__1_076", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "In the situation where the jury has recommended life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2382.344], "stop_times": [2385.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.344}, "reply_to": "20822__1_075", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_077", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.\nWell, it all... it says... great weight is the quote they use, that he's... in page 23 of your opponent's brief it says that, quoting Espinosa quoting Tedder, it says that the Florida law is that the judge has to give great weight to the jury's recommendation, whether of life or death, which are counsel's words.\nNow, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2385.296, 2385.696, 2404.524], "stop_times": [2385.696, 2404.524, 2405.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.296}, "reply_to": "20822__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__1_078", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, there are cases in Florida in dicta where there's been a death recommendation where the Florida supreme court has said a death recommendation is also entitled to the same deference.\nHowever, you don't have the same situation.\nIf the judge... if the jury in Florida recommends a death sentence and the judge imposes a life sentence, then a life sentence is it, and that case is not reviewed by the Florida supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2405.876, 2416.498, 2418.467], "stop_times": [2416.498, 2418.467, 2428.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.876}, "reply_to": "20822__1_077", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_079", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Can you respond to... I have another question which I... I grant you, going through the... this is very... there's the Godfrey, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2428.423], "stop_times": [2436.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.423}, "reply_to": "20822__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_080", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2436.06], "stop_times": [2436.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.06}, "reply_to": "20822__1_079", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_081", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Thirty-eight different case names, and it's sort of like you have to figure out the professor writes ten million equations on the board and then he answers, well, it was obvious.\nI mean, the question is, how obvious is this?\nSo in thinking about that, well, basically there is something working out here which is obvious from, like, Justinian or something, that if you have a jury and the jury decides whether a person's negligent or any other thing, and the jury's misinstructed, you get a new trial, unless the judge says that it was harmless, and it seems as if all these cases represent a working out of that principle and nothing else.\nAnd the only thing was, it wasn't clear for a while whether that basic hornbook principle is applicable through the Eighth Amendment to the States in death penalty cases, and by the late eighties it was clear that it was, and even if it wasn't clear that it was, Stringer says it was clear that it was, and that's the end of the matter, and therefore it's clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2436.643, 2445.665, 2448.081, 2475.731], "stop_times": [2445.665, 2448.081, 2475.731, 2497.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.643}, "reply_to": "20822__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_082", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But what was clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2497.078], "stop_times": [2498.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.078}, "reply_to": "20822__1_081", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_083", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Now, what I want is your response to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2498.078], "stop_times": [2500.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.078}, "reply_to": "20822__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_084", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--I don't think it's clear.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2500.797, 2502.299], "stop_times": [2502.299, 2505.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.797}, "reply_to": "20822__1_083", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_085", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "What is your response to my oversimplified effort to make it clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2505.584], "stop_times": [2509.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.584}, "reply_to": "20822__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_086", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "What is clear is that there is Eighth Amendment error if the jury waives an invalid factor, and under the cases prior to Espinosa, the validity of the factor turned on its application to the facts of a particular case and the way the factor had been interpreted by the State appellate court to give a narrowing definition of the factor.\nIn Espinosa, the validity of the factor all of a sudden turned on the sufficiency of the jury recommendation, or the jury instruction, rather than how the factor was applied and whether it had been narrowed through appellate court decisions.\nThat was a fundamental change new to Espinosa.\nThat did not come from Godfrey, or Maynard or Stringer, or any of those other cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2509.57, 2531.818, 2545.495, 2548.261], "stop_times": [2531.818, 2545.495, 2548.261, 2551.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.57}, "reply_to": "20822__1_085", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_087", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Then this Court should not have disposed or it summarily in a three-page per curiam opinion, because isn't it this Court's ordinary practice not to dispose of a case in that kind of summary way if it's doing something new?\nIsn't it the general practice here that we have full briefing and argument if we're doing something that's genuinely new?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2551.296, 2569.007], "stop_times": [2569.007, 2576.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.296}, "reply_to": "20822__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__1_088", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I think, as the point was made earlier, there had been briefing on the issue in Sochar that the Court examined, but I don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw merely from a summary... the fact that it was a summary opinion in Espinosa to say we would never have made a new rule.\nI'm not sure that the Court fully--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2576.928, 2591.754], "stop_times": [2591.754, 2593.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.928}, "reply_to": "20822__1_087", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_089", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I didn't say never, but a slight... there's a tilt in that direction at least that if the Court thinks this is clear enough that it doesn't have to set the case down for argument, doesn't need briefing beyond the cert petition and brief in opposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2593.39], "stop_times": [2606.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.39}, "reply_to": "20822__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__1_090", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Well, you may have more of an opportunity to create a new rule in a summary disposition because you may not fully understand the implications of the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2606.181], "stop_times": [2614.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.181}, "reply_to": "20822__1_089", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_091", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Then that's a good reason not to dispose of it summarily if we don't fully understand the implications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2614.185], "stop_times": [2619.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.185}, "reply_to": "20822__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20822__1_092", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2619.905], "stop_times": [2620.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.905}, "reply_to": "20822__1_091", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_093", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And then of course we might have--\n--At least it's our stated practice, I assume you would acknowledge from prior decisions and the rules and the text writers on this subject, that at least the Court attempts not to break a lot of new ground on a per curiam.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2620.672, 2621.588], "stop_times": [2621.588, 2638.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.672}, "reply_to": "20822__1_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__1_094", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I'm not personally familiar with where that's stated, but I would certainly defer to that being stated somewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2638.467], "stop_times": [2645.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2638.467}, "reply_to": "20822__1_093", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_095", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "May I ask another question about the merits?\nPart of your submission, as I understand it, is that as a matter of State law the scope of the HAC factor was fairly... had already been narrowed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2645.72, 2647.572], "stop_times": [2647.572, 2656.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.72}, "reply_to": "20822__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_096", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2656.095], "stop_times": [2656.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.095}, "reply_to": "20822__1_095", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_097", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--at the time of this trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2656.095], "stop_times": [2657.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.095}, "reply_to": "20822__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_098", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2657.061], "stop_times": [2657.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.061}, "reply_to": "20822__1_097", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_099", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But the one question I'm not clear on on that, why, then, did the judge give this instruction?\nWhy didn't he give the instruction that you say he clearly should have given as a matter of State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2657.361, 2662.749], "stop_times": [2662.749, 2667.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.361}, "reply_to": "20822__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_100", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, he... I believe the judge did apply the narrow construction from the Florida supreme court.\nThe facts of this case clearly support the narrow construction, and it was found by the trial judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2667.617, 2672.902], "stop_times": [2672.902, 2678.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.617}, "reply_to": "20822__1_099", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_101", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "In other words, you say his instruction was adequate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2678.973], "stop_times": [2681.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.973}, "reply_to": "20822__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_102", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--His construction, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2681.723], "stop_times": [2683.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2681.723}, "reply_to": "20822__1_101", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_103", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "No, I mean the instruction to the jury.\nDo you agree or disagree with your opponent that that was a valid instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2683.525, 2686.127], "stop_times": [2686.127, 2690.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.525}, "reply_to": "20822__1_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_104", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I believe that it was invalid under Espinosa.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2690.179], "stop_times": [2695.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.179}, "reply_to": "20822__1_103", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_105", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.\nWell, was it also invalid under Godfrey?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2695.733, 2696.199], "stop_times": [2696.199, 2699.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.733}, "reply_to": "20822__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_106", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I don't think so, if the facts of the case supported the narrow construction.\nWhat Godfrey said was, the Georgia supreme court... in finding the factor to apply in that case, the Georgia supreme court was applying an inconsistent application of the statute because the facts did not meet the narrow construction that the Georgia supreme court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2699.969, 2704.921], "stop_times": [2704.921, 2721.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2699.969}, "reply_to": "20822__1_105", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_107", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "You're saying in other words that if the facts of the case would have been heinous, atrocious, and cruel, it doesn't really matter what the jury... how the jury was instructed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2721.066], "stop_times": [2729.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.066}, "reply_to": "20822__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20822__1_108", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2729.906], "stop_times": [2730.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.906}, "reply_to": "20822__1_107", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_109", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2730.406], "stop_times": [2730.406], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.406}, "reply_to": "20822__1_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20822__1_110", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And I think under this Court's decision in Cabana v. Bullock, when you said a case which you had to determine at what point there had to be a finding of Enmund under a felony murder situation for the death penalty to be imposed, you said that finding could be made by the appellate court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2730.406], "stop_times": [2746.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.406}, "reply_to": "20822__1_109", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_111", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "No, but your... it seems to me that your argument and your response to Justice Stevens is to say that if there is sufficiency of the evidence to support the proper construction, the error was harmless, but we've rejected that.\nWe have said very clearly that harmless error is not sufficiency of evidence.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2746.999, 2760.223, 2764.711], "stop_times": [2760.223, 2764.711, 2766.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.999}, "reply_to": "20822__1_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__1_112", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, that's true, but I think you have to look at, and especially in a habeas case, the extent to which the error could have injuriously affected the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2766.877], "stop_times": [2778.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2766.877}, "reply_to": "20822__1_111", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_113", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, that may be, but it's still not a sufficiency of evidence standard.\nOne still looks to... in effect to the extent of the damage, whether one looks at it under the Brecht standard or a more... the more demanding standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2778.851, 2782.922], "stop_times": [2782.922, 2792.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.851}, "reply_to": "20822__1_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__1_114", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "That's true, but I think before you get to the harmlessness you have to get to the fundamental question of where the error occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2792.111], "stop_times": [2797.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2792.111}, "reply_to": "20822__1_113", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_115", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "All right--\n--But you don't stop there, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2797.765, 2798.148], "stop_times": [2798.148, 2799.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.765}, "reply_to": "20822__1_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20822__1_116", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "You don't stop there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2799.398], "stop_times": [2800.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2799.398}, "reply_to": "20822__1_115", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_117", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I want to go back for a second to my question, because looking at it as I was doing you'd say, look, all that Godfrey is, is it tells you what the basic error is.\nIt's like making a misinstruction about negligence.\nAnd all Clemons is, it tells you, treat it like a negligence case.\nIt gives you some rules, which are obvious rules, that if the jury makes a mistake because it was misinstructed on the Godfrey issue, like negligence or anything, then of course you have to have a new trial, unless the judge can say for one of three reasons that it made no difference.\nAnd all that Espinosa does is say, Florida, which is a little bit special, is really like a State where the jury decides it.\nAnd in case you had any doubt, Stringer makes clear this very basic rule, the rule from Justinian, is the rule.\nIt was obvious, says Stringer.\nNow, that's a way.\nI know it's not the perfect way, and I know it's overlooking a lot of things, but if I were to look at the case that way, then I would say, yeah, Espinosa's pretty obvious, and this whole thing's obvious enough.\nSo I want to get a direct response to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2800.831, 2809.92, 2812.42, 2816.757, 2833.1, 2841.522, 2853.763, 2855.282, 2857.501, 2869.123], "stop_times": [2809.92, 2812.42, 2816.757, 2833.1, 2841.522, 2853.763, 2855.282, 2857.501, 2869.123, 2872.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.831}, "reply_to": "20822__1_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_118", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "The biggest leap in that analysis is when you say, Florida is like a jury sentencing situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2872.427], "stop_times": [2879.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2872.427}, "reply_to": "20822__1_117", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_119", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Ah, that's the biggest leap.\nOkay.\nIt's at that point that then you look to Espinosa's quote of Tedder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2879.514, 2880.814, 2881.097], "stop_times": [2880.814, 2881.097, 2884.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.514}, "reply_to": "20822__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_120", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2884.651], "stop_times": [2885.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2884.651}, "reply_to": "20822__1_119", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_121", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Then the question is, do you really have to give great weight to the jury, and if we read Tedder and went back and read the earlier Florida cases and thought, gee, it looks as if the judge really is giving weight to the jury and has to, then we would think this is pretty much like a negligence case, and everybody in Florida should have thought that it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2885.101], "stop_times": [2901.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.101}, "reply_to": "20822__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_122", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Except that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2901.361], "stop_times": [2901.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.361}, "reply_to": "20822__1_121", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_123", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And then what would we look at to see the contrary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2901.877], "stop_times": [2904.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.877}, "reply_to": "20822__1_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__1_124", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Except that when you read Tedder, I don't think you're limited to Tedder itself.\nI think you need to read the Florida supreme court decisions that interpret Tedder and that say what they meant by Tedder, and the Florida supreme court has expressly come out and said in Tedder we did not elevate the jury to be a cosentencer in Florida.\nThat was never our intent.\nThe judge has a statutory duty to do an independent, de novo review of the aggravating and the mitigating factors, and the jury recommendation is just that, an advisory recommendation, and the Florida supreme court said that quite strongly in cases where the Eleventh Circuit had found a Caldwell error, a violation that the jury's role was minimized to the jury based on Florida's standard jury instructions.\nFor those reasons, we would ask you to affirm the Eleventh Circuit's opinion.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2904.563, 2908.43, 2922.071, 2923.623, 2947.138, 2952.34], "stop_times": [2908.43, 2922.071, 2923.623, 2947.138, 2952.34, 2953.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.563}, "reply_to": "20822__1_123", "speaker": "carol_m_dittmar"}
{"id": "20822__1_125", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Dittmar.\nMr. Lawry, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2953.142, 2954.575], "stop_times": [2954.575, 2956.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.142}, "reply_to": "20822__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20822__2_000", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "I'd like to briefly address the procedural bar issue.\nThere's two important points about what happened in the trial court in the 3850 proceedings.\nThe claim that was raised there was a Maynard claim that challenged the vagueness of the jury instructions as well as the Florida supreme court's review.\nFurthermore, the trial court denied the State's motion to dismiss, which was based on procedural grounds, so the clear implication of what the trial court did is that it was ruling on the merits of the claim.\nIf there's no further questions, I have nothing additional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2956.827, 2965.766, 2972.337, 2980.775, 2993.333], "stop_times": [2965.766, 2972.337, 2980.775, 2993.333, 2999.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2956.827}, "reply_to": "20822__1_125", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__2_001", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, but the procedural bar is not just failure to raise it at the trial level, is it?\nIt's failure to bring it to the attention of the supreme court, which brings us back to our earlier discussion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [2999.237, 3004.724], "stop_times": [3004.724, 3010.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.237}, "reply_to": "20822__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20822__2_002", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Right, but when a State court rules on the merits... the 3850 proceedings are after the trial.\nWhen a State court rules on the merits in any proceeding, that does away with the procedural bar.\nThey... even though the court perhaps could have applied a procedural bar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3010.712, 3018.966, 3026.305], "stop_times": [3018.966, 3026.305, 3030.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3010.712}, "reply_to": "20822__2_001", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__2_003", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "But that's a question of Florida law, I take it, requires interpretation of what the Florida law is in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3030.773], "stop_times": [3038.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.773}, "reply_to": "20822__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__2_004", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Yes, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3038.446], "stop_times": [3039.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3038.446}, "reply_to": "20822__2_003", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__2_005", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "And the Eleventh Circuit is more familiar with that than we.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3039.963], "stop_times": [3043.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.963}, "reply_to": "20822__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20822__2_006", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "That's correct, and that's why we think the appropriate disposition is to remand after ruling in our favor on the Teague issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3043.331], "stop_times": [3049.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3043.331}, "reply_to": "20822__2_005", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__2_007", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "The part about Espinosa which opposing counsel said was the least obvious was the part about what Florida State law is really like.\nThat is, is the role of judge-jury there really like a judge-jury in a negligence case or some other, or does the judge really make a pretty independent decision?\nNow, what do you think we ought to read on that, just Tedder?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3049.318, 3056.638, 3065.744], "stop_times": [3056.638, 3065.744, 3068.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.318}, "reply_to": "20822__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20822__2_008", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Well, I would read Sochar and the cases cited in Sochar, because there are numerous kinds of jury error that the Florida supreme court has reviewed in death penalty cases... jury instruction error, improper evidence, improper argument.\nIn none of those cases has the court said, oh, well, the jury has... there was error in front of the jury, but the judge did it, okay, so we don't have to concern ourselves with the jury.\nThey've always said, look to see whether the error affected the jury, and that's exactly what should be done in this case, and that shows that it's not just a pure judge case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3068.196, 3083.872, 3094.263], "stop_times": [3083.872, 3094.263, 3105.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3068.196}, "reply_to": "20822__2_007", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__2_009", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Mr. Lawry, can I come back to your response to Justice O'Connor?\nYou say it's... the question of whether there's a procedural bar is a question of State law.\nIf it was a question of State law we have the last word of the supreme court of Florida, which says that this claim is procedurally barred.\nNow, it seems to me that there is an issue whether that assertion by the Florida supreme court is sufficient to establish a procedural bar for Federal purposes, given that a lower Florida court had reached the merits in this other fashion and so forth, but it's clear, is it not, that the Florida supreme court believes this claim to be procedurally barred, as a matter of Florida law?\nNow, you know, they may be wrong as to whether they are... that is good enough to create a Federal bar, but don't we have the word of the Florida supreme court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3105.405, 3108.44, 3113.391, 3120.83, 3143.259], "stop_times": [3108.44, 3113.391, 3120.83, 3143.259, 3151.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.405}, "reply_to": "20822__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20822__2_010", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "--Yes, and a second opportunity, and then the question is whether that's adequate, independent, and whether there's cause and prejudice for any default.\nMy time is up.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3151.682, 3159.371, 3160.538], "stop_times": [3159.371, 3160.538, 3160.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3151.682}, "reply_to": "20822__2_009", "speaker": "matthew_c_lawry"}
{"id": "20822__2_011", "conversation_id": "20822", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lawry.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5658", "start_times": [3160.905, 3162.255], "stop_times": [3162.255, 3163.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.905}, "reply_to": "20822__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_000", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-2024, C. Martin Lawyer, III, v. the Department of Justice.\nMr. Shapiro.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [0.0, 9.297], "stop_times": [9.297, 43.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_001", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn this case, the district court used an unconstitutional process to achieve an unconstitutional result in the form of plan 386.\nBefore commencing my argument, I would like to make a correction in my reply brief which is important in that it's a reference to the record.\nOn page 14 of the reply brief I referred to the preclearance denial letter of the Justice Department as R. 18... I'm sorry, as R. 13, and it's actually in the record at R. 18, and the full text is at R. 18.\nI also would like to just briefly refer to the maps which are attached to the briefs.\nIf I may, the first map we have is Appendix A to the reply brief.\nThis is the legislatively adopted plan which was approved by the Florida supreme court in 1992.\nIt's called SJR 2G.\nThis is District 21 in yellow, which is all encompassed within Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida.\nThe next map we have was the court-ordered plan as a result of the Justice Department's preclearance denial letter.\nThey objected to it.\nAlthough there was absolutely no history of Voting Rights Act violations against black voters in Hillsborough County they were covered under section 5 because in Hillsborough County they did not print ballots in Spanish as well as English.\nSo there was no congressional finding whatsoever of any Voting Rights Act violations against blacks in Hillsborough County, and this is in the record at... let's see, if I may.\nOkay, it's at record at R. 104, which I didn't put in my brief.\nR. 104, page 3, specifically states that.\nYou can see that this district extends into Pinellas County.\nThis is Hillsborough County.\nIt goes into Polk County.\nIt's called the Polk County finger, and we have the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [43.67, 46.543, 57.9, 66.434, 81.875, 87.13, 93.444, 99.11, 101.07, 108.814, 121.193, 123.494, 142.057, 156.649, 166.322, 170.828, 175.109, 176.42, 177.831], "stop_times": [46.543, 57.9, 66.434, 81.875, 87.13, 93.444, 99.11, 101.07, 108.814, 121.193, 123.494, 142.057, 156.649, 166.322, 170.828, 175.109, 176.42, 177.831, 181.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 43.67}, "reply_to": "21280__0_000", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_002", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, is this the district that the Florida supreme court approved, that we're looking at now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [181.104], "stop_times": [186.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.104}, "reply_to": "21280__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_003", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--This... what you're looking at is the district that the Florida supreme court approved under the duress of the Justice Department's letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [186.797], "stop_times": [194.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.797}, "reply_to": "21280__0_002", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_004", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's 4A of the brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [194.604], "stop_times": [197.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.604}, "reply_to": "21280__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__0_005", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [197.384], "stop_times": [198.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.384}, "reply_to": "21280__0_004", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_006", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Of the blue brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [198.175], "stop_times": [199.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 198.175}, "reply_to": "21280__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__0_007", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--This is Appendix B to the brief on the merits for appellant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [199.306], "stop_times": [202.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.306}, "reply_to": "21280__0_006", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_008", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, and this is the one that was superseded by the district that is now in question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [202.848], "stop_times": [206.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.848}, "reply_to": "21280__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21280__0_009", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's correct.\nThis was the one that was challenged by the plaintiff in his lawsuit, so this is the one that was the result of the preclearance denial letter by the Justice Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [206.41, 206.921], "stop_times": [206.921, 216.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.41}, "reply_to": "21280__0_008", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_010", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, I had a question about the challenge and the choice of forum.\nYou are attacking a decision of the Florida supreme court, and you come into a Federal court to do that.\nWas there not a means by which you could have fought out your challenge to a district created by the Florida supreme court in the Florida State system so you wouldn't have the embarrassment of a Federal court being faced with a decision of the Florida supreme court that it was impelled to reject?\nCould you have gotten a remedy by appealing to the State system rather than running to the Federal courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [216.258, 220.059, 230.858, 258.274], "stop_times": [220.059, 230.858, 258.274, 268.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.258}, "reply_to": "21280__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_011", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No, Your Honor, because this was a challenge based on what the Justice Department had forced the Florida supreme court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [268.502], "stop_times": [277.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.502}, "reply_to": "21280__0_010", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_012", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But that doesn't tell me why you couldn't say... I mean, the Equal Protection Clause governs the State of Florida, as it does the Nation.\nWhy couldn't you then go into the State court system, make precisely the argument made in the Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [277.24, 283.521], "stop_times": [283.521, 289.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.24}, "reply_to": "21280__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_013", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--First of all, the Florida supreme court did not reserve jurisdiction over this issue.\nIt reserved jurisdiction when it approved this district in 597 So.2d.\nIf you read the opinion of the Florida supreme court it says, we reserve jurisdiction.\nBut when it approved 330 at the insistence of the Justice Department it did not reserve jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [289.716, 293.398, 299.673, 303.586], "stop_times": [293.398, 299.673, 303.586, 310.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.716}, "reply_to": "21280__0_012", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_014", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I don't mean in that case.\nBring the case... bring another case, in which you're saying, Florida supreme court, we know you've got precedent, but you were acting under the gun of the Department of Justice, so we want to free you from that thrall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [310.432, 312.292], "stop_times": [312.292, 325.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.432}, "reply_to": "21280__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_015", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the only thing I can say is that the plaintiff had the right to contest this district in U.S. district court, and under the Voting Rights Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [325.751], "stop_times": [336.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 325.751}, "reply_to": "21280__0_014", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_016", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, I appreciate that you did, but there was a certain anomaly in you coming to a Federal court to in effect override a decision of the State court and then say that the Federal court has not been sufficiently respectful of the State authorities.\nMaybe you haven't in coming to the Federal court rather than a State court for the solution to your problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [336.208, 355.06], "stop_times": [355.06, 361.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.208}, "reply_to": "21280__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_017", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, that issue was resolved in the trial court.\nThere were motions... there were actually motions to dismiss filed by the Attorney General in the State of Florida asserting that position.\nThose were denied by the district court, and that was not appealed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [361.195, 364.685, 372.551], "stop_times": [364.685, 372.551, 375.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.195}, "reply_to": "21280__0_016", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_018", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Do you think you would have had much of a chance had you gone into a Florida trial court and said that what the Florida supreme court did was a mistake?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [375.594], "stop_times": [382.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.594}, "reply_to": "21280__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_019", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I don't know that a Florida trial court would have jurisdiction in the Voting Rights Act case, Your Honor.\nI just don't know.\nI don't think so.\nI think this would be exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal district court, and Mr. Lawyer had a right to make a Shaw claim in the U.S. district court, and again, there was a motion filed by the Attorney General to abstain, to transfer because of the DeGrandy litigation, which was in progress at the time.\nThis district... this plan was in U.S. district court in the Northern District.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [382.657, 387.912, 389.393, 389.913, 407.974], "stop_times": [387.912, 389.393, 389.913, 407.974, 414.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 382.657}, "reply_to": "21280__0_018", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_020", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, may I just clarify, is anybody now claiming that plan should be defended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [414.129], "stop_times": [417.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.129}, "reply_to": "21280__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21280__0_021", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, yes.\nThe... in fact, and that's a critical aspect of this case, is that the... at no time in this litigation did... was there ever an adjudication that this plan was unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [417.952, 419.462], "stop_times": [419.462, 430.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.952}, "reply_to": "21280__0_020", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_022", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I understand, but is anybody now claiming that it is constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [430.19], "stop_times": [432.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.19}, "reply_to": "21280__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21280__0_023", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, because what they're saying, they reserve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [432.963], "stop_times": [435.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.963}, "reply_to": "21280__0_022", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_024", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And if so, who?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [435.794], "stop_times": [436.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.794}, "reply_to": "21280__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21280__0_025", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--The Attorney General... I'm sorry.\nThe State appellants at the least, specifically in their settlement agreement said, we do not acknowledge that 330 is unconstitutional, and we have a right... if their settlement plan was rejected, they retained the right to contest that 330 was unconstitutional, and that's a key aspect of this case, in that there was never an adjudication of liability that that 330--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [436.676, 439.126], "stop_times": [439.126, 465.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.676}, "reply_to": "21280__0_024", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_026", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I thought in this Court though they don't contest that it's unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [465.274], "stop_times": [470.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.274}, "reply_to": "21280__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_027", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I believe they do.\nThey do not concede that 330 was unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [470.127, 470.838], "stop_times": [470.838, 474.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.127}, "reply_to": "21280__0_026", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_028", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But how does that bear on the arguments you're trying to make?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [474.769], "stop_times": [476.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.769}, "reply_to": "21280__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_029", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It doesn't bear on the arguments.\nI do not... they do not admit that 330 is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [476.832, 478.362], "stop_times": [478.362, 482.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.832}, "reply_to": "21280__0_028", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_030", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But then, why don't we go to the district which basically we're talking about here, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [482.766], "stop_times": [488.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.766}, "reply_to": "21280__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_031", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's correct.\nThis is 386.\nThis was the settlement plan that was approved by the Federal court.\nNow, you can see what happened with the map that was produced at the \"fairness hearing\".\nThere's no political subdivisions that are even included in this, when you talk about disrespect for political subdivisions.\nHere's Tampa Bay.\nIt's a huge body of water.\nAlthough there's the shoreline which is depicted, it doesn't really reflect which portion of Pinellas County... Pinellas County is over here.\nYou don't know that because it's not on here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [488.409, 488.569, 490.009, 494.173, 498.778, 504.971, 505.763, 507.064, 517.419], "stop_times": [488.569, 490.009, 494.173, 498.778, 504.971, 505.763, 507.064, 517.419, 518.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.409}, "reply_to": "21280__0_030", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_032", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "We can't tell where Tampa Bay is on that map.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [518.902], "stop_times": [521.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.902}, "reply_to": "21280__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21280__0_033", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, that's the whole purpose of our map.\nWe have enhanced the map.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [521.582, 523.794], "stop_times": [523.794, 525.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.582}, "reply_to": "21280__0_032", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_034", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "We now know where Tampa Bay is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [525.567], "stop_times": [527.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.567}, "reply_to": "21280__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_035", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "This is a rather large body of water.\nNow, if... I'm sorry everybody can't see it, but this is... you can now see the contours, for the first time, of the district.\nThe district is a tiny portion of Pinellas County over here.\nI'm referring now to Appendix B of the brief on the merits for the appellants.\nThis is in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [527.737, 529.758, 536.573, 540.266, 544.439], "stop_times": [529.758, 536.573, 540.266, 544.439, 544.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.737}, "reply_to": "21280__0_034", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_036", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's where St. Petersburg is, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [544.96], "stop_times": [546.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.96}, "reply_to": "21280__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_037", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nYes sir.\nSt. Petersburg is over here, and that is a portion of Pinellas County, but this is all Pinellas County.\nThey chose this portion of Pinellas County.\nNow, what they did was, they eliminated that part that went over to Polk County, but they retained this at the insistence of the Justice Department.\nNow, if you look at this little spit of land here, this was included as well, so it goes all the way across, and if you look back at the plan that was presented to the court, it looks like one contiguous compact piece of land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [546.811, 547.031, 547.582, 554.477, 557.2, 564.152], "stop_times": [547.031, 547.582, 554.477, 557.2, 564.152, 577.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.811}, "reply_to": "21280__0_036", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_038", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But much of that is the lake, is what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [577.582], "stop_times": [579.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.582}, "reply_to": "21280__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__0_039", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [579.432], "stop_times": [579.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.432}, "reply_to": "21280__0_038", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_040", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And you're suggesting that the judges down there didn't know where Tampa Bay was.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [579.742, 583.836], "stop_times": [583.836, 584.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.742}, "reply_to": "21280__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21280__0_041", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I don't know.\nJudge Tjoflat said, well, we assume there's no houseboats there.\nThat's what he said in... at the fairness hearing.\nWell, there are no... they have a lot of fish there, and they don't vote.\n[Laughter]\nBut as we... as Mr. Lawyer made clear this is only part of the picture though, the shape of the map and irregular aspect of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [584.707, 585.358, 588.129, 591.613, 593.856, 594.477], "stop_times": [585.358, 588.129, 591.613, 593.856, 594.477, 604.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.707}, "reply_to": "21280__0_040", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_042", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Is that unusual in Florida, to have a district separated by a body of water?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [604.822], "stop_times": [610.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.822}, "reply_to": "21280__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_043", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, it is not unusual to be separated by a body of water, but it's a totally different proposition when there... when a district has to be... a piece of land has to be in some district, say in an island and the Florida supreme court stated this in their original decision.\nThey said, look, in Florida there's a lot of water, so just because a district encompasses water doesn't necessarily make it noncontiguous.\nIt's another proposition for the district to artificially reach over this huge body of water for the specific exclusive purpose of including black voters in order to boost the population of the entire district, and that was the exact purpose of the designers of this plan, was to go across at this highly dense black community in Pinellas, where they had been in their own district.\nIn fact, it's truly emblematic of this case that if you look at 21, whereas under their plan they presented to the court, the number 21 was in yellow, now the two is submerged in water, so it's... so they have jumped across Tampa Bay and taken these counties, which used to be in other districts.\nThey were in other districts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [610.386, 623.827, 631.701, 657.958, 677.533], "stop_times": [623.827, 631.701, 657.958, 677.533, 678.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 610.386}, "reply_to": "21280__0_042", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_044", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But you're not claiming now, as I think was the case in the earlier district, that they put together rural areas with urban areas on both sides of the rivers, or the bay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [678.762], "stop_times": [689.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.762}, "reply_to": "21280__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_045", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No.\nAs a matter of fact, that was eliminated, this finger, but when you create a monster, you can cut the fingers off, it's still a monster.\nThis finger was cut off that led to Polk County, which was rural, but the NAACP opposed the plan of joining Pinellas County over here, because they said there's not even a cohesive black community in the Tampa-Hillsborough area, much less the Pinellas area.\nThey opposed it.\nBut what the Justice Department did was, it insisted that in order to create an additional majority district, that they must join the populations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [689.88, 690.62, 697.135, 717.688, 719.901], "stop_times": [690.62, 697.135, 717.688, 719.901, 728.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.88}, "reply_to": "21280__0_044", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_046", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I thought this wasn't a majority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [728.657], "stop_times": [730.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.657}, "reply_to": "21280__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_047", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It is not a majority, but the purpose was to create a majority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [730.958], "stop_times": [734.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.958}, "reply_to": "21280__0_046", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_048", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Why did the NAACP oppose it?\nWhat was... why did they think that would harm the interests of the black voters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [734.771, 736.541], "stop_times": [736.541, 740.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.771}, "reply_to": "21280__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__0_049", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Because they... they were correct.\nThis plan... this is striking.\nSixty-four percent of all Pinellas County's blacks are now in plan 386.\nEven more, 74 percent of Manatee County's blacks are in the plan, so they bleach... and the NAACP said, look, you re bleaching the surrounding areas of their influence, because you're taking a pocket of black voters, and you're forcing them into that plan where they don't belong.\nNow, the Justice Department--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [740.254, 741.476, 744.488, 752.202, 770.484], "stop_times": [741.476, 744.488, 752.202, 770.484, 772.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.254}, "reply_to": "21280__0_048", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_050", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Before you leave that, may I just ask, does the NAACP... are they a party to the appeal?\nThey don't challenge it now, do they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [772.785, 777.099], "stop_times": [777.099, 778.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.785}, "reply_to": "21280__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21280__0_051", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--No.\nThey are not a party to this appeal, and they were not involved in this litigation.\nBut when the... here's the point.\nWhen the Florida supreme court considered the idea, at the insistence of the Justice Department, that they cross Tampa Bay to pick up this pocket of black voters, the Florida supreme court in the 601 So.2d copy said, but these... this is not a compact group of black voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [778.849, 779.21, 782.953, 784.606], "stop_times": [779.21, 782.953, 784.606, 806.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.849}, "reply_to": "21280__0_050", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_052", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, let me understand.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [806.28, 807.579], "stop_times": [807.579, 807.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.28}, "reply_to": "21280__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_053", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [807.99], "stop_times": [808.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.99}, "reply_to": "21280__0_052", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_054", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--You're talking about the NAACP opposition to the plan that the Florida supreme court adopted, the one that we saw before with the finger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [808.22], "stop_times": [815.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.22}, "reply_to": "21280__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_055", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [815.656], "stop_times": [816.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 815.656}, "reply_to": "21280__0_054", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_056", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--and that was a concern with packing into that district, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [816.257], "stop_times": [821.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.257}, "reply_to": "21280__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_057", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "This plan, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [821.172], "stop_times": [821.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.172}, "reply_to": "21280__0_056", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_058", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But we have nothing to say that the NAACP opposes the plan that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [821.71], "stop_times": [827.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.71}, "reply_to": "21280__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_059", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [827.166], "stop_times": [827.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.166}, "reply_to": "21280__0_058", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_060", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--court approved, that the Federal court approved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [827.457], "stop_times": [829.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.457}, "reply_to": "21280__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_061", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No, we don't.\nBut those comments that they made before the Florida supreme court are directly relevant to this case, because they said... they said to the court they objected to any plan... any plan which would cross Tampa Bay and join these populations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [829.617, 829.787], "stop_times": [829.787, 844.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.617}, "reply_to": "21280__0_060", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_062", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But they objected because to do so was packing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [844.777], "stop_times": [848.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.777}, "reply_to": "21280__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21280__0_063", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [848.297], "stop_times": [848.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.297}, "reply_to": "21280__0_062", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_064", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And if the packing is now less, I don't know that it follows that they still find it objectionable.\nYou've only got... your district is what, 30-some-odd percent black now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [848.838, 853.452], "stop_times": [853.452, 856.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.838}, "reply_to": "21280__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21280__0_065", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It's 36-percent black.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [856.983], "stop_times": [857.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.983}, "reply_to": "21280__0_064", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_066", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "So I don't know that there... I don't know that we can infer that there's... that they would still object, when in fact they have not done so.\nOr that it makes any difference whether they object or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [857.654, 863.859], "stop_times": [863.859, 865.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.654}, "reply_to": "21280__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21280__0_067", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I'm just pointing that out to say that there was a substantial... that the Florida supreme court was saying, we do not believe that we're obeying our traditional neutral districting principles by doing this, but we're doing it because under duress of the Justice Department--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [865.561], "stop_times": [882.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.561}, "reply_to": "21280__0_066", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_068", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I'm sorry to get you into this, Mr. Shapiro.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [882.291], "stop_times": [883.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.291}, "reply_to": "21280__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__0_069", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [883.55], "stop_times": [883.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.55}, "reply_to": "21280__0_068", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_070", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I was just curious.\nYou shouldn't waste a whole lot of your time on it.\nI was just curious as to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [883.71, 884.651, 886.163], "stop_times": [884.651, 886.163, 887.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.71}, "reply_to": "21280__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__0_071", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [887.554], "stop_times": [888.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 887.554}, "reply_to": "21280__0_070", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_072", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--why the NAACP would seem to be on the other side of this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [888.044], "stop_times": [890.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.044}, "reply_to": "21280__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__0_073", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [890.115], "stop_times": [890.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.115}, "reply_to": "21280__0_072", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_074", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I understand it now.\nWell, could you explain what your position here is?\nYou say you never consented to this final plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [890.375, 891.437, 895.589], "stop_times": [891.437, 895.589, 899.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.375}, "reply_to": "21280__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__0_075", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [899.592], "stop_times": [900.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.592}, "reply_to": "21280__0_074", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_076", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--386, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [900.103], "stop_times": [901.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.103}, "reply_to": "21280__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_077", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "We never consented to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [901.375], "stop_times": [902.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.375}, "reply_to": "21280__0_076", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_078", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--that you've never agreed with it, and that you did not get relief at the State level, and you assert that the plan, 386, violates this Court's constitutional standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [902.074], "stop_times": [914.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.074}, "reply_to": "21280__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_079", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's correct, and it does so for several reasons.\nNumber 1, this was called a hybrid consent decree.\nThat's what the majority of the court called this.\nThe notion of the consent decree, however, is you have to have consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [914.532, 916.134, 920.438, 923.37], "stop_times": [916.134, 920.438, 923.37, 926.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 914.532}, "reply_to": "21280__0_078", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_080", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And your client did not consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [926.392], "stop_times": [929.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 926.392}, "reply_to": "21280__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_081", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [929.354], "stop_times": [929.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 929.354}, "reply_to": "21280__0_080", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_082", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Although was a party below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [929.714], "stop_times": [930.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.714}, "reply_to": "21280__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_083", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's correct, and he objected to it.\nHe objected ad nauseam to 386, and he insisted upon an adjudication that 330 be declared unconstitutional.\nWhat the court did was, instead it made a conscious decision that instead of actually adjudicating 330 unconstitutional, that it would submit the matter to mediation, and the purpose of the mediation was to allow the parties to come up with a remedy or a substitute plan.\nThe problem is, that does an end run around the Florida legislature, which in the traditional cases that this Court has said over and over and over, including Miller, this Court has said it's the province of the State legislature--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [930.846, 932.616, 939.901, 960.834], "stop_times": [932.616, 939.901, 960.834, 972.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.846}, "reply_to": "21280__0_082", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_084", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But is it not true that if there had been a finding of violation, and then after hearings the court had imposed this plan, you would still make precisely the same objections you're making now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [972.782], "stop_times": [983.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.782}, "reply_to": "21280__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21280__0_085", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [983.05], "stop_times": [983.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.05}, "reply_to": "21280__0_084", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_086", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But... so if you win... well, you started by saying this is not a good plan, the new plan.\nYou win or you lose.\nAll right.\nSo if you win that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [983.48, 988.903, 989.604, 989.905], "stop_times": [988.903, 989.604, 989.905, 991.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.48}, "reply_to": "21280__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_087", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "If I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [991.056], "stop_times": [991.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 991.056}, "reply_to": "21280__0_086", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_088", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--So if you win that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [991.196], "stop_times": [991.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 991.196}, "reply_to": "21280__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_089", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--in the way it was done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [991.407], "stop_times": [992.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 991.407}, "reply_to": "21280__0_088", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_090", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I under... let's... suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [992.105], "stop_times": [993.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.105}, "reply_to": "21280__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_091", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [993.968], "stop_times": [994.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.968}, "reply_to": "21280__0_090", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_092", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Suppose we were to say that this new plan violated the Constitution... you know, the cases we've held... you'd win and that would be the end of it, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [994.338], "stop_times": [1002.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.338}, "reply_to": "21280__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_093", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1002.804], "stop_times": [1002.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.804}, "reply_to": "21280__0_092", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_094", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "All right.\nNow suppose we were to say the opposite, that you lose if this plan's okay constitutionally.\nNow, is that the end of this case as far as you're concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1002.964, 1003.245, 1007.869], "stop_times": [1003.245, 1007.869, 1011.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.964}, "reply_to": "21280__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_095", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I would take the position that Mr. Lawyer... that's a complicated question, because in a usual consent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1011.633], "stop_times": [1017.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.633}, "reply_to": "21280__0_094", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_096", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No, I mean, because you could say now that this is what you really wanted.\nYou wanted an adjudication of whether this plan is good or bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1017.446, 1020.389], "stop_times": [1020.389, 1022.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.446}, "reply_to": "21280__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_097", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1022.95], "stop_times": [1023.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1022.95}, "reply_to": "21280__0_096", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_098", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And that would eliminate a whole set of complex procedural issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1023.23], "stop_times": [1026.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.23}, "reply_to": "21280__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_099", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1026.941], "stop_times": [1027.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.941}, "reply_to": "21280__0_098", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_100", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "So what I think you're going to say is no, that isn't the end.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1027.151], "stop_times": [1029.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.151}, "reply_to": "21280__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_101", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1029.124], "stop_times": [1029.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1029.124}, "reply_to": "21280__0_100", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_102", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Okay.\nNow, if that isn't the end of it, why not precisely, because now what you're doing is, you're attacking the procedure, so even if this is a good result, the procedure was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1029.821, 1030.453], "stop_times": [1030.453, 1040.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.821}, "reply_to": "21280__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_103", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's... it's wrong on both counts.\nThe procedure was wrong because the footprint of the Federal judiciary, in this case the district court, was put on the process and a coercive order was entered without any adjudication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1040.471, 1042.131], "stop_times": [1042.131, 1052.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.471}, "reply_to": "21280__0_102", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_104", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "All right.\nNow, my question on that is this.\nSuppose the four people, Mr. Scott, Mr. Hargrett, Mrs. Simms, and Mr. James, and your client, five people... now an imaginary case... an imaginary case.\nThose five people sue somebody for something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1052.999, 1053.579, 1054.571, 1065.928], "stop_times": [1053.579, 1054.571, 1065.928, 1068.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.999}, "reply_to": "21280__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_105", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1068.349], "stop_times": [1069.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1068.349}, "reply_to": "21280__0_104", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_106", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And they want an injunction, and now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1069.03], "stop_times": [1072.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.03}, "reply_to": "21280__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_107", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "From the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1072.122], "stop_times": [1072.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1072.122}, "reply_to": "21280__0_106", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_108", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Yes.\nThey want... I'm just making up a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1072.603, 1072.783], "stop_times": [1072.783, 1074.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.603}, "reply_to": "21280__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_109", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1074.352], "stop_times": [1074.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.352}, "reply_to": "21280__0_108", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_110", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "They sue somebody.\nMr. White they sue, okay, and they say, Mr. White, you're doing a bad thing here, and he says no I'm not, and now they say, four of the five, not your client but the other four say, we'll settle.\nWhite says, I won't settle if I have to admit I was wrong.\nWe won't make you admit it.\nOkay.\nSo four of them settle with Mr. White, and the judge then simply enters a decree embodying their settlement which doesn't admit liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1074.533, 1075.684, 1087.492, 1091.656, 1093.616, 1094.878], "stop_times": [1075.684, 1087.492, 1091.656, 1093.616, 1094.878, 1102.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.533}, "reply_to": "21280__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_111", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1102.823], "stop_times": [1103.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.823}, "reply_to": "21280__0_110", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_112", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Common, garden variety, every day of the week.\nThe fifth person doesn't agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1103.183, 1105.366], "stop_times": [1105.366, 1107.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.183}, "reply_to": "21280__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_113", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1107.588], "stop_times": [1108.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.588}, "reply_to": "21280__0_112", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_114", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I can understand why the fifth person can attack the merits.\nHe can say, Mr. White, you're doing a bad thing still.\nBut I don't understand how that fifth person could object to the fact that the other four have settled with Mr. White.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1108.427, 1110.77, 1113.482], "stop_times": [1110.77, 1113.482, 1119.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.427}, "reply_to": "21280__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_115", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "The answer to your question is that a nonconsenting plaintiff cannot have substantive issues resolved against them in the context of a consent decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1119.094], "stop_times": [1128.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.094}, "reply_to": "21280__0_114", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_116", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, doesn't it happen every day of the week that people are in cases where they have 10 plaintiffs, 9 of them settle, the judge looks it over, he says, this is fine.\nThe tenth one doesn't agree, so the judge says, okay, tenth one, you don't have to agree.\nYou can maintain your suit, but I'm entering the decree as to the other nine.\nThat's fair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1128.652, 1137.197, 1140.259, 1143.712], "stop_times": [1137.197, 1140.259, 1143.712, 1144.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.652}, "reply_to": "21280__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_117", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "As to the other nine, but Mr. Lawyer lives in 386, and in fact he's the only plaintiff in this case who had standing to challenge 330.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1144.443], "stop_times": [1151.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1144.443}, "reply_to": "21280__0_116", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_118", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But didn't the district court rule against him on the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1151.967], "stop_times": [1155.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1151.967}, "reply_to": "21280__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_119", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Exactly.\nIt's a coercive order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1155.159, 1155.34], "stop_times": [1155.34, 1156.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1155.159}, "reply_to": "21280__0_118", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_120", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1156.551], "stop_times": [1157.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.551}, "reply_to": "21280__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_121", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "They couched it in terms of a consent decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1157.142], "stop_times": [1158.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1157.142}, "reply_to": "21280__0_120", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_122", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--But you've been arguing now for 20 minutes.\nYou've only got 10 minutes left, and you challenged the decree on the merits, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1158.932, 1160.915], "stop_times": [1160.915, 1165.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.932}, "reply_to": "21280__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_123", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1165.988], "stop_times": [1166.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.988}, "reply_to": "21280__0_122", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_124", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Why don't you get to that part of your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1166.238], "stop_times": [1168.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.238}, "reply_to": "21280__0_123", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_125", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I will.\nThe... 330 itself... 386 was approved by the court.\nNow, what our position is on this case is that, as I said, the original district, 330, was never declared unconstitutional, but it was a product of coercion by the Justice Department.\nNow, what happened here is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1168.209, 1168.459, 1178.397, 1192.577], "stop_times": [1168.459, 1178.397, 1192.577, 1193.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.209}, "reply_to": "21280__0_124", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_126", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Why does that bear at all on the validity of the most recent plan, the court-ordered plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1193.797], "stop_times": [1200.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1193.797}, "reply_to": "21280__0_125", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_127", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Because... it absolutely does, because the coercive order of a Federal court is based upon adjudication.\nA Federal court can only order a remedy where there has been an adjudication, or there has been some admission of liability.\nHere, there was never an admission of liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1200.212, 1205.745, 1212.21], "stop_times": [1205.745, 1212.21, 1214.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.212}, "reply_to": "21280__0_126", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_128", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, since you are making much of this point, Mr. Lawyer submitted a statement together with Plaintiff Scott and others, a statement of the case, representing to the district court as a result of this Court's decision in the Miller case there are no issues of law to be decided by the court in this matter.\nAccordingly, the only issue which would remain for the court to decide at the trial on this matter is the issue of the appropriate remedy.\nNow, it seems to me that your first point about how the court has to declare the old district unconstitutional, this is a stipulation that your client joined and said, court, we all agree there's nothing for you to decide but the remedy for this constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1214.21, 1236.906, 1245.202], "stop_times": [1236.906, 1245.202, 1262.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1214.21}, "reply_to": "21280__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_129", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "By the remedy he meant how much time... this... how much time the court should give the legislature to decide what the replacement plan would be.\nHe did not specify that the court should actually decide what the plan should be, so he didn't... he said the remedy, meaning how much time to give the court, how much time to give the legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1262.191, 1272.059], "stop_times": [1272.059, 1283.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.191}, "reply_to": "21280__0_128", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_130", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Accordingly, the only issue for the court to decide at the trial... at the trial... is the issue of the appropriate remedy.\nDo you have a trial on how much time to give the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1283.959, 1291.163], "stop_times": [1291.163, 1292.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.959}, "reply_to": "21280__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_131", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "There was never a trial period in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1292.963], "stop_times": [1294.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.963}, "reply_to": "21280__0_130", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_132", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--But I'm just reading the stipulation, trying to find out what that means.\nOne thing it says, there's no issue of law dividing the parties.\nThere's only the question of the appropriate remedy, and that's for trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1294.996, 1298.737, 1302.4], "stop_times": [1298.737, 1302.4, 1306.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.996}, "reply_to": "21280__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_133", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "What he meant by that was that he... the remedy meaning the court should determine... assuming that there's an unconstitutional district, the court should then determine how it's supposed to act, and it's supposed to act by referring it back to the legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1306.563], "stop_times": [1318.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.563}, "reply_to": "21280__0_132", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_134", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I'm still so confused by your position here.\nDo you want this Court to just focus on the fact that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1318.992, 1323.844], "stop_times": [1323.844, 1328.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.992}, "reply_to": "21280__0_133", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_135", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1328.326], "stop_times": [1328.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.326}, "reply_to": "21280__0_134", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_136", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Wait a minute.\nYou didn't even hear the question, and you've already answered it.\nDo you want to hear the question and then answer it?\nYou appear to be here arguing that the procedure followed by the Federal district court was erroneous because it didn't first find unconstitutionality of plan 330, and furthermore it did not then await an opportunity for the legislature to adopt its own plan, so much of the argument centers on that.\nOn the other hand, do you have an argument here at all to the effect that, irrespective of that, what the court ended up with by virtue of the agreement of the other parties, other than Lawyer, is itself unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1328.477, 1329.168, 1331.568, 1333.54, 1363.641], "stop_times": [1329.168, 1331.568, 1333.54, 1363.641, 1380.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.477}, "reply_to": "21280__0_135", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_137", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, I get to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1380.815], "stop_times": [1381.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.815}, "reply_to": "21280__0_136", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_138", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Do you get to both of those arguments or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1381.586], "stop_times": [1384.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.586}, "reply_to": "21280__0_137", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_139", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1384.328], "stop_times": [1384.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1384.328}, "reply_to": "21280__0_138", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_140", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I'm just so confused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1384.738], "stop_times": [1385.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.738}, "reply_to": "21280__0_139", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__0_141", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, we do.\nWhat happened in this case, the Court in approving plan 386 did not adequately apply the Miller standards.\nThey held... instead of determining and applying those... that case very carefully they said, well, 386 is better than 330, so we're going to approve it.\nThey said that it was benign and statute satisfactorily tidy, because it was better than 330.\nThat's not an accurate... an adequate application of Miller.\nInstead of using the community of interest analysis in Miller in looking at the actual objective evidence in terms of what these communities are, they held... they used a fairness hearing as a referendum and said, well, we're... because we have a fairness hearing and we've put a notice in the newspaper that anybody who wants to contest 386 could come to the court and do that, the court in this case, the district court said, well, nobody showed up and objected to plan 386, so therefore there must be a community of interest.\nThe statistics of the case are also important.\nThe statistics are that although 330 had 45 percent black voters of V.A.P., this plan had 36 percent, so that a significant number of black voters were moved from their place over here in Pinellas County into District 21 when they normally would not be there.\nThere was no... and one of the key aspects is... I know I've harped on this, but in adopting the procedure that the court used of using mediation in a secret sessions to design this plan, in effect there is no report or any evidence of the exact factors that the designers of the plan used.\nMiller absolutely mandates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1385.65, 1386.38, 1394.004, 1405.885, 1411.551, 1414.984, 1441.661, 1446.856, 1465.325, 1488.863], "stop_times": [1386.38, 1394.004, 1405.885, 1411.551, 1414.984, 1441.661, 1446.856, 1465.325, 1488.863, 1490.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.65}, "reply_to": "21280__0_140", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_142", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Wasn't there one point that you had an opportunity to examine the designer of the plan?\nAm I right that it was the State Senate's expert that was the designer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1490.954, 1499.139], "stop_times": [1499.139, 1503.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.954}, "reply_to": "21280__0_141", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_143", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Correct.\nHe... his report went into the record, and I will tell you that Mr. Lawyer was threatened with sanctions in this case if he divulged the contents of the negotiation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1503.372, 1503.592], "stop_times": [1503.592, 1514.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.372}, "reply_to": "21280__0_142", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_144", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Was he... did he have an opportunity to examine this witness and say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1514.729], "stop_times": [1520.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.729}, "reply_to": "21280__0_143", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_145", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes.\nYes, he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1520.943, 1521.103], "stop_times": [1521.103, 1521.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.943}, "reply_to": "21280__0_144", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_146", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--no, I don't choose to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1521.484], "stop_times": [1522.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.484}, "reply_to": "21280__0_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_147", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, he did.\nHe did, but there was... he was permitted to cross-examine the witness, but there was no oral testimony at that... there was no one under oath, there was no oral testimony whatsoever at the fairness hearing, and there were no findings of fact, which is the most critical aspect of this case, really.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1522.313, 1523.054], "stop_times": [1523.054, 1536.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1522.313}, "reply_to": "21280__0_146", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_148", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Did Mr. Lawyer have an opportunity to say, I want to call witness X, Y, and Z, I want to cross-examine, and was denied that opportunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1536.813], "stop_times": [1546.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.813}, "reply_to": "21280__0_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_149", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "He wasn't denied the right to call witnesses, but there... this was not... the judge was asked at the pre-trial conference, is this going to be an evidentiary hearing?\nHe said, I suppose you could find a judge somewhere who liked to hear evidence, but no, this is not an evidentiary hearing.\nSo he specifically ruled that this would not be an evidentiary hearing, so to say that Mr. Lawyer had a burden at that hearing to prove the district unconstitutional, or that he failed to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1546.05, 1553.246, 1558.811], "stop_times": [1553.246, 1558.811, 1572.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1546.05}, "reply_to": "21280__0_148", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_150", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "He was the plaintiff in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1572.399], "stop_times": [1573.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1572.399}, "reply_to": "21280__0_149", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_151", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Yes, but the plan was never properly before the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1573.661], "stop_times": [1576.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1573.661}, "reply_to": "21280__0_150", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_152", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Where was it that he had the opportunity to cross-examine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1576.343], "stop_times": [1580.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.343}, "reply_to": "21280__0_151", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_153", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "At the fairness hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1580.704], "stop_times": [1581.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1580.704}, "reply_to": "21280__0_152", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_154", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "So there was testimony taken there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1581.715], "stop_times": [1584.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.715}, "reply_to": "21280__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_155", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "There was no testimony.\nIt was a hearing, and it was not an evidentiary hearing, and it's clear that Judge Merryday stated at the pretrial conference this will not be an evidentiary hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1584.968, 1585.999], "stop_times": [1585.999, 1593.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1584.968}, "reply_to": "21280__0_154", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_156", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well then, how would he have had a chance to cross-examine him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1593.934], "stop_times": [1596.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.934}, "reply_to": "21280__0_155", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_157", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1596.708], "stop_times": [1597.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.708}, "reply_to": "21280__0_156", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_158", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But I thought you said he did have a chance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1597.267], "stop_times": [1599.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.267}, "reply_to": "21280__0_157", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_159", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, he was given a chance by the judge.\nGuthrie, the person for the State, he didn't testify.\nHe put his affidavit in the record and Judge Tjoflat said, we'll consider that his direct testimony.\nIf you want to cross-examine him, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1599.25, 1600.902, 1605.306, 1610.361], "stop_times": [1600.902, 1605.306, 1610.361, 1613.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1599.25}, "reply_to": "21280__0_158", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_160", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And your client declined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1613.253], "stop_times": [1614.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.253}, "reply_to": "21280__0_159", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_161", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Declined, but that was not an evidentiary hearing, so to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1614.783], "stop_times": [1617.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1614.783}, "reply_to": "21280__0_160", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_162", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, it was certainly the next best thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1617.905], "stop_times": [1619.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.905}, "reply_to": "21280__0_161", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_163", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--The next best thing, but he had no burden to prove plan 386 was unconstitutional, because plan 386 was never properly before the court.\nBecause they did an end run around the legislature, it was never referred to the legislature.\nTherefore, to say that he had a duty or a burden at all at that hearing is incorrect.\nHe had no burden under Miller or anywhere else to prove that that district was unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1619.337, 1627.462, 1632.265, 1637.81], "stop_times": [1627.462, 1632.265, 1637.81, 1642.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.337}, "reply_to": "21280__0_162", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_164", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Was the judge not told by the representatives of the legislature that the legislature just wasn't going to do anything about this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1642.403], "stop_times": [1650.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.403}, "reply_to": "21280__0_163", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_165", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1650.067], "stop_times": [1650.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1650.067}, "reply_to": "21280__0_164", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_166", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That it had done its thing in the decennial whatever, and that the article of the Constitution that you cite didn't apply except at the 10-year redistricting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1650.308], "stop_times": [1659.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.308}, "reply_to": "21280__0_165", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__0_167", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Everybody, including the Attorney General of the State of Florida, expected, and stated to the district court, that the State legislature had the right to convene.\nIn fact, the district court was asking for status reports.\nBut the fact is that the State legislature never had to... it was never triggered, a special session, because there was no adjudication that the original district was unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1659.964, 1668.94, 1672.953], "stop_times": [1668.94, 1672.953, 1682.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1659.964}, "reply_to": "21280__0_166", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_168", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I took what went on as simply an indication that at least unless and until the extant district was declared unconstitutional, the legislature, simply because of the existence of a lawsuit, had no intention of creating a new district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1682.75], "stop_times": [1698.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.75}, "reply_to": "21280__0_167", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__0_169", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Exactly.\nWhat the court was saying was, because of Miller v. Johnson for the U.S. Supreme Court, we note that the Florida legislature has not spontaneously convened itself to rectify the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1698.1, 1698.491], "stop_times": [1698.491, 1708.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1698.1}, "reply_to": "21280__0_168", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_170", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But aren't those matters of State law?\nI mean, whether or not the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1708.198, 1709.37], "stop_times": [1709.37, 1711.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.198}, "reply_to": "21280__0_169", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_171", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1711.441], "stop_times": [1711.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1711.441}, "reply_to": "21280__0_170", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_172", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Whether or not the State of Florida has the legal power to agree with the court to change its district with these representatives present or not would seem a question of State law.\nI don't see what's the question of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1711.631, 1720.897], "stop_times": [1720.897, 1723.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.631}, "reply_to": "21280__0_171", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_173", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Because this Court has made clear repeatedly that this is a matter that is to be reserved for the States in the first instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1723.09], "stop_times": [1729.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1723.09}, "reply_to": "21280__0_172", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_174", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "If, in fact, the court introduces a decree agreed upon by our four plaintiffs and their defendant, Mr. White, whether Mr. White has the power to make that agreement to the decree is a matter of Mr. White, a matter of the State.\nWhy is it Federal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1729.615, 1744.355], "stop_times": [1744.355, 1745.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.615}, "reply_to": "21280__0_173", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21280__0_175", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It's Federal because the Court has made clear that this is a matter which is to be resolved first by the State.\nIt's a U.S. constitutional issue of Federalism.\nIt's a Federalism issue that Mr. Lawyer had a right to have his State legislature make that decision in the first instance as a matter of Federalism, but also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1745.525, 1752.18, 1755.582], "stop_times": [1752.18, 1755.582, 1766.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1745.525}, "reply_to": "21280__0_174", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_176", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Mr. Shapiro.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1766.267], "stop_times": [1768.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1766.267}, "reply_to": "21280__0_175", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__0_177", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1768.919], "stop_times": [1769.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1768.919}, "reply_to": "21280__0_176", "speaker": "robert_j_shapiro"}
{"id": "21280__0_178", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Taranto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1769.289, 1769.54], "stop_times": [1769.54, 1771.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.289}, "reply_to": "21280__0_177", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__1_000", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe equal protection holding of the district court should be affirmed, we suggest, because there's ample evidence to find, under this Court's recent decisions, that race did not predominate over, did not subordinate other districting principles in the design of plan 386, and the Court should find no Federalism problem here because the district court, acting only after giving the legislature an opportunity to convene, then properly allowed authorized State officials to resolve the serious Federal claim here by proposing a lawful districting plan, giving appellant an opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of that plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1771.361, 1779.287], "stop_times": [1779.287, 1817.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.361}, "reply_to": "21280__0_178", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_001", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Did the court below ever enter an order saying, and I hereby give 60 days or 90 days or something in which the legislature can act, or did he just accept somebody's statement that the legislature wasn't going to be called into special session?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1817.903], "stop_times": [1837.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.903}, "reply_to": "21280__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_002", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I think it's a combination of those.\nIn July of 1995, after this Court decided Miller, there was a status conference at which everyone recognized this claim had now become substantially more risky than it had been before.\nPart of what the district court did was to enter an order directing the State parties every 30 days to file a piece of paper in the court saying whether the State legislature would be convened to address what was now recognized to be a serious Federal claim.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1837.816, 1839.115, 1850.724, 1866.323], "stop_times": [1839.115, 1850.724, 1866.323, 1866.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1837.816}, "reply_to": "21280__1_001", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_003", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "What had not yet been adjudicated to be an unconstitutional district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1866.574], "stop_times": [1870.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.574}, "reply_to": "21280__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_004", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1870.737], "stop_times": [1871.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.737}, "reply_to": "21280__1_003", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_005", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It's uncontested, is it not, that the legislature had no opportunity, after this Court had determined that the district was unconstitutional and therefore could not be used, to adopt on its own a new district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1871.608], "stop_times": [1885.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.608}, "reply_to": "21280__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_006", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "This Court... the court did not determine that plan 330 was unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1885.767], "stop_times": [1890.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.767}, "reply_to": "21280__1_005", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_007", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "So why should the legislature adopt a new district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1890.729], "stop_times": [1892.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.729}, "reply_to": "21280__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_008", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1892.53], "stop_times": [1892.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.53}, "reply_to": "21280__1_007", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_009", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--unless and until the court does that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1892.8], "stop_times": [1894.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.8}, "reply_to": "21280__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_010", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Because I think the legislature, represented by the Speaker here and the President of the Senate and the Attorney General, was fully aware that there was a serious risk of invalidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1894.623], "stop_times": [1904.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.623}, "reply_to": "21280__1_009", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_011", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But legislatures don't enact new legislation just because there's a serious risk, and some of the members of the legislature did not think that these individuals had the authority to commit the legislature to a whole new districting plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1904.408], "stop_times": [1916.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.408}, "reply_to": "21280__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_012", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I don't think there's any thing in the record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1916.686], "stop_times": [1918.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.686}, "reply_to": "21280__1_011", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_013", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "There's a letter in the record from one Senator, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1918.359], "stop_times": [1920.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.359}, "reply_to": "21280__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_014", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--That letter was not in the record.\nIt was rejected because it was improperly filed, and had that issue ever been joined, which it has never been joined, there is plenty of evidence that we would have submitted had the issue ever been raised, to support the authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1920.051, 1921.972], "stop_times": [1921.972, 1932.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.051}, "reply_to": "21280__1_013", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_015", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1932.96], "stop_times": [1933.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.96}, "reply_to": "21280__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_016", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That authority has not been questioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1933.23], "stop_times": [1934.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.23}, "reply_to": "21280__1_015", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_017", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I think there is a serious burden on whoever is taking the word of a couple of members of a State legislature that the State legislature as a body concedes to redistricting for the State.\nI think there's an enormous burden to show that that representation that they can speak on behalf of the legislature is true, and even if there is nothing else in the record, I cannot imagine approving a Federal judge's acceptance of the Majority Leader's statement just on its face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1934.4, 1947.209], "stop_times": [1947.209, 1962.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.4}, "reply_to": "21280__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_018", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It was not simply submitted on its face.\nExactly the same statements were made to the Florida supreme court after preclearance was denied to the original plan that the legislature would not convene, and therefore judicial action was going to be required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1962.21, 1965.652], "stop_times": [1965.652, 1977.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.21}, "reply_to": "21280__1_017", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_019", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I'm not talking about the statement that it would not convene.\nI accept that.\nI'm not surprised that it would not convene.\nIts prior plan was still constitutional as far as it knew.\nI'm talking about the assertion that I and one other person have the authority on behalf of the entire legislature of Florida to agree to redistricting of the State.\nThat's an extraordinary assertion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1977.839, 1979.832, 1980.342, 1983.334, 1986.307, 1997.697], "stop_times": [1979.832, 1980.342, 1983.334, 1986.307, 1997.697, 1999.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.839}, "reply_to": "21280__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_020", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Your Honor, I don't think it's extraordinary.\nI think State parties are defendants in Federal courts all of the time.\nIt is a matter of State law what authority they have through whoever the party is to settle litigation.\nWe've cited in our brief a number of authorities to show that the Florida authorities, including the Attorney General and the State parties, the State legislative parties, did have that authority, and that has never been contested here.\nThe district court here took great care to assure itself that it was not allowing itself to be used to usurp authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [1999.757, 2001.239, 2006.655, 2012.509, 2024.436], "stop_times": [2001.239, 2006.655, 2012.509, 2024.436, 2031.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.757}, "reply_to": "21280__1_019", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_021", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I think it is one thing to settle litigation.\nThat is, to agree on behalf of the legislature that the State will not oppose the judicially... the judicially imposed districting.\nThat's one thing.\nBut what is being asserted here is that this is not judicially imposed districting, that this is districting that was, in fact, expressing the will of the Florida legislature, which to my mind is an important thing if the prior district was never declared unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2031.252, 2034.056, 2043.703, 2044.474], "stop_times": [2034.056, 2043.703, 2044.474, 2060.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.252}, "reply_to": "21280__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_022", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I think what's going on here is that there is... by the time the summer of 1995 comes around there is a very serious Federal challenge.\nAuthorized State officials I don't think are required or should be stripped of the authority to resolve that litigation voluntarily as other defendants can resolve their Federal claims.\nThat seems to me to turn Federalism principles upside down.\nConsent decrees are routinely... customarily, as this Court said in Maher v. Gagne, entered without liability findings against State defendants and it would, I think, strip them of an important authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2060.753, 2068.0, 2079.096, 2082.239], "stop_times": [2068.0, 2079.096, 2082.239, 2094.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.753}, "reply_to": "21280__1_021", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_023", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Would the State parties, as you understand State laws, have had authority to concede that the Senate-approved plan... that the legislatively approved plan was unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2094.476], "stop_times": [2103.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.476}, "reply_to": "21280__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__1_024", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Would have had authority, yes, as... litigating authority, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2103.522], "stop_times": [2107.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.522}, "reply_to": "21280__1_023", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_025", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "They did not make that concession, however.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2107.696], "stop_times": [2109.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.696}, "reply_to": "21280__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__1_026", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "They did not make that concession.\nThat's right.\nAnd the issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2109.477, 2110.518, 2111.059], "stop_times": [2110.518, 2111.059, 2111.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.477}, "reply_to": "21280__1_025", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_027", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "You--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2111.577], "stop_times": [2111.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.577}, "reply_to": "21280__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__1_028", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--The issue in the district court was never pressed whether, had Judge Tjoflat's view prevailed that the court had agreed that a liability judgment had to be entered, whether we would have accepted that as a condition to the entry of the remedy.\nThat issue was simply never presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2111.777, 2125.307], "stop_times": [2125.307, 2126.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.777}, "reply_to": "21280__1_027", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_029", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Well, frankly, looking at the series of maps, it didn't strike me as terribly important if we were to say the district judge should have found the plan 330 unconstitutional before deciding which plan to adopt, and if it went back, the court could probably make that finding.\nIt is a most unusual-looking district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2126.498, 2150.795], "stop_times": [2150.795, 2153.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.498}, "reply_to": "21280__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_030", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "When I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2153.797], "stop_times": [2154.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.797}, "reply_to": "21280__1_029", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_031", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--and chances are the court would say plan 330 was unconstitutional, therefore I have to adopt a plan, and the plan I'm going to adopt is 386.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2154.288], "stop_times": [2164.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.288}, "reply_to": "21280__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_032", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--When I say that the issue was not joined, the State appellees are prepared to accept and were prepared to accept back in November 20... November 20, a judgment entering a finding of liability without conceding the constitutional issue.\nIt was not pressed at the point, and not necessary, so we would accept an affirmance under Judge Tjoflat's route.\nWhat we do think is that this district, the 1995 district, is constitutional under this Court's standards, and all of what I think this Court said last term in the Bush case and the Shaw case indicates that there is a variety of evidence that bears on that question.\nHere, the evidence is partly what there is, and partly what there isn't.\nWhat there isn't is any block-by-block separation of races.\nWhat there isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2164.446, 2176.864, 2183.008, 2197.768, 2201.511, 2205.344], "stop_times": [2176.864, 2183.008, 2197.768, 2201.511, 2205.344, 2205.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.446}, "reply_to": "21280__1_031", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_033", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, if there were a party, as there appears to be here, to the proceedings below who didn't consent, is that party entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the district court says yes, I'm going to go with 386?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2205.895], "stop_times": [2219.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.895}, "reply_to": "21280__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_034", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Absolutely, and he got it.\nHe was invited to put on evidence.\nThe reference to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2219.025, 2220.345, 2222.428], "stop_times": [2220.345, 2222.428, 2223.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.025}, "reply_to": "21280__1_033", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_035", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Did the court say this is not an evidentiary hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2223.416], "stop_times": [2226.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.416}, "reply_to": "21280__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_036", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Absolutely not.\nHe's taking one quote--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2226.567, 2226.687], "stop_times": [2226.687, 2227.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.567}, "reply_to": "21280__1_035", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_037", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2227.908], "stop_times": [2228.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.908}, "reply_to": "21280__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_038", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--That's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2228.319], "stop_times": [2228.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2228.319}, "reply_to": "21280__1_037", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_039", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That's not in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2228.96], "stop_times": [2230.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2228.96}, "reply_to": "21280__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_040", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "That is not in the record.\nHe's referring to a statement at the end of the November 2 status conference in which the Justice Department attorney said, I'm a little confused, Your Honor, about how you want to handle the hearing that's coming up.\nDo you want us to put on oral evidence?\nAnd the judge said, I suppose somebody, some judge here wants to hear oral evidence, and what happened was of course that all of the affirmative evidence of the State was put on in writing.\nWhat happened then was that Mr. Lawyer was invited several times, put him on the stand and cross-examine him.\nAsk him what his instructions were.\nAsk--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2230.45, 2231.671, 2242.879, 2244.561, 2254.165, 2260.45, 2262.003], "stop_times": [2231.671, 2242.879, 2244.561, 2254.165, 2260.45, 2262.003, 2262.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.45}, "reply_to": "21280__1_039", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_041", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And the court never said this will not be an evidentiary hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2262.293], "stop_times": [2265.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.293}, "reply_to": "21280__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_042", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Never said this will not be an evidentiary hearing, and at the hearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2265.515], "stop_times": [2267.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.515}, "reply_to": "21280__1_041", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_043", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Counsel here has just misrepresented flatly that the statement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2267.898], "stop_times": [2271.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.898}, "reply_to": "21280__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_044", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--He's taking one quote that was addressed to the Justice Department lawyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2271.211], "stop_times": [2274.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.211}, "reply_to": "21280__1_043", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_045", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Did the quote say this will not be an evidentiary hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2274.391], "stop_times": [2276.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.391}, "reply_to": "21280__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_046", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--No, and I don't even think that the quote as he quotes it says it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2276.724], "stop_times": [2280.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.724}, "reply_to": "21280__1_045", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_047", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, in any event his client was offered a chance to cross-examine.\nYou know, most people would think of that as an evidentiary hearing, I gather.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2280.335, 2286.399], "stop_times": [2286.399, 2290.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.335}, "reply_to": "21280__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__1_048", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Absolutely.\nHe said that... the man who sat down with the computer, he has said in writing what he did.\nPut him on the stand.\nAsk him what his instructions were, what your data were, did you use race as a proxy for, or disproportionately... do you have more racial data than nonracial data, as in the Texas case?\nDid you try to draw things block-by-block?\nWhat's your information about what's inside the district and what's outside the district?\nDo the people who live along the coast own boats?\nAre they the same socioeconomically as the people who live between the freeways here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2290.593, 2291.134, 2296.198, 2297.508, 2307.245, 2309.766, 2312.938, 2316.081], "stop_times": [2291.134, 2296.198, 2297.508, 2307.245, 2309.766, 2312.938, 2316.081, 2320.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.593}, "reply_to": "21280__1_047", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_049", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Did the court indicate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2320.765], "stop_times": [2322.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.765}, "reply_to": "21280__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__1_050", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "None of that was done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2322.047], "stop_times": [2323.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.047}, "reply_to": "21280__1_049", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_051", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Did the court indicate in this hearing that there would be any restrictions on the matters as to which Mr.... the appellant could inquire?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2323.147], "stop_times": [2330.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.147}, "reply_to": "21280__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__1_052", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes.\nThe one restriction that was pressed by Judge... Chief Judge Tjoflat was a restriction about asking... about putting the Justice Department attorney on the stand and that, I think, is actually a perfectly proper discretionary evidentiary ruling.\nThere is a general rule that says you don't make a lawyer a witness in the case absent compelling need.\nBefore you've examined the man who drew the district, before you've examined the State officials who actually negotiated, you couldn't possibly show a compelling need, and there was no showing of that sort by appellant.\nAppellant was allowed to submit statistics, allowed to submit a different plan, allowed to submit his own maps, some of these maps... he was invited to put on any evidence he had and under, I think, this Court's decision in Local 93, it is very clear that once the other parties to the case agreed on a decree, that couldn't... that by itself couldn't adjudicate his rights, but he had an opportunity to adjudicate his claim that this district was unlawful.\nAnd I think this district cannot be found unlawful.\nIt is not a safe minority district.\nIt is... geographically and economically shares a real community of interest.\nThere's plenty of evidence to that effect.\nThere... this is not a district that had the kind of process flaws of either being dictated by the Justice Department... this was negotiated in a wideranging discussion, including appellant's coplaintiffs who after the fact came in and said, this is not a district that is race-based.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2330.993, 2331.252, 2346.202, 2352.686, 2366.417, 2394.734, 2397.068, 2399.839, 2405.393, 2406.925], "stop_times": [2331.252, 2346.202, 2352.686, 2366.417, 2394.734, 2397.068, 2399.839, 2405.393, 2406.925, 2422.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.993}, "reply_to": "21280__1_051", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_053", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Taranto, I'm prepared to accept your analysis as far as whether the district, had it been adopted by the legislature, would be unconstitutional.\nMy problem with this case is, I think it's a serious matter to say that when the Florida legislature as a whole has not been put on notice that its existing districting is unconstitutional, and has not been given an opportunity after that notice to itself draw a district... which might have been like this, but then again it might not have... it isn't enough for me that this district be constitutional.\nI also would like it to be the district that the voters of Florida wanted to the extent that the Federal court could have given them an opportunity to select it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2422.376, 2432.834, 2460.632], "stop_times": [2432.834, 2460.632, 2468.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.376}, "reply_to": "21280__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_054", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Your Honor, I don't agree with that rule, because I think that the proper Federalism rule in this context is one that leaves it to State law what officials have the authority to engage in what kind of settlement of litigation, and that's what is undisputed here.\nThese State officials--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2468.99, 2485.882], "stop_times": [2485.882, 2487.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.99}, "reply_to": "21280__1_053", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_055", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Taranto, is there anything in the decree that would prevent the Florida legislature today from redefining the district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2487.131], "stop_times": [2493.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.131}, "reply_to": "21280__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21280__1_056", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--No, not at all.\nAppellant is free to contact any Senator or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2493.346, 2494.147], "stop_times": [2494.147, 2496.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.346}, "reply_to": "21280__1_055", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_057", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Is there anything in the record indicating objections on the part of legislators to this action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2496.648], "stop_times": [2502.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.648}, "reply_to": "21280__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__1_058", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--The following is either in or was attempted to be gotten in the record.\nThere was this one letter that Justice Scalia referred to from one Senator who sent a letter ex parte to each of the three judges, one of which was returned under the order of the court, and he said I don't think the Senate can represent... can speak this way in litigation.\nOtherwise, there is nothing on that issue.\nThere is a public comment from the former Senator at this hearing, the former Senator of this district, objecting to the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2502.562, 2509.075, 2526.048, 2528.66], "stop_times": [2509.075, 2526.048, 2528.66, 2535.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.562}, "reply_to": "21280__1_057", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_059", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Was there an inquiry by the court?\nDid the court... on what did the court base its assurance that it had the authority to accept this as the will of the Florida legislature?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2535.355, 2536.747], "stop_times": [2536.747, 2546.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.355}, "reply_to": "21280__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_060", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, several things.\nThe briefing that was submitted in support of the plan, the particular... I think the fullest brief was by the United States... cited the State statutory authority as interpreted in various decisions giving the Attorney General the authority to resolve litigation.\nThere's an affidavit in the joint appendix from the Speaker of the House citing the House rule that specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2546.903, 2547.694, 2562.813], "stop_times": [2547.694, 2562.813, 2568.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.903}, "reply_to": "21280__1_059", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_061", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "So you didn't even need the Senators.\nIt would have been enough to have the Attorney General?\nThe Attorney General could redistrict the State, or could agree to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2568.217, 2570.287, 2571.959], "stop_times": [2570.287, 2571.959, 2577.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.217}, "reply_to": "21280__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_062", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I think as a matter of Florida law that is probably correct.\nI think as a district court is being asked to enter a decree that resolves a serious claim, and puts in place a new plan subject to any change that the legislature wants to make, it needs to inquire into all the circumstances.\nIt's a harder case if the House and the Senate both came in and said, we disagree about what should be done.\nThat's not this case.\nHere, all relevant State authorities are speaking with the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2577.313, 2582.155, 2596.816, 2601.819, 2603.539], "stop_times": [2582.155, 2596.816, 2601.819, 2603.539, 2607.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.313}, "reply_to": "21280__1_061", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_063", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "No... there was that statute.\nNow, what else was there besides the statute that gave the Attorney General authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2607.733, 2609.095], "stop_times": [2609.095, 2612.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.733}, "reply_to": "21280__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_064", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Florida... a Florida decision, in particular the Abramson decision, which we cited in our brief, that says State agencies can violate their State statutes when necessary to settle a serious claim against them.\nThere is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2612.445, 2626.607], "stop_times": [2626.607, 2628.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.445}, "reply_to": "21280__1_063", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_065", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I don't see the relevance of that.\nThere was no State agency here, was there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2628.317, 2630.129], "stop_times": [2630.129, 2632.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.317}, "reply_to": "21280__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__1_066", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Well, the State as a party itself is... I think the form of the question is, could it change its State statute by voluntarily settling through the Attorney General a serious piece of Federal litigation?\nI think the Abramson decision under Florida law is supportive of that.\nThere is the affidavit of the Speaker citing and attesting to the authority under the House rule, and then there was a series of representations I think two or three times in which the attorney for the Senate was asked by the court, are you sure that you really have authority to be representing the Senate here and he said, yes, I'm absolutely sure.\nI'm absolutely sure.\nAnd had there been a contest about that, there would have been still more evidence in the form of petitions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2632.092, 2646.621, 2650.334, 2673.08, 2673.641], "stop_times": [2646.621, 2650.334, 2673.08, 2673.641, 2678.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.092}, "reply_to": "21280__1_065", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_067", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, is this a matter, though, perhaps of Federal law?\nThis Court seems to have indicated its position that a district court, before drawing its own plan to replace one that appears to be invalid, or has been found to be invalid, should give the State legislature an opportunity to address it.\nNow, could we mean, as a matter of Federal law, that the full legislature should have an opportunity to draw up a plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2678.055, 2681.047, 2699.48], "stop_times": [2681.047, 2699.48, 2706.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.055}, "reply_to": "21280__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_068", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2706.295], "stop_times": [2706.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2706.295}, "reply_to": "21280__1_067", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_069", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--and that we don't accept the notion that, pursuant to settlement authority, the Attorney General can come in and say, speaking on behalf of the State, we accept this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2706.886], "stop_times": [2716.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.886}, "reply_to": "21280__1_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_070", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I think that the legislative opportunity was given over the course of several months.\nI don't think there was any doubt about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2716.47, 2721.385], "stop_times": [2721.385, 2722.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2716.47}, "reply_to": "21280__1_069", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_071", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But it was not given within the context of a finding that plan 330 was invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2722.945], "stop_times": [2730.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.945}, "reply_to": "21280__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_072", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--That's right, but the price of that rule would be to be... to insist that States in voting rights cases may never voluntarily resolve their claims.\nIn fact, they do on a number of occasions.\nThere's a consent decree in the Johnson v. DeGrandy case in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2730.12, 2739.337, 2742.161], "stop_times": [2739.337, 2742.161, 2745.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.12}, "reply_to": "21280__1_071", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_073", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I can certainly understand that a State and this Court might be willing to accept the notion that the attorneys on behalf of the State could agree that the former plan was unconstitutional.\nNow let's go from there.\nIs it nevertheless a matter of Federal law that the full legislature be given an opportunity, following that, to adopt a plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2745.722, 2757.639, 2759.071], "stop_times": [2757.639, 2759.071, 2766.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.722}, "reply_to": "21280__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_074", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Well, I think it is a matter of Federal law that an... a proper opportunity to be given.\nI think it's also a matter of Federal law whether there should be a rigid rule saying, you have to have, in this one class of cases, an adjudicated violation.\nI think that that, in fact, strips States of an important authority that all other litigants have and doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2766.935, 2772.509, 2781.455], "stop_times": [2772.509, 2781.455, 2786.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2766.935}, "reply_to": "21280__1_073", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_075", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, of course, the concern expressed by this Court in saying there should be such was a concern on behalf of the States that the Federal court shouldn't intrude and take upon itself the job of drawing a legislative district without finding a good reason for it, to wit, invalidity of what the legislature had put its task--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2786.808], "stop_times": [2808.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.808}, "reply_to": "21280__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_076", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--But I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2808.824], "stop_times": [2809.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.824}, "reply_to": "21280__1_075", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_077", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--its hand to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2809.324], "stop_times": [2809.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.324}, "reply_to": "21280__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_078", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I think it is also a good reason that the Federal claim is very serious, that there is a real... a real risk of the litigation.\nIt's the same good reason that supports consent decrees without liability in all kinds of other cases against States, including--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2809.815, 2818.36], "stop_times": [2818.36, 2824.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2809.815}, "reply_to": "21280__1_077", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_079", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, this wasn't a consent decree, of course, because we have a petitioner here who didn't consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2824.425], "stop_times": [2828.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.425}, "reply_to": "21280__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_080", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Insofar--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2828.478], "stop_times": [2828.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.478}, "reply_to": "21280__1_079", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_081", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I mean, it wasn't a consent decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2828.999], "stop_times": [2830.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.999}, "reply_to": "21280__1_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_082", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Insofar as the State is concerned, though, it is a consent decree.\nIt's a consent decree between the four other plaintiffs and the State appellees and the other defendants, and by the way, the reason that is plain in this record for why the legislature was not going to convene has nothing to do with whether there had been an adjudicated violation.\nIt has to do with a series of political problems in the State that I think Judge Merryday referred to in the October 26 hearing that a whole series of important, contentious vetoes are triggered for override the minute the legislature convenes, and that was not going to happen.\nI don't think there was any... that it would have made any difference had there been an adjudication.\nThe same thing would have happened: thank you for the opportunity; we're not going to do it; we think that this ought to be resolved here.\nThe only difference, therefore, that we're talking about in this regard is whether this declaratory judgment that plan 330, the predecessor, is invalid, a different... a declaratory judgment that can't possibly make a difference to appellant, who's already had that plan eliminated by court order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2830.398, 2832.97, 2848.28, 2862.6, 2867.445, 2874.629], "stop_times": [2832.97, 2848.28, 2862.6, 2867.445, 2874.629, 2890.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.398}, "reply_to": "21280__1_081", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_083", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "So your position is that, as far as the State legislature and the State itself is concerned, that counsel had a right to waive any finding of unconstitutionality, and they did so, and the State had a right to waive any opportunity to redraw a district, and they did so.\nIs that your position, in essence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2890.951, 2910.613], "stop_times": [2910.613, 2912.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.951}, "reply_to": "21280__1_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__1_084", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nYes.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2912.496, 2912.686, 2913.344], "stop_times": [2912.686, 2913.344, 2914.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2912.496}, "reply_to": "21280__1_083", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21280__1_085", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Taranto.\nMr. Gornstein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2914.035, 2915.467], "stop_times": [2915.467, 2917.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.035}, "reply_to": "21280__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__2_000", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOur position is that the settlement plan is constitutional, and that the district court did not violate any principles of Federalism in approving it.\nOn the constitutional question, I wanted to make three points.\nThe first is that the district court applied the correct legal standard in judging the constitutionality of the proposed plan, that it correctly drew from Miller the principle that a plan is subject to strict scrutiny only when a challenger can show that race predominated in the design of the district.\nThe second point I wanted to make is that district court findings of predominant motive are governed by the clearly erroneous standard of review, so that the district court's finding in this case that District 21 was not predominantly motivated by racial considerations is subject to review in this Court only for clear error.\nThe final point I wanted to make on the constitutional question is that the district court's subsidiary findings show that its ultimate finding on predominant motive is not clearly erroneous, and those findings are that the district is sufficiently regular by Florida standards to avoid any suggestion that race predominated, that the district includes a genuine community of interest, and that the district affords to any candidate, without regard to race, the opportunity to be elected.\nNow, those findings are all supported by the record and are together sufficient to support the district court's ultimate finding that race did not predominate.\nOn the Federalism question, we think it was entirely appropriate for the district court to resolve the litigation without making a formal adjudication based on the State's consent.\nIt would... it is one of the principle reasons that parties enter into settlements, is to avoid a formal adjudication, to avoid findings of liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [2917.298, 2930.995, 2940.362, 2944.275, 2961.646, 2981.86, 3009.989, 3018.326, 3030.024], "stop_times": [2930.995, 2940.362, 2944.275, 2961.646, 2981.86, 3009.989, 3018.326, 3030.024, 3041.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2917.298}, "reply_to": "21280__1_085", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_001", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, but how can it do so as against somebody who didn't consent, to wit, the petitioner here?\nHow can it avoid some opportunity to have evidence put on and conduct a full inquiry into the validity of plan 386?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3041.502, 3046.533], "stop_times": [3046.533, 3057.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.502}, "reply_to": "21280__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__2_002", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It certainly can have... is required for there to be an inquiry into the validity of 386.\nWhat there was not required was an inquiry into the validity of 330.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3057.602, 3065.397], "stop_times": [3065.397, 3069.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.602}, "reply_to": "21280__2_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_003", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, but the appellant is in the position of suggesting that there be redistricting, or that the old district be approved, and faces, as the court faces, a difficult task in determining what are legitimate criteria for districting?\nWhat are community interests?\nWhat are legislative preferences?\nAnd it seems to me that the court must exercise its discretion to have before it and to have available to the parties the legislative policies, the legislative determinations as to what legitimate district criteria are, and by not referring this to the legislature and accepting too quickly, perhaps, the representations of State officials, the court and the appellant were deprived of that data, that body of guidelines that are necessary to make appropriate and legitimate districting determinations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3069.27, 3085.372, 3087.322, 3089.134], "stop_times": [3085.372, 3087.322, 3089.134, 3131.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3069.27}, "reply_to": "21280__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__2_004", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I think that the legislature did... had ample opportunity to convene, and to legislate a plan if it had wanted to.\nIt was faced with more than a very serious claim under Miller, and I think everybody in the legislature must have been aware that the Florida supreme court's plan was extremely vulnerable, and still it did not convene in legislative session, and instead what it did is, its authorized representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, are authorized to conduct litigation, and they negotiated a settlement.\nNow, the... that settlement says that it shall only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3131.283, 3138.326, 3164.273], "stop_times": [3138.326, 3164.273, 3167.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.283}, "reply_to": "21280__2_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_005", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Your basis for that is?\nYou can give me no citation of Florida law, at least as far as the Senate is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3167.145, 3168.517], "stop_times": [3168.517, 3173.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.145}, "reply_to": "21280__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__2_006", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat was strictly on the basis of a representation made.\nThat was the determination made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3173.481, 3174.651, 3178.674], "stop_times": [3174.651, 3178.674, 3180.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.481}, "reply_to": "21280__2_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_007", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "And on the basis of a representation of one person, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3180.246], "stop_times": [3182.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3180.246}, "reply_to": "21280__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__2_008", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3182.687], "stop_times": [3183.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3182.687}, "reply_to": "21280__2_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_009", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--The ability of the Senate to participate in redistricting of the State is disregarded by the court.\nI'm... I'm worried about that.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3183.148, 3189.022, 3191.824], "stop_times": [3189.022, 3191.824, 3192.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.148}, "reply_to": "21280__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21280__2_010", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I... to go on to what the legislative opportunity was here, there were then negotiations.\nNothing prevented the legislature during that entire time that negotiations were ongoing to intervene, convene, and submit a plan.\nThen there was a settlement agreement presented to the district court, and that settlement agreement says that this shall only remain into... in effect unless and until the legislature formally enacts a different plan in compliance with Federal and State law, still.\nNow, there was remedial hearing held in November.\nThe district court did not approve this until March.\nThere was a long period of time in which the legislature knew that if it did nothing there... the district court had before it a proposal that it could resolve at any time to resolve this litigation.\nStill the district court did nothing, and it has done nothing since to change the plan even though the settlement itself says that it only remains in effect unless and until the legislature formally adopts a different plan in compliance with State and Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3192.134, 3198.567, 3205.813, 3220.231, 3223.234, 3226.296, 3237.993], "stop_times": [3198.567, 3205.813, 3220.231, 3223.234, 3226.296, 3237.993, 3251.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3192.134}, "reply_to": "21280__2_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_011", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Do you agree that Mr. Shapiro erred in stating that the court below at its hearing on 386 said it would not be an evidentiary hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3251.811], "stop_times": [3269.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.811}, "reply_to": "21280__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21280__2_012", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Let me break that down into two parts.\nThere is the prehearing before the remedial hearing, and then there is the remedial hearing.\nLet me address the prehearing first.\nAn inquiry was made by the Department of Justice, do we have to submit live evidence or can we introduce it in other ways, and I will quote from that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3269.814, 3271.797, 3277.149, 3279.591], "stop_times": [3271.797, 3277.149, 3279.591, 3292.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3269.814}, "reply_to": "21280__2_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_013", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "This is all people sitting around in the judge's chambers, perhaps, or in open court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3292.049], "stop_times": [3296.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.049}, "reply_to": "21280__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__2_014", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "It's a pretrial conference, and I'm not sure whether it was an open court or not, but I think it probably was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3296.131], "stop_times": [3301.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3296.131}, "reply_to": "21280__2_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_015", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Are you going to read from the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3301.926], "stop_times": [3303.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.926}, "reply_to": "21280__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21280__2_016", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "I am reading, and this is page 31 of the hearing from November 2, 1995, and I don't have the record cite to that.\nI apologize for that.\nBut the presentation that the proponents of the settlement agreement are to lead off with:\nIs it the court's contemplation that it be evidentiary in nature?\nShould we be prepared to put witnesses under oath?\nI think Mr. Hill might have mentioned that he thought it might suffice simply to have lawyers present the plan, but if a full evidentiary presentation is preferred, we would be prepared to do that.\nIt is a matter of figuring out what the court's preference is so that we can prepare accordingly.\nThe answer comes, I assume there are some judges somewhere who simply enjoy hearing evidence.\nNo.\nNow, I take that to be a response that the proponents did not have to put on live evidence, that they could rely on the attachments.\nI don't take that to be a preclusion of the appellant or anyone else who would have wanted an opportunity to present evidence at that hearing to do that, and I think when we get to the evidence... now, this is in the joint appendix at page 185, at the remedial hearing.\nThe bottom of the page, Judge Tjoflat says, at the very bottom, Mr. Hill has summarized in effect what is in the record.\nThere are affidavits in the record.\nIf you want to examine Mr. Guthrie you're free to do so, or call any witness you want.\nI think it was quite clear at the remedial hearing that there was a full chance to put on evidence for the appellant.\nNow, if the appellant didn't think... had misunderstood that he was... and thought he didn't have that chance before, he could have said something about that.\nHe could have said, look, I didn't think that I was going to get that chance.\nI need more time.\nHe didn't say anything like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3303.258, 3314.075, 3315.497, 3320.472, 3324.085, 3326.596, 3335.542, 3339.484, 3343.778, 3344.209, 3352.634, 3368.385, 3378.092, 3379.382, 3384.667, 3391.73, 3398.996, 3401.427, 3402.589], "stop_times": [3314.075, 3315.497, 3320.472, 3324.085, 3326.596, 3335.542, 3339.484, 3343.778, 3344.209, 3352.634, 3368.385, 3378.092, 3379.382, 3384.667, 3391.73, 3398.996, 3401.427, 3402.589, 3404.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3303.258}, "reply_to": "21280__2_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_017", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, maybe you can explain something to me about this record, because it does seem that in the beginning the plaintiffs, everybody was trying to settle this.\nEverybody agreed that the plan was vulnerable under... the old plan under Miller, and there was the stipulation that I read, and then there seemed at some point there was... this harmony that prevailed about, let's stipulate, let's mediate, broke down, but it's not clear to me how that happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3404.359, 3412.046], "stop_times": [3412.046, 3430.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3404.359}, "reply_to": "21280__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__2_018", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Well, I think Mr.... the appellant in this case was not satisfied with the results of mediation, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3430.936], "stop_times": [3437.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3430.936}, "reply_to": "21280__2_017", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_019", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "But going into mediation, everybody was on board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3437.492], "stop_times": [3440.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.492}, "reply_to": "21280__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21280__2_020", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--Yes, with the idea that it would be a good idea to mediate.\nYes.\nI think that the rule that there should be no precondition, that there... it will always have to be a liability finding is extremely important in facilitating settlements, and it would disserve the principles of Federalism, we would suggest, to make the States the only parties who could not settle cases without either a formal adjudication or an admission of liability, because when an admission of liability is required, that is going to discourage in many cases voluntary compliance in... with the law.\nIt is going to discourage States from entering into settlements, because there are consequences to admissions of liability, so that the value of voluntary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3440.103, 3443.555, 3444.036, 3480.801], "stop_times": [3443.555, 3444.036, 3480.801, 3488.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3440.103}, "reply_to": "21280__2_019", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_021", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Attorney's fees, I suppose, for one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3488.836], "stop_times": [3490.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3488.836}, "reply_to": "21280__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__2_022", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "--I think that that would certainly dictate the result of attorney's fees, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3490.839], "stop_times": [3497.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3490.839}, "reply_to": "21280__2_021", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21280__2_023", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3497.291, 3498.062], "stop_times": [3498.062, 3499.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3497.291}, "reply_to": "21280__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21280__2_024", "conversation_id": "21280", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2024", "start_times": [3499.053], "stop_times": [3506.251], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3499.053}, "reply_to": "21280__2_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20453__0_000", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-6298, Aaron Lindh v. James P. Murphy.\nMr. Liebman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [0.0, 7.82], "stop_times": [7.82, 8.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__0_001", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Court granted review of a single issue, whether the court of appeals properly denied Aaron Lindh's 1992 habeas petition based on a 1996 amendment to 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d).\nThe court below interpreted that amendment to require it to leave intact State court decisions believed to be wrong under the Constitution as long as they are not \"gravely wrong\".\nMr. Lindh ardently opposes that interpretation, but accept it here in addressing the different issue before the Court.\nI'll make two points.\nFirst, because the statute's express delineation of the pending cases to which new habeas provisions shall apply omits Mr. Lindh's pending case, the statute makes itself inapplicable here, and thus disposes of the case under Landgraf's Step 1, and also, therefore, under its clear congressional intent, Step 3.\nSecond, and alternatively, the court of appeals interpretation of section 2254(d) to attach a new legal consequence, the denial of relief, to preenactment events that previously had given Lindh an unconditional right to relief from unconstitutional custody bars section 2254(d)'s application under Landgraf's Step 2.\nIn Landgraf in 1994, the Court repeatedly urged Congress to exercise responsibility for fundamental policy judgments concerning the temporal reach of statutes, so Landgraf held that where Congress' intent as to the temporal reach is clear, its statute-specific policy judgments will govern, but that otherwise the courts will follow the timeless and universal rule against applying new laws to have retroactive effects.\nThat is, against attaching to preenactment events what a court finds to be a new legal consequence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [8.637, 12.224, 25.131, 34.804, 41.41, 43.093, 62.673, 84.586, 110.237], "stop_times": [12.224, 25.131, 34.804, 41.41, 43.093, 62.673, 84.586, 110.237, 115.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.637}, "reply_to": "20453__0_000", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_002", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "It made any exception, did it not, for jurisdictional rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [115.872], "stop_times": [119.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.872}, "reply_to": "20453__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__0_003", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Your Honor, I don't think that there is an exception under Step 2 per se for jurisdictional rules.\nWhat the Court said was that jurisdiction oftentimes is the kind of change that does not attach new legal consequences to preenactment events.\nThe reason is that in all of the court's jurisdictional retroactivity cases where Congress didn't specify the outcome it wanted, there was an alternative forum that remained, and so it wasn't a question of whether you've got to enforce your rights.\nIt was simply a question of which forum you would be allowed to enforce your rights in.\nThis case is very different, because here there is no alternative remedy.\nThere is no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [119.426, 124.978, 135.267, 146.123, 151.693, 155.93], "stop_times": [124.978, 135.267, 146.123, 151.693, 155.93, 155.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.426}, "reply_to": "20453__0_002", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_004", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, Mr. Liebman, what rights are we talking about, the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [155.93], "stop_times": [162.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.93}, "reply_to": "20453__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20453__0_005", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--No.\nThe rights that we're talking about, Your Honor, are the statutory rights under 2241(c)(3).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [162.084, 162.5], "stop_times": [162.5, 168.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.084}, "reply_to": "20453__0_004", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_006", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "All right, so you're not relying on Lindh's right to confront witnesses, but just the statutory right to habeas relief.\nThat's all you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [168.118, 175.824], "stop_times": [175.824, 175.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.118}, "reply_to": "20453__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20453__0_007", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "That's exactly right, Your Honor.\nWhat we are talking about here having become unconditional and matured before the statute went into effect was a statutory cause of action for relief upon the proof of two statutory elements of that cause of action, constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [175.857, 176.69], "stop_times": [176.69, 191.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.857}, "reply_to": "20453__0_006", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_008", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Mr. Liebman, you spoke in answering the Chief Justice's question a moment ago about there being no alternative forum here, so that the jurisdictional analysis was inapposite.\nWhy wasn't there an alternative forum simply in the direct method of appeal in the first instance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [191.55, 199.972], "stop_times": [199.972, 208.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.55}, "reply_to": "20453__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__0_009", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--There are three answers to that, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, the principle that I want to stand on is that there is no remaining effective and substantial alternative.\nThat's the language from the Crane v. Halo case.\nThere are three reasons, therefore, why the State process does not provide an alternative and significant or satisfactory remedy.\nThe first one is that the... ever since this Court's case in 1886 in Ex parte Royale the understanding has been that the violation is the leaving intact, the emplacement and leaving intact of custody by the entire State judicial system as a whole.\nAnd so you cannot make what is part of the violation into a sufficient remedy for the violation, because it is as if in the Landgraf case someone were to say to Mrs. Landgraf that because she had tried to get relief from her employer and the employer had thought about it and said you weren't discriminated against, you wouldn't make that a sufficient remedy, and it's the same thing here.\nPart of the violation includes the entire State court process leading to incarceration.\nSecondly, to the extent that the direct appeal process provides an alternative remedy, it is a remedy by certiorari to this Court at the end of that direct review process, a remedy that Mr. Lindh was lulled into passing up, because at the time it was neither his last nor his best option available for plenary Federal review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [208.059, 210.494, 216.732, 218.934, 228.955, 246.134, 265.747, 271.299], "stop_times": [210.494, 216.732, 218.934, 228.955, 246.134, 265.747, 271.299, 293.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.059}, "reply_to": "20453__0_008", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_010", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, that may go to his judgment, and it may have been a perfectly sensible judgment to make at the time, but it doesn't go to the question whether there is an alternative to the particular kind of review sought, which I assume is a question about the system rather than about his particular judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [293.98], "stop_times": [306.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.98}, "reply_to": "20453__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__0_011", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, let me give the third reason, Your Honor, because I think it speaks directly to that.\nIn the Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm case in 1995, the Court spoke about a number of congressional statutes that take away the res judicata defense and allow, for example, soldiers on duty to reopen litigation that was concluded against them.\nNow, let's assume that Congress decided to change that statute and to say, no, there is going to be a res judicata defense, but it's only going to be a res judicata defense insofar as the judgment that you're challenging was gravely wrong.\nNow, under this Court's cases it is very clear that this Court would not take away a soldier's existing and accrued right of action under this statute as it existed under a new establishment of a defense that was established--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [306.621, 310.073, 325.582, 337.973], "stop_times": [310.073, 325.582, 337.973, 352.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.621}, "reply_to": "20453__0_010", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_012", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, assuming that to be true, you're also assuming an analogy which may well be sound, but I guess it's not self-evidently sound, and that is that the cause of action that you would be speaking of in your example is the same... is a cause of action in the same sense that there is a cause of action in habeas, and habeas is kind of a mongrelized cause of action.\nYes, it is a means of coming into court under a specific Federal statute, but it's also in fact a means of review for error as an alternative to another means of review for error.\nWhen somebody in direct appeal, for example, takes an appeal, we don't think of that person as having a cause of action to appeal, and so I suppose the so-called habeas cause of action is in that sense a different kind of cause of action from the one that you're referring to in your example, and I guess my question is, why as a matter of categorization or characterization should we refer to the habeas remedy as involving a cause of action in that classic sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [352.733, 376.598, 391.274], "stop_times": [376.598, 391.274, 421.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.733}, "reply_to": "20453__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__0_013", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, first of all, I'm not sure it makes a difference whether you see this as a new element of the cause of action, or the establishment of a new defense, or as the dramatic changing of the standard of review, if you want to think of it that way.\nNow, I think that it is much more appropriate to look at the post-enactment statute as one creating a new standard of review, but it does set up a chain of courts and tells... in 2254(d) it says, look back to the State court and review that State court decision.\nThe statute never before had said that, and so under the statute as it previously existed, the rights that were given and accrued under the previous statute, there wasn't a standard of review kind of approach.\nBut even, Your Honor, if it was a new standard of review, the lower court cases are unanimous on the question that the imposition of a new standard of review is like the imposition of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [421.043, 434.768, 449.194, 459.502], "stop_times": [434.768, 449.194, 459.502, 470.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.043}, "reply_to": "20453__0_012", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_014", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, this isn't a new standard of review.\nI mean, that alters... that alters the substantive right.\nThis is just the elimination of review that used to be available and is not now available.\nLet's say, what Congress did when it eliminated much of our mandatory jurisdiction and provided for recourse to this Court only by certiorari, it's your position, I gather, that Congress could not render that action applicable to causes of action that arose before the statute was passed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [470.124, 472.243, 475.762, 481.165], "stop_times": [472.243, 475.762, 481.165, 502.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 470.124}, "reply_to": "20453__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_015", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Not at all, Your Honor.\nIf Congress said specifically we want this to apply to prior judgments that had been entered as to which there was an accrued and existing right to appeal, that would be different, but if Congress did not say that, if Congress was silent... and Your Honor, the example you give--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [502.244, 503.178], "stop_times": [503.178, 519.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.244}, "reply_to": "20453__0_014", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_016", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, now... now, wait.\nYou abjure any reliance on constitutional points, then.\nYou were talking about Plaut.\nI don't see the relevance of Plaut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [519.004, 519.789, 527.71, 529.376], "stop_times": [519.789, 527.71, 529.376, 530.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.004}, "reply_to": "20453__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_017", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--No.\nAll I wanted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [530.31, 530.662], "stop_times": [530.662, 530.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.31}, "reply_to": "20453__0_016", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_018", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--unless you're making a constitutional argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [530.662], "stop_times": [532.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.662}, "reply_to": "20453__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_019", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--No.\nThe reason I appealed to Plaut was Plaut happens to describe a series of statutes that the Court might be familiar with by remembering Plaut.\nIt's just a series of statutes that had removed the res judicata defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [532.412, 532.862, 539.601], "stop_times": [532.862, 539.601, 544.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.412}, "reply_to": "20453__0_018", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_020", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But it's quite different, it seems to me, for Congress to require the courts to reexamine something that they've decided on the one hand, and that was Plaut.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [544.886], "stop_times": [555.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.886}, "reply_to": "20453__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_021", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [555.361], "stop_times": [555.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 555.361}, "reply_to": "20453__0_020", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_022", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "And Congress to say on the other hand, what's been decided we're going to leave alone, and we don't want any more appeals.\nThat's quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [555.594, 561.748], "stop_times": [561.748, 562.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.594}, "reply_to": "20453__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_023", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [562.814], "stop_times": [562.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.814}, "reply_to": "20453__0_022", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_024", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "I don't think the latter is an interference with the judicial function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [562.814], "stop_times": [566.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.814}, "reply_to": "20453__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_025", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Your Honor, I didn't mean to appeal to Plaut as a precedent.\nI simply meant to appeal to it as a compendium in a place in the statue of a number of statutes of a certain type to which I was drawing the analogy.\nBut let me be very clear in answer to Justice Souter's question.\nIn this Court, including last term in the Gasperini case, but there's a whole series of cases... Byrd and Stoner... this Court has confronted the question of whether a different standard of review applied in the Federal courts and the State courts has Erie consequences.\nIs it substantive?\nIs it the kind of thing that changes the legal... the law that applies in the two sets of courts?\nAnd in those cases this Court has consistently said, using what is in effect a new legal consequences analysis, it's saying, are there new legal consequences attached to the forum that you pick?\nHere it's the new legal consequence attached to a temporal kind of criteria, but the analysis there makes very clear that standards of review are treated as substantive, as defining the substantive rights, and as changing the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [566.099, 569.134, 576.038, 579.24, 597.118, 598.237, 604.022, 614.997], "stop_times": [569.134, 576.038, 579.24, 597.118, 598.237, 604.022, 614.997, 628.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.099}, "reply_to": "20453__0_024", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_026", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Mr. Liebman, those Erie cases are consistent within that context, but surely not everything that would be labeled substantive for Erie is substantive for other purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [628.256], "stop_times": [643.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.256}, "reply_to": "20453__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__0_027", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Your Honor, I don't mean to suggest there's a one-to-one relationship.\nI'm simply trying to point out that the Court has recognized, including in the Gasperini case, that you get new law, a new set of legal outcomes.\nIn a sense, what you... what the law had promised you in the state courts, if it instead is brought in the Federal courts you get something different, and it is exactly that that I'm pointing... that I'm referring to.\nIn answer to Justice Scalia's point, I want to go back to those very statutes that you refer to, a series of statutes running from 1875 to 1891, the Everetts act, and through the judges' bill in 1925, and up through 1988.\nIn all of those statutes where Congress switched this Court's preexisting appeal, or writ of error jurisdiction to a certiorari jurisdiction, in each one of those it both... it did two things.\nFirst of all, it said any case in the Supreme Court at the time the statute was passed will proceed under the prior statute.\nSecondly, it said that any case that had reached a final judgment... that is, in which there was an accrued and existing right to an appeal or writ of error at the time the new statute came into effect would be given a long period of time, often 6, 7, 8 months, to get into the Supreme Court under the old law, so that you'd have your appeal or your writ of error.\nSo even Congress seems to understand that even if it is a chain of courts connected with one kind of review versus another, that if you had an accrued, an existing right to the review because you had a final judgment against you, that you had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [643.766, 646.551, 656.489, 668.214, 681.455, 693.579, 699.816, 722.746], "stop_times": [646.551, 656.489, 668.214, 681.455, 693.579, 699.816, 722.746, 735.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.766}, "reply_to": "20453__0_026", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_028", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "What is your test--\n--You could say... I mean, arguably that's one conclusion you could draw from the fact that Congress said that.\nThe other conclusion you can draw is that Congress realized that if it didn't say that, appeal would have been cut off automatically, that it had to say that in order to preserve it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [735.22, 736.62, 741.958], "stop_times": [736.62, 741.958, 750.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.22}, "reply_to": "20453__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_029", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--The Supreme Court, this Court itself has said the same thing in those cases that I referred to, the jurisdiction cases.\nThere's the McCardle case, there's Crane v. Halo.\nIn those cases the Court looked to see whether there was an existing efficient and substantial alternative remedy that remained before it was deemed to be appropriate, unless Congress specified, or to overcome constitutional problems, as in McCardle, to cut off that right completely, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [750.913, 759.352, 761.618], "stop_times": [759.352, 761.618, 781.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.913}, "reply_to": "20453__0_028", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_030", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "The reference to an alternative forum in McCardle is pretty much of an afterthought in the last paragraph of the opinion, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [781.663], "stop_times": [789.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.663}, "reply_to": "20453__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__0_031", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well, it has been vindicated, of course.\nIt was vindicated a few years later in the habeas corpus context at that point and then, of course, it was vindicated again in a sense, or at least as a way of avoiding a constitutional issue last year in your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [789.951, 792.987], "stop_times": [792.987, 805.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.951}, "reply_to": "20453__0_030", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_032", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "I thought you... I thought we just had a discussion in which you say you're not relying on any constitutional problems here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [805.278], "stop_times": [811.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.278}, "reply_to": "20453__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_033", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--All I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [811.599], "stop_times": [812.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.599}, "reply_to": "20453__0_032", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_034", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "I mean, I don't see this as a McCardle case at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [812.067], "stop_times": [814.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.067}, "reply_to": "20453__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_035", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--No.\nIn answer to Chief Justice Rehnquist's question I just wanted to point out that in McCardle the... they got... obviously, there Congress wanted to withdraw the jurisdiction, but there still was a constitutional question of whether you could do it, and it is consistent in that case that the Court said, well, look, there is an alternative remedy.\nThat just places it within, as well, the Court's retroactivity cases, where there isn't a constitutional problem.\nThere's simply a policy problem that would arise from applying it in the past, and what the Court did in those cases was to say, it's okay to withdraw this forum, but let's make sure that there is an alternate and equally efficient remedy that is available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [814.584, 815.136, 834.13, 839.951], "stop_times": [815.136, 834.13, 839.951, 855.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.584}, "reply_to": "20453__0_034", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_036", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "What... do you have a way of saying in a sentence or two what your standard for determining which procedures are determinative of the change of consequence... you know, the language from Landgraf?\nWhat's worrying me is every procedural change, every rule of evidence, any change anyone can think of in the court system is going to change the result in respect to some category of people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [855.394, 870.403], "stop_times": [870.403, 882.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.394}, "reply_to": "20453__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_037", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [882.647], "stop_times": [883.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.647}, "reply_to": "20453__0_036", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_038", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "And of course, that's determinative of legal consequence.\nThey say, don't look at it that way.\nLook at actions in the world.\nDoes it change the consequence of actions of the world legally?\nNo.\nLook at remedies.\nDoes it change that, whether the person goes to prison or not because of a violation of... no.\nThen look at procedures, and procedures don't... that's the kind of way I think they want us to look at it.\nNow, you're saying, no, look at those procedures.\nSome procedural changes do change legal consequences attached to actions, others don't.\nWhat's your test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [883.68, 886.715, 889.584, 891.684, 895.488, 896.104, 897.188, 902.142, 908.228, 911.43, 916.298], "stop_times": [886.715, 889.584, 891.684, 895.488, 896.104, 897.188, 902.142, 908.228, 911.43, 916.298, 917.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.68}, "reply_to": "20453__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_039", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--The test, Your Honor, is when a Congress provides a standard and the intent of that standard is systematically to change the outcomes in a series of cases in favor of one of the litigants, sets of litigants to that action, and against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [917.767], "stop_times": [936.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.767}, "reply_to": "20453__0_038", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_040", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "So if, in fact, there were two levels of an administrative review, including three levels within the agency and two in court later on, and maybe three, and Congress said, I'm going to take away one level of review... why are you doing it?\nWe think this kind of individual is just delaying things too long.\nThen you would say, because they have four levels of review instead of five, that that then fits the Landgraf test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [936.878, 954.238, 959.291], "stop_times": [954.238, 959.291, 966.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.878}, "reply_to": "20453__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_041", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--No. No, Your Honor.\nIf I conveyed that impression I didn't mean that at all.\nIt has to do with Congress' effort systematically to change the outcome of the legal rights at the end of the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [966.445, 966.945, 969.813], "stop_times": [966.945, 969.813, 977.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 966.445}, "reply_to": "20453__0_040", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_042", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Oh, that's why they change four levels to five.\nIt's five levels in a social security case.\nThey only want three, and they think too many social security claimants are getting money, so they change it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [977.217, 979.519, 981.787], "stop_times": [979.519, 981.787, 987.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.217}, "reply_to": "20453__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_043", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But Your Honor, what I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [987.691], "stop_times": [988.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.691}, "reply_to": "20453__0_042", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_044", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Does that, then, make the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [988.225], "stop_times": [989.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.225}, "reply_to": "20453__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_045", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--What I don't understand in your example is, either side can benefit from another appeal.\nIf you lost--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [989.325, 994.178], "stop_times": [994.178, 994.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 989.325}, "reply_to": "20453__0_044", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_046", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Do they determine systematically that they... I mean... do you see what I'm saying?\nIt could happen.\nIf it's not social security--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [994.494, 998.196, 998.862], "stop_times": [998.196, 998.862, 999.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.494}, "reply_to": "20453__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_047", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well, no, Your Honor, even in that situation what I would look to is the four corners of the provision itself, and to see if within the four corners of the provision itself it is designed to realign--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [999.028], "stop_times": [1011.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.028}, "reply_to": "20453__0_046", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_048", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--All right, so the answer to my question is yes, if there's an administrative procedure, and by looking at it you see that this procedural change was designed to help one group or one side versus the other, then it's substantive.\nThat is your test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1011.086, 1021.825], "stop_times": [1021.825, 1021.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1011.086}, "reply_to": "20453__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_049", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well, if the statute were to say, for purposes of limiting the number of social security claimants who receive relief, yes, that would be it.\nWhat I was struggling with is, a rule of evidence or something like that, you never quite know in any case who it's going to help and who it's going to hurt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1021.825, 1030.494], "stop_times": [1030.494, 1036.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.825}, "reply_to": "20453__0_048", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_050", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, we have a change in the parole evidence rule because we feel that defendants in contracts cases by and large are winning too often.\nTherefore we change it so it's easier for the plaintiffs to win.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1036.667, 1042.988], "stop_times": [1042.988, 1046.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.667}, "reply_to": "20453__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_051", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I teach evidence, but I don't have to teach the parole evidence rule because it's a substantive rule of contracts, and so yes, that would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1046.357], "stop_times": [1052.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.357}, "reply_to": "20453__0_050", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_052", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "The answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1052.511], "stop_times": [1053.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.511}, "reply_to": "20453__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__0_053", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Yes.\nThat would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1053.094, 1053.26], "stop_times": [1053.26, 1053.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.094}, "reply_to": "20453__0_052", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_054", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Mr. Liebman, you've explained the one side of it, what would be subject to the ordinary rule of prospectivity.\nCan you describe the other category, these processing rules that you say that kind of change would apply to the case wherever it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1053.777, 1064.466], "stop_times": [1064.466, 1074.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.777}, "reply_to": "20453__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__0_055", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--There are two aspects to this under the Landgraf rule.\nThe first question is whether any right has matured and become unconditional.\nThe question is whether... the second question is whether that has happened before the statute went into effect.\nNow, let's take injunctions.\nInjunctions, as this Court pointed out in the American Steel Foundries case, injunctions are decided by conditions as they exist on the ground at the moment the court ruled.\nThat's what American Steel Foundry says.\nSo if a case is filed and the court's trying to decide whether or not to grant an injunction, and in the middle of that, but before the injunction is ruled on, a statute changed... changes, that becomes another one of the factors that is on the ground at the time the court rules, and it would be considered at the time the court ruled, because there was at that point no accrued and unconditional right to an injunction because injunctions are always up in the air and unstable and unsettled until the point that the court rules.\nTo give another example, the... one of the amicus briefs refers to the change in 1919 where the harmless error rule was adopted by statute.\nWell, before that time, this Court had applied its own harmless error rule consistent with the one put in the statute but a number of courts of appeals had stopped following it and were reversing on technical error.\nWell, at that point, when the new statute was passed it was applied immediately in those cases, the reason being that there was no matured and unconditional right to relief on technical errors until the Supreme Court had passed on a case where at the time for cert had passed, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1074.322, 1077.69, 1082.159, 1086.963, 1089.165, 1100.27, 1101.722, 1129.707, 1138.563, 1150.37], "stop_times": [1077.69, 1082.159, 1086.963, 1089.165, 1100.27, 1101.722, 1129.707, 1138.563, 1150.37, 1166.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.322}, "reply_to": "20453__0_054", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_056", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Mr. Liebman, can I ask you about the four corners of the instrument to which you're appealing?\nOne of your arguments, indeed, your first argument, I guess the one you rely on most, is that since Chapter 154 in its last provision says that it shall apply to cases pending on or after the date of enactment of this act... that's on A-31 of the appendix to your blue brief.\nSince that is in Chapter 154, the implication is that that is not applicable to 15... Chapter 153.\nWhat do you do, then, with the various provisions in Chapter 154 that rely on amended Chapter 153?\nFor example, on page A-25 of your appendix, in section 2264(b), it says, following review, subject to subsections (a), (d), and (e) of section 2254, the Court shall rule on the claims properly before it, but according to you there will not be review subject to subsections (a), (d), and (e) of section 2254 because... at least for those cases pending at the time, because those provisions will not apply to those cases pending at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1166.73, 1170.665, 1187.294, 1195.815, 1205.671], "stop_times": [1170.665, 1187.294, 1195.815, 1205.671, 1242.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.73}, "reply_to": "20453__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_057", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--No, Your Honor, actually 2264(b) in some senses is our strongest point, and let me try and explain why.\nAll Chapter 153 provisions apply in all habeas cases, all State prisoner habeas cases.\nChapter 154 only applies in capital opt-in cases.\nSo if the Chapter 153... if the Chapter 153 provisions were to apply to pending cases, the provision you read, 2464(b), would be superfluous, because it would say, in a set of cases in which all of the 20... in all... in a set of cases in which all of the Chapter 153 provisions apply, apply some of the Chapter 153 provisions.\nThere's only one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1242.963, 1249.55, 1256.021, 1259.639, 1281.338], "stop_times": [1249.55, 1256.021, 1259.639, 1281.338, 1282.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.963}, "reply_to": "20453__0_056", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_058", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "No, wait, it isn't superfluous.\nIt's a temporal provision.\nIt just makes it clear that these things have to be done first.\nIt does not prescribe that they be done.\nIt just says, following review subject to them, the court shall rule on the claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1282.071, 1283.438, 1285.79, 1289.408, 1292.444], "stop_times": [1283.438, 1285.79, 1289.408, 1292.444, 1296.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1282.071}, "reply_to": "20453__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_059", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--But... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1296.229], "stop_times": [1296.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.229}, "reply_to": "20453__0_058", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_060", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "It's a question of when it rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1296.579], "stop_times": [1297.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.579}, "reply_to": "20453__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_061", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--But, Your Honor, under Chapter 153 each of those provisions says themselves that when you come to review a habeas corpus case you... if it's a factual question you look at 2254(e).\nIf it's a legal question, you look at 2254(d).\nThose provisions say that already.\nSo what 2264(b), Your Honor, is doing, is saying there are some parts of 225... or of Chapter 153--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1297.762, 1310.32, 1312.688, 1314.371], "stop_times": [1310.32, 1312.688, 1314.371, 1321.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.762}, "reply_to": "20453__0_060", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_062", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1321.041], "stop_times": [1321.625], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.041}, "reply_to": "20453__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20453__0_063", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Some parts that we want to apply to pending cases.\nEverything in Chapter 154 applies to pending cases.\nWe refer by reference to some of the 153 sections in Chapter 154 and therefore, by virtue of 107(c), we make those applicable to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1321.625, 1324.91, 1328.029], "stop_times": [1324.91, 1328.029, 1338.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1321.625}, "reply_to": "20453__0_062", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_064", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Mr. Liebman, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1338.986], "stop_times": [1339.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.986}, "reply_to": "20453__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__0_065", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--pending capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1339.936], "stop_times": [1340.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.936}, "reply_to": "20453__0_064", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_066", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--A very subtle way to do it, Mr. Liebman.\nAnd the Seventh Circuit disagreed with that interpretation of 2264(b).\nJudge Easterbrook rejected it, and so does your opposing counsel.\nThey don't agree that this has a temporal reference.\nThey say, this is a which, which ones in 2254?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1340.769, 1342.621, 1347.175, 1352.746, 1355.698], "stop_times": [1342.621, 1347.175, 1352.746, 1355.698, 1359.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.769}, "reply_to": "20453__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__0_067", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Can I explain why that is an irrational reading of this statute?\nThe understanding of the lower court is that this is designed to read exhaustion out of the statute by leaving... by negative implication leaving 2254(b) out.\nHowever, Your Honor, if you look a couple of pages before at a provision called 2263(b)(2)... it's on page A-24... under that provision the State always has the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1359.166, 1362.618, 1372.574], "stop_times": [1362.618, 1372.574, 1384.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.166}, "reply_to": "20453__0_066", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_068", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "What provision are you reading, Mr. Liebman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1384.28], "stop_times": [1385.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.28}, "reply_to": "20453__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__0_069", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nIt's 2263(b)(2).\nIt is right smack in the middle of page A-24, with the (2) before it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1385.863, 1386.263, 1389.631], "stop_times": [1386.263, 1389.631, 1394.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.863}, "reply_to": "20453__0_068", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_070", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "From the date on which?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1394.349], "stop_times": [1395.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.349}, "reply_to": "20453__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__0_071", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Yes.\nThis is a tolling provision, and what it says is, there shall be no tolling of the very short statute of limitations for second or successive State post conviction cases.\nIf the State does not want a case to go back for exhaustion, it simply says, you go back and exhaust.\nWe assert the statute of limitations.\nYou'll never get back into Federal court.\nAnd so at that point exhaustion is over because there's no effective remedy.\nOn the other hand, if the State wants exhaustion... because if it wants exhaustion... it may want exhaustion because the only way it's going to get the hearing to be held in State court instead of Federal court, the only way it's going to get a set of fact-findings in State court that will bind in Federal court, the only way it's going to get section 2254(d) to apply, because 2254(d) does not apply unless there was an adjudication on the merits in the State court, is by saying, we'll waive the statute of limitations, insist upon exhaustion, you go back to State court, and we're going to get our State fact-findings there and we're going to get the benefit of 2254(d).\nThe theory that the lower court used and that the State asserts is a theory that would withdraw from States the right to get State court fact-findings that are binding in Federal court, and the right to have 2254(d) itself apply to any case in which the petitioner shows up in Federal court with the newly available claim.\nNew law, new facts, and the petitioner can say, I never have to go back to State court.\nUnder the lower court's interpretation here and the State's interpretation, the States are going to be howling when they find out their payment, their repayment for having paid for counsel in State post conviction proceedings, which this act is supposed to give them an incentive to do, is the withdrawal of their capacity to force these cases back into State court to get State court fact-findings, have State hearings, and to have 2254(d) apply.\nTheir reward for providing counsel is to lose those defenses.\nWe have a reading that is not irrational in that way.\nIt gives the States the choice.\nIf you don't want exhaustion, assert 2263(b)(2).\nIf you do want exhaustion, waive the statute of limitations and insist upon exhaustion.\nThat means that 2264(b) is... the only purpose it has is on the assumption that the Chapter 153 provisions do not apply to pending capital locked-in cases on their own bottom, and so they had to be incorporated by reference.\nI'll reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1395.535, 1396.018, 1405.891, 1412.127, 1414.412, 1416.198, 1419.816, 1454.137, 1473.868, 1478.688, 1502.653, 1506.522, 1508.938, 1510.224, 1513.926, 1517.711, 1533.737], "stop_times": [1396.018, 1405.891, 1412.127, 1414.412, 1416.198, 1419.816, 1454.137, 1473.868, 1478.688, 1502.653, 1506.522, 1508.938, 1510.224, 1513.926, 1517.711, 1533.737, 1535.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1395.535}, "reply_to": "20453__0_070", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__0_072", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Very well, Mr. Liebman.\nMs. Wellman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1535.071, 1536.773], "stop_times": [1536.773, 1538.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.071}, "reply_to": "20453__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__1_000", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe State asks this Court to hold that 2254(d), which limits the circumstances in which the Federal court may exercise its jurisdiction to grant habeas relief, applies to petitions pending on the date of 2254(d)'s enactment.\nIt applies to cases pending on the date of enactment because 1) it goes to the jurisdiction of the Federal court to grant relief.\n2) When we're talking about habeas, we're talking first and foremost about a reviewing process.\nAlthough it's different from an appeal, it's like an appeal in that one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1538.54, 1546.544, 1563.323, 1572.179, 1579.082], "stop_times": [1546.544, 1563.323, 1572.179, 1579.082, 1583.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1538.54}, "reply_to": "20453__0_072", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_001", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Ms. Wellman, there are microphones, and I think we could hear you even if you didn't speak quite as loudly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1583.403], "stop_times": [1587.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.403}, "reply_to": "20453__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__1_002", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Oh, I'm sorry.\nThank you, Your Honor.\nIt's a reviewing process that reviews what the... what a lower court decision has already done, so it's not reviewing in the... it's not determinating rights and responsibilities and duties and obligations between parties in the first instance.\nIt's reviewing the judgment and decision rendered by the State court.\nIn that sense also it is forward-looking.\nIt's injunctive in the sense that the right to habeas relief is a right for the custody to end.\nIt does not go back and give damages if the petitioner had been confined unconstitutionally for 20 years, he does not get damages for that.\nIt imposes no liability against the State in that sense, but rather it ends the custody.\nFrom this day forward you are released from custody unless the State retries you, so it is forward-looking in that sense, and in that sense, until the Federal court has reached that determination of whether it will order that custody shall cease or not, 2254(d) is not applying backwards in any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1587.855, 1589.621, 1591.14, 1610.201, 1615.186, 1618.788, 1626.294, 1635.732, 1643.088], "stop_times": [1589.621, 1591.14, 1610.201, 1615.186, 1618.788, 1626.294, 1635.732, 1643.088, 1664.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.855}, "reply_to": "20453__1_001", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_003", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Ms. Wellman, on that point I am confused.\nI thought that there's a big difference between an injunction, which is indeed prospective, from this day forward, and habeas, which says, you should not be where you are.\nIt's, I thought, backward-looking, because you don't give a person... release a person based on some future activity but you say, you should not be here today, you should not have been there yesterday.\nThere's no legal authority to hold you.\nSo it seems to me habeas is backward-looking, not forward-looking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1664.934, 1669.552, 1680.944, 1695.953, 1697.453], "stop_times": [1669.552, 1680.944, 1695.953, 1697.453, 1701.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.934}, "reply_to": "20453__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__1_004", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "It is in that sense, but it is not backward-looking in the sense of tort action, in that the remedy to a person or the liability to a person, you're not... the State is not going to pay in the sense of damages.\nIt's not backward-looking in that sense.\nCertainly whether custody shall continue or not depends on what happens before, but that cannot be the test of whether there are retroactive effects, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1701.721, 1714.831, 1716.949], "stop_times": [1714.831, 1716.949, 1725.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.721}, "reply_to": "20453__1_003", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_005", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But it is reviewing... I mean, in order to grant relief it is reviewing past actions, whereas in a classic injunctive case I suppose the question is, at the present time, now, is the defendant doing something defendant ought not to do, and yet in... as Justice Ginsburg's question suggests, in the habeas case it's the... the consequence is entirely a consequence of something that happened in the past.\nThe person was either properly convicted or not properly convicted, so in that sense it is backward-looking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1725.369, 1753.872], "stop_times": [1753.872, 1759.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.369}, "reply_to": "20453__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_006", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--That's right.\nIt's not a perfect analogy, and as Landgraf recognized most of these categories that the law has drawn are not drawn with perfect philosophical clarity, but it is like an injunction in the sense that it says, henceforth custody must cease.\nIt is like an appeal remedy in the sense that it's reviewing what a court has already done.\nIn both of those senses it is adjudic... we're looking, we're really focusing on the adjudicative process of the Federal court itself.\nWe're not focus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1759.776, 1760.326, 1773.3, 1779.253, 1787.176], "stop_times": [1760.326, 1773.3, 1779.253, 1787.176, 1788.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.776}, "reply_to": "20453__1_005", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_007", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Could you at some point at your convenience go into a question that's bothering me?\nIf Congress said nothing about it, now, it could be just applying to all new habeas petitions or ones that have already been filed.\nIf it's the first, we at least know how to do it.\nIf it's the second, I was wondering about the very large number, what seemed like a large number of permutations and combinations as there are existing habeas petitions at dozens of different stages.\nThere are first, second, third.\nThere are those on appeal.\nThere are those that they've got, issued CPC's but... probable cause to appeal... but not... haven't heard it.\nThere are those that they've argued it at a hearing or just about ready to release.\nThere are dozens of combinations, some filed initially within the 1 year, some filed not within the 1 year.\nIs it plausible or possible that Congress wanted the courts to go into each of those permutations and combinations and figure out somewhat different rules as we try to work out how to apply this thing retroactively?\nThat's the thing that worries me about it the most, because it seems to me... it can't be true, for example, that a person who's already on appeal, who's argued his case, and the judge is just about to release the decision, or has released it but the mandate hasn't come down, is now supposed to go back to stage 1 and... or is he?\nI mean, suppose that he filed his initial petition 1 year and 5 days after the conviction took place.\nDoes it count?\nI mean, my mind began to swim with possible combinations and so I wondered if Congress really intended us to do all that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1788.659, 1793.094, 1802.467, 1805.085, 1818.694, 1820.128, 1821.38, 1826.632, 1830.034, 1835.836, 1849.177, 1868.905, 1876.659, 1877.542], "stop_times": [1793.094, 1802.467, 1805.085, 1818.694, 1820.128, 1821.38, 1826.632, 1830.034, 1835.836, 1849.177, 1868.905, 1876.659, 1877.542, 1884.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.659}, "reply_to": "20453__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_008", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--I think that you must do that because Congress was silent, and when Congress is silent, then the Court has to do the Landgraf analysis as to the particular provision at issue.\nHowever, I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1884.248, 1896.138], "stop_times": [1896.138, 1897.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.248}, "reply_to": "20453__1_007", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_009", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Did Congress know about the Landgraf analysis?\nI mean, was the Landgraf analysis the recitation of a formula that we had used for a century or so and Congress was quite familiar with, or was it a new analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1897.005, 1899.674], "stop_times": [1899.674, 1910.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.005}, "reply_to": "20453__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_010", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well, certainly Landgraf had been decided before this was... became law by about 2 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1910.713], "stop_times": [1916.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.713}, "reply_to": "20453__1_009", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_011", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But Landgraf is a long opinion, and suppose the Member of Congress got only up to page 242, where it--\n[Laughter]\nWhere it says, but while the constitutional impediment to retroactive civil legislation, constitutional impediments are now modest, prospectivity remains the appropriate default rule.\nOkay, that's what the Member of Congress fastens on, prospectivity remains the appropriate default rule, period.\nWe didn't say anything.\nIt's prospective.\nWhy isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1916.1, 1922.754, 1923.754, 1937.912, 1942.964, 1943.816, 1945.266], "stop_times": [1922.754, 1923.754, 1937.912, 1942.964, 1943.816, 1945.266, 1946.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.1}, "reply_to": "20453__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__1_012", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, I think we have to assume that if Congress knew about Landgraf, they understood the entire decision, and as I understand Landgraf, and as we argue, what it clarifies is that there are two default rules.\nThe court deciding a case shall apply the rule in existence at the time of decision unless giving the particular provision at issue would have a retroactive effect, and it defines--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1946.216, 1961.527], "stop_times": [1961.527, 1973.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.216}, "reply_to": "20453__1_011", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_013", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Then you're saying that later parts of the opinion take this back, that prospectivity is not the default rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1973.418], "stop_times": [1981.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.418}, "reply_to": "20453__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__1_014", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1981.505], "stop_times": [1981.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.505}, "reply_to": "20453__1_013", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_015", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Something else is the default rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1981.772], "stop_times": [1983.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.772}, "reply_to": "20453__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__1_016", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--I think when you read that what you have to understand is that when the Court... starting with Landgraf, when the Court says the default rule is prospective for a retroactive statute it means statutes that have a retroactive effect as they define it in Landgraf, which is, attach new legal consequences to conduct completed before enactment, and new legal consequences means only in paravested rights that had become a right before, under the existing law, impose new liabilities on conduct that had already occurred and was completed, or impose new duties on transactions that were already completed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [1983.373], "stop_times": [2022.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.373}, "reply_to": "20453__1_015", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_017", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Ms. Wellman, you don't concede that the position you're arguing for is retrospective application, do you?\nDon't you take the position that your position is prospective?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2022.749, 2029.421], "stop_times": [2029.421, 2037.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.749}, "reply_to": "20453__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_018", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2037.175], "stop_times": [2037.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.175}, "reply_to": "20453__1_017", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_019", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "I mean, the crucial issue is, prospective from when?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2037.175], "stop_times": [2040.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.175}, "reply_to": "20453__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_020", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--From when and after what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2040.377], "stop_times": [2040.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2040.377}, "reply_to": "20453__1_019", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_021", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Or retrospective from when.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2040.877], "stop_times": [2042.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.877}, "reply_to": "20453__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_022", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "That's right.\nIf, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2042.827, 2043.927], "stop_times": [2043.927, 2044.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.827}, "reply_to": "20453__1_021", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_023", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "That's the hard question.\nWhere do you begin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2044.643, 2045.945], "stop_times": [2045.945, 2046.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.643}, "reply_to": "20453__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_024", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Where do you begin, and where you begin as to 2254(d), which tells the Federal court under the situations in which it can grant relief, if the State court decision is contrary to or an unreasonable application of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as long as that decision and determination has not been made yet, then applying the statute to that decision is prospective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2046.528], "stop_times": [2071.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.528}, "reply_to": "20453__1_023", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_025", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, does... I mean, my real... the real thrust of my question, to be a little facetious about it, is if all the rules of construction and cases and silences and everything balance out exactly equally, should we presume Congress intends to do that which makes more sense, you see.\n[Laughter] And so therefore... therefore, I'm asking you really about what makes sense in terms of the application, and what I wonder is, well, I can understand how to apply a rule to new habeas petitions.\nEven I can figure that one out.\nIf it's a new one you apply it.\nIf it's an old one you don't.\nAnd what I'm worried about, and wonder about... I don't have a view.\nI want to get your view.\nWhat I'm worried and wonder about is what kind of a mare's nest... what kind of a complexity are we getting into if we try to apply it retro or post... however you want to put the word, if you try to apply it to the set of cases that have already been filed and are at various stages of proceeding.\nFor example, I take it that a judge who is about to decide under this new rule would at least have to give the habeas petitioner a chance to go back and reargue and possibly introduce new witnesses, wouldn't he, before applying a new standard?\nThat's the kind of thing that's worrying me, and that's why I'd appreciate your addressing that kind of point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2071.06, 2085.902, 2100.294, 2101.413, 2102.613, 2103.865, 2108.149, 2109.684, 2132.114, 2149.725], "stop_times": [2085.902, 2100.294, 2101.413, 2102.613, 2103.865, 2108.149, 2109.684, 2132.114, 2149.725, 2155.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2071.06}, "reply_to": "20453__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__1_026", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Yes, I think it... I understand your concern, and I think it's well-taken.\nWhat we do is, we look at the proceedings at the point... as to all petitions that had already been filed.\nWhatever stage that particular petition was at on April 24, 1996, is where we pick up and apply the new law.\nSo as with Mr. Lindh his appeal was pending, the Seventh Circuit had not reached a decision yet, it was to apply 2254(d), and it did indeed ask the parties to rebrief both retroactivity and what the new statute means and how it applies to his case.\nIt did not go back and say, well, we have to look at was your petition filed within 1 year or not.\nIt did not go back and look and say, well, did you have the new certificate of appealability.\nThose things that are already done are done and over, and you just start where you are.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2155.463, 2158.248, 2164.902, 2171.972, 2186.831, 2193.235, 2197.287, 2201.739], "stop_times": [2158.248, 2164.902, 2171.972, 2186.831, 2193.235, 2197.287, 2201.739, 2201.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.463}, "reply_to": "20453__1_025", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_027", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Suppose... suppose he had won.\nSuppose Lindh had won in the district court.\nHere he lost, and so he was up on appeal, but in line with Justice Breyer's question, what happens when he wins and the warden is appealing and it gets to the Seventh Circuit and everything else is the same, the new law passes.\nDoes that... well, you tell me what happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2201.972, 2203.888, 2206.44, 2223.968], "stop_times": [2203.888, 2206.44, 2223.968, 2227.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.972}, "reply_to": "20453__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__1_028", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--The Seventh Circuit would have to apply new 2254(d), because that's governing that court's decision whether to grant or deny habeas, and the reason for that is a little bit unlike a normal appeal, because the habeas law has always recognized that the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit is not just reviewing what the district court did and whether it did it right, but it is independently determining whether to grant a habeas writ.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2227.92], "stop_times": [2250.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.92}, "reply_to": "20453__1_027", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_029", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Then, suppose the petitioner says, well, if only I'd realized that would happen, I would have introduced three new witnesses who... and I would have made seven different new arguments.\nDoes he get a chance to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2250.516, 2260.288], "stop_times": [2260.288, 2262.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.516}, "reply_to": "20453__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__1_030", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "He... for the trans... he would get the chance to make the new arguments, I believe, as the Seventh Circuit did here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2262.055], "stop_times": [2267.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.055}, "reply_to": "20453__1_029", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_031", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, what about new witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2267.507], "stop_times": [2269.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.507}, "reply_to": "20453__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__1_032", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, what we're determining here is whether the State court's decision on the facts as known in the State court... he never offered before to offer new evidence.\nHe never challenged the presumption of correctness of the State court findings, so we're dealing with a set issue of facts and the law as under this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2269.09, 2279.565], "stop_times": [2279.565, 2287.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.09}, "reply_to": "20453__1_031", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_033", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "There was no request for a hearing, then, in the district court in the habeas proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2287.802], "stop_times": [2290.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.802}, "reply_to": "20453__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__1_034", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Absolutely not.\nThere never was, and he never challenged the presumption of correctness as to the facts found by the Wisconsin supreme court, so in that situation all you're doing is you're... as a reviewing court you're looking at was the Wisconsin supreme court's decision, which is the final decision in the State court, contrary to clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent or an unreasonable application?\nAt that point, except for making those arguments to the Court, which he certainly was entitled to do and did here, there is nothing different he could have done at any stage.\nWhat would he have argued differently to the State supreme court to try to get an unreasonable decision so he can win on habeas?\nThat just makes no sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2290.402, 2291.27, 2315.119, 2324.058, 2329.277], "stop_times": [2291.27, 2315.119, 2324.058, 2329.277, 2330.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.402}, "reply_to": "20453__1_033", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_035", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Ms. Wellman, I'd like to be clear about what we're discussing currently here.\nAm I wrong that what we're discussing is whether Congress should be deemed to have said X rather than Y because if it said X, the rule which we have developed concerning retroactivity would be very difficult to apply and create a whole lot of complexity, and therefore Congress should be deemed to have said X rather than Y?\nIs that the argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2330.645, 2333.747, 2357.01], "stop_times": [2333.747, 2357.01, 2358.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.645}, "reply_to": "20453__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_036", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "No.\nI don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2358.026, 2358.51], "stop_times": [2358.51, 2358.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2358.026}, "reply_to": "20453__1_035", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_037", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--that you're addressing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2358.943], "stop_times": [2359.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.943}, "reply_to": "20453__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_038", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--I'm sorry. I don't think we're discussing whether Congress said X or Y.\nWe're discussing what this Court does under Landgraf when Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2359.66, 2359.826], "stop_times": [2359.826, 2366.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.66}, "reply_to": "20453__1_037", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_039", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2366.314], "stop_times": [2366.88], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.314}, "reply_to": "20453__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20453__1_040", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--is silent as to 2254(d).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2366.88], "stop_times": [2368.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.88}, "reply_to": "20453__1_039", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_041", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--But what concerns Justice Breyer is that if we accept your conclusion on this matter you're going to have to decide each case by applying to it the Landgraf standards, and that's very complicated, whereas if we agree with your opponent in this case it's all very simple and we don't have to get into that complexity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2368.396], "stop_times": [2393.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.396}, "reply_to": "20453__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_042", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, it seems to me that... two things.\n1) I don't think it's that complicated because we're taking out all of the problems of what happened up till now.\nIf he's filed his petition, he's okay.\nIf he's gotten a certificate of probable cause, he's okay.\nIf he's gotten a special hearing, he's okay.\nIf a final decision had been rendered by the Seventh Circuit on April 22 and this new law came down, we would not have been able to go back in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2393.447, 2395.697, 2401.684, 2403.636, 2406.588, 2409.457], "stop_times": [2395.697, 2401.684, 2403.636, 2406.588, 2409.457, 2417.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.447}, "reply_to": "20453__1_041", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_043", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "How do you... why do you distinguish... if he filed his thing on time under the old rules but not if he won under the old rules?\nYou would allow him to preserve the filing time, so that's one thing from the old system, but you would not allow him to preserve winning on the merits.\nHow do you put one in one category and the other in another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2417.063, 2424.133, 2432.287], "stop_times": [2424.133, 2432.287, 2435.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.063}, "reply_to": "20453__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__1_044", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Because as this Court explained in Landgraf, whenever a new statute comes into effect that involves the proceedings, an ongoing proceeding, we start with the point at which we're at when the new law comes into effect, for example, if a statute case gave... took away a right to a jury trial.\nIf the case was in the middle of a jury trial I don't think anyone would say, oh, let's stop.\nLet's send the jurors home and let's start over and have a trial to the court.\nIf it had not proceeded to a jury trial yet, if the case had been filed and you were in the early stages, he wouldn't have a right to a jury trial even though when he did the underlying conduct, when he made his decision what court to file in and what to make the cause of action, even though he expected to get a jury at that point.\nSo that part I think is fairly straightforward.\nIn addition, I don't think the flip is true that the rule that Mr. Liebman would ask us to apply is easy, because what he's saying is that because 154... yes, because 107(c) of 154 says that the statute applies to 154 cases pending on or after the date of enactment, it means that 153 does not apply to cases pending on or after the date of enactment, but it doesn't tell us then when does it start applying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2435.941, 2454.652, 2459.722, 2462.508, 2478.434, 2481.136], "stop_times": [2454.652, 2459.722, 2462.508, 2478.434, 2481.136, 2511.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.941}, "reply_to": "20453__1_043", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_045", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But that's his... one of his arguments.\nIt isn't engaged directly with your argument about what is the default rule.\nLet me ask you this.\nIt's clear that Congress can say what it wants, and that's what the court does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2511.255, 2512.941, 2518.595, 2521.028], "stop_times": [2512.941, 2518.595, 2521.028, 2525.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.255}, "reply_to": "20453__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__1_046", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2525.999], "stop_times": [2525.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2525.999}, "reply_to": "20453__1_045", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_047", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "The problem is when the Congress doesn't speak.\nThe object of Landgraf was to give Congress a default rule so it would know when it says nothing how the court is going to respond to that.\nNow, it seems to me that making the rule hard to apply, maybe we were not successful in Landgraf.\nMaybe Landgraf needs to be modified so that Congress will have... it will know what this Court will do, what it will instruct lower courts to do when Congress is silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2525.999, 2528.249, 2538.723, 2549.947], "stop_times": [2528.249, 2538.723, 2549.947, 2563.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.999}, "reply_to": "20453__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20453__1_048", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, that's certainly possible, because what Landgraf did, although I do think it certainly clarifies the prior law, it does still in essence need two different default rules.\nOne is, if it is the type of statute that falls within the class of cases that has a retroactive effect, then it will be presumed not to apply.\nIf it does not fall within that class of cases, however, then it does apply, so you still have to determine at some point which class does it fall in.\nOne way to look at that, I think, is to say if it's jurisdictional, if it goes primarily to what the Court does, not the parties, if it's procedural, as it is here, if it's a secondary layer of conduct as it is here, adjudication is secondary as opposed to primary conduct, if it's one of those things, then you simply don't do the Landgraf analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2563.755, 2573.23, 2583.002, 2591.774], "stop_times": [2573.23, 2583.002, 2591.774, 2611.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.755}, "reply_to": "20453__1_047", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_049", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "May I ask you a question about something you said a minute ago?\nUnder your view, if the court of appeals 2 days before the enactment of this statute had affirmed a judgment in favor of a petitioner, would the State have had an automatic right to have us on review vacate that judgment and say, try it under the new standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2611.003, 2613.538], "stop_times": [2613.538, 2629.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.003}, "reply_to": "20453__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20453__1_050", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "I think... yes.\nI think as long as we were in the direct review line--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2629.566, 2636.553], "stop_times": [2636.553, 2638.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.566}, "reply_to": "20453__1_049", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_051", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "So under your view, all judgments in favor of the petitioner that were still not final in the sense that our opportunity for review or review in the court of appeals had not expired, would have to be reopened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2638.772], "stop_times": [2648.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.772}, "reply_to": "20453__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20453__1_052", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well, only if this Court accepted... I'm sorry.\nOnly if this Court accepted cert in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2648.361, 2652.23], "stop_times": [2652.23, 2653.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.361}, "reply_to": "20453__1_051", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_053", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Yes, but assuming that the... we would really have a duty to do it under your view, if the case had been decided under the wrong standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2653.896], "stop_times": [2660.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.896}, "reply_to": "20453__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20453__1_054", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, you... I don't agree with that.\nI mean, you deny certs all the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2660.133, 2661.816], "stop_times": [2661.816, 2663.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.133}, "reply_to": "20453__1_053", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_055", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Yes, I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2663.002], "stop_times": [2663.335], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.002}, "reply_to": "20453__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20453__1_056", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--without looking at the individual case.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2663.335, 2665.252], "stop_times": [2665.252, 2665.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.335}, "reply_to": "20453__1_055", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_057", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But normally if there's a clear precedent that controls the disposition, we send it back for a second look under the new rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2665.785], "stop_times": [2671.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.785}, "reply_to": "20453__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20453__1_058", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But I think it's important that we look at whether... when a decision was final here, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2671.589], "stop_times": [2676.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2671.589}, "reply_to": "20453__1_057", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_059", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But in any event-move it back one stage.\nIf a petitioner had prevailed in the district court, it is clear that in the court of appeals under your view they would have to send it back for a new proceeding under the new standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2676.66, 2679.095], "stop_times": [2679.095, 2688.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.66}, "reply_to": "20453__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20453__1_060", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well, I don't think they'd have to send it back.\nI think they would decide it under the new standard as the Seventh Circuit did here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2688.55, 2689.55], "stop_times": [2689.55, 2692.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2688.55}, "reply_to": "20453__1_059", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_061", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "What they're going to say immediately is... I mean, maybe not in this case, but the petitioner will say, but I didn't argue the Supreme Court cases, or whatever the standard is, and I didn't produce the witnesses because I had this circuit precedent that was perfect for me, so I want another hearing.\nI want another hearing and I want to produce 10 more witnesses.\nDoes he not get that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2692.502, 2709.463, 2712.146], "stop_times": [2709.463, 2712.146, 2713.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2692.502}, "reply_to": "20453__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__1_062", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "He does not get that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2713.081], "stop_times": [2713.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.081}, "reply_to": "20453__1_061", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_063", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, what theory of retroactivity would be that you reverse them all for the new standard, but if the person says I didn't know about the new standard and would have conducted my hearing differently had I known about it, he's denied relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2713.665], "stop_times": [2726.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.665}, "reply_to": "20453__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20453__1_064", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Because in the habeas case the Seventh Circuit itself is determining whether to grant habeas or not.\nIf it were just reviewing whether the district court was right or wrong, you might have a different answer, but the Seventh Circuit is not limited to that, but it is itself, the court of appeals, determining whether to grant habeas and to make that decision it will apply the new law.\nOtherwise, what we're saying is that at any moment in time in which the defendant or petitioner has the law in his favor, he wins for all time no matter how it changes, and Lockhart v. Fretwell teaches us that that cannot be so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2726.906, 2731.626, 2744.684], "stop_times": [2731.626, 2744.684, 2759.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2726.906}, "reply_to": "20453__1_063", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_065", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, I take it you do agree, though, that it might be a lot simpler if the law just applied to new petitions for Federal habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2759.776], "stop_times": [2770.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.776}, "reply_to": "20453__1_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20453__1_066", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2770.584], "stop_times": [2773.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.584}, "reply_to": "20453__1_065", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_067", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "That would simplify a lot of these issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2773.167], "stop_times": [2776.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.167}, "reply_to": "20453__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20453__1_068", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well, it would simplify it on a superficial level, but if I understand petitioner's argument as to why you would do that, you would only do that if it has a retroactive effect, and since he's saying that part and parcel of this whole thing is that the State court decision was wrong, the State supreme court, it seems to me that you need to start behind the filing of the petition.\nThe filing of a lawsuit in and of itself never controls the \"retroactivity question\".\nIt's, does the law at the time of decision apply, or the law at the time of conduct?\nConduct is not the filing of the lawsuit that we're talking about.\nIt either has to be the time of the crime, which was almost 10 years ago now, or at least the time of the State court's decision, which is 1991, to be consistent with any theory of retroactive effect.\nIn Landgraf they never looked at... I'm not sure you even mentioned... when she filed her lawsuit.\nThe question was, does the law at the time of our decision, the court in question's decision, or the law at the time of the discriminatory conduct apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2776.904, 2796.282, 2801.334, 2806.154, 2809.004, 2820.997, 2825.866], "stop_times": [2796.282, 2801.334, 2806.154, 2809.004, 2820.997, 2825.866, 2833.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.904}, "reply_to": "20453__1_067", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_069", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Or at the time the State court took it on collateral review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2833.721], "stop_times": [2838.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.721}, "reply_to": "20453__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_070", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "That's possible.\nI mean, you could have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2838.189, 2839.625], "stop_times": [2839.625, 2840.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.189}, "reply_to": "20453__1_069", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_071", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Which would make for a fairly simple rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2840.341], "stop_times": [2842.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.341}, "reply_to": "20453__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_072", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2842.327], "stop_times": [2842.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.327}, "reply_to": "20453__1_071", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_073", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "In other words, you wouldn't have to go back--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2842.777], "stop_times": [2844.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.777}, "reply_to": "20453__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_074", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--But you would have to go back to at least whatever that point in time was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2844.11], "stop_times": [2846.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.11}, "reply_to": "20453__1_073", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_075", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Yes. You wouldn't be going back very far.\nI mean, you wouldn't be going back to the date of the indictment, or the date of the conduct, or to the date of the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2846.693, 2848.559], "stop_times": [2848.559, 2852.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.693}, "reply_to": "20453__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_076", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2852.847], "stop_times": [2853.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.847}, "reply_to": "20453__1_075", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_077", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "It would be a fairly short term of reference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2853.847], "stop_times": [2856.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.847}, "reply_to": "20453__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_078", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, but here we're talking at least... '91, '96... it's about 6 years.\nIn Felker, you would have had to go back many, many years in Felker because nobody thought about it in terms of do we go back to the underlying... I mean... I guess... I lost my train of thought.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2856.097, 2859.649, 2876.843], "stop_times": [2859.649, 2876.843, 2877.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.097}, "reply_to": "20453__1_077", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_079", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "May I ask, just to be sure I have your whole view on it, we started out with the 107(c), which says the effective date of Chapter 154 shall be on and after, and your reading of the statute would really be that this entire statute shall apply to all cases pending.\nWhat is your view of why Congress just explicitly described 154 and didn't mention 153?\nWhat's your basic theory on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2877.543, 2895.555, 2901.209], "stop_times": [2895.555, 2901.209, 2903.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.543}, "reply_to": "20453__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20453__1_080", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, I think the most likely explanation is that 154 speaks in language that sounds futuristic.\nIt says, if a State court establishes procedures for competent counsel at post conviction hearings, and if they establish this and establish that, and I think someone late in the game realized a concern.\nOh, that sounds like if a State already has what would pass under 154, then they won't get the benefits of 154, and we don't want that to happen, so we want to make sure that anyone already in compliance gets the benefits of 154.\nAs to 153, there are any number of inferences which is why the negative inference that petitioner wants you to draw cannot be controlling, because there are too many possibilities.\nMaybe they didn't think about it.\nMaybe they didn't agree.\nMaybe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2903.328, 2910.232, 2922.122, 2935.882, 2946.404, 2947.69, 2948.823], "stop_times": [2910.232, 2922.122, 2935.882, 2946.404, 2947.69, 2948.823, 2948.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.328}, "reply_to": "20453__1_079", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_081", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, let's... may I interrupt you just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2948.823], "stop_times": [2950.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.823}, "reply_to": "20453__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_082", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Surely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2950.323], "stop_times": [2950.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.323}, "reply_to": "20453__1_081", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_083", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--before you get too far afield.\nLet's assume that we disagree with you there, and then we say, well, these provisions were enacted simultaneously, and that certainly is a circumstance that leads to a strong rather than a weak negative inference.\nIs it your position that if we say yes, there does seem to be a strong legitimate negative inference to be drawn here, that we still could not give effect to that, or we could not recognize that inference, because under Landgraf it still was not an express provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2950.923, 2952.006, 2964.064], "stop_times": [2952.006, 2964.064, 2980.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.923}, "reply_to": "20453__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_084", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Yes.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2980.406, 2980.656], "stop_times": [2980.656, 2980.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.406}, "reply_to": "20453__1_083", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_085", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2980.656], "stop_times": [2980.989], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.656}, "reply_to": "20453__1_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20453__1_086", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--It is my position that a negative inference is not an express prescription of the temporal reach of the statute.\nThat much I think Landgraf made very, very clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2980.989, 2986.56], "stop_times": [2986.56, 2989.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.989}, "reply_to": "20453__1_085", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_087", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "What would be the reason for our displacing... what would be the good reason for our displacing a fairly sound rule of construction... we'll say a strong negative inference rule.\nWhat would be our reason for displacing that from this particular subject matter of interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [2989.243, 3002.07], "stop_times": [3002.07, 3007.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.243}, "reply_to": "20453__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_088", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, I think there are two reasons.\nOne reason is that in order for a negative inference to ever be the equivalent of an express command it would have to be the only reasonable inference you could draw, and I don't believe you could do that here.\nAssuming that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3007.223, 3008.689, 3019.447], "stop_times": [3008.689, 3019.447, 3019.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.223}, "reply_to": "20453__1_087", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_089", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, let's assume... let me make it easier.\nLet's assume that we say well, we did use the word express, but we really didn't mean it in quite so starchy a sense as you mean it.\nWe mean provisions that are reasonably ascertainable from the text of the statute.\nDo you think there is a good reason why, if that is to be our standard, we shouldn't apply a negative inference rule in a case in which the inference can be drawn quite strongly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3019.447, 3021.713, 3030.319, 3038.159], "stop_times": [3021.713, 3030.319, 3038.159, 3049.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3019.447}, "reply_to": "20453__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_090", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--I think what you're going to be doing is doing a lot more of generalized statutory intent construction, statutory... concerning the statutory intent before you ever get to retroactivity analysis.\nAnd I think that in Landgraf what we wanted to do was to get to the heart of the matter, and the heart of the matter is, Congress, if you've thought this through and you've done the balancing of interests, and you know what you want, tell us and that's what we'll do.\nIf you haven't, we're going to look at this statute, what does it do, what is the change, what is the degree of connection between the change and the conduct regulated, and if that has a retroactive effect impairing a vested right, attaching new liabilities, we won't apply it, so at least someone is doing that balancing process, and Congress may do it.\nYou can encourage Congress to do it, but whereas here if they don't do it, then you... the Court should be doing that balancing process, and if you just do your generalized statutory maximums about intent and negative inference, you're never going to get to that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3049.049, 3062.957, 3075.515, 3096.261], "stop_times": [3062.957, 3075.515, 3096.261, 3108.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3049.049}, "reply_to": "20453__1_089", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_091", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Well, as Justice Breyer has pointed out, we might say, well, we're going to have a very Procrustean rule on a Landgraf model saying you've got to be express in this abundantly obvious way or we're not going to recognize it, and the argument for that would be, well, it keeps the analysis simple.\nBut Justice Breyer's question shows that if in fact we took that position we would then land ourselves in this particular case, or land all of the Federal courts that have to pass on these things, in a situation in which a lot of very complicated case-by-case analysis is going to have to go on, so maybe it would be better to sort of confront intent at the front end under our normal rules, assuming there's a textual basis in the statute for the application of some interpretive rule, and have a simpler result in applying the statute in individual cases.\nWouldn't that be a good argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3108.069, 3125.946, 3165.755], "stop_times": [3125.946, 3165.755, 3166.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.069}, "reply_to": "20453__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_092", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "No.\nI don't meant... but I don't mean to sound circular, but it seems to me that if you're going to do that... I mean, all we're talking about here is whether 2254(d) applies, and if... what you're saying is because they say 154 applies to all cases pending, then none of 153 applies to cases pending.\nIt seems to me that that's too many different things to draw a negative inference from, that there may be reasons why Congress would want the statute of limitations not to apply to pending cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3166.355, 3166.821, 3184.217], "stop_times": [3166.821, 3184.217, 3197.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3166.355}, "reply_to": "20453__1_091", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_093", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But I mean, that argument in effect is you cannot soundly draw a negative influence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3197.44], "stop_times": [3201.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.44}, "reply_to": "20453__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20453__1_094", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3201.758], "stop_times": [3202.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3201.758}, "reply_to": "20453__1_093", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_095", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3202.091], "stop_times": [3202.224], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.091}, "reply_to": "20453__1_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20453__1_096", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "There are just too many choices, too many variables.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3202.224], "stop_times": [3205.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3202.224}, "reply_to": "20453__1_095", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_097", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Ms. Wellman, just so long... so I'm clear about it, is it your position that Chapter 153 does apply to all cases pending on and after the date of enactment of the act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3205.21], "stop_times": [3217.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.21}, "reply_to": "20453__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__1_098", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "It's my position that 2254(d) does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3217.934], "stop_times": [3221.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.934}, "reply_to": "20453__1_097", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_099", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But what is your answer to his question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3221.469], "stop_times": [3224.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.469}, "reply_to": "20453__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20453__1_100", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "I don't know that we can say that the entire chapter does, and if by that you would mean that if you have already filed your petition and you're well into the case, but it wasn't within the 1 year, we're going to kick you out.\nOr if you're already in the court of appeals and we're ready to decide your case in the court of appeals we're going to kick you out because you don't have a certificate of appealability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3224.754, 3236.745], "stop_times": [3236.745, 3244.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3224.754}, "reply_to": "20453__1_099", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_101", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Wellman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3244.466], "stop_times": [3245.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.466}, "reply_to": "20453__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__1_102", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3245.382], "stop_times": [3245.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.382}, "reply_to": "20453__1_101", "speaker": "sally_l_wellman"}
{"id": "20453__1_103", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Mr. Liebman, you have 3 minutes remaining.\nMr. Liebman, just clarify for us, suppose the petition in Federal habeas had not been filed, what's the applicability of Chapter 153?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3245.898, 3247.898], "stop_times": [3247.898, 3264.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.898}, "reply_to": "20453__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20453__2_000", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Under section 107(c), if the Court reads section 107(c), the same negative implication that says if your case was pending, 153 does not apply to you, that same implication would say that if your case was not pending, then... but you file it immediately after the statute came into effect, then Chapter 153 would apply.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3264.241, 3285.504], "stop_times": [3285.504, 3285.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3264.241}, "reply_to": "20453__1_103", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__2_001", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "But in your view the filing date controls?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3285.771], "stop_times": [3287.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3285.771}, "reply_to": "20453__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20453__2_002", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Under 107(c), because the words of the statute are cases pending.\nUnder the retroactivity analysis I do not say that the filing date would control.\nWhat controls there are the three conditions that have to be in place in order for a habeas action to become matured and unconditional.\nThere has to be exhaustion of State remedies, the time for cert has to have passed, or the Supreme Court has denied cert. That's 2244(c), which says if the Supreme Court acts on the merits habeas is over and done with.\nAnd then the third point is, you have to be in custody.\nCustody is measured under the Carafas case at the point of filing, so in some cases the third thing that will happen will be that you're in custody at the moment the court says to look to see if you're in custody, but in some cases exhaustion occurs after you file, or the denial of cert occurs after you file in habeas.\nIt's when all three of those things have happened that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3287.789, 3292.177, 3296.545, 3304.435, 3316.826, 3319.278, 3336.62], "stop_times": [3292.177, 3296.545, 3304.435, 3316.826, 3319.278, 3336.62, 3339.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3287.789}, "reply_to": "20453__2_001", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__2_003", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Mr. Liebman, your position as I understand it is that this affects prior conduct within the meaning of Landgraf if the procedural rule, although on its surface procedural, benefits one side.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3339.606, 3352.166], "stop_times": [3352.166, 3353.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.606}, "reply_to": "20453__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__2_004", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--If it is designed to change the outcome in the series of cases such that you can say the law, what Congress wants to happen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3353.432], "stop_times": [3359.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3353.432}, "reply_to": "20453__2_003", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__2_005", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--What do you do about the jury trial example mentioned by Ms. Wellman?\nSurely the jury trial, the ability to have a jury trial is always in favor of the defendant, because if he wants it, he can get it, and if he doesn't want it, he doesn't get it.\nNow, would you say that the denial of a jury trial must, if there's no other indication that we must assume that it does not apply to, what, to conduct entered into before the provision was adopted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3359.903, 3366.057, 3375.079], "stop_times": [3366.057, 3375.079, 3392.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.903}, "reply_to": "20453__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__2_006", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--Your Honor, I'd need to see the exact provision in the exact setting, but many, many cases, the actual procedures that are going to be used, they could benefit one person in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3392.022], "stop_times": [3400.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3392.022}, "reply_to": "20453__2_005", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__2_007", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "No, the jury trial always benefits the defendant, and I've always assumed that if you have a... you know, no more jury trial for this class of cases, it simply applies when this case comes up, and your position is that it wouldn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3400.36], "stop_times": [3410.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.36}, "reply_to": "20453__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20453__2_008", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "--No, well, in the Daubert case the argument was the jury trial is always better for the criminal defendant, but it's sometimes better for plaintiffs in civil cases.\nI don't think you can predict, and that's the... the question is whether the legislature set about changing the arrangement of rights by trying systematically to take rights away from the outcome of the suit, not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3410.066, 3417.172], "stop_times": [3417.172, 3429.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3410.066}, "reply_to": "20453__2_007", "speaker": "james_s_liebman"}
{"id": "20453__2_009", "conversation_id": "20453", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Liebman.\nI think you've answered the question.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6298", "start_times": [3429.047, 3430.614, 3431.916], "stop_times": [3430.614, 3431.916, 3432.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.047}, "reply_to": "20453__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__0_000", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1201, Vicky Lopez v. Monterey County.\nMr. Avila, you may proceed whenever you're... am I pronouncing your name correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [0.0, 8.267], "stop_times": [8.267, 64.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__0_001", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [64.503], "stop_times": [65.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.503}, "reply_to": "20127__0_000", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_002", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [65.385], "stop_times": [65.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.385}, "reply_to": "20127__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__0_003", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nThe issue before you is whether a district court having enjoined an unprecleared plan can then order that unprecleared plan into effect.\nThe resolution of this issue is controlled by Clark v. Roemer.\nThere, the Court unanimously held that an election based upon unprecleared election changes must be enjoined.\nHere, the district court ignored Clark, suspended the operation of section 5, and ordered the implementation of the unprecleared plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [65.735, 71.969, 83.476, 88.889, 98.446], "stop_times": [71.969, 83.476, 88.889, 98.446, 110.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 65.735}, "reply_to": "20127__0_002", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_004", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Do we know that section 5 necessarily applies here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [110.344], "stop_times": [113.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.344}, "reply_to": "20127__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__0_005", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, it does apply.\nThere can be no serious dispute that section 5 applies to judicial elections in Monterey County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [113.427, 115.768], "stop_times": [115.768, 122.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 113.427}, "reply_to": "20127__0_004", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_006", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But how about the fact this is basically a State statute, and Monterey, the State of California isn't covered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [122.132], "stop_times": [132.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.132}, "reply_to": "20127__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__0_007", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "We are dealing with county ordinances which have consolidated judicial districts starting back in 1969, the date after Monterey County was made subject to the section 5 preclearance provisions.\nThe applicable State statutes refer and incorporate the consolidations that occurred at the county level, so we had a series of county ordinances... in fact, a total of about 11... that started out with two municipal court districts and seven justice of the peace court districts on November 1st of 1968, and ultimately it winded up with a countywide election system in 1983, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [132.089, 146.999], "stop_times": [146.999, 175.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.089}, "reply_to": "20127__0_006", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_008", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But I guess you stipulated with the county that it is impossible to prepare an election plan that doesn't conflict with State law and still comply with the Voting Rights Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [175.266], "stop_times": [187.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.266}, "reply_to": "20127__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_009", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [187.665], "stop_times": [189.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.665}, "reply_to": "20127__0_008", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_010", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And if that's the case, then how do you avoid challenging California State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [189.576], "stop_times": [194.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.576}, "reply_to": "20127__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_011", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, at this particular point, there are still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [194.009], "stop_times": [197.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 194.009}, "reply_to": "20127__0_010", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_012", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And how do you do that under section 5?\nI mean, it's a very confusing case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [197.46, 199.704], "stop_times": [199.704, 201.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.46}, "reply_to": "20127__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_013", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [201.313], "stop_times": [201.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.313}, "reply_to": "20127__0_012", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_014", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And I really would appreciate your addressing this inquiry that the Chief Justice also inquired about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [201.744], "stop_times": [208.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.744}, "reply_to": "20127__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_015", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Although we are dealing with State statute, we are also dealing with county ordinances and a consolidations of judicial districts that occurred over a period of time.\nSection 5 requires the county ordinances as well as the State statutes that specifically refer to events or consolidations of the judicial districts in Monterey County, and these State statutes specifically referred to Monterey County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [208.82, 217.915], "stop_times": [217.915, 234.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.82}, "reply_to": "20127__0_014", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_016", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, but if it is the State statute that is the operative law, I think it's just not a case where the Voting Rights Act applied.\nSurely you wouldn't make the argument if it was the other way around, if the county ordinance mentioned by reference some State law, and then applied... applied the same rule as a matter of county law.\nYou wouldn't say that the fact that it referred to State law lets the county off the hook.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [234.416, 244.433, 256.999], "stop_times": [244.433, 256.999, 261.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.416}, "reply_to": "20127__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__0_017", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [261.454], "stop_times": [264.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.454}, "reply_to": "20127__0_016", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_018", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So I don't know why it works the other way here.\nThis is State law we're talking about.\nThe State isn't a covered unit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [264.566, 266.075, 267.788], "stop_times": [266.075, 267.788, 269.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.566}, "reply_to": "20127__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__0_019", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--The reason why it doesn't work is because here, Monterey County has the authority to consolidate judicial districts, and it exercised that authority under State law, and so as a result of those consolidations, there were changes which had to be precleared under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.\nEven though you may have had a State statute that implicated those consolidations, it nevertheless specifically referred to the consolidations in Monterey County, and in this particular instance, we have a series of county ordinances which the district court back in 1993 found had not been precleared and could not be implemented, and until those particular county ordinances are approved, the State statutes, which are dependent and interrelated with those county ordinances, can't come into effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [269.038, 288.361], "stop_times": [288.361, 322.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.038}, "reply_to": "20127__0_018", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_020", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr.--\n--Did State law require Monterey County to consolidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [322.032, 322.252], "stop_times": [322.252, 326.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.032}, "reply_to": "20127__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_021", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It could, but it didn't in this particular case, and when we look at, say for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [326.275], "stop_times": [334.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 326.275}, "reply_to": "20127__0_020", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_022", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, I mean it either does or it doesn't.\nI'm just not clear whether State law requires consolidation of these local judicial offices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [334.57, 336.641], "stop_times": [336.641, 343.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.57}, "reply_to": "20127__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_023", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--The State laws that are under review in this particular case did not.\nThe 1983 State statute was contingent upon the consolidations of three judicial districts in Monterey County, and so it specifically referred to this event that was going to occur in Monterey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [343.886, 347.73], "stop_times": [347.73, 363.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.886}, "reply_to": "20127__0_022", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_024", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So you take the position that the county, Monterey County was free to consolidate or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [363.479], "stop_times": [368.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.479}, "reply_to": "20127__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_025", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [368.104], "stop_times": [368.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.104}, "reply_to": "20127__0_024", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_026", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And what is challenged here was Monterey County's decision to consolidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [368.692], "stop_times": [374.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.692}, "reply_to": "20127__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_027", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [374.517], "stop_times": [374.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.517}, "reply_to": "20127__0_026", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_028", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Which was not mandated, according to you, by State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [374.956], "stop_times": [378.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.956}, "reply_to": "20127__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_029", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Under the State laws that are under review, are not... they were not mandated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [378.509], "stop_times": [381.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.509}, "reply_to": "20127__0_028", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_030", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And there has never been a determination that there is a substantive violation of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [381.38], "stop_times": [388.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.38}, "reply_to": "20127__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_031", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That is correct.\nNow, the only... this, of course, is just not merely a failure to preclear.\nWe also have a situation here where, after the district court found these ordinances subject to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Monterey County then filed a section 5 judicial declaratory judgment action in Washington, D.C., and subsequent to that filing, we intervened, and as a result of that intervention, as a result of discussion with the Department of Justice, Monterey County decided that it could not meet its burden of demonstrating that several of these county ordinances did not have a retrogressive effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [388.146, 389.197, 393.549], "stop_times": [389.197, 393.549, 426.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.146}, "reply_to": "20127__0_030", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_032", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, it withdrew that suit, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [426.4], "stop_times": [427.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 426.4}, "reply_to": "20127__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_033", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [427.63], "stop_times": [427.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.63}, "reply_to": "20127__0_032", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_034", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It dropped the suit, and so that leaves us in a posture, as of now, there's been no finding of a substantive violation of section 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [427.941], "stop_times": [436.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.941}, "reply_to": "20127__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_035", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [436.338], "stop_times": [437.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.338}, "reply_to": "20127__0_034", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_036", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Avila, you're not making an alternative argument which I would have thought you would have made, and I'm beginning to think that I'm missing something or you would have made it, and the argument would be this.\nSection 5 refers to a jurisdiction which enacts, or which, I think, implements a plan which has not been precleared, so that even if the county took no independent action, and even if the county were doing nothing but administering State law, wouldn't the second clause of section 5 pick it up, so that it would require preclearment even though it was the result of State law and the State is not, as an entire State, a covered jurisdiction?\nWouldn't that be enough to create the section 5 violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [437.287, 447.925, 481.256], "stop_times": [447.925, 481.256, 485.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.287}, "reply_to": "20127__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_037", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, it would, Your Honor.\nIf you have a State statute that enables the county to take a particular course of action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [485.239, 486.789], "stop_times": [486.789, 493.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.239}, "reply_to": "20127__0_036", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_038", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, I'm not talking about enabling it to take a course of action.\nI'm saying, if you had a state statute that required it to take a course of action, even though the State wasn't covered, and even though the county alone was a covered jurisdiction, by following that State law, the second clause of section 5 would require preclearance, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [493.673, 495.674], "stop_times": [495.674, 511.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.673}, "reply_to": "20127__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_039", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That's correct, it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [511.677], "stop_times": [512.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.677}, "reply_to": "20127__0_038", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_040", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But you say that the State law authorized but didn't require consolidation, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [512.628], "stop_times": [517.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.628}, "reply_to": "20127__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__0_041", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "The 1983 State statute was in essence based on a contingency of consolidation of three judicial districts which the county board of supervisors at that point authorized, and duly adopted an ordinance consolidating these three judicial districts, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [517.909], "stop_times": [538.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.909}, "reply_to": "20127__0_040", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_042", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Was the county free, after the enactment of the State statute and after consolidating, to go back to the preconsolidation regime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [538.293], "stop_times": [547.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.293}, "reply_to": "20127__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__0_043", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--It was not free under State law to go back to the status quo ante, and the reason why is because the justice of the peace courts were eliminated in 1993 under a State proposition, and at the time of 1968, there were two municipal court districts and seven justice of the court... justice of the peace court districts, and to go back to that procedure was deemed to be unfeasible by the district court, and for that reason the district court found it compelling to issue an order to require an election based on an interim plan for the June 1995 election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [547.149], "stop_times": [589.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.149}, "reply_to": "20127__0_042", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_044", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And it was also true that there was a State statute that required countywide courts, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [589.628], "stop_times": [595.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.628}, "reply_to": "20127__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__0_045", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [595.522], "stop_times": [596.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.522}, "reply_to": "20127__0_044", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_046", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Isn't there also a statute, a State statute that requires that the courts be countywide, or am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [596.692], "stop_times": [603.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.692}, "reply_to": "20127__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__0_047", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Under the State statutes and the constitution, State constitution, you could have a countywide municipal court district.\nAlong... in addition to that, you could also have municipal court districts, several municipal court districts within the county as long as they met certain criteria, as long as they didn't divide municipalities, as long as they contained over 40,000--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [603.416, 610.83], "stop_times": [610.83, 623.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.416}, "reply_to": "20127__0_046", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_048", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Are there such counties in California where you have... unlike this county that now has just one district, are there counties in California that have multiple judicial districts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [623.809], "stop_times": [635.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 623.809}, "reply_to": "20127__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__0_049", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--There are some counties in California that do have multiple court judicial districts.\nFor example, Los Angeles County, Alameda County, San Diego County.\nMany of the large urban areas have multiple municipal court districts, and Monterey County, back in 1968, did in fact have two--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [635.848, 639.771, 644.373], "stop_times": [639.771, 644.373, 653.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.848}, "reply_to": "20127__0_048", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_050", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So the State law that we're dealing with that ratified or approved the consolidations is not part of a Statewide plan.\nIt's just peculiar to this one covered county, is that not right?\nI mean, that law that deals with the consolidation is not like the constitutional provisions that are also in this picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [653.068, 659.452, 663.426], "stop_times": [659.452, 663.426, 669.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.068}, "reply_to": "20127__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__0_051", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [669.829], "stop_times": [670.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.829}, "reply_to": "20127__0_050", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_052", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But to the extent that California approved what had been done by the county, that's peculiar to this one covered county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [670.4], "stop_times": [676.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.4}, "reply_to": "20127__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__0_053", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "The State statute specifically refers to Monterey County.\nIt auth... the State constitutional provision authorizes the legislature to create countywide municipal court districts, to create multiple municipal court districts if so desired.\nIn fact, in some of these counties you have... in San Diego County, for example, you have a municipal court district that in fact divides municipal boundaries, so there are various variations that are permitted under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [676.824, 680.157, 693.284], "stop_times": [680.157, 693.284, 708.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.824}, "reply_to": "20127__0_052", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_054", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "As I take it, what this case presents to us is not the question so much what the court should have done, or might have done, but the question of whether what it did do was wrong, and you're saying what it did do was per se wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [708.684], "stop_times": [728.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.684}, "reply_to": "20127__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_055", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [728.359], "stop_times": [729.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.359}, "reply_to": "20127__0_054", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_056", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It was clear error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [729.999], "stop_times": [730.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.999}, "reply_to": "20127__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_057", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Clear error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [730.87], "stop_times": [731.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.87}, "reply_to": "20127__0_056", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_058", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, and that's the only issue before us, I take it.\nIf we agree with you, back it goes, and people will have to figure out what to do next.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [731.812, 734.282], "stop_times": [734.282, 738.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.812}, "reply_to": "20127__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_059", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's precisely our point.\nIf the Court reverses the district court refusal to enjoin its unprecleared election change, then on remand, the district court would then be required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine what alternative should be implemented, because it can't go back to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [738.904, 740.664], "stop_times": [740.664, 756.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.904}, "reply_to": "20127__0_058", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_060", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, it's possible that the only thing before the court at the time it acted was the allegation that no preclearance had been obtained, and perhaps the only thing the court could do was just say, that's right, get it precleared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [756.897], "stop_times": [776.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.897}, "reply_to": "20127__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_061", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Yes.\nThat was one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [776.067, 778.03], "stop_times": [778.03, 778.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.067}, "reply_to": "20127__0_060", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_062", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Nothing else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [778.931], "stop_times": [779.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.931}, "reply_to": "20127__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_063", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That... no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [779.172], "stop_times": [779.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.172}, "reply_to": "20127__0_062", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_064", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Nothing else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [779.352], "stop_times": [779.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.352}, "reply_to": "20127__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_065", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "There were other alternatives that the district court could have explored.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [779.562], "stop_times": [782.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.562}, "reply_to": "20127__0_064", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_066", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, I'm not sure there are.\nLike what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [782.664, 784.106], "stop_times": [784.106, 784.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.664}, "reply_to": "20127__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_067", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [784.835], "stop_times": [785.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.835}, "reply_to": "20127__0_066", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_068", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I mean, at that stage, with no substantive violation of section 5, what more can the court do except say, okay, get preclearance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [785.326], "stop_times": [792.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.326}, "reply_to": "20127__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_069", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, for one thing the district court could have continued to extend the terms in order to permit the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [792.752], "stop_times": [799.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.752}, "reply_to": "20127__0_068", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_070", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, even that isn't so clear, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [799.617], "stop_times": [801.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.617}, "reply_to": "20127__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__0_071", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, in this particular case the district court did... after the issuance of this Court's stay did extend the terms until further order of the district court and further order of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [801.256], "stop_times": [811.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.256}, "reply_to": "20127__0_070", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_072", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Are you actually disagreeing?\nI thought your position is, they have to preclear, they didn't, and under Clark, what a district court is supposed to when they don't preclear is say, hold everything.\nNothing happens.\nNo election, no nothing until you go and preclear.\nAm I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [811.933, 813.235, 824.602, 826.303, 831.007], "stop_times": [813.235, 824.602, 826.303, 831.007, 831.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.933}, "reply_to": "20127__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__0_073", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Ordinarily that would be correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [831.718], "stop_times": [833.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.718}, "reply_to": "20127__0_072", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_074", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And isn't that what you want to happen here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [833.428], "stop_times": [835.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.428}, "reply_to": "20127__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__0_075", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [835.128], "stop_times": [835.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.128}, "reply_to": "20127__0_074", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_076", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And you're saying he didn't do that, but under Clark, he should have done it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [835.649], "stop_times": [839.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.649}, "reply_to": "20127__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__0_077", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [839.241], "stop_times": [839.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.241}, "reply_to": "20127__0_076", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_078", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "You're... but you have to add one fact to it, extend the terms of judges elected under a plan that the court believes may be unconstitutional.\nI mean, the court was concerned about the constitutionality of the plan under which the judges currently sitting were elected, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [839.461, 851.119], "stop_times": [851.119, 858.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.461}, "reply_to": "20127__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__0_079", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, it was, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [858.626], "stop_times": [859.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 858.626}, "reply_to": "20127__0_078", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_080", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So that... that's quite a significant factor as to whether a realistic option is to let those terms continue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [859.694], "stop_times": [865.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.694}, "reply_to": "20127__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__0_081", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, there was ample opportunity that was provided to the district court in order to resolve and address that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [865.799], "stop_times": [871.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.799}, "reply_to": "20127__0_080", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_082", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But your case, as I understand it, does not depend upon our so assuming, because all you want, in theory, and all... as I understand it, all that it would take for us to resolve this case, and all that it would have taken for the district court to resolve the case was to order, just as Justice Breyer suggested a moment ago, no election under this plan.\nWhat happens next may be a very serious State problem, but that's not what you require the district court to get into.\nAll you are asking from the district court is, enjoin the election.\nEnjoin the application of an unprecleared plan, period.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [871.813, 892.767, 901.132, 905.216, 908.418], "stop_times": [892.767, 901.132, 905.216, 908.418, 909.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.813}, "reply_to": "20127__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_083", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [909.186], "stop_times": [909.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.186}, "reply_to": "20127__0_082", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_084", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And that's all you want us to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [909.947], "stop_times": [911.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.947}, "reply_to": "20127__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_085", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--At this point, yes, it is, Your Honor.\nThe reason why at some point... maybe not at this particular juncture, but the reason why we're here is because there hasn't been preclearance since 1969, and the State and the county have not come forward with a proposed solution since 1993.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [911.87, 913.551], "stop_times": [913.551, 930.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 911.87}, "reply_to": "20127__0_084", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_086", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But would you not agree that your position would be different if, instead of the district judge... instead of saying, well, I think there may be a violation of equal protection under Miller and so forth, if the judge had held a hearing and found that the plan in effect was unconstitutional, then we'd have a different case, wouldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [930.671], "stop_times": [945.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.671}, "reply_to": "20127__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__0_087", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's correct, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [945.851], "stop_times": [946.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.851}, "reply_to": "20127__0_086", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_088", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Of course, he did not do that, but they just sort of assumed it might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [946.342], "stop_times": [949.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.342}, "reply_to": "20127__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__0_089", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--And at a minimum we wanted to have an evidentiary hearing so that we could present various alternatives and the district court could then determine whether in fact the 1994 was unconstitutional, but that's not the issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [949.995], "stop_times": [962.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.995}, "reply_to": "20127__0_088", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_090", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Then why didn't you bring a complaint saying it's unconstitutional?\nI mean, why... you said you would like to have had a hearing, but as I understand it, and I may be wrong on this, you had no pleading before the court claiming that the preceding plan was in fact a violation either of section 2 or of the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [962.083, 964.254], "stop_times": [964.254, 980.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 962.083}, "reply_to": "20127__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_091", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I think it's very important to point out that the plan that we're talking about is the 1994 precleared plan, which was a proposed plan that was submitted by the appellants and the county to try to resolve this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [980.545], "stop_times": [994.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.545}, "reply_to": "20127__0_090", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_092", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [994.234], "stop_times": [994.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.234}, "reply_to": "20127__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_093", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And it is that plan that the district court felt that after this Court's decision in Miller raised constitutional concerns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [994.554], "stop_times": [1002.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.554}, "reply_to": "20127__0_092", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_094", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, that's right, but that plan was limited in its temporal scope--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1002.649], "stop_times": [1007.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.649}, "reply_to": "20127__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_095", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1007.253], "stop_times": [1007.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.253}, "reply_to": "20127__0_094", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_096", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--as I recall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1007.594], "stop_times": [1008.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.594}, "reply_to": "20127__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_097", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1008.412], "stop_times": [1008.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.412}, "reply_to": "20127__0_096", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_098", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So once again, the only thing that the court had before it as a matter of pleading or complaint was a claim that in the absence of that interim precleared plan there was no precleared plan, and therefore no election should be held, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1008.872], "stop_times": [1024.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.872}, "reply_to": "20127__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__0_099", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1024.935], "stop_times": [1025.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.935}, "reply_to": "20127__0_098", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_100", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.\nDo you know in your study of this... it seems to me over the last 30 or 40 years it probably has come up before that some covered district had in place a plan that arguably is unconstitutional.\nThen, they changed it, and the change has to be precleared, but under Clark, you just keep the status quo until they preclear it, even if that status quo is arguably unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1025.616, 1025.933, 1039.252], "stop_times": [1025.933, 1039.252, 1051.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.616}, "reply_to": "20127__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__0_101", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1051.842], "stop_times": [1052.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.842}, "reply_to": "20127__0_100", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_102", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Has that situation ever come up before, because that would be a relevant precedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1052.343], "stop_times": [1056.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.343}, "reply_to": "20127__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__0_103", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, the typical procedure is to go back to the status quo, and you cannot challenge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1056.614], "stop_times": [1063.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.614}, "reply_to": "20127__0_102", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_104", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, even if that status quo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1063.928], "stop_times": [1064.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.928}, "reply_to": "20127__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__0_105", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Yes, you can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1064.589], "stop_times": [1065.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1064.589}, "reply_to": "20127__0_104", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_106", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--You don't go back to it.\nYou just say, that's it.\nEverything else is frozen.\nNow, is there instances where you can think of in your experience or research where maybe that status quo was arguably unconstitutional, but still we want the D.C. Circuit deciding these things, not every district court in the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1065.47, 1065.991, 1066.93, 1068.933], "stop_times": [1065.991, 1066.93, 1068.933, 1083.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.47}, "reply_to": "20127__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__0_107", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, in the... the 10-year litigation that occurred in the Conner v. Johnson, Connor v. Waller, which started off as a one-person-one-vote violation, which there was established, in fact, a violation, and subsequent court proceedings dealt with the remedial issues, and that would be the precedent that I would cite.\nI would like to at this time reserve my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1083.532, 1104.386], "stop_times": [1104.386, 1108.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.532}, "reply_to": "20127__0_106", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__0_108", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Very well, Mr. Avila.\nMr. Jenkins, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1108.109, 1109.409], "stop_times": [1109.409, 1111.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.109}, "reply_to": "20127__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__1_000", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe three-judge court held that the county's electoral system contained voting changes covered by section 5 that had never received preclearance.\nThis Court's precedents clearly require the district court to enjoin elections under that plan.\nAs the Court's questions have indicated, first and foremost, a so-called local three-judge court's task is to determine whether changes are subject to preclearance, have been precleared and, if not, to enjoin elections under an unprecleared plan.\nJustice Breyer, in response to your question, it has been frequently the case that the status quo ante was an unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful plan.\nFor instance, when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act, it understood that a lot of the plans currently in effect would be unconstitutional either under the Fifteenth or Fourteenth Amendment, one-person-one-vote violations and what-have-you, and that for section 5 purposes they could still serve as the benchmark.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1111.529, 1125.781, 1133.395, 1138.637, 1152.486, 1160.873, 1176.203], "stop_times": [1125.781, 1133.395, 1138.637, 1152.486, 1160.873, 1176.203, 1176.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1111.529}, "reply_to": "20127__0_108", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_001", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But Mr. Jenkins, isn't the problem that this isn't a status quo ante?\nRight.\nI mean, if we were going back to what it was when they had the district... whatever, the municipal districts and the justice districts.\nBut here, it's not that we go back to what was and keep it.\nThere is in... practically for every point of view you can't return.\nYou can't go back to that old way, so there has to be a different way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1176.722, 1179.815, 1180.065, 1189.812, 1196.006, 1201.149], "stop_times": [1179.815, 1180.065, 1189.812, 1196.006, 1201.149, 1205.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.722}, "reply_to": "20127__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__1_002", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, our contention is not that the district court necessarily erred in rejecting a particular plan, but that the option that it chose of allowing elections to go forward under an unprecleared plan was impermissible under this Court's decisions.\nWe do think that the district court had some remedial alternatives, some flexibility in determining what to do, but that the course that it took was an unlawful choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1205.112, 1217.721], "stop_times": [1217.721, 1227.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1205.112}, "reply_to": "20127__1_001", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_003", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Would we--\n--Well, suppose there are two choices, neither of which involves returning to the status quo.\nSuppose you cannot return to the status quo.\nOne is to order preclearance, and the other is to require elections under an unconstitutional plan based on race.\nWhich of those do you take?\nWhich is the lesser evil?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1227.247, 1227.748, 1232.481, 1234.922, 1245.858, 1248.54], "stop_times": [1227.748, 1232.481, 1234.922, 1245.858, 1248.54, 1249.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.247}, "reply_to": "20127__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__1_004", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, Your Honor, clearly, I think if the district court had done the full-blown Miller v. Johnson analysis, determined that the 1994 interim plan was unconstitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1249.572], "stop_times": [1258.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1249.572}, "reply_to": "20127__1_003", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_005", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Let's assume that that was the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1258.057], "stop_times": [1259.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.057}, "reply_to": "20127__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__1_006", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Right, and if the only other choice was, if I understand your question, allowing elections under an unprecleared plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1259.8], "stop_times": [1265.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1259.8}, "reply_to": "20127__1_005", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_007", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1265.222], "stop_times": [1265.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.222}, "reply_to": "20127__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__1_008", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Then I think elections would have to go forward under the unprecleared plan.\nIf the Constitution were to come into direct conflict with enforcement of section 5, that would affect the outcome, but I think that's quite far afield from the situation that's presented here, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1265.602, 1269.303], "stop_times": [1269.303, 1278.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1265.602}, "reply_to": "20127__1_007", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_009", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Jenkins, why don't you... why doesn't your answer go this way, that given the unconstitutionality on the one hand, an unprecleared plan on the other, that in fact everything has got to stop until somebody comes up with a constitutional plan?\nNow, that somebody may be the district court.\nIf the district court has, in fact, had a complaint register... or filed with it saying the old plan is unconstitutional, the district court finds that it's unconstitutional.\nIt finds no precleared alternative to the unconstitutional plan, then it's clear that the district court has got... absent anybody's better idea, the district court has got the jurisdiction to fashion a plan.\nIsn't that the way out of the dilemma?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1278.63, 1295.513, 1298.996, 1308.76, 1320.648], "stop_times": [1295.513, 1298.996, 1308.76, 1320.648, 1322.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.63}, "reply_to": "20127__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__1_010", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--I think that's correct, Justice Souter, but as I understood the hypothetical, the only two choices were an election under an unprecleared plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1322.37], "stop_times": [1327.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1322.37}, "reply_to": "20127__1_009", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_011", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1327.173], "stop_times": [1327.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.173}, "reply_to": "20127__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__1_012", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--or an election under an unconstitutional plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1327.613], "stop_times": [1329.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1327.613}, "reply_to": "20127__1_011", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_013", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And I guess I'm saying you shouldn't have accepted the choices as being limited to the two because--\n[Laughter]\nBecause the third choice is, simply file a complaint saying the old plan is unconstitutional, let the district court adjudicate it, and the district court has got remedial authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1329.555, 1334.286, 1334.477], "stop_times": [1334.286, 1334.477, 1343.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.555}, "reply_to": "20127__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__1_014", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, that's certainly correct under the situation that was actually presented in this case.\nThere were a number of alternatives.\nOne alternative could have been simply to prevent elections from going forward and to order that incumbent judges remain in their posts pending preclearance of a permanent change.\nWe don't know that the 1994 interim plan was in fact unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1343.682, 1347.425, 1348.467, 1357.192], "stop_times": [1347.425, 1348.467, 1357.192, 1361.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1343.682}, "reply_to": "20127__1_013", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_015", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, I mean, I don't know why you give this sort of absolute answer rather than it depending on circumstances.\nI mean, it might be the case that the status quo ante was arguably unconstitutional.\nThe judge has to decide whether to keep that while they go run and preclear, or produce a new interim plan.\nSuppose the only interim plan that he's presented with is, give the State just what it wants.\nThen his choice is, we give the State just what it wants, or we proceed under the old status quo, which was arguably unconstitutional.\nI mean, I don't know whether... which is which.\nIsn't it rather fact-specific, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1361.475, 1367.208, 1372.043, 1379.447, 1383.991, 1391.995, 1395.668], "stop_times": [1367.208, 1372.043, 1379.447, 1383.991, 1391.995, 1395.668, 1397.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.475}, "reply_to": "20127__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__1_016", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I think that... pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1397.709], "stop_times": [1400.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1397.709}, "reply_to": "20127__1_015", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_017", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--circumstance-specific?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1400.07], "stop_times": [1400.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.07}, "reply_to": "20127__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__1_018", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I think that's correct, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1400.591], "stop_times": [1402.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1400.591}, "reply_to": "20127__1_017", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_019", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "This is a rather confusing case--\n--I don't understand this.\n--and I think we're getting confused about what is the old status quo.\nI mean, nobody suggested that the old system with the justice courts was unconstitutional.\nThe question is, when they changed from that, was that in violation of section 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1402.093, 1403.692, 1404.413, 1406.945, 1412.528], "stop_times": [1403.692, 1404.413, 1406.945, 1412.528, 1420.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.093}, "reply_to": "20127__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__1_020", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nIf I can be clear, there was a system that existed on November 1st, 1968, which has not been claimed to be unconstitutional, but which the district court thought would be difficult or unfeasible to return to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1420.263, 1421.314], "stop_times": [1421.314, 1430.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1420.263}, "reply_to": "20127__1_019", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_021", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Because it involved courts that no longer exist in the whole State of California, for one thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1430.951], "stop_times": [1434.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.951}, "reply_to": "20127__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__1_022", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's correct, but I think before allowing elections under an unprecleared system the district court was required, among other things, to analyze whether that system, the preexisting '68 system, could have been adapted in some way to accommodate current circumstances.\nWe think there were a number of remedial alternatives that were possibilities, as Justice Breyer says, based on the facts of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1434.672, 1445.711], "stop_times": [1445.711, 1451.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1434.672}, "reply_to": "20127__1_021", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_023", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Did the court have the power to impose any of these remedial alternatives on its own without first making the determination that the extant plan, which would otherwise continue, was unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1451.334], "stop_times": [1463.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.334}, "reply_to": "20127__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__1_024", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, we think so, Justice Scalia.\nI mean, the 1994 interim plan was a one-time plan, and the elections had already been conducted under that plan, so there was a question as to what would be the further relief that would be ordered so long as no pre... permanent plan had been precleared, but I think the local court had jurisdiction to make that consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1463.991, 1466.852], "stop_times": [1466.852, 1484.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1463.991}, "reply_to": "20127__1_023", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_025", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, I'm not sure why, because the court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate a complaint that's brought in front of it.\nThe complaint brought in front of it says, this is an unprecleared plan.\nThe court can adjudicate that, says it is unprecleared, don't use it.\nI don't see why the court, absent some further pleading before it, has got jurisdiction to do anything.\nIf at that point the party says, or some party says, whoops, if we can't use this unprecleared plan, then we've got to decide what's going to happen to the old plan.\nIf they don't bring a complaint that the old plan is in fact unconstitutional, then I don't know why the old plan wouldn't be followed.\nIf they do bring a complaint that the old plan is unconstitutional, and the court so finds, then the court has got jurisdiction to make any kind of remedial order.\nWhy isn't that the regime that we should assume?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1484.216, 1489.659, 1492.902, 1496.722, 1502.697, 1512.163, 1520.658, 1528.425], "stop_times": [1489.659, 1492.902, 1496.722, 1502.697, 1512.163, 1520.658, 1528.425, 1531.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.216}, "reply_to": "20127__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__1_026", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, if I understand your question, I agree with you that it would not have been objectionable for the district court to simply say, no further elections, and judges that were elected either under the unprecleared plan that existed or under the interim plan will simply remain in their posts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1531.217], "stop_times": [1545.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1531.217}, "reply_to": "20127__1_025", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_027", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, but I'm suggesting something more.\nI'm saying the court shouldn't have done anything more than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1545.435, 1546.674], "stop_times": [1546.674, 1548.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.435}, "reply_to": "20127__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__1_028", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, I think under certain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1548.817], "stop_times": [1550.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1548.817}, "reply_to": "20127__1_027", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_029", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It should adjudicate what's in front of it, and if the only thing in front of it is a section 5 claim, it should adjudicate it and stop.\nBefore it goes any further, it ought to have another claim to adjudicate in response to which it would have jurisdiction to grant relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1550.377, 1556.342], "stop_times": [1556.342, 1563.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.377}, "reply_to": "20127__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__1_030", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, ordinarily that would be correct, and I agree with you that in order to resolve this case, and to order the outcome that the appellants seek, that's all this Court would have to decide.\nMy point is simply that there was a difficult circumstance presented to the district court here because of the jurisdiction's failure to obtain preclearance, and the possibility that there might be an indefinite period in which no elections--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1563.437, 1571.221], "stop_times": [1571.221, 1580.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1563.437}, "reply_to": "20127__1_029", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_031", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, but that's--\n--That's not the court's problem.\nThat's not--\n--That's the jurisdiction's problem.\nAll the court has to say is, this hasn't been precleared, period, whereupon it's the problem of the jurisdiction to decide what they're going to do with these judges, continue them or come up with some other plan, but I don't know why it's the court's problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1580.308, 1580.949, 1581.509, 1582.309, 1583.28], "stop_times": [1580.949, 1581.509, 1582.309, 1583.28, 1593.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.308}, "reply_to": "20127__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__1_032", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia, in City of Rome this Court held that in fact the fallback remedy essentially under section 5 is elections under the status quo ante system, and as Justice Gins--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1593.936], "stop_times": [1603.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1593.936}, "reply_to": "20127__1_031", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_033", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "After a finding of violation.\nThat's a remedy after finding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1603.202, 1604.774], "stop_times": [1604.774, 1606.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.202}, "reply_to": "20127__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__1_034", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, there was a finding of a violation here, which was the failure to preclear an election system that was covered by section 5, so there was in fact a violation.\nIf I... there was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1606.274, 1613.0], "stop_times": [1613.0, 1614.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1606.274}, "reply_to": "20127__1_033", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_035", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--I mean a violation that the extant... you know, the system in place, which someone is asking to be stricken down, is a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1614.519], "stop_times": [1622.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.519}, "reply_to": "20127__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__1_036", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Are you referring to the 1994 interim plan, or are you... which one are you referring--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1622.786], "stop_times": [1626.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1622.786}, "reply_to": "20127__1_035", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_037", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "In this case, none.\nI mean, nobody was challenging any particular plan here.\nThey were just challenging the preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1626.627, 1626.868, 1630.349], "stop_times": [1626.868, 1630.349, 1631.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.627}, "reply_to": "20127__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__1_038", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, I'd like to leave it with the fact that I think, Justice Souter, you're correct that this Court need not address that question in order to reverse the decision.\nIf I could address briefly the question of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1631.701, 1639.757], "stop_times": [1639.757, 1641.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1631.701}, "reply_to": "20127__1_037", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_039", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "What about the situation of the district judge?\nThe fact that this wasn't precleared, the district court bears some responsibility for that, because the district judge kept insisting, I want you to come up with a plan that satisfies Federal law and State law.\nBoth parties said they couldn't, so the district judge really had something to do with why we have no precleared anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1641.858, 1644.138, 1656.767], "stop_times": [1644.138, 1656.767, 1664.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.858}, "reply_to": "20127__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__1_040", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, that's true, and what I was about to address was the question of State law, and I think Justice Souter in his earlier comment was quite correct that section 5 covers attempts to enact or administer voting changes within the covered jurisdiction.\nThis Court in the Sheffield case held that section 5 coverage is territorial, and that State laws as well as local laws cannot be enforced within the jurisdiction as to preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1664.414, 1675.49], "stop_times": [1675.49, 1685.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1664.414}, "reply_to": "20127__1_039", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_041", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Thank, you, Mr. Jenkins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1685.397], "stop_times": [1685.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.397}, "reply_to": "20127__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__1_042", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1685.496], "stop_times": [1686.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1685.496}, "reply_to": "20127__1_041", "speaker": "alan_jenkins"}
{"id": "20127__1_043", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Stone, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1686.137], "stop_times": [1687.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.137}, "reply_to": "20127__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__2_000", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe questions posed to Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Avila suggest what the State would have suggested independently, which is that the context of this proceeding is a very important focus as well as the scope of a covered jurisdiction once it's determined, by virtue of the statutory formula, that a jurisdiction must seek preclearance of voting changes.\nThe nature of this case, as Justice Souter has suggested, is a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.\nIt's called a coverage case under section 5, and the only inquiry in these cases is whether there is a covered jurisdiction, if so, whether that jurisdiction is enacting or seeking to administer a new change which it has initiated affecting voting rights, and then the third question is, did they first obtain the requisite preclearance?\nSo in that sense... in our briefs we use the word technical.\nI understand that that's a confusing, perhaps a misnomer, but it is a procedural question of whether or not they've done the requisite steps to get Federal approval before implementing something that a covered jurisdiction has initiated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1687.809, 1697.844, 1718.106, 1727.113, 1744.875, 1748.258], "stop_times": [1697.844, 1718.106, 1727.113, 1744.875, 1748.258, 1760.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.809}, "reply_to": "20127__1_043", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_001", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So if it is established in the Federal district court that preclearance was not obtained, and that it's a covered jurisdiction, what, in your view, could the district court do, beyond simply saying, hold everything, get preclearance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1760.715], "stop_times": [1778.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.715}, "reply_to": "20127__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_002", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That is the common remedy.\nIt's a declaration that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1778.938, 1780.848], "stop_times": [1780.848, 1782.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.938}, "reply_to": "20127__2_001", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_003", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Nothing more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1782.14], "stop_times": [1782.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.14}, "reply_to": "20127__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_004", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Nothing more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1782.591], "stop_times": [1783.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.591}, "reply_to": "20127__2_003", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_005", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "On this complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1783.49], "stop_times": [1784.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.49}, "reply_to": "20127__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_006", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Certainly on this complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1784.331], "stop_times": [1785.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.331}, "reply_to": "20127__2_005", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_007", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, I take it hold everything means enjoin any further elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1785.263], "stop_times": [1788.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.263}, "reply_to": "20127__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__2_008", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, in Clark v. Roemer this Court very strongly suggested that that may be the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1788.944], "stop_times": [1794.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.944}, "reply_to": "20127__2_007", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_009", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "What should have happened here, in your view?\nCould the court simply say, I make a finding, a declaration that there has been no preclearance, and that there should be no preclearance, and stop there, or must he further enjoin elections under the unprecleared plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1794.017, 1797.07], "stop_times": [1797.07, 1813.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.017}, "reply_to": "20127__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__2_010", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "In most cases the elections must be enjoined.\nThis Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1813.35, 1816.942], "stop_times": [1816.942, 1817.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.35}, "reply_to": "20127__2_009", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_011", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "What should have happened here in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1817.693], "stop_times": [1819.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.693}, "reply_to": "20127__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20127__2_012", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, for several reasons we don't believe the elections should have been enjoined here.\nUnder Clark v. Roemer this Court said that there may be extraordinary circumstances in which an injunction would not be appropriate, and it gave an example, which is one in which the action was filed at the eleventh hour, the election processes were already well-advanced, and that there were equitable reasons why the elections should be permitted to go forward.\nHere, the complaint was filed in 1991, and it was challenging 1968 through 1983 ordinances.\nIn Clark the Court made the point that there was no showing that the plaintiffs were not diligent.\nHere, I suggest that quite the opposite fact is true.\nFurthermore, as the Court has pointed out, there have been intervening State actions.\nThe State is not a covered jurisdiction, and the State has... for one thing, the people through an initiative measure have eliminated justice courts altogether.\nThe State has also enacted statutes, particularly Government Code section 73560, which state as a matter of State law what the municipal court district is in Monterey County, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1819.724, 1823.738, 1843.459, 1852.916, 1858.099, 1860.661, 1865.245, 1873.129], "stop_times": [1823.738, 1843.459, 1852.916, 1858.099, 1860.661, 1865.245, 1873.129, 1884.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1819.724}, "reply_to": "20127__2_011", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_013", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Is it your position that changes by the county pursuant to State law, even if required by State law, need not be precleared?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1884.036], "stop_times": [1890.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.036}, "reply_to": "20127__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_014", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Yes.\nThe State... the State is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1890.941, 1891.762], "stop_times": [1891.762, 1893.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.941}, "reply_to": "20127__2_013", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_015", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And how do you respond to the \"or administer\" language in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1893.012], "stop_times": [1896.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.012}, "reply_to": "20127__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_016", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, I believe that... Justice Stevens, I believe that addresses informal as opposed to formal actions by a covered jurisdiction.\nThe covered jurisdiction may initiate by promulgating a regulation if it's a county--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1896.334, 1902.679], "stop_times": [1902.679, 1905.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.334}, "reply_to": "20127__2_015", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_017", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So that in your view, even if Monterey County was covered, if the State legislature enacted a whole bunch of changes, it completely redesigned the jurisdiction in ways that were retrogressive, there'd be no... no Federal remedy except under section 2.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1905.851], "stop_times": [1920.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.851}, "reply_to": "20127__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_018", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Exactly.\nThere's always the remedy, and several members of this Court have suggested this, there's always the remedy of proceeding under section 2, or the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1920.55, 1921.201], "stop_times": [1921.201, 1929.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.55}, "reply_to": "20127__2_017", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_019", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So that in any case of a covered jurisdiction which is less than Statewide, the State legislature basically can preclude any section 5 action simply by enacting a new State statute on your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1929.338], "stop_times": [1940.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.338}, "reply_to": "20127__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_020", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "If it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1940.826], "stop_times": [1942.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.826}, "reply_to": "20127__2_019", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_021", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "The State can completely defeat the jurisdiction under section 5 and the preclearance requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1942.685], "stop_times": [1948.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.685}, "reply_to": "20127__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_022", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, with respect, Justice Souter, I don't think it defeats the purpose of section 5.\nSection--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1948.559, 1953.023], "stop_times": [1953.023, 1953.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1948.559}, "reply_to": "20127__2_021", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_023", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, if this... maybe I misunderstood you.\nI thought if the... I thought your position was that if the State was not a covered jurisdiction, and only a... some subdivision of the State was, that if the State enacted a statute which changed the manner of election in the covered jurisdiction, it was not subject to preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1953.344, 1955.134], "stop_times": [1955.134, 1971.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.344}, "reply_to": "20127__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_024", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That is our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1971.884], "stop_times": [1973.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.884}, "reply_to": "20127__2_023", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_025", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, then I think it follows... I mean, that's just an example of a general rule that in any case of a section 5 jurisdiction the requirements of preclearance can simply be eliminated by the adoption by the State of a statute which changes the manner of election in the covered jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1973.276], "stop_times": [1992.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.276}, "reply_to": "20127__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_026", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I agree with that, too.\nI just took from the tone of the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1992.107, 1993.439], "stop_times": [1993.439, 1994.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.107}, "reply_to": "20127__2_025", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_027", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So there isn't much left of section 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1994.801], "stop_times": [1996.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.801}, "reply_to": "20127__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_028", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, of course there is.\nThe citizens within the covered jurisdiction are still protected against any action of that identified jurisdiction, but the fact that another governmental entity has made some change within its sovereign power that has some effect upon voting rights--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [1996.12, 1997.382], "stop_times": [1997.382, 2012.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.12}, "reply_to": "20127__2_027", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_029", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Stone, when did that become... would you just describe to us, when did that become California's position, because... correct me if I'm wrong about this... I thought that California had itself sought to preclear changes that would affect... changes in State legislation that would affect covered counties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2012.861], "stop_times": [2034.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.861}, "reply_to": "20127__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__2_030", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--It's true that the Secretary of State's Office for the State of California does submit on occasion... I don't think it's absolutely every time, but it does submit regularly State statutes and enactments for preclearance, but this Court has never held, and it's been our position throughout this case, to answer your question, that the State is not a covered jurisdiction, and therefore its enactments do not require preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2034.445], "stop_times": [2059.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.445}, "reply_to": "20127__2_029", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_031", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Even though the State has sought such preclearance when its enactments affect... will make a change in a covered jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2059.422], "stop_times": [2070.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.422}, "reply_to": "20127__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__2_032", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It has, Your Honor.\nThe Court is probably aware--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2070.179, 2071.389], "stop_times": [2071.389, 2072.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2070.179}, "reply_to": "20127__2_031", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_033", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So you're saying that California has acted out of an excess of caution, is that your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2072.221], "stop_times": [2079.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.221}, "reply_to": "20127__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__2_034", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That is exactly what has happened, and also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2079.187], "stop_times": [2081.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.187}, "reply_to": "20127__2_033", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_035", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And not on... based on its understanding of the law that it was required to seek preclearance when State law changes voting in a covered jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2081.358], "stop_times": [2091.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.358}, "reply_to": "20127__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__2_036", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--There's a Department of Justice regulation... I believe it's section 51.23 of 28 Code of Federal Regulations... which suggests that States have that requirement, and in an abundance of caution the Secretary of State's Office has, as a general matter, attempted to obtain preclearance, but this Court has never held that such preclearance is required of an uncovered jurisdiction, and I would suggest that it's a very grave incursion into principles of federalism to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2091.065], "stop_times": [2122.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.065}, "reply_to": "20127__2_035", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_037", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, Mr. Stone, I'm not sure that's even an issue here.\nWas the... Monterey County free to adopt the plans that it did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2122.213, 2126.618], "stop_times": [2126.618, 2134.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.213}, "reply_to": "20127__2_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_038", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2134.352], "stop_times": [2135.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.352}, "reply_to": "20127__2_037", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_039", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--at the time that it took the actions that it did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2135.914], "stop_times": [2139.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.914}, "reply_to": "20127__2_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_040", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Yes.\nIt's various consolidation ordinances--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2139.186, 2139.494], "stop_times": [2139.494, 2140.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.186}, "reply_to": "20127__2_039", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_041", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It wasn't mandated by State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2140.986], "stop_times": [2143.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.986}, "reply_to": "20127__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_042", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--No.\nState law permitted the counties to adopt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2143.148, 2143.959], "stop_times": [2143.959, 2148.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.148}, "reply_to": "20127__2_041", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_043", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But didn't require it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2148.15], "stop_times": [2148.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.15}, "reply_to": "20127__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_044", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--No, although there's some confusion on the record in that respect.\nThe county through its counsel in its initial motion to dismiss early on in the case, before we were involved at all, indicated that it required legislative permission in advance, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2148.971, 2152.303], "stop_times": [2152.303, 2162.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.971}, "reply_to": "20127__2_043", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_045", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But that's not your position here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2162.952], "stop_times": [2164.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.952}, "reply_to": "20127__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_046", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--I think that's right, that the legislative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2164.763], "stop_times": [2167.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.763}, "reply_to": "20127__2_045", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_047", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And so all of this other discussion about your views of State action and section 5 is not really at issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2167.935], "stop_times": [2176.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.935}, "reply_to": "20127__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_048", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--No, I believe they are, Justice O'Connor, because we... the State is now, as you know, a defendant party.\nIt was made a party for the first time as part of the order that's now on appeal here, and we have argued that because the countywide elections are conducted pursuant to State law, that there's no place for a section 5 proceeding here, the reason being that when the Court in South Carolina--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2176.83, 2180.803], "stop_times": [2180.803, 2198.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.83}, "reply_to": "20127__2_047", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_049", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, but to the extent that what was challenged here in the complaint was a failure to preclear a change in Monterey County's municipal and justice court setup, that change you say was not mandated by State law, and to the extent we look at that, I assume that the Court would just determine whether it was or wasn't, and if it wasn't would order preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2198.385], "stop_times": [2232.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.385}, "reply_to": "20127__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_050", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Oh, I see, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2232.176], "stop_times": [2233.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2232.176}, "reply_to": "20127__2_049", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_051", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Why do we get into all this other stuff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2233.308], "stop_times": [2235.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.308}, "reply_to": "20127__2_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_052", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I misunderstood your question.\nAt the time the ordinances were passed, the county had the discretion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2235.128, 2236.23], "stop_times": [2236.23, 2240.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.128}, "reply_to": "20127__2_051", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_053", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2240.591], "stop_times": [2241.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.591}, "reply_to": "20127__2_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_054", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--to design the district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2241.392], "stop_times": [2242.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.392}, "reply_to": "20127__2_053", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_055", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And wasn't what the complaint alleged?\nI mean, that's all that was before it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2242.274, 2245.296], "stop_times": [2245.296, 2246.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.274}, "reply_to": "20127__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_056", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--But at the time the lawsuit was filed, there was on the books a State statute indicating that the Monterey County Municipal Court District is the entirety of Monterey County... that's section 73560 of the Government Code... and there was this change in the State's constitution, Article VI, section 5, which said that there may no longer be Statewide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2246.938], "stop_times": [2266.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.938}, "reply_to": "20127__2_055", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_057", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But that wasn't what the complaint challenged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2266.26], "stop_times": [2267.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.26}, "reply_to": "20127__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_058", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--No, but the point is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2267.982], "stop_times": [2269.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.982}, "reply_to": "20127__2_057", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_059", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2269.394], "stop_times": [2269.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.394}, "reply_to": "20127__2_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_060", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--that at the time they filed it, 20 years after the first of these ordinances, things had changed considerably, and the State during that intervening period had dictated what the Monterey County Municipal Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2269.694], "stop_times": [2280.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.694}, "reply_to": "20127__2_059", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_061", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "All right, but why doesn't that go to the merits?\nI mean, what I can't understand about this case is why has it taken 5 years?\nYou didn't preclude that... preclear the initial matter, so you have to preclear it.\nSo why doesn't the State go to the D.C. Circuit, and they would make their argument, which says because of all the factors you bring up, that these single... this single unity and the change in all the judges does not abridge anyone's right.\nIt does not have the effect to abridge rights to vote on the grounds of race, and they would argue because of the change in the single district, member district, it does.\nAnd then we would have the D.C. Circuit decide all this, take into account your arguments, which are excellent, and their arguments, which are excellent, and then we would get a decision as to whether or not a State does abridge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2280.341, 2281.473, 2285.884, 2292.018, 2308.059, 2317.245], "stop_times": [2281.473, 2285.884, 2292.018, 2308.059, 2317.245, 2329.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.341}, "reply_to": "20127__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__2_062", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2329.355], "stop_times": [2330.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.355}, "reply_to": "20127__2_061", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_063", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--rights on the basis of race under the circumstances that you outline in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2330.933], "stop_times": [2335.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.933}, "reply_to": "20127__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__2_064", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Our arguments go to whether preclearance is required.\nThey go first of all to whether a statute enacted by a jurisdiction that has not come within the covered formula is nevertheless subject to preclearance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2335.038, 2338.571], "stop_times": [2338.571, 2346.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.038}, "reply_to": "20127__2_063", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_065", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "All right, so if you disagree that it's not subject to preclearance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2346.999], "stop_times": [2349.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.999}, "reply_to": "20127__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__2_066", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2349.48], "stop_times": [2350.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2349.48}, "reply_to": "20127__2_065", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_067", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--why don't you appeal, the district court's judges to the contrary, to the Ninth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2350.168], "stop_times": [2355.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.168}, "reply_to": "20127__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__2_068", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "The issue is still open in the district court.\nThe district court's order that is under appeal here specifically says, now that the State has been made a defendant on this day, November 1, 1995, it shall have the opportunity to raise defenses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2355.314, 2356.963], "stop_times": [2356.963, 2366.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2355.314}, "reply_to": "20127__2_067", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_069", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Then why isn't it up to the district court under ordinary precedent to enjoin all elections until it decides that matter, at which point, if you lose you will have to go to the D.C. Circuit, and if you win, you won't.\nBut Clark says this is an ordinary kind of thing.\nWhen one side says it is precleared, the other doesn't, you keep the status quo, freeze everything, until the district court decides, and it should decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2366.28, 2378.808, 2380.89], "stop_times": [2378.808, 2380.89, 2388.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.28}, "reply_to": "20127__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__2_070", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Your Honor, that would have been fine.\nWe would dispute that an injunction should be put into effect until the court is certain that there is in fact a preclearance requirement that was not met.\nThat remains an open question.\nAs the Court said in its November order, the State may have this case dismissed on the basis that preclearance is not required.\nBut your point, Your Honor, about the status quo is very important, because had the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice been content to have an injunction preventing these countywide elections pending preclearance, that would have been fine.\nThat would have been what Clark says to do.\nThey instead urged the court, and the court ultimately did their bidding, to fashion a new order, a remedial order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2388.834, 2390.547, 2398.099, 2399.601, 2405.636, 2419.678, 2421.097], "stop_times": [2390.547, 2398.099, 2399.601, 2405.636, 2419.678, 2421.097, 2430.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.834}, "reply_to": "20127__2_069", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_071", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "All right, but can we say bygones are bygones--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2430.864], "stop_times": [2431.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.864}, "reply_to": "20127__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__2_072", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "We cannot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2431.204], "stop_times": [2431.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.204}, "reply_to": "20127__2_071", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_073", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--whatever happened in the past, now proceed according to Clark?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2431.935], "stop_times": [2435.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.935}, "reply_to": "20127__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20127__2_074", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "No.\nAs Justice O'Connor pointed out, this proceeding is simply to determine whether an enactment is subject to preclearance.\nPreclearance encompasses not just enactments that harm minority voting rights, it encompasses neutral enactments, and it encompasses enactments that greatly enhance minority rights.\nAny of those kinds of actions have to be precleared before they can be implemented, so at this point the mere fact that the court found that this consolidation had to be precleared says nothing about whether there's any substantive harm.\nAnd because there's no substantive harm yet proven or established and because, as Justice Souter pointed out, there's no constitutional or section 2 challenge filed, there's no parallel case, as there was in Allen and Clark and Morse, where the constitutionality of the practices are being challenged, there is... the court has no basis upon which to fashion any remedial order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2435.277, 2435.726, 2441.67, 2453.548, 2465.707], "stop_times": [2435.726, 2441.67, 2453.548, 2465.707, 2485.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.277}, "reply_to": "20127__2_073", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_075", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, is that quite true?\nIsn't it true that the county, when it dismissed its objection in the D.C. Circuit action, in effect stipulated that they could not demonstrate that there was no retrogression?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2485.999, 2487.431], "stop_times": [2487.431, 2497.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.999}, "reply_to": "20127__2_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_076", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.\nThey stipulated that they were unable to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2497.927, 2499.169], "stop_times": [2499.169, 2500.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.927}, "reply_to": "20127__2_075", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_077", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Which at least gives the district court a colorable basis for assuming their ought to be some interim remedy until they get preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2500.248], "stop_times": [2506.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.248}, "reply_to": "20127__2_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_078", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, I'm not sure it does, Justice Stevens, because the district court... this Court has held, in defining the different kinds of actions that may be brought under the Voting Rights Act, it has specifically said that a coverage case such as this, where the only question was coverage, has no jurisdiction to determine either retrogression, which is expressly limited to the District of Columbia courts, or constitutional violations.\nThey are all beside the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2506.973, 2525.826], "stop_times": [2525.826, 2526.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.973}, "reply_to": "20127__2_077", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_079", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "When you say stipulate, Mr. Stone, was there what you would think of as a technical stipulation filed in the district court which stated what you said it stated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2526.818], "stop_times": [2537.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.818}, "reply_to": "20127__2_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__2_080", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "As part of these interim orders that they urged the court to order, to direct, the parties stipulated... not the State, certainly, but the parties then existing, stipulated that the county was unable to establish that the ordinances, that several of the ordinances, it wasn't specific, were not retrogressive in that they may have had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2537.383], "stop_times": [2560.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2537.383}, "reply_to": "20127__2_079", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_081", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "The parties... they stipulated that they couldn't bear the burden of proof of proving that they were not retrogressive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2560.909], "stop_times": [2566.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.909}, "reply_to": "20127__2_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__2_082", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Yes, of proving that several of them were not, and that was all they stipulated.\nThere was no... normally in the District of Columbia court, if there's a determination of retrogression the court gives some guidance about what it is that's a problem, and perhaps how it can be remedied.\nHere, we don't know which, if any consolidated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2566.375, 2569.895, 2579.633], "stop_times": [2569.895, 2579.633, 2581.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.375}, "reply_to": "20127__2_081", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_083", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Is it not also relevant that the interim remedy put into effect in December of 1994 was precleared?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2581.892], "stop_times": [2588.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.892}, "reply_to": "20127__2_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_084", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That is irrelevant, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2588.638], "stop_times": [2590.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.638}, "reply_to": "20127__2_083", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_085", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That's irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2590.34], "stop_times": [2591.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.34}, "reply_to": "20127__2_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_086", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2591.039], "stop_times": [2591.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.039}, "reply_to": "20127__2_085", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_087", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "May I get clear on, I guess, a further point there that is raised both by your answer to Justice Stevens and your answer to Justice Breyer?\nIn an action like this, in which the issue is whether preclearance is required and whether, if so, it has been obtained, and the court concludes that it is required and it hasn't been obtained, is it your position that the Court can enjoin the... an election under the unprecleared plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2591.41, 2598.595], "stop_times": [2598.595, 2619.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.41}, "reply_to": "20127__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_088", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2619.529], "stop_times": [2621.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.529}, "reply_to": "20127__2_087", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_089", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2621.32], "stop_times": [2622.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2621.32}, "reply_to": "20127__2_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_090", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And that's the normal remedy.\nI believe that's what this Court said in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2622.111, 2623.891], "stop_times": [2623.891, 2625.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.111}, "reply_to": "20127__2_089", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_091", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And that's the extent of it.\nAnd that's it, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2625.313, 2626.021], "stop_times": [2626.021, 2626.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.313}, "reply_to": "20127__2_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_092", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Absent extraordinary circumstances that seems to be the limits of this coverage case court's remedial authority.\nNow, here in particular, we would argue that the court did not need to enjoin then.\nFor one thing, as we say, the question of whether preclearance was required is now reopened, because the State is now a defendant, and can argue that the State is not subject to preclearance, and that these elections are conducted pursuant to State law at this late date.\nSecondly, that Clark says that there may be extraordinary circumstances which could come into play.\nAs we pointed out, there was no diligence here.\nThe process... not in the sense that it was at the eleventh hour and that primaries were going to be held the next day, but in the sense that the State has, since these ordinances, dictated how municipal court elections shall be conducted, those have come to play.\nSecondly,--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2626.792, 2632.446, 2638.35, 2650.547, 2656.812, 2658.992, 2672.443], "stop_times": [2632.446, 2638.35, 2650.547, 2656.812, 2658.992, 2672.443, 2673.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2626.792}, "reply_to": "20127__2_091", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_093", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, how is that relevant, because the State might not have made this disposition with respect to this county if it had known that it was under attack?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2673.154], "stop_times": [2682.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.154}, "reply_to": "20127__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__2_094", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--No.\nIt's relevant because a noncovered jurisdiction has some substantial say if not dispositive say in the elections as they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2682.298, 2682.809], "stop_times": [2682.809, 2689.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.298}, "reply_to": "20127__2_093", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_095", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "No, but I'm trying to connect that to the lack of due diligence that you were referring to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2689.803], "stop_times": [2694.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.803}, "reply_to": "20127__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20127__2_096", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, it's the fact that they waited 20 years, permitted a great deal of time in which the State took several actions with respect to justice and municipal courts in Monterey County, so their diligence... had they filed this action immediately after passage of the first ordinance, or the second, or the third, and taken issue with it at the time, then an injunction would have been against the county, I suppose, at least much more clearly.\nNow, the State has developed law, including the initiative voted by the entire population of the State, to eliminate justice courts, and that is in the midst... one point to be made about how much the State is involved here is to look at the remedy which they have sought here.\nThey didn't seek an injunction that would put the status quo... that is, the 1968 system... back in effect.\nThey sought an affirmative remedial order by the court which, among other things, annulled or suspended State laws.\nIt annulled or suspended--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2694.888, 2716.83, 2732.212, 2737.775, 2745.261], "stop_times": [2716.83, 2732.212, 2737.775, 2745.261, 2746.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2694.888}, "reply_to": "20127__2_095", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_097", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, but the interim remedy did accommodate the State interest in having countywide jurisdiction.\nI mean, they were trying to accommodate some of the State interest in the particular remedy they selected, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2746.48, 2751.336], "stop_times": [2751.336, 2755.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.48}, "reply_to": "20127__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_098", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Actually, Your Honor, the State interest is not in having countywide jurisdiction.\nMr. Avila was correct that there are municipal courts that are less than county, but the underlying State interest is very much that every voting citizen within a judicial district is entitled to vote for the judges of that district, and that was thrown out the window by the interim plan.\nSimilarly, there's a State interest, constitutional in nature, that no city shall be split in a municipal court district.\nThat was thrown out the window.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2755.576, 2759.44, 2773.288, 2779.683], "stop_times": [2759.44, 2773.288, 2779.683, 2780.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.576}, "reply_to": "20127__2_097", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_099", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But only for election purposes, not for jurisdictional purposes.\nThe interim remedy is countywide for jurisdictional purposes as opposed to election purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2780.895, 2784.776], "stop_times": [2784.776, 2790.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.895}, "reply_to": "20127__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_100", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But that's even worse, Your Honor, than dividing it into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2790.74], "stop_times": [2792.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.74}, "reply_to": "20127__2_099", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_101", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It's almost as bad as letting a judge be assigned to another district.\nIt's almost that bad.\nAt least that's what the district court said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2792.802, 2795.744, 2797.004], "stop_times": [2795.744, 2797.004, 2800.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.802}, "reply_to": "20127__2_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_102", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Yes, and we of course disagree to the extent that it belittled the State's interest.\nBut the point is, there are constitutional... constitutional provisions that were in existence before even Monterey County became a covered jurisdiction.\nThese are 1966, the most recent enactments of Article VI, section 5, and Article VI, section 16.\nThey're 1966.\nEven if the State were a covered jurisdiction, a coverage question would have to find that those enactments are not subject--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2800.656, 2803.679, 2810.504, 2817.307, 2819.099], "stop_times": [2803.679, 2810.504, 2817.307, 2819.099, 2824.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.656}, "reply_to": "20127__2_101", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_103", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Stone, can I interrupt your presentation for one moment, because I understand you're making arguments that really haven't been decided on by the district court.\nTo what extent does your position rest on the reason given by the district court for the action that's being challenged, namely that it was concerned that Miller, which was decided some 6 months after the interim remedy went into effect, cast constitutional doubt on the interim remedy?\nIs that essential to... do you think that that reason was acceptable?\nLet me put it that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2824.974, 2832.186, 2849.398, 2854.302], "stop_times": [2832.186, 2849.398, 2854.302, 2854.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.974}, "reply_to": "20127__2_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_104", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--That... yes, Justice Stevens, that in combination with the fact that the interim remedy... and I always put it in quotes... was issued in the first place, because I believe that Miller--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2854.953], "stop_times": [2864.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2854.953}, "reply_to": "20127__2_103", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_105", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But that's not why the district court set its own remedy aside.\nThey set it aside entirely, as I understand it, on the basis of Miller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2864.7, 2867.502], "stop_times": [2867.502, 2870.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.7}, "reply_to": "20127__2_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_106", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, that's correct, on the basis that it was... substantial questions about its--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2870.384], "stop_times": [2875.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.384}, "reply_to": "20127__2_105", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_107", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2875.068], "stop_times": [2875.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.068}, "reply_to": "20127__2_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_108", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--constitutionality came into play.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2875.246], "stop_times": [2876.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2875.246}, "reply_to": "20127__2_107", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_109", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "And my question is, do you think that was a proper way to decide that issue without first deciding whether there was a Miller violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2876.428], "stop_times": [2882.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2876.428}, "reply_to": "20127__2_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_110", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, the court didn't say there was a Miller violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2882.602], "stop_times": [2885.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2882.602}, "reply_to": "20127__2_109", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_111", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2885.884], "stop_times": [2886.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.884}, "reply_to": "20127__2_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_112", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But I don't see how it could come to any other conclusion, Your Honor.\nBut let me say that the mix... what we've been talking about is a normal section 5 coverage case where the only question is whether a statute enactment or informal something that a covered jurisdiction seeks to administer requires preclearance and hasn't yet had it.\nBut when the court decided... it was very ill-advised, we believe beyond its jurisdiction, but it decided to redesign, reconfigure the county court system in Monterey and to suspend or annual State laws and State constitutional provisions.\nIt then had another order.\nThat changed the mix entirely, and we submit that the court then had jurisdiction to correct its own error, to eliminate this unconstitutional or substantially unconstitutional order and to put things back where they were.\nThe court was trying to return to the status quo.\nThat's why we believe it ordered that there be a one-time countywide election, because when the case first came to this court the judges on the Monterey County Municipal Court had been elected countywide.\nThe court changed that.\nIt changed it in a race-based fashion that it was inappropriate to do and the court's November order points out, we don't accept the retrogression stipulation, meaning we now recognize that that's not our domain, it's for the district court in the District of Columbia, and we're not the section 2 court, meaning all these stipulations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2886.174, 2888.937, 2901.533, 2916.492, 2918.195, 2931.713, 2934.084, 2945.474, 2947.324], "stop_times": [2888.937, 2901.533, 2916.492, 2918.195, 2931.713, 2934.084, 2945.474, 2947.324, 2962.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.174}, "reply_to": "20127__2_111", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_113", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But don't you think that the reason the district judge thought Miller invalidated the plan, or its interim plan, was because the district judge thought that any reliance on race in fashioning the districting would be invalid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2962.023], "stop_times": [2974.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.023}, "reply_to": "20127__2_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_114", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--The district court did say that Miller draws into question whether any reliance on race may be invalid, but it didn't go that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2974.863], "stop_times": [2985.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.863}, "reply_to": "20127__2_113", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_115", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "So do you think it's up to us to decide whether the district court correctly or incorrectly construed Miller?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2985.679], "stop_times": [2989.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.679}, "reply_to": "20127__2_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_116", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Your Honor, I think the sentence that the court... that you're citing in the court's decision is certainly subject to some scrutiny and clarification, but that was not necessary to the Court's decision here.\nIn normal cases, including Miller and Shaw, the Court asks about the constitutionality of districting in a context where districting is the normal procedure, and there are normal districting principles... the decennial reapportionments, for instance.\nIn this case, the traditional districting principle as far as dividing any judicial district in California is, we don't do it.\nWe do not do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [2989.112, 3002.839, 3017.029, 3025.804], "stop_times": [3002.839, 3017.029, 3025.804, 3027.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.112}, "reply_to": "20127__2_115", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_117", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Your position here, Mr. Stone, is that you are satisfied with the November 1995 interlocutory injunction, and you ask that the district court's judgment be affirmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3027.807], "stop_times": [3038.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.807}, "reply_to": "20127__2_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__2_118", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.\nMy point is that the traditional districting principles, as that phrase is normally used in decennial reapportionments, doesn't apply here.\nThe districting principles that apply here... districts are designed for administrative convenience in the justice courts, so the notion of it, maybe... maybe in a hearing they could prove that it was contiguous, so what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3038.493, 3038.814, 3047.119], "stop_times": [3038.814, 3047.119, 3056.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.493}, "reply_to": "20127__2_117", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_119", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "It seems to me that affirmance is inconsistent with your basic argument here, which is that all the Court could do was order preclearance.\nI mean, how could we affirm?\nThe petitioners asked the court to do things that it couldn't or shouldn't do, and the court went along with it, and you want us to affirm it, and it looks to me like to be consistent with your view we'd have to reverse, or vacate and send it back and say the only thing on this complaint you could do is order preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3056.636, 3063.771, 3065.942], "stop_times": [3063.771, 3065.942, 3088.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.636}, "reply_to": "20127__2_118", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20127__2_120", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Except, Your Honor, that I think the court's most recent order, the November order, was an attempt to correct what it had unfortunately messed up initially.\nThe court should not have issued the December 1994 order, which injected race, divided the county, it gave 10 percent of the voters within a judicial district the right and power to elect a judge that is sitting over the whole district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3088.235, 3098.914], "stop_times": [3098.914, 3111.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3088.235}, "reply_to": "20127__2_119", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_121", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, if we should reverse the November 1995 order, that wouldn't necessarily mean approval of the December 1994 order, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3111.451], "stop_times": [3120.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.451}, "reply_to": "20127__2_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__2_122", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, but that would then be the status quo, as the Court has used it.\nThat would be what was left.\nThat's the trouble.\nThe court's effort was to correct that and bring things back the way they were initially.\nI think that was laudable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3120.716, 3124.069, 3125.531, 3126.4, 3129.062], "stop_times": [3124.069, 3125.531, 3126.4, 3129.062, 3130.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3120.716}, "reply_to": "20127__2_121", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_123", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But you would be free to advance all the arguments you've been making here, including the unconstitutionality of that remedy, because those haven't really been ruled on.\nIs that not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3130.454, 3138.759], "stop_times": [3138.759, 3140.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.454}, "reply_to": "20127__2_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_124", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, the court has not expressly stated that it's remedy, its '94 remedy was unconstitutional, but as I started to point out, the only purpose for the dividing of this district was race.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3140.779], "stop_times": [3151.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.779}, "reply_to": "20127__2_123", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_125", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, I know.\nIf that establishes unconstitutional, it's an easy issue to decide.\nSurely he'll set aside the order if it's unconstitutional, but he just hasn't so held, or they haven't so held... there are three judges... I should say.\nI think I'm right on that.\nYou still can make the argument.\nYou still may win on this very ground, but that ruling has not yet been made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3151.628, 3152.069, 3155.799, 3163.315, 3165.235, 3167.707], "stop_times": [3152.069, 3155.799, 3163.315, 3165.235, 3167.707, 3171.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.628}, "reply_to": "20127__2_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_126", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, and at this point it would be moot, except for the extension of terms, because the court was obviously uncomfortable with its remedy in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3171.79], "stop_times": [3179.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3171.79}, "reply_to": "20127__2_125", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_127", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, if it would be moot, then your answer... then you're not standing by... I think you're not standing by the answer you gave a moment ago that if all we do is conclude here that he should have enjoined the use of the plan that he adopted, that that would restore a status quo ante, and the status quo ante is unconstitutional.\nI think you're now saying it wouldn't restore the status quo ante.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3179.845, 3197.748], "stop_times": [3197.748, 3200.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.845}, "reply_to": "20127__2_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_128", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "No, it would, because the court has extended the terms.\nBut the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3200.599, 3202.411], "stop_times": [3202.411, 3203.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3200.599}, "reply_to": "20127__2_127", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_129", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Oh, because of the court's extension.\nAll right.\nWell then, isn't Justice Stevens correct in his suggestion that all you have to do, if the case goes back in that posture, is to file an appropriate pleading saying this status quo ante is unconstitutional, and you should vacate any order of the court that establishes it?\nYou... that's open to you, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3203.109, 3204.371, 3204.702, 3226.516], "stop_times": [3204.371, 3204.702, 3226.516, 3227.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3203.109}, "reply_to": "20127__2_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_130", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, when the Court held its hearing on Miller, that was the question it wanted to address--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3227.918], "stop_times": [3230.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3227.918}, "reply_to": "20127__2_129", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_131", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes, and that's the question... and that's the question that you can litigate if it goes back in the posture that Justice Stevens and I are suggesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3230.629], "stop_times": [3237.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.629}, "reply_to": "20127__2_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_132", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, that's true, Your Honor, although in the meantime the results of that unconstitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3237.675], "stop_times": [3243.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3237.675}, "reply_to": "20127__2_131", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_133", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "That is yet another issue.\nThat is yet another issue, but you can litigate your Miller claim, can't you, if it goes back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3243.277, 3244.827], "stop_times": [3244.827, 3250.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.277}, "reply_to": "20127__2_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_134", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3250.29], "stop_times": [3251.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3250.29}, "reply_to": "20127__2_133", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_135", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3251.151], "stop_times": [3251.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.151}, "reply_to": "20127__2_134", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_136", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But on the same token, on these facts this Court it seems to me could very quickly and easily find that under Miller, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3251.602], "stop_times": [3257.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3251.602}, "reply_to": "20127__2_135", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_137", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, we don't... I don't know what procedural basis we'd have to be deciding a Miller claim, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3257.627], "stop_times": [3264.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.627}, "reply_to": "20127__2_136", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20127__2_138", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3264.012], "stop_times": [3265.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3264.012}, "reply_to": "20127__2_137", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_139", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "We don't even have a map in the record, I don't think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3265.321], "stop_times": [3267.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.321}, "reply_to": "20127__2_138", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_140", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, actually, I did submit a map which shows that there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3267.992], "stop_times": [3271.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.992}, "reply_to": "20127__2_139", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_141", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I couldn't find it.\nI--\n[Laughter]\nMr. Stone--\n--I assume one of the lawyers said it was based on race, but--\n--how is the Miller question even ripe if we don't know whether the change needs to be precleared, and we don't know the view of the Attorney General or the D.C. Circuit whether there's any retrogression involved in the countywide system?\nHow do you even get to the Miller, which would be something else in place of the system that's been found retrogressive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3271.265, 3271.566, 3272.097, 3272.557, 3273.837, 3276.788, 3297.442], "stop_times": [3271.566, 3272.097, 3272.557, 3273.837, 3276.788, 3297.442, 3307.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.265}, "reply_to": "20127__2_140", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20127__2_142", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "--Well, the principal reason that you know Miller should annul this interim remedy of December '94 is the point made by Justice O'Connor that no substantive harm to voting rights has been established, so any remedy that brings race in at all, any remedy at all is inappropriate in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3307.89], "stop_times": [3327.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3307.89}, "reply_to": "20127__2_141", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_143", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But suppose... let's suppose the D.C. Circuit finds you can't have this change because it's retrogressive.\nThen what?\nIf that's what the D.C. Circuit finds, how can you counter the retrogression... retrogression necessarily involves race... without saying, I have to remedy that impact on race?\nThat's what I don't follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3327.532, 3335.607, 3338.361, 3357.763], "stop_times": [3335.607, 3338.361, 3357.763, 3359.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3327.532}, "reply_to": "20127__2_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__2_144", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, that's... it would be a very different case if this were in the district court and if retrogression, a substantive violation had been determined.\nThen the Court would have options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3359.602, 3365.546], "stop_times": [3365.546, 3367.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.602}, "reply_to": "20127__2_143", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_145", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "But we never even have empowered the right decisionmaker, because it's been frozen in... as I understand it, in the district court within the Ninth Circuit that doesn't have the authority to make that retrogression determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3367.967], "stop_times": [3382.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.967}, "reply_to": "20127__2_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20127__2_146", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Well, it's correct that it hasn't yet gotten to any court in which substantive harm can be determined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3382.998], "stop_times": [3388.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3382.998}, "reply_to": "20127__2_145", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_147", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3388.831], "stop_times": [3390.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.831}, "reply_to": "20127__2_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__2_148", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3390.053], "stop_times": [3390.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3390.053}, "reply_to": "20127__2_147", "speaker": "daniel_g_stone"}
{"id": "20127__2_149", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Mr. Avila, you have a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3390.644], "stop_times": [3392.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.644}, "reply_to": "20127__2_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__3_000", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "I would like to refer the Court to Conner v. Waller as providing authority for the issuance of injunctive relief and additional relief beyond merely the issuance of a permanent injunction.\nI would also like to point out that at least in, previously in this Court in Shaw the State is not entirely covered under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and only Federal counties, but yet when the State enacts a redistricting plan that affects those counties, those plans that directly affect those counties have to be precleared.\nAnd with respect to the remedy we are urging this Court to reverse the district court's use of the unprecleared election change, and so that the court can then conduct whatever evidentiary hearing needs to be conducted in order to determine what should be the appropriate remedy, and the reason why we have to go beyond the injunction is because there has been... we have to correct the previous effects of elections that were conducted under an unprecleared election system, and that was what the temporary plan did.\nWe have election systems since 1968, up to the time that the complaint was filed, conducted under an unprecleared election system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3392.014, 3406.722, 3429.928, 3459.747], "stop_times": [3406.722, 3429.928, 3459.747, 3467.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3392.014}, "reply_to": "20127__2_149", "speaker": "joaquin_g_avila"}
{"id": "20127__3_001", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Avila.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3467.715, 3469.205], "stop_times": [3469.205, 3469.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3467.715}, "reply_to": "20127__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20127__3_002", "conversation_id": "20127", "text": "The honorable court is now adjurned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1201", "start_times": [3469.986], "stop_times": [3476.122], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3469.986}, "reply_to": "20127__3_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20758__0_000", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "The Court will hear argument now in Number 95-7452, Kenneth Lynce v. Hamilton Mathis.\nMr. Remland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [0.0, 8.658], "stop_times": [8.658, 9.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20758__0_001", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nPetitioner challenges a 1992 Florida State law which retroactively redefined punishment prescribed for a 1985 offense, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.\nPetitioner committed his offense in 1985.\nHe pled nolo contendere and was sentenced in 1986 in accordance with the sentencing formula prescribed by Florida law.\nThe punishment formula in effect at the time of petitioner's offense and at the time of his sentencing provided that a prisoner's actual term of incarceration was equal to the guidelines sentence imposed by the judge less all gain time awarded.\nThe State granted petitioner overcrowding gain time credits from 1987 in the form of administrative gain time through 1991 in the form of provisional release credits.\nDue to the award of those credits, and pursuant to statutory law, the State established a release date for October 1 of 1992.\nAs petitioner's mandatory non--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [9.747, 17.922, 31.331, 35.185, 43.069, 60.111, 70.568, 80.012], "stop_times": [17.922, 31.331, 35.185, 43.069, 60.111, 70.568, 80.012, 82.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.747}, "reply_to": "20758__0_000", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_002", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Remland, may I interrupt you for a moment?\nCan you tell me whether the figure that the State arrived at in determining what the release date was was calculated under the statute that was in existence at the time of the offense, the '83 statute which is set out on page 27 of the lodging, or whether that figure was calculated under one of the later statutes?\nI... in candor, I had assumed that it was calculated under one of the successor statutes, but I want to make sure on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [82.754, 84.937, 106.091], "stop_times": [84.937, 106.091, 113.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 82.754}, "reply_to": "20758__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_003", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, sir, Justice Souter.\nIt was calculated under one of the successor statutes in 1988, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [113.935, 114.816], "stop_times": [114.816, 120.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 113.935}, "reply_to": "20758__0_002", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_004", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Okay.\nNow, if we to... I'm sorry.\nIf we were to conclude that under the Ex Post Facto Clause the only statute that should be considered was the one in effect at the time of the offense, I take it the figure that they calculated and the date which they arrived at would have been different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [120.28, 120.551, 122.241], "stop_times": [120.551, 122.241, 139.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.28}, "reply_to": "20758__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_005", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--It's hard to say, because the actual statute in effect in 1985, which was 944-598, had not been triggered at that point, and the credits did not start to issue until a successor statute administrative gain time supplanting provisional... supplanting the emergency gain time statute kicked in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [139.402], "stop_times": [159.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.402}, "reply_to": "20758__0_004", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_006", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "So you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [159.694], "stop_times": [160.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.694}, "reply_to": "20758__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_007", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--and the actual credits could be used, I believe, according to the statutes in effect when the credits were granted, and I would submit to the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [160.585], "stop_times": [168.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 160.585}, "reply_to": "20758__0_006", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_008", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, but that may not support an Ex Post Facto argument.\nThat might support... just assume for the sake of argument here that that might just support a due process claim, which is not what we have before us, and I take it the only thing we can say for sure is that if the calculation were made under the statute as in existence at the time of the offense, we don't know that the number arrived at would have been the same number that was awarded under the later statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [168.44, 171.253], "stop_times": [171.253, 197.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.44}, "reply_to": "20758__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_009", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--I believe the number would have been the same, for two reasons.\nFirst of all, in 1985 the... Mr. Lynce was offense-eligible.\nThe petitioner was offense-eligible, and the percentage for the threshold was 98 percent.\nThe two key criteria was the same.\nThe formula in 1983 all the way through, until 1992, when the second, harsher, more oppressive formula was enacted, that changed the situation.\nBut the basic formula was the same from 1983 through 1985.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [197.101, 200.503, 205.255, 209.339, 211.85, 221.177], "stop_times": [200.503, 205.255, 209.339, 211.85, 221.177, 226.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.101}, "reply_to": "20758__0_008", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_010", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Remland--\n--Well, I thought your principal response to this was that it simply was not raised in the opposition to the petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [226.549, 226.93], "stop_times": [226.93, 234.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.549}, "reply_to": "20758__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_011", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That is correct.\nIt was not... it was never raised to the petition for certiorari.\nThe first time they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [234.113, 235.144, 238.187], "stop_times": [235.144, 238.187, 239.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.113}, "reply_to": "20758__0_010", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_012", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "When we took this case we thought we were dealing with a situation which involved a change of the punishment that existed at the time the crime was committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [239.326], "stop_times": [248.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 239.326}, "reply_to": "20758__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_013", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Justice Scalia, you did, as a matter of fact, because in 1985, when the offense was committed, the offense formula was basically the same as it was in '83 earlier under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [248.012], "stop_times": [260.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.012}, "reply_to": "20758__0_012", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_014", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, does that mean we should decide this case on a factually erroneous premise, the fact that it wasn't raised in the brief in opposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [260.701], "stop_times": [268.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.701}, "reply_to": "20758__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20758__0_015", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I think that the actual issue was presented squarely under the statute in effect at the time of the offense under the emergency gain time statute which Mr. Lynce was eligible for under 98 percent of population cap, and he was offense-eligible according to law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [268.387], "stop_times": [284.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.387}, "reply_to": "20758__0_014", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_016", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That statute was applied to no one, ever, right?\nIt was never applied, that statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [284.326, 286.938], "stop_times": [286.938, 288.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 284.326}, "reply_to": "20758__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20758__0_017", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That statute, although it wasn't triggered in 1986, the cap was reached and the Governor declared a special emergency.\nWe went into special session, and the percentage was raised to 98 percent.\nIt would have been triggered.\nThese--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [288.57, 295.176, 298.866, 299.727], "stop_times": [295.176, 298.866, 299.727, 300.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.57}, "reply_to": "20758__0_016", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_018", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That was all later, but the statute that was on the books at the time the offense was committed is a statute that was never applied to anyone.\nIt's a little hard to talk about anything ex post facto with respect to a law that was never applied to anyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [300.699, 309.684], "stop_times": [309.684, 318.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.699}, "reply_to": "20758__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20758__0_019", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--It's our position that the statute that was in effect in 1985 was essentially the same statute that was in effect in 1988 when the credits were being granted, and moreover there's no question that the effect of the change substantially increased the petitioner's punishment, and that would constitute a violation of the ex post facto law, the Ex Post Facto Clause.\nIt's clear that we've got a substantial increase in punishment over that that occurred at the time of the offense, and the statutory formula in 1985 was established.\nThe petitioner was clearly eligible for credits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [318.35, 341.746, 351.9], "stop_times": [341.746, 351.9, 354.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.35}, "reply_to": "20758__0_018", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_020", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But Mr. Remland, what about... the statute that was in place was an emergency statute.\nCould one really say that it was going to operate, or it wasn't at all highly speculative what would become of that emergency measure, then? It's not like your punishment is X, and your good time credit is Y.\nIt was a brand new thing on an emergency basis, and could one say not this... this is... I know what this is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [354.631, 359.997, 369.111], "stop_times": [359.997, 369.111, 384.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 354.631}, "reply_to": "20758__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20758__0_021", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the formula was adopted in 1983 under the Sentencing Reform Act, and that formula was the sentence of the Court minus the gain time equals the actual sentence.\nIn this particular matter, Florida statute 921 authorized any and all gain time to be deducted from the actual sentence imposed, and in 1985 and 1986 there was an overcrowding problem, there's no question about that, and that overcrowding problem continued.\nThe contention or speculative nature of these credits doesn't really impact the fact that the effect of the '92 act totally and retroactively increased the measure of punishment.\nIt stiffened the measure of punishment.\nIt increased the measure of punishment over the statutory formula under 921, the sentencing guidelines law that was in effect at the time of the offense that provided a provisional and mandatory release date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [384.562, 395.059, 410.19, 425.208, 426.8], "stop_times": [395.059, 410.19, 425.208, 426.8, 438.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 384.562}, "reply_to": "20758__0_020", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_022", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But may... on that point, may I ask you a variant of Justice Ginsburg's question?\nI've gone over the statute as you've provided it to us in the lodging, the statute that was in effect at the time of the offense, and it's not clear to me from reading that statute whether any reduction that did not result in the release of a particular prisoner would have survived the termination of the emergency.\nIt is not clear to me from the statute, for example, that if your client got a 30-day reduction at some point because there was an emergency during his incarceration, but he was not released as a result of it because the reduction didn't get him down to that point, it's not clear to me from the statute that the reduction would have sort of remained on the books, if you will, as a permanent reduction in his sentence once the population had dropped down and that emergency was passed.\nAnd I guess my question is, isn't that another reason for saying that under the statute as it existed when he committed his offense it is at best speculative whether he would have obtained the kind of long-term permanent reduction benefit that you are claiming he has been denied improperly here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [438.708, 443.009, 467.186, 498.007], "stop_times": [443.009, 467.186, 498.007, 518.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 438.708}, "reply_to": "20758__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_023", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Justice Souter, the focus of the inquiry for ex post facto purposes should be the effect of the '92 law.\nNot so much emphasis should be placed on the speculative nature of whether or not the trigger is going to be reached.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [518.119, 525.613], "stop_times": [525.613, 533.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.119}, "reply_to": "20758__0_022", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_024", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But I think what I'm trying to get at is that the effect of the '92 law depends on what he might have been entitled to under the law that was changed and if, in fact, under the law that was changed, under the '83 act if that's what we're going to consider, it is not even clear that he would have been entitled to retain his credit beyond the termination of the emergency during which it was granted, then I can't say that the later statute took away anything.\nAt best I would say, well, it's speculative as to whether it took away anything.\nThere's no case law telling me how to read this in your client's favor, and that's the difficulty I have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [533.09, 562.869, 566.532], "stop_times": [562.869, 566.532, 573.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.09}, "reply_to": "20758__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_025", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Justice Souter, the statutes in this case that provided the overcrowding gain time had no provisions which allowed revocation or forfeiture.\nThese credits, once granted, were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [573.585, 582.862], "stop_times": [582.862, 584.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.585}, "reply_to": "20758__0_024", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_026", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But my difficulty is, they don't have any provision that clearly says that the gain time under the emergency statutes survives the emergency.\nI just don't know.\nIs there something in the text--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [584.992, 592.608, 593.458], "stop_times": [592.608, 593.458, 595.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.992}, "reply_to": "20758__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_027", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [595.721], "stop_times": [595.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.721}, "reply_to": "20758__0_026", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_028", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--that you could point to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [595.931], "stop_times": [596.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.931}, "reply_to": "20758__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_029", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [596.669], "stop_times": [596.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.669}, "reply_to": "20758__0_028", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_030", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--that says, this becomes permanently vested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [596.89], "stop_times": [599.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.89}, "reply_to": "20758__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_031", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes.\nI think that the statute 921, and its subsequent statutes, provide what's been referred to repeatedly as the nondiscretionary, irrevocable release date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [599.083, 599.514], "stop_times": [599.514, 611.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.083}, "reply_to": "20758__0_030", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_032", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Where's the irrevocable language in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [611.372], "stop_times": [613.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 611.372}, "reply_to": "20758__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_033", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "The irrevocable language--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [613.953], "stop_times": [614.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.953}, "reply_to": "20758__0_032", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_034", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Have you got it in front of you?\nDo you have the statute in front of you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [614.682, 615.684], "stop_times": [615.684, 616.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.682}, "reply_to": "20758__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_035", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Not immediately in front of me, but we've--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [616.916], "stop_times": [619.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.916}, "reply_to": "20758__0_034", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_036", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [619.446], "stop_times": [619.837], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 619.446}, "reply_to": "20758__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20758__0_037", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--lodged the documents with the Court in the lodged documents, but it's under 921.001 and it specifically near the end of that statute, paragraph 10, and in paragraph 8, the language is specifically that your sentence is specifically determined by the amount of time the court imposes minus any and all gain time, and that is your release date.\nIn that release date the word shall is used, and in 1988 when they adopted the provision of release date statutes, they clarified that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [619.837, 644.511], "stop_times": [644.511, 651.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.837}, "reply_to": "20758__0_036", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_038", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Even if there's no overcrowding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [651.256], "stop_times": [652.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.256}, "reply_to": "20758__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_039", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [652.368], "stop_times": [653.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.368}, "reply_to": "20758__0_038", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_040", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "If there's no overcrowding at the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [653.209], "stop_times": [654.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.209}, "reply_to": "20758__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_041", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [654.209], "stop_times": [654.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.209}, "reply_to": "20758__0_040", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_042", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--you nonetheless get released early?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [654.399], "stop_times": [655.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.399}, "reply_to": "20758__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_043", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, sir, because the release date uses the word shall.\nOnce you've got the release credits granted to you, there is nothing under Florida law that allows the State to revoke those credits.\nThat's why there's a provisional release dates, and that's why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [655.891, 659.481, 667.077], "stop_times": [659.481, 667.077, 670.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.891}, "reply_to": "20758__0_042", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_044", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Have the Florida courts so construed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [670.26], "stop_times": [672.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.26}, "reply_to": "20758__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20758__0_045", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [672.03], "stop_times": [672.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.03}, "reply_to": "20758__0_044", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_046", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--that measure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [672.5], "stop_times": [673.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.5}, "reply_to": "20758__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20758__0_047", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--The provisional release date is a mandatory, statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [673.021], "stop_times": [678.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.021}, "reply_to": "20758__0_046", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_048", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Why is called provisional, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [678.234], "stop_times": [679.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.234}, "reply_to": "20758__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_049", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [679.506], "stop_times": [679.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.506}, "reply_to": "20758__0_048", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_050", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I understood it was called provisional because you only get your overcrowding time if there's overcrowding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [679.925], "stop_times": [686.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.925}, "reply_to": "20758__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_051", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--The word provisional is used... before they used the word provisional, Justice Scalia, they used... they used release date, they used... there's several different words that they've used, but in each case the language of the statute is crystal clear, and it says that a person shall be released on that date.\nThe reason they use the name provisional is because they adopted a successor statute to emergency gain time in 1988 called provisional release credits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [686.039, 704.391], "stop_times": [704.391, 712.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.039}, "reply_to": "20758__0_050", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_052", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, didn't that depend on whether the prison was overcrowded to a certain percentage or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [712.436], "stop_times": [719.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.436}, "reply_to": "20758__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_053", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [719.011], "stop_times": [720.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 719.011}, "reply_to": "20758__0_052", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_054", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Isn't that how it's calculated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [720.794], "stop_times": [721.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.794}, "reply_to": "20758__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_055", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [721.732], "stop_times": [722.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.732}, "reply_to": "20758__0_054", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_056", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Now, what if he were sentenced under an earlier statute that didn't provide the provisional release credits based on prison overcrowding.\nHe was sentenced under another regime that provided some gain time but not this overcrowding concept, and the legislature after sentencing then enacts a provisional release law based on overcrowding.\nAfter the sentencing, after the commission of the crime, after sentencing they enact this thing, and then later they amend it or repeal it.\nIs there some ex post facto problem at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [722.453, 731.629, 747.898, 756.046], "stop_times": [731.629, 747.898, 756.046, 760.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.453}, "reply_to": "20758__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_057", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--I would believe that there would be an ex post facto problem if you, by the grace of the legislature as stated in Weaver, confer benefits, for example, then take them away, and resulting in a huge increase--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [760.548], "stop_times": [771.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.548}, "reply_to": "20758__0_056", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_058", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But in Weaver... in Weaver, it depended upon what existed at the time the offense was committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [771.755], "stop_times": [776.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.755}, "reply_to": "20758__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20758__0_059", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--As in this case as well.\nWe're not contending here or submitting that the hypothetical, Justice O'Connor, that you posed is necessary for relief in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [776.84, 778.661], "stop_times": [778.661, 785.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.84}, "reply_to": "20758__0_058", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_060", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "No, but suppose that were what happened, how does ex post facto doctrine help in that situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [785.286], "stop_times": [790.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.286}, "reply_to": "20758__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_061", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It would appear that the cases dealing with ex post facto doctrine have dealt primarily with two points, whether or not the law is retrospective and, number 2, whether it results in a significant or substantial increase in the measure of punishment and if, in fact, after the sentencing, a new version of the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [790.64], "stop_times": [809.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.64}, "reply_to": "20758__0_060", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_062", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "A new benefit is enacted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [809.932], "stop_times": [811.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 809.932}, "reply_to": "20758__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_063", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--A new benefit, Justice O'Connor, as you indicate, was conferred, and that benefit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [811.552], "stop_times": [816.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.552}, "reply_to": "20758__0_062", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_064", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Provisionally, based on the extent of population of the prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [816.838], "stop_times": [821.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.838}, "reply_to": "20758__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_065", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor, but like in this case there's also a good conduct provision as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [821.159], "stop_times": [826.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.159}, "reply_to": "20758__0_064", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_066", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, what if in the meantime, before it had ever been applied, the State just built another prison, so it never came into operation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [826.503], "stop_times": [832.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.503}, "reply_to": "20758__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_067", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [832.156], "stop_times": [833.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.156}, "reply_to": "20758__0_066", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_068", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [833.048], "stop_times": [833.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.048}, "reply_to": "20758__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_069", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--It's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [833.428], "stop_times": [835.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.428}, "reply_to": "20758__0_068", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_070", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Did the defendant lose something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [835.201], "stop_times": [836.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.201}, "reply_to": "20758__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_071", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--In this particular case the defendant lost 5 years, and had 5 years added to his sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [836.25], "stop_times": [841.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.25}, "reply_to": "20758__0_070", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_072", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "No, under the hypothetical, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [841.452], "stop_times": [842.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.452}, "reply_to": "20758__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_073", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [842.494], "stop_times": [843.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.494}, "reply_to": "20758__0_072", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_074", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "What would the defendant have lost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [843.295], "stop_times": [845.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 843.295}, "reply_to": "20758__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_075", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I think he would lose the possibility of a sentence reduction based upon the new provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [845.456], "stop_times": [851.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.456}, "reply_to": "20758__0_074", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_076", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "The new law, but how is that ex post facto if we look at the time of the crime and the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [851.78], "stop_times": [857.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.78}, "reply_to": "20758__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_077", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It's not clear from looking at Supreme Court cases in the past whether or not that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [857.694], "stop_times": [862.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.694}, "reply_to": "20758__0_076", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_078", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, if your argument is that broad, you lose me.\nDo you have a fallback position that it only applies to those credits that he would have received under the law in effect in 1985?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [862.958, 866.09], "stop_times": [866.09, 875.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.958}, "reply_to": "20758__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_079", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Our position, Justice O'Connor, is that the formula in 1985 was in place, and that provided him with a statutory formula for ex post facto analysis against the harsher, more onerous formula that was enacted in 1992 by retroactive application through the Attorney General's rein--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [875.917], "stop_times": [894.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 875.917}, "reply_to": "20758__0_078", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_080", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Remland--\n--Well, does your argument depend at all on the fact that the State retroactively revoked already awarded gain time credits?\nIs that your focus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [894.877, 895.899, 903.105], "stop_times": [895.899, 903.105, 903.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.877}, "reply_to": "20758__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_081", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [903.603], "stop_times": [904.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.603}, "reply_to": "20758__0_080", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_082", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Would you be here under any other scenario?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [904.424], "stop_times": [906.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.424}, "reply_to": "20758__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_083", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I think the eligibility for future credits as emphasized in the Weaver case and also the nature of the increase in... in Miller, for example, in Miller v. Florida, where a new guideline amendment, a new formula, if you will, was used to make a harsher punishment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [906.785], "stop_times": [927.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.785}, "reply_to": "20758__0_082", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_084", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Remland, I don't think you've made a point clear that I think is really of vital importance.\nDon't you claim that under the 1983 statute your client had right, a statutory right to overcrowding credits not in a then emergency, but if a later emergency occurred when there was a 98-percent population in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [927.529, 931.743], "stop_times": [931.743, 947.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.529}, "reply_to": "20758__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__0_085", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [947.242], "stop_times": [948.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.242}, "reply_to": "20758__0_084", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_086", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And that was the formula your client had a right to at the time the offense was committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [948.063], "stop_times": [952.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.063}, "reply_to": "20758__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__0_087", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [952.086], "stop_times": [952.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.086}, "reply_to": "20758__0_086", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_088", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And the formula that was actually applied also was a 98-percent formula, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [952.996], "stop_times": [957.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.996}, "reply_to": "20758__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__0_089", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Absolutely.\nThey were both 98 percents, and they were both... he was offense-eligible in 1985, and it was at 98 percent.\nHe was offense-eligible in 1992, until they retroactively excluded him for eligibility and canceled all the credits and also future eligibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [957.44, 958.031, 964.214], "stop_times": [958.031, 964.214, 973.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.44}, "reply_to": "20758__0_088", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_090", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, do you think at the time the prisoner was committing the attempted murder that he took into calculation the fact that there might be prison overcrowding, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [973.768], "stop_times": [987.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.768}, "reply_to": "20758__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_091", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [987.799], "stop_times": [988.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.799}, "reply_to": "20758__0_090", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_092", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--it has some ex post facto effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [988.268], "stop_times": [990.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.268}, "reply_to": "20758__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__0_093", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--I do not believe, Justice O'Connor, that an individual who's committing a crime on the outside is thinking in terms of what specific gain time statutes might exist, and I don't think that kind of a reliance interest is required for a claim under the ex post facto clause.\nHowever, I do think that reliance is one of the interest as well as expectations that the ex post facto clause addresses.\nHowever, I think in this case in 1985, when the offense was committed, through 1986, there was real overcrowding, there was an overcrowding formula, Justice Stevens, as you pointed out, in 1985 that made him 98 percent... the population cap was there at 98 percent, and the overcrowding was there, and there were newspaper articles coming out.\nAnd the Governor in 1986, one month prior to the time of the plea in this case, went into special session and raised the trigger from 98 percent to 99 percent, so there's maybe an objective reliance here on the part of any petitioner in this particular situation, especially when we have in place since 1985 and earlier a statutory formula under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [990.271, 1005.33, 1013.075, 1033.509], "stop_times": [1005.33, 1013.075, 1033.509, 1059.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.271}, "reply_to": "20758__0_092", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_094", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Remland, suppose Florida had said, we are enacting a statute that doesn't give anybody any right to anything until the moment that there is overcrowding, and when they're... when and if the overcrowding occurs, they will get credits, but those credits will exist only as long as the overcrowding.\nOnce there's no more overcrowding, no more accumulation, and we wipe away any that exist if you haven't gotten out.\nThat kind of statute, then, would have no constitutional problem, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1059.694, 1082.171, 1089.524], "stop_times": [1082.171, 1089.524, 1094.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.694}, "reply_to": "20758__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20758__0_095", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--As long as the statute didn't cancel credits already awarded in the past, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1094.617], "stop_times": [1098.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.617}, "reply_to": "20758__0_094", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_096", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "This statute says these credits you accumulate, and if you get out while we're still overcrowded, that's all right, but when we build the new prison, they're wiped out.\nIs there any constitutional problem with Florida doing that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1098.951, 1111.32], "stop_times": [1111.32, 1113.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.951}, "reply_to": "20758__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20758__0_097", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--I don't... Florida's done that, Judge... Judge Ginsburg in the controlled release statute which was passed in 1989 and got up and running in 1991.\nThat statute has within its parameters a method of reducing and changing the release date based upon changes in population.\nThe statute is being... if the statute is applied in a prospective manner, not retroactively, creating a harsher punishment, I don't see a constitutional problem with addressing overcrowding through the prospective application of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1113.894, 1121.468, 1129.213], "stop_times": [1121.468, 1129.213, 1141.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.894}, "reply_to": "20758__0_096", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_098", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Remland, may I interrupt you, because I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1141.85], "stop_times": [1144.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.85}, "reply_to": "20758__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_099", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1144.672], "stop_times": [1145.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1144.672}, "reply_to": "20758__0_098", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_100", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--you're getting back to a point that I think we're all concerned with here.\nI thought I had gotten into the question whether Florida under the '83 act was awarding credits that would survive the overcrowding or were not surviving the overcrowding, so that... and your answer to me was their credits survived the emergency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1145.122, 1147.764], "stop_times": [1147.764, 1167.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.122}, "reply_to": "20758__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_101", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1167.189], "stop_times": [1168.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.189}, "reply_to": "20758__0_100", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_102", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "The emergency was over, you still retain the credits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1168.098], "stop_times": [1170.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.098}, "reply_to": "20758__0_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_103", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1170.071], "stop_times": [1170.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.071}, "reply_to": "20758__0_102", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_104", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "So you were saying to me the statute we've got is not the kind of statute that Justice Ginsburg was asking you the hypothetical about.\nAnd you said the reason for the permanence of the credits was 921.001, subsections 8 or 10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1170.281, 1176.592], "stop_times": [1176.592, 1186.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.281}, "reply_to": "20758__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_105", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1186.45], "stop_times": [1187.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1186.45}, "reply_to": "20758__0_104", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_106", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, I've got that out, and it's on page 10 of the lodging.\nDo you have a copy of the lodging with you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1187.111, 1190.303], "stop_times": [1190.303, 1192.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.111}, "reply_to": "20758__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_107", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, sir.\n0....\nYou say page 10?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1192.394, 1193.315, 1193.786], "stop_times": [1193.315, 1193.786, 1210.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.394}, "reply_to": "20758__0_106", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_108", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes.\n0....", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1210.016, 1210.637], "stop_times": [1210.637, 1212.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.016}, "reply_to": "20758__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_109", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1212.179], "stop_times": [1222.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.179}, "reply_to": "20758__0_108", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_110", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Okay.\nNow, down in the... I don't get a subsection 10 there, but I get a subsection 8, and subsection 8 provides that a person convicted of a crime after a certain date, and so on, will be released from incarceration only (a) upon expiration of the sentence, (b) upon expiration of the sentence as reduced by accumulated gain time, or, and there's a third alternative.\nNow, I take it that your answer to me depends on the fact that the statute uses the word accumulated.\nI take it your argument is that it wouldn't make any sense to refer to accumulated gain time unless the gain time survived the emergency.\nIs that sort of the nub of your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1222.765, 1223.175, 1247.631, 1255.238, 1263.343], "stop_times": [1223.175, 1247.631, 1255.238, 1263.343, 1266.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.765}, "reply_to": "20758__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_111", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1266.886], "stop_times": [1268.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.886}, "reply_to": "20758__0_110", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_112", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "All right.\nDoes the word... my question is, and I probably should know this from reading the briefs but I'm not sure, does the word gain time include not only this provisional gain time that is awarded in the case of emergencies, but the other kinds of gain time which reduce a sentence for good behavior and so on?\nDoes the word gain time include all of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1268.446, 1268.626, 1286.937], "stop_times": [1268.626, 1286.937, 1289.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.446}, "reply_to": "20758__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_113", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1289.689], "stop_times": [1290.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.689}, "reply_to": "20758__0_112", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_114", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well then, isn't it the case that we really cannot say that the fact that gain time is referred to as accumulated gain time, we can't infer from that that the emergency kind of gain time is accumulated as opposed to, let's say, the good behavior kind of gain time.\nIs that fair to say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1290.27, 1307.181], "stop_times": [1307.181, 1309.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.27}, "reply_to": "20758__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_115", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I think it's fair to say, Justice Souter, that the meaning and the use of the statutes in this case refer to gain time and... in all its different forms, such as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1309.392], "stop_times": [1320.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.392}, "reply_to": "20758__0_114", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_116", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Some of which may accumulate under the statute governing it, and some of which may not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1320.899], "stop_times": [1325.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.899}, "reply_to": "20758__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_117", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--The use of these statutes in Florida since 1983 and the analysis of the way they've been operating is that the gain time accumulates unless there's a discipline problem, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1325.963], "stop_times": [1335.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.963}, "reply_to": "20758__0_116", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_118", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Even under the emergency statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1335.889], "stop_times": [1337.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.889}, "reply_to": "20758__0_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_119", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1337.311, 1337.922], "stop_times": [1337.922, 1338.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.311}, "reply_to": "20758__0_118", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_120", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And so you're saying administrative practice, even though there's no court decision on it and even though the statute doesn't expressly address it, the administrative practice is to make it a permanent gain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1338.45], "stop_times": [1346.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.45}, "reply_to": "20758__0_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_121", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1346.578], "stop_times": [1347.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.578}, "reply_to": "20758__0_120", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_122", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Even under the emergency statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1347.637], "stop_times": [1348.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.637}, "reply_to": "20758__0_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_123", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "There's no provision for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1348.618], "stop_times": [1349.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.618}, "reply_to": "20758__0_122", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_124", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "There's no way there would have gotten 1,800 days of gain time otherwise, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1349.84], "stop_times": [1353.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.84}, "reply_to": "20758__0_123", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__0_125", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--That is absolutely correct, and he was released by the Department of Corrections on October 1 of 1992 and told to go home, you're released on your provisional release date, which is mandatory under the law.\nThe 1988 version of this statute, which I believe is subparagraph 10, Justice Souter, says that you shall be released on your provisional release date, and that's on page 12.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1353.1, 1362.688], "stop_times": [1362.688, 1372.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1353.1}, "reply_to": "20758__0_124", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_126", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1372.553], "stop_times": [1372.924], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.553}, "reply_to": "20758__0_125", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20758__0_127", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1372.924], "stop_times": [1373.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.924}, "reply_to": "20758__0_126", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_128", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But basically your argument is, is an argument that construes the statute in accordance with the actual administrative practice until they got this statute that hauled this poor man back, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1373.733], "stop_times": [1386.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.733}, "reply_to": "20758__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__0_129", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Absolutely, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1386.132], "stop_times": [1386.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1386.132}, "reply_to": "20758__0_128", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_130", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1386.752], "stop_times": [1387.103], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.752}, "reply_to": "20758__0_129", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20758__0_131", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--And even the Florida supreme court cases have looked at all these different gain times and said they're basically the same.\nIn Griffin v. Singletary for example, the Florida supreme court stated that the provisional release credit statute is the same as the administrative gain time statute, and in Dugger v. Rodrick the Florida supreme court lumped all of these population control statutes together and said they're called population control statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1387.103, 1392.106], "stop_times": [1392.106, 1408.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1387.103}, "reply_to": "20758__0_130", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_132", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, did it lump those together with good behavior gain time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1408.678], "stop_times": [1412.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.678}, "reply_to": "20758__0_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20758__0_133", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "The Florida supreme court has carved out sort of an exception and tried to distinguish between good behavior incentive gain time on the one hand and overcrowding gain time on the other.\nI believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1412.391, 1422.787], "stop_times": [1422.787, 1423.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.391}, "reply_to": "20758__0_132", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_134", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, but you don't get the overcrowding gain time unless you also qualify for good behavior, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1423.428], "stop_times": [1426.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.428}, "reply_to": "20758__0_133", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__0_135", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Stevens.\nAs a matter of fact, these credits, Justice Stevens, are nothing more than good time credits during periods of overcrowding, and as Arnold v. Cody out of the Tenth Circuit noted, the contingent nature of the credits emanating after the effective date of the act really just shows you the credits are being awarded.\nIt's an issue of retroactivity.\nIn this particular matter, the real key issue is whether the effect of the law, the focus of the inquiry as in Moralis v. Department of California Department of Corrections was that did this changed formula in 1992 substantially stiffen the measure of punishment?\nDid it increase?\nDid it make it more onerous than the formula that Mr. Lynce, the petitioner herein, was eligible for, 98 percent in 1985, and not excluded because of his offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1426.68, 1428.052, 1446.915, 1447.683, 1464.096, 1465.555], "stop_times": [1428.052, 1446.915, 1447.683, 1464.096, 1465.555, 1477.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.68}, "reply_to": "20758__0_134", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_136", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Suppose that you had this system and the State then passed a new statute which had a 90-percent trigger point, but it... and it provided for immediate release to keep it at 90 percent, and it excluded people that were convicted of murder or attempted murder, would that... and the effect of that was to keep your client in jail.\nWould that be a violation of the ex post facto rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1477.344, 1497.258], "stop_times": [1497.258, 1500.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.344}, "reply_to": "20758__0_135", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__0_137", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Justice Kennedy, I think that Florida, because of the overcrowding crisis, should be able to address this crisis in any manner it feels reasonable with prospective laws.\nIf they deny Mr. Lynce or anybody else eligibility because of a prior crime that he committed, then it delves into the area of violating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1500.05, 1507.985], "stop_times": [1507.985, 1516.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.05}, "reply_to": "20758__0_136", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_138", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "No, no.\nNo, they have a new cap at 90 percent.\nThey just exclude certain offenders, including your client.\nHence, because of the 90-percent cap, they release people, and he'll never reach the 98, so in effect they've taken away from him his credit.\nWould that be lawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1516.55, 1516.781, 1518.871, 1523.185, 1530.759], "stop_times": [1516.781, 1518.871, 1523.185, 1530.759, 1531.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.55}, "reply_to": "20758__0_137", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__0_139", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--If they enact any formula that makes it more harsh or more onerous to someone who's already had another formula under an earlier--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1531.82], "stop_times": [1539.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1531.82}, "reply_to": "20758__0_138", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_140", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "They don't make it more harsh.\nThey just provide something for somebody else.\nWhat's the difference in that and building a new prison?\nI take it that there'd be no violation if they build a huge new prison and they never reach the 98 percent cap.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1539.453, 1541.546, 1543.288, 1545.18], "stop_times": [1541.546, 1543.288, 1545.18, 1550.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.453}, "reply_to": "20758__0_139", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__0_141", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1550.453, 1551.181], "stop_times": [1551.181, 1552.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1550.453}, "reply_to": "20758__0_140", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_142", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, what's the difference in that and my hypothetical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1552.013], "stop_times": [1554.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.013}, "reply_to": "20758__0_141", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__0_143", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I guess it wouldn't be any difference unless it impacted him adversely from the prior formula.\nI think you have to just look at both formulas.\nIf it doesn't adversely affect the overall sentence in terms of the duration of his actual term of incarceration, then it wouldn't be a violation of ex post facto.\nThe only test is whether or not the new formula is harsher or more oppressive than the earlier formula, sort of like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1554.033, 1559.659, 1561.12, 1568.125], "stop_times": [1559.659, 1561.12, 1568.125, 1574.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.033}, "reply_to": "20758__0_142", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_144", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, the new formula that I stipulated is more lenient to everybody but its... doesn't apply to him, so that it makes inoperable his.\nWell, I guess you've answered the question.\nDoes this formula have to be in the statute?\nSuppose the prison system just has a policy that when there's... or they're under injunction from a Federal court that they can't have so many... more than so many people in their institutions, and they institute a policy that when we have so many we will let out first of all the pickpockets, and let's assume your client's a pickpocket.\nNow, would that policy which was in effect at the time he was arrested for pickpocketing, would that have to be continued, or else the ex post facto prohibition of the Constitution violated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1574.276, 1582.654, 1583.933, 1586.184, 1604.537], "stop_times": [1582.654, 1583.933, 1586.184, 1604.537, 1618.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.276}, "reply_to": "20758__0_143", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__0_145", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I think that the policy you're discussing would seem to be rather discretionary, and perhaps it wouldn't necessarily be having the effect of law, or the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1618.237], "stop_times": [1629.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.237}, "reply_to": "20758__0_144", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_146", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, it wasn't effect of law.\nIt was a regulation that was adopted by the prison administrator.\nPursuant to his authority the legislature told him, you have to comply with the Federal court decree.\nYou decide... you know, you decide the people that can best be released upon the public, and he said pickpockets, and he issued that in a regulation.\nNow, is it your position that that administrative measure becomes part of the sentence that the person is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1629.143, 1630.575, 1632.867, 1638.433, 1647.627], "stop_times": [1630.575, 1632.867, 1638.433, 1647.627, 1656.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.143}, "reply_to": "20758__0_145", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_147", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I don't believe an administrative regulation that doesn't have a tightened control or mandatory nature to it would be the same as the statute that we have in this case that guarantees a certain formula for sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1656.174], "stop_times": [1668.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1656.174}, "reply_to": "20758__0_146", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_148", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--If it's for administrative purposes, I don't see how the fact that it's adopted by regulation versus statute should make any difference.\nIs that the distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1668.401, 1674.735], "stop_times": [1674.735, 1675.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.401}, "reply_to": "20758__0_147", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_149", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I think it's the effect.\nOf course, if the effect has a substantial impact and that effect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1675.857, 1677.207], "stop_times": [1677.207, 1680.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.857}, "reply_to": "20758__0_148", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_150", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "The effect's the same.\nHe's a pickpocket and he would have gotten out if that measure had been continued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1680.438, 1681.339], "stop_times": [1681.339, 1684.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.438}, "reply_to": "20758__0_149", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__0_151", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--It appears to pose an ex post facto issue and a problem if there is in effect increasing punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1684.602], "stop_times": [1689.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1684.602}, "reply_to": "20758__0_150", "speaker": "joel_t_remland"}
{"id": "20758__0_152", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Remland.\nMr. Thomson, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1689.214, 1690.376], "stop_times": [1690.376, 1692.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.214}, "reply_to": "20758__0_151", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20758__1_000", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe ex post facto clause is implicated here only if the 1992 statute that terminated the application of the provisional release credits for Mr. Lynce increased the quantum of punishment attached to his crime from the date it was committed.\nThat is the definition of an ex post facto law.\nA statute must increase the quantum of punishment at that... over that which existed at that point of time, or it is simply not subject to ex post facto attack, whatever other bases there may for attacking it.\nIn looking at the provisional release credits, or the other forms of overcrowding credits adopted by Florida in response to a serious overcrowding problem, a Federal court decree, a settlement of that Federal court case, and then the adoption of certain policies later encapsulated into statute, all of those procedures we submit were not penal.\nIn fact, their purpose was the opposite of penal.\nIt was remedial and procedural.\nThe 1992 act and all the other acts adopted over this period of time were attempted solutions to that same large problem that Florida was confronting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1692.036, 1697.39, 1717.614, 1721.505, 1737.125, 1773.56, 1779.554, 1782.087], "stop_times": [1697.39, 1717.614, 1721.505, 1737.125, 1773.56, 1779.554, 1782.087, 1796.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.036}, "reply_to": "20758__0_152", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_001", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, Mr. Thomson, assume that under the law in effect in 1985 the defendant would have been entitled to certain gain time credits based on good behavior and other things, and he went along earning those credits until all of a sudden the State passes a retroactive law that takes away gain time credits already accumulated for him.\nCan it do that?\nIs there an ex post facto problem there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1796.128, 1828.77, 1830.069], "stop_times": [1828.77, 1830.069, 1832.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.128}, "reply_to": "20758__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_002", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "The Weaver case tells us that there is.\nThe Weaver case involved basic gain time.\nFlorida remodeled its basic gain time statute to leave the credits where they were, but to modify them prospectively, and this Court held that the State of Florida could not do that.\nIt couldn't modify them at all.\nNow, I interpret that aspect of gain time as written in Weaver in part by the reference in the Moralis case in 1995 to Weaver being part of a trilogy, the trilogy being the Lindsey case in 1937, Weaver, and the Miller case in 1987.\nThose were... Lindsey and Miller were clearly sentencing cases, and I interpret Weaver--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1832.092, 1834.493, 1837.696, 1850.384, 1852.577, 1875.451], "stop_times": [1834.493, 1837.696, 1850.384, 1852.577, 1875.451, 1882.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.092}, "reply_to": "20758__1_001", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_003", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "All right, but you're losing me a little bit.\nIn this particular case, up until 1992, had the defendant accumulated some gain time credits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1882.895, 1884.167], "stop_times": [1884.167, 1892.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1882.895}, "reply_to": "20758__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_004", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--I'm sorry, I didn't understand your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1892.102], "stop_times": [1894.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.102}, "reply_to": "20758__1_003", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_005", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Until 1992--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1894.245], "stop_times": [1896.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.245}, "reply_to": "20758__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_006", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1896.676], "stop_times": [1897.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.676}, "reply_to": "20758__1_005", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_007", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--had this defendant accumulated some gain time credits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1897.207], "stop_times": [1900.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.207}, "reply_to": "20758__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_008", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1900.718], "stop_times": [1901.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.718}, "reply_to": "20758__1_007", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_009", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And the law passed in 1992 made him ineligible for that retroactively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1901.098], "stop_times": [1908.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.098}, "reply_to": "20758__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_010", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It made him... the law passed in 1992 made him ineligible for provisional credits.\nHe had basic gain time accumulated.\nHe had some incentive gain time accumulated.\nThe law did not touch those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1908.353, 1915.678, 1917.65, 1921.433], "stop_times": [1915.678, 1917.65, 1921.433, 1922.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.353}, "reply_to": "20758__1_009", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_011", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And he also had some gain time based on overcrowding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1922.662], "stop_times": [1927.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.662}, "reply_to": "20758__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_012", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "He had gain time based on overcrowding broken into two components, one under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1927.354], "stop_times": [1933.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1927.354}, "reply_to": "20758__1_011", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_013", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But he had some.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1933.138], "stop_times": [1934.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.138}, "reply_to": "20758__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_014", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1934.019], "stop_times": [1934.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.019}, "reply_to": "20758__1_013", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_015", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And then the State passes a new law and makes it retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1934.911], "stop_times": [1939.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.911}, "reply_to": "20758__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_016", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1939.423], "stop_times": [1939.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.423}, "reply_to": "20758__1_015", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_017", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And you say that the ex post facto doctrine does not apply to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1939.973], "stop_times": [1944.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.973}, "reply_to": "20758__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_018", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.\nI... we say that it does not apply not only because the statutes from... which were the... which were take... in which something was taken away from him did not exist at the time that he committed his crime.\nNot only that, but because those kinds of statutes involved here were not penal.\nAn ex post facto law turns on penal statutes.\nThese laws were not directed in any way at punishing the individual inmate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1944.778, 1945.787, 1960.647, 1967.422, 1971.806], "stop_times": [1945.787, 1960.647, 1967.422, 1971.806, 1977.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.778}, "reply_to": "20758__1_017", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_019", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, but they certainly affected the time the inmate would serve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1977.448], "stop_times": [1980.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.448}, "reply_to": "20758__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_020", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "There are lots of things that affect the time that an inmate will serve that have nothing to do with the fact of whether punishment is being imposed on him.\nIn this case, the State was dealing with problems that had nothing to do with individual inmates.\nThey were not for the purpose of controlling an inmate.\nThey were not for the purpose of rewarding an inmate.\nThey were to deal with a serious problem of overcrowding which required early release of certain... a certain number of people which the State moved back and forth in light of its other obligation, which was to, as best it could, protect the safety of the streets, and therefore decided who it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [1980.9, 1989.326, 1994.609, 1998.24, 2000.954], "stop_times": [1989.326, 1994.609, 1998.24, 2000.954, 2021.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.9}, "reply_to": "20758__1_019", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_021", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I might understand your argument better if it applied across the board, but it as I understand it the statute took away the provisional gain time from a class of offenders, dangerous people, including an attempted murderer, and I'm not sure how to square that with your assertion that this was not to punish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2021.057], "stop_times": [2044.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.057}, "reply_to": "20758__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__1_022", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, it was no more to punish than the Moralis case, which applied a different rule to a certain class of prisoners, in that case double murderers.\nThe overcrowding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2044.182, 2056.831], "stop_times": [2056.831, 2059.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.182}, "reply_to": "20758__1_021", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_023", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, but the rationale in that case was that it was unlikely that there would be really any difference.\nHere, it is clear there was a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2059.433, 2063.664], "stop_times": [2063.664, 2065.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.433}, "reply_to": "20758__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__1_024", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--The overcrowding was not by itself.\nOvercrowding resulted in the release of people, and you can look at the Florida statutes, and they looked at who it was that was going to be released, what classifications of people, and they said, certain classes of people should not be released to the streets to take care of an overcrowding problem.\nThis changed from time to time as overcrowding became a greater or a less problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2065.905, 2068.84, 2086.818], "stop_times": [2068.84, 2086.818, 2091.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.905}, "reply_to": "20758__1_023", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_025", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But why isn't that a judgment that one crime is more culpable or more dangerous than another, and therefore more deserving of incarceration?\nThat sounds like punishment to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2091.533, 2100.349], "stop_times": [2100.349, 2101.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.533}, "reply_to": "20758__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__1_026", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Indirectly it has... it makes a judgment of who are more likely to cause a problem by early release.\nThere is no change of the sentence of anybody, those that are released or those that are not released.\nThe sentence remains what it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2101.801, 2109.916, 2115.419], "stop_times": [2109.916, 2115.419, 2117.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.801}, "reply_to": "20758__1_025", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_027", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I take it that deterrence is one of the central rationales for punishment, and you're saying that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2117.292], "stop_times": [2123.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.292}, "reply_to": "20758__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__1_028", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Retribution and deterrence are the two classes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2123.186], "stop_times": [2125.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.186}, "reply_to": "20758__1_027", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_029", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--And that you're saying that deterrence or prevention, I suppose, is the rationale here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2125.256], "stop_times": [2131.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.256}, "reply_to": "20758__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__1_030", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "You're not trying to prevent a crime.\nYou are simply deciding if you are going to take care of a problem called overcrowding... I've got too many people in the prisons and I don't have enough space, and I've got to let a certain number of them on the streets.\nThen I make judgments within that determination of who should and should not be released consistent with my obligation as a legislator to best protect public safety.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2131.551, 2133.131, 2145.251], "stop_times": [2133.131, 2145.251, 2157.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2131.551}, "reply_to": "20758__1_029", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_031", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, may be that's a good argument for a prospective law to that effect, but how does that justify a retrospective law that affects people who've already been awarded credits and are out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2157.828], "stop_times": [2167.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.828}, "reply_to": "20758__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20758__1_032", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Insofar as the ex post facto clause goes, it seems to me that it is not... the ex post facto clause is not involved because we are going to go and take a look back at 1985.\nThere may be other constitutional issues.\nDue process, Eighth Amendment problems, and certain other problems that may exist, but it is not an ex post facto problem, which is the one that is before the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2167.986, 2182.624, 2185.556], "stop_times": [2182.624, 2185.556, 2194.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.986}, "reply_to": "20758__1_031", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_033", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, why isn't it an ex post facto problem if there was a 1983 statute on the books that authorized the gain time when the prison population exceeded 98 percent, the same formula that you used under the labor statutes?\nWhy isn't that an ex post facto problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2194.102, 2208.571], "stop_times": [2208.571, 2212.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.102}, "reply_to": "20758__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_034", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--The 1983 statute is interesting, because in the first place it was entitled Early Release of Prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2212.074], "stop_times": [2218.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.074}, "reply_to": "20758__1_033", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_035", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Titled Emergency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2218.299], "stop_times": [2221.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.299}, "reply_to": "20758__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_036", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It was not classified... excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2221.42], "stop_times": [2223.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.42}, "reply_to": "20758__1_035", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_037", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Entitled Emergency Release of Prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2223.21], "stop_times": [2225.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.21}, "reply_to": "20758__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_038", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Emergency Release of Prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2225.051], "stop_times": [2226.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2225.051}, "reply_to": "20758__1_037", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_039", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2226.373], "stop_times": [2226.633], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.373}, "reply_to": "20758__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20758__1_040", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It was not... when you look at the history of that 1983 law, which is in the lodged documents, you know, gain time provisions, and then the special emergency release of prisoners, it says we're going to take care of the serious problems created under the Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2226.633], "stop_times": [2242.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.633}, "reply_to": "20758__1_039", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_041", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "No, it says it will take care of it if the population reaches 98 percent.\nIt looked to the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2242.424, 2245.987], "stop_times": [2245.987, 2246.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.424}, "reply_to": "20758__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_042", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2246.869], "stop_times": [2247.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.869}, "reply_to": "20758__1_041", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_043", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "So that the emergency had not necessarily occurred at the time that statute was passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2247.897], "stop_times": [2252.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.897}, "reply_to": "20758__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_044", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "No.\nThere was an overcrowding problem consistently all along, but clearly it never was released under that... I mean, it never was reached under that statute because that statute was never applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2252.421, 2252.651], "stop_times": [2252.651, 2262.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.421}, "reply_to": "20758__1_043", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_045", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It was... they were released under the formula that was set forth in that statute, which was incorporated into a later statute.\nIn the 98 percent formula was incorporated in the later statute which actually gave rise to his credits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2262.849, 2267.422], "stop_times": [2267.422, 2273.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.849}, "reply_to": "20758__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_046", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That aspect of it was.\nThe later statutes had exceptions.\nThey were different statutes.\nThe 1992--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2273.875, 2274.654, 2277.426, 2279.96], "stop_times": [2274.654, 2277.426, 2279.96, 2282.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.875}, "reply_to": "20758__1_045", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_047", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And was more discretionary than the earlier statute.\nThe earlier statute has mandatory language in it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2282.811, 2284.031], "stop_times": [2284.031, 2285.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.811}, "reply_to": "20758__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_048", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2285.974], "stop_times": [2286.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.974}, "reply_to": "20758__1_047", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_049", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--that the later ones don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2286.342], "stop_times": [2286.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.342}, "reply_to": "20758__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_050", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "They were discretionary.\nAll the subsequents were first discretionary, and then they had specific exceptions of people that they would not reach, which changed from time to time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2286.993, 2288.005], "stop_times": [2288.005, 2295.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.993}, "reply_to": "20758__1_049", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_051", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But whatever... whatever happened later, he was entitled under the earlier statute because he qualified under the later one, which was even less generous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2295.96], "stop_times": [2305.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.96}, "reply_to": "20758__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_052", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, we do not know whether he ever would have qualified under the earlier statute because it was never applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2305.997], "stop_times": [2312.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.997}, "reply_to": "20758__1_051", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_053", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, sure we do, because it was a 98-percent formula, and you calculated the 98-percent formula later and gave him 1,800 days of credits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2312.151], "stop_times": [2318.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.151}, "reply_to": "20758__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_054", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "If in fact what was done in 1983 was cast in stone as part of this person's sentence, which I submit that it was not, then it never could have been changed at any time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2318.224], "stop_times": [2330.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.224}, "reply_to": "20758__1_053", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_055", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, of course, gain time is never cast in stone as part of a person's sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2330.222], "stop_times": [2332.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.222}, "reply_to": "20758__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_056", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2332.884], "stop_times": [2334.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.884}, "reply_to": "20758__1_055", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_057", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "We discovered that with the Weaver case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2334.465], "stop_times": [2336.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.465}, "reply_to": "20758__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_058", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--If, in fact, any time after 1985, any time there was available a 98-percent--I mean, you reach 98 percent, it was mandatory to release him and there were no exceptions that would apply to him, then you are casting in stone the first effort that Florida made to deal with an overcrowding problem, and you have said that that was part of his punishment.\nI submit, Your Honor, that the early release of prisoners by reason of overcrowding was never part of his punishment.\nIt was never part of his sentence.\nIt had no relationship to what he did in prison.\nThere was no aspect of reward.\nIt was neither retributative nor was it deterrent.\nIt simply said if, in fact, Florida has a problem unrelated to you that is not taken care of in a whole variety of ways, then this statute could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2336.097, 2361.001, 2368.267, 2370.358, 2374.302, 2376.483, 2379.755], "stop_times": [2361.001, 2368.267, 2370.358, 2374.302, 2376.483, 2379.755, 2390.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.097}, "reply_to": "20758__1_057", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_059", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, but I just want to be clear, your argument really depends on... assumes that the releases could have been under the 1983 statute, but they're still not covered because it's a collateral effect that caused him to become eligible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2390.0], "stop_times": [2401.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.0}, "reply_to": "20758__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_060", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2401.719], "stop_times": [2401.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2401.719}, "reply_to": "20758__1_059", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_061", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2401.738, 2402.088], "stop_times": [2402.088, 2402.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.738}, "reply_to": "20758__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_062", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "He would have been at most--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2402.859], "stop_times": [2403.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.859}, "reply_to": "20758__1_061", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_063", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2403.53], "stop_times": [2403.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.53}, "reply_to": "20758__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_064", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--an incidental beneficiary of those statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2403.881], "stop_times": [2407.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.881}, "reply_to": "20758__1_063", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_065", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And that would have been true under the '83 statute or the later statutes... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2407.474], "stop_times": [2410.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.474}, "reply_to": "20758__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_066", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That would have been true of any overcrowding statute, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2410.994], "stop_times": [2412.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.994}, "reply_to": "20758__1_065", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_067", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Thomson, assume for the sake of argument that the terms of the '83 statute would be enforceable under the ex post facto clause.\nAssume, secondly, though you correct me if you think this is wrong, but at least for the moment assume that under the statutory scheme as it existed at the time of the offense in '83 one simply couldn't tell one way or the other whether one of these emergency credits would, in fact, survive the emergency if the individual was not released.\nAnd assume, number 3, if you will, and again correct me later if you think this is wrong, but assume for now, as opposing counsel said, that the credits have in fact, even under the emergency provisions, the emergency credits have been accumulated and have survived the emergencies as a matter of administrative practice.\nThat's what they've been doing.\nMy question is this.\nIs there anything in... was there anything in Florida law at the time of the offense in '83 that made it... that would have provided, or did provide that the administrative practice had to be what in fact it was?\nWas there anything in Florida law at that time that says you're supposed to accumulate rather than not accumulate?\nOr, conversely, would it be fair to say that in '83 what the administrators did was a matter of their grace.\nThey could either accumulate or not accumulate.\nIt was purely up to them, and nobody could say what they ought to do.\nWhich was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2412.786, 2421.883, 2442.914, 2463.03, 2464.66, 2466.202, 2484.132, 2491.647, 2499.572, 2502.614, 2506.367], "stop_times": [2421.883, 2442.914, 2463.03, 2464.66, 2466.202, 2484.132, 2491.647, 2499.572, 2502.614, 2506.367, 2507.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.786}, "reply_to": "20758__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__1_068", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Justice Souter, are you referring to any aspect of gain time, or are you referring only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2507.138], "stop_times": [2514.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.138}, "reply_to": "20758__1_067", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_069", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Just the emergency gain time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2514.281], "stop_times": [2514.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.281}, "reply_to": "20758__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__1_070", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--to overcrowding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2514.992], "stop_times": [2515.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.992}, "reply_to": "20758__1_069", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_071", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Just the emergency gain time.\nWas there any... any law, outside of the confines... confines of what we have in the lodging, that would have indicated that the administrators were supposed to accumulate this, or, conversely, were the administrators free to do anything they wanted simply as a matter of grace?\nThey could either accumulate it and retain it beyond the emergency or not, as they saw fit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2515.212, 2516.752, 2533.375], "stop_times": [2516.752, 2533.375, 2539.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.212}, "reply_to": "20758__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__1_072", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "In 1983 there was nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2539.089], "stop_times": [2540.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.089}, "reply_to": "20758__1_071", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_073", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Okay.\nHow does this... I don't know if you can explain it.\nMaybe you can just refer me to a source, but it does seem if you could refer me to a source as to how these statutes work, it would be helpful.\nAs I read 598 and then 277 and 276, it seems to me they're identical but for the fact that the latter uses the word 60 days and may, and the former uses the word shall and 30 days as far as we're interested here.\nWhat it says you're supposed to do is that, when it hits 98 percent, then you start reducing the prison population, and you do it by giving each person in 5-day increments up to 30 days' gain time.\nWhere did we get the number 1,800 from?\nIt said up to 30 days, and what I... as I read it literally it sounded as if you have 1,000 people in the prison, they're all there under 25 years, which means they're really only 10 years, and then... after you eliminate all the regular gain time they're there for 10 years.\nAnd then what you do is, you look through the whole 1,000, you give each of these 1,000 people 30 days off their sentence, which will do nothing for prisor, overcrowding because they're not supposed to be released for a long time anyway, but they all get lighter sentences, and then you come down finally to it might be one person who's about to get out tomorrow, so he gets out.\nI mean, how does this work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2540.671, 2541.14, 2544.933, 2552.767, 2569.61, 2584.527, 2586.9, 2599.656, 2615.809], "stop_times": [2541.14, 2544.933, 2552.767, 2569.61, 2584.527, 2586.9, 2599.656, 2615.809, 2617.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.671}, "reply_to": "20758__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20758__1_074", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "With Your Honor's permission, it will take a minute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2617.909], "stop_times": [2620.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.909}, "reply_to": "20758__1_073", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_075", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, if it takes too long you might just refer me to a source.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2620.15], "stop_times": [2622.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.15}, "reply_to": "20758__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20758__1_076", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, I'll try and give it to you quickly.\nThere were four statutes.\nThe first, the emergency release of prisoners, has been referred to in my response to Justice Souter, and that is the one that had 30 days in 5-day----", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2622.832, 2624.605, 2625.706], "stop_times": [2624.605, 2625.706, 2635.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.832}, "reply_to": "20758__1_075", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_077", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That's what I'm talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2635.961], "stop_times": [2637.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.961}, "reply_to": "20758__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20758__1_078", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--And no exceptions.\nThe next one was called administrative gain time.\nThat's 276.\nIt was adopted in 1987.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2637.551, 2638.182, 2640.884, 2642.015], "stop_times": [2638.182, 2640.884, 2642.015, 2644.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.551}, "reply_to": "20758__1_077", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_079", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "My only question is how you get from the words 30 days, or 60 days, to the 1,800 that he accumulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2644.006], "stop_times": [2651.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.006}, "reply_to": "20758__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20758__1_080", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, the second one, the one I've just mentioned, administrative gain time, said up to 60 days, and so once an emergency was declared by the administrator, referred to the Governor, the Governor assented, it came back, and the Secretary allocated days from zero to 60 to that particular instant and assigned them to the block of people that were in the eligible pool.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2651.252], "stop_times": [2674.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.252}, "reply_to": "20758__1_079", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_081", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "And how do we get to 1,800?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2674.297], "stop_times": [2677.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.297}, "reply_to": "20758__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20758__1_082", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, you get... actually, if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2677.027], "stop_times": [2679.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.027}, "reply_to": "20758__1_081", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_083", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Did it happen 31 times?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2679.168], "stop_times": [2680.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.168}, "reply_to": "20758__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20758__1_084", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--No.\nIt happened a slew of times, and it happened sometimes with a lot less than that.\nIt happens incidentally to have been over 31 months, and there were 60 days, so you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2680.991, 2681.321, 2687.095], "stop_times": [2681.321, 2687.095, 2692.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.991}, "reply_to": "20758__1_083", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_085", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It happens each month.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2692.659], "stop_times": [2693.688], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2692.659}, "reply_to": "20758__1_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20758__1_086", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--might mistakenly think that there was a direct multiplication, and there isn't.\nIn fact, there were a whole set of certifications and determinations by the Secretary over the period of time that the provisional credits were given, which was from 1988 until the beginning of 1991.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2693.688, 2696.91], "stop_times": [2696.91, 2709.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.688}, "reply_to": "20758__1_085", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_087", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Okay.\nThen my question would be this.\nThe statute says, really, what you're saying is that that's what shall happen.\nThe statutes say it shall happen.\nThey say it shall happen as of 1983.\nNow, since they say it shall happen and you have a later statute that comes along that says in his case it shall not happen, how can we look at it as other than you had a later statute that made his sentence more harsh.\nNow, what you were starting to say was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2709.65, 2709.82, 2710.171, 2714.613, 2717.016, 2720.415, 2734.066], "stop_times": [2709.82, 2710.171, 2714.613, 2717.016, 2720.415, 2734.066, 2736.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.65}, "reply_to": "20758__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20758__1_088", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, I said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2736.45], "stop_times": [2737.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2736.45}, "reply_to": "20758__1_087", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_089", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--because the purpose is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2737.178], "stop_times": [2738.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.178}, "reply_to": "20758__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20758__1_090", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--I said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2738.54], "stop_times": [2739.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.54}, "reply_to": "20758__1_089", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_091", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "But if the purpose is different, I guess if you had a good purpose you could double everybody's sentence on that theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2739.131], "stop_times": [2744.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.131}, "reply_to": "20758__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20758__1_092", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Oh, no.\nHis sentence never changed.\nHis sentence was given to him.\nIt was 22 years.\nIf you accept Weaver, it was shortened by basic gain time at the date of the sentence, because that's the way basic gain time is handled.\nYou lopped about 6 or 7 years off of it.\nYou then have incentive gain time, which in fact the Florida court has construed Weaver applies to and therefore could not be taken away.\nThose are things that are within his control at least.\nHe can handle those.\nThere's something he can do about those.\nHe can work.\nHe can earn gain time.\nIt cannot be taken away from him.\nThe overcrowding credit in fact relates to the releasing of prisoners.\nIn fact, it shouldn't be looked at until you have to release a prisoner, and during that period of time you ought to be able to adjust to your needs.\nIn fact, for administrative purposes, because the Florida system is so large, credits were booked with respect to these individuals so that they did have an accumulation.\nIt was related to these two statutes, administrative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2744.144, 2744.975, 2746.685, 2748.926, 2750.098, 2758.192, 2760.175, 2771.411, 2774.313, 2777.305, 2779.426, 2779.987, 2782.729, 2784.509, 2790.423, 2798.67, 2810.578], "stop_times": [2744.975, 2746.685, 2748.926, 2750.098, 2758.192, 2760.175, 2771.411, 2774.313, 2777.305, 2779.426, 2779.987, 2782.729, 2784.509, 2790.423, 2798.67, 2810.578, 2814.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.144}, "reply_to": "20758__1_091", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_093", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "General Thomson, does the record tell us how much of the 1,860 days were overcrowding credits and how much was the other kind of gain time you refer to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2814.662], "stop_times": [2823.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.662}, "reply_to": "20758__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_094", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nOn page 52 of the Joint Appendix there is zero... of course, it's not named.\nThere's zero under the 1983 statute, because it was never, ever brought into effect either before the day he committed his crime or thereafter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2823.177, 2823.768, 2831.722], "stop_times": [2823.768, 2831.722, 2841.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2823.177}, "reply_to": "20758__1_093", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_095", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Whereabouts on page 52 are you reading from, Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2841.428], "stop_times": [2844.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.428}, "reply_to": "20758__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20758__1_096", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I was saying... I was saying, Your Honor, there is a figure called 335, which is next to administrative gain time awarded.\nThat is administrative gain time that was under the 1-year statute.\nIt was not taken away from him by the 1992 law, and it is not challenged here, but you should know that in fact once the overcrowding issue was ameliorated and the Costello decree was terminated, the legislature revoked all administrative gain time and provisional release credits.\nThat's beyond the time of this statute.\nSo at the time this was written, he still had 335 days on the book for administrative gain time.\nIt says 1360.\nThat is a typographical error below that.\nIt means 1,860 as is shown by the previous page of the affidavit.\nThat is the amount of time that had been booked for him with respect to provisional credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2844.651, 2853.016, 2861.144, 2884.586, 2886.379, 2892.704, 2894.964, 2897.095, 2902.421], "stop_times": [2853.016, 2861.144, 2884.586, 2886.379, 2892.704, 2894.964, 2897.095, 2902.421, 2908.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.651}, "reply_to": "20758__1_095", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_097", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Just so I'm perfectly clear, the 1,860 is all overcrowding gain time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2908.062], "stop_times": [2913.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.062}, "reply_to": "20758__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_098", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "It is, Your Honor, as is the 335.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2913.308], "stop_times": [2916.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2913.308}, "reply_to": "20758__1_097", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_099", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "So at least as a matter of administrative practice these additional increments of gain time were accumulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2916.299], "stop_times": [2924.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.299}, "reply_to": "20758__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_100", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That is correct, because the alternative was that each day you had an overcrowding problem you would recalculate, and that seemed to be, one would say, a little bit a waste of time, so you... as long as you had a consistent overcrowding problem, once you assigned credits to a person they were just left there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2924.043], "stop_times": [2941.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.043}, "reply_to": "20758__1_099", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_101", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "What do you mean when you use the expression, booked, Mr. Thomson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2941.084], "stop_times": [2943.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.084}, "reply_to": "20758__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20758__1_102", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I mean that they were entered in his record, and that continued until 1989, the fourth effort, which is called controlled release in Florida, in which, starting as of January of '91, these matters of overcrowding were assigned to the... a controlled release authority, which is really the Parole Commission under another name, and there is no booking with respect to those credits at any time for Mr. Lynce because they were handled differently, and that's the method of dealing with overcrowding that started in 1991 and terminated finally in 1994, when the last overcrowding release occurred in the State of Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2943.745], "stop_times": [2988.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.745}, "reply_to": "20758__1_101", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_103", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Mr. Thomson, your argument, or at least a large part of your argument is that you shouldn't count this because it's not punishment.\nIt had nothing to do with punishment.\nIt had to do with administrative needs, administrative efficiency.\nBut isn't the same thing true of good behavior release time as well?\nThat has nothing... you know, earned credits for good time credits.\nThat has nothing to do with the heinousness of the crime.\nIt has nothing to do with what is deserved punishment.\nIt has to do with giving people an incentive to behave themselves so that it will be easier to manage the prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [2988.896, 2999.333, 3000.482, 3003.725, 3009.109, 3013.883, 3016.584, 3020.365], "stop_times": [2999.333, 3000.482, 3003.725, 3009.109, 3013.883, 3016.584, 3020.365, 3025.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.896}, "reply_to": "20758__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__1_104", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "You are correct, Your Honor.\nAll gain time... other than the overcrowding issue, all the gain time is hooked in some fashion to prison management.\nThere is no doubt of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3025.33, 3026.409, 3034.607], "stop_times": [3026.409, 3034.607, 3035.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.33}, "reply_to": "20758__1_103", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_105", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Which suggests that our prior case law is an impediment to the argument you're making to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3035.775], "stop_times": [3041.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.775}, "reply_to": "20758__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__1_106", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3041.278], "stop_times": [3042.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3041.278}, "reply_to": "20758__1_105", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_107", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Because we have certainly held that you can't take away good time credits, change the system under which you earn them retroactively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3042.46], "stop_times": [3052.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.46}, "reply_to": "20758__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__1_108", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "What is... what this Court has held in the Weaver case is that basic gain time, which is the one aspect of gain time that is assigned to an individual at the day he enters the prison and therefore may be deemed part of the sentence for purposes of how judges approach it, how defense attorneys and prosecutors approach it, that this Court... I can read Weaver a bunch of ways, but if I read Weaver as a sentencing case, and when this Court refers it to as a trilogy with Lindsey and Miller it seems to me clearly it is, then basic gain time as part of that initial factor makes some sense as being treated as part of the sentence, and I take that as a given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3052.157], "stop_times": [3097.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3052.157}, "reply_to": "20758__1_107", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_109", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Basic gain time, how is it... does it make any difference, other... is basic gain time assigned on the basis of the length of the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3097.566], "stop_times": [3107.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.566}, "reply_to": "20758__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20758__1_110", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt is a certain number of days in the statute for years, and it goes up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3107.483, 3109.103], "stop_times": [3109.103, 3112.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3107.483}, "reply_to": "20758__1_109", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_111", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Does it depend on anything else, other than the length of the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3112.987], "stop_times": [3117.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.987}, "reply_to": "20758__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20758__1_112", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "In fact, the way it operates it does not.\nThat is, it's there, and you've got it, unless you do something that causes it to be revoked.\nIncentive gain time is handled differently, and of course the overcrowding credits themselves are, it seems to me, Justice Scalia, for an entirely different purpose.\nThey aren't related to the individual prisoner and what he does.\nTo be sure, prison management is a goal for him to get a result, but if he does it, he gets it.\nOvercrowding is in effect an externality.\nNot only is it iffy, in response to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3117.3, 3120.041, 3123.894, 3136.453, 3139.395, 3145.559, 3149.72], "stop_times": [3120.041, 3123.894, 3136.453, 3139.395, 3145.559, 3149.72, 3152.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3117.3}, "reply_to": "20758__1_111", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_113", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Well, you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3152.254], "stop_times": [3152.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.254}, "reply_to": "20758__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__1_114", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--Justice Souter's question, but it's an externality.\nThey... you... there's nothing he can do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3152.625, 3154.054], "stop_times": [3154.054, 3155.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3152.625}, "reply_to": "20758__1_113", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_115", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "--It's conditioned on good behavior, though, as you told us earlier, so to that extent it is still somewhat conditioned upon his own behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3155.935], "stop_times": [3161.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.935}, "reply_to": "20758__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__1_116", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "No, I did not say that, Your Honor.\nThe incentive... the provisional credits, there is in the statute a... the words that provisional credits are available only to a person who is earning incentive time.\nThe Florida supreme court has interpreted that to mean that that's just the pool of people.\nThe pool of people that are eligible for those during the period of time that they were given, those overcrowding credits, are those that were earning incentive time and are not subject to one of the exceptions that were contained in the statute.\nThat's just a pool of persons, a definition of who will be available, or who will be treated for overcrowding credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3161.689, 3163.892, 3180.584, 3187.807, 3201.708], "stop_times": [3163.892, 3180.584, 3187.807, 3201.708, 3208.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3161.689}, "reply_to": "20758__1_115", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_117", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I'm not sure what... I'm not sure what you mean by... I'm not sure how that responds to my point.\nHe has to place himself within that pool by his good behavior, no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3208.762, 3212.555], "stop_times": [3212.555, 3216.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3208.762}, "reply_to": "20758__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20758__1_118", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "He has to earn incentive gain time, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3216.138], "stop_times": [3218.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3216.138}, "reply_to": "20758__1_117", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_119", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Okay.\nWhat was the universe for measuring overcrowding?\nWas it the entire Florida correction systems, or was it prison by prison?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3218.2, 3219.15, 3223.554], "stop_times": [3219.15, 3223.554, 3231.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.2}, "reply_to": "20758__1_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20758__1_120", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "I believe, Your Honor, it was the system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3231.559], "stop_times": [3235.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3231.559}, "reply_to": "20758__1_119", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_121", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "That's what the statute says.\nNinety-seven percent of lawful capacity of the system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3235.072, 3238.183], "stop_times": [3238.183, 3241.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.072}, "reply_to": "20758__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_122", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3241.225], "stop_times": [3241.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3241.225}, "reply_to": "20758__1_121", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_123", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3241.616], "stop_times": [3242.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.616}, "reply_to": "20758__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20758__1_124", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "If there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3242.156], "stop_times": [3245.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3242.156}, "reply_to": "20758__1_123", "speaker": "parker_d_thomson"}
{"id": "20758__1_125", "conversation_id": "20758", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Thomson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-7452", "start_times": [3245.699, 3246.829], "stop_times": [3246.829, 3248.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.699}, "reply_to": "20758__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_000", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-853, M.L.B. v. S.L.J.--\nMr. McDuff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [0.0, 8.628], "stop_times": [8.628, 10.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_001", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nAs a result of an order of the Chancery Court of Benton County, Mississippi, my client is no longer the mother to her children in the eyes of the law.\nThe only way she can become their mother again under the law is through the appeal that is available as a matter of right under Mississippi law.\nThe question in this case is whether the supreme court of Mississippi can, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, prevent her from taking that appeal in a case of this magnitude without even considering her claim that she is too poor to pay the $2,300 fee that the State has imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [10.658, 14.201, 22.589, 30.923], "stop_times": [14.201, 22.589, 30.923, 48.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.658}, "reply_to": "21098__0_000", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_002", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "When you say, Mr. McDuff, considering her claim, what do you suggest would be the factors that the supreme court of Mississippi would take into consideration if it were to \"consider it\", as you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [48.337], "stop_times": [60.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 48.337}, "reply_to": "21098__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_003", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, I just mean that they have not even considered her claim that she is too poor, which would involve a consideration of her income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [60.766], "stop_times": [65.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 60.766}, "reply_to": "21098__0_002", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_004", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But if they were to conclude that her income were too poor, were below whatever standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [65.781], "stop_times": [70.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.781}, "reply_to": "21098__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_005", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [70.983], "stop_times": [71.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 70.983}, "reply_to": "21098__0_004", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_006", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--then they would have to allow the... require this money be paid to the court reporter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [71.254], "stop_times": [75.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 71.254}, "reply_to": "21098__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_007", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Or they... well, they could do a number of things that would allow her to appeal.\nI mean, one is they could excuse her as in a normal in forma pauperis case, and allow her to proceed without a payment to the court reporter.\nAnother is, they could set up a schedule of payments.\nAnother is, they could have her sign a note.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [75.939, 79.782, 86.845, 89.937], "stop_times": [79.782, 86.845, 89.937, 92.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.939}, "reply_to": "21098__0_006", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_008", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The court reporter is going to have to be paid in any event, I take it.\nIf your client doesn't pay him the State is going to have to... it's not the sort of a fee that the State could simply waive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [92.171, 96.712], "stop_times": [96.712, 102.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.171}, "reply_to": "21098__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_009", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Under State law as it is written now, that is correct, but as we pointed out in our reply brief in response to the claim of the State that if we win this case this will involve an incredible outlay from the State Treasury, if Mississippi chooses it can change State law so that in certain cases the court reporter is not paid $2 a page.\nThe court reporter here is an employee of the State, makes $33,000 a year in salary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [102.877, 121.619], "stop_times": [121.619, 126.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 102.877}, "reply_to": "21098__0_008", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_010", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But the reason he takes the job is because of his access to these out... these transcripts, is it not?\nAt least, that was my experience with court reporters.\nYou wouldn't hire... they wouldn't come to work just for the fees they get for sitting in court.\nIt's the transcripts on which they make their money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [126.534, 132.458, 134.481, 139.857], "stop_times": [132.458, 134.481, 139.857, 141.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.534}, "reply_to": "21098__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_011", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, I don't know the answer to that.\nI assume that's true certainly for many, if not all.\nBut Mississippi could do, for instance, as Texas has done, or has West Virginia has done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [141.54, 143.48, 146.094], "stop_times": [143.48, 146.094, 151.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.54}, "reply_to": "21098__0_010", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_012", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Or it could abolish appeals, alternatively, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [151.327], "stop_times": [153.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 151.327}, "reply_to": "21098__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_013", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Certainly, yes, and I mean our point here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [153.971], "stop_times": [156.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.971}, "reply_to": "21098__0_012", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_014", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Which suggests, you know, if the greater includes the lesser we can abolish the appeal entirely, why can't it simply provide, we'll give appeals, but not if the State has to put in any money, and we're not going to give it to impecunious litigants?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [156.051], "stop_times": [171.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.051}, "reply_to": "21098__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_015", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, for the same reason expressed in the majority opinions in Griffin and the long line of cases that have followed Griffin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [171.021], "stop_times": [176.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 171.021}, "reply_to": "21098__0_014", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_016", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Those were criminal cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [176.385], "stop_times": [177.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 176.385}, "reply_to": "21098__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_017", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "That's true, Your Honor, but in, for example, Lindsey v. Normet, which is a civil case, this Court expressed the same principle that, if... once the right of appeal is provided by a State as a means of promoting accuracy and as a means of correcting errors and correcting injustices, it cannot be taken away in an arbitrary fashion, and that's our argument here, is that the interest in this case is so important that the same principle should apply here that applies in Griffin and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [177.426], "stop_times": [206.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.426}, "reply_to": "21098__0_016", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_018", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Payment is an arbitrary fashion?\nI mean, gee, so much of what happens in the world is determined upon whether you can pay for it or not.\nWhy is that an arbitrary fashion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [206.885, 208.124, 213.64], "stop_times": [208.124, 213.64, 216.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.885}, "reply_to": "21098__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_019", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Certainly, but this is different than someone who comes along and says well, I want the Government to pay for something I can... I want to purchase on the free market, whether it's a car, or whatever.\nThis is where a citizen has been brought into the court system for the sole purpose of attempting to terminate her relationship with her children, and she is thereby subject to all of the power of the State.\nNow... and subject to the court system that has the unique ability to terminate forever her relationship with her children.\nNow, in Mississippi, as in most States, the State has chosen to provide a level of accuracy and a level of corrective review for errors and injustices through its appellate courts, but my client is being told, because she's poor, she can't take advantage of that, while those who have money can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [216.041, 225.197, 240.178, 248.114], "stop_times": [225.197, 240.178, 248.114, 265.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 216.041}, "reply_to": "21098__0_018", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_020", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "How about a custody proceeding, a child custody proceeding?\nWould you be here making the same argument if she had lost in a custody battle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [265.307, 269.068], "stop_times": [269.068, 274.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.307}, "reply_to": "21098__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__0_021", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I don't think... I don't think that argument would have the same weight we have here because of the difference.\nI mean, when a person loses custody, even though the child may leave the home, the parent can still visit with the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [274.093, 279.436], "stop_times": [279.436, 286.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.093}, "reply_to": "21098__0_020", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_022", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, maybe the custody order doesn't provide for visitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [286.331], "stop_times": [289.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.331}, "reply_to": "21098__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__0_023", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Or... and even if it doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [289.572], "stop_times": [291.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.572}, "reply_to": "21098__0_022", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_024", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Is it going to turn on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [291.435], "stop_times": [292.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.435}, "reply_to": "21098__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__0_025", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Even... it doesn't in most custody orders, no.\nThere is an element of an ability to communicate, to play a role in the child's life, and in the future, if conditions change, the parent can petition for visitation or petition for custody.\nBy contrast, with a termination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [292.754, 294.506, 305.465], "stop_times": [294.506, 305.465, 307.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.754}, "reply_to": "21098__0_024", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_026", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So you think a principle line can be drawn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [307.558], "stop_times": [310.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.558}, "reply_to": "21098__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__0_027", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [310.139], "stop_times": [310.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.139}, "reply_to": "21098__0_026", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_028", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--between the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [310.62], "stop_times": [311.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.62}, "reply_to": "21098__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__0_029", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [311.261], "stop_times": [312.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.261}, "reply_to": "21098__0_028", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_030", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--this case and a custody case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [312.641], "stop_times": [314.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.641}, "reply_to": "21098__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__0_031", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes, I do, Your Honor, and one example is Santosky v. Kramer, where this Court held that in parental termination cases, because of the severity, because of the finality and the irrevocability, a clear and convincing evidence standard was necessary before terminating parental rights.\nIn Mississippi, the Mississippi legislature adopted that after this Court's decision in Santosky, but Mississippi has not adopted, and other States have not, for that reason adopted a clear and convincing standard when the State seeks to take custody from parents without terminating their rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [314.003, 328.952], "stop_times": [328.952, 344.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.003}, "reply_to": "21098__0_030", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_032", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "How do you distinguish Harris v. McRae, where the Court was dealing with a medically necessary abortion for an indigent woman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [344.663], "stop_times": [352.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.663}, "reply_to": "21098__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__0_033", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The distinction I think there, Justice O'Connor, is that in Harris the citizen wanted an abortion paid by the Government that she would be receiving on the free market of something she chose to obtain.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [352.718, 367.608], "stop_times": [367.608, 367.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.718}, "reply_to": "21098__0_032", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_034", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "There was considered, I thought the circumstances were that it was medically necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [367.908], "stop_times": [371.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.908}, "reply_to": "21098__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__0_035", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes, but it was done through the governmental program of medicaid, is what the citizen was seeking.\nHere, by contrast, where the... the petitioner has been brought into the court system, where the State has set up the exclusive mechanism for terminating her parental rights, and all she is asking is that she receive the same protections that have been set up by that system--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [371.741, 377.545], "stop_times": [377.545, 394.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.741}, "reply_to": "21098__0_034", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_036", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, how much--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [394.965], "stop_times": [395.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.965}, "reply_to": "21098__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_037", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--that a wealthier person would receive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [395.446], "stop_times": [396.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 395.446}, "reply_to": "21098__0_036", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_038", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--How much weight do we give to this exclusive method for termination?\nIn many States the only way to foreclose on one's home is by a court proceeding, a foreclosure of a mortgage.\nNow, would you distinguish that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [396.838, 401.06, 408.776], "stop_times": [401.06, 408.776, 410.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.838}, "reply_to": "21098__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_039", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [410.317], "stop_times": [411.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.317}, "reply_to": "21098__0_038", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_040", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--The person says, this home is absolutely essential to me.\nI'm raising my kids in it, and if I lose it, it means my whole family life goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [411.208, 414.34], "stop_times": [414.34, 420.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 411.208}, "reply_to": "21098__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_041", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, and we're not basing our claim solely on the fact that the State has this exclusive power, but we are basing it in part.\nThe difference between our case and the case you cite, I think, is the fact that housing and ownership of land does not have the same constitutional status as the relationship with one's children, and this Court said that in Lindsey v. Normet, I think, when talking about how housing does not have the sort of constitutional magnitude that exists in other cases like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [420.405, 427.491], "stop_times": [427.491, 449.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.405}, "reply_to": "21098__0_040", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_042", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "You think that's right?\nAnd why is that?\nYes, I was about to ask, why--\n--Why is that?\nWhy doesn't it have the same constitutional magnitude?\nIt sounds important to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [449.776, 450.707, 450.937, 452.38, 452.728, 456.792], "stop_times": [450.707, 450.937, 452.38, 452.728, 456.792, 457.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.776}, "reply_to": "21098__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21098__0_043", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Oh, certainly it's important, but I think that... I think this Court's long line of decisions have noted that family relationships between children and parents are of a much greater constitutional magnitude, and the notion of liberty--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [457.894], "stop_times": [471.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.894}, "reply_to": "21098__0_042", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_044", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "You mean to tell me that if I am... let's say I am dismissed by an employer allegedly for sexual abuse of a child committed to my care as an employee, my reputation is ruined, I pay millions of dollars in damages in a civil suit, I am unemployable in the future, in that kind of a situation the State would not have to pay for an appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [471.825], "stop_times": [493.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.825}, "reply_to": "21098__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_045", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--There would be less of a case in that situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [493.908], "stop_times": [496.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.908}, "reply_to": "21098__0_044", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_046", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Less of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [496.94], "stop_times": [497.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.94}, "reply_to": "21098__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_047", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--than we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [497.2], "stop_times": [497.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.2}, "reply_to": "21098__0_046", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_048", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Less of a case than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [497.501], "stop_times": [498.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.501}, "reply_to": "21098__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_049", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, less of an argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [498.622], "stop_times": [498.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.622}, "reply_to": "21098__0_048", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_050", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [498.822], "stop_times": [499.443], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 498.822}, "reply_to": "21098__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21098__0_051", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Oh, yes.\nI think less of an argument, because the right here... for example, in the case you just posit, Justice Scalia, if someone goes into court and tries to take away some privilege of a person because of these types of accusations, as long as they're not criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [499.443, 500.044], "stop_times": [500.044, 515.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.443}, "reply_to": "21098__0_050", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_052", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [515.385], "stop_times": [515.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.385}, "reply_to": "21098__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_053", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--there's no clear and convincing evidence standard.\nHere, the Court has held in Santosky, in Lassiter where the court discussed the right to counsel, has held the determination of parental rights works a grievous harm that is unlike no other save, perhaps, involuntary incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [515.696, 517.639], "stop_times": [517.639, 533.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.696}, "reply_to": "21098__0_052", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_054", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I'm just asking whether it's true, is what I'm asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [533.981], "stop_times": [535.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.981}, "reply_to": "21098__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_055", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Oh, yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [535.972, 536.242], "stop_times": [536.242, 536.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.972}, "reply_to": "21098__0_054", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_056", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "It's true?\nNot just that we said it, but that it's true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [536.963, 537.464], "stop_times": [537.464, 539.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.963}, "reply_to": "21098__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_057", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Oh.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [539.815, 540.726], "stop_times": [540.726, 541.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.815}, "reply_to": "21098__0_056", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_058", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "You distinguish in response to Justice O'Connor the custody case from the deprivation permanently of parental status on the basis of the permanence of the latter.\nWell, what about establishing parental relationship?\nWhat about paternity proceedings?\nSuppose there's a finding of paternity in a district, in a lower court, is the defendant in that case, by your reasoning, because of the permanence of that determination, entitled to a free transcript?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [541.838, 553.893, 559.259, 561.643], "stop_times": [553.893, 559.259, 561.643, 576.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.838}, "reply_to": "21098__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_059", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I think paternity is much closer to what we have here.\nNow, there's one difference, and I'm not... I don't know this in detail, but my understanding is that now, with the new DNA technology, that paternity can be established or disestablished with something close to certainty, so that the... I think the court can take into account--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [576.553, 579.565], "stop_times": [579.565, 594.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.553}, "reply_to": "21098__0_058", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_060", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [594.484], "stop_times": [595.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.484}, "reply_to": "21098__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_061", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--the appropriateness of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [595.225], "stop_times": [596.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.225}, "reply_to": "21098__0_060", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_062", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Before that, let's say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [596.146], "stop_times": [596.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.146}, "reply_to": "21098__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_063", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [596.457], "stop_times": [596.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.457}, "reply_to": "21098__0_062", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_064", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--it was just that it was shown by a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing, because as far as I know, clear and convincing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [596.657], "stop_times": [604.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.657}, "reply_to": "21098__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_065", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [604.563], "stop_times": [605.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 604.563}, "reply_to": "21098__0_064", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_066", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--is not required to establish paternity, and then the defendant says, for the rest of my life I will have to support this child, whatever rights a child has under the law, those rights I will have to satisfy, and I don't want that for the rest of my life, so give me a free transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [605.172], "stop_times": [624.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.172}, "reply_to": "21098__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_067", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I think paternity is very close to the case we have here, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [624.816], "stop_times": [628.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.816}, "reply_to": "21098__0_066", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_068", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Is it... would you make any distinction between the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [628.659], "stop_times": [630.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.659}, "reply_to": "21098__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_069", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [630.59], "stop_times": [630.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.59}, "reply_to": "21098__0_068", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_070", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So that if we hold for you, then when the next case is paternity, we have to hold that too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [630.911], "stop_times": [638.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.911}, "reply_to": "21098__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_071", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--I think... I think one distinction would be that in a parental termination case you do have a constitutionally imposed standard of clear and convincing evidence in which appellate review... in which there is a role for appellate review in assuring that is carried out, as opposed to the parental termination, where you do not have a... I mean, as opposed to the paternity, where you do not have a constitutionally imposed standard, and I note in this connection a number of times this Court has said that, for example, in the punitive damages cases, that where a State establishes appellate review, it can play a role in protecting constitutional rights, and so I think that argument exists here that wouldn't exist in the paternity case with respect to the level of evidence that's required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [638.367], "stop_times": [686.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.367}, "reply_to": "21098__0_070", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_072", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, do you want to take that as a general rule, that whenever the constitution is said to impose a higher burden of proof, that the right to sort of economic equality in the vindication of one's position is going to follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [686.489], "stop_times": [704.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 686.489}, "reply_to": "21098__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21098__0_073", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I think that is certainly a way the Court could draw the line in future cases.\nNow, again though, we are not asking for economic equality in presenting the case.\nI mean, this Court's decision in Ross--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [704.323, 708.383, 715.419], "stop_times": [708.383, 715.419, 716.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.323}, "reply_to": "21098__0_072", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_074", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, so far as the issue before us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [716.971], "stop_times": [718.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.971}, "reply_to": "21098__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21098__0_075", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [718.691], "stop_times": [719.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.691}, "reply_to": "21098__0_074", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_076", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--is concerned you are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [719.032], "stop_times": [720.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.032}, "reply_to": "21098__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21098__0_077", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [720.474], "stop_times": [720.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.474}, "reply_to": "21098__0_076", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_078", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [720.975], "stop_times": [721.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.975}, "reply_to": "21098__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21098__0_079", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, and I'm referring specifically, though, to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [721.335], "stop_times": [724.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.335}, "reply_to": "21098__0_078", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_080", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Why not counsel?\nWhy shouldn't she be entitled, if this is that significant, to have counsel on the appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [724.287, 725.139], "stop_times": [725.139, 729.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.287}, "reply_to": "21098__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21098__0_081", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, I think because of the reasoning this Court expressed in the majority opinion in Ross v. Moffitt.\nI mean, the Equal Protection Clause.\nAlthough that wasn't the context of the criminal case, I think the reasoning is applicable here, that the Equal Protection Clause does not give a person the right to duplicate the legal arsenal of a wealthier person in presenting the case, but it does, the Fourteenth Amendment does give a right to present the case in the first place where the interest is important and where the State has set up these mechanisms for promoting accuracy and for correcting injustices.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [729.473, 733.737, 735.437, 762.715], "stop_times": [733.737, 735.437, 762.715, 765.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.473}, "reply_to": "21098__0_080", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_082", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "If we find that the Equal Protection argument you make is unavailing, that is to say that it is not unreasonable to make this distinction, does that not necessarily determine also the invalidity of your due process argument?\nI mean, I take it you're making a due process argument as well as an equal protection argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [765.096, 781.809], "stop_times": [781.809, 787.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.096}, "reply_to": "21098__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__0_083", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [787.583, 787.803], "stop_times": [787.803, 787.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.583}, "reply_to": "21098__0_082", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_084", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And I'm basically asking, is there a difference between the two?\nOnce we have said that it's not... I'm assuming we said that it's not unreasonable to make that distinction.\nWouldn't the due process argument fail as well, or would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [787.974, 791.867, 797.713], "stop_times": [791.867, 797.713, 801.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.974}, "reply_to": "21098__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__0_085", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I don't think so, and of course the... I mean, the Griffin line of cases has employed both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and I think the difference, I guess, is... was expressed by this Court's majority opinion in Evitts v. Lucey, describing the Griffin line, where it said the due process claim is based on the fact that the State has set up these appellate procedures to promote accuracy and so forth, and therefore the State acts arbitrarily towards a citizen when it takes them away, in effect, and when it does not give the citizen the full benefit of that panoply of protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [801.124], "stop_times": [838.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.124}, "reply_to": "21098__0_084", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_086", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Even though we've said it's reasonable for equal protection purposes, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [838.219], "stop_times": [841.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.219}, "reply_to": "21098__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__0_087", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I mean, you do have a point in the sense that in the Griffin line the two have gone together, but I do think it's a separate analysis.\nI mean, if the State has set this up, and if the State is telling a person that it should... that it has made these... this level of review available and then... I do think it's an arbitrary action, even though you might consider it's, quote, rational for equal protection purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [841.681, 848.677], "stop_times": [848.677, 867.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.681}, "reply_to": "21098__0_086", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_088", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Is the real problem with this case that the judge didn't give reasons, the trial judge, and did you preserve that as an independent ground for alleging a constitutional violation at any point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [867.329], "stop_times": [879.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.329}, "reply_to": "21098__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__0_089", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "There is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [879.127], "stop_times": [880.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.127}, "reply_to": "21098__0_088", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_090", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The judge just doesn't give a reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [880.169], "stop_times": [881.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.169}, "reply_to": "21098__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__0_091", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--The judge's... the judge's written order came after the trial was over, and so it can be raised on appeal, and will be if an appeal is permitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [881.331], "stop_times": [890.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.331}, "reply_to": "21098__0_090", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_092", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But you're not making that argument here.\nThat's a separate, independent constitutional violation, a failure to give reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [890.888, 893.89], "stop_times": [893.89, 897.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.888}, "reply_to": "21098__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__0_093", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "We're not making any merits arguments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [897.854], "stop_times": [900.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.854}, "reply_to": "21098__0_092", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_094", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, you could make that argument without a transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [900.425], "stop_times": [903.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.425}, "reply_to": "21098__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_095", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [903.757, 903.988], "stop_times": [903.988, 904.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.757}, "reply_to": "21098__0_094", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_096", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Can I go back--\n--Can I ask you--\n--Please.\n--just a sort of variation of Justice Kennedy's question.\nIn the Lassiter case, the Court refused to hold that a person like your client is entitled in all cases to counsel, but did indicate on a case-by-case basis counsel might be required in some situations.\nSupposing in this case, instead of a one-line order rejecting your claim, the trial judge had made detailed findings of fact saying that he relied on the testimony of so-and-so to the effect of blah, blah, blah, and he gave a very careful opinion and analysis of the reasons, and you could tell what the basis of the decision was and what the evidentiary support for it was.\nWould you still say you were entitled to counsel in that situation... I mean, entitled to a transcript in that situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [904.749, 906.141, 906.371, 907.41, 910.292, 923.342, 942.773], "stop_times": [906.141, 906.371, 907.41, 910.292, 923.342, 942.773, 948.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.749}, "reply_to": "21098__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_097", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I think we could.\nI don't think it would be as strong an argument, but yes, I think as long as Mississippi supreme court requires a transcript to review contentions that the trial judge's findings and conclusions were unsupported by the evidence or contrary to the evidence, and assuming that argument could still be made after this opinion, yes, we would still have the same contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [948.376, 949.688], "stop_times": [949.688, 968.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.376}, "reply_to": "21098__0_096", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_098", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The other is the question whether you really come within the rule of the due process cases, because I thought the rule in the due process cases was that the State could not on one side of it's... from one side of it's mouth say, you have a right to an appeal here, you're entitled to be in court, and on the other hand say, but aha, there is some barrier which we are erecting which precludes you from taking advantage of this appeal right.\nHere, what the State is saying is, nobody without the cost of a transcript, or nobody without a transcript in his hand, has a right to appeal.\nIt's a condition precedent for the appellate right in the first place.\nSo that it seems to me you're not within the due process cases reasoning, and it seems to me you've got to stand or fall on equal protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [968.641, 993.569, 1002.618, 1006.421], "stop_times": [993.569, 1002.618, 1006.421, 1014.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.641}, "reply_to": "21098__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21098__0_099", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I don't think so, I mean, because the fact that the State says yes, you have to have a transcript in the beginning to take the appeal is simply a procedural rule that it imposes, and because it conditions it on this $2 payment per page to a court reporter, I think it is the same sort of barrier that you would have, and that's why I think Griffin and its... that line of cases went off not only on equal protection but on due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1014.007], "stop_times": [1040.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.007}, "reply_to": "21098__0_098", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_100", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Mr. McDuff, as a practical matter, what is the difference between a decree of nonparenthood, as in this case, and a decree as sometimes occurs in cases of no visitation rights, no custody and no visitation rights?\nWhat does this individual lose that a parent who is denied custody and visitation rights doesn't lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1040.555, 1060.206], "stop_times": [1060.206, 1068.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.555}, "reply_to": "21098__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_101", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The parent who is denied custody and visitation rights can later petition to regain them if conditions change, and depending on the order may still be able to have some contact with the child over the telephone, or letters, or still participate in decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1068.473], "stop_times": [1082.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1068.473}, "reply_to": "21098__0_100", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_102", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, that would happen here.\nJust because the State declares you're a nonparent doesn't mean you vanish.\nI assume you could still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1082.535, 1082.665, 1087.74], "stop_times": [1082.665, 1087.74, 1088.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.535}, "reply_to": "21098__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_103", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "It does mean that you are erased from the child's life as their parent save for any grace given by the ex-husband and the new mother, who I guess could allow the children to visit with you, but otherwise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1088.609], "stop_times": [1100.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.609}, "reply_to": "21098__0_102", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_104", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--That's the same as no custody and no visitation rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1100.548], "stop_times": [1104.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.548}, "reply_to": "21098__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_105", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--But with no custody and no visitation you can petition when conditions change.\nWith the termination of parental rights, as this Court said in Santosky is, one of the reasons it imposes the clear and convincing evidence rule, it is final and irrevocable.\nThe chancery court's order here illustrates it.\nI mean, it ordered that the name of my client be taken off the children's birth certificate as their mother and replaced by the name of the new mother.\nNow, that's symbolic, but I think it symbolizes the dramatic difference here, and that's why I think this Court ordered clear and convincing evidence as the appropriate standard in these cases, but it has not been ordered in custody cases of the type you're talking about.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1104.109, 1107.752, 1115.419, 1119.132, 1127.497, 1140.316], "stop_times": [1107.752, 1115.419, 1119.132, 1127.497, 1140.316, 1141.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.109}, "reply_to": "21098__0_104", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_106", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "You made an analogy to the criminal proceeding in terms of the impact on the person, so you said what... you're really asking for an extension of the Griffin line.\nI think that's what you said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1141.708, 1152.234], "stop_times": [1152.234, 1154.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.708}, "reply_to": "21098__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_107", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--We think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1154.694], "stop_times": [1155.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1154.694}, "reply_to": "21098__0_106", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_108", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "That deprivation of parental status is as severe as a $250 fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1155.666], "stop_times": [1161.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1155.666}, "reply_to": "21098__0_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_109", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1161.52], "stop_times": [1161.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.52}, "reply_to": "21098__0_108", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_110", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But you don't go all the way, because Griffin and Douglas came together, and I think you are recognizing that right to counsel is not something that would be automatic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1161.771], "stop_times": [1173.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.771}, "reply_to": "21098__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_111", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Oh, that's correct, but I think that's also... that's true in the Griffin line of cases.\nFor example, in Mayer v. City of Chicago the Court held that a transcript is necessary for a... an appeal of a convic... a misdemeanor conviction in which no jail time is imposed, but the Court said in Scott v. Illinois that counsel was not required, so I think that they are not coextensive in terms of the breadth of the constitutional principles.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1173.819, 1177.813, 1197.758], "stop_times": [1177.813, 1197.758, 1199.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1173.819}, "reply_to": "21098__0_110", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_112", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "You mentioned that you weren't sure about the paternity situation.\nIs there... and you are attempting to distinguish all other civil proceedings.\nIs there anything else that you would say is like this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1199.527, 1203.852, 1208.764], "stop_times": [1203.852, 1208.764, 1211.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.527}, "reply_to": "21098__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__0_113", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Involuntary civil commitment, I think, is of this magnitude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1211.756], "stop_times": [1216.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.756}, "reply_to": "21098__0_112", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_114", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "May I ask--\n--Why is that the line?\nWhat if I feel differently?\nWhat if I feel it's really bad, and maybe even worse for some people to lose all their worldly possessions?\nHow do I decide which cases to... just my feeling about parenthood, or my feeling about worldly possessions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1216.321, 1218.451, 1218.862, 1219.883, 1225.689], "stop_times": [1218.451, 1218.862, 1219.883, 1225.689, 1233.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.321}, "reply_to": "21098__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_115", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Justice Scalia, I think through the same process this Court has gone through in the cases, for example, involving the clear and convincing evidence standard, where it has imposed them as a constitutional matter, in involuntary civil--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1233.584], "stop_times": [1244.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.584}, "reply_to": "21098__0_114", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_116", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I wasn't here then, so I don't know what they did.\n[Laughter]\nI thought maybe you could help me out as to how we came to those conclusions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1244.402, 1247.434, 1247.624], "stop_times": [1247.434, 1247.624, 1250.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.402}, "reply_to": "21098__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__0_117", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--I think it's the traditional sort of Fourteenth Amendment analysis where you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1250.996], "stop_times": [1255.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1250.996}, "reply_to": "21098__0_116", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_118", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "How I feel about it, essentially.\nRead the opinions.\n[Laughter]\nMr. McDuff, may I ask a question about Mississippi practice?\nWho paid the guardian ad litem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1255.819, 1257.121, 1258.301, 1259.593, 1264.645], "stop_times": [1257.121, 1258.301, 1259.593, 1264.645, 1266.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.819}, "reply_to": "21098__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_119", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--The guardian ad litem's payment was awarded as costs by the chancery court against the plaintiff, who's the ex-husband.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1266.708], "stop_times": [1274.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.708}, "reply_to": "21098__0_118", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_120", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So your client was charged $500 for the guardian ad litem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1274.142], "stop_times": [1277.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.142}, "reply_to": "21098__0_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_121", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, I'm sorry, it was awarded against the... the costs were awarded against the person who actually prevailed in the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1277.595], "stop_times": [1282.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.595}, "reply_to": "21098__0_120", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_122", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1282.73], "stop_times": [1283.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1282.73}, "reply_to": "21098__0_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_123", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--in this instance, who is the father.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1283.559], "stop_times": [1284.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1283.559}, "reply_to": "21098__0_122", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_124", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And so the guardian was paid by the successful party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1284.991], "stop_times": [1287.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.991}, "reply_to": "21098__0_123", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_125", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1287.792], "stop_times": [1288.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1287.792}, "reply_to": "21098__0_124", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_126", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "If you... go ahead.\nCould the guardian have appealed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1288.232, 1289.614], "stop_times": [1289.614, 1291.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.232}, "reply_to": "21098__0_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_127", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1291.305], "stop_times": [1292.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1291.305}, "reply_to": "21098__0_126", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_128", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And who would have paid for the cost of the transcript if the guardian had appealed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1292.815], "stop_times": [1296.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1292.815}, "reply_to": "21098__0_127", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_129", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I... there were several possibilities there.\nI guess the court, either the chancery court or the supreme court could have ordered one of the parties to pay it, or I think the guardian might have.\nIf the guardian could not afford it, and if the guardian--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1296.217, 1299.74, 1307.147], "stop_times": [1299.74, 1307.147, 1310.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.217}, "reply_to": "21098__0_128", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_130", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, the guardian certainly doesn't have any interest in paying it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1310.84], "stop_times": [1312.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.84}, "reply_to": "21098__0_129", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_131", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Right.\nThe... I think the same principle that we are invoking here might be available if the guardian is able to claim, as the guardian could do in claiming the rights of the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1312.722, 1313.501], "stop_times": [1313.501, 1323.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.722}, "reply_to": "21098__0_130", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_132", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "This is an... I'm sorry, just one more.\nThis is an infant, two or three... how old was the child here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1323.519, 1325.652], "stop_times": [1325.652, 1328.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.519}, "reply_to": "21098__0_131", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__0_133", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Five and seven, I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1328.965], "stop_times": [1330.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.965}, "reply_to": "21098__0_132", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_134", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1330.087], "stop_times": [1330.337], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.087}, "reply_to": "21098__0_133", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21098__0_135", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--at the time of the termination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1330.337], "stop_times": [1331.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1330.337}, "reply_to": "21098__0_134", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_136", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "If your client had succeeded in raising the money to pay the... for the transcript, could she have... and was successful on appeal, could she have recovered that as part of her costs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1331.058], "stop_times": [1341.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.058}, "reply_to": "21098__0_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_137", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.\nYes, and we cite in our reply brief the provision of the Mississippi rules to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1341.265, 1341.516], "stop_times": [1341.516, 1345.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.265}, "reply_to": "21098__0_136", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_138", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "What are the instances, or are there instances in which the State does pay for the cost of the transcript?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1345.9], "stop_times": [1351.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.9}, "reply_to": "21098__0_137", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__0_139", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "In Mississippi, it is in criminal cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1351.841], "stop_times": [1355.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1351.841}, "reply_to": "21098__0_138", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_140", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Pardon me, in a civil case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1355.454], "stop_times": [1356.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.454}, "reply_to": "21098__0_139", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__0_141", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "There's a Mississippi statute that provides that it will be paid for in involuntary civil commitments.\nNow, the Mississippi supreme court has a stated principle that it stated in this case that in forma pauperis appeals are not allowed in any civil case, but in fact there is this statute that apparently the court was not considering when it made that statement both in this case and in several prior cases.\nThe... Justice Kennedy, you earlier were talking about the Equal Protection Clause and whether... and what would happen if the Court found that the Mississippi scheme here was rational.\nWe actually do think that, because of the interest involved here, that there is something greater than rational relationship test, and something greater than minimal scrutiny, and that at the very least intermediate scrutiny would be appropriate give, number 1, the fundamental interest in the parental right, and the fundamental interest in what this Court has called an accurate determination regarding that right.\nAnd specifically I'm referring to the Lassiter case, so for that reason we think that the justification offered by the State, particularly this $2 per page thing, which is not required at all for the State to continue... for it to keep its court system going and does not promote the State's interest in accuracy which it has expressed by providing these appellate courts, that the State has not put forward a persuasive or substantial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1356.826, 1362.64, 1379.5, 1391.758, 1415.914], "stop_times": [1362.64, 1379.5, 1391.758, 1415.914, 1443.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.826}, "reply_to": "21098__0_140", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_142", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, are you suggesting that the court... that courts could employ reporters at the same salaries if they weren't allowed to charge for transcripts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1443.753], "stop_times": [1451.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.753}, "reply_to": "21098__0_141", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__0_143", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--I don't know the answer to that, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI think they could, but I think they certainly would be able to keep them if, for example, they continued paying them the $33,000 a year they receive, continue to allow them to receive $2 per page for the many paid transcripts they do during the year, but said that these in forma pauperis transcripts are going to be part of your duty as a salaried State employee.\nI reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1451.338, 1453.832, 1474.016], "stop_times": [1453.832, 1474.016, 1475.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.338}, "reply_to": "21098__0_142", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__0_144", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Very well, Mr. McDuff.\nMr. Moore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1475.286, 1477.477], "stop_times": [1477.477, 1481.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.286}, "reply_to": "21098__0_143", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__1_000", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is whether or not the State is going to have to subsidize the cost of appeal of an indigent appealing termination of parental rights, and we contend that it does not either on due process or equal protection grounds.\nFrom a due process point of view, previous longstanding decisions of this Court have held that appellate review is not necessary for due process purposes, and as to the equal protection claim, this doesn't fit within any of the recognized equal protection type claims.\nFirst of all, there's no disparate treatment among litigants.\nEverybody's treated the same.\nEverybody's required to prepay the cost of the appeal.\nSecond, there's no suspect class involved, because previous opinions of this Court have held that the poor are not a suspect class for equal protection purposes even when fundamental rights are involved.\nAnd third, there's no impingement of a fundamental right in this case because the only interference with the parent-child relationship is the statute that allows the State to terminate parental rights under certain circumstances.\nThe only issue in this case is what procedural due process must be provided prior to that termination, and that either goes back to a Mathews analysis of whether or not the proceedings that are provided are fundamentally fair, and then it would seem the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1481.33, 1485.474, 1499.492, 1518.285, 1521.808, 1522.99, 1526.543, 1539.693, 1554.081], "stop_times": [1485.474, 1499.492, 1518.285, 1521.808, 1522.99, 1526.543, 1539.693, 1554.081, 1571.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1481.33}, "reply_to": "21098__0_144", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_001", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "May I ask just one question?\nIt is true, is it not, that the child has to be represented separately in the proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1571.343, 1572.484], "stop_times": [1572.484, 1577.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.343}, "reply_to": "21098__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_002", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1577.239], "stop_times": [1578.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1577.239}, "reply_to": "21098__1_001", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_003", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And that's a matter of due process, too, I would suppose, because the child's rights are as vitally affected as either set of parents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1578.919], "stop_times": [1585.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.919}, "reply_to": "21098__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_004", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The statute requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1585.943], "stop_times": [1588.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1585.943}, "reply_to": "21098__1_003", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_005", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "At least the statute does require it, and what is the... and therefore there has to be a guardian ad litem appointed if the child is a minor, and what if the guardian... I know it's... it would be an unusual case, but what if the guardian took the position that the natural mother was a better parent and wanted to appeal an adverse decision, would the guardian have to advance the transcript cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1588.114], "stop_times": [1606.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.114}, "reply_to": "21098__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_006", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--That is unclear.\nThe guardian is paid pursuant to the... a rule, I think it's Rule 17 of the Appellate Procedures, and there is some statements about the trial judge being able to enter any other orders, which might imply there might be a possibility, if the trial judge decided that that was in the best--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1606.638, 1611.78], "stop_times": [1611.78, 1635.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1606.638}, "reply_to": "21098__1_005", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_007", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "If the interest of justice required, in this unusual case the judge might conceivably order the State to pay the... order a transcript if the guardian indicated a desire to appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1635.806], "stop_times": [1644.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.806}, "reply_to": "21098__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_008", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, I think it simply... it's unclear.\nIt seems to me there might be an argument to that effect, but as to whether or not that would be accepted, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1644.402, 1648.165], "stop_times": [1648.165, 1655.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1644.402}, "reply_to": "21098__1_007", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_009", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Would it be wrong for the court to say that a guardian is entitled to an attorney, the child is entitled to an attorney as an equal protection matter because a fundamental right is implicated here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1655.361], "stop_times": [1667.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.361}, "reply_to": "21098__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__1_010", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I'm sorry, I didn't... I didn't get the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1667.989], "stop_times": [1675.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1667.989}, "reply_to": "21098__1_009", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_011", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Suppose counsel were required in a termination proceeding such as this, and the court announced that the requirement was pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause in the case of an indigent party, would that be an incorrect statement of the law?\nI mean, i.e., it would be an alternative, alternative ground for... to due process, to Mathews v. Eldridge.\nIs it illogical to say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1675.533, 1699.329, 1708.395], "stop_times": [1699.329, 1708.395, 1712.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.533}, "reply_to": "21098__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__1_012", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "If you're asking, if the court had ordered an attorney be appointed for the mother, or the child, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1712.227], "stop_times": [1720.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1712.227}, "reply_to": "21098__1_011", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_013", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "For the child.\nYou said it was required under Mathews v. Eldridge that there had to be an attorney.\nMy only question is, would it also be a requirement under the Equal Protection Clause in the case of an indigent person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1720.093, 1721.213, 1725.988], "stop_times": [1721.213, 1725.988, 1733.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.093}, "reply_to": "21098__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__1_014", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--No, what I was saying is, the attorney is... has to be appointed for the child based on the statute, the Mississippi statutes that deal with termination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1733.071], "stop_times": [1741.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1733.071}, "reply_to": "21098__1_013", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_015", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "It's not required by Mathews v. Eldridge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1741.159], "stop_times": [1742.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.159}, "reply_to": "21098__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__1_016", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1742.688], "stop_times": [1743.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.688}, "reply_to": "21098__1_015", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_017", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--to have an attorney, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1743.159], "stop_times": [1744.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.159}, "reply_to": "21098__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__1_018", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1744.35], "stop_times": [1744.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.35}, "reply_to": "21098__1_017", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_019", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Or due process, no due process requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1744.561], "stop_times": [1746.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.561}, "reply_to": "21098__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__1_020", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No.\nI think that's the Lassiter case, or... well, Lassiter leaves it open for a potential in certain circumstances based on the balancing test that an attorney might be required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1746.452, 1746.902], "stop_times": [1746.902, 1756.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.452}, "reply_to": "21098__1_019", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_021", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Mathews really doesn't address the question of when you should have an attorney, does it?\nIt's more the type of hearing you should have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1756.327, 1761.283], "stop_times": [1761.283, 1763.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.327}, "reply_to": "21098__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__1_022", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Right.\nMathews is just whether or not fundamental fairness is met, and whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1763.196, 1764.285], "stop_times": [1764.285, 1767.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.196}, "reply_to": "21098__1_021", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_023", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1767.497], "stop_times": [1767.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.497}, "reply_to": "21098__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__1_024", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--additional safeguards have to be provided.\nI also think that case assumes that fundamental fairness can be met at the trial court level, and that an appeal is not required, which is consistent with the older cases saying that appellate review is not required for due process purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1767.858, 1770.211], "stop_times": [1770.211, 1783.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1767.858}, "reply_to": "21098__1_023", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_025", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Counsel, do you concede that a fundamental right is at issue here in the case when you deprive a parent by State action of parental rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1783.099], "stop_times": [1793.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.099}, "reply_to": "21098__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__1_026", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "We would concede that the parent-child relationship in the past has been held by this Court to be a fundamental interest.\nHowever, in this case we question whether or not there is a fundamental right at this point in the proceedings, and that's because at this point in all of these proceedings there is a judgment by a State trial court terminating this person's parental rights, and based on the line of cases that deal with... Stanley v. Illinois, and the Quillion case, and Lehrer case dealing with biological parents, it seems to indicate that parental conduct determines parental interest, and it would seem at this point that her interest would be at least less than fundamental.\nWe don't know what they are, but it would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1793.886, 1802.482, 1838.078], "stop_times": [1802.482, 1838.078, 1840.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.886}, "reply_to": "21098__1_025", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_027", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, I don't know why the interest wouldn't remain the same throughout the proceeding.\nIt's either fundamental or it isn't, and maybe some heightened scrutiny is required of procedures that the State invokes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1840.018, 1844.62], "stop_times": [1844.62, 1852.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.018}, "reply_to": "21098__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__1_028", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, the argument is based, again, on those... the biological father cases, and it seems like at this point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1852.747], "stop_times": [1860.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1852.747}, "reply_to": "21098__1_027", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_029", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Hasn't the Court already decided in Santosky that there is something about depriving one of parental status that's not like anything else, and therefore, instead of the ordinary preponderance test, there is a clear and convincing evidence test?\nIsn't... whether you agree with that or not, it is the precedent of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1860.942, 1876.383], "stop_times": [1876.383, 1880.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.942}, "reply_to": "21098__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_030", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes, I don't disagree with that, but Santosky is talking about in the trial itself.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1880.884, 1886.558], "stop_times": [1886.558, 1887.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.884}, "reply_to": "21098__1_029", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_031", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, but in order to... why did the Court say that a clear and convincing evidence standard is required, instead of the ordinary preponderance?\nWhat was the basis for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1887.259, 1896.185], "stop_times": [1896.185, 1898.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.259}, "reply_to": "21098__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_032", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, it may be the greater interest, I'm not arguing with that, in the trial stage, but what I'm arguing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1898.095], "stop_times": [1905.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.095}, "reply_to": "21098__1_031", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_033", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "It may be... what did the Court... why did the Court say that as a matter of the Federal Constitution, in order to deprive a parent of parental status, the proof standard that the... that must be met is clear and convincing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1905.882], "stop_times": [1921.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.882}, "reply_to": "21098__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_034", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--I assume that the interest were considered somewhat more than the normal.\nI don't remember specifically from the case whether or not it specifically deals with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1921.711, 1927.457], "stop_times": [1927.457, 1934.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.711}, "reply_to": "21098__1_033", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_035", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, if the Court said that because there is a fundamental interest at stake, that is, the parent-child relationship is a fundamental interest... let's assume that's what the Court said, as I think it did... then the parent's loss at the trial level doesn't mean the interest is changed, as Justice O'Connor suggested.\nThe interest remains the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1934.48, 1954.542], "stop_times": [1954.542, 1956.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.48}, "reply_to": "21098__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_036", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, again, my argument is based on those line of cases that talk about the biological connection alone is not sufficient to raise any interest, and the parent's conduct determines that, so when you have a trial court determining that the conduct of the parent is such that the parental right should be terminated, then it would seem like at that point the presumption of a fundamental right might be lessened, at least.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1956.144], "stop_times": [1982.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.144}, "reply_to": "21098__1_035", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_037", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, wouldn't the same reasoning that supported the Court's statement that this higher standard... why do we have clear and convincing as opposed to preponderance for these cases?\nWhat would be the reason for doing that?\nIt's an extra check, right, because something fundamental is involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [1982.151, 1998.763, 2000.806], "stop_times": [1998.763, 2000.806, 2008.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.151}, "reply_to": "21098__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_038", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2008.0], "stop_times": [2009.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.0}, "reply_to": "21098__1_037", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_039", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So the appellate review is similarly an extra check.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2009.071], "stop_times": [2012.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.071}, "reply_to": "21098__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_040", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--I believe the higher standard is... within the case was to lessen the risk of error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2012.884], "stop_times": [2019.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.884}, "reply_to": "21098__1_039", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_041", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And isn't that what the argument is here?\nYou lessen the risk of error by allowing the appeal, and the argument was that there was insufficient evidence to meet this high standard of proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2019.61, 2022.381], "stop_times": [2022.381, 2031.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.61}, "reply_to": "21098__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_042", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Theoretically, any appeal would be designed to lessen the risk of error, an appeal of any case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2031.928], "stop_times": [2041.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2031.928}, "reply_to": "21098__1_041", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_043", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I suppose that would have been true in Ross v. Moffitt, too, where you petition for certiorari to the highest court of a State from the decision of an intermediate court of appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2041.995], "stop_times": [2050.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.995}, "reply_to": "21098__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__1_044", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, that... yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2050.791], "stop_times": [2052.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.791}, "reply_to": "21098__1_043", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_045", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Let's assume that the decisions of this Court establish that the... that this is a fundamental right, fundamental relation.\nThen the equal protection differential here between those who can get the transcript and those who cannot does in one sense impinge on the fundamental right, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2052.55, 2060.266], "stop_times": [2060.266, 2071.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.55}, "reply_to": "21098__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__1_046", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I would disagree with that, because I think that it's not an impingement of the parent-child relationship, and it's certainly not a direct and substantial impingement, which the Zablocki case and others require for this kind of constitutional violation.\nIt's purely the procedural matter as to what procedures they're entitled to, and in the procedural analysis in the Mathews case, the interest of the parent is taken into consideration in the first part of that balancing test.\nWe've taken the position that in effect what petitioner is doing here is either attempting to extend Boddie v. Connecticut to the appellate level, or attempting to find an exception to the Ortwein case and, based on their arguments, they seem to be making a purely wealth disparity argument which would potentially bring in all cases of a civil nature, especially those involving rights that have been determined to be a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2071.855, 2090.036, 2106.457], "stop_times": [2090.036, 2106.457, 2139.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.855}, "reply_to": "21098__1_045", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_047", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But that's not the argument that was made, and I may have misunderstood the petitioner's brief, but I thought they were saying, we're trying to bracket our case not with Boddie but with Griffin, that we think that the impact on our client, permanent deprivation of parental status, ought to be treated the same as a criminal conviction, that there's no other civil case like that that declares a woman a nonparent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2139.099], "stop_times": [2169.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.099}, "reply_to": "21098__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_048", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, I think based on the use of the Griffin case and what they're arguing for the rights, it's very hard to distinguish between fundamental rights at that point, so you get into a situation of having to kind of do a hierarchy of fundamental rights and then decide where you cut off the appeals and where you don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2169.359], "stop_times": [2190.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.359}, "reply_to": "21098__1_047", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_049", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But we asked the petitioner that question, and the answer was, there's only one other thing that the petitioner would put in that same box, and that's civil commitment, involuntary civil commitment, so now you want them... you want to make their argument something that they are not attempting to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2190.373], "stop_times": [2209.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.373}, "reply_to": "21098__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_050", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I'm saying that that argument would be very hard to implement.\nI think it implicates other things.\nIt would be very hard as a practical matter to separate the one from the other interest.\nThe result of this would be, I think, that other courts would end up interpreting this to include other fundamental rights and other important rights, and in that regard, in the 1995 in the State of Mississippi there were almost 40,000 domestic relation cases filed in the lower courts, so if they were expanded--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2209.156, 2214.522, 2217.423, 2223.239], "stop_times": [2214.522, 2217.423, 2223.239, 2250.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.156}, "reply_to": "21098__1_049", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_051", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, but how many of those involve termination of parental rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2250.264], "stop_times": [2254.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.264}, "reply_to": "21098__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21098__1_052", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--There were 194 of these parental rights cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2254.559], "stop_times": [2257.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2254.559}, "reply_to": "21098__1_051", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_053", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2257.521], "stop_times": [2257.761], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.521}, "reply_to": "21098__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21098__1_054", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And there were a little over 6,000 paternity cases, and that's compared to a little over 15,000 criminal cases.\nIt's our contention that there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2257.761, 2269.311], "stop_times": [2269.311, 2277.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.761}, "reply_to": "21098__1_053", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_055", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But as far as the paternity cases are concerned, there's no... at least the... in the trial court there's no analogy to the clear and convincing requirement of Santosky.\nI think it's just... that has been rejected for paternity rights.\nThere is just a preponderance of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2277.585, 2288.532, 2291.715], "stop_times": [2288.532, 2291.715, 2294.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.585}, "reply_to": "21098__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_056", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--I don't recall on that, but the paternity cases are kind of mirror images of the termination cases.\nJust like in Boddie, the fundamental right is a right to marry, but it involves a divorce, so it would be hard to separate the two.\nI don't see how you could separate the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2294.446, 2303.633, 2311.329], "stop_times": [2303.633, 2311.329, 2312.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.446}, "reply_to": "21098__1_055", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_057", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But isn't it true that in the paternity cases the issue is pretty well determined by scientific evidence now, isn't it, rather... you have a rather narrow actual issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2312.981], "stop_times": [2322.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.981}, "reply_to": "21098__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_058", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2322.337], "stop_times": [2323.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.337}, "reply_to": "21098__1_057", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_059", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Whereas this case could be a law and record case, where you believe some witnesses and you don't believe others, and all that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2323.837], "stop_times": [2329.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.837}, "reply_to": "21098__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_060", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "A lot of those, as I understand, probably go off on... on the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2329.562], "stop_times": [2334.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.562}, "reply_to": "21098__1_059", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_061", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2334.497], "stop_times": [2334.747], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.497}, "reply_to": "21098__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21098__1_062", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "If the tests come back positive, then the potential father admits it and doesn't fight it, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2334.747], "stop_times": [2339.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.747}, "reply_to": "21098__1_061", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_063", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Mr. Moore, isn't the paternity case more like any civil case?\nI mean, what paternity is about is money.\nYou have to pay to support the child.\nYou don't... they don't require you to love the child, to take the child to soccer games.\nAll you have to do is, if you're saddled with a paternity decree, is to pay money.\nThat's something of a different quality than to say, you have no parental relationship to this child.\nYou are a stranger to the child that you bore.\nThat isn't about money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2339.982, 2344.224, 2346.227, 2348.378, 2353.72, 2359.576, 2366.83, 2369.854], "stop_times": [2344.224, 2346.227, 2348.378, 2353.72, 2359.576, 2366.83, 2369.854, 2372.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.982}, "reply_to": "21098__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_064", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, I think, though, from a paternity point of view it's just the opposite, I guess, the... in the sense that the person who is in the paternity case doesn't want to be determined to be the father.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2372.466], "stop_times": [2385.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2372.466}, "reply_to": "21098__1_063", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_065", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, people don't want to lose a damage suit, either, but all that's at stake is money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2385.353], "stop_times": [2390.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.353}, "reply_to": "21098__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_066", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, there's also the creation of a legal relationship against the will of the individual as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2390.499], "stop_times": [2397.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.499}, "reply_to": "21098__1_065", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_067", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, in a... I mean, it could certainly ruin the reputation of someone who is decreed to be the father of a child whose father he claims not to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2397.781], "stop_times": [2411.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.781}, "reply_to": "21098__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__1_068", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there's other social stigmas, or whatever, that would be associated with it.\nThere's also, as far as the trial itself goes, we've said that this is a fundamentally fair proceeding that are had in these cases, and it's in a State trial court in front of the judge, who's trained in the law.\nThe parties are allowed to submit evidence, and witnesses, and documents, and allowed to cross-examine, and redirect, and direct examination of witnesses, and there's nothing been suggested by the petitioner in here that these are not fundamentally fair proceedings and meet the requirements--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2411.242, 2418.005, 2441.028], "stop_times": [2418.005, 2441.028, 2462.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2411.242}, "reply_to": "21098__1_067", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_069", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, but your rule would apply even if that were the argument.\nEven if the petitioner was arguing the judge wouldn't let us put on any witnesses.\nShe still couldn't appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2462.453, 2464.494, 2469.329], "stop_times": [2464.494, 2469.329, 2471.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.453}, "reply_to": "21098__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_070", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--No, she could, in that regard.\nThis case involves, as was mentioned earlier... the claim here on the appeal is, it's not based on substantial evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2471.22, 2475.013], "stop_times": [2475.013, 2483.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.22}, "reply_to": "21098__1_069", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_071", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, I understand in this case, but if it were a case in which the mother claimed that the judge wouldn't listen to me, he wouldn't let me put on any evidence, and he entered his order without any evidence at all, she still couldn't appeal, even if she made those arguments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2483.728], "stop_times": [2497.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.728}, "reply_to": "21098__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_072", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "You don't need a transcript for that appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2497.418], "stop_times": [2498.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.418}, "reply_to": "21098__1_071", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_073", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, how can she establish what happened at that trial if she doesn't have a transcript?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2498.659], "stop_times": [2503.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.659}, "reply_to": "21098__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_074", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The rule that requires the transcript in this particular case only requires the whole transcript when the issue is raised here.\nBut other than that, all you need is sufficient information to raise the issue that you have, and you can either do that by, in this particular case by agreement of counsel as to what happened, or potentially it might take one page of the transcript, when the judge refused to let her cross-examine witnesses, or submit witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2503.332, 2513.64], "stop_times": [2513.64, 2531.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.332}, "reply_to": "21098__1_073", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_075", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I thought the State statute required the full transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2531.031], "stop_times": [2535.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.031}, "reply_to": "21098__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_076", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, only when the appeal is based on lack of substantial evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2535.585], "stop_times": [2539.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.585}, "reply_to": "21098__1_075", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_077", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Ah, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2539.095], "stop_times": [2539.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.095}, "reply_to": "21098__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_078", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Then the court has to have all of it to make the determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2539.947], "stop_times": [2543.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.947}, "reply_to": "21098__1_077", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_079", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I see, but if the challenge is that the trial or the judge was biased, or something like that... well, but even then, I suppose you might need the transcript to establish that.\nBut you're saying if the error is one that can be established without a transcript, she could appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2543.009, 2551.384], "stop_times": [2551.384, 2556.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.009}, "reply_to": "21098__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_080", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.\nIf it could be established without the transcript she could certainly appeal, and in other cases, as I said, it might not take but two or three pages of the transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2556.329, 2558.38], "stop_times": [2558.38, 2565.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.329}, "reply_to": "21098__1_079", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_081", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The transcript is only required... apart from the practicality of her being able to establish bias, for example, without the whole transcript, she could claim bias and get an appeal without the transcript.\nThe transcript is only required by statute when substantiality of the evidence is at issue, right, sufficiency of the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2565.452, 2578.322], "stop_times": [2578.322, 2586.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.452}, "reply_to": "21098__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__1_082", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "That's the only time the rule or the statute says that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2586.096], "stop_times": [2589.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2586.096}, "reply_to": "21098__1_081", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_083", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2589.679], "stop_times": [2589.939], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.679}, "reply_to": "21098__1_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21098__1_084", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--you have to have a full transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2589.939], "stop_times": [2591.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.939}, "reply_to": "21098__1_083", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_085", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So she can go up without one for everything else, even though for some of those she may not win without the transcript.\nI mean, as a practical matter.\nYou don't have to concede that.\nWhy doesn't that cut in favor of the other side?\nI mean, it won't cost the State much money then.\nI mean, in most cases she'll be able to afford the $6, and if she really couldn't afford the $6, I mean, if that was true, she really couldn't afford it, it costs the State $6, not a big deal.\nI mean, so it isn't much burden on the State, almost no burden.\nIt means a lot to her.\nHave a certificate of probable cause, say, weed out the baddies, you know, no claim.\nWhat's the major problem for the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2591.041, 2596.287, 2598.007, 2601.88, 2604.224, 2606.474, 2617.18, 2621.545, 2622.566, 2628.44], "stop_times": [2596.287, 2598.007, 2601.88, 2604.224, 2606.474, 2617.18, 2621.545, 2622.566, 2628.44, 2631.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.041}, "reply_to": "21098__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__1_086", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I think as a practical matter almost all of these appeals will be where they require the entire transcript, because they're based on lack of substantial evidence.\nIt would be unusual for a claim that a State trial court doesn't provide a fundamentally fair proceeding, based on the procedures used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2631.832, 2641.679], "stop_times": [2641.679, 2649.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2631.832}, "reply_to": "21098__1_085", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_087", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Is there any proceeding in Mississippi in connection with an appeal where there would be a certificate of probable cause, at least by that name?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2649.175], "stop_times": [2661.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.175}, "reply_to": "21098__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__1_088", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Not that I'm aware of, no, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2661.344], "stop_times": [2663.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2661.344}, "reply_to": "21098__1_087", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_089", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Are there other States that do not provide a free transcript to a poor person for a deprivation of parental status case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2663.444], "stop_times": [2673.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.444}, "reply_to": "21098__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_090", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I don't know specifically on that.\nI know there are some citations in petitioner's brief about States that do.\nI don't think they cite all of the States as doing that, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2673.762, 2677.903, 2681.937], "stop_times": [2677.903, 2681.937, 2685.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.762}, "reply_to": "21098__1_089", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_091", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And there's nothing short of a full transcript that could be a transcript of part, but Mississippi doesn't tape the proceeding, does it, keep it on audio tape?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2685.9], "stop_times": [2703.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.9}, "reply_to": "21098__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_092", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No.\nThe proceeding would be taken by a court reporter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2703.152, 2703.622], "stop_times": [2703.622, 2705.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2703.152}, "reply_to": "21098__1_091", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_093", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, but that wouldn't exclude also having an audio tape.\nBut you're telling me they don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2705.622, 2709.095], "stop_times": [2709.095, 2711.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.622}, "reply_to": "21098__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_094", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "It wouldn't exclude it, but I would doubt if there are any court reporters still using audio tapes.\nI don't know that.\nI mean, there could be an individual court reporter somewhere that did that, but I wouldn't think so now.\nThe State's interest in this include other things beside the cost--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2711.979, 2717.492, 2719.884, 2724.145], "stop_times": [2717.492, 2719.884, 2724.145, 2734.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.979}, "reply_to": "21098__1_093", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_095", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Just one other question of Mississippi proceedings.\nIs what happened here the norm?\nThat is, all the evidence comes in, and then the judge makes a kind of a boilerplate judgment, repeating the words of the statute, and says, I have found by clear and convincing evidence that this parent is unfit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2734.983, 2740.908, 2743.088], "stop_times": [2740.908, 2743.088, 2756.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2734.983}, "reply_to": "21098__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_096", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--I think the order of the judge in any individual case will be dependent... depend on that judge.\nThere's not any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2756.548, 2764.593], "stop_times": [2764.593, 2766.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.548}, "reply_to": "21098__1_095", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_097", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, from your experience in the State, what is the usual?\nIs this typical, what we've seen here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2766.166, 2771.408], "stop_times": [2771.408, 2774.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.166}, "reply_to": "21098__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_098", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--I don't know.\nI haven't tried any of these cases actually in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2774.092, 2777.833], "stop_times": [2777.833, 2780.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.092}, "reply_to": "21098__1_097", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_099", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "How many circuit judges are there in the State of Mississippi, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2780.985], "stop_times": [2784.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.985}, "reply_to": "21098__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__1_100", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--No, I don't.\nThere are 82 counties, but as far as actual numbers of circuit judges, I don't know.\nI would point out that in... when the State is involved in actually prosecuting a termination, there are additional safeguards that take place prior to the filing of the petition in the chancery court, and all of those occur in the youth court, and involve at least four hearings, three of which are judicial in nature, at which the parent is allowed to attend with the assistance of counsel and participate, and that the rights are not terminated of the parent until there have been all of these procedural safeguards taken, and usually it's at least a year after the child has been taken out of the custody of the parents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2784.718, 2789.973, 2794.516], "stop_times": [2789.973, 2794.516, 2837.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.718}, "reply_to": "21098__1_099", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_101", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So are you saying that when the other parent petitions to have a parent declared unfit, there's less protection than when the State does it?\nThe... that the petitioner in this case did not get the protection that she would have gotten if the State itself, rather than her former husband, had initiated the proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2837.304, 2853.294], "stop_times": [2853.294, 2867.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.304}, "reply_to": "21098__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_102", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.\nThe proceedings are viewed... when the State itself prosecutes a termination, then it's viewed as a little different, because what you're doing there is coming in and eventually terminating the right of the parent so that the child can be adopted by what ends up being strangers, nonrelatives, and it arises here because it's absolutely necessary that the State, the Department of Human Services go in and remove the child from the home because of potential abuse or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2867.462, 2868.653], "stop_times": [2868.653, 2901.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.462}, "reply_to": "21098__1_101", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_103", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But you can remove a child from a home without depriving a parent of parental status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2901.294], "stop_times": [2906.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.294}, "reply_to": "21098__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_104", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, it's not always done when the State does it.\nIt's when it becomes necessary.\nThere are several things that the State goes through with the... an analysis of whether or not it should be brought, obviously children that are taken out, that it's unfeasible to put them back in the home, some of them may be 14 or 15 or 16--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2906.34, 2910.441, 2912.594], "stop_times": [2910.441, 2912.594, 2925.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2906.34}, "reply_to": "21098__1_103", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_105", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But you were explaining from the point of view of the right of the petitioner why she is entitled to less process when it's her ex-husband than when it's the State that is trying to deprive her of parental status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2925.644], "stop_times": [2938.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.644}, "reply_to": "21098__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_106", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Well, the State is simply set up for the State because of the unique situation that the State is in, so in essence more process is provided because of that particular situation, that the State is coming in and taking the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2938.983], "stop_times": [2955.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.983}, "reply_to": "21098__1_105", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_107", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Do I... I want to be sure I didn't miss something.\nIn that situation, does the State provide the transcript, when the State initiates the termination proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2955.213, 2958.906], "stop_times": [2958.906, 2964.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.213}, "reply_to": "21098__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_108", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2964.282], "stop_times": [2966.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.282}, "reply_to": "21098__1_107", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_109", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, it still doesn't.\nSo... I don't... what is the difference between that proceeding and this in terms of State procedural protections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2966.242, 2967.424], "stop_times": [2967.424, 2974.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.242}, "reply_to": "21098__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_110", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Just that this is done in youth court before a... an action would be filed in chancery court to actually terminate.\nThere's no termination that takes place in the youth court.\nIt's only judging the status of the child and being able to take the child out of a bad situation if necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2974.997, 2983.412, 2985.785], "stop_times": [2983.412, 2985.785, 2993.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.997}, "reply_to": "21098__1_109", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_111", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, in this case the complainant, the petitioner was already a noncustodial parent, was she not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [2993.812], "stop_times": [3000.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.812}, "reply_to": "21098__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__1_112", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3000.407], "stop_times": [3000.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.407}, "reply_to": "21098__1_111", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_113", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I mean, it wasn't as if the custody was taken away from her.\nIt already had been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3000.858, 3004.711], "stop_times": [3004.711, 3005.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.858}, "reply_to": "21098__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__1_114", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "She had lost her custody of the children at the time of the divorce, and this was sometime later when the proceedings to terminate her rights were brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3005.812], "stop_times": [3014.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.812}, "reply_to": "21098__1_113", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_115", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "But your friend says that that can be changed, whereas this can't be changed.\nNow, is that accurate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3014.948, 3021.36], "stop_times": [3021.36, 3022.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.948}, "reply_to": "21098__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__1_116", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, certainly a parent could go back in and attempt to petition to change custody, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3022.652], "stop_times": [3032.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.652}, "reply_to": "21098__1_115", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_117", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Or modify the decree to provide for visitation rights, which might not have been... custody decrees are modifiable, is that not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3032.71], "stop_times": [3039.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.71}, "reply_to": "21098__1_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_118", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3039.736], "stop_times": [3040.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.736}, "reply_to": "21098__1_117", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_119", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And a deprivation of parental status is final, not modifiable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3040.346], "stop_times": [3045.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.346}, "reply_to": "21098__1_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__1_120", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes, the termination would be... I guess like any other civil case, once the time runs for asking the court to reconsider something, that it would be final, just like any other case.\nIt would be res judicata, probably, from a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3045.73, 3058.588], "stop_times": [3058.588, 3060.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.73}, "reply_to": "21098__1_119", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_121", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I suppose the risk of error present in a case like this is that the trial judge naturally would be influenced by the best interests of the child, and therefore would tend to give custody to the adopting parents, and not apt to make detailed findings about unfitness of the mother whose rights are being terminated.\nThe termination is a condition precedent to the adoption in all these cases, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3060.048, 3074.978], "stop_times": [3074.978, 3079.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.048}, "reply_to": "21098__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21098__1_122", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--The termination is precedent to the adoption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3079.102], "stop_times": [3081.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.102}, "reply_to": "21098__1_121", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_123", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3081.454], "stop_times": [3081.654], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.454}, "reply_to": "21098__1_122", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21098__1_124", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "I would disagree with what the trial judge would do, because I think trial judges take these things very seriously, and I don't think that they would terminate the mother's rights, regardless of the situation, unless they felt it was absolutely justified based on the evidence that's presented.\nIn conclusion, what the petitioner is apparently attempting to do here is create a vast new constitutional right and further federalize domestic relations law, and we submit that that shouldn't be done in the absence of clear constitutional violation, and we further submit that there's been no showing or evidence that a clear constitutional violation exists in this case.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3081.654, 3098.897, 3126.604], "stop_times": [3098.897, 3126.604, 3129.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3081.654}, "reply_to": "21098__1_123", "speaker": "rickey_t_moore"}
{"id": "21098__1_125", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Moore.\nMr. McDuff, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3129.456, 3131.148], "stop_times": [3131.148, 3133.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.456}, "reply_to": "21098__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__2_000", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nJustice O'Connor, I believe it was in response to questions from you that the Attorney General's Office gave figures about the number of filings of termination cases in the chancery court, and those figures are at page 28 of their brief, but those figures are not in the sources they cite on page 28, and we have not seen any such figures about the number of parental termination filings in chancery courts or in the appellate courts.\nThe Mississippi supreme court does keep figures, and we've cited them in our brief, as have our opponents, on the numbers of custody appeals, of which parental termination are a subset, and in 1995 there were 10 custody cases decided by the Mississippi supreme court and another six decided by the intermediate court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3133.679, 3135.429, 3158.926], "stop_times": [3135.429, 3158.926, 3178.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3133.679}, "reply_to": "21098__1_125", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_001", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Mr. McDuff--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3178.619], "stop_times": [3178.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.619}, "reply_to": "21098__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__2_002", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3178.899], "stop_times": [3179.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3178.899}, "reply_to": "21098__2_001", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_003", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--what about divorce?\nThat's final.\nIt deals with status.\nShould we apply the same rule to a divorce decree that you're asserting here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3179.21, 3180.361, 3181.973, 3184.304], "stop_times": [3180.361, 3181.973, 3184.304, 3188.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.21}, "reply_to": "21098__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__2_004", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, sir, and a divorce also is something actually that can be remedied in the future if people want to remarry, plus they can continue to have contact or not contact.\nThere's a level of freedom in the relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3188.649, 3198.614], "stop_times": [3198.614, 3201.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3188.649}, "reply_to": "21098__2_003", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_005", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, but let's assume it's not a no-fault divorce kind of State.\nYour reason has to be established.\nThe other person doesn't want to remedy the divorce.\nThe person who's want it fully wants it.\nIf a State... I gather most of the States, maybe all of them now, have effectively no-fault divorce, but let's assume a State changes that and does not have no-fault divorce.\nI guess we would have to apply the same rule to divorce, wouldn't we?\nIf the party unwillingly divorced wants to appeal, we would have to allow that appeal IFP.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3201.384, 3204.907, 3206.84, 3210.791, 3212.683, 3224.181, 3226.933], "stop_times": [3204.907, 3206.84, 3210.791, 3212.683, 3224.181, 3226.933, 3234.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.384}, "reply_to": "21098__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__2_006", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, I don't think so.\nI mean, I don't think that involves nearly the kind of termination of an intimate relationship beyond the control of the parent that you have, or beyond the control of the party involved that you have when a child is taken away against your will by State action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3234.148, 3235.75], "stop_times": [3235.75, 3252.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3234.148}, "reply_to": "21098__2_005", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_007", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, I thought that was the rationale of Boddie, that divorce did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3252.411], "stop_times": [3255.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3252.411}, "reply_to": "21098__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__2_008", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "The rationale of Boddie, as I understand it, is that divorce, because it involves a marriage relationship, is very important, and because the State has an exclusive monopoly on it, that filing fees that freeze people out are unconstitutional, so I think there is a high status and an important interest here, but I don't think it comes to the kind of grievous injury that's done here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3255.973], "stop_times": [3281.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3255.973}, "reply_to": "21098__2_007", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_009", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So cutting off a parental relation is a \"fundamental\" interest, and a right to get a divorce is high, but not fundamental?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3281.889], "stop_times": [3291.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.889}, "reply_to": "21098__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21098__2_010", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, I didn't... no, I'm sorry, I don't mean to sort of do a gradation there, but in Boddie the people were married and wanted access to the State-created apparatus for obtaining a divorce, and this Court said they can't be frozen out by a certain amount of money, and when you're talking about appeal, I do think that is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3291.507], "stop_times": [3308.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3291.507}, "reply_to": "21098__2_009", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_011", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Well, but you have to do a gradation, or then Boddie is going to come out the same way as your case, isn't it, and we'll have transcripts in all divorce cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3308.817], "stop_times": [3317.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.817}, "reply_to": "21098__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__2_012", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3317.994], "stop_times": [3318.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3317.994}, "reply_to": "21098__2_011", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_013", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So that I take it was the thrust of the Chief Justice's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3318.614], "stop_times": [3321.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.614}, "reply_to": "21098__2_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__2_014", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--Yes, and I didn't mean to sort of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3321.277], "stop_times": [3322.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3321.277}, "reply_to": "21098__2_013", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_015", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "And so I think you have to have a hierarchy, or a gradation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3322.906], "stop_times": [3326.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3322.906}, "reply_to": "21098__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21098__2_016", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--And I guess that's what we're saying, is that because of the nature of the harm here as compared to whatever happens in a divorce proceeding, that this is the kind of thing where a transcript will be required and it might not there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3326.088], "stop_times": [3340.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3326.088}, "reply_to": "21098__2_015", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_017", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "On the theory that children are more important than spouses to the individuals involved, is that the theory that causes you to put this on a lower level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3340.189], "stop_times": [3347.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.189}, "reply_to": "21098__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21098__2_018", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "No, on the theory that a divorce decree, or the resolution of a divorce case, involves all kinds of complicated mechanisms that the parties have a right to effect in terms of their interrelationship, but here, the person's child is being taken away against their will, and we think it's a qualitative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3347.663], "stop_times": [3365.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3347.663}, "reply_to": "21098__2_017", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_019", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Are you saying that Boddie is... or Boddie, I don't know how to pronounce it--\n--It's two D's.\n--is a different... however that comes out, it's a different case because those are the people who say, State, we want you to pay for our divorce, we want something from you, where here the woman is saying, please don't take my child away.\nShe's not coming to the court asking for anything.\nShe just wants to be spared from the State taking away her child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3365.495, 3367.118, 3367.849, 3379.426, 3381.937], "stop_times": [3367.118, 3367.849, 3379.426, 3381.937, 3385.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3365.495}, "reply_to": "21098__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__2_020", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3385.72], "stop_times": [3385.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3385.72}, "reply_to": "21098__2_019", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_021", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "So the two cases seem to me quite distinct.\nHowever you would come out in Boddie or Boddie, it's not what we're dealing with here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3385.98, 3388.413], "stop_times": [3388.413, 3392.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.98}, "reply_to": "21098__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21098__2_022", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3392.136], "stop_times": [3392.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3392.136}, "reply_to": "21098__2_021", "speaker": "robert_b_mcduff"}
{"id": "21098__2_023", "conversation_id": "21098", "text": "Thank you, Mr. McDuff.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-853", "start_times": [3392.607, 3394.29], "stop_times": [3394.29, 3395.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.607}, "reply_to": "21098__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__0_000", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1268, Maryland v. Jerry Lee Wilson.\nGeneral Curran.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [0.0, 7.857], "stop_times": [7.857, 9.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__0_001", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nNearly 20 years ago this Court held in the case of Pennsylvania v. Mimms that it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer in making a car stop for a traffic violation to require the driver to exit the car.\nThe risk to the officer is such in these stops that it was also permitted for the officer to request the driver to get out without any suspicion that the driver would pose a danger to the officer.\nThe latest figures that we have available demonstrate that the risks are real to police officers in traffic stops.\nThe latest figures in 1994 show that 5,762 police officers were assaulted in traffic stops.\nIndeed, since the decision in Mimms there have been over 200 police officers slain in traffic stops.\nBecause passengers, like drivers, have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [9.367, 12.079, 25.207, 39.727, 47.083, 54.477, 62.301], "stop_times": [12.079, 25.207, 39.727, 47.083, 54.477, 62.301, 65.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.367}, "reply_to": "20589__0_000", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_002", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Excuse me.\nWhen you say assaulted in traffic stops does that include those who were assaulted by people who got out of the car and physically assaulted them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [65.474, 66.275], "stop_times": [66.275, 72.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.474}, "reply_to": "20589__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__0_003", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--The... yes.\nYes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [72.409, 73.71], "stop_times": [73.71, 74.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.409}, "reply_to": "20589__0_002", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_004", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, that would cut the other way.\nI mean, that... they'd be better off to leave them in the car, if that... you know, if that's the assault you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [74.43, 75.521], "stop_times": [75.521, 81.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 74.43}, "reply_to": "20589__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__0_005", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Well, there were a total of some 52,000 assaults during that given year, '94, of which 5,700 were in traffic stops.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [81.405], "stop_times": [91.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 81.405}, "reply_to": "20589__0_004", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_006", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "What I'm suggesting is that the relevant figure is how many of the assaults came while a person was in the car, so that they might have been prevented by making the person get out of the car.\nMany of them may have occurred by taking the person out of the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [91.091, 100.167], "stop_times": [100.167, 104.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.091}, "reply_to": "20589__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__0_007", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Those are figures are not available--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [104.099], "stop_times": [104.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 104.099}, "reply_to": "20589__0_006", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_008", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [104.99], "stop_times": [105.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.99}, "reply_to": "20589__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__0_009", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [105.801], "stop_times": [106.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.801}, "reply_to": "20589__0_008", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_010", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Isn't it true, General Curran... I remember this from the Mimms case... that there's a split of professional opinion on whether it is safer for the officer to order them out of the car or to tell them to stay in the car?\nIs there still a respected body of professional law enforcement opinion that says you're safer if you don't ask them to get out of the car?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [106.302, 116.598], "stop_times": [116.598, 122.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.302}, "reply_to": "20589__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__0_011", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, the typical practice, and I can refer to Maryland, of course, but I believe the briefs will show the typical practice is to control the risk.\nThat's what the training is, to control the risk, and typically they keep the driver and the passenger in the car.\nHowever, having said that, as the New York v. Class case indicated, there is this discretion the officer can use, and what we're asking, of course, is the automatic rule for that discretion to be utilized in the Wilson case, as this Court granted in the Mimms case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [122.752, 131.748, 137.081], "stop_times": [131.748, 137.081, 153.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.752}, "reply_to": "20589__0_010", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_012", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "General Curran, are you saying that if the officer made the decision to keep the person inside, it would be the officer's call, too?\nSuppose a passenger says, I want out.\nI'm going to take a car and go home... take a cab and go home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [153.042, 161.187, 163.859], "stop_times": [161.187, 163.859, 168.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.042}, "reply_to": "20589__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__0_013", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "The answer is yes, Justice Ginsburg.\nWe want the officer to be able to require the passenger to get out or, where it's appropriate, to stay in, and in order to control the stop the officer should be able to control the location of the passenger, and the location can be outside the car, or it could be, in an appropriate case, inside the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [168.242, 171.625], "stop_times": [171.625, 190.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.242}, "reply_to": "20589__0_012", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_014", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "How far does the authority extend?\nWould you say that the passenger would be free to leave if the passenger chose after exiting the car at the officer's request?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [190.135, 193.107], "stop_times": [193.107, 201.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.135}, "reply_to": "20589__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_015", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe do not take that position.\nWe want the officer to be able to control the risk, control the location.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [201.495, 202.204, 203.546], "stop_times": [202.204, 203.546, 208.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.495}, "reply_to": "20589__0_014", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_016", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, you want more than the right to require the passenger to exit.\nYou want to require the passenger to be detained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [208.207, 211.289], "stop_times": [211.289, 215.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.207}, "reply_to": "20589__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_017", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [215.043, 216.302], "stop_times": [216.302, 216.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.043}, "reply_to": "20589__0_016", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_018", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "For how long?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [216.632], "stop_times": [217.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.632}, "reply_to": "20589__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_019", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--We want... there is no time frame as... I can tell you what the typical stop--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [217.333], "stop_times": [223.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.333}, "reply_to": "20589__0_018", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_020", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "To be searched?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [223.007], "stop_times": [223.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.007}, "reply_to": "20589__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_021", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--No, Your Honor, not a frisk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [223.869], "stop_times": [226.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.869}, "reply_to": "20589__0_020", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_022", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "To be asked any questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [226.48], "stop_times": [228.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.48}, "reply_to": "20589__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_023", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Could be asked, but not required to answer.\nTo get out, to step aside, to show your hands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [228.2, 231.074], "stop_times": [231.074, 236.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.2}, "reply_to": "20589__0_022", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_024", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, you say there's no time limit.\nI assume the time can be no more than is reasonably required for the officer to complete the process of issuing the citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [236.217, 237.677], "stop_times": [237.677, 244.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.217}, "reply_to": "20589__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_025", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt would be within what is typically 10, or at the outside 20 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [244.232, 244.733], "stop_times": [244.733, 250.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.232}, "reply_to": "20589__0_024", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_026", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Can he order some people in the car and some people out of the car?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [250.646], "stop_times": [253.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 250.646}, "reply_to": "20589__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_027", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, he could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [253.207], "stop_times": [254.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 253.207}, "reply_to": "20589__0_026", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_028", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "What would be the reason for detaining the passenger in a situation like that?\nI can see that safety reasons might suggest that you be able to... the officer be allowed to order the passenger out of the car, but for detaining them if they then wish to leave, what would be the Fourth Amendment reason for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [254.439, 258.32], "stop_times": [258.32, 271.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.439}, "reply_to": "20589__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__0_029", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "The officer has to... Mr. Chief Justice, the officer has to be able to control the stop, to complete safely the transaction, getting the information from the driver, the registration, the license, et cetera, and in order to do that safely, he needs to be able to know where any potential danger to him or her lies.\nControlling the location of, in this case Mr. Wilson, would have been the appropriate way to do that.\nHe could have seen that he did not pose a particular danger by seeing his hands.\nWe are suggesting that the balancing that this Court went through in Mimms is really the same for the Mr. Wilsons, the passengers.\nThere is this compelling governmental interest of police safety, which has been acknowledged, against what is a de minimis intrusion against Mr. Wilson, where there has already been a diminished expectation of privacy by being in the car in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [271.17, 290.24, 295.155, 300.048, 308.453], "stop_times": [290.24, 295.155, 300.048, 308.453, 324.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 271.17}, "reply_to": "20589__0_028", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_030", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "This right to control the site, what's your best citation from this Court giving you that authority, Michigan and Summers, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [324.084], "stop_times": [331.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.084}, "reply_to": "20589__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_031", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, Michigan and Summers, Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [331.647], "stop_times": [335.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.647}, "reply_to": "20589__0_030", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_032", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Is that the closest case, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [335.511], "stop_times": [336.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.511}, "reply_to": "20589__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_033", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [336.973], "stop_times": [338.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.973}, "reply_to": "20589__0_032", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_034", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Is that the closest case to support the proposition that the officer does have this authority to control the location?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [338.545], "stop_times": [344.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 338.545}, "reply_to": "20589__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_035", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nTo control the safe completion of, in that case the search of the house, he had to have the ability to make certain that he could safely and successfully complete the search, and the same weight goes here.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [344.459, 344.818, 357.236], "stop_times": [344.818, 357.236, 358.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.459}, "reply_to": "20589__0_034", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_036", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, but there is a difference.\nI mean, the driver was stopped because there was reason to believe he had violated a traffic law, or requirement, that the driver was speeding while making an illegal turn, or without a license on the car, or whatever.\nBut there is no such suspicion on the part of the passenger, who was not driving the car, and I don't think Pennsylvania v. Mimms, which says yes, you can require the driver to step out and wait until the ticket is issued or a resolution is made on that question, but I'm just not sure what the authority is for detaining a passenger who is required to step out.\nThe passenger is not suspected of an illegal driving offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [358.187, 359.747, 375.858, 404.337], "stop_times": [359.747, 375.858, 404.337, 409.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.187}, "reply_to": "20589__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_037", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, we would respectfully suggest that it's the Mimms decision that required the driver to exit not because in this case he was speeding, as was the probable cause, or not because there was a faulty tag, but because the Court concluded that there was potential danger, and so for the reason that they wanted... police safety was the reason Mimms got out of the car, not because there was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [409.769], "stop_times": [434.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.769}, "reply_to": "20589__0_036", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_038", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, but nevertheless they had a right to stop the car because it was an alleged traffic violation by the driver, isn't that so, otherwise they couldn't have stopped the car at all, presumably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [434.417], "stop_times": [446.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.417}, "reply_to": "20589__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_039", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [446.885], "stop_times": [448.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 446.885}, "reply_to": "20589__0_038", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_040", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Okay, and that reason does not apply to the passenger, so I'm trying to understand what is your authority for claiming the right not only to require the passenger to exit, but to detain the passenger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [448.044], "stop_times": [460.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.044}, "reply_to": "20589__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_041", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "If Your Honor please, when there was a stop of the Mimms car or the Wilson car by virtue of physics both are seized, or both are detained, so there the driver and the passenger are identical.\nThey're both seized.\nThey're both stopped.\nIf, in fact, the rationale of Mimms is to be conveyed to the passenger, the safety of the officer, it is equally apparent that the passenger would have had much... just as much access to the gun as Mr. Mimms would have had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [460.384, 473.473, 475.514, 476.024], "stop_times": [473.473, 475.514, 476.024, 490.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 460.384}, "reply_to": "20589__0_040", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_042", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But it's not just physics, it's privacy and dignity, and we all know that the police will take our decisions as far as their language and logic permit, and I'm just concerned that you're going to have routine practices of whole families and four or five occupants of the cars being required to stand outside while the officer lectures the driver.\nI mean, that's just going to happen, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [490.453, 514.981], "stop_times": [514.981, 517.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.453}, "reply_to": "20589__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_043", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy, that would happen now in Mimms, because without any discretion, or any guidelines, the officer now may in that case require someone to exit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [517.722], "stop_times": [531.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.722}, "reply_to": "20589__0_042", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_044", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, but that's what we're here to decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [531.139], "stop_times": [532.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.139}, "reply_to": "20589__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_045", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "And for the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [532.861], "stop_times": [534.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.861}, "reply_to": "20589__0_044", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_046", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--And you're proposing a general automatic rule that passengers can always be required to exit at the demand of the officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [534.813], "stop_times": [541.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.813}, "reply_to": "20589__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_047", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, Your Honor, that's the proposal that we have, and the rationale being that the order out in Mimms was not because of the traffic violation but because of the finding that there is... there's a compelling reason for police safety to require the officer to make that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [541.187, 542.327], "stop_times": [542.327, 558.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.187}, "reply_to": "20589__0_046", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_048", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But you have a lesser interest on the part of the driver in privacy or not being free from whatever you... whether it's searching... the driver... there's probable cause to believe that the driver has committed an offense, whereas there isn't any probable cause to believe that the passenger has committed offense, an offense, so the calculus, if it's a weighing process, the interests of the passenger would seem stronger than the interest of the driver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [558.268], "stop_times": [585.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.268}, "reply_to": "20589__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__0_049", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I would take the position that the privacy interests of the driver and the passenger are identical.\nHowever, if the Court should so find that there is a minor privacy interest difference, notwithstanding, there still is... as far as the passenger is concerned he already has a diminished expectation of privacy, and with that diminished expectation of privacy, we're talking about a very diminished intrusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [585.746, 592.051], "stop_times": [592.051, 610.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.746}, "reply_to": "20589__0_048", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_050", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, not necessarily.\nSuppose it's a driving snowstorm, or a blinding rainstorm, the passenger is a mother with a very young baby, and the officer automatically can order her out of the car, to put the baby down outside where he can see the baby and raise her hands up, and real damage can occur, and there is no reason that the car was stopped because of what that passenger was doing under the circumstances here.\nNow, maybe an officer can see a passenger in the car holding a gun.\nWell, that's a different situation, isn't it.\nBut is there any... and suppose the Court thinks there is a real difference between the driver and the passenger in that the driver can be stopped for what the officer perceives is a traffic violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [610.132, 612.003, 639.773, 644.904, 646.855], "stop_times": [612.003, 639.773, 644.904, 646.855, 663.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.132}, "reply_to": "20589__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_051", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, I see the point you're trying to raise, and obviously the question of a baby and a yound mother out in the rain is obviously not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [663.326], "stop_times": [671.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.326}, "reply_to": "20589__0_050", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_052", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "That's just one example and you want an automatic rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [671.312], "stop_times": [674.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.312}, "reply_to": "20589__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_053", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, we do want the automatic rule, and I might add, the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [674.064], "stop_times": [677.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.064}, "reply_to": "20589__0_052", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_054", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "And it will work automatically, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [677.457], "stop_times": [679.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.457}, "reply_to": "20589__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__0_055", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [679.077], "stop_times": [679.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.077}, "reply_to": "20589__0_054", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_056", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Because bureaucracies being what they are, in order to protect themselves from claims of discrimination, making some people get out because of their race or because of whatever else, to be sure that no such claims will be available they will make everybody get out.\nThat will be an invariable rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [679.998, 692.796], "stop_times": [692.796, 693.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.998}, "reply_to": "20589__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__0_057", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "With respect, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [693.806], "stop_times": [695.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.806}, "reply_to": "20589__0_056", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_058", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Even the lady with the baby.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [695.776], "stop_times": [696.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.776}, "reply_to": "20589__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__0_059", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--With respect, Justice Scalia, I appreciate the question.\nThat same scenario, of course, could happen under Mimms, and Mimms has now been with us for 19, almost--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [696.788, 699.499], "stop_times": [699.499, 706.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.788}, "reply_to": "20589__0_058", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_060", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "The question is, do you have concerns about it?\nDo you, as the chief law enforcement officer of your State, have concerns about a rule where throughout your State, maybe throughout the country, all the occupants of every vehicle that is stopped for a traffic offense can be ordered to get out of the car and routinely are required to parade the... required to remain in public view while the citation process is going on?\nDo you have any concerns about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [706.144, 708.656, 728.948], "stop_times": [708.656, 728.948, 730.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 706.144}, "reply_to": "20589__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__0_061", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Well, I obviously have.\nYes, Justice Kennedy, I obviously have a concern.\nThe point we're making, though, is that removing a driver doesn't eliminate the danger that we talked about in Mimms.\nThe passenger has equal access to the same revolver that Mr. Mimms would have had, so removing the driver does not eliminate the problem.\nYes, I admit, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [730.32, 734.201, 736.535, 746.72, 755.786], "stop_times": [734.201, 736.535, 746.72, 755.786, 758.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.32}, "reply_to": "20589__0_060", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_062", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Or suppose the passenger has certain dementia.\nIt's an old parent who, left to his own, will just wander away and not even understand what was being said to him, but automatically you're going to get this passenger out and require him to stay, and if he doesn't understand, shoot him.\n[Laughter]\nYou know.\nI just... this can be carried to extremes, and you seem to don't even recognize that there might be a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [758.138, 761.7, 777.991, 779.161, 779.892], "stop_times": [761.7, 777.991, 779.161, 779.892, 785.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.138}, "reply_to": "20589__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_063", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--I do understand, Justice O'Connor, there is a difference.\nI'm simply suggesting this, that removing the driver does not remove the danger.\nIn fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [785.836, 788.528, 793.992], "stop_times": [788.528, 793.992, 794.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.836}, "reply_to": "20589__0_062", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_064", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Everybody agrees with that.\nI just... everybody agrees with that, but the question is the risk of abuse.\nNow, I notice in the opinion, but I... maybe it's in the briefs and I didn't see it... it says several jurisdictions already have extended Mimms to passengers.\nIs there any indication that there are any of these problems, or there are not these problems, in the other jurisdictions that have already adopted the rule that you want?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [794.883, 795.654, 800.015, 811.221], "stop_times": [795.654, 800.015, 811.221, 822.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.883}, "reply_to": "20589__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20589__0_065", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Your Honor, I am not able to say that I have researched the cases in the other jurisdictions, but indeed I will tell you that there are a majority... there are 20 States that have ruled the way Maryland wishes to rule, and there are five... including the District of Columbia, so there are 21 areas, including there are five, four or five Federal circuit courts, mostly in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [822.82], "stop_times": [844.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.82}, "reply_to": "20589__0_064", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_066", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "So we have to look at those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [844.294], "stop_times": [845.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.294}, "reply_to": "20589__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20589__0_067", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--There is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [845.626], "stop_times": [846.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.626}, "reply_to": "20589__0_066", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_068", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "We have to look those up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [846.127], "stop_times": [846.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.127}, "reply_to": "20589__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20589__0_069", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--A substantial majority have ruled this way.\nThere's five that have ruled against us, to be honest with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [846.747, 850.739], "stop_times": [850.739, 852.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.747}, "reply_to": "20589__0_068", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_070", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "I have another question which I wanted to ask, which is that I didn't know until this argument that you are suggesting that the police should have the right to detain the passenger.\nI thought that you were... after... suppose the passenger gets out of the car, and the policeman asks him to, and then he says, I'm fed up with this.\nI want to take a bus.\nAnd the bus goes along, and he takes it.\nAre you arguing that the policeman should be free to tell him no, you can't take the bus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [852.632, 863.708, 872.163, 873.585, 876.276], "stop_times": [863.708, 872.163, 873.585, 876.276, 880.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.632}, "reply_to": "20589__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20589__0_071", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [880.829], "stop_times": [882.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.829}, "reply_to": "20589__0_070", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_072", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Where is... I didn't find that in your brief, and I don't know what the rationale for that would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [882.669], "stop_times": [886.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.669}, "reply_to": "20589__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20589__0_073", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "It is in our brief and in our argument in terms of the ability to control, Your Honor, the location.\nThe individual may say, I wish to take a bus and go elsewhere.\nThe officer need not accept that as real.\nThe officer is still concerned about his genuine safety, and the only way he can really make certain it is a safe stop is to control the location--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [886.633, 894.038, 897.609, 901.002], "stop_times": [894.038, 897.609, 901.002, 909.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.633}, "reply_to": "20589__0_072", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_074", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "General Curran, you did say that it would only be to show his hands, that he could not be frisked.\nThe officer could not question the passenger without the passenger's consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [909.947, 918.823], "stop_times": [918.823, 922.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.947}, "reply_to": "20589__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__0_075", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [922.856], "stop_times": [924.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.856}, "reply_to": "20589__0_074", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_076", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "So once he shows his hands, then he can walk away and hail a cab?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [924.097], "stop_times": [927.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.097}, "reply_to": "20589__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__0_077", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [927.298], "stop_times": [928.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.298}, "reply_to": "20589__0_076", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_078", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, what can he do, then?\nCan you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [928.04, 930.431], "stop_times": [930.431, 932.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.04}, "reply_to": "20589__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__0_079", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Our rule would ask the passenger to get out, to stand in a certain location described by the officer, to show his hands, and to remain there for the 10 minutes while the information is obtained about the license and the registration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [932.193], "stop_times": [946.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.193}, "reply_to": "20589__0_078", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_080", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--So he just has to stand there.\nHe can't be questioned and he can't be frisked, but he's not free to leave until the officer says, okay, I'm done, you can go.\nThat's the rule you want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [946.191, 947.603, 953.685], "stop_times": [947.603, 953.685, 954.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.191}, "reply_to": "20589__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__0_081", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, or the officer may, with discretion, as we've talked about in Class, permit the passenger to remain in the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [954.907], "stop_times": [961.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 954.907}, "reply_to": "20589__0_080", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_082", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "General Curran, can I ask this one question?\nYou suggested as a justification for that that the passenger is already seized, just like the driver.\nThey're both forced to stop.\nBut the driver has been lawfully taken into custody during the investigation.\nThere's no lawful authority to take the passenger into custody.\nHe's seized in the sense the car had to stop, but he's not legally seized, is he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [961.341, 963.242, 968.107, 969.897, 974.619, 978.182], "stop_times": [963.242, 968.107, 969.897, 974.619, 978.182, 981.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.341}, "reply_to": "20589__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__0_083", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [981.515], "stop_times": [982.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 981.515}, "reply_to": "20589__0_082", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_084", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "General, as you have put the case, you really just want the officer to have the opportunity to exercise judgment in deciding whether the passenger ought to get out or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [982.276], "stop_times": [994.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.276}, "reply_to": "20589__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__0_085", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [994.904], "stop_times": [995.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.904}, "reply_to": "20589__0_084", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_086", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Why doesn't Terry give you the authority for that?\nI assume, for example, that in this case under the principles of Terry, with all the movement of the car, the ducking around and so on, that the officer probably would have had the authority at least to go as far as Terry would have let him go in asking or satisfying himself that the passenger wasn't a danger.\nWhy isn't Terry enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [995.363, 999.647, 1017.609], "stop_times": [999.647, 1017.609, 1018.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.363}, "reply_to": "20589__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__0_087", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Your Honor, we would have thought that there was justification for a reasonable suspicion in the Wilson case.\nHowever, we don't believe it's appropriate to have the officer try to wait for some level of risk to arise if he or she waits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1018.799, 1025.083], "stop_times": [1025.083, 1034.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.799}, "reply_to": "20589__0_086", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_088", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But I thought your argument was that the officer was going to exercise judgment, and if your argument now is that he doesn't have to wait for some indication of risk, then I think you're really saying the officer as a routine matter is going to order every passenger out of the car, so I think that's a difference in your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1034.618], "stop_times": [1053.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.618}, "reply_to": "20589__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__0_089", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--I'm not so sure that's the case, Justice Souter, because as I say, the typical training in our manual, which indicates... and I believe it's typical across the Nation... is to require both the driver and the passenger to remain in the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1053.202], "stop_times": [1064.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.202}, "reply_to": "20589__0_088", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_090", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, my understanding was that you want a holding that lets the officer at the officer's discretion require all parties to exit or no parties to exit, but if he wants all parties to exit, they must, and you want the right, then, to detain the passengers who have exited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1064.36], "stop_times": [1084.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.36}, "reply_to": "20589__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_091", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, for this minimal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1084.672], "stop_times": [1087.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.672}, "reply_to": "20589__0_090", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_092", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, all right, but the Fourth Amendment, after all, is based on reasonableness.\nThat's been the requirement all along, and should there be no reasonableness requirement on the matter of detaining passengers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1087.504, 1092.397], "stop_times": [1092.397, 1100.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.504}, "reply_to": "20589__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_093", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--We believe, Justice O'Connor, that the reasonableness factor is best weighed by the balancing test that the Court has used again and again, the high governmental interest against this minimal intrusion against what is already a de minimis privacy expectation of the passenger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1100.824], "stop_times": [1118.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.824}, "reply_to": "20589__0_092", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_094", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "And in circumstances where it isn't a de minimis intrusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1118.134], "stop_times": [1123.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.134}, "reply_to": "20589__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__0_095", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nMay I be permitted to reserve the balance of my time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1123.477, 1125.067], "stop_times": [1125.067, 1127.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.477}, "reply_to": "20589__0_094", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__0_096", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Very well, General Curran.\nWe'll hear now from the Attorney General, Ms. Reno.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1127.709, 1128.991], "stop_times": [1128.991, 1132.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.709}, "reply_to": "20589__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__1_000", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nTraffic stops present special dangers to police officers.\nThey're faced with an unknown situation, an unknown area, they're faced with little knowledge, if any knowledge of the occupants of the car, and they are vulnerable to attack not just from the driver but from the passenger.\nIn Mimms, this Court found that these safety concerns justify a per se rule that an officer in a valid traffic stop can order the driver to exit the vehicle.\nWe submit that Mimms should be applied to passengers for three reasons on the issue of order to exit.\nFirst, the driver... the officer has to focus on the driver in implementing the traffic stop and in securing the information with respect to a license or to the vehicle.\nHe cannot monitor the passenger's conduct at the same time.\nThe focus in Mimms was on the inordinate risk, and the Court made specific reference to the inordinate risk as an officer approaches a person seated in the car, and the Court specifically said that the officer had no reason in Mimms to believe that the officer was suspect as to foul play, so it was the focus on a person seated in the car that created the danger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1132.063, 1142.251, 1146.462, 1158.781, 1169.166, 1175.571, 1185.609, 1189.863], "stop_times": [1142.251, 1146.462, 1158.781, 1169.166, 1175.571, 1185.609, 1189.863, 1213.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1132.063}, "reply_to": "20589__0_096", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_001", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "General Reno, you want no reasonableness limitation on this.\nI suppose that means that a police officer could stop a bus and say, everybody off the bus.\nOr... you know, does vehicle size come into it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1213.636, 1217.248, 1223.804], "stop_times": [1217.248, 1223.804, 1227.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.636}, "reply_to": "20589__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__1_002", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat might be a more difficult question for the Court, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1227.807, 1228.065], "stop_times": [1228.065, 1230.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1227.807}, "reply_to": "20589__1_001", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_003", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, not for you.\nYou want no reasonableness limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1230.568, 1231.247], "stop_times": [1231.247, 1233.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.568}, "reply_to": "20589__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__1_004", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Again, the bus situation can be an unknown situation for that officer, and he needs the opportunity, under our position, to be able to size up the situation, to determine and observe the people involved, and he may determine that he wishes them to stay in or to exit.\nPolice practices indicate that both are appropriate, depending on the stage of the traffic stop and depending on the circumstances of the traffic stop.\nWe are submitting that under the... this Court's rule in Mimms, it is the persons seated in the vehicle that create the danger and the approach to that danger, and a police officer should not have to calibrate what is in... critical and what is not critical.\nHe should be able to size up the situation, determine who's there, get full view of them when appropriate, get them out of the car to neutralize the situation, to get them away from the gun, and we submit that the intrusion is de minimis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1233.139, 1255.523, 1263.758, 1280.551], "stop_times": [1255.523, 1263.758, 1280.551, 1296.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1233.139}, "reply_to": "20589__1_003", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_005", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, why isn't Terry enough?\nI mean, your argument is that he ought to be able to size up the situation.\nTerry gives him a chance to size up the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1296.36, 1297.952, 1301.605], "stop_times": [1297.952, 1301.605, 1304.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.36}, "reply_to": "20589__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__1_006", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Terry might not have given, if the passenger had been in the same situation as Mimms with a gun in his... under his sports coat, he might not have been able to see that seated in the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1304.256], "stop_times": [1315.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1304.256}, "reply_to": "20589__1_005", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_007", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, then I think what you're really arguing, and I think this was what the Attorney General from Maryland was really arguing, is you really don't so much want him to size up the situation.\nYou simply want to have the right to get him out of the car, period.\nIt's not going to be a question of judgment.\nIt's going to be a question of routine practice, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1315.983, 1326.78, 1329.772, 1333.154], "stop_times": [1326.78, 1329.772, 1333.154, 1335.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.983}, "reply_to": "20589__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__1_008", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nAs this Court has pointed out and as police practice points out, in many instances they will want them to stay in the car.\nIf one officer is on the scene, he may want them all in the car so he can better control them, or if the lighting is such or the circumstances are such or the window is such that he wants the passenger whom he has seen looking at him in a curious way, he may want him out of the car to determine whether he has a weapon on his person.\nIt's going to depend on so many different circumstances--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1335.386, 1336.367, 1342.821, 1362.263], "stop_times": [1336.367, 1342.821, 1362.263, 1364.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1335.386}, "reply_to": "20589__1_007", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_009", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But may I interrupt with just this one thought that crosses my mind?\nDo you think the officer is greater or less danger, if there's a passenger sitting in the car with the gun in his jacket as you describe, if he tells him to get out of the car?\nIs he less or... which situation would he be more apt to use the gun in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1364.814, 1368.227, 1378.084], "stop_times": [1368.227, 1378.084, 1382.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.814}, "reply_to": "20589__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__1_010", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--One cannot say when... how he would be more apt to use the gun.\nWhat he can say is that there would be situations where that gun may not be observed as the passenger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1382.146, 1386.59], "stop_times": [1386.59, 1391.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1382.146}, "reply_to": "20589__1_009", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_011", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Right.\nIt would certainly help to arrest people who carry guns, that's right.\nI see you would catch more gun-carriers, but I don't think that's the justification you're advancing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1391.293, 1391.693, 1394.694], "stop_times": [1391.693, 1394.694, 1398.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.293}, "reply_to": "20589__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__1_012", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--That is... the justification that I'm advancing is that that officer should have the ability to immediately size up the situation, determine if there is any reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is armed, and then advance to Terry frisk if that is appropriate, but that he should have the opportunity to control the situation if he is the single officer on the scene before the backup comes, to keep them in the car so that he doesn't have a person moving here, here, and here, or to get them out of the car if there are circumstances that dictate that they should be out of the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1398.737], "stop_times": [1430.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1398.737}, "reply_to": "20589__1_011", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_013", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "General Reno, you are arguing for a bright line test, and I'm wondering how that squares with the very recent decision of this Court in Robinette, which said that reasonableness is always case-by-case totality of the circumstances, and yet here you're saying that it's reasonable in any and all circumstances for the police officer to say, everybody out, or everybody in.\nThat doesn't go case-by-case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1430.278, 1453.192], "stop_times": [1453.192, 1455.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.278}, "reply_to": "20589__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__1_014", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "In Robinette, Your Honor, the Court specifically cited it would favor the Mimms decision, and concluded... pointed out that Mimms, considering all the totality of the circumstances, that it was reasonable in light of the safety concern for the officer that was more than balanced against the de minimis intrusion into the passenger's personal security, that in those totality of circumstances it was reasonable, under Mimms, to justify it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1455.934], "stop_times": [1485.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1455.934}, "reply_to": "20589__1_013", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_015", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "General Reno, how much of a problem is it in the States that haven't adopted this rule?\nHow often does a citizen who has been told to stay in the car or told to get out, in those States that require a reasonable suspicion, at least, on the part of the officer, how often have those citizens sued and recovered?\nI mean, is it a real problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1485.042, 1489.917, 1506.938], "stop_times": [1489.917, 1506.938, 1508.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.042}, "reply_to": "20589__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__1_016", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "I don't have any information that I could provide to you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1508.33], "stop_times": [1511.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1508.33}, "reply_to": "20589__1_015", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_017", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Let me ask you a question on something that frankly I think I should have done some looking into before I came on the bench, but I didn't.\nHas this Court ever ruled on the authority of an officer to control members of the public generally when making, let's say, an arrest in a public place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1511.991, 1521.297], "stop_times": [1521.297, 1531.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.991}, "reply_to": "20589__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__1_018", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "I'm not familiar with the opinion, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1531.054], "stop_times": [1534.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1531.054}, "reply_to": "20589__1_017", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_019", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "I'm not, either.\nThere may not be one.\nThere are holdings, are there not, on control of a crime scene, to require people to stay away while they assemble evidence and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1534.197, 1535.756, 1536.848], "stop_times": [1535.756, 1536.848, 1544.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.197}, "reply_to": "20589__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__1_020", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "At a crime scene, if someone entered in beyond the crime rope there would definitely be authority to control, and it would depend on the State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1544.993], "stop_times": [1553.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1544.993}, "reply_to": "20589__1_019", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_021", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Do you think a policeman is more at risk from a passenger in the car than from the bystanders who congregate when the stop is made?\nWhy is he more at risk from the passenger, bearing in mind that the car has been stopped only for a traffic vio... I mean, if the car has been stopped because of suspicion of drugs, that would be something else, but let's assume it's just a speeding violation.\nIs an officer usually more at risk from the passenger than from bystanders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1553.33, 1564.407, 1577.323], "stop_times": [1564.407, 1577.323, 1581.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.33}, "reply_to": "20589__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__1_022", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "The issue with respect to a traffic stop, Your Honor, is the unknown, the danger in approaching the vehicle.\nThe danger in approaching people seated in the vehicle is what the Court in Mimms specifically referred to.\nIn the instance where you have people who are bystanders you have an opportunity to observe them to make an appropriate decision, but in the situation with the automobile, he's approaching an automobile.\nHe doesn't know what's in it.\nHe can't see into it from his patrol car.\nHe doesn't know who's there.\nHe can't see their actions fully.\nThat is the issue that makes this situation different than the situation of bystanders who may be in plain view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1581.798, 1588.423, 1594.745, 1607.243, 1608.705, 1611.097, 1612.539, 1614.629], "stop_times": [1588.423, 1594.745, 1607.243, 1608.705, 1611.097, 1612.539, 1614.629, 1621.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1581.798}, "reply_to": "20589__1_021", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_023", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "The concealment thing.\nDo you agree, General... Ms. Reno with the Attorney General from Maryland that the passengers who have been told to exit can be required to remain and not take the taxi or leave?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1621.823, 1622.844], "stop_times": [1622.844, 1635.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1621.823}, "reply_to": "20589__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__1_024", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "That's not the issue before the Court, but we would submit that it would be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1635.003], "stop_times": [1639.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1635.003}, "reply_to": "20589__1_023", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_025", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "So that this is a prolonged seizure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1639.985], "stop_times": [1643.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.985}, "reply_to": "20589__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__1_026", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "It is not a prolonged seizure because this Court in Berkemer has referred to traffic stops.\nIt applies to routine traffic stops.\nIt applies to a brief, temporary stop, and under those circumstances the officer should be able to see the person as they exit the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1643.167, 1648.41, 1650.811], "stop_times": [1648.41, 1650.811, 1661.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1643.167}, "reply_to": "20589__1_025", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_027", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, we know that when they check licenses on their radio and hold the passenger it can sometimes take 15 or 20 minutes for a routine traffic stop, can it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1661.289], "stop_times": [1671.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.289}, "reply_to": "20589__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__1_028", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "It can, and the Court has recognized that is usually of that duration, but that is a limited duration in which the police officer can have the opportunity to size up the situation and see whether the person presents a threat.\nFor example, if the person got out of the automobile, and this is not the issue before the Court, and suddenly ran into the bushes and... the officer, we submit, ought to be able to control that situation so he can first determine the risk to him before the person departs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1671.377, 1684.634], "stop_times": [1684.634, 1701.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1671.377}, "reply_to": "20589__1_027", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_029", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Let's assume for the sake of argument that we do not adopt the rule that goes as far as you have just suggested it should, that... let's assume our... under our rule, once the passenger is out of the car, if the passenger wants to go, he can.\nIf that is the limit of the detention allowed, is the situation of the passenger in any significantly different... is the situation of the passenger significantly different from that of a bystander in the course of a public arrest somewhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1701.806, 1719.616], "stop_times": [1719.616, 1735.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.806}, "reply_to": "20589__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__1_030", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1735.328], "stop_times": [1736.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1735.328}, "reply_to": "20589__1_029", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_031", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1736.747], "stop_times": [1737.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.747}, "reply_to": "20589__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__1_032", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--complete the answer, Your Honor?\nIn that situation, if the person were free to go, again the officer would have the opportunity to observe him, to see whether there was a basis for a reasonable suspicion that would justify a frisk, or justify action to protect the officer's safety in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1737.699, 1738.58], "stop_times": [1738.58, 1756.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1737.699}, "reply_to": "20589__1_031", "speaker": "janet_reno"}
{"id": "20589__1_033", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Reno.\nMr. Warnken, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1756.442, 1760.116], "stop_times": [1760.116, 1762.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.442}, "reply_to": "20589__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__2_000", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe State of Maryland asks this Court today to draw a bright line that would permit a compelled detention essentially ultimately equalling perhaps the level of an arrest as to every single passenger in every single vehicle in every single circumstance for every single officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1762.175, 1771.072], "stop_times": [1771.072, 1792.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1762.175}, "reply_to": "20589__1_033", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_001", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, Mr. Warnken, may I just ask you the same question that I asked Ms. Reno?\nLet's assume that the bright line rule allowed nothing more than requiring the passenger to get out of the car so that if the passenger then said, I've had enough of this, I'm leaving, the passenger, so far as the bright line rule is concerned, would be allowed to go.\nAssume that.\nIn fact, the passenger says, thank goodness.\nThis guy was speeding.\nI am so glad to get out of this car.\n[Laughter]\nLet me catch the nearest cab and go--\n--You can see what Justice Scalia's passengers tend to feel like.\nAssuming that Justice Scalia is the one who has been stopped and it's his passenger--\n--who is then free to go, would the bright line rule simply allowing the officer to say, get out, give the officer any greater authority than the officer has in the case of sort of the public arrest, in which people are congregating around and the officer says, stay back, or get away, or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1792.587, 1797.65, 1812.658, 1813.268, 1816.069, 1817.191, 1836.813, 1819.371, 1821.424, 1830.34, 1838.155], "stop_times": [1797.65, 1812.658, 1813.268, 1816.069, 1817.191, 1836.813, 1819.371, 1821.424, 1830.34, 1838.155, 1860.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.587}, "reply_to": "20589__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__2_002", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Souter, I think the answer is that the bright line should not be drawn there.\nI certainly concede of the various places on the continuum that would be probably the next best place to the one the State of Maryland has asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1860.569, 1866.392], "stop_times": [1866.392, 1874.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.569}, "reply_to": "20589__2_001", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_003", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Okay, but I'm not sure that responds to my question, because my question is, if the bright line would allow the officer to go no further than to say either get out or stay in, would the officer have any... be having any greater authority there than the officer presumably does when making a public arrest, in which he is allowed to control bystanders in the crowd by telling them to stay away?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1874.88], "stop_times": [1896.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.88}, "reply_to": "20589__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__2_004", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Souter, I think that would be different.\nThe reason that would be different is that in the arrest scenario, where you are arresting one individual, the other people have nothing to do with that and simply you're using the crowd control of letting them not join where you are, if you will.\nBut here we're talking something different in that, as was pointed out earlier, this individual has done nothing wrong.\nThis individual already--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1896.892, 1899.044, 1913.245, 1919.978], "stop_times": [1899.044, 1913.245, 1919.978, 1921.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.892}, "reply_to": "20589__2_003", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_005", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "No, but in the case of the public arrest the person who is being told to stay back 12 feet would normally... has done nothing wrong and would normally be able to walk up and down the sidewalk.\nThat person can go back the 12 feet or whatever and say, I don't want to stay here any longer, and walk away, but at least within a certain zone in which the officer is operating, the officer can control people who come along, and those people who come along are no more or less innocent, I suppose, than the passenger, so why shouldn't the passenger be in the same boat with the bystander?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1921.43, 1932.376], "stop_times": [1932.376, 1955.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.43}, "reply_to": "20589__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__2_006", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice Souter, on first blush it may appear that those situations are similar.\nI think the reason they are different is that the passenger, once being made to get out, if Your Honors draw the bright line there, as has been pointed out before, the police will push that limit and, in fact, once you have the valid stop of that vehicle, United States v. Sharpe and numerous other cases from this Court would probably permit about a half-an-hour, case-by-case basis, on how long you could detain, which means, Your Honor, that making the passenger get out would have the functional equivalent, particularly if there was a bright line and the police could do anything in any case, allowing the passenger to be detained, even though it started as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1955.672, 1960.726], "stop_times": [1960.726, 1996.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1955.672}, "reply_to": "20589__2_005", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_007", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, the passenger will be detained during the stop unless under Justice Souter's hypothesis the passenger is free to walk away, but it's a voluntary thing.\nIt may not be too voluntary if you're out on the desert somewhere, but if you're in an airport, if you're being driven to the airport by somebody and you have a chance to catch a plane if you get a cab it might make quite a bit of difference.\nBut I don't see why it would necessarily follow that the passenger is detained for 30 minutes if the driver is detained for 30 minutes, under the hypothesis Justice Souter proposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [1996.227, 2006.714, 2019.574], "stop_times": [2006.714, 2019.574, 2028.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.227}, "reply_to": "20589__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__2_008", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--If this Court were to draw a bright line, Mr. Chief Justice, wherein the only authority that law enforcement had as to the passenger when there is no evidence of officer safety issues and no wrongdoing on the passengers, if the bright line were only to require that individual to get out of the car momentarily, that would perhaps be permissible.\nBut, Your Honor, once we've got the stop, as Your Honor points out, in most cases the individual would not have the opportunity to walk away.\nIt simply wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2028.979, 2053.995, 2060.931], "stop_times": [2053.995, 2060.931, 2061.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.979}, "reply_to": "20589__2_007", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_009", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But under your rule he'll be detained anyway.\nHe's sitting in the car rather than standing outside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2061.679, 2065.693], "stop_times": [2065.693, 2068.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.679}, "reply_to": "20589__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__2_010", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Your Honor, although it is not the rule we are asking for, I concede that Justice Souter's drawing... potential drawing of the bright line is the least onerous of the bright lines that would be possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2068.264], "stop_times": [2082.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.264}, "reply_to": "20589__2_009", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_011", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "And then you--\n--It doesn't help the mother with the baby in the snowstorm very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2082.112, 2083.185], "stop_times": [2083.185, 2087.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2082.112}, "reply_to": "20589__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__2_012", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Absolutely correct, which is why, Your Honor, we have urged that to draw a bright line at all will have the unintended effect of overruling Terry v. Ohio and its progeny, Mr. Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2087.926], "stop_times": [2099.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.926}, "reply_to": "20589__2_011", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_013", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Isn't the practical answer to this case that officers really aren't going to ask everybody to get out.\nThey're only going to ask them to get out when they're a little worried about the high crime neighborhood, and the darkness, and so forth.\nThen they've got Terry justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2099.006, 2103.067, 2108.423], "stop_times": [2103.067, 2108.423, 2111.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.006}, "reply_to": "20589__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__2_014", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Your Honor, that is absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2111.562], "stop_times": [2113.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.562}, "reply_to": "20589__2_013", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_015", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Is that correct?\nDo you know what the practice is in those States that have adopted a you-can-do-it-all-the-time kind of a rule?\nDo they do it all the time, or don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2113.044, 2114.346, 2120.05], "stop_times": [2114.346, 2120.05, 2121.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.044}, "reply_to": "20589__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__2_016", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Scalia, there is no firm information.\nWe have tried to obtain training manuals from various jurisdictions, and it seems to be relatively vague, and seems to extend discretion to the officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2121.811, 2124.793], "stop_times": [2124.793, 2133.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.811}, "reply_to": "20589__2_015", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_017", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Mr. Warnken, I think that General Curran told us that the more usual practice is to tell the people you must stay inside.\nAre you disputing that that's so in the cases that give the officer the option?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2133.247, 2140.563], "stop_times": [2140.563, 2146.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.247}, "reply_to": "20589__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__2_018", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I absolutely agree that the custom and usage within law enforcement agencies is, if given the option, to not have the people get out of the car.\nKeep the people in the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2146.147, 2155.573], "stop_times": [2155.573, 2156.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.147}, "reply_to": "20589__2_017", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_019", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But you say that's no good, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2156.632], "stop_times": [2157.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.632}, "reply_to": "20589__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__2_020", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "What I'm saying, Your Honor... Justice Scalia, what I'm saying is that to give the police the unfettered standardless discretion is the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2157.754], "stop_times": [2167.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.754}, "reply_to": "20589__2_019", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_021", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "To... either to keep them in or to make them get out, either one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2167.969], "stop_times": [2170.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.969}, "reply_to": "20589__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__2_022", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nJustice Scalia, if we examine the case law we already have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2170.921, 2171.843], "stop_times": [2171.843, 2175.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.921}, "reply_to": "20589__2_021", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_023", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "I just want to make it clear.\nIn your view, the passengers have a right to exit whether... even if the officer does not want them to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2175.305, 2176.265], "stop_times": [2176.265, 2182.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.305}, "reply_to": "20589__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__2_024", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, that is correct, in that there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2182.589], "stop_times": [2187.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.589}, "reply_to": "20589__2_023", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_025", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "I'm not sure we're just... we have to decide that case here, but it... I'd like to know what the rule would be.\nThat, it seems to me very... could be very dangerous to the officers.\nOr if he was to say, well, we're getting out to see what's going on here, you've got two or three doors opening... I think that would be a very dangerous rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2187.053, 2191.825, 2197.099], "stop_times": [2191.825, 2197.099, 2203.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.053}, "reply_to": "20589__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__2_026", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, let's examine the continuum.\nI think that in that this Court must balance, in that this Court has already held that there is a legitimate and weighty interest in public safety for the officer, that's the one side of the equation.\nThe other side of the equation for balancing, Your Honors, is where must the Fourth Amendment and where must the individual interests of the individual be balanced to accommodate that need.\nAnd what we are saying, Your Honors, is that the one place this Court's prior case law would not let that line be drawn and the one place reasonableness would not be accommodated, would be to draw the line all the way at the bottom, saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2203.563, 2207.617, 2219.214, 2229.161], "stop_times": [2207.617, 2219.214, 2229.161, 2242.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.563}, "reply_to": "20589__2_025", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_027", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "What about the Attorney General's view?\nWhat I heard her say was a brief, temporary stop.\nI.e., you can tell the passenger to stay inside, you can tell the passenger can come out, as long as it's brief and temporary.\nI mean, I take it... I don't know the minutes.\nIt sounded like minutes, not 30 minutes.\nIt sounded like the time it takes to write up a traffic ticket.\nWhat about that as a line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2242.168, 2244.6, 2247.921, 2257.018, 2260.09, 2261.85, 2264.812], "stop_times": [2244.6, 2247.921, 2257.018, 2260.09, 2261.85, 2264.812, 2266.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.168}, "reply_to": "20589__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20589__2_028", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice Breyer, one of the potential problems with that as the law is that brief to all of us sounds like, stand outside for a few moments, and I think, Your Honor, that what would happen would be, under the case law from this Court, that will pretty much defer to the natural steps that an officer must take to effectuate a traffic stop, effectuate an arrest.\nThe case law has indicated there is no bright line on time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2266.865, 2288.678], "stop_times": [2288.678, 2292.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.865}, "reply_to": "20589__2_027", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_029", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "So what's your line, then?\nYour line... is your line that if the man who is the passenger wants to stay in the car he can do it, regardless?\nIf he wants to get out of the car, he can do it, regardless.\nIs that your line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2292.491, 2293.943, 2300.936, 2303.648], "stop_times": [2293.943, 2300.936, 2303.648, 2305.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.491}, "reply_to": "20589__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20589__2_030", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Breyer, that is... that is my line on this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2305.04], "stop_times": [2308.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.04}, "reply_to": "20589__2_029", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_031", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes, but I thought--\n--No, it's not.\nNo, that's not your line on--\n--You say he can keep him in if he has a reasonable suspicion, at least.\nSure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2308.773, 2309.865, 2310.125, 2310.786, 2313.077], "stop_times": [2309.865, 2310.125, 2310.786, 2313.077, 2313.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.773}, "reply_to": "20589__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__2_032", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Your Honor, I was saying Justice Scalia, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2313.916], "stop_times": [2315.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.916}, "reply_to": "20589__2_031", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_033", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Ah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2315.849], "stop_times": [2316.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.849}, "reply_to": "20589__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__2_034", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--because we already have plenty of case law that if there is any evidence of officer safety, if there is any evidence of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2316.409], "stop_times": [2323.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.409}, "reply_to": "20589__2_033", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_035", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But what is that any evidence?\nI mean, here there was evidence that the officer testified I saw the passenger, and even more so the person in the back seat, ducking, bobbing up and down and making suspicious movements.\nThat was held by the trial judge, or at least some judge in Maryland to be insufficient to allow for a Terry stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2323.683, 2325.125, 2340.025], "stop_times": [2325.125, 2340.025, 2350.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.683}, "reply_to": "20589__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__2_036", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, you are correct on both counts.\nThat is to say, the judge held it not to be sufficient here, but I certainly agree with Your Honor's implicit statement as part of that that on this record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2350.07, 2352.592], "stop_times": [2352.592, 2363.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.07}, "reply_to": "20589__2_035", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_037", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But I would like to know what would be sufficient, since you said that a passenger fidgeting, ducking, making ducking motions, that wouldn't be sufficient.\nWhat would be sufficient to allow the officer to apprehend the passenger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2363.029, 2371.864], "stop_times": [2371.864, 2378.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.029}, "reply_to": "20589__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__2_038", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I did not necessarily mean that that would be insufficient, because, Your Honor, if the trial judge had on this record determined that there was reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio and its progeny, on this record, probably on appeal that would not have been found to be clearly erroneous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2378.88], "stop_times": [2397.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.88}, "reply_to": "20589__2_037", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_039", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, you see, that... part of that illustrates that... and sometimes bright line rules actually help our citizens.\nIf we rule in your favor, and it becomes generally known the Supreme Court says you do not have to get out of car, and then there are some ducking motions and the officer says, out, and the citizen says I don't have to get out, what do we have?\nWe have litigation.\nWe have doubt.\nWe have uncertainty.\nAnd this is not always helpful to the citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2397.411, 2402.865, 2418.855, 2419.536, 2420.335, 2421.267], "stop_times": [2402.865, 2418.855, 2419.536, 2420.335, 2421.267, 2424.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.411}, "reply_to": "20589__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20589__2_040", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Kennedy, this Court can easily paint... draw a line to fashion a rule that will fully accommodate the legitimate and weighty interest of Government in the safety of officers and still balance Fourth Amendment interests of the individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2424.659], "stop_times": [2438.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.659}, "reply_to": "20589__2_039", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_041", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But you just told me--\n--You mean Terry--\n--it would be case... it would be judge by judge, that on this very record one judge might have said, that's enough for Terry, and another judge might have said, no it isn't, and we would have this diversity in practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2438.708, 2439.209, 2440.281], "stop_times": [2439.209, 2440.281, 2454.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.708}, "reply_to": "20589__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__2_042", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, ever since Terry v. Ohio and its progeny, that's what we have had, and yet the States, the officers, the courts have not had a problem with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2454.218], "stop_times": [2464.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.218}, "reply_to": "20589__2_041", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_043", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "You don't have it in Mimms.\nMimms is a bright line rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2464.945, 2466.567], "stop_times": [2466.567, 2469.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.945}, "reply_to": "20589__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__2_044", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, that's correct, but the reason Mimms is a bright line rule is a combination of officer safety and the valid underlying stop of the driver.\nMimms really requires the both of them in order to work.\nThis, Your Honors, would be I believe the first time this Court would ever draw this type of bright line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2469.309, 2480.946, 2484.689], "stop_times": [2480.946, 2484.689, 2491.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2469.309}, "reply_to": "20589__2_043", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_045", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, it might be the first time that we did it, but I'm not sure that it would be much of an innovation, if at all, because it seems to me that the argument you're making, and in particular in your response to Justice Breyer's last question, you're saying in effect that an officer who stops a car on a highway has less capacity to control the people around him who might hurt him or interfere with what he is validly doing than he does if he makes an arrest in a public shopping mall.\nAnd if I'm wrong, tell me, but it seems to me you said he couldn't make him stay in the car, he couldn't make the passenger get out of the car, the passenger basically would have total freedom... in the absence of a Terry suspicion, articulable suspicion, the passenger would have total freedom to decide what to do.\nIf I'm walking down the street outside this Court and an arrest is going on, I presume I don't have complete autonomy to decide whether to walk up to the officer or between the officer and the person who's getting arrested and circle the scene, so why isn't it the case that on your answer the officer is in a worse position if he stops a car on the highway than if he makes an arrest on the sidewalk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2491.103, 2520.423, 2539.363], "stop_times": [2520.423, 2539.363, 2564.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.103}, "reply_to": "20589__2_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__2_046", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Souter, my answer to Justice Kennedy must be taken in the context of where I think this Court should fashion a rule.\nI'm suggesting to Your Honors that if there is, on the limited circumstances where there is no evidence of officer safety, and where there is no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2564.84, 2572.676], "stop_times": [2572.676, 2584.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.84}, "reply_to": "20589__2_045", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_047", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "No Terry suspicion, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2584.333], "stop_times": [2585.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.333}, "reply_to": "20589__2_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__2_048", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--That is correct, and again, this Court has deferred to the first level fact-finders.\nIf the fact-finder finds that there is on that record no evidence of officer safety, no evidence of reasonable suspicion of criminal or administrative wrongdoing, then the best place to draw the line, I believe, is the Fourth Amendment would be violated to intrude upon the passengers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2585.645, 2591.009], "stop_times": [2591.009, 2606.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.645}, "reply_to": "20589__2_047", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_049", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Okay.\nLet's assume we've got an arrest going on on the sidewalk, and I used to be an Attorney General, now I'm a judge.\nI'm interested in how these things work, so I want to get right up close and hear exactly what's being said between the officer and the person being arrested, so I walk up within 2 feet of what's going on.\nDoes the officer, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, at that point have the authority to say, uhoh, it's Souter.\n[Laughter]\nLet's get him back where he isn't going to mess things up.\nDoesn't the officer, consistently with the Fourth Amendment, have the authority to tell me to get back 6 feet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2606.558, 2606.908, 2614.203, 2625.671, 2632.915, 2633.856, 2639.189], "stop_times": [2606.908, 2614.203, 2625.671, 2632.915, 2633.856, 2639.189, 2644.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.558}, "reply_to": "20589__2_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20589__2_050", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Souter, the officer probably would have that authority, because, Your Honor, in the alternative to our asking you to draw no bright line at all, what this Court could do to fashion the rule would be to say, all of our continuing case law exists wherever we have any evidence of reasonable suspicion or fear of officer safety, and in addition, we will do as we did in cases like Florida v. Wells and United States v. Sokolow.\nWe will say that even when there is no evidence on that record, we will defer to the expertise of administrative agencies, law enforcement agencies in a profile-type situation.\nIf, based upon their experience, a certain set of scenarios does cause what many courts have referred to as the heightened caution, the heightened caution may be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2644.223, 2672.051, 2683.698], "stop_times": [2672.051, 2683.698, 2694.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.223}, "reply_to": "20589__2_049", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_051", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Mr. Warnken, this Court itself in dicta in Michigan v. Long referred to the right of officers to require all persons in a vehicle to exit, and many courts around the Nation have similarly thought that it... the Mimms principle extends to everyone in a vehicle at a traffic stop at least to get them out if the officer wants to get them out of the vehicle.\nI don't think the Court has ever addressed the additional argument raised here by Maryland that it also includes a right to detain.\nI don't think that has been addressed, really, has it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2694.566, 2725.606, 2737.093], "stop_times": [2725.606, 2737.093, 2739.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.566}, "reply_to": "20589__2_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_052", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, you are correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2739.614], "stop_times": [2741.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.614}, "reply_to": "20589__2_051", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_053", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Have we had any particular problems with the many jurisdictions that say Mimms does allow an officer to require everyone to get out?\nHave there been problems you can refer to, or statistics that you can indicate that this is a worse situation in such jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2741.995, 2753.324], "stop_times": [2753.324, 2762.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.995}, "reply_to": "20589__2_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_054", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice O'Connor, I... as to your last part of your question, I cannot, and that is because the way the statistics appear to be maintained on a national level, it includes all types of situations such as stops as well as pursuits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2762.879], "stop_times": [2775.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2762.879}, "reply_to": "20589__2_053", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_055", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "But you admit that many jurisdictions have followed what this Court at least said in dicta in Michigan v. Long and allowed officers to order people out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2775.578], "stop_times": [2785.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.578}, "reply_to": "20589__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_056", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2785.516], "stop_times": [2786.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.516}, "reply_to": "20589__2_055", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_057", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--in a traffic stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2786.224], "stop_times": [2786.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.224}, "reply_to": "20589__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_058", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, you're absolutely correct, there are a number of jurisdictions, as General Curran pointed out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2786.745], "stop_times": [2792.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.745}, "reply_to": "20589__2_057", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_059", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2792.249], "stop_times": [2792.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.249}, "reply_to": "20589__2_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_060", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--that believe that your earlier decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2792.709], "stop_times": [2795.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2792.709}, "reply_to": "20589__2_059", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_061", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2795.44], "stop_times": [2795.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.44}, "reply_to": "20589__2_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_062", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--in Mimms was extended to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2795.891], "stop_times": [2797.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2795.891}, "reply_to": "20589__2_061", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_063", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "And that doesn't appear to have offered any particular problems.\nI think what really troubles me is the point about how long can such a passenger be detained?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2797.033, 2801.335], "stop_times": [2801.335, 2811.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.033}, "reply_to": "20589__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_064", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, you're correct that there's no hard evidence as to one way or the other.\nThere is no hard evidence that having the power since Mimms has caused officer safety to be affected negatively or positively or not affected at all.\nYour Honor, this Court's dicta in Michigan v. Long was just that.\nThe Court had before it a very different context, determining whether, when you had not only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity but you also had reasonable suspicion of armed and dangerous.\nIn that scenario, the Court was merely addressing what would be the scope of that armed and dangerous, and the Court adopted the rationale from Belton to say that it would be the lunge, reach and grasp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2811.412, 2817.546, 2825.54, 2831.385, 2843.463], "stop_times": [2817.546, 2825.54, 2831.385, 2843.463, 2854.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.412}, "reply_to": "20589__2_063", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_065", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Mr. Warnken, I'm not sure I agree with you... in this balancing of the various interests you portray the passenger as being, you know, a wholly innocent individual as much a stranger to the whole incident as somebody who was standing on the curb and watched the traffic violation.\nBut in fact, unless you're being kidnapped you have voluntarily placed yourself in a vehicle driven by someone whom you know, and who violates the speed limit.\nWhy isn't it a reasonable consequence of that that when you do that you may trust this driver with a certain amount of your inconvenience?\nHe may cause you to have to get out of the car sometimes, even in the rain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2854.248, 2874.504, 2887.972, 2900.18], "stop_times": [2874.504, 2887.972, 2900.18, 2903.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.248}, "reply_to": "20589__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__2_066", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "And Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2903.802], "stop_times": [2905.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.802}, "reply_to": "20589__2_065", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_067", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Serve you right for driving with this fellow, or not saying, you know, you're going too fast, or whatever.\nIt's really not a totally innocent person as, oh, gee, you know, how did I get here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2905.153, 2910.996], "stop_times": [2910.996, 2915.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.153}, "reply_to": "20589__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__2_068", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2915.551], "stop_times": [2916.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.551}, "reply_to": "20589__2_067", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_069", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "He drove with a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2916.57], "stop_times": [2917.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.57}, "reply_to": "20589__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__2_070", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice Scalia, he may or may not be a totally innocent person.\nHe's certainly not a total stranger in most cases, as Your Honor just correctly pointed out.\nI dare say that probably the vast, vast majority of the people in this room within the last 3 to 4 hours have been either a driver or a passenger in a public or private conveyance, and I think when we get in a vehicle as a passenger we certainly have an expectation that in the event that the driver were to violate a traffic rule or regulation that in fact that vehicle will be stopped.\nWhat we don't have is an expectation that we can be compelled, demanded to get out of the vehicle and, were we to resist that, we could be forcibly taken from the vehicle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2917.171, 2920.713, 2923.906, 2948.202], "stop_times": [2920.713, 2923.906, 2948.202, 2959.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2917.171}, "reply_to": "20589__2_069", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_071", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Maybe if you had that expectation passengers would exert some influence over the drivers to drive more safely.\nFor Pete's sake, it's raining out.\nI don't want to have to get out of the car.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2959.899, 2966.722, 2969.206, 2970.386], "stop_times": [2966.722, 2969.206, 2970.386, 2971.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.899}, "reply_to": "20589__2_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__2_072", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, that we do have an expectation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2971.898], "stop_times": [2980.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.898}, "reply_to": "20589__2_071", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_073", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "What we really want is more back seat drivers, I guess.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2980.603, 2982.683], "stop_times": [2982.683, 2985.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.603}, "reply_to": "20589__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__2_074", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--We do have an expectation that we will not be arrested, and I think if you have unfettered discretion, standardless discretion, no requirement as in Wells or Sokolow that the agency promulgate any, some guidance to its officers, you may well have the equivalent of Dunaway v. New York, where this Court has to say that the way an individual has been forcibly detained would become the equivalent of an arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [2985.004], "stop_times": [3016.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.004}, "reply_to": "20589__2_073", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_075", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Wouldn't one expect to be some kind of witness to what occurred?\nFor example, one would have knowledge whether the driver had a seat belt, whether the driver was engaged in conversation... one would be a witness to what is a violation of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3016.576, 3020.588], "stop_times": [3020.588, 3040.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.576}, "reply_to": "20589__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__2_076", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I think the example you give and the example many members of this Court have given proves the very point that Justice Stevens noted in his dissent in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, and that is, passengers are not fungible goods.\nThere are a myriad of situations, and in fact we probably have... and we cite the statistics in our brief as to how we get to this number, but you probably have about 25 millionish passengers in this country per year who are, in fact, in a vehicle where there is no evidence of officer safety and no evidence of any wrongdoing other than a traffic violation of the driver, and that is why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3040.48, 3055.641], "stop_times": [3055.641, 3080.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3040.48}, "reply_to": "20589__2_075", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_077", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Where do you get the 25 million figure from, since figures seem to be hard to come by in this situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3080.678], "stop_times": [3086.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.678}, "reply_to": "20589__2_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__2_078", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Your Honor, as we conceded in our brief, Mr. Chief Justice, it was an interpolation, taking... using Maryland as a State where statistically it does have 1/50th of the population, 5 million out of 250 million, and taking the number of traffic cases that actually get as far as court to be docketed, and then assuming, as we did in our brief, that on the average there would be a passenger in a car probably one time out of two.\nAnd of course our numbers could be wrong, but the point is, it shows the extent to which the single biggest probably police-citizen encounter in our society today is a vehicle.\nWe don't have the officer that walks the beat.\nWe don't have the constable in the way we once did, and most of us, when we next meet a law enforcement officer when that individual is in the line of duty, it will be when we are driver or a passenger in a vehicle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3086.132, 3112.599, 3123.054, 3125.746], "stop_times": [3112.599, 3123.054, 3125.746, 3138.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3086.132}, "reply_to": "20589__2_077", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_079", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "May I ask if... I just don't remember your brief well enough.\nDo you discuss the hypothetical that Justice Souter gave you about maintaining order near an arrest scene?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3138.195, 3141.056], "stop_times": [3141.056, 3146.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.195}, "reply_to": "20589__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__2_080", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "No, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3146.57], "stop_times": [3148.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3146.57}, "reply_to": "20589__2_079", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_081", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Isn't the proper distinction there... and I'd just like you to comment on it, because I've trying to think it through as he raised the question... that in that situation nobody's seized?\nThey're told to stay away.\nIn your situation, the passenger is seized.\nHe's told to stay where he is, which is a very... at least analytically a different concept.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3148.312, 3155.686, 3157.158, 3159.89], "stop_times": [3155.686, 3157.158, 3159.89, 3165.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.312}, "reply_to": "20589__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20589__2_082", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Stevens, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3165.142], "stop_times": [3167.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.142}, "reply_to": "20589__2_081", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_083", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "I had not understood Justice Souter's hypothesis... I thought his hypothesis you can be told to get out of the car but you can't be detained.\nOnce you're out of the... once you've complied with that request, you're free to leave, unless there's... there is some Terry suspicion.\nI didn't express that when I put the hypo to you as distinct, I think, from the way I put it to Ms. Reno, but that's what I was assuming, that the passenger could go if he wanted to.\nBut if the passenger chose to stay at the scene, the officer could say either, you stay in the car or you get out.\nThat was the hypothesis that I--\n--Well, that's the hypothesis I was talking about, too, because by giving that order the police officer is exercising control to tell the person where to be at that particular moment by getting out of the car where he would rather stay in, but that's not true of the bystander who can't approach the scene.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3167.093, 3175.54, 3182.603, 3191.95, 3197.864, 3200.585], "stop_times": [3175.54, 3182.603, 3191.95, 3197.864, 3200.585, 3215.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.093}, "reply_to": "20589__2_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__2_084", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Stevens and Justice Souter, I certainly concede to this Court that were this Court to fashion a rule saying, State of Maryland, we reject your absolute, bright line, unlimited, unfettered discretion in all circumstances, but we will draw a line that would permit unfettered discretion, meaning a bright line to the limited extent of having the passenger exit the vehicle, and then the passenger having the complete discretion whether to get back into the vehicle, whether to leave, or any other reasonable steps the officer would take--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3215.566], "stop_times": [3249.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3215.566}, "reply_to": "20589__2_083", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_085", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, how about getting identification of who the passenger is and where they could be reached if they're needed to be a witness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3249.279], "stop_times": [3256.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3249.279}, "reply_to": "20589__2_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_086", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Your Honor, Justice O'Connor, I think the case law from this Court already would probably give an officer, if that officer had reason to believe that an individual were a witness to the crime, to try to seek that information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3256.475], "stop_times": [3268.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3256.475}, "reply_to": "20589__2_085", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_087", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Well, we're talking about a traffic stop.\nObviously, the passenger is a witness to speeding, or making a wrong turn, or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3268.9, 3270.402], "stop_times": [3270.402, 3276.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.9}, "reply_to": "20589__2_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20589__2_088", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice O'Connor, that is correct, which is why I stated earlier that this Court could fashion a line between the one end of the spectrum that we would like to see, which is, you need reasonable suspicion in each case, and the other end of the spectrum that the State of Maryland asks for, which is, you need nothing and anything, to say, the line is as follows:\nOur existing case law applies.\nAny reasonable suspicion of any wrong activity or officer's safety, of course the officer can then take reasonable steps; in addition, take all of these hypos that we discussed today and defer that back to the law enforcement agencies for them, based upon their expertise, just like you did in Sokolow, just like you did in Wells, for them to say, based upon their experience as experts in the area, what are the kinds of situations that truly create a heightened caution that would permit some type of activity, notwithstanding the failure to have any facts in that particular case.\nAnd in fact that's what this Court did when this Court ruled unanimously in Wells that it was not proper to do an inventory search when there was simply no guidance from the agency to the individual officers.\nThis Court referred it back, and since then agencies have had no problem examining those scenarios and coming up with situations just like agencies have since Sokolow in the profile cases.\nWhat are the kinds of situations, based on its experience as a law enforcement agency, that makes it reasonable in the following circumstances, following types of situations, the following is likely?\nThis Court has consistently given deference to administrative agencies, their expertise in the area, and we are not suggesting that be any different.\nWhat we are suggesting, Your Honor, is, when you weigh out the interest of law enforcement and safety and you weigh out individual rights, you can't give standardless, unlimited discretion to individual officers.\nThe best you should do is to give that discretion to administrative agencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3276.226, 3297.661, 3300.183, 3335.285, 3347.963, 3359.812, 3370.929, 3379.434, 3392.322], "stop_times": [3297.661, 3300.183, 3335.285, 3347.963, 3359.812, 3370.929, 3379.434, 3392.322, 3397.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3276.226}, "reply_to": "20589__2_087", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_089", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Which might be different in every State, and suppose... are you saying that if Maryland had a manual and said, after 5:00 p.m., it's beginning to get dark, the officer at that time can order the passenger out, and then if they had that rule, then we would defer to it and your client would legitimately have been asked to get out because it was after 5:00?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3397.145], "stop_times": [3420.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3397.145}, "reply_to": "20589__2_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__2_090", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that is probably correct.\nThis Court has recognized the 50 little laboratories, and we know that in inventory search cases, we know that in profile cases, basically that's what this Court has done now.\nIt has said that even though you don't have anything individualized in that case, if you can draw us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3420.671, 3422.201, 3430.707], "stop_times": [3422.201, 3430.707, 3437.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3420.671}, "reply_to": "20589__2_089", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_091", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Which would mean that if that's what your answer is, that all they need is a manual that says after 5:00 this is okay, then the next client like yours loses, because in... with your client it wasn't a question of detention.\nWhen your client exited the car the contraband exited with him, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3437.13, 3451.8], "stop_times": [3451.8, 3457.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.13}, "reply_to": "20589__2_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20589__2_092", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--It... yes, Your Honor.\nYes, Justice Ginsburg.\nIf Your Honors were to draw the line, for example where Justice Souter was suggesting earlier, or raising as a possibility earlier, of simply exiting, and then if this Court later decided that in fact that was such as to be reasonable, then in fact that would be permissible.\nBut of course, Your Honor, these standards that would be made by agencies, just like the profile cases today, would, of course, be subject to review as to whether they were unreasonable and extended too much or not sufficient guidance to individual officers.\nOfficer safety is at issue, but it cannot take all Fourth Amendment rights away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3457.705, 3459.948, 3461.407, 3479.199, 3494.489], "stop_times": [3459.948, 3461.407, 3479.199, 3494.489, 3500.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3457.705}, "reply_to": "20589__2_091", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_093", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Warnken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3500.263], "stop_times": [3501.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3500.263}, "reply_to": "20589__2_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__2_094", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Thank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3501.715], "stop_times": [3502.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3501.715}, "reply_to": "20589__2_093", "speaker": "byron_l_warnken"}
{"id": "20589__2_095", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "General Curran, you have a minute remaining.\nGeneral Curran, can you tell me why we... I resent being put in the position of deciding this case on speculation, as lawyers sometimes... you look at the ceiling well, if we do this, this will happen.\nYou're telling us that it will increase police safety if we adopt this automatic rule.\nNone of the briefs... and there's a brief here by 20 States or so... make any attempt to compare the assaults on police in the States that have the rule you're urging us to adopt and the States that don't have that rule, and that's the crucial question.\nWe know we're going to inconvenience citizens to some extent.\nWe don't know whether we're going to increase police safety.\nWhy... aren't those statistics available?\nWhy doesn't somebody come and say, this is the proof of what we're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3502.404, 3504.297, 3516.595, 3522.061, 3536.97, 3540.912, 3543.323, 3545.834], "stop_times": [3504.297, 3516.595, 3522.061, 3536.97, 3540.912, 3543.323, 3545.834, 3549.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3502.404}, "reply_to": "20589__2_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20589__3_000", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "May I answer, Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3549.027], "stop_times": [3550.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3549.027}, "reply_to": "20589__2_095", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__3_001", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Yes.\nI don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3550.489, 3550.85], "stop_times": [3550.85, 3551.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3550.489}, "reply_to": "20589__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20589__3_002", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "--Justice Scalia, you are right, we don't have the specific numbers, but may I infer from information we do have.\nSince Mimms, with the authority upheld for the police across the Nation to order the driver out, and since some 25 jurisdictions have believed that Mimms also conveys to the passengers, we do have data that shows that the percentage of deaths in traffic incidents have been reduced from about 30 percent to somewhere around 13 percent, so there is an inference that Mimms and its progeny within the States has, in fact, worked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3551.648, 3559.395], "stop_times": [3559.395, 3587.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3551.648}, "reply_to": "20589__3_001", "speaker": "j_joseph_curran_jr"}
{"id": "20589__3_003", "conversation_id": "20589", "text": "Thank you, General Curran.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1268", "start_times": [3587.352, 3588.852], "stop_times": [3588.852, 3590.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3587.352}, "reply_to": "20589__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_000", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-542, Walter McMillian v. Monroe County, Alabama.\nMr. Stevenson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [0.0, 8.856], "stop_times": [8.856, 10.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_001", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe are before the Court on the question of whether an Alabama county is liable for the unconstitutional actions of its sheriff where the county's voters select and elect the sheriff, where the county's Treasury funds the conduct of the sheriff, and where the sheriff's jurisdictional authority is limited to the status of the county as one of Alabama's 67 counties.\nAt the outset, I think in thinking about this issue it's important to acknowledge that no one disputes that the sheriff is a final policymaking... a final policymaker in the area of law enforcement.\nThe Eleventh Circuit found that the sheriff... Alabama law gives the sheriff in Alabama final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement.\nRespondent concedes that the sheriff has final policymaking authority in this area.\nThe issue arises--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [10.068, 13.23, 37.717, 49.995, 57.209, 62.381], "stop_times": [13.23, 37.717, 49.995, 57.209, 62.381, 64.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.068}, "reply_to": "20535__0_000", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_002", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, Mr. Stevenson, I assume that the plaintiff here also sued the sheriff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [64.144], "stop_times": [71.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.144}, "reply_to": "20535__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__0_003", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [71.097], "stop_times": [72.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 71.097}, "reply_to": "20535__0_002", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_004", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And if there's a judgment against the sheriff, who pays it in Alabama?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [72.218], "stop_times": [76.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 72.218}, "reply_to": "20535__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__0_005", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The evidence in this case is that it will be paid by the county.\nThat is, that the county has taken out an insurance policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [76.703, 80.293], "stop_times": [80.293, 83.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 76.703}, "reply_to": "20535__0_004", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_006", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "So what difference does it make whether you can join the county?\nIf you're going to get a judgment against the sheriff anyway, and it's going to be paid, what do you care?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [83.025, 85.797], "stop_times": [85.797, 90.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.025}, "reply_to": "20535__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__0_007", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, the policy is capped, Your Honor, and because we don't know yet whether the county has the option of disclaiming the conduct in question, then it does make a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [90.01], "stop_times": [101.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 90.01}, "reply_to": "20535__0_006", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_008", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, presumably if you sue the sheriff and get a judgment, somehow that money is going to be produced to pay the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [101.738], "stop_times": [109.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 101.738}, "reply_to": "20535__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__0_009", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's not required under Alabama law.\nThat is, what happened in this case is that there is evidence... and again, the evidence is not developed... that the county has elected to take out a policy which may cover the sheriff's conduct here, and while we think that's relevant in deciding the county's interest in this matter, it's not dispositive of whether the petitioner will have access to county funds, and it's certainly not required under Alabama law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [109.862, 111.865], "stop_times": [111.865, 132.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.862}, "reply_to": "20535__0_008", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_010", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "You suggest perhaps in other Alabama counties there might not be an insurance policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [132.329], "stop_times": [136.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.329}, "reply_to": "20535__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_011", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct, Justice... Chief Justice... Mr. Chief Justice, that there may not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [136.89], "stop_times": [140.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 136.89}, "reply_to": "20535__0_010", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_012", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, has there ever been a judgment against a sheriff in Alabama in a civil case or a 1983 case in the history of Alabama?\nHas there ever been a civil judgment against the sheriff in his capacity as sheriff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [140.553, 149.83], "stop_times": [149.83, 153.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.553}, "reply_to": "20535__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__0_013", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [153.883], "stop_times": [154.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.883}, "reply_to": "20535__0_012", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_014", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And have the judgments been paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [154.534], "stop_times": [156.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.534}, "reply_to": "20535__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__0_015", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Not necessarily by the counties, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [156.935], "stop_times": [160.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.935}, "reply_to": "20535__0_014", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_016", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But have they been paid, somehow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [160.058], "stop_times": [161.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 160.058}, "reply_to": "20535__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__0_017", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "It depends on the solvency of the sheriff.\nIf you mean, can the... can a judgment be collected by the individual sheriff, I think that's... yes, the answer to that question is yes.\nThat is, we can recover from the sheriff, but our position is obviously that where the sheriff was able to effect Mr. McMillian's, the petitioner's arrest, and to put him on death row pretrial, and to suppress evidence that was withheld from the prosecution, he did that because he had the power and status given to him by the county.\nWe think that 1983 ought not limit the remedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [161.907, 163.78, 170.182, 188.866], "stop_times": [163.78, 170.182, 188.866, 192.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 161.907}, "reply_to": "20535__0_016", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_018", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, maybe it was given to him by State law, or by the State constitution.\nCertainly the sheriff had the power and the authority to take the actions apparently that he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [192.278, 197.021], "stop_times": [197.021, 204.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.278}, "reply_to": "20535__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__0_019", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, yes, but under Alabama law the provisions that deal with the conduct in question here make it clear that he exercises that authority for the county.\nOn page--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [204.345, 214.033], "stop_times": [214.033, 214.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.345}, "reply_to": "20535__0_018", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_020", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, I suppose... correct me if I'm wrong.\nI would suppose that if in Alabama the county is liable for the acts of the... for the judgments of the sheriff, that would not necessarily follow in a 1983 suit, because you'd still have to comply with Monell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [214.622, 218.425], "stop_times": [218.425, 233.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.622}, "reply_to": "20535__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_021", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's right, and we think that's how the Eleventh Circuit dealt with this issue.\nThe Eleventh Circuit held that because the sheriff's law enforcement authority is not shared with some other county official, that the county is somehow not liable.\nWe think that's a misconstruction of this Court's opinion in Monell and its progeny, and this Court has never held that only local legislative bodies can make policies for which a county is liable.\nJust in the same way that a mayor can create a policy that the city council is not responsible for, the city council does not control, he nonetheless makes a policy, if it's final, that would subject the city to liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [233.104, 238.057, 246.902, 258.291], "stop_times": [238.057, 246.902, 258.291, 269.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.104}, "reply_to": "20535__0_020", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_022", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Are you asking for a rule that if the final policymaker is elected by an entity... here, the county... that entity is necessarily responsible for the judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [269.659], "stop_times": [284.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 269.659}, "reply_to": "20535__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_023", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Not... it does not turn entirely on the election by the county's voters.\nWe think that's an important element, Justice Kennedy, but it's not the only element.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [284.629, 288.509, 293.875], "stop_times": [288.509, 293.875, 294.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 284.629}, "reply_to": "20535__0_022", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_024", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "What else is there?\nI really don't see what else you rely on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [294.453, 295.394], "stop_times": [295.394, 297.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.453}, "reply_to": "20535__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_025", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes.\nWell, there are several things.\nThe second factor, in addition to the county's election, the voter's election, is that the county pays for, the county equips, the county funds, the county provides the resources for all of the sheriff's law enforcement functions, and the county actually does that with some discretionary authority.\nThere is reasonableness language in the statute that deals with the commission's authority to authorize a budget and to authorize expenditures.\nThe third thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [297.285, 297.856, 299.378, 315.268, 323.622], "stop_times": [297.856, 299.378, 315.268, 323.622, 324.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.285}, "reply_to": "20535__0_024", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_026", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "You say the county does this, but the county does this under compulsion of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [324.734], "stop_times": [328.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.734}, "reply_to": "20535__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_027", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [328.336], "stop_times": [328.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 328.336}, "reply_to": "20535__0_026", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_028", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "It's directed by State law.\nIt's not a matter of self-governance in which the county decides, we will provide so much money to the sheriff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [328.987, 330.278], "stop_times": [330.278, 336.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.987}, "reply_to": "20535__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_029", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and that's true of all of the county's functions.\nThat is, the county commission exercises its authority over roads, et cetera, under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [336.561, 339.975], "stop_times": [339.975, 343.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.561}, "reply_to": "20535__0_028", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_030", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "In this State, but not in all States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [343.247], "stop_times": [345.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.247}, "reply_to": "20535__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_031", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [345.097], "stop_times": [345.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.097}, "reply_to": "20535__0_030", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_032", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "States do have charters in which the counties are self-governing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [345.558], "stop_times": [349.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.558}, "reply_to": "20535__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_033", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct, and I guess our position is that that's not required to trigger municipal liability for these purposes.\nThe third thing is that the county's authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [349.622, 356.614], "stop_times": [356.614, 358.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.622}, "reply_to": "20535__0_032", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_034", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Mr. Stevenson, before you get onto the third thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [358.958], "stop_times": [361.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.958}, "reply_to": "20535__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__0_035", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [361.109], "stop_times": [361.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.109}, "reply_to": "20535__0_034", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_036", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Staying with the money, do I understand correctly that it's also the coroner and the tax assessor that are paid by the county, but other people who are elected... say, the district attorney or local judges... are paid by the State?\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [361.55, 377.178], "stop_times": [377.178, 377.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.55}, "reply_to": "20535__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__0_037", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct.\nIn Alabama, the district attorney is not necessarily limited to a particular county.\nThe judicial circuit that was created for Monroe County is a judicial circuit that includes other counties, and so the district attorney receives his or her check from the State, from Montgomery, Alabama, and that's true for the judges as well, and so there's a distinction between the sheriff and those other judicial officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [377.709, 378.44, 383.872], "stop_times": [378.44, 383.872, 402.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.709}, "reply_to": "20535__0_036", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_038", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--How about the coroner and the tax assessor, who are paid by the county?\nAre they final decisionmakers in their realm, unreviewable by the commission, as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [402.416, 407.808], "stop_times": [407.808, 414.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 402.416}, "reply_to": "20535__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__0_039", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg.\nThey are county officials, paid by the county, elected by the county.\nThey get their resources from the county Treasury, much like the sheriff, but yes, they have final policymaking authority in their respective areas, inquests for the coroner, tax assessments and that sort of thing for the tax assessor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [414.703, 416.424, 419.676], "stop_times": [416.424, 419.676, 433.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.703}, "reply_to": "20535__0_038", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_040", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The county commission, then... and that's your form of county government in Alabama?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [433.245], "stop_times": [436.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.245}, "reply_to": "20535__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_041", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [436.928], "stop_times": [437.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.928}, "reply_to": "20535__0_040", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_042", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--could not instruct the tax assessor to do things in a particular way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [437.488], "stop_times": [442.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.488}, "reply_to": "20535__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_043", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Not in compliance with Alabama law.\nThere is no statutory authority for the county commission to direct the conduct of any of these county officials, and that's why we contend that there need not be some sharing of authority before the county be liable.\nThe third thing, Justice Scalia, would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [442.481, 444.972, 457.35], "stop_times": [444.972, 457.35, 460.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.481}, "reply_to": "20535__0_042", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_044", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I knew you'd get back to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [460.203], "stop_times": [461.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.203}, "reply_to": "20535__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_045", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes.\n[Laughter]\nThe third thing would be the jurisdiction of the county.\nAlabama law has created 67 counties.\nThey have legal status.\nThat legal status matters in the area of law enforcement because the sheriff here cannot conduct any law enforcement functions outside that jurisdiction.\nThe fourth thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [461.605, 462.185, 462.863, 465.137, 467.808, 468.918, 477.894], "stop_times": [462.185, 462.863, 465.137, 467.808, 468.918, 477.894, 479.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.605}, "reply_to": "20535__0_044", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_046", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well now, wait, let's talk about the third for a minute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [479.105], "stop_times": [481.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.105}, "reply_to": "20535__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_047", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [481.627], "stop_times": [482.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.627}, "reply_to": "20535__0_046", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_048", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Are you saying anything other than the sheriff has no authority outside the geographical limits of the county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [482.048], "stop_times": [490.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.048}, "reply_to": "20535__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_049", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [490.533], "stop_times": [491.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.533}, "reply_to": "20535__0_048", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_050", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I don't see why that makes him necessarily a county official.\nCertainly you can have State officials, each of whom has jurisdiction within each of the various counties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [491.434, 494.356], "stop_times": [494.356, 499.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.434}, "reply_to": "20535__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_051", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes, but I guess my point would be that if they're State officials that are part of some State command, then their jurisdiction and their authority and their ability to perform the functions which they have been trained and prepared for aren't necessarily limited to that jurisdiction.\nThe chief of command may pull them to another division.\nFor example, we have a Department of Public Safety in Alabama that has ABI agent, Alabama Bureau of Investigation agents dispersed across the State.\nThey may be assigned to a particular area, but if the head of that division decides to move them to another part, to Birmingham or Mobile, there's nothing about their status or their function or their jurisdiction which limits that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [499.349, 514.038, 516.34, 523.835], "stop_times": [514.038, 516.34, 523.835, 535.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.349}, "reply_to": "20535__0_050", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_052", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "What about the prosecutors you referred to earlier, the State prosecutors, whose jurisdiction exceeds the county but does not exceed the judicial district.\nCan they be moved to another judicial district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [535.812, 542.807], "stop_times": [542.807, 545.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.812}, "reply_to": "20535__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_053", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes, Your... I don't know that they could be moved in the sense that someone can assign them, but they have authority to prosecute cases in other counties at the direction of the court.\nThey have the authority to sometimes be sort of prosecutors when there's some conflict between another local prosecutor in another jurisdiction, and the defendant or the victim in a particular case, so in that sense I think they're more properly seen as state officials who might be able to exercise some legal authority in some other area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [545.498, 554.294], "stop_times": [554.294, 572.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.498}, "reply_to": "20535__0_052", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_054", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Are they elected by the county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [572.145], "stop_times": [573.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.145}, "reply_to": "20535__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_055", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "They're elected by the judicial circuit.\nThat is, if the judicial circuit is bigger than the county, then everyone in that judicial circuit would be the voting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [573.868, 575.628], "stop_times": [575.628, 581.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.868}, "reply_to": "20535__0_054", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_056", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Is that any different from the sheriff of one county being able to enter into another county in hot pursuit?\nDo you have any hot pursuit law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [581.913, 588.588], "stop_times": [588.588, 590.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.913}, "reply_to": "20535__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_057", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, I think it's different in this way, Justice Scalia.\nThere may be exceptions where exigencies might give the sheriff the opportunity to conduct some conduct, but they're recognized as exceptions.\nThey're recognized in some ways as giving permission to the sheriff to exceed lawful authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [590.21, 593.53, 602.365], "stop_times": [593.53, 602.365, 606.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.21}, "reply_to": "20535__0_056", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_058", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I understand that, but it seems to me that the instances you were describing of the prosecutors being able to act elsewhere were also exceptional instances.\nBasically, they were limited to the judicial district to which they're assigned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [606.419, 614.634], "stop_times": [614.634, 618.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.419}, "reply_to": "20535__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_059", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I think that's a fair criticism, but I think it's less exceptional both as a matter of practice and as a matter of law, for the prosecutor to engage in this kind of conduct some place else.\nAnd I think this point is emphasized by the next thing I'd stress, which is that Alabama law requires that another elected county official take over law enforcement functions if the sheriff cannot perform them.\nThat is, the county coroner under Alabama law assumes law enforcement functions for those circumstances and times when the sheriff can't do that.\nI think that's because the State law recognizes that the county, the county's residents, have some investment, have some stake, have some authority over at least the selection in that limited circumstance of who should be performing the law enforcement functions in that particular community.\nThe other things that I would point to would be the many references in Alabama law that clearly designate the sheriff as a county official.\nWe've cited in our brief, and I'll cite again or just acknowledge again that the Alabama code... and this is at our brief at page 21... expressly identifies as county officers the sheriff of Alabama... the sheriff of a particular county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [618.577, 628.234, 640.472, 648.417, 663.267, 670.801], "stop_times": [628.234, 640.472, 648.417, 663.267, 670.801, 685.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.577}, "reply_to": "20535__0_058", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_060", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The constitution I think identifies him as a State official.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [685.52], "stop_times": [689.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.52}, "reply_to": "20535__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__0_061", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "What the constitution does, Justice Breyer, is identify him as a member of the executive department, and we don't dispute that.\nWhen you look at that language, however, what the constitution says is that the sheriff is a member of the executive department, and the words they use are, sheriff for the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [689.203, 697.098], "stop_times": [697.098, 707.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.203}, "reply_to": "20535__0_060", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_062", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I'd like to get your answer to this, which is the problem that's bothering me the most from your point of view.\nIf I looked at Alabama law, the supreme court of Alabama, in what I'd think is the most closely analogous area, the most closely analogous question would be, for State law purposes, is this sheriff a person under tort principles where the county is held liable under respondeat superior, and the Alabama supreme court says no.\nIt says the sheriff of a county for jail purposes is not considered an employee of the county for purposes of imposing liability upon the county, so if that's Alabama law, and they're saying for purposes of imposing liability, respondeat superior in tort, he's not a county official, how do you get around that problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [707.055, 714.8, 739.937], "stop_times": [714.8, 739.937, 760.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.055}, "reply_to": "20535__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__0_063", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, I think that Alabama law is in conflict on the question, on that particular question in part because the Alabama courts have clearly said that they want to immunize both the State and counties from tort judgments for this kind of conduct.\nWe don't think, though... obviously that's not going to resolve the Federal question, which, as this Court has always acknowledged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [760.129, 776.359], "stop_times": [776.359, 782.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.129}, "reply_to": "20535__0_062", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_064", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But what would the... but when you say conflict, I have a case here called King v. Colbert County, May 7, 1993, and it seems to say quite clearly the sheriff is not considered an employee for purposes of imposing liability upon the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [782.353], "stop_times": [798.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.353}, "reply_to": "20535__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__0_065", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's right, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [798.294], "stop_times": [799.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.294}, "reply_to": "20535__0_064", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_066", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Is that in conflict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [799.366], "stop_times": [799.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.366}, "reply_to": "20535__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__0_067", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's not in... there's no conflict about the tort liability of the State or the county with regard to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [799.974], "stop_times": [805.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.974}, "reply_to": "20535__0_066", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_068", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "All right, so then why should 1983 impose respondeat superior constitutional tort liability upon a body that States do not impose respondeat superior liability upon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [805.43], "stop_times": [819.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.43}, "reply_to": "20535__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__0_069", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--It shouldn't.\nThe Federal question here does not require this Court to impose respondeat superior liability.\nIf you accept our view, you recognize that the sheriff is the county official who engages in law enforcement authority for the county, so in that sense, he is the master.\nHe's the superior.\nNo one is under his control in a way, or he's not under someone else's control that we're asking you to make that party liable.\nWhat the Alabama counties have done is shield counties and States from liability.\nThat's something they can do under State law.\nBut it's our position that Federal... section 1983 was intended to provide Federal remedies for people like petitioner--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [819.369, 820.53, 827.494, 838.482, 839.592, 845.675, 849.228, 851.339], "stop_times": [820.53, 827.494, 838.482, 839.592, 845.675, 849.228, 851.339, 858.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 819.369}, "reply_to": "20535__0_068", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_070", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But you are asking us to hold the county liable for the actions of the sheriff.\nIt's not as if you were saying, we're just after the sheriff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [858.174, 864.248], "stop_times": [864.248, 867.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.174}, "reply_to": "20535__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_071", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--No, that's right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [867.02], "stop_times": [868.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.02}, "reply_to": "20535__0_070", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_072", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "So that is respondeat superior in a sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [868.49], "stop_times": [870.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.49}, "reply_to": "20535__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_073", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, our position is that it's not in this respect.\nWe're... our position is that because the sheriff is a county official, because he does exercise final policymaking authority for the county, and the county controls that sheriff in the sense that they elect him, the county funds that sheriff in the sense that they pay for his or her conduct, and that that sheriff is tied to that jurisdiction, that there is this nexus between the county and the sheriff that does not make this respondeat superior.\nWhen Congress was talking about respondeat superior, this kind of vicarious liability in 1871, they were dealing with the Sherman amendment which was trying to make counties liable for any conduct by any persons riotous or tumultuously assembled in the community.\nThat was liability, you know, for everyone by anyone.\nThe sheriff is not anyone.\nHe is a government official.\nHe has been elected and empowered by the local government to do the conduct that we're complaining about, and under those facts and circumstances--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [870.821, 873.883, 897.528, 913.07, 917.313, 918.893, 920.755], "stop_times": [873.883, 897.528, 913.07, 917.313, 918.893, 920.755, 927.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.821}, "reply_to": "20535__0_072", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_074", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But as Justice Breyer pointed out in his question the supreme court of Alabama has said he is not a county official for tort purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [927.131], "stop_times": [935.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.131}, "reply_to": "20535__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_075", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--For tort purposes, that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [935.045], "stop_times": [937.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.045}, "reply_to": "20535__0_074", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_076", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, this is a constitutional tort that you're suing for, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [937.657], "stop_times": [940.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.657}, "reply_to": "20535__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_077", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's true, Your Honor, but with regard to whether the State law immunities bind this Court, it is certainly our position that that's not true.\nThis Court has always held that Federal law cannot be decided on the way in which a State may choose to limit remedies under these kinds of actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [940.978, 948.732], "stop_times": [948.732, 956.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.978}, "reply_to": "20535__0_076", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_078", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, suppose it were the other way around.\nSupposing the Alabama supreme court in the case that Justice Breyer has discussed said that the county is liable for what the sheriff... it seems to me that you would certainly cite that, and you would have an open and shut case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [956.189, 957.268], "stop_times": [957.268, 968.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.189}, "reply_to": "20535__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_079", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [968.267], "stop_times": [969.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.267}, "reply_to": "20535__0_078", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_080", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "So why doesn't it work the other way around?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [969.116], "stop_times": [970.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.116}, "reply_to": "20535__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_081", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, I think if that was all that was said, that is, if the sheriff was not elected by the county's officials, if the sheriff did not have this relationship to the county government, the county Treasury, the county as a jurisdiction, we might still have a problem, and I guess that's why I'm saying that the Congress doesn't resolve this issue.\nUnder Regents and all of these Court's... this Court's decision in the Eleventh Amendment context and in other contexts we've always made clear that Federal law resolves these kinds of questions, and I think that's consistent with what Congress was trying to get at.\nCertainly Congress did not intend, in 1871, to provide this Federal remedy only to have State courts then decide that the constitutional officers or the county officials involved in this kind of conduct can be shielded from Federal remedies by designating them as something other than the county officials that the rest of the code identifies them as being.\nAnd Justice Breyer, my conflict term was a term not about tort law per se, but about all of these other provisions in the Alabama code that clearly designate the sheriff as a county officer, and the supreme court, the same State court has held the county sheriff to be a county official in other contexts.\nWhen there's a question of pension or employment he's a county official.\nWhen there's a question about the discretion that the county commission has to not make payments for law enforcement functions, the sheriff is a county official that then has legal authority to make the county commission give him or her the resources to do those... do that kind of conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [970.257, 986.859, 999.516, 1020.64, 1038.021, 1041.534], "stop_times": [986.859, 999.516, 1020.64, 1038.021, 1041.534, 1057.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.257}, "reply_to": "20535__0_080", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_082", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Mr. Stevenson, I want to know who we bracket the sheriff with, and so I'd like to go back to the coroner and the tax assessor to see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1057.416], "stop_times": [1065.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.416}, "reply_to": "20535__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__0_083", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1065.66], "stop_times": [1066.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1065.66}, "reply_to": "20535__0_082", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_084", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Is the same... is the answer to Justice Breyer's question about respondeat superior the same thing with respect to those officers, or is the county liable for their common law torts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1066.549], "stop_times": [1076.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.549}, "reply_to": "20535__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__0_085", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The county is liable for the coroner's conduct.\nI'm not aware of any State law that deals with the tax assessor in that context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1076.196, 1078.968], "stop_times": [1078.968, 1083.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.196}, "reply_to": "20535__0_084", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_086", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "So the State does have... the county has respondeat superior liability for the coroner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1083.412], "stop_times": [1090.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.412}, "reply_to": "20535__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__0_087", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes.\nAgain, I would resist the framing of that liability as respondeat superior.\nIn our view, the tax assessor and the coroner are different parts of the power structure of the county government, just like the mayor and the city council and the aldermen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1090.108, 1090.626, 1095.52], "stop_times": [1090.626, 1095.52, 1105.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.108}, "reply_to": "20535__0_086", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_088", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "If it's not respondeat superior, what is it?\nIf the president of a corporation does something wrong, and the corporation is sued, don't we say that's respondeat superior, or am I missing something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1105.185, 1110.15], "stop_times": [1110.15, 1120.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.185}, "reply_to": "20535__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_089", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "No, that's right, but if a body--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1120.815], "stop_times": [1123.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.815}, "reply_to": "20535__0_088", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_090", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And if the mayor of a city does something, and the city is held liable on the judgment, isn't that respondeat superior?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1123.908], "stop_times": [1129.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.908}, "reply_to": "20535__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_091", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--I don't... in my understanding, no.\nThat would be basically the city being liable for the conduct of one of its officials, and when they'll use this terminology--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1129.872, 1132.223], "stop_times": [1132.223, 1138.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1129.872}, "reply_to": "20535__0_090", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_092", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But why?\nThe city itself hasn't done it, other than through a human agent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1138.147, 1139.158], "stop_times": [1139.158, 1143.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.147}, "reply_to": "20535__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_093", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes, and so in that sense the city is the person that is represented by its official.\nIn that context the official--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1143.653, 1150.066], "stop_times": [1150.066, 1151.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.653}, "reply_to": "20535__0_092", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_094", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "If it's not respondeat superior, what is it, some semantic legal category that I've never seen before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1151.788], "stop_times": [1158.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1151.788}, "reply_to": "20535__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_095", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, I guess it would be the city's officials making policy for the city in a way that creates liability for the city.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1158.931], "stop_times": [1165.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.931}, "reply_to": "20535__0_094", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_096", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Isn't it simply imputed liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1165.876], "stop_times": [1168.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.876}, "reply_to": "20535__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_097", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I think that's a fair statement of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1168.337], "stop_times": [1170.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.337}, "reply_to": "20535__0_096", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_098", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I mean, any corporation is liable only by imputation from its officers, and the only reason we're worried about respondeat superior here is that we've got a case that says we don't have respondeat superior liability under 1983 in the sense that there's got to be a policy condition met, but respondeat superior is a variety, certainly, of imputed liability, and this is imputed liability, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1170.688], "stop_times": [1195.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.688}, "reply_to": "20535__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_099", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1195.005], "stop_times": [1196.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1195.005}, "reply_to": "20535__0_098", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_100", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And in Alabama they say there is no imputed liability as between the sheriff and the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1196.297], "stop_times": [1201.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.297}, "reply_to": "20535__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_101", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "With regard to State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1201.519], "stop_times": [1203.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.519}, "reply_to": "20535__0_100", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_102", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "With respect to State law, and you say that's a Federal question, and that does not bind us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1203.089], "stop_times": [1207.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.089}, "reply_to": "20535__0_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_103", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct, because the county does engage in the kind... the same relationship that exists between the county commission, about whom I think we'd have to concede does have authority to make policy that would create liability for the county, the same relationship between the county commission and the county, that entity.\nAnd you're right, that county, that city, can't go out and arrest somebody, or subject someone to the kind of conduct that our client was subjected to.\nThe same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1207.173, 1226.056, 1232.701], "stop_times": [1226.056, 1232.701, 1233.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.173}, "reply_to": "20535__0_102", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_104", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "When we're interpreting Monell, why don't we use... why aren't the same policies that inform that decision as to respondeat superior applicable equally as well to imputed liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1233.32], "stop_times": [1247.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.32}, "reply_to": "20535__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_105", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Because I think that the Congress intended to make localities liable.\nThat is, the Treasury of the locality liable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1247.999, 1254.154], "stop_times": [1254.154, 1256.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.999}, "reply_to": "20535__0_104", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_106", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "It intended to make municipalities liable because they were like corporations.\nThat's why we decided Monell the way we did, that in fact they were municipal corporations, but surely it is an essential characteristic of a corporation that its board of directors can decide what happens within that corporation.\nBut you're coming before us here and saying that this is a corporation which should be liable under 1983.\nHowever, the sheriff is not subject to the commands of the board of directors of the corporation, namely the governing body of the county.\nThat's what troubles me the most, that this doesn't fit into the whole theory of section 1983 liability for municipalities, which is that they are like corporations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1256.715, 1262.579, 1280.229, 1286.334, 1293.61], "stop_times": [1262.579, 1280.229, 1286.334, 1293.61, 1303.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.715}, "reply_to": "20535__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_107", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, I think two things, Justice Scalia.\nI think in imagining the structure of this corporation we have to imagine a board that has not only a county commission but a sheriff, a tax assessor, and a coroner, so in that sense we're not asking for you to do anything different than you would do in that traditional context.\nThis is just a corporate structure that has four elements: a county commission here, dealing with one part, a sheriff over here dealing with another part, and a coroner and a tax assessor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1303.905, 1305.588, 1319.928], "stop_times": [1305.588, 1319.928, 1328.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.905}, "reply_to": "20535__0_106", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_108", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "You say just a corporate structure that has four elements.\nThat's a corporation I never heard of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1328.322, 1330.075], "stop_times": [1330.075, 1331.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.322}, "reply_to": "20535__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_109", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1331.304], "stop_times": [1332.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.304}, "reply_to": "20535__0_108", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_110", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "You're saying it's just a person that has four heads.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1332.015, 1334.396], "stop_times": [1334.396, 1335.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1332.015}, "reply_to": "20535__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_111", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, that's the second thing I'd say.\nThat is, when Congress passed this law they made it clear they were talking about bodies politic and corporate to embrace just these kinds of jurisdictions where the power is separated, where the power is directed to various officials.\nI mean, in some ways it would be I think sort of exceeding the Court's authority to impose on municipalities a single view of governance, that single view meaning that you have to have a single corporate body that makes all of your policy decisions in order for that municipality to govern.\nI mean, Alabama has chosen to divide these powers in the ways that provide the sheriff with some functions, the county commission with some other functions, and the tax assessor and coroner other functions, and I don't think that the Federal law would require that to change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1335.397, 1336.778, 1349.256, 1364.847], "stop_times": [1336.778, 1349.256, 1364.847, 1378.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1335.397}, "reply_to": "20535__0_110", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_112", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--But the decision was not to make counties liable.\nThat was not the 1983 decision.\nThe decision was to make corporations liable.\nCounties became liable only because they were corporations.\nThat was the whole basis of our analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1378.214, 1381.096, 1383.398, 1386.309, 1389.061], "stop_times": [1381.096, 1383.398, 1386.309, 1389.061, 1390.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.214}, "reply_to": "20535__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_113", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, I guess our position would be it was also to make these political bodies that have status, that have power to engage in the kind of unconstitutional conduct, to empower someone to do the kind of unconstitutional conduct that took place here, to make those municipalities liable for that conduct.\nTom Tate the individual could not have subjected our client to threats of summary execution, suppressed the evidence that resulted in his wrongful conviction and 6 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit by himself.\nHe could only do that with the power given to him by the voters of Monroe County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1390.843, 1407.713, 1420.713], "stop_times": [1407.713, 1420.713, 1424.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.843}, "reply_to": "20535__0_112", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_114", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Mr. Stevenson, do we have cases involving actors who are admittedly county actors who are not responsible, not answerable to any board of the county, but who are... have been held final decisionmakers they are, who trigger Monell liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1424.637], "stop_times": [1447.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.637}, "reply_to": "20535__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__0_115", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes.\nI think this Court's decision in Pembaur is precisely such a situation, where this Court found that the county sheriff and the district attorney had final policymaking authority in the area of search and seizure and arrest, and that the county could be held liable for that conduct, and in a variety of contexts this Court has done that.\nSo it's not a novel notion to hold some other entity, other than the local legislative body, as a final policymaker who can create policy that makes... that binds the municipality or the county liable for that unconstitutional conduct, particularly where here the ability to do that is dependent on the power, the authority, the status, and the resources provided by that municipality.\nI mean, again, Tom Tate the individual could not have done what he did to petitioner without the resources, without the funds, without the power given to him by the county, and under those circumstances it's our view that, you know, Federal remedy ought not turn on the personal sovereignty of the individual wrongdoer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1447.901, 1448.26, 1466.472, 1489.796], "stop_times": [1448.26, 1466.472, 1489.796, 1505.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.901}, "reply_to": "20535__0_114", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_116", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yet the county commission has no authority over him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1505.658], "stop_times": [1509.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.658}, "reply_to": "20535__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_117", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct, in the same way that they have no authority for other... over other county officials, and in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1509.451], "stop_times": [1516.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1509.451}, "reply_to": "20535__0_116", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_118", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "So to say that he couldn't have done what he did without the county really is not quite accurate.\nHe couldn't have done what he did without the authority vested in him by the Alabama statutes to be a law enforcer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1516.037, 1523.891], "stop_times": [1523.891, 1530.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.037}, "reply_to": "20535__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__0_119", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--And the resources provided to him by the county commission.\nThat is, in that sense, his relationship to the county... that is, we distinguish between the county commission and the county, the body politic.\nIn that respect the county commissioners' relationship to the county is no different from the sheriff.\nIf the county commission creates a policy that's unconstitutional, the same control questions would exist, the same access questions to the county's Treasury would exist.\nThere's no difference functionally between the relationship between the county commission and the county and the sheriff and the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1530.775, 1534.486, 1541.982, 1547.466, 1556.582], "stop_times": [1534.486, 1541.982, 1547.466, 1556.582, 1563.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.775}, "reply_to": "20535__0_118", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_120", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Of course, there's another--\n--The sheriff does not enforce county law.\nI mean, the county doesn't make policy in the sense of enacting any ordinances which the sheriff enforces.\nHe enforces only State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1563.077, 1563.966, 1565.768, 1572.18], "stop_times": [1563.966, 1565.768, 1572.18, 1573.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.077}, "reply_to": "20535__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_121", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's true, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1573.722], "stop_times": [1575.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1573.722}, "reply_to": "20535__0_120", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_122", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And it doesn't make any policy in the sense of controlling his actions, either.\nIt can't give him any directions, can it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1575.262, 1579.026], "stop_times": [1579.026, 1581.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.262}, "reply_to": "20535__0_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_123", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "No, that's right.\nHe is the final policymaker in this area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1581.026, 1581.837], "stop_times": [1581.837, 1583.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1581.026}, "reply_to": "20535__0_122", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_124", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Can you give me an example of some policies that the sheriff in one county might make that a sheriff in another county might not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1583.978], "stop_times": [1590.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.978}, "reply_to": "20535__0_123", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_125", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Certainly.\nThe policies here.\nA policy that would subject someone to racial threats and assaults.\nA policy that would remove them from the county jail--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1590.864, 1591.795, 1592.746, 1596.346], "stop_times": [1591.795, 1592.746, 1596.346, 1598.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1590.864}, "reply_to": "20535__0_124", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_126", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Any other legitimate... give me some examples of some legitimate policies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1598.75], "stop_times": [1602.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.75}, "reply_to": "20535__0_125", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_127", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, I mean, there are a whole range of legitimate policies.\nThey might have a procedure for arresting people who are charged with DUI that requires that they either do a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1602.772, 1605.282], "stop_times": [1605.282, 1611.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1602.772}, "reply_to": "20535__0_126", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_128", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And this can vary from one county to another because the sheriff sets that policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1611.406], "stop_times": [1615.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.406}, "reply_to": "20535__0_127", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__0_129", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes, that's correct.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1615.69, 1616.419], "stop_times": [1616.419, 1617.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1615.69}, "reply_to": "20535__0_128", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_130", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Going back to the sense in which he speaks by and might perhaps... or speaks for and might be controlled by the county, the most important sense, I suppose, is that in which he is elected.\nYou've given a whole laundry list of sort of characteristics on the basis of which you say we should conclude that he's a county official.\nWould you put the fact that he's elected by the voters at the top of the list?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1617.07, 1628.468, 1637.066], "stop_times": [1628.468, 1637.066, 1642.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.07}, "reply_to": "20535__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_131", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Souter, because that is the most meaningful control over this sheriff.\nThis sheriff engaged in this conduct and was reelected by the county.\nThat election says something about the county's approval, if you will, of his conduct, and we certainly believe that 1983 ought to play a role in deterring that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1642.599, 1646.54, 1649.911], "stop_times": [1646.54, 1649.911, 1658.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1642.599}, "reply_to": "20535__0_130", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_132", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But even if there were no basis to say that they had approved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1658.096], "stop_times": [1661.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.096}, "reply_to": "20535__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_133", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1661.729], "stop_times": [1662.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1661.729}, "reply_to": "20535__0_132", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_134", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--they at least would have the power to disapprove.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1662.29], "stop_times": [1664.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.29}, "reply_to": "20535__0_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_135", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1664.291], "stop_times": [1664.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1664.291}, "reply_to": "20535__0_134", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_136", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And I suppose that's what we're getting at with imputed tort liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1664.932], "stop_times": [1669.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.932}, "reply_to": "20535__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_137", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1669.226], "stop_times": [1669.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1669.226}, "reply_to": "20535__0_136", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_138", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Can they disapprove?\nThey have no power to impeach him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1669.817, 1670.728], "stop_times": [1670.728, 1672.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.817}, "reply_to": "20535__0_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_139", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "They have no power to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1672.288], "stop_times": [1673.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1672.288}, "reply_to": "20535__0_138", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_140", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "He's impeached by State officers, isn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1673.12], "stop_times": [1674.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.12}, "reply_to": "20535__0_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_141", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1674.989], "stop_times": [1675.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1674.989}, "reply_to": "20535__0_140", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_142", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "By the attorney general, or the legislature?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1675.68], "stop_times": [1677.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.68}, "reply_to": "20535__0_141", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_143", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Scalia, like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1677.521], "stop_times": [1678.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1677.521}, "reply_to": "20535__0_142", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_144", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "So they really have a... I mean, gee, the power just to elect somebody without the power to remove him--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1678.633], "stop_times": [1683.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.633}, "reply_to": "20535__0_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_145", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1683.595], "stop_times": [1684.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1683.595}, "reply_to": "20535__0_144", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_146", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--I don't know that that's real control.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1684.456], "stop_times": [1685.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.456}, "reply_to": "20535__0_145", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__0_147", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, I think that removal power is regulated every 4 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1685.688], "stop_times": [1688.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1685.688}, "reply_to": "20535__0_146", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_148", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Do they have to vote for him the next time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1688.129], "stop_times": [1689.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1688.129}, "reply_to": "20535__0_147", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__0_149", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "No, they do not, and every 4 years they will have the opportunity to exercise that removal discretion.\nI'd like if I can to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1689.86, 1693.883], "stop_times": [1693.883, 1697.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1689.86}, "reply_to": "20535__0_148", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__0_150", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Very well, Mr. Stevenson.\nMr. Smith, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1697.065, 1698.656], "stop_times": [1698.656, 1700.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.065}, "reply_to": "20535__0_149", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__1_000", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOur position is that an Alabama county cannot be held liable under section 1983 for the actions of the sheriff for two principal reasons.\nFirst, the State constitution, as has been noted, expressly designates sheriffs as State officials, and follows up that designation by treating them as State officials for such purposes as the procedure for removal from office, and the absolute immunity that is only given to State constitutional officers, immunity from State tort liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1700.809, 1706.773, 1715.659], "stop_times": [1706.773, 1715.659, 1734.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1700.809}, "reply_to": "20535__0_150", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_001", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But you... I take it you accept the fact that it's ultimately a Federal question, not a State law question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1734.94], "stop_times": [1741.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.94}, "reply_to": "20535__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_002", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, this Court has held repeatedly that the identification of municipal policymakers turns on an analysis of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1741.285], "stop_times": [1748.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.285}, "reply_to": "20535__1_001", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_003", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The identification of the policymakers does, but whether, in fact, the policy is to be imputed to the county, or to any municipal corporation, is a question of Federal law, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1748.31], "stop_times": [1759.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.31}, "reply_to": "20535__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_004", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, I think it's kind of an intersection between State and Federal law.\nYou have a Federal statute that says we'll hold you liable under certain circumstances.\nOne of the circumstances is where the municipal... the government has enacted a policy, and then the court says, to determine whether it's a municipal policy we're going to look at State law to determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1759.108, 1761.229, 1764.442], "stop_times": [1761.229, 1764.442, 1773.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.108}, "reply_to": "20535__1_003", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_005", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "No, I think we look to State law to find out who in fact has control over the policy.\nWho is in fact the policymaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1773.047, 1778.159], "stop_times": [1778.159, 1780.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.047}, "reply_to": "20535__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_006", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1780.302], "stop_times": [1781.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.302}, "reply_to": "20535__1_005", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_007", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "We look to State law for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1781.272], "stop_times": [1782.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1781.272}, "reply_to": "20535__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_008", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1782.424], "stop_times": [1783.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.424}, "reply_to": "20535__1_007", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_009", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But whether in fact, having identified the policymaker, the policymaker will be treated as a State official or as a municipal official of some sort, that is ultimately a question of Federal law, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1783.094], "stop_times": [1796.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.094}, "reply_to": "20535__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_010", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, I'm not sure I understand the distinction.\nIt seems to me what you have to do is, you have a certain Federal standard that has to be met and then you match that up against a set of State requirements, or State structural features of the State government and you decide ultimately does the Federal law, does the statute that Congress passed in 1871, was it intended to impose liability under these circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1796.802, 1798.525], "stop_times": [1798.525, 1815.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.802}, "reply_to": "20535__1_009", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_011", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Right, but I think the distinction is simple.\nWe look to State law to find out who, in fact, under State law is setting policy.\nOnce we have found out who that person is, since there is a difference between State immunity and municipal liability under 1983, we then say, as a question of Federal law, is the person so identified a State officer or a municipal officer, and that latter question is one of Federal law, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1815.215, 1816.715, 1822.649], "stop_times": [1816.715, 1822.649, 1846.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.215}, "reply_to": "20535__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_012", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Your Honor, I really don't think you can answer that question without looking at State law to determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1846.435], "stop_times": [1852.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.435}, "reply_to": "20535__1_011", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_013", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, you have looked at... you mean State law binds the question whether for 1983 liability an individual is a State officer or a county officer?\nI'm not talking here about whether it presents interesting evidence.\nI'm asking whether it is dispositive, whether State law is dispositive on that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1852.277, 1862.015, 1866.4], "stop_times": [1862.015, 1866.4, 1871.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.277}, "reply_to": "20535__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_014", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, I guess--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1871.131], "stop_times": [1872.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.131}, "reply_to": "20535__1_013", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_015", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And I would have thought it clearly was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1872.103], "stop_times": [1873.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.103}, "reply_to": "20535__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_016", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--If what you're asking is, can there be a situation where we would... where the Court would properly disregard a label that says he's a State official, based on other circumstances that are present such as the fact that he actually day-by-day works for the county commission and so therefore there's a concern that the State statute that designates him a State official is fictitious, I think under those circumstances that would be appropriate.\nBecause the two factors that I was going to outline at the beginning were 1) what the law says the scope of the municipal corporation is expressly, and 2) who does this official work for and is he... who is he controlled by, and I do think there are situations where if, in fact, the person is controlled by the governing body of the municipal corporation, that fact would be enough to make him a municipal policymaker regardless of the express statements of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1873.472, 1894.847], "stop_times": [1894.847, 1920.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.472}, "reply_to": "20535__1_015", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_017", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But the converse would not necessarily be true, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1920.904], "stop_times": [1923.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.904}, "reply_to": "20535__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_018", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1923.866], "stop_times": [1924.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.866}, "reply_to": "20535__1_017", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_019", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "If he is not controlled by in this case the county commissioners, it does not follow that he is not a county official for purposes of 1983 liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1924.667], "stop_times": [1933.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.667}, "reply_to": "20535__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_020", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's true, too.\nI think if it were true that he was expressly designated a county official by law, and the court determined that the State statute said this is the county policymaker for X area of governmental activity but we want him to be autonomous from this other governing body over here, I can imagine State law doing that, too, defining the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1933.041, 1933.742], "stop_times": [1933.742, 1955.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.041}, "reply_to": "20535__1_019", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_021", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Suppose they said just the latter?\nThey said, we want him to be autonomous from the county governing body, but we're calling him what he is, a county officer that works within the county, not outside, but he's not in any sense answerable to the commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1955.616, 1957.488], "stop_times": [1957.488, 1973.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.616}, "reply_to": "20535__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_022", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1973.417], "stop_times": [1973.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1973.417}, "reply_to": "20535__1_021", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_023", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Okay.\nIs he a final policymaker for the county for whom there is Monell liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1973.957, 1974.568], "stop_times": [1974.568, 1983.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.957}, "reply_to": "20535__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_024", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "If the Court were to determine that the State law establish the contours of the municipal corporation such that the corporation includes not only a governing body but another autonomous board or official who was supposed to be part of that municipal corporation, that you have a kind of hydra-headed corporation under State law, if the Court were to conclude that's what State law said, then yes, he would be a municipal policymaker.\nSo you can have a situation where autonomous boards or officials are within the scope of the municipal corporation because that's what the State decided to do, and it may be fairly frequent in big cities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [1983.054, 2005.33], "stop_times": [2005.33, 2016.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.054}, "reply_to": "20535__1_023", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_025", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "So if this person were designated county officer, as I take it the coroner and tax assessor are, then you would not have any question about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2016.096], "stop_times": [2028.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.096}, "reply_to": "20535__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_026", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2028.325], "stop_times": [2029.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.325}, "reply_to": "20535__1_025", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_027", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Monell liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2029.394], "stop_times": [2030.255], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.394}, "reply_to": "20535__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20535__1_028", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--If you're asking about those specific individuals, I think that there's... there are... those are kind of border-line cases where there's indications that go both ways.\nFor example, the tax assessor works for the State as well as for the county, collects taxes for the State as well as for the county.\nHe's supervised very closely by the State, but you don't have anything like the express designation of a State official that we have here with the sheriff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2030.255, 2036.46, 2042.284], "stop_times": [2036.46, 2042.284, 2049.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.255}, "reply_to": "20535__1_027", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_029", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "All right.\nLet's stay with the coroner then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2049.607, 2050.168], "stop_times": [2050.168, 2051.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.607}, "reply_to": "20535__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_030", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "As to the coroner, he's elected in the county, and he's called a county coroner.\nHe performs inquest functions which kind of work with the State judiciary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2051.309, 2057.143], "stop_times": [2057.143, 2060.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.309}, "reply_to": "20535__1_029", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_031", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes, but so... but you're saying that that officer would be considered a decisionmaker, final decisionmaker, although not responsible to the county commission, and there would be municipal liability or county liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2060.536], "stop_times": [2074.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.536}, "reply_to": "20535__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_032", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "My position, Justice Ginsburg, is that's certainly possible, that if the full analysis of the law about the coroner came to the conclusion that the State intended him to be a county officer making policy for the county, his autonomy from the county commission would not by itself preclude that conclusion that he is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2074.013], "stop_times": [2089.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.013}, "reply_to": "20535__1_031", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_033", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "All right.\nSo he's not a... he has that autonomy.\nNow, what else would we look to to determine whether he was a county officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2089.204, 2089.635, 2092.597], "stop_times": [2089.635, 2092.597, 2098.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.204}, "reply_to": "20535__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_034", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, you would look at what State law says about whether he's part of the municipal corporation or not, and here the State law's quite explicit on that subject and says not only is he autonomous from the county commission, but he is a State officer who is a member of the State executive department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2098.14], "stop_times": [2113.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.14}, "reply_to": "20535__1_033", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_035", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Mr. Smith, your second point, as I understand it, was the label itself is not enough.\nYou couldn't just pass a statute calling somebody a State officer, as I understand you.\nYou look at actual control to have significance, and in this case if you ask about the day-to-day activities of the sheriff, not things that would justify impeachment or failure to reelect, but whether he assigns four officers to a district or two patrol cars and so forth, who controls him in that regard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2113.29, 2118.032, 2121.505], "stop_times": [2118.032, 2121.505, 2142.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.29}, "reply_to": "20535__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_036", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, with respect to his day-to-day activities, many of them are controlled by other State officials.\nThe one you mentioned about where he's going to put his patrol cars he's got a fair amount of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2142.167, 2147.691], "stop_times": [2147.691, 2151.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.167}, "reply_to": "20535__1_035", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_037", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The law officer's activites, assigning his a personnel to different tasks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2151.785], "stop_times": [2153.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.785}, "reply_to": "20535__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_038", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "On those issues he's not supervised by anyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2153.175], "stop_times": [2155.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.175}, "reply_to": "20535__1_037", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_039", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "He's the final authority on those issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2155.856], "stop_times": [2157.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.856}, "reply_to": "20535__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_040", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes, but there are several things you should understand.\nMuch of his work is under the supervision of State officials, State prosecutors, the DA's are State officials, the judges--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2157.939, 2159.189], "stop_times": [2159.189, 2166.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.939}, "reply_to": "20535__1_039", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_041", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "No, but I'm talking about assigning policemen to arrest people, and what part of the city to patrol, and how long hours they work and that sort of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2166.195], "stop_times": [2174.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.195}, "reply_to": "20535__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_042", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Right.\nWell, to the extent that he stays--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2174.65, 2175.08], "stop_times": [2175.08, 2176.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.65}, "reply_to": "20535__1_041", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_043", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "He's the final authority on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2176.409], "stop_times": [2177.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.409}, "reply_to": "20535__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_044", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--within the confines of what would be an impeachable offense in Alabama, he's got final say on that, sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2177.581], "stop_times": [2182.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.581}, "reply_to": "20535__1_043", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_045", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes, but I mean, within the confines of.\nIsn't anyone ultimately within the supervision and control of whoever has power to remove him from office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2182.744, 2185.315], "stop_times": [2185.315, 2192.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.744}, "reply_to": "20535__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_046", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2192.261], "stop_times": [2192.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.261}, "reply_to": "20535__1_045", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_047", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "If the sheriff, for example, decides to have ho police cars, and the attorney general says, we have a whole county here that is not being policed, they have no police cars, wouldn't the attorney general tell the sheriff, get some police cars or you're out of there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2192.822], "stop_times": [2205.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.822}, "reply_to": "20535__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_048", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's exactly what would happen, and then the Governor would say you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2205.869], "stop_times": [2209.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.869}, "reply_to": "20535__1_047", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_049", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But again, you're assuming--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2209.402], "stop_times": [2210.824], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.402}, "reply_to": "20535__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20535__1_050", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--I want a report on my desk in the morning about what you're doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2210.824], "stop_times": [2211.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.824}, "reply_to": "20535__1_049", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_051", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--He has to do something sufficiently serious to justify impeachment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2211.875], "stop_times": [2214.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.875}, "reply_to": "20535__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_052", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But the impeach--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2214.835], "stop_times": [2215.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.835}, "reply_to": "20535__1_051", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_053", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But just working 8 hours instead of 9 hours, or 7 hours instead of 6, that sort of thing he's the boss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2215.406], "stop_times": [2221.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.406}, "reply_to": "20535__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_054", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--But the list of grounds for impeachment, Justice Stevens, include incompetence, neglect of duty--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2221.641], "stop_times": [2226.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.641}, "reply_to": "20535__1_053", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_055", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes, but how often are these county officials impeached?\nVery rarely, I assume, but they run their offices 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 30 days a month, and they make hundreds and hundreds of decisions that are not supervised by anyone else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2226.095, 2228.435], "stop_times": [2228.435, 2239.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.095}, "reply_to": "20535__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_056", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's precisely... that's precisely why he's treated as a final policymaker, and that is the way government is set up in many places.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2239.882], "stop_times": [2246.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.882}, "reply_to": "20535__1_055", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_057", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "All right, so if he's a final--\n--So if you don't... I'm sorry.\nGo ahead.\nGoing back to Justice Souter's question before, if that's the test of the... if the question is who can control him, I suppose the people who have the greatest power, just as Justice Souter mentioned before, to control the actions of the sheriff are the county voters, because if he doesn't do the right thing they won't elect him again.\nAnd so if that's the test, why isn't he then a county official?\nIndeed, any State official who is elected on a county basis would become for Monell purposes a county official.\nWhy not?\nThat's fairly clear.\nPeople who pay the piper call the tune, and they're paid at a county level and he's elected at a county level--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2246.467, 2247.326, 2248.698, 2249.579, 2274.734, 2279.797, 2288.953, 2290.155, 2292.506], "stop_times": [2247.326, 2248.698, 2249.579, 2274.734, 2279.797, 2288.953, 2290.155, 2292.506, 2298.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.467}, "reply_to": "20535__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_058", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Local election doesn't tell you anything about whether a particular official is part of a municipal corporation separate and apart from State government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2298.841], "stop_times": [2307.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.841}, "reply_to": "20535__1_057", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_059", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--No, no, no, that's all quite right, but you'd say that the person... all we're interested in really is what hat is he wearing when he performs these actions?\nIs he wearing his State hat, or his county hat, and there isn't much to tell us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2307.927, 2315.841], "stop_times": [2315.841, 2322.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.927}, "reply_to": "20535__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_060", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2322.777], "stop_times": [2323.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.777}, "reply_to": "20535__1_059", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_061", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--except for the fact that the county people elect him and they pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2323.628], "stop_times": [2326.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.628}, "reply_to": "20535__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_062", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--But with respect, Justice Breyer, the reason that we have public liability under Monell is because there are separate corporate structures that exist, and so saying that he's locally elected and locally funded may be relevant to the question of whether he's a local official--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2326.399], "stop_times": [2343.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.399}, "reply_to": "20535__1_061", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_063", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "He was a separate... I just think that probably Monell basically... well, different people... I don't know if we'll go into that in great depth, but basically you're trying to say the people, or at least where it's policy, whom you work for normally pay, but of course they don't if it's the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2343.41], "stop_times": [2362.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.41}, "reply_to": "20535__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_064", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, of course, they don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2362.451], "stop_times": [2363.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.451}, "reply_to": "20535__1_063", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_065", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--because there's sovereign immunity, so the real question is, should the sovereign immunity principle apply here, and you say why should it when they're elected at a county level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2363.462], "stop_times": [2371.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.462}, "reply_to": "20535__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_066", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--The reason that the State doesn't pay under 1983 is not sovereign immunity, Justice Breyer.\nIt's that the statute only imposes liability on persons, and the only reason there's liability on anybody other than the individual wrongdoer in any case is because municipal corporations are treated as persons.\nIn order to get there you have to look at whether or not we have a person here, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2371.387, 2376.832, 2388.5], "stop_times": [2376.832, 2388.5, 2392.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.387}, "reply_to": "20535__1_065", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_067", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, we do.\nHe's the sheriff, and which hat is he wearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2392.4, 2393.041], "stop_times": [2393.041, 2394.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.4}, "reply_to": "20535__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_068", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, the sheriff is clearly being held liable.\nThe question is whether there's some other person that he is acting for when he acts, and that person, the county under State law has nothing to do with him.\nHe's not part of the corporate structure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2394.293, 2397.065, 2405.511], "stop_times": [2397.065, 2405.511, 2407.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.293}, "reply_to": "20535__1_067", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_069", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "No, but you're--\n--Mr. Smith, I assume that the members of the Alabama legislature, are they elected locally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2407.892, 2408.733], "stop_times": [2408.733, 2414.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.892}, "reply_to": "20535__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_070", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2414.367], "stop_times": [2416.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.367}, "reply_to": "20535__1_069", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_071", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And can they be removed from office by the local voters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2416.287], "stop_times": [2420.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.287}, "reply_to": "20535__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_072", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I believe it happens, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2420.18], "stop_times": [2422.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.18}, "reply_to": "20535__1_071", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_073", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And are they considered local officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2422.18], "stop_times": [2424.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.18}, "reply_to": "20535__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_074", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, under the rule of local election I suppose they would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2424.314], "stop_times": [2427.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.314}, "reply_to": "20535__1_073", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_075", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "They would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2427.413], "stop_times": [2427.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.413}, "reply_to": "20535__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_076", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But clearly one needs to look beyond that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2427.904], "stop_times": [2430.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.904}, "reply_to": "20535__1_075", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_077", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I thought Justice Breyer said it was at least pay, local election and local pay which would distinguish your district attorney, a State judge, and your legislature, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2430.925], "stop_times": [2441.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.925}, "reply_to": "20535__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_078", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Your Honor, it wouldn't distinguish the local district attorney and the local district judge.\nThey are elected locally, they work in a building that is paid for and operated by the county commission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2441.554, 2445.506], "stop_times": [2445.506, 2450.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2441.554}, "reply_to": "20535__1_077", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_079", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Who pays their salary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2450.981], "stop_times": [2451.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.981}, "reply_to": "20535__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_080", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--and their salaries are supplemented routinely by county commissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2451.931], "stop_times": [2455.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.931}, "reply_to": "20535__1_079", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_081", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Supplemented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2455.473], "stop_times": [2456.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.473}, "reply_to": "20535__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_082", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes.\nNot all of their salary, but part of their salary, so we're getting down to a fairly small--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2456.285, 2456.815], "stop_times": [2456.815, 2459.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.285}, "reply_to": "20535__1_081", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_083", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, let's take these two things: election plus full pay, not supplement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2459.927], "stop_times": [2465.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.927}, "reply_to": "20535__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_084", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--My position, Your Honor, would be that those factors tell you literally nothing about whether that official is inside the municipal corporation or outside the municipal corporation, because both of those things could exist and State law could still make it really clear that this is a State person who's answerable to the State and not part of the way they decided to set up their municipal corporation.\nCounties are very narrow things in Alabama.\nThey have these specific functions.\nThey don't have home rule, and for purposes of State law the county commission and the county are really indistinguishable, so the notion that there's this sort of free-floating geography that includes everybody into a corporate structure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2465.19, 2486.442, 2488.635, 2490.185], "stop_times": [2486.442, 2488.635, 2490.185, 2502.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.19}, "reply_to": "20535__1_083", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_085", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Is there any individual for whom a county in Alabama would have Monell liability other than a member of the county commission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2502.454], "stop_times": [2514.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.454}, "reply_to": "20535__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_086", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Certainly.\nThere's a county administrator who's essentially there, keeps the paperwork flowing and deals with routine matters within the scope of the areas that are run by the county commission.\nThey run the road systems, a lot of different kinds of things that could be done by people who work for the county in the strict sense of the county commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2514.061, 2514.952, 2526.77], "stop_times": [2514.952, 2526.77, 2535.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.061}, "reply_to": "20535__1_085", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_087", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But only if they are executing, on your view, county commission policy, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2535.235], "stop_times": [2539.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.235}, "reply_to": "20535__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_088", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2539.958], "stop_times": [2540.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.958}, "reply_to": "20535__1_087", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_089", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Okay.\nThen let me amend my question and say, is there any person who makes final policy, which I take it the sheriff and the coroner would do in their realm, for whom a county in Alabama would be liable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2540.799, 2541.26], "stop_times": [2541.26, 2563.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.799}, "reply_to": "20535__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_090", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "As I think I said earlier, it's possible that one could come to that conclusion about the coroner, depending on the overall analysis of whether or not the State intended to treat them as independent county officers.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2563.014, 2573.6], "stop_times": [2573.6, 2574.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.014}, "reply_to": "20535__1_089", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_091", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I don't understand the intended, because we're not talking about a particular case.\nWe're talking about an office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2574.601, 2579.454], "stop_times": [2579.454, 2581.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.601}, "reply_to": "20535__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_092", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2581.064], "stop_times": [2581.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.064}, "reply_to": "20535__1_091", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_093", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I mean you would say that a member of the county commission, there would be liability, and you wouldn't look to depend on the particular case.\nWe have all the law that there is about coroners already on the books, so how do... I mean, you are very clear about how you type the sheriff.\nWhy shouldn't you be equally clear one way or another about how you type these other officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2581.715, 2589.301, 2598.805], "stop_times": [2589.301, 2598.805, 2604.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.715}, "reply_to": "20535__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_094", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I think the law on the coroner is much less clear.\nI mean, I think you have factors pointing in different directions.\nYou have autonomy, which is one of my factors, pointing in one way, and you have some laws which say he's a county official pointing another way.\nHere, however, we have autonomy of an official expressing designated and consistently treated as a State official under State law, so the factors are pointing the same way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2604.591, 2606.192, 2609.945, 2616.798], "stop_times": [2606.192, 2609.945, 2616.798, 2625.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2604.591}, "reply_to": "20535__1_093", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_095", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, you say he's consistently treated.\nHe's called that in some places.\nLet me go back on the question of policy to an answer you gave earlier.\nI think the hypothesis was, what if the sheriff doesn't want any patrol cars on the roads, and the attorney general comes along and says yes, you ought to have cars out there, or five cars out there, or what-not.\nWas it your answer that the attorney general could make that policy decision and make it binding on the sheriff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2625.173, 2627.096, 2629.696, 2634.028, 2646.447], "stop_times": [2627.096, 2629.696, 2634.028, 2646.447, 2653.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.173}, "reply_to": "20535__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_096", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I do not think that the attorney general could call him up and order him to add an extra squad car to his patrol.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2653.603], "stop_times": [2659.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.603}, "reply_to": "20535__1_095", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_097", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Right, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2659.166], "stop_times": [2659.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.166}, "reply_to": "20535__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_098", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Or patrol more carefully.\nIf he had decided to not carry out his law enforcement functions, which is what the question was, certainly that would be an impeachable offense.\nThe Governor... well, short of that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2659.566, 2660.787, 2668.522], "stop_times": [2660.787, 2668.522, 2670.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.566}, "reply_to": "20535__1_097", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_099", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Right.\nIt would not give policy control to anyone in particular.\nIt would simply mean that he was impeachable by whoever does impeachment in Alabama.\nI forget who it is, but it would not follow from that that there was any policy control from the impeaching authority to the sheriff, or else we would be subject to the policy of the Senate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2670.052, 2670.383, 2673.565, 2678.049], "stop_times": [2670.383, 2673.565, 2678.049, 2688.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2670.052}, "reply_to": "20535__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_100", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--The reason I focus on the impeachment provision, Your Honor, is not because I think it makes the attorney general the policymaker, but because the law in the Constitution expressly differentiates between State and local officials on the kind of impeachment procedure that applies, and they centralize control in 1901 over sheriffs by making them impeachable only at the State level based on the attorney general's initiation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2688.074], "stop_times": [2710.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2688.074}, "reply_to": "20535__1_099", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_101", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But one... one reason--\n--Is there any reason why the impeaching official cannot warn the person who's subject to impeachment, unless you do something, I will impeach you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2710.47, 2711.462], "stop_times": [2711.462, 2722.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.47}, "reply_to": "20535__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_102", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Of course not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2722.429], "stop_times": [2723.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.429}, "reply_to": "20535__1_101", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_103", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The Senate can't do that to us, presumably, but that has to do with the separation of powers.\nCould the Senate do that to a senatorial... a congressional officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2723.37, 2727.323], "stop_times": [2727.323, 2735.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.37}, "reply_to": "20535__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_104", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Sure.\nHere, though, because he's a State constitutional officer as well, the Governor has the authority to make him report on any of his activities, and the way the Constitution was set up in 1901, any false report that was made to the Governor is by itself automatically an impeachable offense, so that in practice what can happen much more easily than impeachment is that you get called on the carpet by the Governor and your misconduct or your misfeasance would then be publicized and the Governor has a fair amount of practical control over sheriffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2735.737, 2736.288], "stop_times": [2736.288, 2765.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2735.737}, "reply_to": "20535__1_103", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_105", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Oh, lots of influence, sure, but I take it... I'm sorry.\nI take it it's still your position that the impeaching authority in Alabama is not the policy-setting authority over the operation of sheriffs' departments in Alabama counties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2765.718, 2768.62], "stop_times": [2768.62, 2781.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.718}, "reply_to": "20535__1_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_106", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2781.316], "stop_times": [2782.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2781.316}, "reply_to": "20535__1_105", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_107", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's not your position, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2782.027], "stop_times": [2782.908], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2782.027}, "reply_to": "20535__1_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20535__1_108", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's absolutely right.\nI don't quarrel with the idea that he has a fair amount of discretion to make his own policies about how he's going to carry out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2782.908, 2783.429], "stop_times": [2783.429, 2787.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.908}, "reply_to": "20535__1_107", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_109", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And nobody else does, so far as law enforcement policy by the sheriff's department for that county.\nNo one else has it, does he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2787.51, 2793.595], "stop_times": [2793.595, 2794.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.51}, "reply_to": "20535__1_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_110", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Which is precisely why it would seem strange to me just to take a law which is supposed to have a much narrower rule of liability than respondeat superior and apply it in this context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2794.927], "stop_times": [2803.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.927}, "reply_to": "20535__1_109", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_111", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, it is narrower in the sense that there has got to be a policy function condition met.\nThat is the sense in which it is narrower.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2803.211, 2808.744], "stop_times": [2808.744, 2811.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.211}, "reply_to": "20535__1_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_112", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2811.646], "stop_times": [2812.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.646}, "reply_to": "20535__1_111", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_113", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And that condition would be met if, in fact, the sheriff is the policymaker for that county.\nBut then you would have... I don't care whether you call it respondeat superior, call it imputed liability, whatever label you put on it, at that point 1983 says yes, the county may be held liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2812.126, 2818.872], "stop_times": [2818.872, 2831.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.126}, "reply_to": "20535__1_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_114", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Sure, but the... what I'm saying is, State law doesn't say that, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2831.271], "stop_times": [2835.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.271}, "reply_to": "20535__1_113", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_115", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "State law doesn't say that, but 1983 and Monell does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2835.753], "stop_times": [2839.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.753}, "reply_to": "20535__1_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_116", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--No, no, no, no, State law doesn't say that he is a county policymaker.\nIt says he's a State policymaker expressly, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2839.306, 2842.408], "stop_times": [2842.408, 2845.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2839.306}, "reply_to": "20535__1_115", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_117", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But nobody at the State level can control the policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2845.399], "stop_times": [2848.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.399}, "reply_to": "20535__1_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_118", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, that's because he's got delegated authority under State law, which is what defines a policymaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2848.491], "stop_times": [2854.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.491}, "reply_to": "20535__1_117", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_119", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Do you concede that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2854.115], "stop_times": [2855.224], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.115}, "reply_to": "20535__1_118", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20535__1_120", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The DA is a State policymaker, too, when he prosecutes somebody.\nLots of people have policymaking authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2855.224, 2857.377], "stop_times": [2857.377, 2858.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2855.224}, "reply_to": "20535__1_119", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_121", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--But everybody's authority under Alabama law, or I presume the law of any other State, is ultimately, if... is ultimately delegated by State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2858.997], "stop_times": [2870.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.997}, "reply_to": "20535__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_122", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2870.895], "stop_times": [2871.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.895}, "reply_to": "20535__1_121", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_123", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Counties have the authority that State law gives them.\nGovernors do.\nSheriffs do.\nSo the fact that there is ultimately a State law answer to who has the policymaking authority and what is its extent, that doesn't get you anywhere for Monell purposes, because that's a wash item.\nThat's going to be true everywhere, all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2871.586, 2874.048, 2874.829, 2875.868, 2889.928], "stop_times": [2874.048, 2874.829, 2875.868, 2889.928, 2892.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.586}, "reply_to": "20535__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_124", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But the aspect of State law I was referring to is saying that he's a member of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2892.45], "stop_times": [2896.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2892.45}, "reply_to": "20535__1_123", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_125", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The content of State law.\nMr. Smith, let me be sure I got one point in mind.\nYou say because he's a state official he's implementing State policies when he decides how many patrol cars to put out and so forth, but that means, then, if I understand you, all 67 sheriffs have different policies within their own countries.\nYou have 67 different State policies because they're all State officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2896.991, 2898.083, 2901.636, 2916.226], "stop_times": [2898.083, 2901.636, 2916.226, 2920.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.991}, "reply_to": "20535__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20535__1_126", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Which is true with respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2920.097], "stop_times": [2921.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2920.097}, "reply_to": "20535__1_125", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_127", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And I suppose it's theoretically possible, but that's really the theory that all of these differing policies are all State policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2921.419], "stop_times": [2927.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.419}, "reply_to": "20535__1_126", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__1_128", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, all locally based State officials can... that have policymaking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2927.733], "stop_times": [2931.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.733}, "reply_to": "20535__1_127", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_129", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2931.506], "stop_times": [2931.887], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.506}, "reply_to": "20535__1_128", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20535__1_130", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--authority can set... within the confines of State law set certain policies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2931.887], "stop_times": [2935.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.887}, "reply_to": "20535__1_129", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_131", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But really the State policy is that they've delegated the authority to the sheriff to do what he wants to do.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2935.086, 2939.391], "stop_times": [2939.391, 2940.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.086}, "reply_to": "20535__1_130", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__1_132", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, that's what a locally based State official does.\nHe has discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2940.212, 2941.531], "stop_times": [2941.531, 2942.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2940.212}, "reply_to": "20535__1_131", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_133", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Is that... I mean, is there any sense in which there's a general State policy?\nWhat I'm thinking is, if you have perhaps the State representative for city streets, the highway commission, State highway commission, there will be some official in each county who's in charge of highways, and I bet they have a certain amount of discretion, but I would imagine also they meet from time to time at the State level and there are more general State policies, too.\nIs there anything like that here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2942.432, 2947.045, 2969.781], "stop_times": [2947.045, 2969.781, 2971.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.432}, "reply_to": "20535__1_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_134", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I'm not familiar with a particular thing where all the sheriffs come to Montgomery and meet about what they're going to focus on.\nThere is a certain amount of coordination that occurs.\nFor example, there are drug task forces that regionally occur, and sheriff's officials in fact do go outside their counties and work collectively in a particular region.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2971.981, 2977.886, 2979.315], "stop_times": [2977.886, 2979.315, 2989.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.981}, "reply_to": "20535__1_133", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_135", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Anything in the State capital, or any group of people at the State level who would feel that they have the responsibility, even at a highly general level, for coordinating the policies of the individual county sheriffs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [2989.103], "stop_times": [3001.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.103}, "reply_to": "20535__1_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_136", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, you have the attorney general.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3001.551], "stop_times": [3003.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.551}, "reply_to": "20535__1_135", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_137", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Does he actually do something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3003.943], "stop_times": [3006.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.943}, "reply_to": "20535__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_138", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3006.263], "stop_times": [3006.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3006.263}, "reply_to": "20535__1_137", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_139", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Has he ever written a paper, or has he ever issued an order or a suggestion which says I think that the sheriffs in these counties should follow the following policy at a very general level?\nIs there any document like that that's ever been written?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3006.733, 3018.992], "stop_times": [3018.992, 3021.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.733}, "reply_to": "20535__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_140", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--I think you're exceeding my knowledge about how things work in practice in Alabama.\nI do know, though, that the sheriffs work very closely with the istrict attorneys, which themselves work closely with the attorney general's office, and so there's going to be a certain de facto coordination.\nYou know, law enforcement can't be separated completely from prosecutorial activity in that those are State officials.\nThe district attorney is locally elected, partly locally funded, working in a county building, but they're State officials, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3021.063, 3025.427, 3035.562, 3040.979], "stop_times": [3025.427, 3035.562, 3040.979, 3046.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3021.063}, "reply_to": "20535__1_139", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_141", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Suppose a State, or a sheriff in the State of Alabama runs on a platform and he says he's going to have five different policies, one of which is going to be to interpret Federal constitutional rights at their narrowest when he's interrogating prisoners.\nCertainly in a lay... and if the voters vote him in, certainly in a law sense, in a common sense use of the term, we could say this is the policy of the voters of that county, couldn't we not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3046.989, 3065.041], "stop_times": [3065.041, 3079.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.989}, "reply_to": "20535__1_140", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20535__1_142", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--You sure could, yes, but that wouldn't be the test that should be applied under Monell.\nI mean, obviously, with any elected official, State or local, there's... you can make the argument that the voters are responsible for what they get, and they ought to be... ultimately have to pay for it, but that policy doesn't make any more sense at a local level than it does at a State level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3079.544, 3083.414], "stop_times": [3083.414, 3097.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.544}, "reply_to": "20535__1_141", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_143", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well--\n--You could say the same thing, I suppose, about the local district attorney, or the local judges of the circuit that the county people vote for.\nIf they had a certain platform you could say that that was the county or the circuit's policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3097.703, 3098.154, 3106.028], "stop_times": [3098.154, 3106.028, 3114.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.703}, "reply_to": "20535__1_142", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__1_144", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's why I say, Mr. Chief Justice, that local election doesn't really move the ball down the field.\nIt doesn't tell you whether he's in the municipal corporation or not.\nIt may be statistically more likely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3114.235, 3120.289, 3123.321], "stop_times": [3120.289, 3123.321, 3125.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3114.235}, "reply_to": "20535__1_143", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_145", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Mr. Smith, is there any purpose for which the sheriff ranks as a county officer?\nIs there any capacity in which under Alabama law he counts as a county rather than a State officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3125.653, 3131.996], "stop_times": [3131.996, 3140.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3125.653}, "reply_to": "20535__1_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_146", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Not that I can think of.\nIf you look at his other hats that he wears, it's much clearer in all of those contexts that he's a State official.\nHe takes direct supervision from the State circuit judge in the circuit.\nHe works directly with and for the State district attorney.\nHe supervises a jailer primarily by the State Department of Corrections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3140.982, 3142.002, 3147.425, 3152.0, 3155.262], "stop_times": [3142.002, 3147.425, 3152.0, 3155.262, 3159.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.982}, "reply_to": "20535__1_145", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_147", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Are you saying he's all one or all the other, so there's no people who are sometimes county officers and sometimes State officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3159.794], "stop_times": [3169.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.794}, "reply_to": "20535__1_146", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_148", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I'm saying that in this instance he's not.\nIt's possible one could set the law up that way, that people have two different functions and in one context they're supervised by the county commission over here and they're setting county policy, and in another context they're working with the judges over here and they're fully implementing State policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3169.15, 3172.122], "stop_times": [3172.122, 3184.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.15}, "reply_to": "20535__1_147", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_149", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, let's take the supervision out of it, because the one thing that we have to have is a final policymaker, otherwise there's no case here, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3184.59], "stop_times": [3193.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.59}, "reply_to": "20535__1_148", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_150", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Sure, but that doesn't mean that the final policymaker has to be without anybody who could come in and check what they've done or supervise them.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3193.397, 3200.102], "stop_times": [3200.102, 3200.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3193.397}, "reply_to": "20535__1_149", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_151", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3200.593], "stop_times": [3200.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3200.593}, "reply_to": "20535__1_150", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_152", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Power is delegated by one body to another.\nThe second body can't still be a final policymaker.\nIt's relevant, I think, where the power comes from.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3200.981, 3203.872, 3206.566], "stop_times": [3203.872, 3206.566, 3208.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3200.981}, "reply_to": "20535__1_151", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_153", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes, but you've already clarified, I think, that you don't have to have a policy... a commission over you in order to be a final decisionmaker for a county within Monell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3208.738], "stop_times": [3222.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3208.738}, "reply_to": "20535__1_152", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_154", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes.\nIf State law is express and clear enough that we're still going to treat them as part of one single municipal corporation, that's true.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3222.244, 3222.685, 3228.169], "stop_times": [3222.685, 3228.169, 3230.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3222.244}, "reply_to": "20535__1_153", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_155", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Mr. Smith, can you tell me again what are the... you say in some respects the sheriff... in some of his activities he is supervised by other State officers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3230.079], "stop_times": [3242.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.079}, "reply_to": "20535__1_154", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_156", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Clearly... clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3242.217], "stop_times": [3243.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3242.217}, "reply_to": "20535__1_155", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_157", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--and in none of his activities is he supervised by county officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3243.379], "stop_times": [3246.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.379}, "reply_to": "20535__1_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_158", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's absolutely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3246.562], "stop_times": [3247.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3246.562}, "reply_to": "20535__1_157", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_159", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Which ones is he supervised by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3247.493], "stop_times": [3249.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.493}, "reply_to": "20535__1_158", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20535__1_160", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, he is... he serves process for the State judges.\nHe executes judgments, all of that.\nThere's a specific statute that says that general supervision for all of those State activities is with the State circuit judge and that clearly he's following orders from the State circuit judge or the State district judges in that capacity, and when he's working with the district attorneys, and once they get involved in the law enforcement activities, he's working for them as well.\nSo there is a fair amount of activity there, and the operations of the jail, the Department of Corrections has reports.\nThey come in, they inspect, that sort of thing, so there is all these different ways in which he intersects and is supervised by State officials.\nIn no respect, however, does the county commission have anything to do with what he does, other than having his obligation to give him money, and certainly the law is clear that that obligation can't be turned into leverage to control his activities.\nIf a county commission were to say we think you need to be putting more emphasis on drug policy in your law enforcement in this county, and we're not going to give you all your money till you do, there'd be an injunction in State court within hours.\nIt's just clearly grossly improper them to attempt to do that, and there's no indication that it's ever been done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3249.984, 3252.444, 3254.466, 3274.21, 3282.075, 3290.54, 3304.338, 3315.207], "stop_times": [3252.444, 3254.466, 3274.21, 3282.075, 3290.54, 3304.338, 3315.207, 3320.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3249.984}, "reply_to": "20535__1_159", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_161", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Mr. Blackburn, do I understand from your argument both on brief and here this morning that you think that the First Circuit in the Blackburn v. Snow case reached the wrong conclusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3320.34], "stop_times": [3334.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.34}, "reply_to": "20535__1_160", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_162", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I do.\nI think it was focusing on a county as a unit of geography and not as a municipal corporation and said, to the extent that he's elected by the county voters, we're going to treat him as a county official, and I think that test is both unjustified under the principles of Monell and proves far too much, because you have lots of locally elected State officials who under any theory, other than just looking at election, wouldn't be viewed as part of the municipal corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3334.758, 3336.11], "stop_times": [3336.11, 3360.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3334.758}, "reply_to": "20535__1_161", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_163", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "No, but you could have... I mean, not that I necessarily want to defend an opinion in which I was on the panel--\n[Laughter]\nNonetheless, I guess in that, what I thought that that was involving is that you can't have a county official or a city official who is not responsible to anyone else in the city or county for the policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3360.565, 3367.331, 3368.82], "stop_times": [3367.331, 3368.82, 3385.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.565}, "reply_to": "20535__1_162", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_164", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3385.753], "stop_times": [3386.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3385.753}, "reply_to": "20535__1_163", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_165", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "The question here is what hat is the sheriff wearing, his county hat, or a State hat, not whether there's some other person in the county government who might control his action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3386.905], "stop_times": [3398.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3386.905}, "reply_to": "20535__1_164", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_166", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3398.552], "stop_times": [3399.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3398.552}, "reply_to": "20535__1_165", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_167", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "All right.\nThen that being so, it's clear, isn't it, that the Eleventh Circuit's reasoning was wrong?\nI mean, they were looking for somebody else in the county that had this policy, so one possible thing would be to tell them they're wrong and let them work it out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3399.223, 3399.884, 3404.557], "stop_times": [3399.884, 3404.557, 3414.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3399.223}, "reply_to": "20535__1_166", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_168", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, no, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3414.273], "stop_times": [3414.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3414.273}, "reply_to": "20535__1_167", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_169", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3414.954], "stop_times": [3415.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.954}, "reply_to": "20535__1_168", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_170", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--No, I don't think that's right.\nWhat they were looking at is whether or not, in exercising his discretion to enforce the law, he was acting for the county, and they said the county doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement.\nCounties don't have the authority to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3415.342, 3416.183, 3425.981], "stop_times": [3416.183, 3425.981, 3427.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3415.342}, "reply_to": "20535__1_169", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_171", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "All right, but that wouldn't be the issue, whether county... the question is, did the sheriff have something to do with law enforcement?\nClearly he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3427.23, 3433.505], "stop_times": [3433.505, 3434.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.23}, "reply_to": "20535__1_170", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_172", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3434.797], "stop_times": [3435.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3434.797}, "reply_to": "20535__1_171", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_173", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And then what hat is he wearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3435.728], "stop_times": [3437.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.728}, "reply_to": "20535__1_172", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20535__1_174", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "And it can't be a county hat if the county isn't... doesn't have any role in law enforcement.\nThat's what they were saying.\nI mean, you could say it different ways and arrive at the same conclusion, which is to say, he's a State official by law.\nHe's got authority that's unrelated to the county commission's control.\nWhen those two things point in the same direction, you come to the conclusion, I think, that this is not county policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3437.438, 3441.662, 3442.581, 3448.024, 3451.646], "stop_times": [3441.662, 3442.581, 3448.024, 3451.646, 3456.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3437.438}, "reply_to": "20535__1_173", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_175", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well, Mr. Smith, if you're right and the sheriff in Alabama is purely a State official, then should the action have been dismissed against... insofar as it was brought against the sheriff--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3456.95], "stop_times": [3471.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3456.95}, "reply_to": "20535__1_174", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__1_176", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Not as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3471.359], "stop_times": [3472.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3471.359}, "reply_to": "20535__1_175", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_177", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--under 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3472.24], "stop_times": [3473.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3472.24}, "reply_to": "20535__1_176", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__1_178", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--In his individual capacity he certainly could be held liable if there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3473.372], "stop_times": [3476.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3473.372}, "reply_to": "20535__1_177", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_179", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But not in his official capacity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3476.494], "stop_times": [3479.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3476.494}, "reply_to": "20535__1_178", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__1_180", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3479.457], "stop_times": [3479.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3479.457}, "reply_to": "20535__1_179", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_181", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--is your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3479.927], "stop_times": [3480.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3479.927}, "reply_to": "20535__1_180", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20535__1_182", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThey only brought it against him in his official capacity on the theory that he was a county official, and I think the courts properly looked at the suit against the county and the suit against him in his official capacity as being essentially identical, because obviously you can't sue him in his official capacity to the extent he's a State official, because the Eleventh Amendment and the statute wouldn't authorize it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3480.595, 3481.707], "stop_times": [3481.707, 3501.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3480.595}, "reply_to": "20535__1_181", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_183", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Does the--\n--What about the insurance?\nMr. Stevenson mentioned when he was asked who would be liable for the ordinary torts, and he said he thought the county would under some insurance policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3501.148, 3502.49, 3503.231], "stop_times": [3502.49, 3503.231, 3515.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3501.148}, "reply_to": "20535__1_182", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_184", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "There is an insurance program which covers sheriffs for certain torts... not other torts, not intentionally torts.\nThere's a serious question here whether he would be covered, but I think the fact that the county, in addition to paying his salary and providing all of his equipment and everything else he uses, has also bought insurance for him doesn't by any means indicate that... doesn't have any great significance.\nIt doesn't make much difference one way or the other, in terms of indicating which hat he was wearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3515.5, 3520.372, 3534.12], "stop_times": [3520.372, 3534.12, 3538.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3515.5}, "reply_to": "20535__1_183", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_185", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But why would they do that?\nWhy would they buy the insurance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3538.905, 3539.603], "stop_times": [3539.603, 3540.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3538.905}, "reply_to": "20535__1_184", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_186", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3540.915], "stop_times": [3542.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3540.915}, "reply_to": "20535__1_185", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_187", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "If they have no interest in law enforcement, why would they buy this insurance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3542.526], "stop_times": [3545.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3542.526}, "reply_to": "20535__1_186", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20535__1_188", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "--Well, they... for the same reason they pay for his salary and all the other things they do.\nThey provide what he needs to get the law enforced in the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3545.33, 3548.84], "stop_times": [3548.84, 3551.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3545.33}, "reply_to": "20535__1_187", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_189", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "But they're required to pay the salary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3551.342], "stop_times": [3553.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3551.342}, "reply_to": "20535__1_188", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20535__1_190", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "They're required also to provide for his reasonable needs.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3553.445, 3556.667], "stop_times": [3556.667, 3557.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3553.445}, "reply_to": "20535__1_189", "speaker": "paul_m_smith"}
{"id": "20535__1_191", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Smith.\nMr. Stevenson, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3557.455, 3558.056], "stop_times": [3558.056, 3561.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3557.455}, "reply_to": "20535__1_190", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20535__2_000", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "I'd like to at least suggest that the Court not accept this notion that the sheriff is a State policymaker under the law that's been provided.\nThere are two provisions which point to the sheriff having some State identity, the constitutional provision, which we contend is a label and is at best ambiguous, because the label says, sheriff for the county, and then the State tort law judgments, which we contend are not relevant here.\nThe rest of Alabama law repeatedly refers to the sheriff as a county officer, and the Eleventh Circuit did not hold the sheriff makes policy for the State precisely because, as Justice Stevens suggests, that's kind of a difficult notion.\nHe is not like the Department of Public Safety employees who are subject to some State hierarchical command.\nWhat the respondent then tries to say is, because there is this removal authority, somehow the State exercises control.\nThe removal authority in Alabama is applicable to all county, municipal, and State officials.\nThey can remove a mayor, a county commissioner, a city commissioner, and in that sense does not help us resolve this question.\nThe third thing is that we have identified in our brief at pages 23 and 24 all of the State law enforcement provisions that identify State law enforcement officers.\nIn those provisions the sheriff is never referenced, never included, which I think again gives good evidence as to why the sheriff is not a State policymaker.\nAnd then finally, if we're not going to accept election and funding and status as a county official as the governing rationale, then the county commission's not a county official either, because their relationship to the county is also dependent on three factors.\nThey're elected, they're paid, and they're identified as county officials.\nNothing else in Alabama law makes them any more of a county representative than the sheriff, and in those respects we think it's not only appropriate but necessary to hold that county liable when its resources empower somebody like the sheriff here to engage in the kind of unconstitutional conduct against the petitioner that could not have happened but for those resources.\nMr. McMillian would not have spent 6 years on death row unless the county gave the sheriff the power to arrest, to stop, to withhold evidence, and to do the other things that violated his rights, and under those circumstances it's certainly our position that the Federal remedy ought not turn on the personal sovereignty of the wrongdoer.\nIt ought not turn on that, because that wrongdoer's conduct was not made possible solely by that wrongdoer's initiative or conduct.\nUnless there are further questions, I'll rest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3561.339, 3572.605, 3588.476, 3603.297, 3608.951, 3615.584, 3620.828, 3628.752, 3638.269, 3646.795, 3660.903, 3664.736, 3684.359, 3702.601, 3710.056], "stop_times": [3572.605, 3588.476, 3603.297, 3608.951, 3615.584, 3620.828, 3628.752, 3638.269, 3646.795, 3660.903, 3664.736, 3684.359, 3702.601, 3710.056, 3712.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3561.339}, "reply_to": "20535__1_191", "speaker": "bryan_a_stevenson"}
{"id": "20535__2_001", "conversation_id": "20535", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-542", "start_times": [3712.648, 3713.97], "stop_times": [3713.97, 3715.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3712.648}, "reply_to": "20535__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__0_000", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 96-320, Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company v. Michael Buckley.\nMs. Birnbaum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [0.0, 8.939], "stop_times": [8.939, 17.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__0_001", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nThe Court this morning is confronted with a ruling from the Second Circuit that is both unprecedented, stands alone and is contrary to the common law and field of precedent both before this Court and in most of the common law courts of this country.\nIf the Second Circuit's decision is not reversed, it will greatly exacerbate the asbestos litigation crisis we have in the courts and will lead to the unpredictable and expansive, unlimited liability that this Court was concerned about in the Gottshall case.\nTort law is clear: you have to sustain an injury before you can recover from a negligent defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [17.093, 20.663, 38.106, 56.937], "stop_times": [20.663, 38.106, 56.937, 65.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 17.093}, "reply_to": "19844__0_000", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_002", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Ms. Birnbaum, may I ask you if you would clarify your position in this case with the one that the... that is being taken by the defendants in the case this afternoon?\nThat is, they say that there is an injury, that there is a class of people who have been really exposed to asbestos.\nAnd they have an injury, in fact... a concrete, particularized injury, in fact... here and now, just by virtue of having been inundated with asbestos.\nAnd you're saying, as I take it you've just said, they don't have any claim until they suffer an illness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [65.524, 77.082, 84.254, 96.745], "stop_times": [77.082, 84.254, 96.745, 104.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.524}, "reply_to": "19844__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_003", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "What--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [104.066], "stop_times": [104.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 104.066}, "reply_to": "19844__0_002", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_004", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "We can't both be right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [104.818], "stop_times": [106.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.818}, "reply_to": "19844__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_005", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, I'm not going to argue the Georgene case on the standing issue.\nThere may be different considerations with regard to standing.\nYou're also looking at this issue through the context of FELA, a statute that provides that there must be an injury, and has a jurisprudence that goes with it.\nBut it's still much broader.\nWe would say that a person who is merely exposed and has no injury... in this case, the record is clear, he has no clinical evidence even of pleural plaques, pleural injuries, he has no recognition, no determination by his own physicians even of subcellular changes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [106.384, 111.072, 114.107, 124.646, 126.831], "stop_times": [111.072, 114.107, 124.646, 126.831, 149.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 106.384}, "reply_to": "19844__0_004", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_006", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The courts below relied on the physical impact of the fibers going inside his lungs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [149.78], "stop_times": [157.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.78}, "reply_to": "19844__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_007", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--But, first, there is no real evidence of that except a hypothetical given by the expert below.\nBut besides that, the real issue here is subcellular injury, even if it existed, has been held over and over again by most common law courts in this context not to be an injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [157.117, 164.79], "stop_times": [164.79, 178.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 157.117}, "reply_to": "19844__0_006", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_008", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, how do we deal with a physical impact, does that constitute an injury, even if it's slight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [178.03], "stop_times": [184.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.03}, "reply_to": "19844__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_009", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No.\nI think that... and I think if you look at the courts... the common law courts... even a court like Florida, which clearly adopts an impact test by itself, not a zone of danger test... which I think we need to talk about... that this Court has adopted a zone of danger test, not an impact test... if you look at those courts that have adopted an impact test, in the area of asbestos exposure, toxic exposure, what the courts have done is added more, because they are concerned about this unlimited, unpredictable liability.\nIn Florida, where they have just the impact test, the court, in the Cox case, said you have to also have a physical injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [184.517, 185.119, 219.857], "stop_times": [185.119, 219.857, 228.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.517}, "reply_to": "19844__0_008", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_010", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But aren't there many jurisdictions that have recognized a claim for medical monitoring, a common law claim for medical monitoring, for people who have been massively exposed but have not yet manifested any illness?\nThere are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [228.296, 244.825], "stop_times": [244.825, 245.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.296}, "reply_to": "19844__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_011", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "There are... there are a few.\nAnd it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [245.342, 246.944], "stop_times": [246.944, 247.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.342}, "reply_to": "19844__0_010", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_012", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--How many, roughly, would you say?\nOver a dozen I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [247.444, 249.094], "stop_times": [249.094, 250.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.444}, "reply_to": "19844__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_013", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--A little less, but there are some.\nAnd if you look at most of those cases, they are either in the area where there are a very small number of people... the water cases, where there are just a small number of people who have been exposed to contaminated water, and not the kind of situation here, where 21 million people have been substantially exposed to asbestos.\nTwenty-one million people could come into the court today--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [250.646, 252.512, 274.425], "stop_times": [252.512, 274.425, 277.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.646}, "reply_to": "19844__0_012", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_014", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, but may I interrupt with just a question?\nLet's talk about one of those 21 million people who has been substantially exposed.\nAnd say that person's doctor says the exposure is sufficiently serious that I think you ought to check with me every 6 months to see if anything has developed, because if it does develop and we catch it early, we'll be better able to treat you.\nWould that be an injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [277.143, 278.76, 282.781, 294.089], "stop_times": [278.76, 282.781, 294.089, 296.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.143}, "reply_to": "19844__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_015", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--No.\nNot under FELA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [296.389, 296.874], "stop_times": [296.874, 297.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 296.389}, "reply_to": "19844__0_014", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_016", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Even though he'd have to pay his doctor's bill every 6 months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [297.707], "stop_times": [300.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.707}, "reply_to": "19844__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_017", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "That would be a damage, but it wouldn't be an injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [300.676], "stop_times": [302.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 300.676}, "reply_to": "19844__0_016", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_018", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But not within the meaning of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [302.861], "stop_times": [304.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.861}, "reply_to": "19844__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_019", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [304.961], "stop_times": [305.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.961}, "reply_to": "19844__0_018", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_020", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But as a matter of ordinary reasoning, would not that be a pecuniary injury that one could at least say gave... gave rise to some kind of claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [305.478], "stop_times": [313.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.478}, "reply_to": "19844__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_021", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I think it's just much more complicated than that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [313.983], "stop_times": [316.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.983}, "reply_to": "19844__0_020", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_022", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, it's more complicated because there are 21 million people out there.\nI agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [316.518, 319.037], "stop_times": [319.037, 319.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.518}, "reply_to": "19844__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_023", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Twenty-one million--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [319.837], "stop_times": [320.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.837}, "reply_to": "19844__0_022", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_024", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But if you look at just the one is what I'm trying to think of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [320.154], "stop_times": [322.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.154}, "reply_to": "19844__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_025", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--But the problem is, if you had 21 million just asbestos-exposed people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [322.522], "stop_times": [325.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.522}, "reply_to": "19844__0_024", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_026", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [325.041], "stop_times": [325.641], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 325.041}, "reply_to": "19844__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__0_027", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--this would apply to all toxic substances.\nWe can't count the numbers of other toxic substances--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [325.641, 327.143], "stop_times": [327.143, 330.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 325.641}, "reply_to": "19844__0_026", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_028", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No, but I'm just... I'm just challenging the integrity of the argument that there's no injury there, when a person, because of the physical exposure to that, is required to pay a doctor every 6 months for the next 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [330.345], "stop_times": [341.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 330.345}, "reply_to": "19844__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_029", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--I would say that under tort law and under the law of FELA, you have to have an injury.\nIt has to either be a physical injury or an emotional distress injury within the boundaries that this Court has said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [341.153, 346.872], "stop_times": [346.872, 352.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.153}, "reply_to": "19844__0_028", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_030", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And dollar injury is not enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [352.442], "stop_times": [353.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.442}, "reply_to": "19844__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_031", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Damage.\nIt's damage.\nIt's not injury.\nIf we sustain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [353.794, 354.31, 354.794, 355.527], "stop_times": [354.31, 354.794, 355.527, 356.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.794}, "reply_to": "19844__0_030", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_032", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But under general... under general tort law, you wouldn't make that argument, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [356.679], "stop_times": [360.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.679}, "reply_to": "19844__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_033", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Yes, I would, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [360.031], "stop_times": [360.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.031}, "reply_to": "19844__0_032", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_034", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "You... you would not... I mean, but your argument seems to be saying that you... that there is no injury cognizable in tort which does not involve personal as opposed to economic injury.\nAnd that... you're not arguing that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [360.814, 370.32], "stop_times": [370.32, 372.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.814}, "reply_to": "19844__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_035", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No.\nThere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [372.172, 372.522], "stop_times": [372.522, 373.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.172}, "reply_to": "19844__0_034", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_036", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But why isn't there, then, an economic injury, just as Justice Stevens says?\nIf the... if the doctor says the exposure is such that you would be crazy not to have an examination every 6 months, why... and presumably you are not crazy, so that you're going to act reasonably and you're going to have the exam... why doesn't the reasonable necessity of expending the money for the examinations every 6 months constitute an economic injury to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [373.005, 376.391], "stop_times": [376.391, 401.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.005}, "reply_to": "19844__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_037", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--It... it maybe a damage to you, but before you can get to a damage for medical monitoring... for future medical monitoring, the courts... the common law courts have been very clear... you first have to have an injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [401.606], "stop_times": [416.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.606}, "reply_to": "19844__0_036", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_038", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Except for the 12 that you said go the other way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [416.449], "stop_times": [418.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.449}, "reply_to": "19844__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_039", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes.\nAnd that is... that is so.\nThere is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [418.884, 419.401, 420.753], "stop_times": [419.401, 420.753, 421.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 418.884}, "reply_to": "19844__0_038", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_040", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But why should we not accept economic injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [421.403], "stop_times": [423.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.403}, "reply_to": "19844__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_041", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Because if you do that, you will be opening up the courts of this country to the... to... to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [423.705], "stop_times": [428.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.705}, "reply_to": "19844__0_040", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_042", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Okay.\nBut that's a different... you're... it seems to me you're now saying... and I'm not saying it's an illegitimate argument... but you're making a different kind of argument.\nYou're saying not that it would be, in the abstract, foolish to regard this as an economic injury or economic damage, but if you do, you're simply going to cost the system more than the system can bear.\nAnd, therefore, not for an analytical reason, but for reasons of the cost of consequences, we shouldn't recognize it.\nThat's the argument you're making now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [428.674, 429.007, 434.911, 449.337, 455.841], "stop_times": [429.007, 434.911, 449.337, 455.841, 457.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.674}, "reply_to": "19844__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_043", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--I... that is the second argument.\nI would go back to the first argument, and except for the small number of cases in the water situation, not an asbestos exposure, where there has been no physical injury, the courts have not jumped in to provide a medical monitoring kind of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [457.391, 459.776], "stop_times": [459.776, 476.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.391}, "reply_to": "19844__0_042", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_044", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Ms. Birnbaum, if we... if we just took the one-on-one case that Justice Stevens gave... I really don't follow your argument.\nBecause something happened to this person.\nNo illness is manifested yet.\nBut something happened to create a greater vulnerability than the population at large.\nAnd if we just were looking at these two people and say, who should bear the cost of that something that the medical profession says should be done, we would certainly put it on, would we not, the person who caused the exposure rather than the person who suffered the condition that requires the monitoring?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [476.869, 484.474, 486.776, 488.543, 494.847], "stop_times": [484.474, 486.776, 488.543, 494.847, 514.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.869}, "reply_to": "19844__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_045", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--I... I think that the tort law does not... does not respond that way, except for these special circumstances, these minority group of cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [514.494], "stop_times": [525.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.494}, "reply_to": "19844__0_044", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_046", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Then are you saying that we have a kind of assumption of the risk involved, that the worker who didn't know that he was being exposed and is going to incur this cost if he follows his doctor's advice, has to bear that cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [525.634], "stop_times": [539.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.634}, "reply_to": "19844__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_047", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--No, we're not saying that.\nI think it's not an assumption of the risk.\nIf there is an injury, then he can recover all of the damages that arise from that injury, including foreseeable medical expenses in the future.\nBut if we just have this type of damage... and if you call it something else, then you may come up with a different solution... but it is a damage.\nIt has to go on to something.\nThat something would be a physical injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [539.478, 541.494, 544.096, 556.921, 567.878, 570.013], "stop_times": [541.494, 544.096, 556.921, 567.878, 570.013, 572.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.478}, "reply_to": "19844__0_046", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_048", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, Ms. Birnbaum, in the case just preceding, we were discussing the product liability law.\nCertainly that has evolved often in conscious consideration of which party can best protect against an injury.\nI take it want you're arguing is that transactional costs are a permissible consideration in deciding what recovery you can have under FELA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [572.365, 577.251, 585.923], "stop_times": [577.251, 585.923, 594.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.365}, "reply_to": "19844__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__0_049", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, I think... I think it is, Your Honor.\nAnd I think that even more so under FELA.\nThe statute is explicit... you have to have an injury.\nWe're putting the cart before the horse.\nIt talks about a physical injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [594.629, 596.581, 599.933, 604.42, 606.086], "stop_times": [596.581, 599.933, 604.42, 606.086, 608.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.629}, "reply_to": "19844__0_048", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_050", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But it doesn't say \"physical\".\nIf you're relying on section 1 of FELA, 45 U.S. Code, Section 51--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [608.455, 609.988], "stop_times": [609.988, 616.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.455}, "reply_to": "19844__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_051", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [616.394], "stop_times": [617.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.394}, "reply_to": "19844__0_050", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_052", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--it says a common carrier by... railroad, while engaging in commerce shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier.\nNow, does that include economic injury or only physical injury?\nAnd... and what do we look to in precedent to resolve that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [617.244, 627.2, 633.354], "stop_times": [627.2, 633.354, 637.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.244}, "reply_to": "19844__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_053", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I... I think what you look to is the common law.\nWhat you look to is your prior field of precedent.\nWhat you look to is language and the intent of Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [637.289, 639.657, 642.359], "stop_times": [639.657, 642.359, 646.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.289}, "reply_to": "19844__0_052", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_054", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, certainly if you look to the common law, an economic injury can be and has often been recognized as the basis for liability in tort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [646.494], "stop_times": [658.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.494}, "reply_to": "19844__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_055", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But this is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [658.119], "stop_times": [658.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.119}, "reply_to": "19844__0_054", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_056", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "So you say this requires physical injury, and how do we know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [658.987], "stop_times": [662.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.987}, "reply_to": "19844__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_057", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, I think that the kind of economic damages we're talking about is not this type or economic damage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [662.856], "stop_times": [668.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.856}, "reply_to": "19844__0_056", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_058", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Economic injury.\nDon't put it in terms of damages, because the statute says \"injury\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [668.427, 669.41], "stop_times": [669.41, 673.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.427}, "reply_to": "19844__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_059", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I... I... the statute does say \"injury\".\nAnd this Court has interpreted that to mean, in some instances, physical injury, emotional distress injury under certain limitations that this Court said was important.\nAnd there is no case under FELA that has ever held that the type of damage we're talking about here is an injury that was covered by Congress, certainly in 1908, and certainly today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [673.831, 676.366, 688.506], "stop_times": [676.366, 688.506, 702.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.831}, "reply_to": "19844__0_058", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_060", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, but we have recognized that emotional injury will suffice for recovery if the person meets the zone of danger test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [702.164], "stop_times": [712.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 702.164}, "reply_to": "19844__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_061", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes.\nThat is exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [712.121, 712.137], "stop_times": [712.137, 713.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 712.121}, "reply_to": "19844__0_060", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_062", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And this is a case based on emotional injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [713.087], "stop_times": [715.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.087}, "reply_to": "19844__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_063", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, it's based on emotional injury, but he is not trying to recover medical monitoring for his emotional injury.\nHe's trying to recover medical monitoring based on his potential physical injury in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [715.989, 724.679], "stop_times": [724.679, 731.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.989}, "reply_to": "19844__0_062", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_064", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, is his theory that if he has regular monitoring, it will alleviate... xx monitoring... it will alleviate his emotional concern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [731.249], "stop_times": [739.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.249}, "reply_to": "19844__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_065", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "That was never argued below.\nAnd a jury would be giving him his emotional distress injury not for any period of time until he had the first checkup.\nWhat he's asking is for this injury over the entire period of time, over his life span and medical monitoring damages over his life span.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [739.003, 741.705, 749.961], "stop_times": [741.705, 749.961, 758.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.003}, "reply_to": "19844__0_064", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_066", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Ms. Birnbaum, you... you said in passing that this type of thing certainly wouldn't have been covered in 1908, when FELA was enacted.\nIs it your contention that we should not extend the statute beyond what it meant in 1908?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [758.649, 767.838], "stop_times": [767.838, 773.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.649}, "reply_to": "19844__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__0_067", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIt is clear that it would not have... have been a... there had been no toxic tort kind of litigation as we know it today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [773.842, 774.592], "stop_times": [774.592, 782.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.842}, "reply_to": "19844__0_066", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_068", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Clear, but irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [782.615], "stop_times": [783.498], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 782.615}, "reply_to": "19844__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__0_069", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "It's not totally irrelevant, but it doesn't matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [783.498], "stop_times": [786.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 783.498}, "reply_to": "19844__0_068", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_070", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, why is it not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [786.484], "stop_times": [787.419], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 786.484}, "reply_to": "19844__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__0_071", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--because today, also, there would be no recovery under these circumstances in almost every jurisdiction in the United States under the FELA jurisprudence that we have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [787.419], "stop_times": [798.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.419}, "reply_to": "19844__0_070", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_072", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--What about Potter?\nI mean aren't there two or three cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [798.541, 799.643], "stop_times": [799.643, 801.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.541}, "reply_to": "19844__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_073", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [801.276], "stop_times": [801.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.276}, "reply_to": "19844__0_072", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_074", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Potter, Paoli, Ayers... that were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [801.693], "stop_times": [803.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.693}, "reply_to": "19844__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_075", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Potter is interesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [803.611], "stop_times": [804.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.611}, "reply_to": "19844__0_074", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_076", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Potter sounds like an effort to try to limit the recovery--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [804.478], "stop_times": [808.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.478}, "reply_to": "19844__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_077", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [808.165], "stop_times": [808.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.165}, "reply_to": "19844__0_076", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_078", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--but allow it in a case where the exposure is severe, the added risk is severe, and there is good medical evidence that medical tests are useful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [808.665], "stop_times": [818.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.665}, "reply_to": "19844__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_079", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--But Potter goes even further, because it provides that the risk in the future has to be more probably than not.\nThat's not what we have here.\nWe have a risk that the plaintiff's expert says is 1 percent greater than the background risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [818.105, 824.525, 826.377], "stop_times": [824.525, 826.377, 832.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 818.105}, "reply_to": "19844__0_078", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_080", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But are you... are you... but that's still an effort to create a set of cases where the risk is serious enough, such that, given the seriousness of the risk, the level of the exposure and the medical need for examinations, you have a cause of action and can recover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [832.28], "stop_times": [850.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.28}, "reply_to": "19844__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_081", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "In a... in the limited situation in Potter of... of four litigants who were exposed to contaminated water, Potter did that.\nAnd we would say that the California court, in Potter, is on the leading edge and is not what most courts in the United States have held.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [850.076, 858.598], "stop_times": [858.598, 868.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.076}, "reply_to": "19844__0_080", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_082", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, would you say never, or what test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [868.971], "stop_times": [871.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.971}, "reply_to": "19844__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_083", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Never... never a medical monitoring recovery under FELA.\nI would say never a medical monitoring under FELA unless there has been a physical injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [871.221, 875.708], "stop_times": [875.708, 881.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.221}, "reply_to": "19844__0_082", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_084", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Ms. Birnbaum, you're talking about FELA as though it were some kind of very restrictive statute.\nBut at least as I remember in ancient days, when I went to law school, it was the most forward-looking and the most... they stretched the boundaries of everything.\nCausation was stretched to the breaking point under FELA.\nAnd has now it become some kind of a constricted statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [881.362, 886.933, 896.038, 899.84], "stop_times": [886.933, 896.038, 899.84, 903.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.362}, "reply_to": "19844__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_085", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No.\nI think it is a broad remedial statute.\nAnd it has broadly looked at defenses and causation.\nBut I think this Court, in Gottshall, made it clear that there have to be bright lines, especially in the area of negligent infliction of emotional distress, to prevent the kind of unpredictable and unlimited liability that will occur if the Second Circuit's decision is affirmed.\nLook what we have here.\nWe have a person who has no injury, who has no serious emotional distress.\nHe is worried and angry.\nWell, he may have a good right to be worried and angry.\nBut he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [903.042, 903.558, 906.16, 910.714, 929.776, 931.127, 938.281, 940.733, 944.185], "stop_times": [903.558, 906.16, 910.714, 929.776, 931.127, 938.281, 940.733, 944.185, 944.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.042}, "reply_to": "19844__0_084", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_086", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Indeed, he does.\nBecause asbestos is a known carcinogen and the causer of serious respiratory harm.\nAnd if one worked for an employer who knowingly subjected the employee for 3 years to massive doses of asbestos, without ever a warning that that's what was being dealt with, one would have some concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [944.835, 945.721, 952.725], "stop_times": [945.721, 952.725, 967.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.835}, "reply_to": "19844__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_087", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, I agree, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [967.635], "stop_times": [969.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.635}, "reply_to": "19844__0_086", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_088", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Even a normal-reacting employee would be furious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [969.337], "stop_times": [973.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.337}, "reply_to": "19844__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_089", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Your Honor, there are several things in your statement that really I question... and we'll get back to the massive amounts in a moment... of asbestos... but Dr. Selikoff, who is one of the noted scientists in this area, who brought this all to the attention of the public, said in his book, \"Asbestos and Disease\", it is undisputed that the overwhelming majority of exposure-only plaintiffs will never develop asbestos-related injuries.\nIt's... it's... the... the science is clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [973.371, 1001.372], "stop_times": [1001.372, 1004.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.371}, "reply_to": "19844__0_088", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_090", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, should it turn, then, on the... the likelihood of the danger of developing the injury, if it's substantially likely that the injury... that... that the illness will occur in time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1004.76], "stop_times": [1019.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.76}, "reply_to": "19844__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_091", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1019.0], "stop_times": [1019.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1019.0}, "reply_to": "19844__0_090", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_092", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--and that it can be alleviated if there is early detection, and that there was, indeed, significant exposure?\nI mean if all those fall into place, is there room under the text of this statute for medical monitoring recovery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1019.602, 1027.856], "stop_times": [1027.856, 1035.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.602}, "reply_to": "19844__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_093", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--I... I would say no, Your Honor.\nIf there is a need for medical monitoring, that is something Congress should be deciding.\nThe legislative branch should decide that.\nThat's... there are so many policy implications, besides the fact whether this does any good, besides the fact what the amici argue or whether it's necessary, beside the fact of how do we decide what is massive or substantial, beside the fact that we have no guidelines than the Second Circuit.\nTo open up and make the railroads the insurance, the HMO's for anybody who has been exposed to beyond background level... because that's what's really being argued--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1035.694, 1037.314, 1042.699, 1045.484, 1062.179], "stop_times": [1037.314, 1042.699, 1045.484, 1062.179, 1074.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.694}, "reply_to": "19844__0_092", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_094", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Why don't we let Congress decide this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1074.07], "stop_times": [1075.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.07}, "reply_to": "19844__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__0_095", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, because if there's going to be a whole new remedy, isn't this something the legislature should decide, based on public policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1075.856], "stop_times": [1082.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.856}, "reply_to": "19844__0_094", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_096", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "That's what I suggest.\nBut you say a whole new remedy, you've conceded that we can create new remedies.\nI mean the statute says \"who has suffered injury\".\nAnd I presume that suffering injury meant something in 1908.\nBut you say we're not bound by that.\nWe can... we can define today things to be injury that were not injury in 1908.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1082.426, 1083.026, 1085.712, 1088.264, 1091.449, 1092.732], "stop_times": [1083.026, 1085.712, 1088.264, 1091.449, 1092.732, 1097.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.426}, "reply_to": "19844__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__0_097", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I think we can... we can define physical injury, we can define emotional injury.\nThis Court did that in Gottshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1097.952, 1102.939], "stop_times": [1102.939, 1104.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.952}, "reply_to": "19844__0_096", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_098", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, I know.\nI mean why do you limit it to those?\nOnce you acknowledge that we're not bound to whatever Congress thought it was doing in 1908, you're letting this Court simply create a whole new tort law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1104.489, 1104.973, 1105.891], "stop_times": [1104.973, 1105.891, 1113.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.489}, "reply_to": "19844__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__0_099", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1113.379], "stop_times": [1113.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.379}, "reply_to": "19844__0_098", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_100", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And you're just arguing, you know, you want us to develop that... what do we base this... this new tort law on?\nShould we be guided by the... the... you say we should be guided by the common law.\nWhat does the common law mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1113.812, 1119.099, 1123.42], "stop_times": [1119.099, 1123.42, 1124.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.812}, "reply_to": "19844__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__0_101", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, first of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1124.42], "stop_times": [1125.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.42}, "reply_to": "19844__0_100", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_102", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "It meant something in 1908.\nI'm not sure what it means no.\nWhat does it mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1125.353, 1126.289, 1127.189], "stop_times": [1126.289, 1127.189, 1127.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.353}, "reply_to": "19844__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__0_103", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, I think it's what, generally, the law of the various States and Federal courts interpreting State law... I would say it would be at least what the majority of courts would say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1127.822], "stop_times": [1138.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.822}, "reply_to": "19844__0_102", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_104", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The majority of States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1138.096], "stop_times": [1138.912], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.096}, "reply_to": "19844__0_103", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__0_105", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I don't... I don't... I'm not making the argument, Your Honor, that you should do this.\nI'm arguing just the opposite.\nYou shouldn't do this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1138.912, 1143.75, 1145.35], "stop_times": [1143.75, 1145.35, 1146.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.912}, "reply_to": "19844__0_104", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_106", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But, Ms. Birnbaum, you recognize that we did.\nIf you take Wilkerson against McCarthy, it's typical of an era under FELA.\nAnd so to say that... you would have to be urging, if you want to go back to 1908, that this Court has a lot of overruling to do, with all those cases from a generation ago under FELA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1146.383, 1147.952, 1153.022], "stop_times": [1147.952, 1153.022, 1166.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.383}, "reply_to": "19844__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_107", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, there are those of you on this Court that will like to look at 1908 and decide that what was the common law in 1908 should govern.\nThere are those of you who don't believe that, and you're going to look at the common law as it has developed.\nI would suggest to you that the overwhelming common law... all of the common law in 1908... and the overwhelming common law today would require a physical injury before you permit a requirement for the kinds of damages we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1166.347, 1176.221, 1180.856], "stop_times": [1176.221, 1180.856, 1196.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.347}, "reply_to": "19844__0_106", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_108", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "How long ago... just... I mean if, on the assumption that you're supposed to look at the various relevant features from a public policy point of view... which maybe you're not or maybe we are... but on that assumption, how long ago did a serious, significant amount of exposure in the work place to asbestos stop?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1196.116], "stop_times": [1214.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.116}, "reply_to": "19844__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_109", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "It's going on probably today in many work places.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1214.946], "stop_times": [1217.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.946}, "reply_to": "19844__0_108", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_110", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "So how... how many of the people... it's going on today, you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1217.381], "stop_times": [1219.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1217.381}, "reply_to": "19844__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_111", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1219.898], "stop_times": [1220.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.898}, "reply_to": "19844__0_110", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_112", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "All right.\nSo how many--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1220.666, 1221.283], "stop_times": [1221.283, 1222.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1220.666}, "reply_to": "19844__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_113", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "It depends on how we define \"substantial\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1222.15], "stop_times": [1223.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.15}, "reply_to": "19844__0_112", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_114", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, all right.\nWhat I'm thinking... what I'm wondering is, is how many of the people... the workers who are exposed, who need medical exams, are likely to be covered automatically by insurance that would provide for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1223.452, 1224.052], "stop_times": [1224.052, 1233.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.452}, "reply_to": "19844__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_115", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I... I don't... I can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1233.641], "stop_times": [1235.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.641}, "reply_to": "19844__0_114", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_116", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Is there any way to find out something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1235.776], "stop_times": [1237.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.776}, "reply_to": "19844__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_117", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--I... I don't... I don't know, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1237.576], "stop_times": [1238.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.576}, "reply_to": "19844__0_116", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_118", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Are many of them over 65?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1238.878], "stop_times": [1240.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.878}, "reply_to": "19844__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_119", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Many would be.\nMany would not be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1240.578, 1241.497], "stop_times": [1241.497, 1242.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.578}, "reply_to": "19844__0_118", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_120", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, don't most States follow the collateral source doctrine, that a plaintiff can recover for the cost of a medical exam from the defendant liable, even though the insurance reimburses the plaintiff through a contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1242.43], "stop_times": [1256.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.43}, "reply_to": "19844__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__0_121", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, I think that has changed by statute in... in many jurisdictions now.\nBut, yes, many jurisdictions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1256.089, 1260.541], "stop_times": [1260.541, 1261.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1256.089}, "reply_to": "19844__0_120", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_122", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, but that's what exactly I'm interested in.\nTo what extent are we actually thinking of workers who won't get medical exams because they can't pay for them?\nAnd to what extent are we thinking of workers who will have medical exams regardless, but will simply take this money as an extra amount of money that they or their attorneys or whoever would be able to share for other purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1261.993, 1263.26, 1269.081], "stop_times": [1263.26, 1269.081, 1281.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.993}, "reply_to": "19844__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_123", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--There has been a great deal of literature on this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1281.039], "stop_times": [1283.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1281.039}, "reply_to": "19844__0_122", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_124", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And where... where would I look to find out the answer to that question?\nBecause I think it... if it's from a public policy point of view, if relevant, it would make a difference as to whether you're paying for a worker's medical exam in reality or whether you're simply adding extra money to the worker's pocket... at least it might be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1283.341, 1285.859], "stop_times": [1285.859, 1298.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.341}, "reply_to": "19844__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__0_125", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, there is some... yes, there is some literature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1298.0], "stop_times": [1299.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.0}, "reply_to": "19844__0_124", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_126", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1299.266], "stop_times": [1299.516], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.266}, "reply_to": "19844__0_125", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__0_127", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And I could... I just don't have it in front of me, but I could let the Court know what it is... in which they have studied the kinds of cases where workers have been provided money for medical monitoring in which they never went to a doctor and in which they took the money and pocketed the money.\nAnd there is some literature on that by discussions and interviews with... with workers.\nIf this were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1299.516, 1314.692, 1320.429], "stop_times": [1314.692, 1320.429, 1321.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.516}, "reply_to": "19844__0_126", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_128", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Ms. Birnbaum, do we know whether OSHA covers this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1321.345], "stop_times": [1323.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.345}, "reply_to": "19844__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_129", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1323.047], "stop_times": [1323.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.047}, "reply_to": "19844__0_128", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_130", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--and would provide the... would... would OSHA require medical exams?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1323.547], "stop_times": [1326.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.547}, "reply_to": "19844__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_131", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--OSHA could require medical exams.\nOSHA did not require medical exams here because... it's not in the record... but... because the amount of asbestos that was... that was found in... in tests during the period that he was working, but not in his work place, just didn't show the proper amount that the... that the amount of asbestos was as high as OSHA would require.\nOSHA has a provision that does cover this.\nAnd OSHA does cover railroads in New York.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1326.333, 1328.249, 1350.782, 1353.667, 1356.269], "stop_times": [1328.249, 1350.782, 1353.667, 1356.269, 1356.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.333}, "reply_to": "19844__0_130", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_132", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And, incidentally, were there... if there is a knowing... under OSHA probably... suppose it were established that there was asbestos that was known to the employer and the employer deliberately concealed the fact from the workers and ordered them to be working here, knowingly subjecting them to very massive doses.\nWould that be a criminal violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1356.836, 1379.051], "stop_times": [1379.051, 1381.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.836}, "reply_to": "19844__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_133", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--It... I don't know, Your Honor.\nBut I know, in that situation, you might have an intentional act, which is not what we're talking about here.\nWe're only talking about a negligence act.\nAnd there could be different rules there or different rules that apply to intentional acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1381.134, 1382.92, 1387.99, 1390.64], "stop_times": [1382.92, 1387.99, 1390.64, 1395.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1381.134}, "reply_to": "19844__0_132", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_134", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Intentional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1395.661], "stop_times": [1396.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.661}, "reply_to": "19844__0_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_135", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And it could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1396.68], "stop_times": [1397.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.68}, "reply_to": "19844__0_134", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_136", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Intentional conduct was not alleged here in any of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1397.446], "stop_times": [1399.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.446}, "reply_to": "19844__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_137", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--No.\nNo, Your Honor.\nIt's just plain negligence.\nNo matter how the plaintiff would argue it, of outrageous, egregious, this was a stipulation of negligence.\nThe conduct of the defendant was never argued before the court.\nIt was never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1399.362, 1399.645, 1400.212, 1401.495, 1409.318, 1413.27], "stop_times": [1399.645, 1400.212, 1401.495, 1409.318, 1413.27, 1413.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.362}, "reply_to": "19844__0_136", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_138", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--But the statute doesn't draw any distinction between negligence and willful torts, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1413.936], "stop_times": [1417.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1413.936}, "reply_to": "19844__0_137", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_139", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--The FELA statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1417.407], "stop_times": [1418.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1417.407}, "reply_to": "19844__0_138", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_140", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1418.724], "stop_times": [1419.374], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.724}, "reply_to": "19844__0_139", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__0_141", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, it's a negligence statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1419.374], "stop_times": [1421.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1419.374}, "reply_to": "19844__0_140", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_142", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I say, it doesn't draw a distinction between negligence and more... and reckless or anything else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1421.625], "stop_times": [1425.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.625}, "reply_to": "19844__0_141", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__0_143", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Right.\nIt's negligence alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1425.929, 1426.212], "stop_times": [1426.212, 1427.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.929}, "reply_to": "19844__0_142", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_144", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, in a sense, it... it does define the... the activating factor is negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1427.762], "stop_times": [1433.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.762}, "reply_to": "19844__0_143", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__0_145", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1433.683], "stop_times": [1434.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1433.683}, "reply_to": "19844__0_144", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_146", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1434.383], "stop_times": [1434.951], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.383}, "reply_to": "19844__0_145", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__0_147", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Negligence is what FELA is all about.\nThe defendant is negligent and the plaintiff is injured.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1434.951, 1436.818, 1440.003], "stop_times": [1436.818, 1440.003, 1440.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1434.951}, "reply_to": "19844__0_146", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_148", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Is a violation of OSHA negligence... evidence of negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1440.689], "stop_times": [1443.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.689}, "reply_to": "19844__0_147", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__0_149", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--It would be evidence of negligence.\nBut it was not... this was not even before the court here.\nAnd it was a stipulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1443.891, 1445.674, 1448.943], "stop_times": [1445.674, 1448.943, 1450.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.891}, "reply_to": "19844__0_148", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_150", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But you... you conceded negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1450.128], "stop_times": [1451.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.128}, "reply_to": "19844__0_149", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_151", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1451.378], "stop_times": [1451.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.378}, "reply_to": "19844__0_150", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_152", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And do any workers' compensation schemes provide recovery for any of the items of damages that are being sought here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1451.961], "stop_times": [1460.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.961}, "reply_to": "19844__0_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_153", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I do... I can't... I don't know the answer to that.\nBut this would not be what we're talking about here under FELA.\nI just don't know whether some workers' comps do... statutes do... and some don't.\nBut what is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1460.751, 1464.135, 1469.022, 1473.576], "stop_times": [1464.135, 1469.022, 1473.576, 1474.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1460.751}, "reply_to": "19844__0_152", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_154", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "If... if we were to affirm this judgment and the employee got the recovery he seeks and he then later develops a serious disease from the asbestos exposure, could he sue again?\nIs that clear that he could not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1474.376, 1486.051], "stop_times": [1486.051, 1487.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.376}, "reply_to": "19844__0_153", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19844__0_155", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--We say he could not under the one-judgment rule.\nThis is not coming back for another type of injury, where some courts have permitted that to happen, where there has been an injury of asbestosis, and then you come back when you can get cancer.\nWe would say that the one-judgment rule would put him out of court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1487.92, 1490.636, 1502.578], "stop_times": [1490.636, 1502.578, 1506.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1487.92}, "reply_to": "19844__0_154", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_156", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, if the claim initially is for emotional injury and subsequently a claim for actual physical illness, you think that would be barred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1506.381], "stop_times": [1517.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.381}, "reply_to": "19844__0_155", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__0_157", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I think it would.\nBut if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1517.003, 1517.955], "stop_times": [1517.955, 1518.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.003}, "reply_to": "19844__0_156", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_158", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "There is certainly precedent going the other way that I am intimately familiar with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1518.405], "stop_times": [1522.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.405}, "reply_to": "19844__0_157", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_159", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Yes, if it would... if it would not, think what you're doing here.\nHe would first recover for his anger, not severe emotional distress, which we haven't talked about, which almost every court has required... for his anger... then, if he gets pleural plaques or pleural thickening, he may come back again and say it's a pleural disease.\nThen, if he gets asbestosis, he may come back again and say he has a different disease, asbestosis.\nAnd then, if he gets cancer down the road, he can come back again and say he has cancer.\nI mean this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1522.324, 1524.509, 1538.103, 1542.904, 1547.291], "stop_times": [1524.509, 1538.103, 1542.904, 1547.291, 1548.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1522.324}, "reply_to": "19844__0_158", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_160", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The latter two, at least, there's a considerable precedent for saying that, if you recover for asbestosis and then you get this virulent form of cancer, you haven't split a claim, you have indeed two separate claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1548.974], "stop_times": [1561.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.974}, "reply_to": "19844__0_159", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_161", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Many... many courts have held that way, Your Honor.\nSo, in this particular instance, we have not only the one-disease or the two-disease rule, we have a totally different type of damages, then all of the potential of the personal injury damages.\nI would suggest to you that the court... the Second Circuit went off wrong on two instances.\nOne, this man is not... not a bystander.\nHe doesn't fall into the zone of danger rule.\nHe wasn't in peril of imminent injury.\nHe was not... he was not... sustained any severe injury.\nThere is no physical manifestation of his injury.\nThere is no objective evidence that he even sustained an emotional injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1561.116, 1562.384, 1575.042, 1582.381, 1585.916, 1588.016, 1590.885, 1597.491, 1600.693], "stop_times": [1562.384, 1575.042, 1582.381, 1585.916, 1588.016, 1590.885, 1597.491, 1600.693, 1605.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1561.116}, "reply_to": "19844__0_160", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_162", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I suppose one might say he was certainly in a zone of danger.\nWorking in asbestos dust-drenched air is a zone of danger.\nYou know that some of the people in that group are exposed to grave danger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1605.895, 1609.882, 1615.853], "stop_times": [1609.882, 1615.853, 1619.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.895}, "reply_to": "19844__0_161", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__0_163", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Then every worker who was anywhere near a toxic substance is in the zone of danger.\nAnd, clearly, that's not what this Court said in Gottshall.\nWhat this Court said in Gottshall is you have to be in imminent danger of immediate harm.\nThis is a person who has a potential... a mere potential... of harm in the future.\nIt is... the Second Circuit's opinion is unprecedented, when you look at it in all its pieces.\nThere is not one case in the entire United States... certainly not in 1908 and certainly not today... that has stripped the common law and FELA of all its limitations, of all its restrictions in this way, and opened up the floodgates, opened up the courthouse doors to any worker who has been exposed to any type of toxic substance that is above background range and who is worried or angry about what happened to him.\nI... I suspect... and some of the amici have already said in the amici briefs... that there have been class actions that have been brought since this decision for non-impaired exposed workers seeking medical monitoring and this type of emotional distress.\nAlmost every worker will be opening--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1619.821, 1624.624, 1628.593, 1635.849, 1641.67, 1650.09, 1680.311, 1698.107], "stop_times": [1624.624, 1628.593, 1635.849, 1641.67, 1650.09, 1680.311, 1698.107, 1701.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.821}, "reply_to": "19844__0_162", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_164", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Birnbaum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1701.225], "stop_times": [1702.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.225}, "reply_to": "19844__0_163", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__0_165", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1702.475], "stop_times": [1703.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1702.475}, "reply_to": "19844__0_164", "speaker": "sheila_l_birnbaum"}
{"id": "19844__0_166", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Mr. Goetsch, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1703.411], "stop_times": [1704.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.411}, "reply_to": "19844__0_165", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_000", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nMichael Buckley and the Snowmen of Grand Central Terminal are here to ask this Court to adapt the approach and the standard of Gottshall to the problem of toxic exposure in the railroad work place, and thereby fulfill the essential remedial purpose of the FELA, while also addressing the legitimate common law concerns about screening out trivial, fraudulent and unlimited claims.\nAnd here is the concrete, bright line, scientifically verifiable test to do that.\nFirst, three elements of proof.\nProof of physical impact by a toxic substance.\nYou cannot have exposure and ingestion without physical impact.\nBut that's not enough.\nSecond, proof of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1704.694, 1708.295, 1732.576, 1738.397, 1740.766, 1744.651, 1748.77, 1750.038], "stop_times": [1708.295, 1732.576, 1738.397, 1740.766, 1744.651, 1748.77, 1750.038, 1752.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.694}, "reply_to": "19844__0_166", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_001", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, how... let's talk about your first point for a minute.\nI mean how about the person just walking down the street in a big city?\nI mean they're going to be able to show some ingestion of a toxic substance I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1752.422, 1754.64, 1758.911], "stop_times": [1754.64, 1758.911, 1764.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1752.422}, "reply_to": "19844__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_002", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--That's right, Your Honor.\nAnd this is precisely why the test I'm giving you, the three-part test, will screen out such trivial exposure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1764.213, 1764.713], "stop_times": [1764.713, 1770.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.213}, "reply_to": "19844__1_001", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_003", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But the first, obviously, doesn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1770.533], "stop_times": [1771.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.533}, "reply_to": "19844__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_004", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Exactly, yes.\nBut... but it's three... it's a three-part test.\nFirst, physical impact, exposure, ingestion.\nThat's... if you don't have that, you have no claim.\nBut that's not enough.\nYou have to show an... an increase in risk of developing a grave toxic disease.\nNow, if you don't have any increase in the risk, there's no recovery.\nBut that also is not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1771.802, 1773.002, 1776.521, 1779.156, 1781.507, 1782.526, 1790.696, 1795.084], "stop_times": [1773.002, 1776.521, 1779.156, 1781.507, 1782.526, 1790.696, 1795.084, 1796.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.802}, "reply_to": "19844__1_003", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_005", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Why a grave toxic disease?\nI mean, you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1796.884, 1798.452], "stop_times": [1798.452, 1799.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.884}, "reply_to": "19844__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_006", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1799.119], "stop_times": [1799.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1799.119}, "reply_to": "19844__1_005", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_007", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--there are all sorts of risks that we go through in life, and you pay for them out of your own pocket.\nI mean, you know, life is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1799.536, 1804.19], "stop_times": [1804.19, 1805.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.536}, "reply_to": "19844__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_008", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Right.\nThis is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1805.406, 1805.99], "stop_times": [1805.99, 1806.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.406}, "reply_to": "19844__1_007", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_009", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--is not a bed of roses.\nI'm walking down the street in New York or, worse yet, I'm standing in a crowded subway in New York and the person next to me coughs.\nAnd... and some of the... some of his cough lands upon me or in the ambient air and I ingest it.\nSo there has been an impact.\nYour... your test number one has been met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1806.458, 1807.508, 1814.479, 1822.751, 1824.019], "stop_times": [1807.508, 1814.479, 1822.751, 1824.019, 1825.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.458}, "reply_to": "19844__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_010", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1825.719], "stop_times": [1826.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.719}, "reply_to": "19844__1_009", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_011", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "This person is coughing, presumably because he has a cold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1826.269], "stop_times": [1829.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.269}, "reply_to": "19844__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_012", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1829.321], "stop_times": [1829.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.321}, "reply_to": "19844__1_011", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_013", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And I'm very careful about such things.\nLet's say I'm elderly, and... and getting a cold could be very harmful.\nNow, is he liable to me for... for medical monitoring thereafter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1829.84, 1831.507, 1834.642], "stop_times": [1831.507, 1834.642, 1838.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.84}, "reply_to": "19844__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_014", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Absolutely not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1838.613], "stop_times": [1839.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.613}, "reply_to": "19844__1_013", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_015", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1839.479], "stop_times": [1840.146], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.479}, "reply_to": "19844__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__1_016", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Because there has to be a three-part test that will screen out the trivial, the fraudulent and the unlimited claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1840.146], "stop_times": [1845.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.146}, "reply_to": "19844__1_015", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_017", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, that's not trivial to me.\nI mean I... I don't want to have a cold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1845.45, 1846.217], "stop_times": [1846.217, 1847.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.45}, "reply_to": "19844__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_018", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, okay, now, here's the point.\nHere's the point, Your Honor.\nThe Railroad is asking for a genuineness test, in effect.\nThey say you cannot recover without some common law indicia of genuineness... a manifest symptom, psychiatric testimony and so on.\nBut that's the genuine test that this Court rejected in Gottshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1847.467, 1847.9, 1848.583, 1852.019, 1860.041], "stop_times": [1847.9, 1848.583, 1852.019, 1860.041, 1863.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.467}, "reply_to": "19844__1_017", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_019", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, it's not a cold, it's the flu.\nIt's not a cold.\nIt's the flu.\nThe flu can be very serious, very painful.\nAm I... I mean every time somebody causes me some inconvenience, do I have a cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1863.077, 1863.41, 1864.193, 1864.827, 1866.862], "stop_times": [1863.41, 1864.193, 1864.827, 1866.862, 1872.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.077}, "reply_to": "19844__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_020", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No, Your Honor, absolutely, not.\nAnd that's the standard that... that I'm giving you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1872.849, 1874.116], "stop_times": [1874.116, 1876.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.849}, "reply_to": "19844__1_019", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_021", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, what's your third test?\nGive us the third point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1876.235, 1877.601], "stop_times": [1877.601, 1878.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.235}, "reply_to": "19844__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__1_022", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--The third test is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1878.187], "stop_times": [1879.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.187}, "reply_to": "19844__1_021", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_023", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "We've gotten the two, can we hear the third?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1879.07], "stop_times": [1880.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.07}, "reply_to": "19844__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__1_024", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]\nThe third test is competent expert testimony establishing a scientifically verifiable basis for a reasonable fear of a future toxic disease.\nNow, that expert testimony has to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1880.37, 1880.87, 1881.686, 1894.194], "stop_times": [1880.87, 1881.686, 1894.194, 1896.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.37}, "reply_to": "19844__1_023", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_025", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "That... that doesn't help my questions at all.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1896.963, 1898.248], "stop_times": [1898.248, 1898.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.963}, "reply_to": "19844__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_026", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1898.915], "stop_times": [1899.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.915}, "reply_to": "19844__1_025", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_027", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--if you get coughed on, you're likely to get a cold or flu--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1899.665], "stop_times": [1902.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.665}, "reply_to": "19844__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_028", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--We're talking about fear of future death... death by cancer.\nWe're not talking about a cold or the flu, Your Honor.\nThat's the point here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1902.199, 1905.251, 1907.603], "stop_times": [1905.251, 1907.603, 1908.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.199}, "reply_to": "19844__1_027", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_029", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, about... what about pneumonia?\n[Laughter]\nI mean you can up the ante, you know, from a cold to flu to pneumonia.\nAnd pneumonia for elderly... elderly Americans, as we call ourselves... can be--\n--can be very harmful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1908.47, 1920.161, 1910.622, 1915.357, 1920.678], "stop_times": [1920.161, 1910.622, 1915.357, 1920.678, 1923.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.47}, "reply_to": "19844__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_030", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Your Honor, this case is about toxic exposure in the railroad work place.\nAnd we're not talking about... what we're talking about are regulated hazardous substances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1923.213, 1927.332], "stop_times": [1927.332, 1932.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.213}, "reply_to": "19844__1_029", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_031", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, I'm in the work place and some of my employees come to work with severe colds.\nAnd we work closely together.\nThey cough.\nAnd we ingest some of the substance that they're coughing.\nAnd my doctor tells me yes, it's very likely that you will develop pneumonia from exposure to this sort of thing.\nNow, I have a good doctor, reputable.\nIt's reasonably likely that that's what's going to happen.\nRecovery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1932.569, 1938.307, 1939.992, 1941.125, 1946.078, 1955.168, 1958.053, 1960.905], "stop_times": [1938.307, 1939.992, 1941.125, 1946.078, 1955.168, 1958.053, 1960.905, 1961.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.569}, "reply_to": "19844__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__1_032", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIt's not a known carcinogen.\nIt's not regulated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1961.672, 1962.288, 1963.707], "stop_times": [1962.288, 1963.707, 1964.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.672}, "reply_to": "19844__1_031", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_033", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But known carcinogens are the same.\nI could spend the whole rest of your time reading you a list of known carcinogens.\nThere is no fruit or vegetable that you can eat that is not going to have at least several molecules of pesticide residue.\nThere is nothing in this room that doesn't contain some elements of known carcinogens.\nAll right.\nSo your first two tests don't help distinguish your case, I think, from tens of thousands of millions of cases affecting every man, woman and child in the United States.\nSo, therefore, the third part of your test must do it.\nAnd that's what I want to know... how?\nBecause I suspect, in every instance in which my 50,000-substance list of known carcinogens is concerned, where in fact negligence is at stake, you will find at least one expert who would come in and say, well, negligence is at stake, why isn't negligence... there must be some significant risk.\nAnd, therefore, I take it that what your third test is going to do is allow every... a claim of negligent infliction of emotional suffering without limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [1964.707, 1966.392, 1970.611, 1975.998, 1980.819, 1981.368, 1991.191, 1994.226, 1995.995, 2013.207], "stop_times": [1966.392, 1970.611, 1975.998, 1980.819, 1981.368, 1991.191, 1994.226, 1995.995, 2013.207, 2023.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.707}, "reply_to": "19844__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_034", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2023.495], "stop_times": [2024.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.495}, "reply_to": "19844__1_033", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_035", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "All right.\nNow, what I want to know is why isn't that so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2024.062, 2024.562], "stop_times": [2024.562, 2026.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.062}, "reply_to": "19844__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_036", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Okay, let's take an example, Your Honor.\nThe Snowmen of Grand Central Terminal are leaving their job site at the end of the day.\nThey're walking through the terminal.\nThey're covered from head to toe with a white--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2026.447, 2028.466, 2033.184, 2034.37], "stop_times": [2028.466, 2033.184, 2034.37, 2036.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.447}, "reply_to": "19844__1_035", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_037", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "You're covered from head to toe when you dive into a swimming pool... covered with chlorine.\nSomebody could say... you're covered from head to toe when you sit and have apples... you know, thousands of them around you.\nThere is... there are tens of thousands of toxic substances which, to some degree or other, create small risks of cancer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2036.686, 2039.94, 2045.761], "stop_times": [2039.94, 2045.761, 2054.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.686}, "reply_to": "19844__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_038", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--And that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2054.967], "stop_times": [2055.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.967}, "reply_to": "19844__1_037", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_039", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And... and what... in your case, you talk about a 5-percent increase in the risk... 10-percent increase.\nYou get 100-percent increase of being hit by lightning if you go to the top of a hill.\nAll right?\nThe amount of increase is not significant.\nWhat's significant is the risk.\nAnd even in your case, I can't find out what the risk is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2055.5, 2061.353, 2066.341, 2067.007, 2069.876, 2071.409], "stop_times": [2061.353, 2066.341, 2067.007, 2069.876, 2071.409, 2074.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.5}, "reply_to": "19844__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_040", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2074.094], "stop_times": [2074.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.094}, "reply_to": "19844__1_039", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_041", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The very case where you say, must be an example of such a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2074.561], "stop_times": [2077.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.561}, "reply_to": "19844__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_042", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The... the third element demands and requires a scientifically verifiable basis for a reasonable fear of future grave toxic disease.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2077.213], "stop_times": [2087.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.213}, "reply_to": "19844__1_041", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_043", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, isn't that an element of every claim for negligent infliction of emotional suffering?\nHow else could there be negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2087.005, 2090.623], "stop_times": [2090.623, 2092.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.005}, "reply_to": "19844__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_044", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Look, this... what I'm saying is that this is an FELA case that has to be interpreted in a remedial and humanitarian fashion.\nThe problem we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2092.373, 2103.531], "stop_times": [2103.531, 2104.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.373}, "reply_to": "19844__1_043", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_045", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But... but... just a minute.\nWhat does that mean to say it has to be interpreted in a remedial and humanitarian fashion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2104.631, 2105.366], "stop_times": [2105.366, 2110.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.631}, "reply_to": "19844__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_046", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Okay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2110.018], "stop_times": [2110.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.018}, "reply_to": "19844__1_045", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_047", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "This Court used language like that, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out, years ago.\nBut recently we have backed off of that, to have a more neutral approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2110.62, 2113.988], "stop_times": [2113.988, 2117.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.62}, "reply_to": "19844__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_048", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, what I meant, Mr. Chief Justice, was that the essential remedial purpose of the FELA is to promote safe operating conditions on the Nation's railroads by allowing recovery for... for harms and injuries that occur to... to employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2117.607], "stop_times": [2132.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.607}, "reply_to": "19844__1_047", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_049", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Okay.\nI didn't... I interrupted you while you were answering Justice Breyer's question.\nWhy don't you return to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2132.45, 2133.034, 2135.652], "stop_times": [2133.034, 2135.652, 2136.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.45}, "reply_to": "19844__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_050", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Okay.\nJustice Breyer, if I recall your question... which I may not at this point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2136.752, 2137.521], "stop_times": [2137.521, 2141.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.752}, "reply_to": "19844__1_049", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_051", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "My question--\n[Laughter]\nMy question was simply how your limitation is any limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2141.64, 2142.256, 2142.956], "stop_times": [2142.256, 2142.956, 2146.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.64}, "reply_to": "19844__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_052", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2146.043], "stop_times": [2146.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.043}, "reply_to": "19844__1_051", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_053", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "It seemed to me that as you say it, your limitation is no limitation, but rather, in any serious negligence case, would allow recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2146.509], "stop_times": [2153.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.509}, "reply_to": "19844__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_054", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "All right.\nAnd my illustration of the... how it would function to limit that situation, Your Honor, is that a railroad clerk walks by the Snowmen when they're walking out of the tunnels.\nAnd later learns that that dust on them that that clerk breathed was in fact carcinogenic asbestos.\nThat clerk has a reaction, goes to a psychiatrist, has severe distress... physically manifests distress... the psychiatrist confirms this is genuine distress.\nThis person has severe emotional distress.\nNo question about it.\nThis test would hold that that clerk cannot recover, because there is no scientifically verifiable basis for that clerk to have a reasonable foundation... scientific foundation... to fear the future development of asbestos cancer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2153.03, 2153.697, 2164.255, 2170.159, 2179.698, 2182.65, 2183.567], "stop_times": [2153.697, 2164.255, 2170.159, 2179.698, 2182.65, 2183.567, 2198.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.03}, "reply_to": "19844__1_053", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_055", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But why is a 3-percent increase in the risk a basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2198.076], "stop_times": [2201.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.076}, "reply_to": "19844__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__1_056", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2201.861], "stop_times": [2202.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2201.861}, "reply_to": "19844__1_055", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_057", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Or 5 percent?\nThat doesn't sound significant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2202.63, 2203.68], "stop_times": [2203.68, 2205.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.63}, "reply_to": "19844__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__1_058", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--It doesn't sound significant, Justice O'Connor, but it is an enormous increase in risk.\nThe record in this case establishes that that is a 10 to 50 times greater risk than what is considered to be a highly significant risk.\nWhat it means--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2205.582, 2210.3, 2219.989], "stop_times": [2210.3, 2219.989, 2221.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.582}, "reply_to": "19844__1_057", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_059", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, as for that, how do we know if it's a lot or a little?\nI'll tell you right now, your risk is doubled of being hit by lightning if you walk out the door.\nIt's unlikely.\nAll right.\nDo people worry about being hit by lightning because they're outside?\nThe risk of lightning is 1 in 2 million.\nIf you're on top of a hill, it's probably 1 in 500,000.\nThat's quadrupling... not just 5 percent.\nHow do we know the significance of this 5 percent without knowing what the underlying risks are?\nThat's something that I haven't been able to find in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2221.206, 2222.108, 2226.31, 2227.293, 2227.86, 2230.695, 2232.896, 2235.748, 2238.033, 2243.187], "stop_times": [2222.108, 2226.31, 2227.293, 2227.86, 2230.695, 2232.896, 2235.748, 2238.033, 2243.187, 2245.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.206}, "reply_to": "19844__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_060", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--His underlying risk of death from cancer due to asbestos was 0, Your Honor.\nIt has now been increased from 1 to 5 percent.\nWhich means that if all the Snowmen of Grand Central were... share that 1 to 5-percent increased risk, it means that between two and eight of them are going to be killed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2245.637, 2252.46, 2255.495], "stop_times": [2252.46, 2255.495, 2264.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.637}, "reply_to": "19844__1_059", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_061", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "How can... how can you be so sure his underlying risk was 0?\nMaybe he went to school in a classroom that had asbestos in it.\nI mean I don't think you can just assume without proof that the large majority of people in the country have a 0 risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2264.518, 2267.97, 2272.29], "stop_times": [2267.97, 2272.29, 2279.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.518}, "reply_to": "19844__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_062", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But there's no scientific basis for them to fear future asbestos cancer.\nAnd that's my point.\nIs that those people shouldn't be able to recover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2279.527, 2284.264, 2285.414], "stop_times": [2284.264, 2285.414, 2287.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.527}, "reply_to": "19844__1_061", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_063", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "What do you mean \"fear\"?\nWe know that... look, my problem... the reason I'm going into this is to suggest how complicated and difficult, as soon as you start using words like \"increased risk\", anything is possible.\nAll these substances have increased risks.\nAnd... and, therefore, what kind of standard are you offering that would in fact permit some recovery for emotional distress without saying in any toxic substance case, any significant toxic substance case, automatically you get emotional distress injury?\nSee, you purported to have some limitations.\nAnd as I listen to them, I didn't see how they were going to limit.\nThat's why I asked my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2287.466, 2289.1, 2300.389, 2303.008, 2326.039, 2328.891, 2332.61], "stop_times": [2289.1, 2300.389, 2303.008, 2326.039, 2328.891, 2332.61, 2334.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.466}, "reply_to": "19844__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_064", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Okay.\nAll we can rely on, Justice Breyer, is objective scientific evidence to... to confirm the legitimacy of the fear of the future.\nIf there is no basis... if there's no connection--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2334.562, 2334.945, 2345.085], "stop_times": [2334.945, 2345.085, 2347.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.562}, "reply_to": "19844__1_063", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_065", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But don't you agree, you can always find a reputable doctor who will say yes, there is a reasonable fear of this danger in the future?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2347.187], "stop_times": [2357.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.187}, "reply_to": "19844__1_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__1_066", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Your Honor, I do not believe that is true in the field--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2357.077], "stop_times": [2359.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.077}, "reply_to": "19844__1_065", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_067", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, certainly that's been my experience over 30-some years--\n--Or, if necessary, an unreputable one.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2359.694, 2363.664, 2365.298], "stop_times": [2363.664, 2365.298, 2366.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.694}, "reply_to": "19844__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19844__1_068", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--All we have, Justice O'Connor, is Daubert, which vets expert testimony for is it reliable, is it trustworthy, is it based on scientific method.\nI mean that is the standard that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2366.533, 2376.722], "stop_times": [2376.722, 2379.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.533}, "reply_to": "19844__1_067", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_069", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The problem is not fake scientists.\nThe problem is that 500,000 people will die of cancer every year.\nAnd of course exposure is real.\nAnd of course it's a great concern.\nThey're telling the truth.\nThese substances are dangerous.\nAnd so, are we supposed to say, because of that true fact, not a false fact, that everybody who has some exposure to a substance that significantly increases the chance that he or she will get cancer... probably the entire population of the United States... are we to say that they are to have a cause of action for emotional suffering when they do suffer?\nOf course they worry about these things.\nI mean that's the difficult question.\nIt isn't as if it's a fake question.\nIt's a real question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2379.824, 2381.776, 2387.264, 2389.466, 2391.316, 2392.667, 2394.517, 2417.946, 2420.648, 2422.667, 2424.302], "stop_times": [2381.776, 2387.264, 2389.466, 2391.316, 2392.667, 2394.517, 2417.946, 2420.648, 2422.667, 2424.302, 2425.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.824}, "reply_to": "19844__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_070", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--And... and Justice Breyer, we're talking about railroad employees who are negligently toxically exposed.\nThat's all we're talking about.\nWe're not talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2425.452, 2430.356, 2431.356], "stop_times": [2430.356, 2431.356, 2432.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.452}, "reply_to": "19844__1_069", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_071", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I know.\nAnd so shall each person who is negligently exposed to a serious toxic substance... i.e., vast numbers of people... have causes of action for infliction of emotional suffering?\nThat's the question... not the answer.\nAnd, therefore, I'm still looking.\nYour answer could be yes, they all should have it.\nOr the answer might be no.\nOr it might be somewhere in between.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2432.29, 2432.656, 2445.383, 2447.652, 2449.635, 2451.954, 2453.487], "stop_times": [2432.656, 2445.383, 2447.652, 2449.635, 2451.954, 2453.487, 2455.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.29}, "reply_to": "19844__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_072", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--My answer is that the only objective scientific standard that we can rely on is legitimate, verifiable scientific bases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2455.189], "stop_times": [2464.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.189}, "reply_to": "19844__1_071", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_073", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Mr. Goetsch, can I ask you a question that has been running through my mind that's been touched on?\nAnd that is, supposing the law is... and I don't know whether it is or not... that if your client recovers in this case, that will be the sole recovery for this exposure?\nYou get one bite at the apple.\nYou can sue early or you can wait till you really get... the disease manifests itself.\nDo you think all of your clients would... would bring this case?\nYou can ponder your answer to that question.\nWe'll resume at 1 o'clock, Mr. Goetsch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2464.511, 2468.213, 2477.421, 2478.771, 2482.889, 2486.61, 2488.477], "stop_times": [2468.213, 2477.421, 2478.771, 2482.889, 2486.61, 2488.477, 2490.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.511}, "reply_to": "19844__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__1_074", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "We'll resume argument now in No. 96-320, Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company v. Michael Buckley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2490.745], "stop_times": [2520.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.745}, "reply_to": "19844__1_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_075", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2520.514], "stop_times": [2521.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.514}, "reply_to": "19844__1_074", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_076", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Counsel, just to refresh your recollection, the question I intended to leave with you... we left in kind of a hurry... was that, assuming that the rule is that your client may only have one bite at the apple as a result of the exposure to asbestos that he's already had... the particular individual.\nWould he... would he bring the lawsuit in its present posture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2521.533, 2535.691], "stop_times": [2535.691, 2540.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.533}, "reply_to": "19844__1_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__1_077", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, assuming that that's the rule and not the separate disease rule, which I believe Justice Ginsburg referred to.\nThis is not a claim for present physical injury.\nThis is a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, which, by definition, means that there is no present physical injury.\nSo when there are physical injuries down the line, for asbestosis, lung cancer, et cetera, those... those physical injuries will... will accrue.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2540.094, 2548.017, 2551.469, 2558.223, 2567.829], "stop_times": [2548.017, 2551.469, 2558.223, 2567.829, 2568.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.094}, "reply_to": "19844__1_076", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_078", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, but my assumption is that he can only recover for one tort and only get one recovery.\nEven if he has 19 different injuries, if he happens to sue for only one of them, and this is the one he elects to sue for, do you think he'd sue for this one... assuming he'd be barred from bringing a further action for other injuries?\nIt's really the same injury, it's just manifested itself with further harm.\nenvironment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2568.764, 2573.716, 2584.273, 2587.392], "stop_times": [2573.716, 2584.273, 2587.392, 2588.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.764}, "reply_to": "19844__1_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__1_079", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, assuming that that is the applicable rule, then he would have to make a choice.\nAnd... and he could very well choose to wait.\nAll right.\nBut that's not the rule that the... that the common law is... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2588.592, 2592.629, 2595.062, 2595.664], "stop_times": [2592.629, 2595.062, 2595.664, 2599.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.592}, "reply_to": "19844__1_078", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_080", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--No, but we're interpreting a statute, and the question, as I understand it, has not been resolved by this Court.\nAnd it would seem to me, a permissible disposition of a case like this would be to say sure, you can bring this suit, but that's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2599.883, 2605.187], "stop_times": [2605.187, 2611.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.883}, "reply_to": "19844__1_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__1_081", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, that issue was not raised or discussed below and hasn't been briefed to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2611.941], "stop_times": [2617.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.941}, "reply_to": "19844__1_080", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_082", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, but it seems to me you are taking... you may well, as counsel for this particular plaintiff, be taking the risk that that's the outcome of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2617.578], "stop_times": [2624.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.578}, "reply_to": "19844__1_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19844__1_083", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--I don't believe so, Your Honor, because, again, this is not a claim for a present physical injury.\nIt's an emotional distress claim, which, by definition, does not include--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2624.767, 2630.152], "stop_times": [2630.152, 2634.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2624.767}, "reply_to": "19844__1_082", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_084", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Assuming that you are taking that risk, would your risk be different if you switched to your claim for compensation for... for the cost of medical monitoring?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2634.537], "stop_times": [2644.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.537}, "reply_to": "19844__1_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__1_085", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2644.143], "stop_times": [2646.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.143}, "reply_to": "19844__1_084", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_086", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Would that be on a different footing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2646.012], "stop_times": [2647.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.012}, "reply_to": "19844__1_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__1_087", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2647.162], "stop_times": [2647.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.162}, "reply_to": "19844__1_086", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_088", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Because that would... that would be... that would be a purely economic injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2647.678], "stop_times": [2651.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.678}, "reply_to": "19844__1_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__1_089", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--To the extent that it allows the plaintiff to discover, the accrual of a physical injury for lung cancer and so forth, it allows the plaintiff to... to minimize his... his damages by getting the early detection and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2651.165], "stop_times": [2666.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.165}, "reply_to": "19844__1_088", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_090", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, no, but isn't your theory that it's an entirely different tort?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2666.908], "stop_times": [2670.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.908}, "reply_to": "19844__1_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__1_091", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--It... the legal injury for... for that is the invasion of the legally protected interests in being free from having to undergo those types of tests and examinations which were caused soley by the negligence of the railroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2670.377], "stop_times": [2683.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.377}, "reply_to": "19844__1_090", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_092", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And that... that had nothing to do with present physical injury and it has nothing to do with the emotional consequences of the contact; it's entirely separate, as I understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2683.887], "stop_times": [2691.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.887}, "reply_to": "19844__1_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__1_093", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt is the invasion of that legally protected interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2691.374, 2691.991], "stop_times": [2691.991, 2694.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.374}, "reply_to": "19844__1_092", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_094", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "So then you really could have brought two suits; you could bring just emotional distress, go the jury on that, and then you could again bring a cause of action for medical monitoring?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2694.575], "stop_times": [2703.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.575}, "reply_to": "19844__1_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__1_095", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I don't believe so for this reason, Justice Kennedy.\nThe basis for a medical monitoring claim is proof of exposure, increased risk and a medically verifiable basis for exams that detect and treat that increased risk of future cancer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2703.598, 2707.318], "stop_times": [2707.318, 2721.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2703.598}, "reply_to": "19844__1_094", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_096", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, those were also the predicate tests for allowing recovery for emotional distress, were they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2721.912], "stop_times": [2726.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.912}, "reply_to": "19844__1_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__1_097", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Exactly.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2726.797, 2727.347], "stop_times": [2727.347, 2727.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2726.797}, "reply_to": "19844__1_096", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_098", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Precisely the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2727.816], "stop_times": [2728.349], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.816}, "reply_to": "19844__1_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__1_099", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--So that if you qualify for a medical monitoring claim, you also qualify for the fear of future cancer claim by the previous three elements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2728.349], "stop_times": [2736.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.349}, "reply_to": "19844__1_098", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_100", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Are you seeking just the reimbursement for those medical expenses?\nOr are you... you described that what's at issue is his right to be free from having to undergo these tests.\nSo I guess you're seeking both damage... both the costs of the tests and also damages for having to undergo them?\nBecause they may be painful.\nThey're certainly inconvenient, at least.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2736.436, 2740.24, 2745.125, 2750.679, 2752.548], "stop_times": [2740.24, 2745.125, 2750.679, 2752.548, 2754.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.436}, "reply_to": "19844__1_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_101", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2754.481], "stop_times": [2755.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.481}, "reply_to": "19844__1_100", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_102", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Are you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2755.166], "stop_times": [2755.866], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.166}, "reply_to": "19844__1_101", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__1_103", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--The damages are for the costs of the tests in the past and into the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2755.866], "stop_times": [2760.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.866}, "reply_to": "19844__1_102", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_104", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Just the costs, though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2760.903], "stop_times": [2761.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.903}, "reply_to": "19844__1_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_105", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut the injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2761.886, 2762.603], "stop_times": [2762.603, 2763.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.886}, "reply_to": "19844__1_104", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_106", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2763.52], "stop_times": [2764.188], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.52}, "reply_to": "19844__1_105", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__1_107", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--that the injury is the invasion of that legally protected interest, to be free of having to undergo those tests and bear those costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2764.188], "stop_times": [2769.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.188}, "reply_to": "19844__1_106", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_108", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, then, he should get damages for having to undergo the tests, shouldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2769.14], "stop_times": [2771.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.14}, "reply_to": "19844__1_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_109", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2771.525], "stop_times": [2772.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.525}, "reply_to": "19844__1_108", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_110", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Not just the costs of the tests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2772.159], "stop_times": [2773.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2772.159}, "reply_to": "19844__1_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_111", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2773.811], "stop_times": [2774.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.811}, "reply_to": "19844__1_110", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_112", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "It's just like saying, you know, if somebody tortures you, you don't... you don't just get the cost of the torture instruments, you presumably get--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2774.927, 2780.115], "stop_times": [2780.115, 2780.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.927}, "reply_to": "19844__1_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_113", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Here's... here's the distinction.\nYou can qualify for fear of future cancer emotional distress, but not qualify for medical monitoring damages for this reason: The science, the medicine may say, look, you're going to... you have this reasonable basis to fear this increased death from cancer.\nBut there's no medical tests or procedures that can detect it early enough or treat it early enough to do any good.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2780.381, 2782.131, 2796.975, 2803.044], "stop_times": [2782.131, 2796.975, 2803.044, 2803.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2780.381}, "reply_to": "19844__1_112", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_114", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, are you... are you telling us that if you can't win on emotional damage, you can't win on monitoring?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2803.594], "stop_times": [2808.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.594}, "reply_to": "19844__1_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19844__1_115", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--That's... you can win on emotional distress for fear of future cancer and not win on medical monitoring, because the medical science simply isn't there.\nThere's nothing they can do to detect it and treat it beneficially.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2808.365, 2816.721], "stop_times": [2816.721, 2819.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.365}, "reply_to": "19844__1_114", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_116", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Are you saying that's true of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2819.823], "stop_times": [2821.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.823}, "reply_to": "19844__1_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__1_117", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Oh, no.\nNo, no, no.\nI'm just saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2821.692, 2822.175, 2822.675], "stop_times": [2822.175, 2822.675, 2823.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.692}, "reply_to": "19844__1_116", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_118", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But you have a discrete claim for medical monitoring apart from any emotional distress.\nThey both would accrue at the same time if you had both, so... so you couldn't split those two.\nBut suppose you're saying forget about emotional distress, that is fraught with too many problems, we still have a medical monitoring claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2823.475, 2828.179, 2835.6], "stop_times": [2828.179, 2835.6, 2844.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.475}, "reply_to": "19844__1_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__1_119", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2844.455, 2845.223], "stop_times": [2845.223, 2845.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.455}, "reply_to": "19844__1_118", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_120", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "And you're not suggesting, are you, that... that there is no such claim because there are no tests that can detect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2845.873], "stop_times": [2852.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.873}, "reply_to": "19844__1_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__1_121", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Not in this case, no.\nThe record is clear that the medical monitoring costs are indicated and based on medical proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2852.961, 2854.246], "stop_times": [2854.246, 2861.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.961}, "reply_to": "19844__1_120", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_122", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Have you any idea of the size of the universe that we're talking about, in terms of potential plaintiffs who really would not have other sources of paying for medical monitoring?\nI'm... just in case it's relevant.\nThe ones I was... so that they don't have insurance, they're not on medicare, they're not on medicaid and they actually have medically indicated need for medical monitoring tests.\nHave... is there... there might be, in the literature, something that gives us a rough idea of that universe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2861.083, 2871.023, 2873.725, 2886.115], "stop_times": [2871.023, 2873.725, 2886.115, 2890.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2861.083}, "reply_to": "19844__1_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_123", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The amici brief filed by Mr. Simon might refer to that, Your Honor.\nI'm not sure.\nI don't have that at my fingertips.\nBut I do want to make the point that this universe, as you call it, is limited to railroad workers who have a legally protected interest, under the FELA and OSHA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2890.336, 2895.138, 2895.906, 2897.74], "stop_times": [2895.138, 2895.906, 2897.74, 2907.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.336}, "reply_to": "19844__1_122", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_124", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But that's not so.\nYou're... you're asking us to interpret the FELA according to the common law.\nSo what you're trying to persuade is that, in general, the common law ought to protect these interests.\nAnd since the common law, in general, protects them, they are protected under the FELA.\nYou're not arguing for a peculiar rule for the FELA.\nIs there any language of the FELA that would make that the rule, if it's not the general common law rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2907.214, 2907.998, 2912.85, 2919.689, 2924.24, 2927.711], "stop_times": [2907.998, 2912.85, 2919.689, 2924.24, 2927.711, 2931.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.214}, "reply_to": "19844__1_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_125", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Your Honor, we are not here to argue for the federalization of State common law via the FELA.\nThe FELA... the common law is a smorgasbord--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2931.679, 2936.567], "stop_times": [2936.567, 2938.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.679}, "reply_to": "19844__1_124", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_126", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I understand that, but you're arguing that this should be the FELA rule only because it is the general common law rule.\nIsn't that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2938.633, 2944.321], "stop_times": [2944.321, 2945.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.633}, "reply_to": "19844__1_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19844__1_127", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--No, no, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2945.087], "stop_times": [2945.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.087}, "reply_to": "19844__1_126", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_128", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Oh, it isn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2945.506], "stop_times": [2945.989], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.506}, "reply_to": "19844__1_127", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__1_129", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The starting point is Gottshall.\nGottshall says that if you want to recover for a negligently inflicted emotional distress under the FELA, you start with a zone of danger test, which is physical impact or threat of physical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2945.989, 2947.156], "stop_times": [2947.156, 2955.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.989}, "reply_to": "19844__1_128", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_130", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But that itself was derived from the common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2955.962], "stop_times": [2958.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.962}, "reply_to": "19844__1_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_131", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd that's our starting point here, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2958.481, 2958.947], "stop_times": [2958.947, 2960.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.481}, "reply_to": "19844__1_130", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_132", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, but if we were to affirm here, it seems to me this is going to be a precedent not just for FELA, but because we say it's based on the common law, the common law generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2960.433], "stop_times": [2970.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.433}, "reply_to": "19844__1_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_133", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No, Your Honor, I strongly disagree with that for this reason.\nThe common law has everything under the sun... every remedial, conservative, liberal, conservative case law... cases.\nSimply because this Court selects one remedial line of common law cases to assist it to fulfill the remedial and humanitarian purpose of the FELA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2970.704, 2973.74, 2980.846], "stop_times": [2973.74, 2980.846, 2989.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.704}, "reply_to": "19844__1_132", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_134", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2989.952], "stop_times": [2990.385], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.952}, "reply_to": "19844__1_133", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19844__1_135", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--it doesn't mean you're endorsing that for all the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2990.385], "stop_times": [2991.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2990.385}, "reply_to": "19844__1_134", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_136", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, I, for one, don't endorse your remedial and humanitarian comment, which you've repeated several times.\nI don't think the Court has followed that track in the last several FELA decisions it has handed down.\nAnd I think Gottshall is a rather neutral application of what we conceive to be the common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [2991.668, 2997.856, 3003.36], "stop_times": [2997.856, 3003.36, 3008.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.668}, "reply_to": "19844__1_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19844__1_137", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--And under Gottshall, the plaintiffs in this case recovered.\nThey have physical impact.\nThat is the test... physical impact or threat of physical impact.\nClearly, they had physical impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3008.079, 3011.031, 3012.498, 3016.602], "stop_times": [3011.031, 3012.498, 3016.602, 3018.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.079}, "reply_to": "19844__1_136", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_138", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Didn't Gottshall talk about immediate threat of physical impact, or am I incorrect in that respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3018.252], "stop_times": [3023.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.252}, "reply_to": "19844__1_137", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19844__1_139", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Only where there's no physical impact, Your Honor.\nIt was physical... page 2406 of the Gottshall decision... physical impact or the immediate risk of physical harm.\nThat... there's two doors.\nIf you have physical impact, you go in that door.\nIf you don't have physical impact, you have to go through the door which is threat of physical impact or immediate risk of physical harm.\nThat is the Gottshall test.\nThe plaintiffs here satisfy that test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3023.856, 3025.808, 3032.962, 3034.462, 3036.497, 3042.334, 3043.868], "stop_times": [3025.808, 3032.962, 3034.462, 3036.497, 3042.334, 3043.868, 3046.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3023.856}, "reply_to": "19844__1_138", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_140", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Mr. Goetsch, let's... let's assume they do, at least as a threshold matter.\nLet me ask a question which, in a way perhaps, is somewhat similar to Justice... or gets to the same point that Justice Breyer's would.\nWe heard from your opposing counsel this morning that when the exposure reaches some measurable level... and I'm not quite sure how it was measured... that OSHA would kick in with a medical monitoring remedy.\nI want you to, if you will, comment on two things.\nIs it correct that OSHA would not apply to the facts of this case?\nAnd if that is so, shouldn't we take that fact into consideration in deciding how far we ought to go in developing an FELA common law when another... when the Congress of the United States, in another statute, has said this degree of exposure simply does not merit... merit a medical monitoring remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3046.453, 3049.888, 3056.91, 3071.068, 3075.139, 3079.757], "stop_times": [3049.888, 3056.91, 3071.068, 3075.139, 3079.757, 3105.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.453}, "reply_to": "19844__1_139", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19844__1_141", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "OSHA applies when an employee is exposed over the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days a year.\nThat is determined by medical... by air... by taking air tests of the employee while he's actually working and in his general work area.\nThe Railroad, from 1985 to 1988, when they were exposing the Snowmen without warning, training or protection, didn't take any air tests, in violation of OSHA.\nTherefore, there's no OSHA air tests over the permissible exposure limit.\nTherefore, OSHA doesn't apply to these plaintiffs, and they are not getting OSHA medical surveillance.\nThe point is this.\nThe Railroad here saved an enormous amount of money by... by exposing their workers, without warning, training or protection, to a carcinogen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3105.324, 3112.545, 3119.734, 3128.69, 3133.226, 3139.647, 3140.364], "stop_times": [3112.545, 3119.734, 3128.69, 3133.226, 3139.647, 3140.364, 3147.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.324}, "reply_to": "19844__1_140", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_142", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No, but in any case, your answer is that it is merely for lack of administratively acceptable evidence that OSHA does not cover this case and grant the remedy that you want... the monitoring remedy that you want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3147.218], "stop_times": [3158.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.218}, "reply_to": "19844__1_141", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19844__1_143", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--My point is that you can't rely on OSHA to deter this type of conduct by railroads.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3158.657], "stop_times": [3163.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3158.657}, "reply_to": "19844__1_142", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_144", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "No, I don't... I want to hear what you say, but was my statement a moment ago correct, that the only thing that prevents an OSHA remedy from being extended to your clients in this case is the lack of a certain administratively necessary or legally necessary evidence under the OSHA statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3163.228], "stop_times": [3182.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3163.228}, "reply_to": "19844__1_143", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19844__1_145", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "The lack of evidence means that the Railroad is not required to provide such medical surveillance.\nBut even if they were, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3182.205, 3189.045], "stop_times": [3189.045, 3190.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3182.205}, "reply_to": "19844__1_144", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_146", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "But your claim is that if... that the evidence should have been provided.\nAnd if it had been provided, you would be entitled, under OSHA, to the monitoring remedy that you seek here; is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3190.445, 3193.247], "stop_times": [3193.247, 3199.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3190.445}, "reply_to": "19844__1_145", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19844__1_147", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--That the plaintiffs would be entitled, under OSHA, to OSHA medical surveillance.\nBut that does not cover all the medical monitoring costs that have been established and recommended--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3199.917, 3203.305], "stop_times": [3203.305, 3207.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3199.917}, "reply_to": "19844__1_146", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_148", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "You said the tests weren't taken.\nBut there's nothing to show what the tests would have shown if they had been taken?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3207.757, 3209.09], "stop_times": [3209.09, 3215.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.757}, "reply_to": "19844__1_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__1_149", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, the... the only evidence in this case is that the levels were massively over the OSHA's levels.\nBut there were no air tests taken by the Railroad because they didn't want to tell anybody that it was asbestos that they were having their employees work on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3215.01, 3222.266], "stop_times": [3222.266, 3228.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3215.01}, "reply_to": "19844__1_148", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_150", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Before you conclude, may I ask your reaction to one point that was made?\nThat in the universe of asbestos victims, if one were to have a line, one would certainly put at the head of the line the people who get this virulent form of cancer, and maybe next you'd go down to the asbestosis victims, and then I suppose the last people you would get to are the people who have... have had exposure, but haven't manifested anything.\nSo in... by pressing these claims, aren't you putting at risk people who, 20, 30, 40 years from now, will develop a dread disease?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3228.52, 3232.472, 3258.522], "stop_times": [3232.472, 3258.522, 3272.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.52}, "reply_to": "19844__1_149", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19844__1_151", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Not as far as the defendants in this case, which are railroads, are concerned.\nIt's a very narrow class of plaintiffs that we're addressing here.\nWe're not addressing general common law plaintiffs or defendants.\nWe're simply talking about the... the FELA.\nAnd what the Snowmen are asking this Court to do is to interpret and apply the FELA in such a way that railroads will not even think about doing this... exposing their workers to a known carcinogen, without any warning, training or protection, in order to save money... thereby... it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3272.032, 3275.817, 3279.369, 3284.09, 3286.959], "stop_times": [3275.817, 3279.369, 3284.09, 3286.959, 3302.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3272.032}, "reply_to": "19844__1_150", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_152", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, what I would imagine, in terms of the deterrence, a large number of people will get cancer, will get these diseases and will have undoubted enormous liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3302.151], "stop_times": [3312.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.151}, "reply_to": "19844__1_151", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_153", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3312.09], "stop_times": [3312.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3312.09}, "reply_to": "19844__1_152", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_154", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "So what... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3312.776], "stop_times": [3314.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.776}, "reply_to": "19844__1_153", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_155", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3314.109], "stop_times": [3314.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3314.109}, "reply_to": "19844__1_154", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_156", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--And what I'm worried about very much is what Justice Ginsburg pointed out.\nI mean, to what extent, by allowing a universal cause of action for the medical, will we... for the medical testing... will we in fact interfere with the people who are undoubtedly hurt... that is, who have the disease... from getting recovery.\nIs the answer to that zero?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3314.492, 3316.728, 3329.552], "stop_times": [3316.728, 3329.552, 3331.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.492}, "reply_to": "19844__1_155", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_157", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3331.254], "stop_times": [3335.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3331.254}, "reply_to": "19844__1_156", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_158", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Is the case that there is or there isn't a serious practical concern that if people can recover... often extra, because they have the tests anyway... for all this testing, that there will be significant interference with recovery by people who do have the disease?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3335.022], "stop_times": [3350.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3335.022}, "reply_to": "19844__1_157", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_159", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Not... I do not believe so in the case of the railroads, especially--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3350.382], "stop_times": [3353.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3350.382}, "reply_to": "19844__1_158", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_160", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, if you couldn't stop the principle from spreading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3353.234], "stop_times": [3356.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.234}, "reply_to": "19844__1_159", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_161", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "--Well, I think that this Court can and should make it clear that this is an FELA case based on the policies and concerns of the FELA, which the common law does not share.\nMedical monitoring will enable these individuals to detect the disease early and hopefully beneficially treat it.\nSo they don't have to die and bring a wrongful death case later on.\nI mean the whole point of this is to mitigate and to reduce society's burden and the railroads' long-term burden for paying damages as a result of its negligent conduct in violation of the FELA, in violation of OSHA, in violation of these... these human beings' who happen to be railroad workers' legally protected duty to be free from this type of exposure to a known carcinogen.\nAnd if the railroads are not held economically accountable under the FELA for this type of conduct, they will have no meaningful economic incentive to avoid it in the future.\nIndeed, they can save substantial amounts of money by doing this again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3356.103, 3365.142, 3371.046, 3375.432, 3398.132, 3407.571], "stop_times": [3365.142, 3371.046, 3375.432, 3398.132, 3407.571, 3411.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3356.103}, "reply_to": "19844__1_160", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_162", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "Well, that doesn't really follow.\nBecause isn't the hypothesis that maybe 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 50... that some of these people are going to get cancer, and when they do, they'll have a tremendous recovery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3411.523, 3412.29], "stop_times": [3412.29, 3420.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3411.523}, "reply_to": "19844__1_161", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19844__1_163", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "In 20 to 30 to 40 years, Your Honor, when witnesses are dead and gone, documents lost and destroyed, the railroad merged and bankrupt, and the railroad says okay, you're dying of cancer, now prove it.\nThat's not enough of a deterrent to stop what's happening now.\nThey don't want to be subject to this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3420.711, 3429.817, 3432.786], "stop_times": [3429.817, 3432.786, 3434.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3420.711}, "reply_to": "19844__1_162", "speaker": "charles_c_goetsch"}
{"id": "19844__1_164", "conversation_id": "19844", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Mr. Goetsch.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-320", "start_times": [3434.555, 3436.155], "stop_times": [3436.155, 3437.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.555}, "reply_to": "19844__1_163", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_000", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-272, Metropolitan Stevedore Company v. Rambo.\nMr. Babcock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [0.0, 8.248], "stop_times": [8.248, 9.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_001", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe Ninth Circuit has awarded John Rambo compensation not because he has a disability, but because the panel perceived a possibility that disability would some day occur.\nIt has awarded compensation to a worker not first determined to have a loss of earning capacity.\nThe panel took this action to prevent the running of a time limit on modification.\nIt did so despite this Court's clear direction in the previous opinion involving the same claim that a claimant is not disabled unless and until he proves an incapacity to earn wages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [9.838, 12.208, 23.805, 30.981, 36.494], "stop_times": [12.208, 23.805, 30.981, 36.494, 52.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.838}, "reply_to": "20116__0_000", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_002", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, do you take the position that it would be improper for the ALJ to ever make such an award?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [52.476], "stop_times": [58.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 52.476}, "reply_to": "20116__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__0_003", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "To ever make a nominal award?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [58.891], "stop_times": [60.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.891}, "reply_to": "20116__0_002", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_004", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [60.851], "stop_times": [61.112], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 60.851}, "reply_to": "20116__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__0_005", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [61.112], "stop_times": [61.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 61.112}, "reply_to": "20116__0_004", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_006", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Because certainly the... I guess the Solicitor General agrees with the respondents that in interpreting the act and the language of the statute that such an award is possible, focusing on the language of section 908(h).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [61.763], "stop_times": [81.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 61.763}, "reply_to": "20116__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__0_007", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The Solicitor takes the position that if a disability is shown, i.e., if an individual is proven to have in all probability a loss of earning capacity, then such an individual could, in the Solicitor's opinion, properly receive a nominal award.\nThe Ninth Circuit went further than did the Solicitor and said that if it's possible that there will be a loss of earning capacity, hence the Solicitor's request for remand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [81.385, 97.654], "stop_times": [97.654, 108.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 81.385}, "reply_to": "20116__0_006", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_008", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I don't understand what you're saying.\nIf there is a loss of earning capacity and you insist that it be a present one... right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [108.422, 111.434], "stop_times": [111.434, 118.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.422}, "reply_to": "20116__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_009", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--No, I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [118.467], "stop_times": [119.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.467}, "reply_to": "20116__0_008", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_010", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "You do not.\nSo you agree with the Solicitor General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [119.288, 119.699], "stop_times": [119.699, 122.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.288}, "reply_to": "20116__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_011", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I think there has to be a current determination that there is a loss of earning capacity.\nThe process of determining may certainly look forward into the future.\nI do not agree with the Solicitor General because they want to substitute... the Ninth Circuit speculates... substitutes doubt and speculation for the basic question of whether there is a disability.\nIf there might be, they'd say that there could be a nominal award.\nThe Solicitor says, not quite that far, but instead let's substitute this doubt for something else, and that's the other element that's necessary to prove a compensation award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [122.12, 127.344, 131.067, 141.802, 144.546], "stop_times": [127.344, 131.067, 141.802, 144.546, 154.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.12}, "reply_to": "20116__0_010", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_012", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I'm not sure of what you're saying.\nYou want to explain it to me again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [154.091, 155.093], "stop_times": [155.093, 156.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.091}, "reply_to": "20116__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_013", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I'll try.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [156.104], "stop_times": [156.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.104}, "reply_to": "20116__0_012", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_014", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I thought the Solicitor General was saying that if there is a determination that there will in the future be a loss of earning capacity, although there is none now, nominal damages can be awarded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [156.462], "stop_times": [168.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.462}, "reply_to": "20116__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_015", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, the Solicitor says that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [168.28], "stop_times": [170.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.28}, "reply_to": "20116__0_014", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_016", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "And you disagree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [170.974], "stop_times": [172.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.974}, "reply_to": "20116__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_017", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, because there's another element required to receive compensation.\nA disability, an unspecified, unmeasured proof of a loss, the loss has to be measured, and what the... the process would be a claimant would prove in a normal claim proceeding I have a disability and here is evidence that will allow you, administrative law judge, to determine the degree, because without the degree you can't determine the compensation.\nThe numerator is the wage, the denominator is the earning capacity that exists post injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [172.083, 176.828, 201.002], "stop_times": [176.828, 201.002, 207.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.083}, "reply_to": "20116__0_016", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_018", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, let's take a case that's not hypothetical so we won't be talking about this in the abstract.\nSomebody is physically injured, a severe back and leg injury, as in this case, is promoted from the line job that he can no longer do to a manager's office, and the ALJ thinks there's a good chance, better than not chance that this guy just won't make it, and within 2, 3 years he'll be out of work.\nFrom the answer you've given to Justice O'Connor and Justice Scalia, I take it you would say tough luck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [207.256, 212.211, 237.086], "stop_times": [212.211, 237.086, 243.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.256}, "reply_to": "20116__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__0_019", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No.\nI would say that you may find a disability but you have to have more to give the award of compensation.\nYou have to have evidence that would allow the administrative law judge to fix a figure as section 8(h) requires, fix a figure.\nThe Solicitor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [243.71, 244.702, 250.396, 259.512], "stop_times": [244.702, 250.396, 259.512, 261.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.71}, "reply_to": "20116__0_018", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_020", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, what figure would you fix... this man is earning as a manager twice what he earned in the factory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [261.112], "stop_times": [266.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.112}, "reply_to": "20116__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__0_021", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Well, in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [266.564], "stop_times": [267.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.564}, "reply_to": "20116__0_020", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_022", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "So how would you fix a figure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [267.866], "stop_times": [269.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.866}, "reply_to": "20116__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__0_023", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--It would depend upon the evidence presented.\nThe classic case that we deal with with some frequency is, an individual is earning more.\nThe individual comes in and says, but I don't think I'll keep up this pace for long.\nHe brings in a doctor.\nThe doctor says, I don't think he'll keep up the pace.\nNow he's proved a disability.\nNext step, though, in order to get an award of compensation, how much is he losing, and the doctor in a very simple example might say, I don't think he'll be able to work for more than 4 days weekly.\nNow the administrative law judge has a basis for making a figure, for fixing a figure, but until he has that basis in the evidence, he can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [269.036, 270.668, 274.93, 279.874, 281.424, 284.497, 285.699, 297.957], "stop_times": [270.668, 274.93, 279.874, 281.424, 284.497, 285.699, 297.957, 308.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.036}, "reply_to": "20116__0_022", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_024", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, what if the doctor were to say, he can keep going in my view for probably 5 years, but after that he's going to go down?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [308.673], "stop_times": [316.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.673}, "reply_to": "20116__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_025", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I think the administrative law judge would need more to fix a figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [316.777], "stop_times": [323.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.777}, "reply_to": "20116__0_024", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_026", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "What more would he need?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [323.483], "stop_times": [324.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 323.483}, "reply_to": "20116__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_027", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "How long the individual is going to live... excuse me, going to work, what he can go to after that time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [324.615], "stop_times": [332.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.615}, "reply_to": "20116__0_026", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_028", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But that could all be determined at the present time on the basis of the doctor's opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [332.349], "stop_times": [336.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.349}, "reply_to": "20116__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_029", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--The doctor says he can only stay in longshoring for 5 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [336.72], "stop_times": [339.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.72}, "reply_to": "20116__0_028", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_030", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [339.652], "stop_times": [339.953], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 339.652}, "reply_to": "20116__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__0_031", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "He puts on proof saying after that he can be a security guard.\nWith those two pieces of evidence, the earnings available in longshoring for the remaining 5 years and the earnings available as a security guard, the administrative law judge has a basis for making a figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [339.953, 345.817], "stop_times": [345.817, 356.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.953}, "reply_to": "20116__0_030", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_032", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "So there can never be nominal damages.\nThere can never be nominal damages, is your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [356.364, 358.635], "stop_times": [358.635, 360.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.364}, "reply_to": "20116__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_033", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That is my position, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [360.906], "stop_times": [362.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.906}, "reply_to": "20116__0_032", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_034", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I thought you said earlier that you weren't saying categorically there could never be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [362.067], "stop_times": [365.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.067}, "reply_to": "20116__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_035", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Nominal damages are a substitute for a real award.\nIt's an ersatz version for a real award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [365.38, 369.642], "stop_times": [369.642, 372.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.38}, "reply_to": "20116__0_034", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_036", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, except that it seems to me it responds to this problem.\nWe might indeed all agree that there is some degree of probability or possibility that the individual in the future is going to suffer in fact an incapacity which right now is subject to so many contingencies that nobody could reasonably estimate it.\nSo we in effect say yes, there is a possibility there, but it's a very tiny one, and we don't know how to give it a more specific figure than that, therefore the appropriate thing to do is to give it a very tiny award.\nGive it a dollar.\nThat's a nominal award which in fact reflects a nominal possibility, or a nominal probability.\nWhy isn't that consistent with the act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [372.193, 374.416, 391.837, 403.635, 405.135, 412.15], "stop_times": [374.416, 391.837, 403.635, 405.135, 412.15, 414.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.193}, "reply_to": "20116__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_037", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "It may be consistent with what is right, with what is just and what is fair, but it is not consistent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [414.021], "stop_times": [420.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.021}, "reply_to": "20116__0_036", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_038", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [420.246], "stop_times": [420.486], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 420.246}, "reply_to": "20116__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__0_039", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--with the 1-year time limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [420.486], "stop_times": [421.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.486}, "reply_to": "20116__0_038", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_040", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--But the act speaks of disability in the future, and on the hypothesis I was giving there is a very slight chance, there is some chance, more than zero, that there will be a disability in the future, because in fact something the individual used to be able to do to earn his living he can no longer do now, so that there is something more than zero.\nSo on that assumption there is a finding of a possibility, more than zero, of some disability in the future.\nConsistent with that is to give a nominal award of something more than zero, but not much, to reflect that disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [421.918, 446.322, 456.56], "stop_times": [446.322, 456.56, 465.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.918}, "reply_to": "20116__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_041", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, the act doesn't define disability as a possible future loss of earning capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [465.045], "stop_times": [470.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.045}, "reply_to": "20116__0_040", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_042", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "It defines it as a present one, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [470.648], "stop_times": [472.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 470.648}, "reply_to": "20116__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_043", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "It defines it as a loss of earning capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [472.338], "stop_times": [474.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.338}, "reply_to": "20116__0_042", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_044", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Shouldn't I just... I think probably I should have changed my hypothesis and said; the fact that we can make this probability or possibility judgment about what will eventuate at a future time is reflective of a nominal disability now.\nIsn't that a) both consistent with the act and, as you say, fair?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [474.181, 488.66], "stop_times": [488.66, 493.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.181}, "reply_to": "20116__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_045", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, I think it's not consistent with the act, because I think it ignores the limitation of section 22.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [493.813], "stop_times": [498.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.813}, "reply_to": "20116__0_044", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_046", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "All right.\nTake the hypothesis in which he can become a crane operator, or heavy equipment operator, whatever it was, tomorrow, so that you say there's no disability here.\nHe's earning three times his former wages.\nAssume that we know, for whatever reason, that that work, at least in the area where he is, is probably going to exist for only about 6 months.\nI take it on your theory there would be no present disability, because for the immediate... he has the immediate prospect of earning money even though we know on the hypo that in 6 months he'll be... he won't be able to earn the heavy equipment money, nor will he be able to go back to his lifting job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [498.788, 500.358, 510.773, 513.616, 525.674], "stop_times": [500.358, 510.773, 513.616, 525.674, 543.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.788}, "reply_to": "20116__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_047", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Not at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [543.118], "stop_times": [543.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.118}, "reply_to": "20116__0_046", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_048", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [543.575], "stop_times": [544.206], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 543.575}, "reply_to": "20116__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__0_049", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But we deal with these cyclical types of industries all the time in the shipyards, and you make an assessment of how long he's going to be able to do that work, the judge gets additional evidence of what other types of work there are available on the open labor market, and from that evidence, not from a substitution of speculation or possibilities, from that evidence he determines what that earning capacity is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [544.206], "stop_times": [566.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.206}, "reply_to": "20116__0_048", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_050", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Okay.\nSo it's a question of degree, then, because that... in theory that's not different from the earlier example.\nThe earlier example recognizes the possibility of something that may happen in the future, whereas the example of the 6-month heavy equipment job recognizes a near certainty, so I take it the difference is, is simply one of the predictive degree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [566.152, 566.352, 572.884], "stop_times": [566.352, 572.884, 592.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.152}, "reply_to": "20116__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_051", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, sir.\nI think the difference is one of whether you're substituting something, a possibility or a predictive degree for evidence, and this is a system that is built on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [592.017, 592.628], "stop_times": [592.628, 602.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.017}, "reply_to": "20116__0_050", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_052", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, but the evidence in the first case is that he cannot go back to lifting.\nThere are some things that he used to be able to do that in the future he will not be able to do.\nThere's an evidentiary basis for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [602.663, 606.657, 611.78], "stop_times": [606.657, 611.78, 613.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.663}, "reply_to": "20116__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_053", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--And now he has, presumably with those facts, a disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [613.873], "stop_times": [618.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.873}, "reply_to": "20116__0_052", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_054", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [618.816], "stop_times": [619.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.816}, "reply_to": "20116__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_055", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The question still remains, what is his numerical earning capacity?\nWhat is, in dollars and cents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [619.537, 625.101], "stop_times": [625.101, 626.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.537}, "reply_to": "20116__0_054", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_056", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "And for the present time the disability is at most of nominal value, so put a nominal value on it.\nWhy do you say he has a disability?\nI thought he doesn't have a disability until you establish that he has a reduction in earning capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [626.92, 633.204, 634.945], "stop_times": [633.204, 634.945, 640.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.92}, "reply_to": "20116__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_057", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--One can look for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [640.269], "stop_times": [641.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.269}, "reply_to": "20116__0_056", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_058", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I thought it was your case that he did not have a disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [641.089], "stop_times": [643.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.089}, "reply_to": "20116__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_059", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--No, my... I... everybody--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [643.332], "stop_times": [645.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.332}, "reply_to": "20116__0_058", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_060", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, wait.\nIf he can't do heavy lifting any more but he can operate a crane, do you concede that he therefore has a disability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [645.954, 646.472], "stop_times": [646.472, 652.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 645.954}, "reply_to": "20116__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_061", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [652.376], "stop_times": [652.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.376}, "reply_to": "20116__0_060", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_062", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Okay.\nWell, that's... I thought you just did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [652.816, 653.628], "stop_times": [653.628, 654.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.816}, "reply_to": "20116__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_063", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No.\nIf I did, I sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [654.95, 655.478], "stop_times": [655.478, 656.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.95}, "reply_to": "20116__0_062", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_064", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But you also concede, I take it, that although he can do the crane operation, it is possible... you would dispute it on these facts, but it is perfectly possible and legally appropriate to find that his present crane-operating capacity is not reasonably reflective of his overall earning capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [656.76], "stop_times": [678.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.76}, "reply_to": "20116__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_065", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--It's possible on some facts to find that, but the administrative law judge reached the contrary conclusion.\nThe administrative law judge found his wage-earning capacity loss had ended, which is tantamount to saying his current earnings are representative of his future capacity to earn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [678.615, 685.408], "stop_times": [685.408, 697.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.615}, "reply_to": "20116__0_064", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_066", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, that may be a reason, then, for saying that this individual... if the ALJ's finding in that respect is not disturbed, that this individual shouldn't have gotten his nominal damages, but it would still leave the door open for nominal damages had the ALJ said, a) at the present time he can earn three times as much, so that there is not in fact in actuality right at the moment a loss of earnings, but b) this capacity to earn is not reflective of his earning capacity for the long haul, and therefore I want to put a figure on what the capacity is.\nIt's hard to put a figure on it, because there are so many future contingencies, so I'm simply going to say, there is some possibility, and reflect that some possibility in a nominal award.\nThat theoretically would be possible, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [697.066, 735.033, 745.038], "stop_times": [735.033, 745.038, 747.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.066}, "reply_to": "20116__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_067", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That theoretically is possible, but I think inappropriate, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [747.088], "stop_times": [753.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 747.088}, "reply_to": "20116__0_066", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_068", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, Mr. Babcock, what do we do here in this case if we disagree with you and think that in some appropriate case it is possible to determine future economic harm as a disability for someone that would entitle that person to some nominal damages award?\nDo we have to vacate and remand here so that that can... the ALJ can at least answer the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [753.002, 773.507], "stop_times": [773.507, 781.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.002}, "reply_to": "20116__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__0_069", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--If you determine that a mere possibility of future economic harm is a sufficient basis for a nominal award, and you conclude that a nominal award is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [781.272], "stop_times": [791.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.272}, "reply_to": "20116__0_068", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_070", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, if we determine that it is possible that an administrative law judge could determine in a case that there is future economic harm here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [791.079], "stop_times": [803.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.079}, "reply_to": "20116__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__0_071", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [803.395], "stop_times": [803.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.395}, "reply_to": "20116__0_070", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_072", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--not at the moment, but from the evidence.\nThe job isn't going to last, and there's future economic harm.\nTherefore, a nominal award at present is appropriate.\nWhat do we do in this case, because you didn't present any alternative argument below.\nYou just wanted all or nothing.\nYou... never can you have a nominal award.\nAnd if we disagree with you and think it is possible, what do we do at the bottom line in this case then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [803.735, 807.168, 811.121, 815.392, 821.597, 823.978, 827.881], "stop_times": [807.168, 811.121, 815.392, 821.597, 823.978, 827.881, 833.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.735}, "reply_to": "20116__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__0_073", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "If you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [833.175], "stop_times": [834.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.175}, "reply_to": "20116__0_072", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_074", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Don't we have to send it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [834.096], "stop_times": [835.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.096}, "reply_to": "20116__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__0_075", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I think you have to send it back to get a determination of the factual issues--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [835.268], "stop_times": [839.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.268}, "reply_to": "20116__0_074", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_076", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [839.95], "stop_times": [840.22], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 839.95}, "reply_to": "20116__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__0_077", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--as identified by the Solicitor in the brief, whether there is or is not a... on a more-probable-than-not basis a likelihood of that harm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [840.22], "stop_times": [846.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 840.22}, "reply_to": "20116__0_076", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_078", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "May I ask a question on the facts of this case?\nIf, in addition to the evidence that was presented at the time you terminated the disability there had been evidence that the higher paying job would only last 6 years, say, and then he would be working as a night watchman, as you say, and therefore you could make certain computations.\nWould you say that the ALJ should then give an award that reflected... that would stay in effect indefinitely, or could he give a nominal damage award in that kind of case to be adjusted later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [846.895, 850.098, 865.876], "stop_times": [850.098, 865.876, 880.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.895}, "reply_to": "20116__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20116__0_079", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, that's why the nominal award concept is both a shield and a sword--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [880.406], "stop_times": [883.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.406}, "reply_to": "20116__0_078", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_080", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [883.989], "stop_times": [884.82], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 883.989}, "reply_to": "20116__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__0_081", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--for both claimants and employers.\nIn the purest view of the longshore system he would have to do what they do now, which is make that assessment and give an award which overcompensates during the period that he continues--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [884.82, 886.5], "stop_times": [886.5, 898.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.82}, "reply_to": "20116__0_080", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_082", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's what you think he should do.\nHe should overcompensate temporarily and then perhaps undercompensate later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [898.597, 899.068], "stop_times": [899.068, 902.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.597}, "reply_to": "20116__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20116__0_083", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I think that's the structure of this system, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [902.1], "stop_times": [904.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.1}, "reply_to": "20116__0_082", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_084", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's exactly the question I have.\nI mean, because I want to know what... obviously, this particular man was earning $500 a week before he was hurt.\nNow he's earning $1,500 a week after he's hurt, so it's... he may not be a person who will end up being benefited by this.\nBut how do you write it?\nThat is to say, I'm interested in the Solicitor General's argument.\nThe Solicitor General is saying that it could happen, that all the doctors say he goes along for 3 years, then it's collapse, right?\nSo prove he is a person who will... prove he will lose a lot of money.\nImagine that's our case, but we don't know now.\nThey say, this is a perfectly sensible way to do it.\nGive him $1 a week now.\nIf and when he loses all the money, we'll give him more later.\nThey say, it's sensible to do that, and there's nothing in the statute that stops it.\nYou say that's inconsistent with the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [904.641, 906.754, 912.057, 918.753, 920.072, 923.645, 933.892, 938.484, 941.847, 944.618, 946.448, 950.231, 954.295], "stop_times": [906.754, 912.057, 918.753, 920.072, 923.645, 933.892, 938.484, 941.847, 944.618, 946.448, 950.231, 954.295, 957.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.641}, "reply_to": "20116__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__0_085", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [957.818], "stop_times": [958.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.818}, "reply_to": "20116__0_084", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_086", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "What part of the act is it inconsistent with?\nWhat words is it inconsistent with?\nThat's what I cannot find.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [958.227, 961.258, 963.301], "stop_times": [961.258, 963.301, 964.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.227}, "reply_to": "20116__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__0_087", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "It is inconsistent with section 22 and its 1-year time limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [964.781], "stop_times": [969.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 964.781}, "reply_to": "20116__0_086", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_088", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "What are the words that make it inconsistent, because I don't see in section 22, that I have here, an inconsistency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [969.134], "stop_times": [975.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.134}, "reply_to": "20116__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__0_089", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Because... and with the definition of disability, which is an incapacity to earn wages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [975.907], "stop_times": [981.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.907}, "reply_to": "20116__0_088", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_090", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "He has that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [981.872], "stop_times": [983.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.872}, "reply_to": "20116__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__0_091", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's the definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [983.174], "stop_times": [983.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.174}, "reply_to": "20116__0_090", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_092", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "He is incapacitated to earn wages.\nHe will, in all likelihood, earn his present wage from 3 to 8 years, and then boom, he earns nothing.\nFourteen doctors testify that that's the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [983.644, 987.378, 993.95], "stop_times": [987.378, 993.95, 997.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.644}, "reply_to": "20116__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__0_093", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The difficulty is that you are substituting concerns about the future for the requirement of evidence if you give a nominal award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [997.583], "stop_times": [1005.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 997.583}, "reply_to": "20116__0_092", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_094", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Is there anything in the act, any language in the act that says what you just said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1005.648], "stop_times": [1010.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.648}, "reply_to": "20116__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__0_095", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "There is... within 8(h) it is a two-step process of how you determine earning capacity.\nIf you argue as an individual that the earnings are not representative of your earning capacity, you must prove that fact by a preponderance of substantial evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1010.392, 1017.255], "stop_times": [1017.255, 1026.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.392}, "reply_to": "20116__0_094", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_096", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Babcock--\n--Mr. Babcock, I thought your position was that there's no disability unless there's a reduction of earning capacity, and that if you're speculating that there may be a reduction of earning capacity, all you've established is that there may be a disability, and the act does not allow the award of any damages if there may be a disability, does it?\nDoesn't it require a probability, at least--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1026.402, 1027.353, 1048.085], "stop_times": [1027.353, 1048.085, 1051.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.402}, "reply_to": "20116__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__0_097", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1051.708], "stop_times": [1052.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.708}, "reply_to": "20116__0_096", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_098", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--that there is a disability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1052.129], "stop_times": [1052.738], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.129}, "reply_to": "20116__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__0_099", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1052.738], "stop_times": [1053.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.738}, "reply_to": "20116__0_098", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_100", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "And my question assumed that there is a probability.\nMy question is assuming it's certain, 98 percent certain you go along for 5 years, then you fall over, can't do another day's work, so there's no problem of proof.\nThen is there something in this act that would prevent what sounds like a reasonable administrative system?\nWe'll give you a dollar a week until you keel over, and if and when you do, we'll up the ante.\nNow, that's what the SG is arguing we should write an opinion to embody, and I want to know what you think, what language or practice prevents that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1053.399, 1056.16, 1066.278, 1075.194, 1080.197], "stop_times": [1056.16, 1066.278, 1075.194, 1080.197, 1089.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.399}, "reply_to": "20116__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__0_101", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The practice that prevents that is in this 8(h) two-step process to determine an entitlement.\nFirst, you must prove, if you're the one alleging that wages are not representative, higher earnings are not representative, you must prove that they are not representative, that something may happen in the future.\nSecond... or something is probable to happen in the future.\nSecond, you must prove an alternative figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1089.933, 1096.198, 1105.743, 1108.855], "stop_times": [1096.198, 1105.743, 1108.855, 1111.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1089.933}, "reply_to": "20116__0_100", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_102", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Babcock, if we can't get that from the words themselves, is there support... for example, has the benefit review board addressed this question of nominal damages?\nDo we have any opinion at the administrative level or from another court that says the nominal damages theory is no good?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1111.807, 1121.804], "stop_times": [1121.804, 1132.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.807}, "reply_to": "20116__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__0_103", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No.\nAs I'm sure we're all aware now, every circuit that has considered the nominal award concept has in varying degrees, ranging from that proffered by the Solicitor to the extreme version adopted by the Ninth Circuit, approved the concept as a reasonable means of assuring protections against possible harm greater than Congress built into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1132.66, 1133.301], "stop_times": [1133.301, 1154.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.66}, "reply_to": "20116__0_102", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_104", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "And the benefits review board hasn't rejected the concept?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1154.246], "stop_times": [1157.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.246}, "reply_to": "20116__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__0_105", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--The benefits review board has historically rejected the concept as an impermissible intrusion upon the 1-year limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1157.268], "stop_times": [1164.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1157.268}, "reply_to": "20116__0_104", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_106", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, could you go back to Justice Breyer's question under section 22?\nWhat is it in the language of... let's assume that there's a significant probability that there will be a loss of earnings in the future.\nHe doesn't have the earnings loss now.\nHe's going to be earning higher wages for 5 years.\nBut we want to... but the ALJ says we should give nominal damages.\nWhat in 22 prevents that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1164.604, 1169.525, 1177.38, 1179.473, 1182.185, 1186.897], "stop_times": [1169.525, 1177.38, 1179.473, 1182.185, 1186.897, 1189.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.604}, "reply_to": "20116__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20116__0_107", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Nothing in 22 prevents that, because the effect of a real award is to achieve that.\nThe problem with the nominal award is that it is not real.\nIt is not supported by the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1189.198, 1193.893, 1198.415], "stop_times": [1193.893, 1198.415, 1199.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.198}, "reply_to": "20116__0_106", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_108", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, my hypothetical was that there... was that he does give the nominal award under these circumstances.\nHe says, in 5 years you're not going to be having any earnings power.\nThis is significantly likely, and in 5 years I want you to come back and I'll look at it again, so I'll give you a nominal award.\nWhat in 22 prevents that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1199.937, 1204.289, 1208.412, 1215.494], "stop_times": [1204.289, 1208.412, 1215.494, 1217.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.937}, "reply_to": "20116__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20116__0_109", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Nothing in 22 prevents a nominal award, other than it sets the standard for the period of time Congress thought protection against possible harm appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1217.978], "stop_times": [1228.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.978}, "reply_to": "20116__0_108", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_110", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But that period of time is 1 year after the last payment is made, and if a nominal award continues to be paid, then that is satisfied, correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1228.995], "stop_times": [1239.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.995}, "reply_to": "20116__0_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20116__0_111", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No question, a nominal award gives greater protection against the future than Congress provides in section 22.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1239.04], "stop_times": [1245.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1239.04}, "reply_to": "20116__0_110", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_112", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But under your theory, and Justice Kennedy's facts, you say no nominal award could be made but an award of money damages not nominal could be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1245.295], "stop_times": [1258.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.295}, "reply_to": "20116__0_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_113", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I think not under that hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1258.073], "stop_times": [1259.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.073}, "reply_to": "20116__0_112", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_114", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, there's some situations in which you would agree that even though there's no present loss of earning power on appropriate evidence an award for the future could be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1259.994], "stop_times": [1273.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.994}, "reply_to": "20116__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_115", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "There has to be a determined loss of earning capacity, which is in itself forward-looking, so he's not losing now, but the administrative law judge determines that over time he will lose.\nThat is, by definition, the lost--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1273.765, 1284.481], "stop_times": [1284.481, 1286.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1273.765}, "reply_to": "20116__0_114", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_116", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "When would that... suppose he says you've lost nothing now, but in 3 years I find that you will have lost 30 percent on the evidence.\nWhen would that award kick in, so to speak?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1286.442, 1293.998], "stop_times": [1293.998, 1296.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.442}, "reply_to": "20116__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_117", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--That would kick in on the date of the decision, and as I indicated earlier, that would be overcompensation under this system during the first 3 years and undercompensation thereafter.\nI would point out, though, that would be a real award that would be subject to modification as time went on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1296.668, 1306.235], "stop_times": [1306.235, 1312.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.668}, "reply_to": "20116__0_116", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_118", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But just to clarify your answer--\n--That would extend the statute indefinitely, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1312.28, 1314.31], "stop_times": [1314.31, 1315.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.28}, "reply_to": "20116__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_119", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1315.59], "stop_times": [1316.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.59}, "reply_to": "20116__0_118", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_120", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That would also extend the period of... for that modification indefinitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1316.822], "stop_times": [1320.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.822}, "reply_to": "20116__0_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20116__0_121", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "A real award does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1320.004], "stop_times": [1321.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.004}, "reply_to": "20116__0_120", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_122", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The only difference is, you'd be overcompensating before you knew the real facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1321.424], "stop_times": [1325.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.424}, "reply_to": "20116__0_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20116__0_123", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I don't quarrel with, in some instances, the wisdom of a nominal award.\nWhat I do say is, it's not... determination about that wisdom is not something that should be for the judiciary.\nIt's something that properly belongs to Congress, and Congress hasn't entered into the act a nominal award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1325.317, 1330.34, 1337.225], "stop_times": [1330.34, 1337.225, 1343.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.317}, "reply_to": "20116__0_122", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_124", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, but Mr. Babcock, if you look at section 908(h), the proviso at least tells us that you have to look at what might affect his capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future, so there is certainly some language in the act that directs one's attention to future earning capacity.\nNow, the Ninth Circuit here said it was enough if there's a significant possibility of future economic harm.\nI think other jurisdictions don't apply a possibility but say that you have to have proof that it's more probable than not.\nDo you have a position on that, and is there a majority position in the circuits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1343.149, 1367.927, 1376.361, 1385.416], "stop_times": [1367.927, 1376.361, 1385.416, 1389.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.149}, "reply_to": "20116__0_123", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__0_125", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The... my position on that would obviously be that we think there need be a substantial probability, and on that point we would support the Solicitor's position.\nIf you look among the circuits, in the Hole case out of the Fifth Circuit the administrative law judge had determined there to be a disability, i.e., that the current earnings were not representative of the earning capacity, and then was faced with the choice, do I pick a big speculative award, or do I pick a small speculative award.\nHe picked a small, nominal alternative, and the Fifth Circuit approved it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1389.408, 1398.474, 1416.245], "stop_times": [1398.474, 1416.245, 1420.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.408}, "reply_to": "20116__0_124", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_126", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Are we doing anything more than arguing about words, because I would suppose, even on your theory, if the judge said, I find that there is a probability that in the future the job market will change, restrict his opportunities, so that that amounts in today's terms to a 1-percent chance of disability and therefore I'm going to give him damages equal to or an award that reflects the 1-percent chance, he could do that on your theory, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1420.75], "stop_times": [1448.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.75}, "reply_to": "20116__0_125", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__0_127", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's correct.\nHe would have evidence supportive of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1448.129, 1448.568], "stop_times": [1448.568, 1449.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.129}, "reply_to": "20116__0_126", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_128", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Babcock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1449.879], "stop_times": [1451.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.879}, "reply_to": "20116__0_127", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__0_129", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1451.319], "stop_times": [1451.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.319}, "reply_to": "20116__0_128", "speaker": "robert_e_babcock"}
{"id": "20116__0_130", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Stewart, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1451.59], "stop_times": [1454.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.59}, "reply_to": "20116__0_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__1_000", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe position of the Director of the Office of Worker's Compensation Programs is that a continuing nominal award is appropriate whenever an injured claimant has no current loss of earnings but is more likely than not to suffer a loss of wages at some point in the future as a result of a covered injury.\nWe believe; however, that the court of appeals erred in this case in ordering a continuing nominal award.\nNow, with respect to the propriety of continuing nominal awards, I think the heart of our submission is that such an award in appropriate cases is not an extrastatutory device, it's an award given to the claimant who satisfies all of the statutory prerequisites for an award of benefits, and for that proposition we would rely primarily on the language of section 908(h), which is reproduced at page 2 of the Government's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1454.591, 1468.502, 1483.81, 1488.704], "stop_times": [1468.502, 1483.81, 1488.704, 1512.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1454.591}, "reply_to": "20116__0_130", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_001", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Do you think that this is a reasonable award within the meaning of 908(h)?\nI would think that a reasonable one means you calculate what the reduction of earning is as best you can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1512.28, 1517.383], "stop_times": [1517.383, 1523.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.28}, "reply_to": "20116__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__1_002", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, we think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1523.717], "stop_times": [1525.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1523.717}, "reply_to": "20116__1_001", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_003", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "One dollar is not as best you can.\nYou're just saying I can't calculate what it is, so I'm just picking a number out of the air.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1525.257, 1526.99], "stop_times": [1526.99, 1530.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.257}, "reply_to": "20116__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__1_004", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Well, we think that in determining an award that is reasonable the administrative law judge should take cognizance of the entirety of the statutory scheme.\nNow, if there were no provision for a modification of awards, if the award that was originally entered by the ALJ was to be the award for the rest of the claimant's life no matter what condition changed, then the ALJ's only alternative would be to do as you suggest, which is take its best shot at estimating the loss that the claimant would incur over the course of his lifetime and enter an award which was designed to compensate him for that loss even though that would mean overcompensation in the early years and perhaps undercompensation in the future.\nThe great virtue of section 922's modification provision is that it sharply reduces the need for speculation.\nThe ALJ can enter a nominal award, the nominal award will preserve the claimant's right to seek modification down the road, and at the same time it will avoid the risk of overcompensation that would occur if the claimant got--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1530.583, 1538.247, 1568.427, 1577.533], "stop_times": [1538.247, 1568.427, 1577.533, 1590.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1530.583}, "reply_to": "20116__1_003", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_005", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Where did this come from?\nIs this something the... I mean, his objection, I think, your opponent's, to this system is it's a kind of gimmick that's been hoked up here in order to create this thing, nominal awards.\nThe statute says do it just the way Justice Scalia comes up with saying, and it will come to the same result in virtually every case, so why are we going through this?\nThe response would be, that's how the board wants to do it, but where does it come from?\nIs this something that is recent?\nHave they made up this nominal damages in this way in this case, or is there a history behind it?\nWhere does this all come from, this interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1590.329, 1591.891, 1601.078, 1609.503, 1613.875, 1616.429, 1620.981], "stop_times": [1591.891, 1601.078, 1609.503, 1613.875, 1616.429, 1620.981, 1623.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.329}, "reply_to": "20116__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__1_006", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--It's been around since approximately 1980 or so.\nThe first court of appeals decision that approved the concept was Hole, which was issued in 1981 by the Fifth Circuit, and I'm not sure of the exact date of the ALJ decision, but it would have been approximately 1980, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1623.262, 1626.303], "stop_times": [1626.303, 1638.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.262}, "reply_to": "20116__1_005", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_007", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, I thought that wasn't the board's position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1638.101], "stop_times": [1640.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.101}, "reply_to": "20116__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__1_008", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--For... during the 1980's, the benefits review board repeatedly issued opinions that disapproved of the practice of continuing nominal awards.\nHowever, starting in 1990, the benefits review board, albeit without much explanation, has reversed course, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1640.282, 1648.89], "stop_times": [1648.89, 1655.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1640.282}, "reply_to": "20116__1_007", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_009", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Was that just in... because it felt bound by court of appeals decisions, or on its own?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1655.873], "stop_times": [1661.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.873}, "reply_to": "20116__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__1_010", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I think that was on its own, and the reason I say that is, we cited at page 20, footnote 8 of our brief the relevant benefits review board's... board decisions, and one of those was a case called Morin, M-o-r-i-n, and that case arose out of Maine, and there was no First Circuit decision on point that addressed the question of continuing nominal awards, so I think the fact that the board in Morin evidently regarded the practice of continuing nominal awards as legitimate indicates that it wasn't simply acquiescing in binding circuit court decisions in the relevant circuits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1661.206], "stop_times": [1694.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1661.206}, "reply_to": "20116__1_009", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_011", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, they couldn't adopt one position in some cases and another position in other cases.\nI mean, just the fact that it announced its acquiescence in a case from the First Circuit doesn't mean it wasn't pushed there by the fact that it was getting all these contrary decisions from other circuits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1694.939, 1698.752], "stop_times": [1698.752, 1707.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.939}, "reply_to": "20116__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__1_012", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "It was certainly influenced by other circuits, but during the 1980's, even when the board was expressing general opposition to continuing nominal awards, when a case would arise in a circuit in which there was binding circuit precedent saying continuing nominal awards are appropriate the board would say, despite our disagreement, we feel obligated to apply the standard announced by the relevant court of appeals and decide the case on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1707.749], "stop_times": [1731.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1707.749}, "reply_to": "20116__1_011", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_013", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Did the court of appeals in the eighties when the benefits review board was taken... did they simply direct the award of nominal damages on their own when the benefits review board had said no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1731.374], "stop_times": [1743.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.374}, "reply_to": "20116__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__1_014", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No.\nThey would typically remand to the ALJ for... they would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1743.342, 1743.801], "stop_times": [1743.801, 1746.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.342}, "reply_to": "20116__1_013", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_015", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "It came from the court of appeals, though.\nIt didn't come from the benefit review board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1746.785, 1748.875], "stop_times": [1748.875, 1750.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.785}, "reply_to": "20116__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__1_016", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--It didn't come from the benefits review board.\nIt came initially, I would say, from an ALJ, because in Hole, the first court of appeals case that approved it, the ALJ had fashioned a nominal award.\nThe benefit... and the court of appeals approved that practice.\nBut during the period of the 1980's when the courts of appeals were generally approving this practice, it was over the objection of the benefits review board.\nNow, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1750.324, 1751.676, 1759.971, 1762.703, 1771.088], "stop_times": [1751.676, 1759.971, 1762.703, 1771.088, 1771.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1750.324}, "reply_to": "20116__1_015", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_017", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Stewart, could an employer ever cut this out by saying... take this case.\nFor 5 years he's continued to work as a crane operator, we now again ask for a changed circumstances ruling, to cut out the nominal damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1771.699, 1776.522], "stop_times": [1776.522, 1786.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.699}, "reply_to": "20116__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__1_018", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Yes.\nI mean, we believe that the standard at any given time is whether it is more likely than not that the claimant will suffer a loss of earnings at some point in the future, and even if a nominal award were entered at one point, if years went by and in fact the claimant showed that he was able to keep his higher paying job, the employer could move for a modification on the ground that it was now no longer more likely or not that the claimant would suffer a loss of earnings at some point in the future.\nIn further response to your question, Justice Breyer, about where these awards came from, historically they came from the ALJ and then were approved by the courts of appeals.\nI think in terms of where in the statute does the authority reside, there are really two provisions of section 908(h) that we think are relevant.\nThe first is the provision that says the ALJ in determining wage-earning capacity should look to the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future, and we think that provision would be meaningless if the ALJ were required to set wage-earning capacity by reference to the wages that the employee was currently capable of earning.\nAnd with respect to the question, why can the ALJ award nominal benefits as opposed to taking a shot at estimating likely losses in the future, we think the statute gives the ALJ wide discretion in that it says that the ALJ may, in the interest of justice, fix such wage-earning capacity as shall be reasonable, and we think that encompasses the freedom not only to weigh the facts, but also to consider the totality of a statutory scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1786.609, 1787.791, 1811.035, 1821.063, 1828.417, 1848.819], "stop_times": [1787.791, 1811.035, 1821.063, 1828.417, 1848.819, 1874.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.609}, "reply_to": "20116__1_017", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_019", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Stewart, on the other question, even though you argue that there can be nominal damages you say in this case there's no basis for it and the ALJ simply found that this was a case in which nominal damages were not appropriate.\nThat is your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1874.769, 1890.557], "stop_times": [1890.557, 1891.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.769}, "reply_to": "20116__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__1_020", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1891.018], "stop_times": [1891.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.018}, "reply_to": "20116__1_019", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_021", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--That is apparently not the petitioner's position.\nAs I understood his oral argument, he concedes that if we disagree with him on nominal damages this case should be remanded to the ALJ.\nYou don't think so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1891.288, 1893.199, 1899.663], "stop_times": [1893.199, 1899.663, 1900.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.288}, "reply_to": "20116__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__1_022", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--No, we do think so.\nWe think that the court of appeals erred in entering a nominal award on its own precisely because the resolution of that question would depend on factual findings that the court of appeals was not competent to make.\nI mean, essentially, as a practical matter we know that Mr. Rambo is not going to earn less than he was earning at the time of his injury for so long as he continues his current job as a crane operator, but since there's been no showing that his physical condition has changed, if he should lose his job as a crane operator and be unable to find similar work, there's every reason to believe that he will be impaired in his ability to obtain alternative longshore employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1900.585, 1901.306, 1912.603], "stop_times": [1901.306, 1912.603, 1939.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.585}, "reply_to": "20116__1_021", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_023", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "So when you say probable, when you talk about the probability judgment, the probability judgment is not a probability judgment that there will be work as a crane operator and he will continue to do it, or be unable to continue to do it, the probability judgment simply is that there is one kind of wage earning physical activity that he cannot do now, and so long as that probability is shown, the nominal damage award is appropriate.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1939.56, 1965.758], "stop_times": [1965.758, 1966.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.56}, "reply_to": "20116__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__1_024", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, that's not our position, with respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1966.259], "stop_times": [1967.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.259}, "reply_to": "20116__1_023", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_025", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No.\nThen explain that to me again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1967.901, 1968.082], "stop_times": [1968.082, 1968.763], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.901}, "reply_to": "20116__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__1_026", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I think in determining whether it is more likely than not that Mr. Rambo will at some point in the future suffer a loss of wages as a result of the injury, in this case really the dispositive question is, how likely is it that he will some day lose his crane operator's job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1968.763], "stop_times": [1982.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.763}, "reply_to": "20116__1_025", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_027", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Or be unable to continue to operate cranes, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1982.591], "stop_times": [1985.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.591}, "reply_to": "20116__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__1_028", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Right.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1985.903, 1986.164], "stop_times": [1986.164, 1986.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.903}, "reply_to": "20116__1_027", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_029", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I see.\nHasn't the ALJ found here that it is not likely?\nI mean, the ALJ says, this demonstrates that claimant's average weekly wages more than tripled from 1980 to '90.\nAfter taking into consideration the increasing wages due to rate of inflation, blah, blah, it is evident that claimant no longer has a wage-earning capacity loss.\nAlthough he testified that he might lose his job at some future time, the evidence shows that claimant would not be at any greater risk of losing his job than anyone else.\nAnd it goes on like that.\nI... as I read this ALJ determination, it's a finding that there is no probability of future reduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [1986.594, 1987.273, 1990.665, 1996.589, 2003.735, 2011.8, 2012.861], "stop_times": [1987.273, 1990.665, 1996.589, 2003.735, 2011.8, 2012.861, 2019.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.594}, "reply_to": "20116__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__1_030", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I think the one thing that the ALJ left out is, the ALJ said, he is no more likely to lose his crane operator's job than anyone else, presumably as a result of his injury, but if it were the case that work as a crane operator was inherently unstable, that anyone working in the field could be expected to lose his job at any moment, that could be true, but it might--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2019.126], "stop_times": [2037.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.126}, "reply_to": "20116__1_029", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_031", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, whose burden is that to establish?\nI mean, he has to negate every... the ALJ's order has to negate every possible fact that it's the burden of the plaintiff to establish?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2037.496, 2038.718], "stop_times": [2038.718, 2046.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.496}, "reply_to": "20116__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__1_032", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Well, in this case I think Metropolitan, as the proponent of the order terminating benefits, would bear the burden of proof.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2046.472, 2051.317], "stop_times": [2051.317, 2052.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.472}, "reply_to": "20116__1_031", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20116__1_033", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Pierry, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2052.646, 2054.368], "stop_times": [2054.368, 2056.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.646}, "reply_to": "20116__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_000", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nNearly 2 years ago in Rambo I, this Court was presented with the issue of what conditions justified modification of a permanent disability award under section 922 of the act.\nRambo II presents this Court with very different issues.\nDespite petitioner's attempts to focus this Court's attentions on and frame the issues around the 1-year limitation in section 922, the primary issue before this Court is whether or not nominal awards are authorized by section 908(h).\nThis is because the act defines disability in terms of loss of wage-earning capacity, and it is section 908(h), not section 922, which provides the methods to determine the wage-earning capacity of an injured worker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2056.36, 2062.783, 2072.259, 2075.679, 2089.05], "stop_times": [2062.783, 2072.259, 2075.679, 2089.05, 2100.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.36}, "reply_to": "20116__1_033", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_001", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Pierry, did the ALJ decline to make an award in this case, nominal or otherwise, because he felt he had no authority to make nominal awards?\nIs that what he thought?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2100.999, 2110.943], "stop_times": [2110.943, 2111.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.999}, "reply_to": "20116__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_002", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I don't believe so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2111.754], "stop_times": [2112.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.754}, "reply_to": "20116__2_001", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_003", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes.\nI read his opinion as believing he had the authority, but simply finding on these facts no nominal award was justified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2112.906, 2113.855], "stop_times": [2113.855, 2120.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.906}, "reply_to": "20116__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_004", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The problem is, as we have pointed out, I think the Solicitor has also pointed out, there was a failure to consider, at least a failure to write down in the opinion various factors that have been outlined in section 908(h) as important to consider when determining loss of earning capacity of an injured worker.\nI don't fault the ALJ so much as I fault the employer, and I agree with the Solicitor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2120.26, 2136.142], "stop_times": [2136.142, 2141.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.26}, "reply_to": "20116__2_003", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_005", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, do you think the ALJ has to write down and deal with every single one of those sections under section 908 in making an award?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2141.205], "stop_times": [2149.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.205}, "reply_to": "20116__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_006", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Well, yes, Your Honor.\nUnder the Administrative Procedure Act, administrative law judges are required to make explicit findings on all relevant matters, factors in the determination that he's issuing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2149.499, 2150.511], "stop_times": [2150.511, 2158.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.499}, "reply_to": "20116__2_005", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_007", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "And so your view is that the ALJ simply has to use kind of a checklist--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2158.057], "stop_times": [2163.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.057}, "reply_to": "20116__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_008", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2163.39], "stop_times": [2164.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.39}, "reply_to": "20116__2_007", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_009", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--of every one of these things that are mentioned in 908(h)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2164.081], "stop_times": [2167.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.081}, "reply_to": "20116__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_010", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I think he has to at least go through most of the factors and indicate that based upon all of the factors which have been considered relevant in the determination of loss of wage-earning capacity he does not find any loss of wage-earning capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2167.063], "stop_times": [2179.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.063}, "reply_to": "20116__2_009", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_011", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "He could skip some of them, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2179.028], "stop_times": [2180.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.028}, "reply_to": "20116__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_012", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, I would think that he should cover all of them, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2180.5], "stop_times": [2182.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.5}, "reply_to": "20116__2_011", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_013", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I thought you said most.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2182.691], "stop_times": [2183.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.691}, "reply_to": "20116__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_014", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I did say most, but I think that the Administrative Procedure Act really requires explicit determinations on all relevant factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2183.832], "stop_times": [2189.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.832}, "reply_to": "20116__2_013", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_015", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Why isn't this enough to show that he hasn't lost any earning capacity?\nNo evidence has been offered to show that claimant's age, education, and vocational training are such that he would be at a greater risk of losing his present job, or in seeking new employment in the event that he should be required to do so.\nHe's saying he's going to be just like every other crane operator in seeking new employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2189.877, 2193.798, 2207.198], "stop_times": [2193.798, 2207.198, 2210.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.877}, "reply_to": "20116__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_016", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe problem is, though, that he didn't adequately deal with specific factors listed in 908(h), such as the nature of the injury, the degree of physical impairment, and whether or not the claimant is capable... is performing his usual pre-injury employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2210.06, 2210.982], "stop_times": [2210.982, 2223.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.06}, "reply_to": "20116__2_015", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_017", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "And all ALJ orders normally do that, you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2223.239], "stop_times": [2225.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.239}, "reply_to": "20116__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_018", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Truthfully, Your Honor, I don't know if all of them do, but they should in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2225.641], "stop_times": [2229.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2225.641}, "reply_to": "20116__2_017", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_019", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I don't think any of them do it.\nThis seems to me a fully adequate finding.\nI wouldn't... yes, they have to make findings of fact, but I don't know why on the facts set forth here there's any basis for saying there's been a loss in disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2229.231, 2229.452, 2231.304], "stop_times": [2229.452, 2231.304, 2239.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.231}, "reply_to": "20116__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_020", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I disagree, Your Honor, just because under the section 908(h) that we're dealing with here, they specifically list certain factors; qualitative factors, I would admit, such as the nature of the injury, the degree of physical impairment, and whether or not the claimant is capable of doing his usual pre-injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2239.079], "stop_times": [2252.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.079}, "reply_to": "20116__2_019", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_021", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "What if the ALJ simply found... simply made a finding that I've reviewed all of the factors set forth in section 908(h) and find no loss of earning capacity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2252.7], "stop_times": [2263.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.7}, "reply_to": "20116__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_022", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--That would be a very difficult case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2263.035], "stop_times": [2264.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.035}, "reply_to": "20116__2_021", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_023", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Why would it be difficult?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2264.517], "stop_times": [2265.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.517}, "reply_to": "20116__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_024", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Because I believe that the Administrative Procedure Act requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2265.949], "stop_times": [2268.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.949}, "reply_to": "20116__2_023", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_025", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "What provision of the Administrative Procedure Act would require that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2268.43], "stop_times": [2272.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.43}, "reply_to": "20116__2_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_026", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Your Honor, I wish I had that before you at my fingertips but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2272.101], "stop_times": [2274.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.101}, "reply_to": "20116__2_025", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_027", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, I thought if you were going to argue it you probably would have it before you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2274.983], "stop_times": [2277.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.983}, "reply_to": "20116__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_028", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Yes.\nI apologize, Your Honor.\nI think there is a section, though, that says that an administrative procedure... an administrative law judge, rather, must make explicit findings on all relevant factors in his determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2277.206, 2277.754, 2278.495], "stop_times": [2277.754, 2278.495, 2287.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.206}, "reply_to": "20116__2_027", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_029", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But you have no idea what the section is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2287.082], "stop_times": [2289.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.082}, "reply_to": "20116__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_030", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Your Honor, I have quoted it in my brief, and I forgot it.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2289.282, 2291.676], "stop_times": [2291.676, 2292.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.282}, "reply_to": "20116__2_029", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_031", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But what you're suggesting is it would be a routine thing, and more formal than substantial, if it's just that, I list these things, I've considered every one of them, and that's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2292.217], "stop_times": [2306.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.217}, "reply_to": "20116__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__2_032", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, I think as to certain factors that are very important factors, such as the factors that are set out in 908(h), those ones at least should be dealt with in a very substantial manner by the administrative law judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2306.624], "stop_times": [2317.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.624}, "reply_to": "20116__2_031", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_033", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, what do you mean?\nTwo sentences is substantial, or... let me ask you another question, which I think you answered, but I want to be sure that I have your answer right.\nThe law was less than clear and certain on nominal damages.\nThe benefits review board resisted it for a long time, and the circuits didn't get into it until the eighties.\nIs it clear that in this very case that issue was focused before the ALJ so that when Mr. Rambo, who was receiving weekly benefits as a disabled person, was threatened with the termination of his benefits, the ALJ knew that that was one of the things he could have done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2317.381, 2318.062, 2328.208, 2334.052, 2340.657], "stop_times": [2318.062, 2328.208, 2334.052, 2340.657, 2363.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.381}, "reply_to": "20116__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__2_034", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the record is unclear in that regard.\nI believe that the main issue that the administrative law judge felt that he was faced with was whether or not to terminate benefits based upon the earnings that Mr. Rambo was experiencing, the higher earnings, so I don't believe there really was an explicit determination of that fact.\nOne thing I would like to point out though that makes this case different and unique from all of the other nominal award cases, different from Hole and LaFaille and Randall, is that all of those cases arose out of an initial claim hearing, where the claimant has the burden of proof of coming forward and proving that he has a disability.\nThis claim arises out of a modification proceeding where the claimant has already established that he has a disability, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2363.183, 2365.784, 2379.253, 2394.001], "stop_times": [2365.784, 2379.253, 2394.001, 2400.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.183}, "reply_to": "20116__2_033", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_035", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But did his lawyer in that modification proceeding initiated by the employer, did Rambo's lawyer ever say to the ALJ at least give us an award of nominal damages?\nDid it enter the fray at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2400.145, 2412.073], "stop_times": [2412.073, 2413.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.145}, "reply_to": "20116__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__2_036", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--No, I don't think so, Your Honor, and I think as the Ninth Circuit stated Rambo's contesting of termination of his benefits also included his assertion that he's entitled to any lesser amount under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2413.984], "stop_times": [2424.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.984}, "reply_to": "20116__2_035", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_037", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "If that's so... I haven't even thought about... what's bothering me in the statutory part of this case is that I guess Mr. Babcock says, read that statute.\nThey have some words called wage-earning capacity.\nThat's a word that you can look at anything in the world, past, present, and future, but it ends up with a number, even if it's a guess, and subtract from that existing wage-earnings, or whatever, and divide by two-thirds, all right.\nThose are two numbers plus a division.\nNow, this is providing a jumping system, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2424.682, 2434.437, 2438.651, 2454.981, 2457.743], "stop_times": [2434.437, 2438.651, 2454.981, 2457.743, 2461.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.682}, "reply_to": "20116__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__2_038", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2461.256], "stop_times": [2462.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.256}, "reply_to": "20116__2_037", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_039", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "And he says, how do we make that consistent with those words, wage-earning capacity, and at that point, I think maybe the SG's interpretation is within the envelope, but it should be the Secretary of Labor to whom we defer on such matters, that has thought this thing through.\nNow, you're familiar with the cases, and the background, and the history.\nIt would sometimes help the worker, the one system, sometimes hurt the worker.\nWe don't know.\nWhat is the state of the art?\nHas this matter of what we call the jumping interpretation of the words wage-earning capacity been thought through by the Labor Department, they decide that's the correct interpretation of the statute, and they advance it, in the history of these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2462.007, 2478.916, 2483.33, 2486.803, 2487.411, 2489.204], "stop_times": [2478.916, 2483.33, 2486.803, 2487.411, 2489.204, 2502.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.007}, "reply_to": "20116__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20116__2_040", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Your Honor, I guess what I'd point to is really the language of Congress in terms of the state of the art in section 908(h).\nWhen they list the qualitative factors, such as consideration of the nature of the injury, the degree of physical impairment, whether or not the claimant can do his usual employment, those are all things where it is difficult to imagine how you could ever get to a particular dollar amount.\nAnd I think that when Congress listed that we should consider the effect of his disability as it may naturally extend into the future, they realized that it may be impossible at times to accurately give a particular dollar amount and therefore they envisioned nominal awards.\nIn fact, I have quoted the 1983 and '84 committee reports which certainly let us know that Congress is aware of the fact that these type of nominal awards were being issued and they did nothing to change the system.\nAnd also, what I think is important about those committee reports is that there is a concern expressed, a main concern, I believe, that without these type of awards claimants are going to be coming in and filing yearly requests for modification because they aren't allowed to get a nominal modified award, and that would present an administrative nightmare, and I think that's why Congress... that's at least a good explanation of why Congress didn't change the system.\nYour Honor, to follow up on your question, if there is no provision for nominal awards, there is what the circuit courts have termed an onerous burden on the administrative law judge to try to determine what exactly the loss of wage-earning capacity is in a case where there is serious medical disability.\nAs the court of appeals stated in the Randall case, the act requires omniscience of the judge.\nHe has to determine whether the claimant will suffer any work-related reduction in his earning capacity at any time in his lifetime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2502.502, 2510.087, 2523.446, 2536.966, 2547.404, 2569.209, 2587.532, 2592.084], "stop_times": [2510.087, 2523.446, 2536.966, 2547.404, 2569.209, 2587.532, 2592.084, 2598.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.502}, "reply_to": "20116__2_039", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_041", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, that's not any different from what happens in a normal civil trial, which I assume is the model.\nYou point out that this is a section... I assume it's a section 556 proceeding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2598.038, 2602.219], "stop_times": [2602.219, 2606.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2598.038}, "reply_to": "20116__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_042", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2606.813], "stop_times": [2608.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.813}, "reply_to": "20116__2_041", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_043", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--under the Administrative Procedure Act that's required to be conducted on the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2608.593], "stop_times": [2611.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.593}, "reply_to": "20116__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_044", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2611.125], "stop_times": [2611.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.125}, "reply_to": "20116__2_043", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_045", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, you know, a regular full dress civil trial is the model for that, and it happens all the time.\nYou take your best guess as to what the damages will be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2611.686, 2617.67], "stop_times": [2617.67, 2620.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.686}, "reply_to": "20116__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_046", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The difference is section 922, though.\nThere's a provision specifically allowed in this act for modification of awards to account for a wage-earning capacity going up or down over the years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2620.442, 2622.104], "stop_times": [2622.104, 2629.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2620.442}, "reply_to": "20116__2_045", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_047", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, there are some civil actions that allow modifications, too.\nDivorce decrees can be modified, but I don't know that a judge in a divorce case would be... would feel that he's entitled not to even take his best shot at figuring out what the actual amounts ought to be.\nJust say, you know, I'll give you a dollar for now, and come back 5 years from now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2629.597, 2632.589, 2643.407], "stop_times": [2632.589, 2643.407, 2647.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.597}, "reply_to": "20116__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_048", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That is true, Your Honor.\nHowever, this involves workers who... and the primary issue to be determined is what is their wage-earning capacity, whereas in a divorce case that is not the primary issue.\nWe are trying to determine what an injured worker--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2647.449, 2648.48, 2656.825], "stop_times": [2648.48, 2656.825, 2658.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.449}, "reply_to": "20116__2_047", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_049", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, in a divorce for child support or alimony certainly one of the primary issues is the earning capacity of each spouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2658.275], "stop_times": [2667.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.275}, "reply_to": "20116__2_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_050", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--That's true, Your Honor.\nHowever, again, in this law there's a specific provision made for modification because Congress realized that an injured worker's earnings may fluctuate as the time goes on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2667.141, 2668.603], "stop_times": [2668.603, 2676.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.141}, "reply_to": "20116__2_049", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_051", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But typical divorce statutes in States make exactly the same provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2676.889], "stop_times": [2681.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.889}, "reply_to": "20116__2_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_052", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "You may be correct about that, Your Honor.\nI don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2681.162, 2682.972], "stop_times": [2682.972, 2683.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2681.162}, "reply_to": "20116__2_051", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_053", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "What you propose is so sensible.\nIt works so well.\nI can't figure out why the benefits review board would have been opposed to it except that it thought the statute didn't allow it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2683.443, 2685.293, 2686.715], "stop_times": [2685.293, 2686.715, 2692.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.443}, "reply_to": "20116__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_054", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, I think, Your Honor, you're right.\nThey've always quoted in the eighties opinions that the Solicitor referred to that it was a judicial infringement on the time limitation.\nMy point is, the main point, I think, of the petitioner... of the respondent, rather, is that section 922's time limitation does not even enter into the fray when we're talking about what type of remedy is allowed to be fashioned.\nRather, section 908(h) is the section which specifically directs how earning capacity of an injured worker is calculated, and therefore the section 922 1-year limitation on modifications should not be seen as a device that prevents entering any type of award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2692.199, 2694.099, 2699.763, 2713.133], "stop_times": [2694.099, 2699.763, 2713.133, 2728.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2692.199}, "reply_to": "20116__2_053", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_055", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Pierry, isn't it how can we drop out 922?\nIsn't this whole idea driven by the 1-year time limit?\nIf we didn't have the 1-year time limit there would be no need for these nominal damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2728.841, 2731.204, 2735.296], "stop_times": [2731.204, 2735.296, 2740.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.841}, "reply_to": "20116__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__2_056", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's exactly right.\nIn fact, as the 1983 and '84 legislative history makes clear, the committee suggested limiting both the forward-looking language of section 908(h) and the 1-year time limitation and modification.\nThat would make nominal awards unnecessary and also would reduce the specter of this administrative nightmare of yearly requests of filing requests for modification by workers.\nHowever, Congress chose not to do that, and the petit... the respondent's point, rather, is that the petitioner is trying to get this Court to do what Congress chose not to do, which is to change the act and disallow nominal awards.\nCongress was aware of these nominal awards and chose not to change the act to forbid them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2740.591, 2741.55, 2752.617, 2760.955, 2772.902], "stop_times": [2741.55, 2752.617, 2760.955, 2772.902, 2778.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.591}, "reply_to": "20116__2_055", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_057", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Do you defend the Ninth Circuit standard of a possibility instead of a probability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2778.446], "stop_times": [2787.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.446}, "reply_to": "20116__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__2_058", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat gets to the question of the burden of proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2787.582, 2788.721], "stop_times": [2788.721, 2790.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.582}, "reply_to": "20116__2_057", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_059", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That certainly is not what most courts have followed, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2790.484], "stop_times": [2794.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.484}, "reply_to": "20116__2_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__2_060", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "In this particular case I do defend it, and if I may explain, I think the question of who has the burden of proof and what that burden of proof is depends on at what stage of the proceedings the question is raised.\nAt the initial claim, respondent would agree with the Solicitor that it's the claimant who has the burden of proof, preponderance of the evidence, that he has to prove that it's more likely than not that at some point in the future he will suffer a reduction in earnings.\nIf he does that, then he's established a disability.\nRambo did that in this case.\nHe established that he had a disability, and he was not only awarded a disability--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2794.075, 2804.02, 2816.65, 2819.632, 2821.643], "stop_times": [2804.02, 2816.65, 2819.632, 2821.643, 2825.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.075}, "reply_to": "20116__2_059", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_061", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, so what's the employer's burden of proof on a modification request?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2825.616], "stop_times": [2828.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.616}, "reply_to": "20116__2_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__2_062", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I believe that it's the same preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer has to prove--\nYou're right, Your Honor.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2828.979, 2833.421, 2836.853], "stop_times": [2833.421, 2836.853, 2837.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.979}, "reply_to": "20116__2_061", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_063", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, that's what I asked you.\nThe Ninth Circuit refers to a possibility rather than a probability, and you said you support that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2837.624, 2838.273], "stop_times": [2838.273, 2844.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.624}, "reply_to": "20116__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20116__2_064", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes.\nI support it because what the Ninth Circuit was saying is there was a significant possibility that the claimant would suffer a loss of earnings in the future, therefore the employer had not met its preponderance of the evidence standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2844.096, 2844.397], "stop_times": [2844.397, 2857.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.096}, "reply_to": "20116__2_063", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_065", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But the Ninth Circuit didn't put it that way, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2857.607], "stop_times": [2859.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.607}, "reply_to": "20116__2_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_066", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2859.968], "stop_times": [2860.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2859.968}, "reply_to": "20116__2_065", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_067", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I mean, you agree that the burden in this case is on the employer, and what the employer has to show is that it's less likely than not that there will be a future impairment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2860.779], "stop_times": [2870.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2860.779}, "reply_to": "20116__2_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_068", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2870.985], "stop_times": [2871.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.985}, "reply_to": "20116__2_067", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_069", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Maybe I'm repeating a point Justice Scalia has made before, but the burden of the... in the particular proceeding seeking modification that was had in this case was one in which the employer assumed the burden of proving that there should be a complete termination of benefits, and the ALJ found that that burden of proof had been sustained.\nIf that's true, that would even rule out the nominal award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2871.876, 2890.799], "stop_times": [2890.799, 2893.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.876}, "reply_to": "20116__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20116__2_070", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Your Honor, I believe that what the ALJ... the Ninth Circuit said about the ALJ's decision was that the ALJ's decision did not take into account certain specified factors, and therefore that his decision was not supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and I believe that the Ninth Circuit, when faced with the evidence that was presented, which really was only the increase in earnings, they decided that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2893.951], "stop_times": [2918.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.951}, "reply_to": "20116__2_069", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_071", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, it was increase in earnings, and also there was testimony that the man might theoretically lose his job later, and so forth and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2918.586], "stop_times": [2924.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.586}, "reply_to": "20116__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20116__2_072", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.\nBut as far as the evidence the employer presented in terms of supporting termination, I think the Ninth Circuit found that there was not substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding that the employer had basically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2924.86, 2925.09, 2925.621], "stop_times": [2925.09, 2925.621, 2938.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.86}, "reply_to": "20116__2_071", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_073", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "You see, part of the problem is that your client at that stage of the proceedings did not argue in the alternative, a) don't make any reduction, and b) if you do make a reduction, don't terminate but allow me to keep the nominal award.\nHe didn't even raise that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2938.791, 2950.987], "stop_times": [2950.987, 2951.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.791}, "reply_to": "20116__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20116__2_074", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Your right, Your Honor, and that was because he was relying on years of precedent regarding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2951.929], "stop_times": [2955.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.929}, "reply_to": "20116__2_073", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_075", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Right, and I was very sympathetic to his position, but he lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2955.612], "stop_times": [2959.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.612}, "reply_to": "20116__2_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20116__2_076", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2959.733], "stop_times": [2960.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.733}, "reply_to": "20116__2_075", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_077", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I take it your answer to that is, send it back so that findings can be made on some of these various factors that the court... that the ALJ did not specifically address.\nThat was your earlier answer, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2960.224, 2970.919], "stop_times": [2970.919, 2973.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.224}, "reply_to": "20116__2_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__2_078", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWhat the respondent's position is, that since the employer was the one that had the burden of proof at the modification proceeding, and the Ninth Circuit found that the ALJ's decision that they sustained that burden of proof was not supported by substantial evidence, that therefore the case should be affirmed, and that if the employer then wishes to go ahead and seek another modification hearing, it can then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2973.103, 2973.443], "stop_times": [2973.443, 2991.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2973.103}, "reply_to": "20116__2_077", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_079", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Start all over again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2991.783], "stop_times": [2992.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.783}, "reply_to": "20116__2_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__2_080", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2992.674], "stop_times": [2992.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.674}, "reply_to": "20116__2_079", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_081", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well now, is it a substantial evidence... I thought earlier your objection to the ALJ's decree was not a substantial evidence one, but that he hadn't made the necessary findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [2992.885], "stop_times": [3004.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2992.885}, "reply_to": "20116__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_082", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Your Honor, yes.\nThe ALJ didn't specify the certain factors that I talked about in 908(h).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3004.341, 3006.124], "stop_times": [3006.124, 3011.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.341}, "reply_to": "20116__2_081", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_083", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "So... the provision of the Administrative Procedure Act you referred to, by the way, simply requires that the record include a statement of finding and conclusions and the reasons or basis therefore on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.\nNow, what had been presented on the record here that wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3011.086, 3030.339], "stop_times": [3030.339, 3033.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.086}, "reply_to": "20116__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_084", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, that's the problem, Your Honor.\nIn this proceeding the employer didn't present evidence which it should have in order to sustain its burden of terminating benefits.\nIt's respondent's position that if they wanted to, the employer should have come in with rehabilitative experts saying that there's no chance that... or very little chance that Rambo will lose his crane job, or that there are many other jobs out there that he can do, or, alternatively, they also could have come in with medical evidence saying, his condition has improved.\nThere's many other jobs he can do besides crane operator.\nThey chose to bring in none of that evidence, and simply rely on the increased earnings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3033.421, 3034.462, 3040.306, 3057.206, 3059.738], "stop_times": [3034.462, 3040.306, 3057.206, 3059.738, 3062.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.421}, "reply_to": "20116__2_083", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_085", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--This is a substantial evidence objection you're making, not a findings objection, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3062.61], "stop_times": [3067.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3062.61}, "reply_to": "20116__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_086", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nYour Honor, petitioner quotes the Potomac River... or Potomac Power case for the proposition that the longshore act does not guarantee a completely adequate remedy for all covered disabilities because it's a compromise of competing interests and represents a legislative choice.\nThe problem with that argument is that it fails to address the fact that in section 908(h) the specific legislative choice has been made.\nThere is particular broad, forward-looking language in section 908(h) which represents the legislative choice in this area.\nThe legislative choice is reflected in the philosophy of the courts in Hole, LaFaille, and Randall when they adopt this nominal award so that it can be altered and amended as time proves it to be wrong or correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3067.064, 3067.635, 3083.143, 3090.458, 3096.843], "stop_times": [3067.635, 3083.143, 3090.458, 3096.843, 3107.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.064}, "reply_to": "20116__2_085", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_087", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But the same language could be honored by simply assigning present value and saying that's good for all time.\nWe may be giving you too much now and too little later on a specific time period basis, but we'll fix a present value just the way juries fix present values in accident cases.\nThat would be consistent with the statute, too, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3107.609, 3114.405, 3126.563], "stop_times": [3114.405, 3126.563, 3129.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3107.609}, "reply_to": "20116__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__2_088", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nI guess what I... the respondent's point is, there's nothing in the act that prevents issuance of nominal awards, and since Congress chose not to prevent them, neither should this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3129.174, 3129.494], "stop_times": [3129.494, 3138.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.174}, "reply_to": "20116__2_087", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_089", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Is part of the problem that the 1-year time limit works as a one-way street?\nThat is, the employer can always come in and say, we want a modification, and the employee--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3138.3, 3143.406], "stop_times": [3143.406, 3151.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.3}, "reply_to": "20116__2_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__2_090", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's true, Your Honor.\nIt is a difficult situation for the employee, the injured worker.\nAs I said, without nominal awards, the only alternative for the employee is to come in every year and request for modification simply to keep the statute of limitations from running whether or not there's actually grounds for it, and that's a difficult situation, I don't think one that the courts would want to endorse, because it creates, like I said before, an administrative nightmare of all these requests for modification, perhaps groundless, perhaps some of them have grounds, simply filed just to keep the statute of limitations from running.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3151.83, 3153.16, 3156.392], "stop_times": [3153.16, 3156.392, 3183.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3151.83}, "reply_to": "20116__2_089", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_091", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Well, maybe they could simply be treated as nominal requests and knocked down.\nIt wouldn't take much time, and the rights would be preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3183.07, 3188.275], "stop_times": [3188.275, 3191.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.07}, "reply_to": "20116__2_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__2_092", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's true, but it would definitely impede judicial efficiency and economy because of all these requests that would be coming in from claimants that had been denied.\nYour Honor, petitioner's statement that the longshore act does not guarantee a completely adequate remedy sounds reasonable, or may sound reasonable and applicable on first reading, but further examination shows that it's really inapplicable in this context of nominal awards.\nThat's because disability under the act is defined in terms of wage-earning capacity.\nAs the Randall court stated, under the act, any reduction in wage-earning capacity greater than zero is compensable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3191.367, 3197.111, 3211.379, 3216.312], "stop_times": [3197.111, 3211.379, 3216.312, 3221.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3191.367}, "reply_to": "20116__2_091", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_093", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Mr. Pierry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3221.445], "stop_times": [3222.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.445}, "reply_to": "20116__2_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__2_094", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "There's no question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3222.336], "stop_times": [3222.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3222.336}, "reply_to": "20116__2_093", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_095", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Mr. Pierry, is it... isn't it so that anybody who has a physical disability, as Rambo certainly did, anybody who has that, can always get one of these nominal damages award, because there would always be a risk that at some time in the future their disability, physical disability would make it impossible even to do, say, the crane work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3222.717], "stop_times": [3245.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.717}, "reply_to": "20116__2_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__2_096", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I would like that to be the case, but I don't think that is the case under the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3245.24], "stop_times": [3247.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.24}, "reply_to": "20116__2_095", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_097", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Well, I'd like to see what is the stopping point on your theory.\nThe Government has the more-probable-than-not, but on your theory, isn't there always a risk that the disabling condition will cause a reduction in earning capacity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3247.621, 3250.533], "stop_times": [3250.533, 3260.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.621}, "reply_to": "20116__2_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20116__2_098", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I don't think there always is.\nHowever, what I would point to in this record is that the nature of the injury and the degree of physical impairment everyone concedes have remained the same as when Rambo was first awarded the disability award of 22-1/2 percent.\nIn addition, there is testimony, as was pointed out, that he didn't know how long this higher-paying crane job would last, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3260.521, 3261.933, 3274.261], "stop_times": [3261.933, 3274.261, 3279.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3260.521}, "reply_to": "20116__2_097", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_099", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "You're relying on the fact that this is a proceeding to alter the original award.\nI think Justice Ginsburg's question goes to the original award.\nWhat is your position as to whether an original nominal award can be made?\nWhat do you need to show, a probability that your wages will be lowered in the future?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3279.685, 3283.986, 3287.378, 3292.491], "stop_times": [3283.986, 3287.378, 3292.491, 3296.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3279.685}, "reply_to": "20116__2_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_100", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--Yes, Your Honors.\nI do agree with the Solicitor in that sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3296.495, 3297.236], "stop_times": [3297.236, 3299.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3296.495}, "reply_to": "20116__2_099", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_101", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3299.246], "stop_times": [3299.487], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3299.246}, "reply_to": "20116__2_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__2_102", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "At the initial claim proceeding I believe that the claimant has the burden of proof, preponderance of the evidence standard, that he will more likely than not suffer some type of loss of earning capacity in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3299.487], "stop_times": [3307.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3299.487}, "reply_to": "20116__2_101", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_103", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But don't you say that he meets or can meet that standard simply by proof that among the spectrum of things that he might do to earn a living, there is one thing that he can no longer do as well as he did before, and therefore, given the contingencies of job availability, there are some circumstances in which it is more probable than not that he will not be able to earn what he did before, and that satisfies the burden.\nIsn't that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3307.752, 3331.557], "stop_times": [3331.557, 3332.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.752}, "reply_to": "20116__2_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__2_104", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI would say that our position is that since the usual employment is a specific factor that's listed in section 908(h), that really is the key determination, whether or not his injury affects or impairs his ability to perform his usual employment, his usual pre-injury employment, and here there's no argument that it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3332.418, 3333.838], "stop_times": [3333.838, 3349.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3332.418}, "reply_to": "20116__2_103", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_105", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "No, but that will... I guess that takes me back to Justice Ginsburg's question.\nExcept for the employee who in fact fully recovers, your theory will always support a nominal award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3349.579, 3355.343], "stop_times": [3355.343, 3364.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3349.579}, "reply_to": "20116__2_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20116__2_106", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I don't believe so, Your Honor, because I believe that in this case the usual employment is a broad category term, and he was a longshoreman before this accident.\nHe's still a longshoreman.\nHe happens to be doing lighter duty crane job work, but the great majority of longshore work does require a lot of physical labor, and there's no question that his disability impairs his ability to do the great majority of longshore jobs that do require physical labor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3364.098, 3371.873, 3372.944], "stop_times": [3371.873, 3372.944, 3386.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3364.098}, "reply_to": "20116__2_105", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_107", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "So if he had gotten another job as an accountant, let's say, he got retrained as an accountant, that wouldn't at all affect his entitlement to awards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3386.453], "stop_times": [3397.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3386.453}, "reply_to": "20116__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_108", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "I guess... I think it would depend on the evidence, but I would concede--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3397.101], "stop_times": [3399.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3397.101}, "reply_to": "20116__2_107", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_109", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Unless he was an accountant for... I guess the longshore companies have accountants, don't they?\n[Laughter]\nWhat don't longshore companies have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3399.843, 3402.324, 3402.565], "stop_times": [3402.324, 3402.565, 3404.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3399.843}, "reply_to": "20116__2_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_110", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--There's a wide variety of jobs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3404.885], "stop_times": [3405.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3404.885}, "reply_to": "20116__2_109", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_111", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "There must be something they don't have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3405.906], "stop_times": [3407.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3405.906}, "reply_to": "20116__2_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_112", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "But what I would say in that regard is that I can envision circumstances where a claimant has so completely changed industries, become an accountant or a doctor or a lawyer, that in no way would ever require physical labor, and he has also come forward, or someone has come forward with evidence indicating that there is very little chance that he will lose that type of job, that complete termination could be justified.\nI just don't think it is appropriate in this case.\nYour Honors, the mechanism of nominal awards fulfills the forward-looking perspective of 908(h) and it lifts the onerous burden from the ALJ.\nIt lifts the burden inherent in any attempt to pick a disability figure out of thin air, as the circuit courts have stated, rather than simply assigning a nominal value and allowing it to be changed at a later date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3407.846, 3428.55, 3430.541, 3443.66], "stop_times": [3428.55, 3430.541, 3443.66, 3455.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3407.846}, "reply_to": "20116__2_111", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_113", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Just out of curiosity, do... is it your perception that employers generally like it this way, or generally would rather have the ALJ guess as to what the future will be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3455.017], "stop_times": [3465.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3455.017}, "reply_to": "20116__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_114", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "That's an interesting question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3465.055], "stop_times": [3466.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3465.055}, "reply_to": "20116__2_113", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_115", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3466.485], "stop_times": [3466.735], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3466.485}, "reply_to": "20116__2_114", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20116__2_116", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--and I can't give you an answer to that.\nAll I know is they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3466.735, 3467.987], "stop_times": [3467.987, 3468.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3466.735}, "reply_to": "20116__2_115", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_117", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "This doesn't split out necessarily on the basis of plaintiffs' versus defendants' preference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3468.668], "stop_times": [3473.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3468.668}, "reply_to": "20116__2_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20116__2_118", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "--I think employers generally don't like to have nominal awards because they have to keep their cases open, and they have to keep looking at cases, rather than closing them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3473.14], "stop_times": [3480.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3473.14}, "reply_to": "20116__2_117", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_119", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Pierry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3480.246], "stop_times": [3481.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3480.246}, "reply_to": "20116__2_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20116__2_120", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3481.097], "stop_times": [3481.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3481.097}, "reply_to": "20116__2_119", "speaker": "thomas_j_pierry"}
{"id": "20116__2_121", "conversation_id": "20116", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-272", "start_times": [3481.747], "stop_times": [3482.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3481.747}, "reply_to": "20116__2_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__0_000", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-6867, Joseph Roger O'Dell v. J. D. Netherland.\nMr. Smith, you may proceed whenever you will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [0.0, 9.606], "stop_times": [9.606, 55.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__0_001", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe principal issue here is whether a reasonable jurist in 1988 would have believed the decision in Simmons v. South Carolina compelled by the Court's prior decisions in Gardner and Skipper.\nI think the main things I want to emphasize are first how closely analogous Skipper and Simmons are, how, indeed, hard it would be to avoid going from the holding of Skipper to the holding of Simmons and, on the other hand how distant the issue in Simmons was from the issue in California v. Ramos, which is the case principally relied on by the Commonwealth, and how very difficult it is to get from Ramos to a result opposite to the result that was reached in Simmons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [55.735, 58.02, 71.262], "stop_times": [58.02, 71.262, 107.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 55.735}, "reply_to": "20832__0_000", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_002", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Mr. Smith, I'd like to ask you a hard question at the outset.\nIf you are contending that we're dealing with nothing new in the Simmons decision, what do you say about the 4-1-4 split on this Court about whether the Simmons rule was even required by the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [107.202, 111.637], "stop_times": [111.637, 129.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 107.202}, "reply_to": "20832__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__0_003", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "The split on this Court as to whether the Simmons rule was required by the Constitution, I believe the Court was 7 to 2 on that issue, Your Honor, it's my understanding.\nIt was a... there was a plurality opinion written by Justice Blackmun speaking for four justices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [129.616, 138.741], "stop_times": [138.741, 144.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 129.616}, "reply_to": "20832__0_002", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_004", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [144.125], "stop_times": [144.727], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 144.125}, "reply_to": "20832__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__0_005", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "With Justice O'Connor speaking for three justices--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [144.727], "stop_times": [147.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.727}, "reply_to": "20832__0_004", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_006", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [147.762], "stop_times": [148.212], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 147.762}, "reply_to": "20832__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__0_007", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--joining in the same holding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [148.212], "stop_times": [149.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.212}, "reply_to": "20832__0_006", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_008", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, I don't recall what the split was, but in any event there was a split.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [149.146], "stop_times": [153.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.146}, "reply_to": "20832__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__0_009", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "There was a dissent, Your Honor.\nI think even the dissent, in my view, did not so much reject the narrow rule of Simmons, the rule as narrowly stated by the majority in Simmons, which is quite... there wasn't a majority, but the rule as narrowly stated by the plurality in Simmons was quite specific.\nWhen you have an allegation of future dangerousness, and a defendant seeks to rebut that by showing that he is ineligible... ineligible for parole, he has a due process right to do that.\nI do not read the dissent as rejecting that holding so much as the dissent in Simmons says, this case does not present that narrow issue.\nIndeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [153.398, 154.733, 169.693, 180.234, 189.673], "stop_times": [154.733, 169.693, 180.234, 189.673, 190.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.398}, "reply_to": "20832__0_008", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_010", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Skipper was not really a due process case, was it?\nIt was an Eighth Amendment case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [190.273, 194.827], "stop_times": [194.827, 196.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.273}, "reply_to": "20832__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__0_011", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I think it was both, Your Honor, but I think it was much more clearly and easily a due process than an Eighth Amendment case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [196.26], "stop_times": [200.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 196.26}, "reply_to": "20832__0_010", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_012", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, I thought the text of the opinion pretty well limited itself to Eighth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [200.981], "stop_times": [206.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.981}, "reply_to": "20832__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__0_013", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "The text does limit itself to the Eighth Amendment.\nA footnote says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [206.635, 208.735], "stop_times": [208.735, 210.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.635}, "reply_to": "20832__0_012", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_014", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "So you're relying on a footnote to say that it's a due process case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [210.187], "stop_times": [213.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.187}, "reply_to": "20832__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__0_015", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Yes, because that is what the footnote says, Mr Chief Justice.\nThe footnote says in so many words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [213.289, 216.039], "stop_times": [216.039, 217.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.289}, "reply_to": "20832__0_014", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_016", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "It's a strange place to find doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [217.424], "stop_times": [219.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.424}, "reply_to": "20832__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__0_017", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Not always, Your Honor.\nI think here it's not strange because I think what happened is the Court wrote a difficult and disputed Eighth Amendment opinion and dropped a footnote to say, and by the way, there's an easy due process route to the same result, with which the three dissenters agreed.\nThey were not dissenters, I'm sorry.\nThey concurred, but they concurred only on that ground, only on the due process ground.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [219.443, 221.993, 236.135, 237.404, 241.689], "stop_times": [221.993, 236.135, 237.404, 241.689, 242.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.443}, "reply_to": "20832__0_016", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_018", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "You didn't mention the footnote in your... in the habeas petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [242.808], "stop_times": [245.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.808}, "reply_to": "20832__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_019", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--In the petition itself--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [245.926], "stop_times": [248.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.926}, "reply_to": "20832__0_018", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_020", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "There was a 151-page habeas petition which doesn't mention that footnote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [248.026], "stop_times": [251.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.026}, "reply_to": "20832__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_021", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--In the... we did not mention it in the habeas petition itself.\nWe did on direct appeal in 1988, at a time before the petitioner's conviction became final.\nWe did argue that this rule was compelled by Skipper.\nThe... I think the facts of Skipper were a defendant who had... was charged with being a future danger, where the prosecution was trying to prove future dangerousness, and the response he wanted to make was, I have behaved well in prison up to now, and therefore I'm not going to be so dangerous as you might otherwise think.\nIt was held that he had a... unanimously that he had a due proces right to do that.\nThe issue in Simmons seems to me almost a fortiori... when he's saying, yeah, it's not so much whether my behavior's been good in there, but you want to know whether I'm going to be in prison or not, and it's hard to imagine a much more relevant fact on the issue of future dangerousness than whether the man is going to get out or not.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [251.562, 255.132, 261.103, 265.472, 289.27, 293.841, 312.553], "stop_times": [255.132, 261.103, 265.472, 289.27, 293.841, 312.553, 314.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.562}, "reply_to": "20832__0_020", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_022", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "He can be dangerous in prison, I assume, can't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [314.155], "stop_times": [316.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.155}, "reply_to": "20832__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_023", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--He certainly can, and the prosecution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [316.772], "stop_times": [319.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.772}, "reply_to": "20832__0_022", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_024", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Murders in prison occur with some frequency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [319.222], "stop_times": [321.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.222}, "reply_to": "20832__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_025", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--The... but he can be dangerous in prison and the prosecution is free to make that argument, but what the prosecution prefers to do, and preferred to do here, is frighten the jury with the thought that he's going to be next door to them tomorrow, that he'll be out on the street, and they... that's a much better way to get a death penalty.\nOf course the prosecution can argue life without parole isn't going to do it because he's going to kill his cell mate, and the defendant has to try to meet that argument.\nBut when the prosecution says, as the prosecutor did here, isn't it interesting that he can't be out on the street for more than a little while without getting into trouble, at that point it seems to me fundamental, obvious that the defendant should be allowed to get up and say, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to be out on that street any more.\nThis is it for me.\nI'm going to be locked up for the rest of my life.\nThe... so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [321.741, 339.103, 348.726, 368.055, 369.089, 371.241], "stop_times": [339.103, 348.726, 368.055, 369.089, 371.241, 374.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.741}, "reply_to": "20832__0_024", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_026", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Unless the law changes.\nHe would have to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [374.626, 375.728], "stop_times": [375.728, 376.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.626}, "reply_to": "20832__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_027", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.\nUnless the law changed, but you know, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [376.945, 377.778, 378.345], "stop_times": [377.778, 378.345, 379.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.945}, "reply_to": "20832__0_026", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_028", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But there would be no way to guarantee the jury that this man would not be back on the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [379.947], "stop_times": [383.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 379.947}, "reply_to": "20832__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_029", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--That... that's an argument, Justice Scalia, but it does not make the life without parole situation irrelevant.\nThe life without parole situation is still almost overwhelmingly relevant.\nThe almost is you could always change the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [383.465, 389.303, 393.357], "stop_times": [389.303, 393.357, 395.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.465}, "reply_to": "20832__0_028", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_030", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "To the force of the injustice that you're describing.\nI mean, you know, whether this argument that was excluded would be of such overpowering force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [395.09, 398.074], "stop_times": [398.074, 403.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.09}, "reply_to": "20832__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_031", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "It does go to the force of the argument.\nI respectfully submit, Justice Scalia that it's still a very powerful argument despite the fact that the possibility of changing the law does exist.\nIt's still... in a future dangerousness case, as I believe one of the opinions in Simmons said, it's about the best argument you've got, and often the only argument you've got, that I'm going to be locked away for the rest of my life.\nYou don't have to worry about me, that may... the jury doesn't have to buy it, but the jury certainly may buy it.\nIt's a very powerful argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [403.878, 405.914, 412.484, 423.126, 428.678], "stop_times": [405.914, 412.484, 423.126, 428.678, 430.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.878}, "reply_to": "20832__0_030", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_032", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But in Ramos, and you're going to have to get to Ramos sooner or later, we in effect said the instruction to the jury about the Governor's power of commutation of a death sentence was not a required instruction.\nThat's I think implicit in the holding.\nI think that's a fair reading of Ramos--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [430.18, 444.722, 447.341], "stop_times": [444.722, 447.341, 449.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.18}, "reply_to": "20832__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_033", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [449.124], "stop_times": [450.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.124}, "reply_to": "20832__0_032", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_034", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--if not explicit, and that was what the judges had before them as of the time this conviction became final.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [450.109], "stop_times": [458.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.109}, "reply_to": "20832__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_035", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I think it is explicit, Justice Kennedy, but it's not in anything like the context that we're talking about here.\nThe argument was made, I thought a... I think a rather weak argument, and the Court thought it a rather weak argument in Ramos.\nThe argument was made that if you're going to tell the jury that the life sentence is subject to commutation... that was the main issue in Ramos... then you must also tell them that the death sentence is subject to commutation.\nThe Court's response was, and I'm reading from I think 3458 of 103 Supreme Court.\nThe Court was, we find this argument puzzling.\nA jury... I'm skipping a little.\nA jury concerned about preventing the defendant's potential return to society will not be any less inclined to vote for the death penalty upon learning even that a death sentence may not assure the prisoner's removal from society.\nThe argument that the petitioner made in Ramos... I'm sorry, the respondent in Ramos, that the prisoner made in Ramos, and that the Court rejected, was simply an illogical argument and was rejected as illogical.\nBeyond that, Justice Kennedy, Ramos didn't present a right-of-rebuttal situation at all, and the Court noted that.\nRamos was not a case where the State was saying this man will be dangerous and the prisoner was saying... standing up and saying let me show the jury something that makes me not so dangerous.\nThat is not what was going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [458.549, 464.369, 470.005, 482.764, 491.103, 493.888, 495.488, 506.713, 519.77, 526.193, 535.465], "stop_times": [464.369, 470.005, 482.764, 491.103, 493.888, 495.488, 506.713, 519.77, 526.193, 535.465, 536.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.549}, "reply_to": "20832__0_034", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_036", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "What it did present was, I think, a puzzling tactical decision that counsel has to make, but I think you have that same tactical decision in every jury case.\nYou have some cases where the prison... where a prison inmate is killed, and you don't want to emphasize to the jury that he's going to be in prison the rest of his life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [536.782, 549.357], "stop_times": [549.357, 559.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.782}, "reply_to": "20832__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_037", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "We have... well, we didn't have a tactical decision in this case, Your Honor.\nBecause we tried to make the decision.\nThe decision was taken out of our hands.\nWe said... my client said I want to tell the jury I'm facing life without parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [559.914, 564.568, 565.934, 567.418], "stop_times": [564.568, 565.934, 567.418, 571.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.914}, "reply_to": "20832__0_036", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_038", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But the point is, is that as of the time this conviction became final you had Ramos, which made it very clear that these choices are ones for States to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [571.555], "stop_times": [580.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.555}, "reply_to": "20832__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_039", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I do not think that Ramos says or even suggests that this particular choice is open to the States, Your Honor.\nRamos does say the... what Ramos holds, of course, is that it's okay for a State to tell the jury that the life sentence is... life without parole can be commuted to a sentence of life with parole.\nIt says in dictum that the State could make another choice.\nIt does not say or imply that the State could make that choice in a context where it's forbidding the defendant from rebutting.\nIndeed, the choice that's referred to in Ramos I think pretty clearly is a choice to be more favorable to the defendant than California had chosen to be, a choice to remain silent about the possibility of parole, and those are the words... the possibility of parole, not the impossibility or the unlikelihood, the ineligibility of parole.\nA State, the Court said in Ramos, can choose to give more protection than the Constitution requires by remaining silent on that subject.\nIt did not say or imply that the Court may silence the defendant on that subject, may forbid him from bringing this truthful information to the jury's attention even where it is the only information that can rebut the charge of future dangerousness.\nThe... I think it's... Skipper is indeed extremely close and Ramos extremely distant.\nI guess I would add that even if it were not so, even if I didn't have a case as closely on point as Skipper, it would still be true that the rule in Simmons should not be considered a new rule, because I think that a relevant factor is not only the closeness of the prior precedent, but the egregiousness of the practice that is being condemned.\nAnd I think the practice here, which really did exist here... it may not have existed in Simmons, as the dissenting justices thought it did not.\nThe majority thought it did... but it clearly exists here, is the practice of scaring the jury about a dangerous man being back on the streets of their community without telling them that there happens to be a State statute that forbids under any circumstances putting him back on the streets of that community.\nTo me it is almost as bad... I will grant the almost, but almost as bad as if a State had passed a law saying in a criminal case we will no longer permit a defendant to present the defense of alibi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [580.744, 586.648, 599.372, 604.876, 611.68, 630.594, 640.199, 656.142, 670.385, 692.482, 699.654, 714.33], "stop_times": [586.648, 599.372, 604.876, 611.68, 630.594, 640.199, 656.142, 670.385, 692.482, 699.654, 714.33, 724.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 580.744}, "reply_to": "20832__0_038", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_040", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But it doesn't go to whether the defense is dangerous, whether he is a dangerous person, and that's all that Skipper involved.\nThey allowed him to put in evidence in Skipper that he had not been dangerous when he was incarcerated, that he had indeed engaged in good behavior in prison, so the jury could conclude on the basis of that he is not a dangerous person.\nWhat you're saying now is that it is obvious from that that you can put in evidence, not that he's not a dangerous person, but as... but that although he is a dangerous person, you don't have to worry about it because he's going to be in jail.\nNow, that's a step further.\nI agree it may be a good argument, and it's an argument you might want to make, but it's a step further than what we had held up to that time, which is, you can bring in evidence to show that in fact he's not a dangerous person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [724.686, 730.959, 744.367, 757.257, 758.776], "stop_times": [730.959, 744.367, 757.257, 758.776, 770.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.686}, "reply_to": "20832__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_041", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, you're making the distinction, Justice Scalia, between he's not dangerous by reason of his character, and he's not dangerous by reason of his circumstances.\nI don't think there's much persuasive force to that distinction.\nIt's true that Skipper is not the absolutely identical case, and you don't have to have an identical case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [770.75, 777.838, 781.558], "stop_times": [777.838, 781.558, 786.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.75}, "reply_to": "20832__0_040", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_042", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "It's... I think it's a long way... sentencing determinations are usually made on the basis of what the defendant did and what his character is, and that's typically what a sentencing jury takes into account, and Skipper was well within that.\nYou wanted to show the man's character is not so bad.\nHe behaved very well in jail.\nNow you come in with a totally new argument.\nI don't want to tell the jury that he behaved very well.\nHe is a bad man.\nHe's very dangerous.\nHowever, you don't have to worry about him.\nHe'll be behind bars.\nNow, that may well be... we held that that is an argument you should be able to get before the jury, but it's a quite different argument from the argument that this is not a dangerous man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [786.694, 800.519, 803.305, 805.257, 807.792, 809.992, 810.994, 812.194, 814.029, 815.046], "stop_times": [800.519, 803.305, 805.257, 807.792, 809.992, 810.994, 812.194, 814.029, 815.046, 823.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 786.694}, "reply_to": "20832__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_043", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I don't think it's correct, Justice Scalia, to say that before Simmons the sentencing determination was limited to character.\nI think that for... going back to the time when in Jurek and other cases these statutes were upheld, the jury was assigned a predictive function as well as a function of judging the defendant's character.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [823.385, 832.075], "stop_times": [832.075, 844.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.385}, "reply_to": "20832__0_042", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_044", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Predictive of his behavior, not of the circumstances of the world.\nNot of whether he's going to die at 55 so you don't have to worry about it if you only give him 10 years instead of 20.\nShould he be able to get that evidence in on the basis of Skipper?\nI don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [844.482, 847.584, 853.154, 855.773], "stop_times": [847.584, 853.154, 855.773, 856.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.482}, "reply_to": "20832__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_045", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Or what... if he's terminally ill?\nI think... yes, I would be startled if he didn't have a due process right to tell the jury that if I'm terminally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [856.79, 858.742], "stop_times": [858.742, 864.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.79}, "reply_to": "20832__0_044", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_046", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Mr. Smith, may I ask, because your time is running short, whether you are putting your main emphasis on, not a new rule under Teague, or whether you think you have a good case under the Teague second exception, and if you think that you do, I would like to know what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [864.046], "stop_times": [883.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 864.046}, "reply_to": "20832__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__0_047", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Okay.\nI am certainly putting my main emphasis on its not being a new rule, but I think if it were new, I would have a good case under the Teague second exception.\nI have... it's a difficult argument to make, because I have to make what I think is the false assumption that there's something new about the idea of giving this due process right to the prisoner.\nThat is, I have to assume a world which I don't think ever existed in which it was generally accepted that you could charge a man with being dangerous in the future and forbid him from informing the jury that he's going to be unparolable for the rest of his life.\nIt's hard to... for me it's hard to imagine that world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [883.257, 883.89, 891.213, 902.921, 916.745], "stop_times": [883.89, 891.213, 902.921, 916.745, 919.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.257}, "reply_to": "20832__0_046", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_048", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, let's make the assumption that this Court rules against you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [919.013], "stop_times": [921.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.013}, "reply_to": "20832__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__0_049", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [921.632], "stop_times": [922.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.632}, "reply_to": "20832__0_048", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_050", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--on your Teague argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [922.448], "stop_times": [923.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.448}, "reply_to": "20832__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__0_051", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "If I make that assumption, then I say that the whole point, I think, of the second Teague exception is to deal with really egregious, shocking practices that create a high risk of a wrong determination, a high risk of finding someone dangerous who is in fact harmless.\nThat's why there is a second Teague exception.\nIt doesn't happen every day, and I think the reason it doesn't happen every day is that usually, when you find a practice as egregious as this, it's really clear that it was never approved.\nIt was never thought of as fair--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [923.767, 940.546, 942.412, 952.687], "stop_times": [940.546, 942.412, 952.687, 955.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.767}, "reply_to": "20832__0_050", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_052", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Mr. Smith, it goes to both the two theories on which you proceed.\nAre you just relying on the fact that the State had to establish future dangerousness, or are you also relying on the specific arguments made by the prosecutor in this record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [955.406, 959.023], "stop_times": [959.023, 968.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.406}, "reply_to": "20832__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__0_053", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I'm relying on both in the sense, Justice Stevens, this is a fortiori from Simmons.\nThat is, even if Simmons had never been decided, I think I could stand here and say a decision here is compelled by Skipper, and without going to the intervening stages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [968.879, 974.033], "stop_times": [974.033, 985.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.879}, "reply_to": "20832__0_052", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_054", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "You think Skipper rather than Gardner is the more relevant authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [985.658], "stop_times": [988.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.658}, "reply_to": "20832__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__0_055", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Skipper is the more factually analogous authority.\nGardner is at a higher level of generality, and the cases do say that you take into account the level of generality, so if I had only Gardner, it would not be as clear a case as I think it is.\nBut even if it were only Gardner, I would make the argument I started to make a minute ago about, suppose an alibi defense were prohibited, and suppose... suppose there's not a case.\nMaybe there is, but suppose there's not a case that ever said that a defendant had a constitutional right to present an alibi defense.\nWe know that he has that right.\nWe know that whether there's a case on it or not.\nOf course he has a constitutional right to present an alibi defense, and it's not a new rule.\nHere, it's almost that egregious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [988.86, 991.995, 1001.267, 1010.54, 1016.276, 1017.876, 1020.412, 1024.114], "stop_times": [991.995, 1001.267, 1010.54, 1016.276, 1017.876, 1020.412, 1024.114, 1026.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.86}, "reply_to": "20832__0_054", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_056", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, Gardner was a plurality opinion, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1026.215], "stop_times": [1028.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.215}, "reply_to": "20832__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__0_057", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "There was a plurality opinion, but the due process holding did get five votes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1028.667], "stop_times": [1033.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.667}, "reply_to": "20832__0_056", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_058", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Whose, in addition to the plurality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1033.036], "stop_times": [1035.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.036}, "reply_to": "20832__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__0_059", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Justice Marshall and Justice Brenna I believe both wrote separately.\nJustice Brennan's decision is styled a concurrence and Justice Marshall's a dissent, but on this issue they say the same thing.\nThey say we agree with the plurality opinion on the due process issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1035.571, 1041.059, 1046.646], "stop_times": [1041.059, 1046.646, 1050.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.571}, "reply_to": "20832__0_058", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_060", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "When, in answer to Justice Stevens, you said you base your argument here in part on the prosecutor's representations, I take it your point there is that they were, in fact, misrepresentations.\nPerhaps not malicious lies, but they in fact had the effect of misrepresenting the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1050.098, 1062.639], "stop_times": [1062.639, 1069.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.098}, "reply_to": "20832__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__0_061", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I would say the facts, Justice Souter, but yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1069.411], "stop_times": [1072.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.411}, "reply_to": "20832__0_060", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_062", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Okay.\nSo it's a rebuttal of a misrepresentation which is the nub of your claim both under the Teague exception and I suppose under the Teague new rule standard itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1072.797, 1073.147], "stop_times": [1073.147, 1083.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.797}, "reply_to": "20832__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__0_063", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, I think... yes.\nI don't think I absolutely have to show a misrepresentation here, although it's... they think I can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1083.505, 1084.655], "stop_times": [1084.655, 1089.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.505}, "reply_to": "20832__0_062", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_064", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "It could be so read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1089.409], "stop_times": [1090.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.409}, "reply_to": "20832__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__0_065", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.\nThere was no... it could.\nIt could indeed.\nIt's the same kind of misrepresentation, actually, you had in Skipper.\nThe argument was made in Skipper by the prosecution, this is a bad person.\nHe kicked the bars of his cell, and therefore the defendant was entitled to rebut.\nIt was noted factually true that he kicked the bars of his cell.\nThat wasn't a misrepresentation, but there was an implied misrepresentation that he was a bad actor in prison, and the defendant was entitled to disprove that.\nHere, the statement is made as soon as this guy is out in the community he does something horrible.\nI assume for purposes of this argument that that was perfectly true, but there's an implied misrepresentation that you're going to see him out there in the community, and I think he had a due process right to respond to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1090.609, 1091.042, 1092.36, 1093.243, 1096.828, 1101.216, 1107.203, 1109.67, 1116.059, 1121.344], "stop_times": [1091.042, 1092.36, 1093.243, 1096.828, 1101.216, 1107.203, 1109.67, 1116.059, 1121.344, 1131.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.609}, "reply_to": "20832__0_064", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_066", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Mr. Smith, for purposes of the Teague exception does it matter whether it's a death case or a habeas case where somebody has a term of years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1131.502], "stop_times": [1141.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.502}, "reply_to": "20832__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__0_067", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I think Teague, as I understand Teague, it applies in noncapital cases in generally the same way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1141.274], "stop_times": [1148.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.274}, "reply_to": "20832__0_066", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_068", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes, and there are exceptions.\nThere are the two exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1148.613, 1149.813], "stop_times": [1149.813, 1151.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.613}, "reply_to": "20832__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__0_069", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1151.399], "stop_times": [1151.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.399}, "reply_to": "20832__0_068", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_070", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Here we're dealing with the second, and my question to you is, is there any basis for taking a different approach to that second exception when it's a death case rather than a case where the defendant is sentenced to a term of years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1151.882], "stop_times": [1166.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1151.882}, "reply_to": "20832__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__0_071", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, I'm not... I may be missing the point of your question, but I think obviously there's a difference in that in the... where there's not a death case the issue is usually guilt or innocence, and the cases describing the second exception tend to talk in terms of the conviction of the innocent.\nI think it's clear... I don't think anyone's really arguing the contrary... that the execution of someone who ought not to be executed is analogous to the conviction of the innocent, or a finding of dangerousness which is a basis for execution of a man who does not, in fact, present a danger would be analogous to the conviction of an innocent person, but I'm not sure I've answered your question.\nThere may be something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1166.825, 1182.184, 1202.332], "stop_times": [1182.184, 1202.332, 1203.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.825}, "reply_to": "20832__0_070", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_072", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Mr. Smith, could I ask you to come back to Ramos?\nIt seems to me you understate the relevance of Ramos to this question.\nWhat Ramos held is that the defendant did not have the right to have the jury instructed that, regardless of whether you impose the death penalty or life imprisonment the penalty can be reduced or commuted.\nNow, doesn't that go to the same issue that is involved here, namely whether the sentence you impose will eliminate the dangerousness of this individual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1203.232, 1208.086, 1214.906, 1236.069], "stop_times": [1208.086, 1214.906, 1236.069, 1249.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.232}, "reply_to": "20832__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_073", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I think the answer is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1249.896], "stop_times": [1252.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1249.896}, "reply_to": "20832__0_072", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_074", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "The defendant wanted to tell the jury, look, you're not going to eliminate this man's dangerousness by imposing the death penalty, because that can be eliminated by the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1252.431], "stop_times": [1260.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.431}, "reply_to": "20832__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_075", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--First, the literal answer to your question I suppose is yes, it went to the possibility of eliminating the person from the community.\nThe distinction is that, as the Court pointed out in Ramos as a basis for its holding on that issue in Ramos, is that the instruction that the defendant was asking for was logically irrelevant to the decision the jury had to make, or if, indeed, it wasn't harmful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1260.268, 1269.726], "stop_times": [1269.726, 1286.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.268}, "reply_to": "20832__0_074", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_076", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, that's not all it said.\nThe Court said in Ramos that we... it has deferred to the State's choice of substantive factors relevant to the penalty determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1286.502, 1287.688], "stop_times": [1287.688, 1299.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.502}, "reply_to": "20832__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_077", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I don't think, Justice... sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1299.661], "stop_times": [1301.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.661}, "reply_to": "20832__0_076", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_078", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "And at that point cites a Georgia statute identical to the South Carolina statute later invalidated in Simmons.\nIs that no evidence that such a statute would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1301.595, 1308.517], "stop_times": [1308.517, 1312.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.595}, "reply_to": "20832__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_079", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Actually, I don't... I don't think it was a South Carolina statute invalidated in Simmons, but I... I think it was a practice that they found the Supreme Court to have sanctioned.\nBut the... I also don't think that the language you're quoting was in the context... I may be wrong, but I don't think it's in the context of the holding that Ramos was not entitled to the instruction on the Governor's power to commute the death penalty.\nI think the context of that was, we're saying its okay for the States to tell the jury about the Governor's power to commute a life without parole sentence, and P.S., it's also okay not to tell them and to give the defendant more protection, but the two... it's not only in the context of giving the defendant more protection.\nIt's also completely foreign from the right of rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1312.486, 1325.461, 1339.37, 1356.796], "stop_times": [1325.461, 1339.37, 1356.796, 1359.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.486}, "reply_to": "20832__0_078", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_080", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I'll check that... you think it didn't go to the commutation of the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1359.582], "stop_times": [1363.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.582}, "reply_to": "20832__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__0_081", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I think not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1363.152], "stop_times": [1363.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.152}, "reply_to": "20832__0_080", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_082", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I will check it.\nBut in Ramos and in Simmons so far as the State's position in Simmons the Court was very concerned with the fact that these aren't simple matters of historical fact, because the law can change.\nIf the defendant is subject to life without possibility of parole, that can change, and the prosecution can argue that in rebuttal, and that's why Simmons was new.\nIt was instructing juries about laws, and laws can change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1363.852, 1364.686, 1379.846, 1393.671], "stop_times": [1364.686, 1379.846, 1393.671, 1398.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.852}, "reply_to": "20832__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_083", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I don't think law is any more subject to change than any other future event or condition like, for example, good behavior, which was the issue in Skipper.\nGood behavior can change, too, Justice Kennedy.\nI think the law in Simmons, it was a law but it was really just a fact that was subject to judicial notice, otherwise it was like any other fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1398.123, 1406.729, 1408.765], "stop_times": [1406.729, 1408.765, 1416.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.123}, "reply_to": "20832__0_082", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_084", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, it's also subject to judicial notice that the legislature might change the rules on parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1416.871], "stop_times": [1422.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.871}, "reply_to": "20832__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_085", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1422.607], "stop_times": [1423.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1422.607}, "reply_to": "20832__0_084", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_086", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "And this was of great concern to the Court in Simmons, because the instructions get very complex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1423.207], "stop_times": [1427.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.207}, "reply_to": "20832__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_087", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1427.809], "stop_times": [1428.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1427.809}, "reply_to": "20832__0_086", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_088", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Counsel for the defense says now he's not going to be paroled, then on rebuttal the prosecution says this has been changed many times, and corrections policy is subject to the whim of the legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1428.728], "stop_times": [1441.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.728}, "reply_to": "20832__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__0_089", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I must say, I don't detect that great concern in Simmons, Justice Kennedy.\nThe argument of course can be made that parole is so inherently confusing that it should never go to the jury, but it's tough to make that argument when you have a statute that says life without parole, period, and the only complication is well, maybe they'll change the statute some day.\nThat's a complexity not beyond a jury's ability to deal with, and I do not think that that was a... was something the Court really had to struggle with in Simmons.\nI'll save the rest of my time for rebuttal if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1441.236, 1444.954, 1460.114, 1469.505], "stop_times": [1444.954, 1460.114, 1469.505, 1472.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.236}, "reply_to": "20832__0_088", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__0_090", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Very well, Mr. Smith.\nMs. Baldwin, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1472.207, 1473.523], "stop_times": [1473.523, 1475.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.207}, "reply_to": "20832__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__1_000", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI want to begin by setting the record straight on something that O'Dell has argued this morning, and which this case is not about.\nO'Dell is apparently relying not only on a lack of a Simmons instruction, but he apparently today now says he's also relying on some argument that the prosecutor made some improper argument, and that that is a separate type of rebuttal issue, and there was never, and there has never been a claim in this case of improper prosecutorial argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1475.575, 1479.877, 1487.217], "stop_times": [1479.877, 1487.217, 1506.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1475.575}, "reply_to": "20832__0_090", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_001", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, I'm not sure... I don't... or I think you're referring to counsel's response to my question.\nI didn't take... in fact, I thought he was very diplomatic in not suggesting that there was any sort of ethical impropriety, but what was left, I think his point was, was a misleading impression.\nIt was in effect a misrepresentation of possibilities, and I think I said in my question I'm not suggesting he was malicious, and counsel was very careful to say that he wasn't, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1506.444, 1512.098, 1522.537], "stop_times": [1512.098, 1522.537, 1532.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.444}, "reply_to": "20832__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_002", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1532.493], "stop_times": [1533.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1532.493}, "reply_to": "20832__1_001", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_003", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "It's the misrepresentation I think that is... was of concern to me and was of concern to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1533.261], "stop_times": [1537.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.261}, "reply_to": "20832__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_004", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Correct, and I don't believe there's ever been a claim in this case that the prosecutor misrepresented the law to this jury, and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1537.713], "stop_times": [1544.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1537.713}, "reply_to": "20832__1_003", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_005", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But isn't it clear that the impression that a jury would take from the argument was the impression that, under the law as it existed, this individual could be paroled and placed out on the street again so that he could commit the kind of depredations that he prosecutor quite accurately was referring to as his past acts, and that in fact was not so, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1544.569], "stop_times": [1567.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.569}, "reply_to": "20832__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_006", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--He was not allowed... correct, he was not allowed a Simmons instruction, but if this prosecutor had in any way directed this jury that O'Dell was going to get out on parole, that would have been an issue that would have been reversed immediately and automatically by the supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1567.416], "stop_times": [1582.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1567.416}, "reply_to": "20832__1_005", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_007", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "No, but isn't that--\n--You say that claim was never made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1582.075, 1582.575], "stop_times": [1582.575, 1584.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.075}, "reply_to": "20832__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__1_008", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "There was never an objection to the prosecutor's argument in any way, shape, or form, and if it had been, and if the record had supported that, the Virginia supreme court would have reversed that conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1584.627], "stop_times": [1595.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1584.627}, "reply_to": "20832__1_007", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_009", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Okay, but he is arguing that he had a right to rebut something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1595.168], "stop_times": [1598.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.168}, "reply_to": "20832__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_010", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes, the Simmons right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1598.22], "stop_times": [1599.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1598.22}, "reply_to": "20832__1_009", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_011", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That it would have been relevant to put in this information about the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1599.62], "stop_times": [1602.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.62}, "reply_to": "20832__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_012", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That's right, but the type--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1602.922], "stop_times": [1603.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1602.922}, "reply_to": "20832__1_011", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_013", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I'm sorry.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1603.774, 1604.658], "stop_times": [1604.658, 1605.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.774}, "reply_to": "20832__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_014", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1605.158], "stop_times": [1606.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1605.158}, "reply_to": "20832__1_013", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_015", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "What I was going to say... my question was going to be, isn't it the case that what he wants to rebut was an implication about the law which in fact is not correct, i.e., the implication that under the law he could be paroled for this offense?\nThat's what he... that's the implication.\nThat's what he wants to rebut, and that implication is wrong, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1606.643, 1624.437, 1626.354], "stop_times": [1624.437, 1626.354, 1630.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.643}, "reply_to": "20832__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_016", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That is the Simmons claim, and in 1994 that would have been error.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1630.608, 1634.893], "stop_times": [1634.893, 1635.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1630.608}, "reply_to": "20832__1_015", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_017", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1635.61], "stop_times": [1636.245], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.61}, "reply_to": "20832__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_018", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "In 1988, it's our position there was no error in this case, because there was no such due process right of rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1636.245], "stop_times": [1642.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.245}, "reply_to": "20832__1_017", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_019", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, there may not have been... on your view of Simmons there may not have been Simmons error, but there was, in fact, an erroneous implication raised about the state of Virginia law at the time the argument was made--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1642.149], "stop_times": [1654.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.149}, "reply_to": "20832__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_020", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1654.04], "stop_times": [1654.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1654.04}, "reply_to": "20832__1_019", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_021", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--That is... you concede that, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1654.54], "stop_times": [1656.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.54}, "reply_to": "20832__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_022", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--No... Justice Souter, actually I disagree with that completely.\nI don't think there was any misleading or misrepresentation of what Virginia law was in this case.\nThe only thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1656.44, 1660.11, 1665.412], "stop_times": [1660.11, 1665.412, 1666.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1656.44}, "reply_to": "20832__1_021", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_023", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "What he says... I have what he says, what he says in the brief is, he says, you may still sentence him to life in prison.\nWhat does this mean?\nNo sentence ever meted out to this man has stopped him.\nNothing has stopped him, and nothing ever will except the punishment that I now ask you to impose, so I suppose that the jury might think that if we sentence him to life in prison, he will get out and continue to commit crimes, and it is in that context that the instruction that life means life was asked for.\nWell, wasn't--\n--Now, if there's agreement about... is that right?\nWasn't this defendant someone who had committed a murder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1666.098, 1671.4, 1673.768, 1677.554, 1698.45, 1699.369, 1701.019], "stop_times": [1671.4, 1673.768, 1677.554, 1698.45, 1699.369, 1701.019, 1705.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.098}, "reply_to": "20832__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20832__1_024", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1705.056], "stop_times": [1705.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.056}, "reply_to": "20832__1_023", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_025", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--while he was sentenced to prison--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1705.406], "stop_times": [1706.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.406}, "reply_to": "20832__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20832__1_026", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1706.706], "stop_times": [1707.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1706.706}, "reply_to": "20832__1_025", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_027", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--that might refer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1707.675], "stop_times": [1708.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.675}, "reply_to": "20832__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20832__1_028", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1708.458, 1709.191], "stop_times": [1709.191, 1710.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1708.458}, "reply_to": "20832__1_027", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_029", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "And then held in prison, and while he was a prisoner he had committed a murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1710.058], "stop_times": [1712.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.058}, "reply_to": "20832__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20832__1_030", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I think that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1712.227], "stop_times": [1712.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1712.227}, "reply_to": "20832__1_029", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_031", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "And then he got out, and within a very short time murdered somebody else, and the prosecutor brought this out to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1712.993], "stop_times": [1720.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.993}, "reply_to": "20832__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20832__1_032", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1720.066], "stop_times": [1720.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.066}, "reply_to": "20832__1_031", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_033", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "What prosecutor wouldn't have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1720.466], "stop_times": [1721.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.466}, "reply_to": "20832__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20832__1_034", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1721.966], "stop_times": [1722.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1721.966}, "reply_to": "20832__1_033", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_035", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I'm not saying that was all improper.\nWhat I'm interested in is that this is a case in which they asked for an instruction in a context where because of what the prosecutor said, and because of the law, the jury might think that he will in fact be released for... from prison if the sentence is life.\nI would have thought the jury would have thought that he'd kill somebody in prison.\nWell, I don't--\n--That seems to me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1722.518, 1725.97, 1744.931, 1747.816, 1748.4], "stop_times": [1725.97, 1744.931, 1747.816, 1748.4, 1749.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.518}, "reply_to": "20832__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20832__1_036", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "The only point that I wanted to make on this particular... it seems to be a secondary argument that has been made, is that it doesn't in any way fit this case.\nO'Dell was the one who mentioned the word parole before this jury to begin with.\nThe issue never came up until in his cross-examination of Donna Doyle in the sentencing proceeding he cross-examined her about the Florida... the failure of the Florida parole system, so there's none of this Skipper-type of rebuttal.\nIn other words, in Skipper, the prosecutor was arguing, this individual is going to be dangerous in jail.\nIn fact, he's going to rape other prisoners.\nThat was the argument the prosecutor made in Skipper, and the defendant was not allowed to rebut that with evidence that he was not going to be... that he would be of good behavior in jail.\nThat is not... there is no such rebuttal issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1749.418, 1759.708, 1764.595, 1778.271, 1784.341, 1786.475, 1798.166], "stop_times": [1759.708, 1764.595, 1778.271, 1784.341, 1786.475, 1798.166, 1803.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1749.418}, "reply_to": "20832__1_035", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_037", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--But Ms. Baldwin, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1803.32], "stop_times": [1804.137], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.32}, "reply_to": "20832__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_038", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "The only issue was a Simmons issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1804.137], "stop_times": [1805.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.137}, "reply_to": "20832__1_037", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_039", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Justice Stevens.\nCould I just ask you to comment, because I accepted this, and I guess I should not have.\nThey say in the brief that in cross-examination of O'Dell the prosecutor used the words parole and release 17 times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1805.172, 1806.089, 1809.874], "stop_times": [1806.089, 1809.874, 1817.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.172}, "reply_to": "20832__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_040", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Justice Stevens, and that was on cross... that was on cross-examination, after O'Dell extensively, in his own direct examination, had presented to the jury his entire criminal history, when he was out on parole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1817.812, 1818.262], "stop_times": [1818.262, 1830.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1817.812}, "reply_to": "20832__1_039", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_041", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Did he represent himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1830.804], "stop_times": [1832.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.804}, "reply_to": "20832__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_042", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--He did represent himself, but stand-by counsel was the one who conducted his direct examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1832.072], "stop_times": [1838.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.072}, "reply_to": "20832__1_041", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_043", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But then there's also a reference in their brief... and again, I haven't checked the record myself... to an argument by the prosecutor, isn't it interesting, he's only able to be outside of the prison system for a matter of months, and then things happen and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1838.976], "stop_times": [1850.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.976}, "reply_to": "20832__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_044", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1850.3], "stop_times": [1850.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.3}, "reply_to": "20832__1_043", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_045", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I thought it was fair to infer... tell me if I'm wrong on this... from the proceeding as a whole that the prosecutor argued in substance implicitly that he is especially dangerous because he might be out of prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1850.767], "stop_times": [1862.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.767}, "reply_to": "20832__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_046", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I don't believe that that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1862.608], "stop_times": [1864.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.608}, "reply_to": "20832__1_045", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_047", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "You don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1864.06], "stop_times": [1864.66], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.06}, "reply_to": "20832__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_048", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I don't believe that that's a fair inference from the prosecutor's argument.\nThe prosecutor was arguing his history, his past criminal history, which included the fact that he committed crimes when he was on parole, which had been presented to begin with by O'Dell so that was... that's separate from the O... from the Simmons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1864.66, 1866.727], "stop_times": [1866.727, 1880.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.66}, "reply_to": "20832__1_047", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_049", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Do you think it's fair to say that the prosecutor did not create the impression that the only way to keep him off the street was by the death penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1880.153], "stop_times": [1887.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.153}, "reply_to": "20832__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_050", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Oh, absolutely, in this case in particular, because O'Dell had committed murder in prison, and the jury was well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1887.576], "stop_times": [1891.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.576}, "reply_to": "20832__1_049", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_051", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes, that's what the jury thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1891.777], "stop_times": [1892.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.777}, "reply_to": "20832__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20832__1_052", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--And the jury... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1892.46], "stop_times": [1893.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.46}, "reply_to": "20832__1_051", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_053", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I mean, I hadn't thought of it that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1893.16], "stop_times": [1893.896], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.16}, "reply_to": "20832__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_054", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "The jury was well aware of that, so we have that argument under our harmless error argument.\nIn fact, to go to the point that this would have... parole information to this jury wouldn't have made any difference anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1893.896, 1900.566], "stop_times": [1900.566, 1907.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.896}, "reply_to": "20832__1_053", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_055", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But in all events that's a harmless error argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1907.47], "stop_times": [1909.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.47}, "reply_to": "20832__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_056", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That's under harmless error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1909.506], "stop_times": [1910.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.506}, "reply_to": "20832__1_055", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_057", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Under a Simmons regime they would have been mandatorily entitled to this instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1910.272], "stop_times": [1913.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.272}, "reply_to": "20832__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_058", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1913.274], "stop_times": [1913.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1913.274}, "reply_to": "20832__1_057", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_059", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--and the question is to Simmons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1913.724], "stop_times": [1914.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.724}, "reply_to": "20832__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_060", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1914.56], "stop_times": [1914.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1914.56}, "reply_to": "20832__1_059", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_061", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--If that's the case, if the jury understood its equally dangerous in prison or out, I kind of wonder why the prosecutor objected to the instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1914.943], "stop_times": [1921.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.943}, "reply_to": "20832__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_062", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, he objected to it because under Virginia law it was absolutely not allowed that juries receive information about parole whether it benefited the prosecution or the defendant, and that was a clear... that was clear law in Virginia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1921.73], "stop_times": [1934.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.73}, "reply_to": "20832__1_061", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_063", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "So all of this testimony should have been excluded, too, where they're referring to parole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1934.973], "stop_times": [1938.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.973}, "reply_to": "20832__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_064", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "He actually to his benefit was allowed over the prosecutor's objection to testify to the jury, I will never get out of prison, and the judge actually allowed that testimony, even though the prosecutor objected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1938.341], "stop_times": [1949.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.341}, "reply_to": "20832__1_063", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_065", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--You see, in Simmons itself the argument of future dangerousness was... the prosecutor only implicitly argued that this man would be out of jail because they said it's an act of self-defense, and from that the court was willing to infer that that was the thrust of the argument.\nBut you don't think that kind of inference is permissible from this prosecutor's argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1949.047, 1962.891], "stop_times": [1962.891, 1966.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.047}, "reply_to": "20832__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_066", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I do not believe it is.\nI believe he was doing nothing but arguing history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1966.843, 1967.611], "stop_times": [1967.611, 1969.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.843}, "reply_to": "20832__1_065", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_067", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "If it were, would you agree, then, that clearly Simmons would not have been a new rule?\nIf the prosecutor had in effect misrepresented to the jury that this man will get out of jail unless you sentence him to death, that... and the court then refused to give the instruction, I think you would agree that that would have been impermissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1969.945, 1972.913], "stop_times": [1972.913, 1987.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.945}, "reply_to": "20832__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_068", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, no.\nThat would have been a prosecutor misleading the jury on a matter of State law, affirmatively misleading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1987.589, 1988.024], "stop_times": [1988.024, 1992.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.589}, "reply_to": "20832__1_067", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_069", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "As a matter of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1992.976], "stop_times": [1993.593], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.976}, "reply_to": "20832__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_070", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--and he would have been entitled to correct that, and that would have been reversed.\nThat's why no Virginia prosecutor would have ever made such an argument, because they knew that their cases would have been reversed if they had told juries improper information, anything to do with this man's future parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [1993.593, 1995.845], "stop_times": [1995.845, 2007.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.593}, "reply_to": "20832__1_069", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_071", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "And in fact, pre-Simmons, wasn't one of the rationales for that that it's a distraction to the jury to begin to speculate about what might or might not happen on parole, particularly because the law changes constantly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2007.253], "stop_times": [2017.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.253}, "reply_to": "20832__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_072", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That's exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2017.375], "stop_times": [2017.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.375}, "reply_to": "20832__1_071", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_073", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--and they wanted the jury to focus precisely on what the sentence... sentencing options before them were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2017.859], "stop_times": [2023.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.859}, "reply_to": "20832__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_074", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That's correct, Justice Kennedy, and I think very important here and significant is, actually is a 1952 case from Virginia, Jones v. Commonwealth, and this is a case which the Ramos supreme court, the California supreme court had relied on.\nAnd in Jones v. Commonwealth the rationale for the States, and which they believed was the majority rule... was the majority of States believe this, and that was that even if the defendant was ineligible for parole, because that's what happened in Jones v. Commonwealth and he wanted an instruction, the Virginia supreme court said, well now, if we have to instruct him on that, to have a completely accurate instruction we would also have to tell them that really doesn't guarantee he won't be released, because the Governor could commute it.\nIn other words, the Briggs instruction.\nAnd Virginia supreme court said, we're not going down that road.\nWe are not going to allow that, because that would be so prejudicial.\nAnd in 1988, the most significant factor that shows that the Virginia supreme court's decision was a reasonable interpretation of existing law is the fact that no other case anywhere had held that Virginia's practice was unconstitutional.\nAnd I believe, Justice Ginsburg, as you pointed out, that the Simmons case itself was not unanimous, and I think that is compelling, if not dispositive evidence of the fact that it was a new rule because it obviously was susceptible to debate among reasonable jurists.\nBut in 1988, under Ramos, it was very clear from Ramos that the decision of whether States should even... should, could, or should not instruct juries about any matters that come after the verdict about commutation, pardon, and parole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2023.679, 2041.407, 2068.808, 2070.259, 2072.695, 2075.563, 2089.907, 2104.481], "stop_times": [2041.407, 2068.808, 2070.259, 2072.695, 2075.563, 2089.907, 2104.481, 2125.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.679}, "reply_to": "20832__1_073", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_075", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "At it's simplest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2125.33], "stop_times": [2127.296], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.33}, "reply_to": "20832__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_076", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--which is clearly within the discretion of the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2127.296], "stop_times": [2130.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.296}, "reply_to": "20832__1_075", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_077", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--At its simplest level, I was taking their argument, or a possible argument to be the following.\nAt its simplest level you have a rule growing out of preceding cases that where the jury is under an important potential, false apprehension about the difference between life and death, that under those circumstances the defendant has a right to clarify matters.\nAnd on that very simple, basic way of looking at it, you would see Gardner, Skipper, and Simmons, each is involving a fairly simple misapprehension that was important and later clarified, while Ramos, you would see as involving a possible misapprehension, but one that was very unlikely to affect the jury.\nNot impossible, but unlikely.\nNow, under... that's the theory, or a theory I think that would say, Simmons is simply an application of a preceding existing general principle, and Ramos is the same thing, though the facts of it lead to the opposite conclusion, so I'd appreciate comments on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2130.282, 2136.102, 2154.663, 2177.596, 2180.398], "stop_times": [2136.102, 2154.663, 2177.596, 2180.398, 2199.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.282}, "reply_to": "20832__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20832__1_078", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I would disagree with that for two reasons.\nFirst of all, I don't think that that's what Simmons said.\nI don't believe that Simmons is a rule of defining for juries, or giving them definite instructions about a sentencing option.\nSimmons is a case about rebuttal of future dangerousness, a due process right of rebuttal of future dangerousness, and nothing else.\nIt doesn't have anything to do with an instruction being inaccurate.\nIt's not... that is not the rule of Simmons.\nAnd secondly, in 1988, I think the equally important case to Ramos that was out there was Caldwell, and I think Caldwell clearly told States that if you want to correct jurors' possible misapprehensions about appellate procedures, or we can infer from that anything that comes after the jury verdict, then you may do that, State, if you want to, but... and the controlling concurring opinion in Caldwell said specifically that's a matter of... that's a policy choice to be made for a State.\nSo I'm a court in 1988.\nI think a reasonable interpretation of the law governing this issue that O'Dell is bringing before me is not only Ramos, but it's also Caldwell, that says these matters are policy choice.\nAnd in fact I think that it was the prudent course in 1988 for a court to decide not to instruct their juries about... or take on that task of trying to disabuse them of misperceptions that they may have about appellate commutation, pardon, and parole procedures, because it's in my view in 1988, as a reasonable jurist, that's too speculative.\nIt's getting too far away from the matter at hand, and that is, what is the appropriate sentence for this individual, and I think there was complete support for that.\nThe Virginia supreme court relied on Ramos, the Fourth Circuit relied on Ramos, the Fifth Circuit relied on Ramos, and this Court's decision in Simmons was not even unanimous, so I don't see how there can be a legitimate argument made that this was not a new rule.\nI wanted to address briefly the question about this being a watershed, fulfilling the second exception to Teague or not, and I think that this Court's cases on the second exception have made absolutely clear that the rule has to do something more than just improve accuracy.\nIt has to do something more than that.\nIt has to literally alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements covering criminal cases.\nIt has to be something that... the terminology that's been used is groundbreaking, and in specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2199.294, 2201.711, 2204.013, 2213.702, 2220.792, 2225.696, 2228.079, 2264.654, 2267.439, 2277.461, 2303.278, 2312.551, 2328.744, 2347.141, 2349.191, 2355.811], "stop_times": [2201.711, 2204.013, 2213.702, 2220.792, 2225.696, 2228.079, 2264.654, 2267.439, 2277.461, 2303.278, 2312.551, 2328.744, 2347.141, 2349.191, 2355.811, 2363.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.294}, "reply_to": "20832__1_077", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_079", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Those are not synonymous with new rule, are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2363.401], "stop_times": [2365.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.401}, "reply_to": "20832__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_080", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--They are not synonymous--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2365.103], "stop_times": [2368.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.103}, "reply_to": "20832__1_079", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_081", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Or are they synonymous with new rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2368.388], "stop_times": [2370.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.388}, "reply_to": "20832__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20832__1_082", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Well, no.\nI think that you can have a new rule... I mean... well, I don't know.\nThat's a difficult question, because I think that if you are faithful to this standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2370.088, 2372.272, 2377.076], "stop_times": [2372.272, 2377.076, 2382.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.088}, "reply_to": "20832__1_081", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_083", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2382.195], "stop_times": [2383.98], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.195}, "reply_to": "20832__1_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_084", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--it's going to be very difficult to come up with a rule that will ever meet the second Teague exception.\nAnd there's a reason for that, and that's because the entire purpose of the new rule doctrine is to validate and uphold judgments and a finality of judgments that were reasonable when they were made, and so it should not be an exception, and this Court in Gecky v. Branch specifically said, if... just because a practice is claimed to have been shocking, which I submit it definitely is not, but that's O'Dell's argument, that does not mean that it qualifies as a Gideon-type new... exception to the new rule doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2383.98, 2388.282], "stop_times": [2388.282, 2421.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2383.98}, "reply_to": "20832__1_083", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_085", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--What do we do about a situation in which the rule is new in the sense that there's no other decision on the books, but in fact the decision is in response to a problem which no one would ever have conceived would have arrived?\nIn other words, in effect it's such an egregious case that it was never... there was never any need to litigate it before, so in once sense it's a new rule because there wasn't any prior decision, and in another sense it's an old rule because no one in his right mind would ever have thought that it would be necessary to litigate that point.\nWould that kind of a decision satisfy the second Teague exception?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2421.522, 2439.484, 2457.195], "stop_times": [2439.484, 2457.195, 2462.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.522}, "reply_to": "20832__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_086", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I don't think so, unless it met this standard of this primacy and centrality.\nI don't think it can be something that is a particular practice in one case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2462.599, 2467.734], "stop_times": [2467.734, 2471.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2462.599}, "reply_to": "20832__1_085", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_087", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Oh, I quite agree, but assuming it reaches the point of fundamental importance that we're talking about, would it satisfy the second Teague exception to be this unusual kind of new rule, which is new only in the sense that it's so fundamental that no one ever had to litigate it before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2471.122], "stop_times": [2488.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.122}, "reply_to": "20832__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_088", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, I don't think that alone would satisfy the second exception.\nIt would have to be... whatever it is, this Court would have to be willing to say that this is like Gideon.\nThis is that ground--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2488.565, 2491.868, 2497.42], "stop_times": [2491.868, 2497.42, 2499.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.565}, "reply_to": "20832__1_087", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_089", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Oh, that's right.\nThat's why I say, we'll assume that it is of fundamental importance.\nStart with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2499.105, 2499.422, 2502.307], "stop_times": [2499.422, 2502.307, 2503.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.105}, "reply_to": "20832__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_090", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--It has to be more than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2503.274], "stop_times": [2504.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.274}, "reply_to": "20832__1_089", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_091", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Right, and there are two ways to satisfy the something more.\nOne way is to say, this represents a real about-face in our jurisprudence.\nNo one ever thought we would do this, but it now seems necessary.\nA second way would be to say, there's nothing new about this.\nPeople have followed this kind of law forever.\nNo one would ever reasonably have disputed it.\nWhat's new is that in this odd case it had to be litigated and go on the books.\nNow, assuming that we're dealing with a matter of fundamental importance, would this second kind of case, the egregious case that never had to be litigated before but has now been litigated and represents what most people would have supposed the law always had been, would that kind of a case satisfy the second Teague exception?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2504.926, 2510.644, 2517.398, 2521.333, 2526.154, 2528.856, 2531.189, 2537.211], "stop_times": [2510.644, 2517.398, 2521.333, 2526.154, 2528.856, 2531.189, 2537.211, 2557.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.926}, "reply_to": "20832__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_092", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Justice Souter, I don't think I'm going to agree that... I cannot possibly conceive of a rule, frankly, that would meet the second exception, so I would say even under those circumstances not.\nBut you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2557.439, 2568.497], "stop_times": [2568.497, 2569.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.439}, "reply_to": "20832__1_091", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_093", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Would you say, then, that it was no rule, no new rule in the first place, that even though there was no prior case law on it, it simply represented what had been the accepted law, so that the Teague issue never arises?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2569.597], "stop_times": [2583.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.597}, "reply_to": "20832__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_094", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Oh, right.\nIf that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2583.156, 2583.59], "stop_times": [2583.59, 2584.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.156}, "reply_to": "20832__1_093", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_095", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "You would say it fell into that category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2584.273], "stop_times": [2585.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.273}, "reply_to": "20832__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_096", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--If that's the case then it's not a new rule and we don't even get to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2585.792], "stop_times": [2588.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.792}, "reply_to": "20832__1_095", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_097", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Okay, so new does not... your argument about what is new and how Teague should be understood is not new in the sense that looks exclusively to prior cases, but new in fact, new in substance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2588.144], "stop_times": [2601.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.144}, "reply_to": "20832__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_098", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2601.635], "stop_times": [2602.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2601.635}, "reply_to": "20832__1_097", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_099", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That's what a new rule is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2602.237], "stop_times": [2603.17], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.237}, "reply_to": "20832__1_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_100", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--You don't need to reach that in this case anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2603.17], "stop_times": [2604.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2603.17}, "reply_to": "20832__1_099", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_101", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2604.554], "stop_times": [2605.106], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.554}, "reply_to": "20832__1_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_102", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Because all Simmons is... all Simmons was, was essentially an exception that was carved out of the Ramos general rule of deference to States to decide whether to instruct juries about parole or not.\nThis is really nothing more than an additional... an incremental change, but... an important change, but nevertheless an incremental exception that has been carved out of that heretofore general deference that States knew that they had in these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2605.106, 2616.061], "stop_times": [2616.061, 2631.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.106}, "reply_to": "20832__1_101", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_103", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That's... I accept your explanation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2631.673], "stop_times": [2633.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.673}, "reply_to": "20832__1_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20832__1_104", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--That's why I don't think it satisfies the second exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2633.523], "stop_times": [2635.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.523}, "reply_to": "20832__1_103", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_105", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--Yes.\nI share your puzzlement about the second exception, which seems to say we're not going to allow new rules to overturn settled cases unless it's a really new rule, then we will allow it.\nIt seems a racher strange exception to the rule.\nMay I ask a factual question, Ms. Baldwin?\nYou mentioned that the... apparently the jury was apprised of the fact that this man had committed a murder while he was in prison before.\nI don't find reference to that in the prosecutor's closing argument, and I notice in your brief your citation for that is to the court of appeals' opinion, and I just wondered, did this come out at the trial itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2635.975, 2636.358, 2648.283, 2650.551, 2653.502, 2660.906], "stop_times": [2636.358, 2648.283, 2650.551, 2653.502, 2660.906, 2671.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.975}, "reply_to": "20832__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__1_106", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Oh, yes.\nYes, Your Honor.\nThe... his... during the prosecution's case in the sentencing hearing the only thing the prosecutor presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2671.214, 2671.914, 2672.764], "stop_times": [2671.914, 2672.764, 2680.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2671.214}, "reply_to": "20832__1_105", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_107", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "This was at the penalty hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2680.902], "stop_times": [2681.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.902}, "reply_to": "20832__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__1_108", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--At the penalty hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2681.935], "stop_times": [2682.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2681.935}, "reply_to": "20832__1_107", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_109", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2682.802], "stop_times": [2683.437], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2682.802}, "reply_to": "20832__1_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_110", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "The only thing that the prosecutor presented in his case in chief was O'Dell's prior conviction orders, which showed what he'd been convicted of, and one of the was a second degree murder, and then he also... they also presented Donna Doyle, who had been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2683.437], "stop_times": [2697.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.437}, "reply_to": "20832__1_109", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_111", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2697.262], "stop_times": [2697.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.262}, "reply_to": "20832__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__1_112", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--attacked by O'Dell 10 years before.\nAnd then O'Dell in his case, when he came in, he went into great detail explaining to the jury about this murder that had occurred in prison, because it was the killing of another inmate, and he had an explanation that he gave to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2697.864, 2699.247], "stop_times": [2699.247, 2712.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.864}, "reply_to": "20832__1_111", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_113", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But am I correct in reading the prosecutor's argument, the prosecutor did not refer to that incident at all in his closing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2712.541], "stop_times": [2718.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.541}, "reply_to": "20832__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_114", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "He referred to the murder, on page 61 of the appendix.\nHe did not refer to... he did not describe it as a murder that occurred in prison.\nHe says, there is a graduation of seriousness of the offenses from use of a car, to a robbery, to a murder, to an abduction, and another robbery, and now to another murder, so he listed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2718.444, 2722.479, 2726.448], "stop_times": [2722.479, 2726.448, 2739.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.444}, "reply_to": "20832__1_113", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_115", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But that's what he then followed with talking about, isn't it interesting that he's only able to be outside of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2739.691], "stop_times": [2743.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.691}, "reply_to": "20832__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_116", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2743.993], "stop_times": [2744.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.993}, "reply_to": "20832__1_115", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_117", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--the prison system for a matter of months and a year-and-a-half before something has happened again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2744.46], "stop_times": [2748.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.46}, "reply_to": "20832__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_118", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "And I think that was a fair argument considering O'Dell's obvious strategy to present this to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2748.047], "stop_times": [2753.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2748.047}, "reply_to": "20832__1_117", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_119", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "But you don't think that argument implied to the jury that the death penalty is necessary in order to avoid a repetition of these crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2753.951], "stop_times": [2758.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.951}, "reply_to": "20832__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_120", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I do not believe that that is what this was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2758.835], "stop_times": [2760.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.835}, "reply_to": "20832__1_119", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_121", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2760.687], "stop_times": [2761.254], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.687}, "reply_to": "20832__1_120", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20832__1_122", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I do not believe it at all.\nAs this Court has stated many times, the purpose of Teague is to promote finality for State court judgments and to uphold those which were valid when made.\nThe Virginia supreme court's decision in O'Dell was made in good faith reliance on precedent that was existing at the time, and there was no decision anywhere that dictated a different result in 1988.\nVirginia should be permitted to carry out the sentence in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2761.254, 2762.371, 2771.477, 2783.47], "stop_times": [2762.371, 2771.477, 2783.47, 2786.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.254}, "reply_to": "20832__1_121", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_123", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Ms. Baldwin, if there is any content at all to that second exception, why shouldn't it be for a case where literally it's a life or death choice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2786.339], "stop_times": [2796.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.339}, "reply_to": "20832__1_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20832__1_124", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I think specifically for the reasons underlying the purpose of the new rule doctrine to begin with, and those are irrespective of sentence.\nThe... we always have to look back and say what the new rule doctrine... it was meant to promote finality of judgments, and to uphold... to uphold judgments which were valid when made so that courts can know that if they reasonably and in good faith apply constitutional precedent that exists at the time they're making their decision they can be assured that those judgments will remain valid, and I think that that is irrespective of the sentence in the case, and I don't think there's... there definitely should not be an exception, because it would... I think it would destroy the new rule doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2796.878, 2805.566], "stop_times": [2805.566, 2844.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.878}, "reply_to": "20832__1_123", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_125", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Of course, the theory of the exception is that the error was so serious the judgment was not valid when it was made.\nThat's the whole theory, that if there's a sufficiently serious constitutional error, the whole thing is void.\nThat was the old-fashioned notion in habeas corpus years ago, and that's the underlying basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2844.608, 2848.412, 2853.197], "stop_times": [2848.412, 2853.197, 2859.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.608}, "reply_to": "20832__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_126", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "For the second exception?\nI'm not sure I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2859.201, 2861.053], "stop_times": [2861.053, 2862.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2859.201}, "reply_to": "20832__1_125", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_127", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Maybe I'm mixing up the two exceptions, but when the error is sufficiently serious that... the whole thing is void.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2862.437], "stop_times": [2868.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.437}, "reply_to": "20832__1_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_128", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2868.724], "stop_times": [2869.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.724}, "reply_to": "20832__1_127", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_129", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I'm mixing up the exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2869.743], "stop_times": [2870.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.743}, "reply_to": "20832__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20832__1_130", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I don't believe that that's what this Court has said defines the second exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2870.943], "stop_times": [2875.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.943}, "reply_to": "20832__1_129", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_131", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "What I actually have trouble in, but I don't know that you can help, is everything's new in a sense, and everything relates to everything--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2875.647], "stop_times": [2881.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.647}, "reply_to": "20832__1_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20832__1_132", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2881.967], "stop_times": [2882.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2881.967}, "reply_to": "20832__1_131", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_133", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--previously in a sense, so how is the line drawn?\nWhat they're saying here is, it's so obvious that juries think that life doesn't mean life.\nThe average person in the street thinks that, life doesn't mean life, that it doesn't take much before they think in the jury box, life doesn't mean life, and therefore tell them, life means life, otherwise they'll sentence the person to death under that misapprehension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2882.301, 2884.753, 2890.407], "stop_times": [2884.753, 2890.407, 2908.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.301}, "reply_to": "20832__1_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20832__1_134", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2908.284], "stop_times": [2908.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.284}, "reply_to": "20832__1_133", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_135", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Now, that's what I think he's saying is so serious, because there's such a basic principle in the law, that certainly you're not going to sentence people to death when the jury's under a serious misapprehension that somebody is trying to cure.\nAnd all the details of all these cases, which you're absolutely right, they're all over the place in terms of complexity, that's really beside the point when you see that very basic thing that they're trying to illustrate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2908.834, 2919.657], "stop_times": [2919.657, 2931.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.834}, "reply_to": "20832__1_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20832__1_136", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--But I think that that's what Simmons said in 1994.\nThat's what this Court has said in 1994, and that's a perfectly reasonable position.\nTo use Simmons as the prism through which we look back at other cases is what the new rule doctrine says we can't do.\nYou've got to go back in time and say, is that what courts thought in 1988.\nAnd I submit a perfectly reasonable, I think rationale for the rule in 1988 was that courts for one thing did not consider rebuttal, I think, in the way that Simmons described rebuttal.\nI mean, they... I think as Justice Scalia pointed out, it was reasonable for a court to believe that you were not rebutting future dangerousness by showing that you were going to be parole-ineligible, because by doing that you were showing that you had a horrendous record, so terrible that the State was not going to let you out on parole.\nA reasonable court I think would have not thought that was rebuttal.\nI mean, and in addition, all of the arguments that this... if we go down that road it's going to be so speculative it's going to end up prejudicing the defendant, because if you want to give a complete picture you're going to have to come in and show that the Governor could let him out, he could escape from prison, any number of things that would deflect the jury, I believe.\nUnless the Court has any further questions, I'll conclude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [2931.132, 2934.084, 2938.553, 2947.593, 2953.163, 2969.84, 2990.086, 2993.89, 3014.554], "stop_times": [2934.084, 2938.553, 2947.593, 2953.163, 2969.84, 2990.086, 2993.89, 3014.554, 3018.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.132}, "reply_to": "20832__1_135", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20832__1_137", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Baldwin.\nMr. Smith, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3018.272, 3019.022], "stop_times": [3019.022, 3021.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.272}, "reply_to": "20832__1_136", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20832__2_000", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I just want to address briefly the idea that the death sentence here was the result of the fear that he would be dangerous in prison, which has been an argument made both in the harmless error context and also in the context of suggesting that it was reasonable to... a reasonable jurist in 1983 might have taken that approach.\nI think the... that what happened here is very closely analogous to what happened in Skipper.\nI'm not saying that improper arguments were made.\nVery fair arguments were made, but the arguments had nothing to do, or at least did not advertise themselves to have anything to do with the man's dangerousness in prison.\nThe prosecutor had what you might think is this absolutely wonderful fact that a prison murder had occurred, and did not even mention in his closing argument that that murder was in prison.\nIndeed, he put it in the middle of a... what he called an ascending hierarchy, and chose to stress the more serious things that had happened afterwards.\nHe talks about a night stalker.\nHe talks about the man at large on dark and rainy nights, and then he uses the language that I think Justice Souter read.\nIsn't it interesting that he is only able to be outside of the prison system for a matter of months to a year-and-a-half before something has happened again.\nBut what is interesting about it?\nWhat's interesting about it, of course, is that it generates in the jury the thought that this might recur.\nIt's not an improper argument.\nIt's a perfectly fair argument as long as the defendant is allowed to rebut it, but it cries aloud for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3021.391, 3048.275, 3052.946, 3054.829, 3063.634, 3073.324, 3080.413, 3082.532, 3090.102, 3097.958, 3099.108, 3104.945, 3106.647], "stop_times": [3048.275, 3052.946, 3054.829, 3063.634, 3073.324, 3080.413, 3082.532, 3090.102, 3097.958, 3099.108, 3104.945, 3106.647, 3112.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3021.391}, "reply_to": "20832__1_137", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__2_001", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "It might recur.\nI mean, all the defendant can say is, well, as the current law is, he wouldn't get out.\nShould the State be able to come in and say, well, the current law may be changed?\nIn fact, it was changed only 2 years ago.\nOr introduce statistics about how State laws are changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3112.634, 3113.067, 3117.888, 3121.823, 3124.375], "stop_times": [3113.067, 3117.888, 3121.823, 3124.375, 3127.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.634}, "reply_to": "20832__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__2_002", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Within--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3127.394], "stop_times": [3127.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3127.394}, "reply_to": "20832__2_001", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__2_003", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I mean, I understand that, you know, that's not how we ultimately concluded, but I don't know that you couldn't have looked at it that way at that time and just said, we don't want to get into all these things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3127.927], "stop_times": [3137.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.927}, "reply_to": "20832__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20832__2_004", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "--I guess I just... I respectfully submit, Justice Scalia, that what is obviously happening is that you have someone whom the prosecution is portraying successfully as a terrifying individual, that for him to be able to say, I'm facing life without parole is such an obvious thing.\nIt is so obviously unfair to prevent him from doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3137.6, 3152.942], "stop_times": [3152.942, 3155.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3137.6}, "reply_to": "20832__2_003", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__2_005", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Now, did the defendant so testify in front of the jury and tell the jury that he wouldn't be eligible for release?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3155.978], "stop_times": [3163.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.978}, "reply_to": "20832__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20832__2_006", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3163.5], "stop_times": [3164.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3163.5}, "reply_to": "20832__2_005", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__2_007", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "That didn't occur.\nThat was a misstatement by counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3164.217, 3165.186], "stop_times": [3165.186, 3167.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3164.217}, "reply_to": "20832__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20832__2_008", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "I don't think that's what Ms. Baldwin said.\nHe never said that he would be ineligible for parole.\nHe said, I'm 45 years old.\nI've got to do, what he called a flat 16 years because I've got a parole violation, and therefore he drew the inference something like, I ain't never gonna get out.\nThat to me is not nearly comparable, does not render harmless at all the Simmons error to say that, assuming the jury understood and believed what he was saying, which is a big assumption, that's a long way from saying I'm facing life without parole.\nHe tried to say it.\nHe proffered that testimony and it was objected to.\nHe asked for an instruction, and by the way an instruction has nothing... even though it's an instruction as a matter of fact, an instruction is simply a way that you judicially notice facts brought to the attention of the jury.\nHe wanted to put this fact, the fact that he was facing life without parole, before the jury.\nHe wanted to put it in in rebuttal of an argument that was made and made very effectively that he was a dangerous person who could not be in the community for more than a few months without causing trouble.\nHe was not permitted to do that.\nThat was an obvious violation of due process.\nIt would have been a clear violation of due process to a reasonable jurist in 1988.\nIf there are no other questions, I'll conclude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3167.686, 3168.888, 3171.94, 3174.208, 3182.379, 3196.121, 3197.49, 3200.859, 3211.548, 3215.885, 3227.092, 3230.128, 3232.461, 3236.698], "stop_times": [3168.888, 3171.94, 3174.208, 3182.379, 3196.121, 3197.49, 3200.859, 3211.548, 3215.885, 3227.092, 3230.128, 3232.461, 3236.698, 3239.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3167.686}, "reply_to": "20832__2_007", "speaker": "robert_s_smith"}
{"id": "20832__2_009", "conversation_id": "20832", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Smith.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-6867", "start_times": [3239.917, 3240.917], "stop_times": [3240.917, 3242.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.917}, "reply_to": "20832__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__0_000", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-966, Kevin O'Gilvie and Stephanie O'Gilvie, Minors v. United States, and 95-977, Kelly O'Gilvie v. The United States.\nMr. McAllister.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [0.0, 13.951], "stop_times": [13.951, 15.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__0_001", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe minor children of the decedent in the wrongful death suit underlying this case have raised before this Court two independent and potentially dispositive legal issues.\nThe first is whether the punitive damages that the children received in connection with the death of their mother are excludable from gross income as any damages received on account of personal injuries.\nThe statute on its face does not contemplate a distinction between punitive and compensatory damages.\nThe statute says any damages, a word that the United States frequently does not include in its quotations of the statute in its brief in this Court.\nCertainly, there was a longstanding... has been a longstanding understanding in tort law that there is a difference between punitive and compensatory damages, and this Court has often stated that Congress is presumed to have known the state of the common law when it enacts statutes.\nCongress easily could have said only compensatory damages received on account of personal injuries should be excluded, but it did not do so.\nIt said, any damages received on account of personal injuries should be excluded.\nIn fact, when Congress has wanted to draw a distinction between punitive and compensatory damages it has expressly done so, for example, in the Federal Tort Claims Act, in which Congress precluded liability of the United States for punitive damages arising from the tortious conduct of its employees and, indeed, the IRS itself has at times read this statute in precisely the way we contend it should be read, to exclude any and all damages that are recovered in connection with a personal injury suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [15.343, 24.73, 34.577, 46.114, 52.789, 61.327, 75.636, 83.54, 87.122], "stop_times": [24.73, 34.577, 46.114, 52.789, 61.327, 75.636, 83.54, 87.122, 114.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 15.343}, "reply_to": "21121__0_000", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_002", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, of course, you've now used the term, in connection with, but the statute says on account of, and it's my impression the Government's position is that punitive damages are not on account of the personal injuries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [114.221], "stop_times": [124.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.221}, "reply_to": "21121__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__0_003", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That is certainly the Government's contention, Your Honor, and we believe that's wrong for several reasons.\nFirst of all, if you look back to the language of the statute as originally enacted in 1918, the substance of it has not changed, but the organization and the order has changed to some extent.\nThe original provision in 1918 basically excluded accident or health insurance benefits or Worker's Comp benefits which the sentence then said, received as compensation for personal injuries, plus any damages received on account of personal injuries whether by suit or agreement, so that the statute itself, when you look at how it was originally enacted, it was a very odd way that Congress intended all of those things to be limited to compensation, to list certain things followed by the phrase, received as compensation for personal injuries, and then to go on and say, plus any damages received on account of personal injuries.\nFurthermore, when this Court talked about the on account of language in its decision in Schleier recently the Court talked about whether the damages were attributable to an underlying personal injury, or whether the underlying personal injury affected the amount.\nThe Court concluded that liquidated damages under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act did not satisfy either of those conditions, but punitive damages are different.\nPunitive damages do satisfy those conditions in a couple of ways.\nFirst of all, as this Court recognized recently in BMW v. Gore, punitive damages both the availability and the appropriate amount in most jurisdictions depends on considerations of the underlying harm, the nature of the harm, the extent of the harm.\nGore recognizes as much when it talks about the first factor, for example, the reprehensibility of the conduct, talks about personal injury is more egregious than property damage, a physical injury in essence is more serious than perhaps a dignitary injury, and most jurisdictions, if not all, recognize those concepts as far as punitive damages are concerned in determining whether they're appropriate and then what amount is necessary.\nFurthermore, it's the rule in virtually all jurisdictions, again, if not all, and the traditional rule is that there can be no award of punitive damages in the absence of proof of actual harm and generally in the absence of proof of actual damages, that there needs to be an actual compensatory award made before punitive damages are allowed at all, and for those reasons, even within the attributable-to language and the affecting the amount language that this Court endorsed in Schleier, the punitive damages in this case satisfy that test in a way that the liquidated damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not.\nFurthermore, punitive damages, as we've suggested, do sometimes serve compensatory purposes, so even if the Court is to view it in that fashion, historically that was clearly the case.\nWe've cited the Black's Law Dictionary from the time period when this statute was enacted, which clearly contemplates that in some situations they serve a compensatory purpose.\nBut even more recently, in the 1996 amendment to this statute Congress recognized that sometimes what the States call punitive damages may, in fact, serve compensatory purposes, and that recognition is in the new section 104(c), in which Congress has said in the new 104(a)(2) punitive damages are no longer excluded, except, it says in subsection (c), in a wrongful death suit where only punitive damages are allowed, and the jurisdiction of which I'm aware is Alabama.\nThere may be a couple of others.\nCongress has said in that circumstance those punitive damages are excluded, apparently because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [124.877, 129.781, 139.846, 174.44, 190.589, 198.887, 202.089, 218.568, 241.796, 275.216, 287.114, 295.22, 323.26, 324.602], "stop_times": [129.781, 139.846, 174.44, 190.589, 198.887, 202.089, 218.568, 241.796, 275.216, 287.114, 295.22, 323.26, 324.602, 329.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 124.877}, "reply_to": "21121__0_002", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_004", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Where is that set forth?\nI wish there were some place where the whole text of the current code is set forth, including that amendment, and there was an '89 amendment?\nIs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [329.434, 330.346, 337.972], "stop_times": [330.346, 337.972, 338.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.434}, "reply_to": "21121__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__0_005", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--There's an '89 amendment, Your Honor, which altered the scope of the original.\nThe 1996 amendment does not appear in any of the original briefs because it was passed by Congress in August and signed by the President in August, after the briefing had been completed.\nPart of the text is included in the supplemental briefs.\nI don't know if 104(c) is actually included in the supplemental briefs, but that text was all extremely recent and after the merits briefing was basically completed in this case.\nThe 1989 amendment is discussed in the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [338.423, 342.136, 350.593, 354.156, 363.533], "stop_times": [342.136, 350.593, 354.156, 363.533, 367.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.423}, "reply_to": "21121__0_004", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_006", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Well, of course, you know, when I read the United States Code I don't do it piece by piece and figure out which paragraph was enacted in 1918 and which was enacted in 1989, or 1996.\nI read it as a whole, and it seems to me one has to decide whether punitive damages are covered or not on the basis of the whole text as it now appears.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [367.166, 381.705], "stop_times": [381.705, 391.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.166}, "reply_to": "21121__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__0_007", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, I think that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [391.202], "stop_times": [393.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 391.202}, "reply_to": "21121__0_006", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_008", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I'd like to see the whole thing set forth somewhere.\nMr. McAllister, as far as the most recent amendment is concerned the effective date is from the time of that enactment, so that is not law for purposes of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [393.032, 395.105], "stop_times": [395.105, 407.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 393.032}, "reply_to": "21121__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__0_009", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "It's certainly not, Your Honor, in terms of resolving the statutory interpretation issue present here.\nAll I'm trying to suggest is that in the 1996 amendment Congress itself is recognizing that sometimes punitive damages may serve compensatory purposes.\nThe example it recognized is the Alabama situation, where in a wrongful death suit all the plaintiff is allowed to recover, the only thing is punitive damages and Congress said, even though those are labeled punitive damages by the State of Alabama, we want them to be excludable under section 104.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [407.584, 411.798, 420.486], "stop_times": [411.798, 420.486, 436.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.584}, "reply_to": "21121__0_008", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_010", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "And what about the '89 amendment?\nWas that also only prospective?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [436.236, 438.728], "stop_times": [438.728, 441.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.236}, "reply_to": "21121__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__0_011", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The '89 amendment was prospective, but it's important, because what the '89 amendment does, it can be read two ways, but what the lower courts have strongly endorsed is the view that what Congress understood at the time was that all punitive damages as of 1989 were excludable under section 104.\nThere was a debate between the House and the Senate as to how they might narrow the scope of that.\nWhat they ultimately ended up with was a provision that says the exclusion shall not apply in any case not involving physical injury or physical sickness, and that narrowed the scope, but it remained the case that punitive damages received in a physical injury case are excludable and in fact the House--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [441.442, 459.514, 463.307], "stop_times": [459.514, 463.307, 483.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.442}, "reply_to": "21121__0_010", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_012", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. McAllister, I don't understand your reference to lower courts.\nI thought that this pre-19... for pre-1989 and post 1989 to 1996 that all circuits said that these awards, punitive damages awards, whether on account of personal injury or on account of something else, are taxable.\nIsn't that the law in all the circuits except the Sixth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [483.342, 485.652, 506.138], "stop_times": [485.652, 506.138, 509.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.342}, "reply_to": "21121__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__0_013", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--I don't believe that's correct, and certainly most of the cases come after the 1989 amendment, and what I'm suggesting is that the lower courts have, when they've decided these cases, looked at that amendment and said, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [509.338], "stop_times": [520.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.338}, "reply_to": "21121__0_012", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_014", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "What circuit, other than the Sixth Circuit, has ruled in favor of taxpayers on these challenges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [520.658], "stop_times": [527.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.658}, "reply_to": "21121__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__0_015", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--You're right in that no circuit other than the Sixth Circuit has ruled in favor of taxpayers.\nThe tax court itself had at times ruled in favor of the taxpayers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [527.743, 532.177], "stop_times": [532.177, 535.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.743}, "reply_to": "21121__0_014", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_016", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But the tax court is subject... has the Skolson rule, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [535.269], "stop_times": [538.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.269}, "reply_to": "21121__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__0_017", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Was reversed by circuits on further review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [538.043], "stop_times": [539.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.043}, "reply_to": "21121__0_016", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_018", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [539.423], "stop_times": [539.634], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 539.423}, "reply_to": "21121__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21121__0_019", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That's correct.\nThe point I'm trying to make is that the 1989 amendment shows that Congress understood the law to be, and that is certainly not determinative or conclusive in our view, but that may well be, or should be accorded some weight and some consideration here in that what Congress understood the statute to do is exactly... in 1989 is exactly what we are contending it does, and most of the lower courts that have looked at it have said that it certainly appears that Congress understood the statute to exclude all punitive damages up to the point at which it amended it in 1989.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [539.634, 540.084], "stop_times": [540.084, 570.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.634}, "reply_to": "21121__0_018", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_020", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Is... in line with your view, if you're correct that these awards are not taxable, then juries should have been charged, should they not, that whatever you award in punitive damages will not be subject to tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [570.993], "stop_times": [587.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.993}, "reply_to": "21121__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__0_021", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "They could have been charged that, Your Honor, and certainly, if punitive damages are subject to taxation, they probably should also be instructed that that is the case, so that the damages that they are awarding will be taxed and the plaintiff will actually receive less than the full amount that the jury is assessing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [587.476], "stop_times": [603.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.476}, "reply_to": "21121__0_020", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_022", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That would be a matter of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [603.148], "stop_times": [605.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.148}, "reply_to": "21121__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__0_023", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That would be generally a matter of State law, where you're talking about State tort actions, how the jury is instructed in terms of those tax consequences, that's correct.\nThe United States... and to go back to Justice Scalia's point about interpreting the statute as a whole, the United States suggests that the title that goes with the statute, compensation for injuries or sickness, suggests a more limited or narrower scope.\nThe problem with that argument is that title was not present in 1918, and there's no suggestion that there was any debate by Congress when that title was added as part of apparently the codification process that they were in any sense altering or changing the original scope of the statute.\nThe operative language has remained the same from 1918 onward.\nWhat has happened, though, is the tax laws were codified in what was originally one sentence, drawing the distinction between accident or health insurance benefits and Worker's Comp benefits on the one hand received as compensation and any damages received on account of personal injuries.\nThat distinction has been somewhat obscured by the breaking down of it into three... what is now three separate provisions in the tax code, (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [605.411, 612.875, 627.234, 642.076, 645.799, 661.19], "stop_times": [612.875, 627.234, 642.076, 645.799, 661.19, 670.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 605.411}, "reply_to": "21121__0_022", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_024", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, it goes on to (a)(5) at this point, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [670.375], "stop_times": [673.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.375}, "reply_to": "21121__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21121__0_025", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "It does go on to (a)(5), Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [673.167], "stop_times": [674.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.167}, "reply_to": "21121__0_024", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_026", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "What do you make of the textual argument, or the textual distinction?\nI'm looking at page 22 of the Government's brief, which quotes some of the other subsections.\n(a)(1) provides an exclusion for certain sums as compensation for personal injuries or sickness.\nThe (3) refers, again, to certain sums received for personal injuries and sickness.\n(4) again uses the for language, and that suggests that the specific dollar amounts that they're referring to are those which are attributable to the sickness or the injury, as distinct from something else.\nYour subsection (2) uses the phrase, on account of, which would suggest, by contrast, a broader meaning.\nWhich... we seem to have a choice, I guess, of statutory interpretation rules.\nWe could either say, well, the distinction presumably is intended to enact a difference, or we could say, well, on account of is not entirely clear and we ought to use the criterion of noscitur a sociis.\nIf we want to know what this one means, which is not clear, look to what it's companion provisions mean which are clear.\nWhich of those two criteria should we adopt in assessing the contrast in the language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [674.489, 679.231, 687.268, 698.964, 706.38, 724.021, 731.966, 737.352, 754.172, 761.247], "stop_times": [679.231, 687.268, 698.964, 706.38, 724.021, 731.966, 737.352, 754.172, 761.247, 767.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.489}, "reply_to": "21121__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21121__0_027", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it's certainly our view that you should look primarily at the language of (a)(2) itself, which on its face suggests a broader interpretation... any damages received on account of.\nIt would have been extraordinarily easy for Congress to have said, as compensation, which it did with the rest of that statute when it first enacted it.\nSo that yes, the companions around that provision perhaps do suggest a narrower focus, but certainly in the original provision, and the substantive language itself has not changed, a broader construction is suggested.\nAnd again, without going back through the history, when you simply look at these provisions today, that one sits in the middle of all these other what appear to be purely compensatory provisions, but our view is, you cannot fully understand that provision or give full effect to its language without looking back to the history of it and following through how it has come through the first codification, the recodification, and how it ended up where it is today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [767.663, 780.031, 787.777, 798.864], "stop_times": [780.031, 787.777, 798.864, 824.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.663}, "reply_to": "21121__0_026", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_028", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "So you think the history has more significance than just the contrast in the language reading the statute, as Justice Scalia would, as a whole today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [824.072], "stop_times": [830.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.072}, "reply_to": "21121__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21121__0_029", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I think both are important in the sense that the history is certainly relevant, but to the extent that provision indicates a different scope than the others, this Court should give effect to that different scope, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [830.895], "stop_times": [842.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.895}, "reply_to": "21121__0_028", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_030", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. McAllister, what about the ground rule in interpreting this dense tax code?\nEverything is income except, and exceptions are to be narrowly construed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [842.104, 848.508], "stop_times": [848.508, 855.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.104}, "reply_to": "21121__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__0_031", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Your Honor, we recognize that that principle is there.\nIn our view, the way to deal with that is that the Court should look at the language itself, and look at the history, and we believe when you do that, that the language is no longer so ambiguous, so that it is not a choice of two interpretations competing, which we simply have no way to choose between one and the other.\nIn fact, the history strongly suggests that one interpretation is the correct interpretation, the broader interpretation, but I do recognize the existence of that default rule as it's been characterized at times.\nBut we're suggesting that when you look at all of the surrounding evidence here, the things that Justice Souter has talked about, the contrast in the language, the history of the provision, where it came from, and how it got to be where it is today, that really only one conclusion makes sense here, or at least is the stronger conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [855.13, 858.884, 876.515, 887.684], "stop_times": [858.884, 876.515, 887.684, 902.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.13}, "reply_to": "21121__0_030", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_032", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "There's no default, is your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [902.735], "stop_times": [903.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.735}, "reply_to": "21121__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__0_033", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That's basically... there should not be a default in this instance, because there's not a situation where you simply cannot tell which is the better view based on what evidence is available to this Court, and in fact again, Congress in 1989 essentially declared its understanding, and we're not suggesting, as the United States tries to assert in its brief, that that 1989 amendment tells you anything about intent in 1918.\nWe're simply saying Congress demonstrated that it understood the statute, the language of it, the meaning in 1989, that all punitive damages received in a personal injury suit were excluded, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [903.827, 926.854], "stop_times": [926.854, 937.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.827}, "reply_to": "21121__0_032", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_034", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But it's possible, isn't it, that Congress might in an excess of caution amend the statute, feeling perhaps the statute, the existing language gives the result we want, but we want to make absolutely sure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [937.763], "stop_times": [949.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.763}, "reply_to": "21121__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__0_035", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--That's certainly possible, Your Honor, and... but what the Tenth Circuit clearly found, and I think most courts that have looked at this, when they looked at the legislative history, the discussion, how this amendment came about, and also the House Ways & Means Committee report, it seems pretty strong, the inference that Congress thought all of these were excluded, and it wanted to limit that, and the question was how much, in exactly what fashion.\nThe 1989 amendment went part way, the 1996 amendment went the rest of the way with respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [949.08, 971.085], "stop_times": [971.085, 976.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.08}, "reply_to": "21121__0_034", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_036", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "It's hard to rely on the Tenth Circuit in support of your position when they came out that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [976.631], "stop_times": [983.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.631}, "reply_to": "21121__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__0_037", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--They came out because they ultimately decided that the reasons, the justifications for the competing views here were essentially equal, and they resorted to what the Court called in that case the default rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [983.807], "stop_times": [993.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.807}, "reply_to": "21121__0_036", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_038", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "And if they were essentially equal, you wouldn't be quarreling with that, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [993.785], "stop_times": [996.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.785}, "reply_to": "21121__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__0_039", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But we do not believe they are essentially equal, Your Honor.\nWith the Court's permission, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [996.897, 999.418], "stop_times": [999.418, 1003.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.897}, "reply_to": "21121__0_038", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__0_040", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Very well, Mr. McAllister.\nMs. King, we'll hear from you.\nPlease proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1003.659, 1005.161, 1007.172], "stop_times": [1005.161, 1007.172, 1019.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.659}, "reply_to": "21121__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__1_000", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn 1918, Congress created an exception to taxation for the traditional tort victim.\nWhen asked to extend this same exception to the hybrid statutory victim this Court in Burke and Schleier determined that the exception was not to be extended.\nThe enactors in 1918 did not know about the hybrid statutory rights, statutory remedies for age and gender discrimination that would be created in Federal statute some 50 years later.\nThose Congressmen in 1918 wrote the statute for what they understood and what is before the Court today, the common law tort claim.\nThis Court has never before been asked to apply this statute to common law tort claims.\nInstead, the recent cases of Burke and Schleier have asked this Court to apply the exclusion to the hybrid Federal statute with legislated remedies.\nThose remedies are based primarily on lost wages.\nBecause the original statute allows only the exclusion for tort or tort-like claims, and because the hybrid statutes provided for contract-like recoveries, this Court in Burke determined that there was no tort-like claim.\nIn Burke, the Court tested the type of claim by a review of the type of damages that could be awarded under the Federal statute to determine that the claim was not tort-like but instead more in the nature of a contract claim, a contract for wages.\nIn Schleier, the Court was once again asked to name the type of claim, and again resorted to the analysis of the type of damages to do that.\nA claim is known by the type of damages it produces in these hybrid Federal statutes.\nThe matter that is before you today is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1019.721, 1022.605, 1028.637, 1039.646, 1052.712, 1061.649, 1068.604, 1079.22, 1082.974, 1099.425, 1115.315, 1123.789, 1129.866], "stop_times": [1022.605, 1028.637, 1039.646, 1052.712, 1061.649, 1068.604, 1079.22, 1082.974, 1099.425, 1115.315, 1123.789, 1129.866, 1134.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1019.721}, "reply_to": "21121__0_040", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_001", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Was Schleier a liquidated damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1134.557], "stop_times": [1137.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.557}, "reply_to": "21121__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__1_002", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--It's my understanding that it was, Your Honor.\nThe matter that is before you today is not the hybrid statute in which you must determine the type of claim.\nIt's the wrongful death of Mrs. O'Gilvie, the classic and quintessential tort claim, and precisely the type of tort claim contemplated by the 1918 Congress when writing the statute.\nNow, when the statute was divided in 1954 into the numerous clauses that you've already discussed, section 104(a)(2) was cut apart from its first clause, from its context, if you will, and the potential for reading this statute in two separate ways was created.\nThe entire sentence in section 104(a)(2) has two separate and distinct meanings that each seem plain.\nThis is a rare and unusual type of ambiguity, a patent structural ambiguity, one we seldom encounter in the English language.\nBefore Schleier, every court which had found the statute plain had found in favor of the taxpayer.\nThe test of ambiguity is whether reasonable persons disagree as to the meaning of the words.\nIt is apparent that section 104(a)(2), out of its context, out of its original context, is ambiguous.\nOne third of this Court was struggling with the issue of whether the Court... excuse me, the statute was ambiguous or not.\nSeven Federal circuit court panels have found this statute to be ambiguous, including the Tenth Circuit in O'Gilvie here, after this Court's decision in Schleier.\nIf we may presume that justices and judges are reasonable persons, the test of ambiguity is surely met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1137.32, 1139.16, 1145.135, 1156.915, 1176.506, 1183.492, 1192.48, 1199.273, 1206.489, 1214.406, 1222.712, 1233.668], "stop_times": [1139.16, 1145.135, 1156.915, 1176.506, 1183.492, 1192.48, 1199.273, 1206.489, 1214.406, 1222.712, 1233.668, 1240.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.32}, "reply_to": "21121__1_001", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_003", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But any time there's a dissenting opinion taking a different view of the statute, that's a sign that the statute is ambiguous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1240.914], "stop_times": [1250.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.914}, "reply_to": "21121__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__1_004", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I would not go that far as to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1250.75], "stop_times": [1254.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1250.75}, "reply_to": "21121__1_003", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_005", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But if three out of nine dissent, then it's ambiguous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1254.883], "stop_times": [1258.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.883}, "reply_to": "21121__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__1_006", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Again, Your Honor, I would not say that.\nI am merely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1258.326, 1260.229], "stop_times": [1260.229, 1261.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.326}, "reply_to": "21121__1_005", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_007", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "How about four out of nine?\n[Laughter]\nBut your position is, it's not ambiguous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1261.201, 1262.343, 1264.373], "stop_times": [1262.343, 1264.373, 1266.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.201}, "reply_to": "21121__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__1_008", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--No, my position is that it is, ambiguous out of context of the original steps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1266.466], "stop_times": [1271.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.466}, "reply_to": "21121__1_007", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_009", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But didn't all those circuits read it in context?\nThere were arguments presented to all of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1271.669, 1274.892], "stop_times": [1274.892, 1277.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.669}, "reply_to": "21121__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__1_010", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Each of those circuits determined that it first was ambiguous, and then read it in a very tunnel vision fashion, only the language of the current statute, section 104(a)(2) as written.\nThe two distinct tests that have been found in the language are, what is the underlying claim, and the second test is what is the nature of the underlying damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1277.286, 1290.182], "stop_times": [1290.182, 1301.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.286}, "reply_to": "21121__1_009", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_011", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "You're going to tell us why you win if it's ambiguous, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1301.589], "stop_times": [1304.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.589}, "reply_to": "21121__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__1_012", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1304.681], "stop_times": [1305.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1304.681}, "reply_to": "21121__1_011", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_013", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Okay.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1305.242, 1305.913], "stop_times": [1305.913, 1309.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.242}, "reply_to": "21121__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__1_014", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The very nature of a patent structural ambiguity is that it has two distinct, clear, and mutually exclusive meanings.\nThe courts have examined this statute in a tunnel vision manner, and looked either at one or the other of the interpretations.\nThe type of ambiguity that we have here is resolved only by context here the original statute.\nUpon a finding of ambiguity, the courts are not relieved of the duty to examine reliable evidence to determine congressional intent to exclude.\nThe only question here that must be answered is which of the two tests did the original statute meet?\nProper construction and interpretation of an ambiguous statute has a mandatory hierarchy of evidence, and the relative weight of each element primarily is nondiscretionary.\nThe most reliable evidence that we have of the intent of the enacting Congress is in the words of the original statute itself... there is not a default rule... that upon a finding of facial ambiguity that there is a finding also in favor of the Government.\nThis Court has never applied a default rule either in Schleier or Burke.\nThe requirement is a diligent search of all reliable evidence for the clear intent to exclude, whether found in the words of the current statute, the words of the original statute, or other reliable evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1309.205, 1316.962, 1327.146, 1334.122, 1343.558, 1350.905, 1364.123, 1382.926, 1388.429], "stop_times": [1316.962, 1327.146, 1334.122, 1343.558, 1350.905, 1364.123, 1382.926, 1388.429, 1403.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.205}, "reply_to": "21121__1_013", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_015", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, why would you want a clear intent to exclude?\nI mean, because of the basic ground rule that everything is presumed to be income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1403.169, 1407.022], "stop_times": [1407.022, 1416.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.169}, "reply_to": "21121__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__1_016", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Yes, that is correct.\nThe original--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1416.137, 1417.326], "stop_times": [1417.326, 1419.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1416.137}, "reply_to": "21121__1_015", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_017", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But that works against you, doesn't it?\nThe main rule for income tax, as I think everyone agrees, is that unless there's an exemption it's taxable, and it has always been understood not simply in the context of 104, but throughout the code, that if there's an ambiguity in an exemption, it should be read in favor of the Government, not the taxpayer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1419.059, 1420.72], "stop_times": [1420.72, 1443.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.059}, "reply_to": "21121__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__1_018", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--My argument is that in the face of an ambiguity, that you need to look to the intent of Congress before you decide in favor of the Government, and if there is clear and reliable evidence... clear and reliable evidence... that there was an intent to exclude, that should control before a default rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1443.574], "stop_times": [1464.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.574}, "reply_to": "21121__1_017", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_019", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I thought the conclusion you were going to come to was, then there is no ambiguity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1464.758], "stop_times": [1467.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.758}, "reply_to": "21121__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__1_020", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I'm sorry.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1467.911, 1469.373], "stop_times": [1469.373, 1469.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1467.911}, "reply_to": "21121__1_019", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_021", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "In which case, it seems to me your case would be a lot easier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1469.984], "stop_times": [1473.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.984}, "reply_to": "21121__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__1_022", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1473.036], "stop_times": [1473.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1473.036}, "reply_to": "21121__1_021", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_023", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Aren't you basically saying there's no ambiguity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1473.497], "stop_times": [1475.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.497}, "reply_to": "21121__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__1_024", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Yes.\nTaken as a whole, if this is a holistic endeavor and we look at the history of the words written by Congress, even after divided in 1954, then there is no ambiguity in the statute, but section 104(a)(2) read out of its context has shown an ambiguity that each court that's dealt with it has struggled with mightily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1475.487, 1476.979], "stop_times": [1476.979, 1498.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1475.487}, "reply_to": "21121__1_023", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_025", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "You say the words are ambiguous, but if you take the history together with the words, then there's no ambiguity.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1498.754, 1505.188], "stop_times": [1505.188, 1505.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.754}, "reply_to": "21121__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__1_026", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I think the words taken out of context, a short phrase taken out of the context of its original statute are ambiguous without its context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1505.589], "stop_times": [1513.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.589}, "reply_to": "21121__1_025", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_027", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Well, we don't interpret things out of context.\nI mean--\n[Laughter]\n--when we ask whether it's ambiguous, we mean whether it's ambiguous in context, right?\nIsn't that what we mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1513.984, 1516.207, 1516.718, 1516.998, 1520.981], "stop_times": [1516.207, 1516.718, 1516.998, 1520.981, 1522.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.984}, "reply_to": "21121__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__1_028", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The appellate courts that have looked at this have given no regard to the original statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1522.083], "stop_times": [1531.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1522.083}, "reply_to": "21121__1_027", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_029", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "So you say they were wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1531.429], "stop_times": [1532.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.429}, "reply_to": "21121__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__1_030", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I say they were wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1532.741], "stop_times": [1533.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1532.741}, "reply_to": "21121__1_029", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_031", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Because they were taking it out of context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1533.681], "stop_times": [1535.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.681}, "reply_to": "21121__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__1_032", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1535.633], "stop_times": [1535.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1535.633}, "reply_to": "21121__1_031", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_033", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--right, and ambiguity out of context doesn't apply, right, doesn't count?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1535.984], "stop_times": [1542.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.984}, "reply_to": "21121__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__1_034", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That's... out of context, it doesn't count.\nIt is plain if you take the entire statute read as a whole.\nAnd finally, the original statute was plain on its face, in context.\nThe clear distinction between compensation for personal injury and the amount of any damages is the clear comparison in the original statute.\nCongress did not intend an allocation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1542.577, 1544.769, 1550.792, 1558.369, 1569.649], "stop_times": [1544.769, 1550.792, 1558.369, 1569.649, 1573.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1542.577}, "reply_to": "21121__1_033", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_035", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Thank you, Ms. King.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1573.469], "stop_times": [1575.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.469}, "reply_to": "21121__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__1_036", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1575.051], "stop_times": [1575.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1575.051}, "reply_to": "21121__1_035", "speaker": "linda_d_king"}
{"id": "21121__1_037", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. Jones, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1575.422], "stop_times": [1578.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.422}, "reply_to": "21121__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__2_000", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nTwo terms ago, in Commissioner v. Schleier, this Court held that an award of damages that is punitive in nature rather than compensatory does not constitute damages on account of personal injury within the meaning of section 104(a)(2).\nThat holding applies directly to this case, and is compelled by the text, structure, history, and purpose of this statute.\nThe text of the statute provides an exclusion from income only for damages awarded on account of the personal injury.\nIt does not, as petitioners contend, encompass simply any recovery obtained in an action in connection with a personal injury.\nIndeed, that precise contention was rejected by this Court in Schleier.\nIn Schleier, the Court said that whether the underlying cause of action is on account of, or rather, whether the damages are received in connection with an underlying cause of action that is a tort-type action for personal injuries is not, in the words of the Court, the beginning and end of the analysis.\nInstead, as the Court emphasized in Schleier, each element of the recovery must be on account of the personal injury for the statutory exclusion to apply.\nOnly damages that compensate for a loss and are attributable to it are on account of the injury within the meaning of the statute.\nAs this Court said 40 years ago in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass, damages for personal injury are by definition compensatory only, and do not include punitive and other ancillary recoveries.\nThis Court's decision in Schleier provides two applications of the statute in this context.\nThe Court in Schleier did not doubt that age discrimination effects personal injuries to the victims of the discrimination, but the Court pointed out that the two remedies provided by statute for that discrimination, back wages and liquidated damages for willful violations of the act, did not compensate for those personal injuries, were not attributable to those injuries.\nThey therefore were not on account of those injuries within the meaning of the statute.\nThe... in... sorry, I've obviously lost my train of thought.\nBecause the damages are not awarded on account of the injury, they're not within the scope of the statutory exclusion from income which, as this Court has said on many occasions, must be narrowly interpreted and applied.\nNow, punitive damages in the decisions of this Court have never been held to be compensation, and they are not awarded on account of an injury.\nPunitive damages, as this Court has often said, are a civil fine awarded to punish and to deter reprehensible conduct, they are not compensation for the injury itself, and I think it's important to point out that the Kansas cases on which petitioners now rely for the first time in their reply brief make exactly that same point.\nIn Brewer v. Homestead Production Company, at 200 Kansas, page 96, the Kansas supreme court states, and I quote,\n\"In this State exemplary damages are not regarded as compensatory in any degree. \"\nThat is exactly the statement that the Court made in Molzof, that this Court made in Molzof and in Gertz.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1578.044, 1583.276, 1598.797, 1605.931, 1613.426, 1621.352, 1625.865, 1643.837, 1654.265, 1661.549, 1674.919, 1680.823, 1702.288, 1706.211, 1716.696, 1729.466, 1737.441, 1758.116, 1765.77, 1772.415, 1778.459], "stop_times": [1583.276, 1598.797, 1605.931, 1613.426, 1621.352, 1625.865, 1643.837, 1654.265, 1661.549, 1674.919, 1680.823, 1702.288, 1706.211, 1716.696, 1729.466, 1737.441, 1758.116, 1765.77, 1772.415, 1778.459, 1779.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1578.044}, "reply_to": "21121__1_037", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_001", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "What if we... what if this came up from a State where the supreme court had said something else about... something more favorable to the petitioners about the nature of exemplary damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1779.3], "stop_times": [1790.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.3}, "reply_to": "21121__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__2_002", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Sometimes, if you will, writing it in academic fashion, courts look at the fact that these moneys go to the plaintiff and say, perhaps they serve a compensatory purpose in that respect.\nThe money goes there.\nBut no court to my knowledge has held that a jury may award punitive damages as additional compensation.\nWhat courts instruct juries, and what juries do, is they award punitive damages as deterrence and comp... and punishment for particular types of egregious misbehavior.\nThe Kansas supreme court is a classic example of that, because the Kansas supreme court said, well, punitive damages are not compensatory in any degree, but a jury may consider the amount of actual damages in deciding what punitive damages are appropriate to accomplish the State's independent objectives of punishing and deterring the conduct.\nAs the Fifth Circuit said just last year in Estate of Moore v. Commissioner, which is not cited in our brief but which I've mentioned to petitioner's counsel... it's at 53 F. 3d at 716... what the Fifth Circuit said in Estate of Moore is that this fact does not make a punitive award a compensatory one.\nIt does not, as the court said in that case, change the fundamental truth that punitive damages are awarded only on account of and in proportion to the defendant's wrongful conduct.\nThus, that court and all but one of the courts of appeals have concluded that punitive damages being awarded on account of the reprehensible conduct and not as compensation to the injuries do not come within the statutory exclusion.\nThe one court that reached a different conclusion, the Horton case in the Sixth Circuit, relied solely on a rationale that this Court flatly rejected in Schleier.\nWhat the Court said in Horton is that any recovery obtained in an action based upon a personal injury is exempt from tax for that reason alone.\nIn fact, in Horton the Court said, that is the beginning and end of the analysis.\nIn Schleier, although this Court didn't cite Horton, the Court referred to that same contention and said, that is not the beginning and end of the analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1790.657, 1802.785, 1803.796, 1810.942, 1822.281, 1843.413, 1862.556, 1874.524, 1888.876, 1898.099, 1907.066, 1911.54], "stop_times": [1802.785, 1803.796, 1810.942, 1822.281, 1843.413, 1862.556, 1874.524, 1888.876, 1898.099, 1907.066, 1911.54, 1921.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.657}, "reply_to": "21121__2_001", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_003", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "In Schleier we also said that whether one treats respondents attaining the age of 60, or his being laid off on account of his age, as the proximate cause of respondent's loss of income, neither the birthday nor the discharge can fairly be described as a personal injury or sickness.\nI mean, isn't that one explanation of Schleier that doesn't apply here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1921.368, 1941.453], "stop_times": [1941.453, 1946.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.368}, "reply_to": "21121__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_004", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "It is a... it is the... it is the explanation of why those damages aren't on account of the personal injury, but the Court said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1946.595], "stop_times": [1955.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.595}, "reply_to": "21121__2_003", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_005", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "There was no personal injury is what we were saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1955.852], "stop_times": [1958.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.852}, "reply_to": "21121__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_006", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--No, I believe, Justice Scalia, that what the Court acknowledged in Schleier was that age discrimination, the but-for, but for age discrimination these recoveries would not have been obtained, but the Court pointed out that these recoveries were not on account of that personal injury that stems from the age discrimination.\nThe personal injury is not compensated by back wages and by liquidated or punitive damages under the ADEA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1958.754, 1976.135], "stop_times": [1976.135, 1985.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.754}, "reply_to": "21121__2_005", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_007", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That sentence suggests to me that we thought that the gravamen of the complaint was not personal injury or sickness, and that's a totally different point from whether it was on account of or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1985.201], "stop_times": [1996.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.201}, "reply_to": "21121__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_008", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, but that's the point.\nThe question in these cases is not what is the gravamen in the complaint.\nThe question is whether the recovery is on account of the personal injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [1996.4, 1997.429, 2002.063], "stop_times": [1997.429, 2002.063, 2006.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.4}, "reply_to": "21121__2_007", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_009", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "You're... but it has to be on account of personal injury or sickness, but you're laying Schleier before us as though what it proves is that there was no on account of there, which is what this case involves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2006.317], "stop_times": [2017.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.317}, "reply_to": "21121__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_010", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That there was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2017.594], "stop_times": [2017.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.594}, "reply_to": "21121__2_009", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_011", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But really what I think it proves is that there was no physical injury or sickness there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2017.824], "stop_times": [2022.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.824}, "reply_to": "21121__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_012", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Actually, I... Justice Scalia, we... only by reference to the opinion can this question be answered, but my recollection of the opinion is that the Court acknowledged in Schleier that age discrimination effects personal injuries.\nThe Court also acknowledged in Schleier, twice in a footnote and once in the text, that if the compensation obtained under the act was on account of those injuries, it would be within the statutory exclusion, but what the Court quite clearly held was that an award that is punitive in nature rather than compensatory cannot be said to be on account of the injuries, which is what five of the circuits have concluded when the same issue has been presented in the context of this case.\nThe text of the statute in our view, and I believe in the Court's view in Schleier, compelled that conclusion.\nThe title and structure of the act reflect the same understanding.\nThe title of section 104 is, Compensation for Injuries and Sickness.\nEach of the subsections of the statute relate solely to compensation for different types of injuries.\nNone of them provide an exemption from tax for any recovery that's not compensatory.\nThe history of the act is fairly clear on this.\nEach... several of the courts of appeals have described in detail the fact that this statute is derived directly from the 1918 opinion of the Attorney General holding that recoveries for personal injuries are akin to a return of capital.\nThey merely make the taxpayer whole for a personal loss, and would not represent income as that term was then understood.\nAs this Court said 40 years after that in Glenshaw Glass, that underlying rationale supports exclusion of compensatory awards, but it does not support exclusion of punitive damages.\nThe text, the structure, the history, the purpose of the statute all support this conclusion.\nIt's also compelled at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2022.077, 2036.289, 2063.577, 2071.404, 2075.007, 2078.76, 2084.464, 2089.268, 2091.82, 2106.759, 2113.545, 2125.392, 2133.416], "stop_times": [2036.289, 2063.577, 2071.404, 2075.007, 2078.76, 2084.464, 2089.268, 2091.82, 2106.759, 2113.545, 2125.392, 2133.416, 2135.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.077}, "reply_to": "21121__2_011", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_013", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. Jones, I think you're coming to your... before you leave, I'd like you to comment on the 1989 amendment.\nNow, I understand that of course it doesn't govern this case, because it happened later, but let's assume that if that had been in the statute from the beginning, would you not think that the better reading of the statute would have been that punitive damages were excludable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2135.189, 2139.751], "stop_times": [2139.751, 2154.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.189}, "reply_to": "21121__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_014", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--That's a difficult hypothetical, but if it had been in the statute from the beginning with the history that it had, my answer would be that it does not affect the outcome in this case.\nI mean, we briefed rather clearly, I thought, on this subject.\nThe 1989 amendment quite clearly was designed to answer the question it addresses, and was quite clearly designed not to answer any other question.\nThat is to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2154.063, 2163.439, 2166.652, 2176.639], "stop_times": [2163.439, 2166.652, 2176.639, 2177.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.063}, "reply_to": "21121__2_013", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_015", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But is it not a fair reading of it, as your opponent argues, to suggest that the Congress that enacted that amendment must have assumed that punitive... this sort of punitive damages were excludable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2177.561], "stop_times": [2187.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.561}, "reply_to": "21121__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_016", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--It is neither factually nor legally a fair reading of the statute.\nIt's not factually a fair reading because the legislative history shows that Congress carefully crafted this provision to avoid taking a position on whether punitive damages were excluded for physical injury cases.\nThey wanted to solve this question about punitive damages in nonphysical injury cases.\nThey had an agreement, they had a majority to accomplish that.\nThey did not have a majority, or an agreement to accomplish the resolution of the entire--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2187.425, 2191.168, 2203.897, 2208.18, 2211.513], "stop_times": [2191.168, 2203.897, 2208.18, 2211.513, 2217.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.425}, "reply_to": "21121__2_015", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_017", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Let me make--\n--What the--\n--the case a little harder for you, and then... supposing some of us felt that we shouldn't look at legislative history.\nThen it would be a little bit harder to explain, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2217.396, 2217.677, 2218.057, 2223.67], "stop_times": [2217.677, 2218.057, 2223.67, 2226.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.396}, "reply_to": "21121__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_018", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--No.\nThat's my legal point.\nLegally it would still be irrelevant, because it is quite clear that exclusions from income are not to be obtained by inference.\nYou cannot use a negative inference out of the 1989 amendment to create... to do what frankly what this Court said in its footnote in Burke, that this amendment allows the recovery of punitive damages in physical injury cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2226.054, 2226.101, 2227.062, 2234.168], "stop_times": [2226.101, 2227.062, 2234.168, 2247.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.054}, "reply_to": "21121__2_017", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_019", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "This isn't a negative inference.\nThis is simply application of the usual rule that you interpret every word of a statute as having some effect.\nThose words except for, you know... except for punitive damages in these other areas would have been totally unnecessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2247.689, 2248.41, 2254.955], "stop_times": [2248.41, 2254.955, 2263.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.689}, "reply_to": "21121__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_020", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But that's not the way it's written, Justice Scalia.\nWhat the 1989--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2263.89, 2265.653], "stop_times": [2265.653, 2266.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.89}, "reply_to": "21121__2_019", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_021", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Where is the text?\nI don't have the text right in front of me.\nIs it in your brief at some point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2266.942, 2268.204, 2269.864], "stop_times": [2268.204, 2269.864, 2272.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.942}, "reply_to": "21121__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_022", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Yes, I'm sure that it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2272.207], "stop_times": [2273.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.207}, "reply_to": "21121__2_021", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_023", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The way Justice Blackmun described it in Burke was that the enactment allowed exclusion of punitive damages only in cases involving physical injury or physical sickness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2273.689], "stop_times": [2296.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.689}, "reply_to": "21121__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_024", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "What... at page 30 of our brief, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2296.383], "stop_times": [2298.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.383}, "reply_to": "21121__2_023", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_025", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2298.797], "stop_times": [2298.995], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.797}, "reply_to": "21121__2_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21121__2_026", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--we quote the provisions from the 1989 act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2298.995], "stop_times": [2302.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.995}, "reply_to": "21121__2_025", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_027", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2302.388], "stop_times": [2302.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.388}, "reply_to": "21121__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_028", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "And what it says is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2302.768], "stop_times": [2303.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2302.768}, "reply_to": "21121__2_027", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_029", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Whereabouts on page 30?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2303.539], "stop_times": [2305.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.539}, "reply_to": "21121__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__2_030", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--In the middle of the full paragraph.\nIt says, the House bill was modified to provide only that the section 104(a)(2) exclusion shall not apply to any punitive damages received in connection with a case not involving physical injury.\nTo take that to mean the positive you have to infer that therefore any punitive damages awarded in a case involving punitive... involving physical injuries is to be excluded.\nThat's the kind of exclusion by implication that as a matter of statutory construction this Court would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2305.529, 2307.802, 2318.912, 2332.429], "stop_times": [2307.802, 2318.912, 2332.429, 2338.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.529}, "reply_to": "21121__2_029", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_031", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But my point is, unless that is what Congress... I don't care what Congress had in mind unless that's what the text--\n[Laughter]\n--of the statute had in mind.\nThe language with a case not involving physical injury or physical sickness could have simply been left out.\nIn order to give that phrase any meaning, you must assume that where it is a case involving physical injury or physical sickness, punitive damages are included within the exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2338.493, 2344.857, 2345.398, 2347.221, 2356.126], "stop_times": [2344.857, 2345.398, 2347.221, 2356.126, 2369.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.493}, "reply_to": "21121__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_032", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--The way that the provision had read... I'm speaking from memory now.\nThis isn't in here, although it's described in here.\nThe way the provision read before it was amended in conference would have provided that amounts atrib... punitive damages received in connection with a claim involved in puni... physical injury are excluded.\nIn other words, it would have said exactly what you're saying it should be inferred this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2369.626, 2372.169, 2374.162, 2387.011], "stop_times": [2372.169, 2374.162, 2387.011, 2391.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.626}, "reply_to": "21121__2_031", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_033", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "So you're using legislative history again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2391.844], "stop_times": [2392.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.844}, "reply_to": "21121__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_034", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2392.992], "stop_times": [2393.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.992}, "reply_to": "21121__2_033", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_035", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I thought we were just going to look at the text.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2393.263], "stop_times": [2394.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.263}, "reply_to": "21121__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_036", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2394.725], "stop_times": [2395.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.725}, "reply_to": "21121__2_035", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_037", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Looking at the text, there is no other explanation for the whole phrase, in connection with a case not involving physical injury or physical sickness.\nYou may as well have dropped it out entirely unless you assume that in those cases it is within the exemption.\nWhat you're saying, I take it, Mr. Jones, is that Congress wished to deal with this particular category--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2395.246, 2402.041, 2408.766], "stop_times": [2402.041, 2408.766, 2413.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.246}, "reply_to": "21121__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_038", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2413.581], "stop_times": [2413.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.581}, "reply_to": "21121__2_037", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_039", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--and leave what wasn't covered there to the preexisting law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2413.811], "stop_times": [2417.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.811}, "reply_to": "21121__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__2_040", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Absolutely, and I think, Justice Scalia, with all respect, that that's exactly what the statute indicates, and the only point I'm making... well, there's two points.\nOne is, none of this matters to the resolution of this case, but the other point is, this Court has often said, and I think it's an important holding, that exclusions from income are nonimplied.\nThat is to say, there must be an express exclusion, and to create an inference out of these two negatives is not unimaginable, it's just not consistent with the way that the Court would approach these kinds of questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2417.312, 2426.02, 2435.366], "stop_times": [2426.02, 2435.366, 2447.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.312}, "reply_to": "21121__2_039", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_041", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. Jones, you quoted... and maybe it's on the same page.\nYou quoted I think someone who expressly drew the conclusion that Congress meant to treat only this subject and to leave--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2447.614, 2451.097], "stop_times": [2451.097, 2459.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.614}, "reply_to": "21121__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21121__2_042", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2459.404], "stop_times": [2460.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.404}, "reply_to": "21121__2_041", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_043", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--all other application... was that in a law journal article, or was that in the legislative history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2460.044], "stop_times": [2464.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.044}, "reply_to": "21121__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21121__2_044", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, what we quoted was his article, but what he relies on is the legislative history in detail.\nI've read the article, and he has a very detailed explanation of the various drafts of the bill and the statements within the committee.\nIf that issue were relevant to the disposition of the case, I would refer the Court to that more detailed discussion on that subject.\nI also need to correct what I believe is a fundamental misstatement of counsel on this issue.\nHaving heard his argument, I would get the impression that most courts had interpreted the '89 amendment to help their case.\nIn fact, all but one of the courts of appeals have said about this 1989 amendment almost exactly what I've just said to the Court, that it doesn't address this issue, it addresses a different issue, it consciously addressed a narrow issue, and consciously left this other issue untouched, just as Congress did in the '96 amendment, where they prospectively authoritatively determined punitive damages are not within the statutory exclusion, which really brings me to my last point.\nIn our view, and in the view of the tax court in the Bagley case, this Court's opinion in Schleier resolved this issue.\nIt says that damages that are punitive in nature and not compensatory are not within the statutory exclusion precisely because they're not awarded on account of the personal injury.\nThat is exactly what the Treasury said in its 1984 ruling on this subject.\nIt said that the punitive damages are not on account of the injury, they're not compensation for the injury, they're not within the statutory exclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2464.929, 2470.923, 2477.688, 2485.703, 2491.847, 2498.932, 2528.271, 2535.087, 2544.945, 2549.649], "stop_times": [2470.923, 2477.688, 2485.703, 2491.847, 2498.932, 2528.271, 2535.087, 2544.945, 2549.649, 2556.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2464.929}, "reply_to": "21121__2_043", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_045", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Mr. Jones, were you going to address the statute of limitations problem in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2556.324], "stop_times": [2560.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.324}, "reply_to": "21121__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21121__2_046", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I... that will be my next point.\nI think I have time.\nThe... Schleier being only 18 months old, I mean, it seems obvious to point out that the principles of stare decisis are very strong in tax cases, and they should be especially strong in this context, where Congress has prospectively reached the same conclusion in amending the statute for all tax years this day forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2560.407, 2562.2, 2563.182], "stop_times": [2562.2, 2563.182, 2583.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.407}, "reply_to": "21121__2_045", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_047", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I assume you think we ought to disavow the footnote in Burke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2583.865], "stop_times": [2585.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.865}, "reply_to": "21121__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_048", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I think the footnote in Burke was dicta, and I think it's honest to say that the Court wasn't briefed on that issue, and other courts have said that they believe that that statement was dicta.\nClearly... and the 1989 amendment has not yet actually been before the Court, although this is the third section--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2585.918, 2597.134], "stop_times": [2597.134, 2602.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.918}, "reply_to": "21121__2_047", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_049", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I know, but it really would be ironic if we were to say the law was pretty clear up to '89, and that's all involved now, and it's clear now after '96, but in this interval, if you read the statute on its face during that period, someone might say, well, there's a different result in here, and that's why... one of the things that concerns me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2602.349], "stop_times": [2617.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.349}, "reply_to": "21121__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_050", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--I think that's why the '96 amendment was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2617.77], "stop_times": [2619.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.77}, "reply_to": "21121__2_049", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_051", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That takes care of everything--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2619.963], "stop_times": [2621.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.963}, "reply_to": "21121__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_052", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Prospectively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2621.433], "stop_times": [2622.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.433}, "reply_to": "21121__2_051", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_053", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2622.264], "stop_times": [2622.464], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.264}, "reply_to": "21121__2_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21121__2_054", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I mean, it removes the shadow that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2622.464], "stop_times": [2625.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.464}, "reply_to": "21121__2_053", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_055", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Can we decide this case without the effect of the '89 amendment, but around the corner there may be a case that arose in 1991 that squarely presents the question whether the footnote in Burke was right or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2625.096], "stop_times": [2635.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.096}, "reply_to": "21121__2_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21121__2_056", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--I would hope, and I'm sure the Court would hope that that case doesn't come around the corner.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2635.472, 2638.594], "stop_times": [2638.594, 2640.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.472}, "reply_to": "21121__2_055", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_057", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "You don't think any punitive damages were awarded during those years?\nI doubt it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2640.306, 2643.368], "stop_times": [2643.368, 2643.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.306}, "reply_to": "21121__2_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_058", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But in all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2643.929], "stop_times": [2644.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.929}, "reply_to": "21121__2_057", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_059", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "It would have been in circuits... there was only one outlying circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2644.921], "stop_times": [2647.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.921}, "reply_to": "21121__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_060", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2647.411], "stop_times": [2647.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.411}, "reply_to": "21121__2_059", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_061", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--so the circuits have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2647.642], "stop_times": [2648.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.642}, "reply_to": "21121__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_062", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The circuits have not had any difficulty with this issue about the '89 amendment.\nOn the statute of limitations, petitioners claim that the statute of limitations for suits to recover an erroneous refund expired before this suit was brought by the Government.\nThat contention is wrong for two reasons.\nFirst, petitioners don't dispute that they did not raise this issue in the district court, and when they raised it in the court of appeals, they did so solely on the theory that a failure to comply with the statute of limitations would deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.\nNow, as we state in our brief, and as petitioners do not address at all, this is an ordinary type of statute of limitations that limits only the recovery on the claim.\nIt does not limit the jurisdiction of the court.\nThus, even if the statute of limitations had not been complied with, this Court would have jurisdiction, the lower courts would have jurisdiction, and such a holding would therefore have no remedial significance.\nThey can't raise at this point a suggestion that the failure to comply with the statute was an affirmative defense, because they waived the issue by not raising it in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2648.453, 2652.935, 2665.553, 2667.954, 2682.805, 2692.693, 2694.786, 2705.583], "stop_times": [2652.935, 2665.553, 2667.954, 2682.805, 2692.693, 2694.786, 2705.583, 2716.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.453}, "reply_to": "21121__2_061", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_063", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--But they answered that you in turn waived because you didn't mention that in your brief in opposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2716.1], "stop_times": [2721.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.1}, "reply_to": "21121__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_064", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "And my point on that issue is that the Court, because this relates only to subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has to decide, it seems to me, first whether this claim relates to subject matter jurisdiction, because if it just decided the statute of limitations issue as an unanchored legal principle, it would have no remedial significance in this case and the Court rarely, to my knowledge has never decided an issue that doesn't have remedial significance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2721.583], "stop_times": [2747.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.583}, "reply_to": "21121__2_063", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_065", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, I thought that their argument was simply, if we waived, then your failing to bring up... to challenge the Tenth Circuit ruling... the Tenth Circuit ruling was in favor of... the Tenth Circuit ruling was in favor of the Government, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2747.642], "stop_times": [2767.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.642}, "reply_to": "21121__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_066", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "On the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2767.104], "stop_times": [2768.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.104}, "reply_to": "21121__2_065", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_067", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2768.897], "stop_times": [2769.074], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.897}, "reply_to": "21121__2_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21121__2_068", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "On the merits of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2769.074], "stop_times": [2770.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.074}, "reply_to": "21121__2_067", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_069", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Right.\nRight, and then they challenged that here, and you didn't object to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2770.135, 2770.346], "stop_times": [2770.346, 2775.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.135}, "reply_to": "21121__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_070", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Only on the merits.\nWe didn't point out, as we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2775.509, 2777.262], "stop_times": [2777.262, 2779.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.509}, "reply_to": "21121__2_069", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_071", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "And everybody agrees... well, that this is not a statute of limitations that operates against the taxpayer, or no question of sovereign immunity, so... no one has said this is jurisdictional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2779.102], "stop_times": [2793.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.102}, "reply_to": "21121__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_072", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Oh, well, that's their... that's the only basis on which they have raised it, even to this point, and it's the only basis on which the Court could address it.\nI... it's, just to repeat myself, but I think it's the reason why even if under... the Court might say, well, you... the Government didn't raise this point.\nThe point that we didn't raise is that this statute doesn't relate to subject matter jurisdiction.\nWell, I suppose that's a jurisdictional point, and I suppose the Court has to decide whether it relates to subject matter jurisdiction before it decides--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2793.431, 2799.776, 2809.712, 2815.747], "stop_times": [2799.776, 2809.712, 2815.747, 2825.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.431}, "reply_to": "21121__2_071", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_073", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, if we can just get to the merits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2825.883], "stop_times": [2828.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.883}, "reply_to": "21121__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_074", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2828.985], "stop_times": [2829.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.985}, "reply_to": "21121__2_073", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_075", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--you may be right that they're waived.\nOne question that I had is on the question of the date of payment.\nIs it the receipt, or... there's a section of the code, 6602, that talks about interest due to the Government when the Government overpays the taxpayer then gets back the overpayment with the interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2829.185, 2831.356, 2836.83], "stop_times": [2831.356, 2836.83, 2851.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.185}, "reply_to": "21121__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_076", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2851.081], "stop_times": [2851.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.081}, "reply_to": "21121__2_075", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_077", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "What is the date from which the interest runs?\nIt says that the interest is due... what is it, what are the words?\nI have the statute here.\nThe interest... shall bear interest from the date of the payment of the refund.\nWhat is the date of the payment for purposes of the interest provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2851.41, 2855.614, 2859.347, 2860.937, 2869.603], "stop_times": [2855.614, 2859.347, 2860.937, 2869.603, 2873.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.41}, "reply_to": "21121__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_078", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "I don't have the text of that in front of me, but as you've described it, I'm not... I don't hear any words that would lead me to think that it would be different from the date of the payment, the making of the refund in this context, because what the Court held in United States v. Wurtz is that the date of the making of the refund is the date on which the refund was paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2873.826], "stop_times": [2895.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2873.826}, "reply_to": "21121__2_077", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_079", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, it really... it didn't make any difference in Wurtz.\nThe key thing was that they rejected the one date that would have made the claim too late.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2895.882, 2899.675], "stop_times": [2899.675, 2906.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.882}, "reply_to": "21121__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_080", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, let me see if I can put this point in perspective, just to state it from the beginning.\nSection--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2906.06, 2910.992], "stop_times": [2910.992, 2911.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2906.06}, "reply_to": "21121__2_079", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_081", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The reason that I ask the question is, if the Government's calculation of interest has to depend on the date of receipt, the Government won't know that.\nI mean, it knows when it mails the check, but it doesn't know... so when it reclaims the overpayment and sends the interest bill at the same time, how will it know the starting date for the interest, because it doesn't know the date of receipt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2911.572, 2918.948], "stop_times": [2918.948, 2933.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.572}, "reply_to": "21121__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_082", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, you've triggered a recollection that is only vague for me.\nI believe that there may be a regulation, or even an additional statutory provision that addresses the precise point you're making under that interest statute, and I do not remember exactly what it says, so I'm afraid I can't be of too much help to you on that, other than to say that I do believe that there's some specific substantive provision of law that has been adopted to address that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2933.87, 2936.882], "stop_times": [2936.882, 2960.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.87}, "reply_to": "21121__2_081", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_083", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Is there, then, if you don't... is there any reason... what I thought of doing to answer this is to look up how the law works in the area of contracts and how it works in the area of money had and received, say an insurance company that makes an erroneous refund.\nHow does the statute of limitations work there?\nMy guess, from recollecting my first year of law of contracts is that the contract is good when it's... the acceptance is mailed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2960.669, 2975.581, 2977.512], "stop_times": [2975.581, 2977.512, 2984.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.669}, "reply_to": "21121__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21121__2_084", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2984.878], "stop_times": [2985.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.878}, "reply_to": "21121__2_083", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_085", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--and therefore the statute of limitations would run from that time, and I bet it's the same with money had and received, that it's made--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2985.329], "stop_times": [2991.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.329}, "reply_to": "21121__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21121__2_086", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Well, a contract may be made by putting it in the mail as a matter of common law rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2991.694], "stop_times": [2997.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2991.694}, "reply_to": "21121__2_085", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_087", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--No, but bills--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2997.096], "stop_times": [2998.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.096}, "reply_to": "21121__2_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_088", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "A refund--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2998.288], "stop_times": [2998.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.288}, "reply_to": "21121__2_087", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_089", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Notes under NI... normal law in making is the date on the check.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [2998.386], "stop_times": [3003.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.386}, "reply_to": "21121__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_090", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--And that may also be true--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3003.251], "stop_times": [3005.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3003.251}, "reply_to": "21121__2_089", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_091", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3005.501], "stop_times": [3005.731], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.501}, "reply_to": "21121__2_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21121__2_092", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--but what's relevant here is that what has to be made is a refund, and what the Court said in Wurtz is that a refund is the actual repayment.\nIt's not a contract, it's not a check--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3005.731, 3012.397], "stop_times": [3012.397, 3014.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.731}, "reply_to": "21121__2_091", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_093", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But it said that in rejecting an argument that you should look at the date when the refund was authorized, which was clearly wrong.\nIt really didn't focus on this distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3014.801, 3020.574], "stop_times": [3020.574, 3022.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.801}, "reply_to": "21121__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_094", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Oh, I don't think it focused on it, but I think in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3022.537], "stop_times": [3024.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.537}, "reply_to": "21121__2_093", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_095", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "It did use the words, date of payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3024.467], "stop_times": [3025.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.467}, "reply_to": "21121__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21121__2_096", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--And every... and I should point out every court that has addressed this issue has concluded--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3025.929], "stop_times": [3029.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.929}, "reply_to": "21121__2_095", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_097", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, refund at least requires delivery.\nI mean, if the Government simply draws a check and keeps it, surely nothing is started.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3029.47, 3031.093], "stop_times": [3031.093, 3036.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.47}, "reply_to": "21121__2_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__2_098", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Oh, of course not, and as this Court did say in Wurtz, and I think it answers this question if the other part that I've quoted doesn't, is that a payment, which the Court said is what a refund is, a payment isn't made even when the check is mailed and... signed and mailed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3036.435], "stop_times": [3053.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.435}, "reply_to": "21121__2_097", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_099", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Why would we want one rule for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3053.407], "stop_times": [3055.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.407}, "reply_to": "21121__2_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21121__2_100", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--because the payment can be stopped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3055.268], "stop_times": [3055.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.268}, "reply_to": "21121__2_099", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_101", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Why would we want one rule when an insurance company makes a refund, or any private person, and the Government have a different rule when it's totally silent on the matter?\nWhy wouldn't a refund for the law be good on mailing or not good on mailing for everybody alike?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3055.818, 3065.596], "stop_times": [3065.596, 3071.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.818}, "reply_to": "21121__2_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21121__2_102", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, one... one obvious difference is that... is this Court's law in addition to Wurtz.\nI think Wurtz answers this question, but even if one wanted to look beyond Wurtz--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3071.44, 3078.513], "stop_times": [3078.513, 3081.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3071.44}, "reply_to": "21121__2_101", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_103", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, isn't Wurtz a little bit like Burke in that respect?\nAll Wurtz has to do is to say that the time hasn't run, period.\nIt had to reject one reading.\nWhatever it said about... there were a number of dates you could pick.\nOnly one was out of the ball park.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3081.775, 3084.978, 3092.203, 3094.674, 3097.749], "stop_times": [3084.978, 3092.203, 3094.674, 3097.749, 3099.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.775}, "reply_to": "21121__2_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_104", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--I think the difference is that in Wurtz we're talking about the ratio decidendi of the Court, and in Burke we were talking about a footnote that related to a statute that wasn't before the Court and wasn't involved.\nThe ratio decidendi of Burke... of Wurtz was that a refund is an actual repayment.\nit is not simply putting the check in the mail, because the check can be cancelled and the payment stopped, as the Court said.\nNow, there's one other reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3099.368, 3109.444, 3115.658, 3121.562], "stop_times": [3109.444, 3115.658, 3121.562, 3123.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3099.368}, "reply_to": "21121__2_103", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_105", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well then, if that's... if that really is the criterion, then it's the date of negotiating the check.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3123.214], "stop_times": [3128.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.214}, "reply_to": "21121__2_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21121__2_106", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Well, I think that might be the most--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3128.357], "stop_times": [3130.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.357}, "reply_to": "21121__2_105", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_107", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "You can stop payment while it's in the recipient's hand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3130.059], "stop_times": [3132.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.059}, "reply_to": "21121__2_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21121__2_108", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--That might be the most faithful application of the statute, and frankly I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3132.91], "stop_times": [3136.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3132.91}, "reply_to": "21121__2_107", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_109", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But then you said it would be the same thing for the interest, and so the interest, that would be even more uncertain, the date the check is cashed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3136.812], "stop_times": [3142.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.812}, "reply_to": "21121__2_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__2_110", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--I want to make it clear, Justice Ginsburg, that I don't believe I have a view on the interest issue at this point.\nI'm just not in a position to give you an answer on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3142.976, 3147.921], "stop_times": [3147.921, 3150.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3142.976}, "reply_to": "21121__2_109", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_111", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But the Government is not going to know when the statute of limitations runs, if in fact it isn't the time it mailed, but the time it's received by somebody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3150.443], "stop_times": [3158.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.443}, "reply_to": "21121__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__2_112", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The Court pointed out in Wurtz that it is implausible to think that Congress started the statute of limitations running on a date before the cause of action accrued.\nThe cause of action here accrues only when the payment is made.\nIt does not accrue simply by putting a check in the mail.\nWe can't sue someone for an erroneous refund because we sent them a check.\nWe can sue them because they received money that we want back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3158.878, 3169.155, 3172.427, 3175.349, 3179.132], "stop_times": [3169.155, 3172.427, 3175.349, 3179.132, 3182.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3158.878}, "reply_to": "21121__2_111", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_113", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Of course, if you use what you say may be the most faithful position, which is at the time the payment is actually made by the Government, the Government would know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3182.174], "stop_times": [3192.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.174}, "reply_to": "21121__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_114", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Yes, they would, and when... and there would be records on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3192.392], "stop_times": [3196.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3192.392}, "reply_to": "21121__2_113", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_115", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "And you don't exclude that as a possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3196.185], "stop_times": [3198.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.185}, "reply_to": "21121__2_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__2_116", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "As I said, I think that's the most faithful reading of the statute.\nIt's a reading that some courts have adopted.\nThere are two district court opinions that have stopped short and said it's the date of receipt, but under any interpretation that any court has ever expressed, the Government wins in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3198.457, 3201.669, 3203.331], "stop_times": [3201.669, 3203.331, 3212.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3198.457}, "reply_to": "21121__2_115", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_117", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "But the Government doesn't win if it's the date of mailing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3212.249], "stop_times": [3214.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.249}, "reply_to": "21121__2_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__2_118", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "That would be the only circumstance in which the Government would not win, and there's no authority to support that proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3214.83], "stop_times": [3219.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3214.83}, "reply_to": "21121__2_117", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_119", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "And in any event you say this was waived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3219.835], "stop_times": [3223.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.835}, "reply_to": "21121__2_118", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21121__2_120", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "In any event, we believe it was quite clearly waived.\nIf there are no further questions, I'm through.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3223.077, 3225.679, 3228.694], "stop_times": [3225.679, 3228.694, 3228.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3223.077}, "reply_to": "21121__2_119", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "21121__2_121", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jones.\nMr. McAllister, you have 2 minutes remaining.\nDo you agree that if we don't hold the statute jurisdictional that you have waived it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3228.991, 3229.932, 3232.554], "stop_times": [3229.932, 3232.554, 3242.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.991}, "reply_to": "21121__2_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__3_000", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "No, I don't, Your Honor.\nI believe that we raised the issue in the Tenth Circuit.\nThe Tenth Circuit addressed it on the merits, and under this Court's rules the Government had an obligation to object to any procedural problem in its response to our petition for writ of certiorari.\nIt did not do so, so I believe in effect it has waived any objection, and this Court now, under its precedents, is entitled to reach that issue on the merits, and I do not believe it makes a difference whether it's treated as subject matter jurisdiction or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3242.872, 3244.373, 3247.754, 3257.331], "stop_times": [3244.373, 3247.754, 3257.331, 3269.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3242.872}, "reply_to": "21121__2_121", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_001", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "You did admit that the refund was made on July 9 in the answer to the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3269.87], "stop_times": [3274.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.87}, "reply_to": "21121__3_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21121__3_002", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "What the stipulation says is the amounts were refunded.\nThey do not... and basically what that means is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3274.725, 3278.177], "stop_times": [3278.177, 3280.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3274.725}, "reply_to": "21121__3_001", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_003", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, but your answer to the complaint is not inconsistent with that stip.\nIn the answer to the complaint you admitted that it was July 9.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3280.987, 3285.371], "stop_times": [3285.371, 3288.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.987}, "reply_to": "21121__3_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21121__3_004", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--The amount was refunded on July 9.\nWhat that meant was that was the date on which the check was received, but it didn't say that the refund was made, and in our view making should refer to the last act basically the Government needs to perform to complete the process, which was after it's issued the check, put it in the mail to the taxpayer.\nAt that point, the Government has made its determination, the money is on its way, and at that point, that is really the last point at which the Government can know with certainty its window of opportunity has begun to run.\nAfter that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3288.382, 3291.296, 3306.006, 3315.591], "stop_times": [3291.296, 3306.006, 3315.591, 3316.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3288.382}, "reply_to": "21121__3_003", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_005", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Well, you wouldn't make that argument if you never received the check, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3316.162], "stop_times": [3319.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3316.162}, "reply_to": "21121__3_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21121__3_006", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--No.\nWe would certainly suggest that if we had not received the check, the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3319.735, 3321.505], "stop_times": [3321.505, 3325.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3319.735}, "reply_to": "21121__3_005", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_007", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The Government wouldn't be suing to get it back, either--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3325.339], "stop_times": [3327.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3325.339}, "reply_to": "21121__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__3_008", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--That's right.\nThere would be no case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3327.96, 3328.17], "stop_times": [3328.17, 3329.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3327.96}, "reply_to": "21121__3_007", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_009", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--if you never received it.\n[Laughter]\nBut it might be saying--\n--Sort of a nonexistent problem.\nIt might be saying that it had made the refund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3329.071, 3329.241, 3329.919, 3331.011, 3331.832], "stop_times": [3329.241, 3329.919, 3331.011, 3331.832, 3333.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3329.071}, "reply_to": "21121__3_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__3_010", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "It might.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3333.493], "stop_times": [3334.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3333.493}, "reply_to": "21121__3_009", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_011", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Do you know how it works with a private company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3334.184], "stop_times": [3336.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.184}, "reply_to": "21121__3_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21121__3_012", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "With a private company, I do not, Your Honor.\nI do know the mailbox rule for contract law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3336.056, 3337.868], "stop_times": [3337.868, 3339.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3336.056}, "reply_to": "21121__3_011", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_013", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "So that might be the right rule, but nobody's... we haven't looked it up yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3339.84], "stop_times": [3341.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.84}, "reply_to": "21121__3_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21121__3_014", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Right.\nWe did talk about the mailbox rule in contract law in our reply brief.\nOne point I'd like to make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3341.533, 3341.813, 3345.874], "stop_times": [3341.813, 3345.874, 3347.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3341.533}, "reply_to": "21121__3_013", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_015", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Was it just oversight that you didn't bring this up in the first instance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3347.757], "stop_times": [3351.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.757}, "reply_to": "21121__3_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21121__3_016", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--In the first instance, yes, Your Honor.\nThe 1989 amendment, if I could go back to that for a moment, this Court in Burke in a footnote did suggest that it has the reading, and certainly the Congress understood what we claim Congress understood in section... or in 1989 about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3351.788, 3352.889], "stop_times": [3352.889, 3366.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3351.788}, "reply_to": "21121__3_015", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_017", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "All of these tax years were all before 1989 though, weren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3366.4], "stop_times": [3371.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.4}, "reply_to": "21121__3_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__3_018", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3371.181], "stop_times": [3371.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3371.181}, "reply_to": "21121__3_017", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_019", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "So in fact the way the law read at the time that's relevant here did not contain the 1989 amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3371.392], "stop_times": [3377.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.392}, "reply_to": "21121__3_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21121__3_020", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3377.787], "stop_times": [3378.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3377.787}, "reply_to": "21121__3_019", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_021", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Thank you, Mr. McAllister.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3378.418], "stop_times": [3379.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.418}, "reply_to": "21121__3_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21121__3_022", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3379.907], "stop_times": [3380.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3379.907}, "reply_to": "21121__3_021", "speaker": "stephen_r_mcallister"}
{"id": "21121__3_023", "conversation_id": "21121", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-966", "start_times": [3380.097], "stop_times": [3381.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3380.097}, "reply_to": "21121__3_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__0_000", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-891, Ohio v. Robert D. Robinette.\nMr. Ingram.\nOh, pardon me.\nMs. Ingram.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [0.0, 7.346, 8.478, 9.657], "stop_times": [7.346, 8.478, 9.657, 10.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__0_001", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves a traffic stop, a driver's consent to search, and the discovery of drugs in his car.\nThe question before the Court is whether the Fourth Amendment requires a police officer to warn a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that he's free to go, and that if the officer fails to give that warning, any cooperation by the motorist from that point on must be presumed to be involuntary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [10.989, 14.512, 20.727], "stop_times": [14.512, 20.727, 36.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.989}, "reply_to": "20842__0_000", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_002", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Under State law, does the officer have the discretion to give or not to give a ticket after he talks to the motorist?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [36.426], "stop_times": [45.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 36.426}, "reply_to": "20842__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_003", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Your Honor, there is a statute that... if it is a traffic stop, the officer may simply cite the motorist if he has proof of identification, which doesn't have to be a driver's license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [45.364], "stop_times": [59.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 45.364}, "reply_to": "20842__0_002", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_004", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Does... is cite the same as giving a ticket?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [59.092], "stop_times": [62.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 59.092}, "reply_to": "20842__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_005", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question.\nHe may cite or warn at his discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [62.205, 64.248], "stop_times": [64.248, 66.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 62.205}, "reply_to": "20842__0_004", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_006", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "So he may cite or warn, and that obviously takes a certain amount of time to make that determination of what he's going to do?\nI take it the officer has a certain amount of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [66.389, 73.184], "stop_times": [73.184, 78.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.389}, "reply_to": "20842__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_007", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, he does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [78.216], "stop_times": [78.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 78.216}, "reply_to": "20842__0_006", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_008", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And so he has to have a certain amount of time within which to exercise that discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [78.736], "stop_times": [81.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 78.736}, "reply_to": "20842__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_009", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [81.969], "stop_times": [83.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 81.969}, "reply_to": "20842__0_008", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_010", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Once he says, I'm not going to give you a ticket, can he change his mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [83.481], "stop_times": [86.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.481}, "reply_to": "20842__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_011", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "He could change is mind, certainly, and give the ticket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [86.203], "stop_times": [90.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 86.203}, "reply_to": "20842__0_010", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_012", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "If there's a flippant response, or a response that indicates that maybe the person has less regard for the law than the officer thought at first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [90.897], "stop_times": [98.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.897}, "reply_to": "20842__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_013", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's correct, and the question would then become whether or not the officer's decision to change his mind when he told the person he wasn't going to give him the ticket and then decided to give the ticket would have an effect on whether or not the person felt then that he was free to leave, or he was being coerced in some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [98.101], "stop_times": [113.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 98.101}, "reply_to": "20842__0_012", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_014", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Quite without reference to a search, the officer would be entitled to detain the motorist after the officer changed his mind and said, well, based on what your remarks are, I've changed my mind.\nI'm going to give you a ticket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [113.101, 122.387], "stop_times": [122.387, 123.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.101}, "reply_to": "20842__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_015", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Yes, the officer could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [123.469], "stop_times": [124.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.469}, "reply_to": "20842__0_014", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_016", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "There is no right to leave once the officer proceeds in that way until the ticket is written.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [124.581], "stop_times": [130.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 124.581}, "reply_to": "20842__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_017", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Right, that's correct, until the ticket is written or the warning is given, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [130.214], "stop_times": [133.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 130.214}, "reply_to": "20842__0_016", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_018", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And that State law is consistent with our cases, and with the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [133.326], "stop_times": [137.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.326}, "reply_to": "20842__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_019", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [137.387], "stop_times": [138.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.387}, "reply_to": "20842__0_018", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_020", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Let me ask you another nuts and bolts question.\nWhen he decides to give a warning, as he did in this case, does he present the motorist with a document, a piece of paper that says, \"warning\"?\nDo they record these warnings, or is it customarily, and was it in this case, just an oral statement saying, I warn you not to do it again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [138.498, 140.55, 149.398], "stop_times": [140.55, 149.398, 158.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.498}, "reply_to": "20842__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20842__0_021", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Your Honor, it can be done both ways.\nIn this case, on reference to the video tape will show that the officer handed the... he handed Robinette a written warning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [158.594, 160.077], "stop_times": [160.077, 166.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.594}, "reply_to": "20842__0_020", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_022", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "So he had given him a statement which said, in effect, on its face that it was a warning before he began the conversation about whether there was anything improper in the car?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [166.22], "stop_times": [176.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.22}, "reply_to": "20842__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20842__0_023", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and he had also returned his driver's license to him--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [176.906], "stop_times": [179.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.906}, "reply_to": "20842__0_022", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_024", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [179.748], "stop_times": [179.958], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 179.748}, "reply_to": "20842__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20842__0_025", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [179.958], "stop_times": [180.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 179.958}, "reply_to": "20842__0_024", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_026", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Do you think at that point he could have changed his mind and said, well, I've given you a warning, but after thinking about it I'm going to give you a ticket now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [180.769], "stop_times": [187.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.769}, "reply_to": "20842__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_027", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "If he had told... if he had told... if... it would have been very difficult, then, for the officer to justify, without anything further happening, giving him a ticket on just his change of mind, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [187.134], "stop_times": [200.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.134}, "reply_to": "20842__0_026", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_028", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I thought you said earlier that he could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [200.652], "stop_times": [202.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.652}, "reply_to": "20842__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_029", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [202.224], "stop_times": [202.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.224}, "reply_to": "20842__0_028", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_030", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I thought you said earlier he could change his mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [202.414], "stop_times": [204.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.414}, "reply_to": "20842__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_031", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--After he's given him the warning I think it would be more difficult, but I think that the question of the validity of what he did on that would affect whether or not the speeding ticket, whether or not that was... whether or not the validity of the speeding ticket was upheld, not whether or not... it would simply be a factor to be considered when trying to decide whether or not he was detained or whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [204.485], "stop_times": [225.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.485}, "reply_to": "20842__0_030", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_032", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, I'm asking the question to determine his right to detain the motorist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [225.168], "stop_times": [228.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.168}, "reply_to": "20842__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20842__0_033", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--He had the right... if the motorist did nothing further but give the officer a flippant answer, then the business of the stop is over, the officer has made his decision to give a warning, the officer's discretion is still controlling it, and under Ohio law, there's nothing that would prevent the officer at that point from issuing him the ticket.\nThe officer has that kind of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [228.982, 258.992], "stop_times": [258.992, 262.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.982}, "reply_to": "20842__0_032", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_034", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "After the warning has already... is the... it's a written warning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [262.163], "stop_times": [264.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.163}, "reply_to": "20842__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_035", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "In this case it was, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [264.925], "stop_times": [265.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.925}, "reply_to": "20842__0_034", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_036", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "So you can give them both a written warning and then after that say, in addition to that I'm going to give you a ticket?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [265.824], "stop_times": [270.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.824}, "reply_to": "20842__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_037", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [270.909], "stop_times": [271.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.909}, "reply_to": "20842__0_036", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_038", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "You can do both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [271.939], "stop_times": [272.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.939}, "reply_to": "20842__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_039", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [272.7], "stop_times": [273.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 272.7}, "reply_to": "20842__0_038", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_040", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "You can do both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [273.361], "stop_times": [274.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 273.361}, "reply_to": "20842__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_041", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes.\nYou could void out the written warning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [274.623, 274.883], "stop_times": [274.883, 276.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.623}, "reply_to": "20842__0_040", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_042", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [276.783], "stop_times": [276.863], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 276.783}, "reply_to": "20842__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20842__0_043", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--to the extent it's entered, and then issue a ticket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [276.863], "stop_times": [280.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.863}, "reply_to": "20842__0_042", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_044", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Is there any decisional law or administrative rulings in Ohio to support what you just say, or are you kind of going by, you know, what you think is probably the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [280.966], "stop_times": [293.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.966}, "reply_to": "20842__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__0_045", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "To support the... to support that the officer can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [293.066], "stop_times": [296.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.066}, "reply_to": "20842__0_044", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_046", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "The idea that he... the patrolman has given the respondent, here, a warning.\nThe respondent gives the patrolman some indication that he has contempt for the law or something like that, or something causes the patrolman to change his mind.\nHas that ever come up in any litigated case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [296.186, 302.061, 311.397], "stop_times": [302.061, 311.397, 315.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.186}, "reply_to": "20842__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__0_047", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I cannot cite you a case.\nI cannot cite you a case, but I don't know that it hasn't come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [315.839, 317.321], "stop_times": [317.321, 320.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.839}, "reply_to": "20842__0_046", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_048", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, Ms. Ingram--\n--What do you base your answer on, then?\nI... what do you base your answer on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [320.784, 322.746, 323.716], "stop_times": [322.746, 323.716, 325.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.784}, "reply_to": "20842__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__0_049", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "On consideration of Fourth Amendment principles that until... the officer has the right to detain a speeding motorist until he completes the business of the traffic stop, and his decision as to whether or not to issue a ticket or a warning, and the final issuance of a ticket even if he's already issued a warning is part of the business of a traffic stop, so whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [325.689], "stop_times": [344.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 325.689}, "reply_to": "20842__0_048", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_050", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "No, but I'm asking you, what do you base your answer on as to State law as to whether, having issued a warning, you can then, in light of a flippant answer or anything else, void the warning and issue a traffic ticket?\nWe can't do that.\nI mean, when we issue a judgment, if the lawyer who loses... who wins makes some flippant comment about our judgment--\n[Laughter]\n--we can't call or go back and say, wait a minute, we've thought about it again.\nNow, a policeman can do that, though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [344.822, 356.851, 357.912, 367.93, 364.928, 368.28], "stop_times": [356.851, 357.912, 367.93, 364.928, 368.28, 371.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.822}, "reply_to": "20842__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_051", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--A policeman has the discretion to decide whether to warn or cite, yes, Your Honor, and... and the fact... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [371.292], "stop_times": [377.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.292}, "reply_to": "20842__0_050", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_052", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, I know he has the discretion to do that.\nWe have discretion whether to find for the petitioner or for the respondent, but having done so, we cannot then change our mind.\nWhat makes you say that a policeman can change his mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [377.365, 379.308, 385.973], "stop_times": [379.308, 385.973, 388.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.365}, "reply_to": "20842__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_053", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Because a warning is not a final order.\nIt's not... it's not a final order.\nIt's... I'm going to give you a warning, he's giving the person a break, he's doing something he doesn't have to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [388.595, 390.568, 392.859], "stop_times": [390.568, 392.859, 398.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.595}, "reply_to": "20842__0_052", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_054", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "All right, but you don't base this on any case law that you know of.\nThis is just your own--\n--Well, common sense.\nMs. Ingram, is that what happened here, or did he just get a warning and then we went into this business about, may I search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [398.295, 400.358, 401.628, 402.95], "stop_times": [400.358, 401.628, 402.95, 409.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.295}, "reply_to": "20842__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_055", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That is not what happened here.\nIt just was the warning, and then the question of, are you carrying any illegal drugs or contraband.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [409.583, 412.646], "stop_times": [412.646, 417.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.583}, "reply_to": "20842__0_054", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_056", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Okay, and do you mind telling me, at the traffic stop, did the officer order Robinette to get out of the car before he checked the driver's license, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [417.0], "stop_times": [426.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 417.0}, "reply_to": "20842__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__0_057", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Your Honor, he checked the driver's license, then ordered him out of the car, then returned the driver's license and gave him a lecture on speeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [426.768], "stop_times": [435.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.768}, "reply_to": "20842__0_056", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_058", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [435.567], "stop_times": [435.854], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 435.567}, "reply_to": "20842__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20842__0_059", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "This was also captured on video tape from the time of the... from the time he gave him the lecture on speeding and gave him his license back, so an interesting fact about this case is that there's no real dispute about what happened between Robinette and the officer during that actual encounter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [435.854], "stop_times": [452.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.854}, "reply_to": "20842__0_058", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_060", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "May I suggest that your answer about whether he could have changed his mind and all is based on the common sense notion that as long as the two people are standing there together, the officer retains control of the situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [452.406], "stop_times": [464.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 452.406}, "reply_to": "20842__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__0_061", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That's correct, yes, Your Honor.\nYes, Your Honor.\nWhat the Ohio--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [464.404, 466.174, 467.326], "stop_times": [466.174, 467.326, 469.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 464.404}, "reply_to": "20842__0_060", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_062", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Is that so even after the ticket is issued?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [469.236], "stop_times": [471.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.236}, "reply_to": "20842__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_063", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Unless the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [471.249], "stop_times": [475.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.249}, "reply_to": "20842__0_062", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_064", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "You'd say the officer is still in control and the person can't leave, even after he gives him a final ticket?\nThey're still standing there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [475.331, 480.506], "stop_times": [480.506, 481.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 475.331}, "reply_to": "20842__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_065", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [481.325], "stop_times": [481.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.325}, "reply_to": "20842__0_064", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_066", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Is the officer in control?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [481.956], "stop_times": [482.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.956}, "reply_to": "20842__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_067", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--If the officer... if the officer gives him the final ticket, and that is the last thing that has to do with the business of the traffic stop, and nothing further has happened to give the officer any more justification to hold him, then the person is free to go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [482.858], "stop_times": [495.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.858}, "reply_to": "20842__0_066", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_068", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And the officer isn't in control in that sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [495.466], "stop_times": [497.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.466}, "reply_to": "20842__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_069", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, that's correct, and the question, if the person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [497.836], "stop_times": [500.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.836}, "reply_to": "20842__0_068", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_070", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But he's not free to go when all that's been issued is a warning, is that what you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [500.818], "stop_times": [507.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.818}, "reply_to": "20842__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__0_071", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--If all he's been issued is a warning, and the officer is still acting in such a way to cause this person to believe that his continued presence is required, that he can't leave, then he is detained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [507.493], "stop_times": [519.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.493}, "reply_to": "20842__0_070", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_072", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, so was Robinette still detained here, after the warning was issued?\nHe was not free to go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [519.4, 526.918], "stop_times": [526.918, 528.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.4}, "reply_to": "20842__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__0_073", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "He was free to go when the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [528.37], "stop_times": [530.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.37}, "reply_to": "20842__0_072", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_074", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But that contradicts what you've been saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [530.531], "stop_times": [532.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.531}, "reply_to": "20842__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__0_075", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--He was... I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nHe was free to go in this case when the warning was issued, and when the police officer gave him back his driver's license.\nIn fact, at the suppression hearing he testified that at that point, when the officer then asked him, did you believe you were free to go at that point, he said yes, I did, and he answered that way twice under exam/cross-examination, so not only is their objective, from looking at the video tape evidence, that the officer did nothing coercive, this person himself testified that he believed at that point he was free to go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [532.514, 534.274, 540.539], "stop_times": [534.274, 540.539, 566.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.514}, "reply_to": "20842__0_074", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_076", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Was he--\n--Can we go back a little bit in time, because the Ohio supreme court, which is the one thing that we have before us, seemed to say that the lawful stop had ended before the officer commanded Robinette to get out of the car.\nUnder the Ohio supreme court's opinion, once the police office checked Robinette's license, every aspect of the speeding violation had been investigated and resolved.\nThese are the words of the Ohio supreme court.\nHence, the Ohio supreme court concluded that the detention stopped being lawful and became unlawful when the officer commanded Robinette to get out of the car.\nIs that not an accurate statement of what the Ohio supreme court said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [566.427, 568.077, 586.909, 599.827, 601.74, 616.152], "stop_times": [568.077, 586.909, 599.827, 601.74, 616.152, 621.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.427}, "reply_to": "20842__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__0_077", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Your Honor, that's an accurate statement of the text of the opinion.\nHowever, in Ohio--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [621.725, 626.106], "stop_times": [626.106, 627.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.725}, "reply_to": "20842__0_076", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_078", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "It's the syllabus that counts, and isn't that an accurate statement of the first point in the syliabus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [627.488], "stop_times": [632.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.488}, "reply_to": "20842__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__0_079", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it isn't.\nThe first syllabus depends on the resolution of the question of what is continued detention, and if this Court... and is based and relies on the Court's holding that unless these words are spoken, detention will be presumed, so if this Court were to rule in my favor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [632.491, 634.331], "stop_times": [634.331, 653.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.491}, "reply_to": "20842__0_078", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_080", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But that's the second point in the syllabus.\nThe first point says nothing about the... the first point just says that the detention... the extension of the detention was illegal.\nThere's nothing in that at all in that first point about the warning that you are legally free to go.\nThat doesn't come up until point 2.\nThe first point in the syllabus seems just to consolidate the first part of the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [653.065, 655.399, 669.711, 678.515, 680.317], "stop_times": [655.399, 669.711, 678.515, 680.317, 689.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.065}, "reply_to": "20842__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__0_081", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Your Honor, the first... the first syllabus is, I would submit is an accurate statement of the law.\nHowever, the... and to the extent that you're looking to the text of the opinion, I would say that in Ohio the syllabus states the holding of the court on the facts arising from the case.\nThat's the holding of the court.\nWhat is in the opinion is simply the opinion of the writer or the author of the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [689.834, 695.819, 707.369, 708.558], "stop_times": [695.819, 707.369, 708.558, 715.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.834}, "reply_to": "20842__0_080", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_082", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Suppose this opinion just stopped, the syllabus just stopped with point 1.\nThe point 2 is not necessary to the decision.\nThey're alternatives, aren't they?\nSuppose the decision had stopped with point 1, then the second question is academic, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [715.273, 719.407, 724.83, 726.543], "stop_times": [719.407, 724.83, 726.543, 734.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.273}, "reply_to": "20842__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__0_083", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "No, Your Honor, because point 1 is necessarily included in point 2.\nPoint 1 talks about continued detention, and in order to determine what the Ohio supreme court is talking about under the Fourth Amendment when they talk about continued detention, you look to point 2 and see that there's continued detention.\nWe're going to presume that further cooperation is voluntary if the officer has not given this warning, so when that... when you understand what... when it's clear what they're talking about in regard to the second for detention--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [734.026, 737.489, 751.029], "stop_times": [737.489, 751.029, 766.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.026}, "reply_to": "20842__0_082", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_084", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, why would one make that assumption when reading the court's own account of it?\nIt's one thing to say only the syllabus states the law, but another thing to say is, we're going to put on the that statement in the syllabus something different than the Ohio supreme court's explanation of the statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [766.67, 773.876], "stop_times": [773.876, 787.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.67}, "reply_to": "20842__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__0_085", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--But Your Honor, as this Court has noted in several cases, while the... the opinion itself is simply dicta, because the text of the syllabus is what the Court holds is the law of the case, and that what is contained in the opinion is simply the... must be viewed simply as the view of the author of the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [787.423], "stop_times": [810.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.423}, "reply_to": "20842__0_084", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_086", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Isn't it the... in Ohio isn't it the case that if there's thought to be ambiguity in the syllabus you can turn to the opinion to interpret one... to give one or another meeting to a syllabus paragraph?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [810.431], "stop_times": [823.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 810.431}, "reply_to": "20842__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__0_087", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but my position is, is there is no ambiguity in syllabus 1, because it's a correct statement of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [823.029], "stop_times": [831.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.029}, "reply_to": "20842__0_086", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_088", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But if you go on with the Ohio supreme court's opinion, before they get to this business about a warning they say, even assuming Newsome's detention of Robinette was legal throughout the time when Newsome handed back Robinette his driver's license.\nThe first part of the opinion says it wasn't a legal detention, and then it goes on, even if it was legal, there had to be a warning.\nSo the first part seems to say the detention, once the police officer satisfied himself with the license check, was unlawful, period, and then we go on to, but even if it was lawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [831.076, 847.246, 856.442], "stop_times": [847.246, 856.442, 871.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.076}, "reply_to": "20842__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__0_089", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Your Honor, once again I'd ask you to look at the language of the continued detention, and I don't think you can understand that separately from the definition, or the presumption of detention and lack of cooperation given in the second.\nNow, if this Court were to hold against me... I'm sorry, hold for me on the second proposition of law, and remand the case to the Ohio supreme court with instructions to decide the case using the totality of the circumstances test, then using the totality of the circumstances test, and in view of the first syllabus, I would either win the case or lose the case, but I would lose it on the right standard.\nThey would be saying, here's how we decide when detention occurs.\nWe're not thinking about continued detention because of a failure of warning.\nWe're going to look at the totality of the circumstances, and a court could either--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [871.331, 890.536, 912.388, 916.872, 920.185], "stop_times": [890.536, 912.388, 916.872, 920.185, 924.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.331}, "reply_to": "20842__0_088", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_090", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, what about Ohio's position that the continued detention was after the license check?\nOnce the license check was done under this first heading, that was the end of the lawful detention, so that according to the Ohio supreme court's explanation of what that first paragraph is about, from the time the officer goes back to the car and tells Robinette to get out, the detention was unlawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [924.128, 932.664], "stop_times": [932.664, 955.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.128}, "reply_to": "20842__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__0_091", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Your Honor, that's... the court was wrong in that that violates Pennsylvania v. Mimms and this Court's decision in Wren v. United States, but the Ohio supreme court... and additionally the Ohio supreme court has always held that the protections afforded by it search and seizure provision are the same as afforded under the Fourth Amendment.\nIn fact, it held that back in March 1966 in a case called State Ex Rel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [955.117, 974.69], "stop_times": [974.69, 980.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.117}, "reply_to": "20842__0_090", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_092", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, but may I ask two questions.\nFirst, this is different from Mimms, because Mimms was a lawful detention.\nHe got out... ordered him out of the car during a lawful detention.\nHere, as I understand the first paragraph of the syllabus, it was an unlawful detention after the purpose of... purpose of the custody had terminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [980.282, 981.854, 985.397, 988.56], "stop_times": [981.854, 985.397, 988.56, 997.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.282}, "reply_to": "20842__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__0_093", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--But Your Honor, at that point when he ordered him out of the car he hadn't even... he hadn't even talked to him about speeding and he hadn't given him the lecture.\nThe Ohio supreme court also has determined that the officer's subjective... in line with this Court's decision in Wren v. United States has also held that the officer's subjective state of mind doesn't enter into a reasonableness determination.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [997.245, 1004.81, 1019.661], "stop_times": [1004.81, 1019.661, 1021.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 997.245}, "reply_to": "20842__0_092", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_094", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, let me put the second question.\nDo you just take issue with the first paragraph of the Ohio supreme court syllabus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1021.741, 1024.272], "stop_times": [1024.272, 1028.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.741}, "reply_to": "20842__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__0_095", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--No, I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1028.767], "stop_times": [1029.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.767}, "reply_to": "20842__0_094", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_096", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "You agree that's a correct statement of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1029.338], "stop_times": [1030.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.338}, "reply_to": "20842__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__0_097", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "It's a correct statement of law, but I don't believe... but I do not believe that if the Court were to agree with me on the second, or disagree with, that that would not... that that would determine the outcome of the case, or that I would still lose in Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1030.92], "stop_times": [1043.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.92}, "reply_to": "20842__0_096", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_098", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, is it not true that we could answer the question presented in the certiorari petition in your favor and still affirm the judgment of the court of... of the supreme court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1043.887], "stop_times": [1052.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1043.887}, "reply_to": "20842__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__0_099", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I would say you could do that if you would... if you would affirm... resolve the second... the question presented in my favor, do a... perform totality of the circumstances analysis, and conclude that the detention was lawful and that the consent was voluntary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1052.382], "stop_times": [1069.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.382}, "reply_to": "20842__0_098", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_100", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But you say the totality of the circumstances analysis has to be performed somewhere, either in this Court or the supreme court of Ohio?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1069.525], "stop_times": [1076.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.525}, "reply_to": "20842__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__0_101", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That's exactly right, Your Honor, and I think that should the Court... should the Court advise the Ohio supreme court or reverse the Ohio supreme court and hold that the totality of the circumstances test is appropriate, whether there's a bright line rule, then if this Court were to look at the totality of the circumstances or to remand, I would either... I... the evidence would be such that even under... it would offer an explanation of what continued detention means under the first syllabus and a review of all the facts and circumstances would indicate that, in this case, where he admitted that he knew he was free to go and that video tape reveals no coercion, that this person was not detained and consented voluntarily.\nYour Honor, if I may, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1076.819, 1120.82], "stop_times": [1120.82, 1125.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.819}, "reply_to": "20842__0_100", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__0_102", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Very well, Ms. Ingram.\nMr. Gornstein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1125.232, 1126.383], "stop_times": [1126.383, 1128.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.232}, "reply_to": "20842__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__1_000", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Ohio supreme court held that the Fourth Amendment categorically requires an officer who has stopped a motorist to inform the motorist that he is legally free to leave before any interaction between them can be viewed as consensual.\nOur position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1128.645, 1145.427, 1160.066], "stop_times": [1145.427, 1160.066, 1161.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1128.645}, "reply_to": "20842__0_102", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_001", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Supposing we disagree with that holding, is it nevertheless true that we might affirm the judgment in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1161.456], "stop_times": [1166.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.456}, "reply_to": "20842__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_002", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I think that you should not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1166.659], "stop_times": [1168.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1166.659}, "reply_to": "20842__1_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_003", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I understand that, but is it legal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1168.402], "stop_times": [1170.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.402}, "reply_to": "20842__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_004", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--It is possible, if you concluded that on the totality of the circumstances in this case the respondent would not have felt free to leave in light of the officer's conduct in this case, you could affirm the judgment.\nWe would suggest that you go on and conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, that he was free to leave at that point in time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1170.602, 1182.57], "stop_times": [1182.57, 1190.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1170.602}, "reply_to": "20842__1_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_005", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Why would we make that judgment?\nIsn't that a judgment that the Ohio supreme court seems to have made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1190.567, 1195.34], "stop_times": [1195.34, 1200.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.567}, "reply_to": "20842__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__1_006", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "The Ohio supreme court, itself, has not made that judgment except based on the free-to-leave warning rule which appears in the syllabus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1200.555], "stop_times": [1211.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1200.555}, "reply_to": "20842__1_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_007", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Which appears in the opinion after it had made the other judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1211.864], "stop_times": [1215.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.864}, "reply_to": "20842__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_008", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But the first point in the syllabus presupposes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1215.417], "stop_times": [1223.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1215.417}, "reply_to": "20842__1_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_009", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Where are you reading from, Mr. Gornstein?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1223.292], "stop_times": [1224.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.292}, "reply_to": "20842__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__1_010", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--This is from App 1 in the petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1224.344], "stop_times": [1226.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1224.344}, "reply_to": "20842__1_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_011", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1226.945], "stop_times": [1227.195], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.945}, "reply_to": "20842__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20842__1_012", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "It says, when the motivation behind a police officer's continued detention of a person is not related to the purpose of the violation, so that presupposes a continued detention and that it's not related to the violation.\nNow, nothing in that tells you when the court as a whole concluded that those two things were true, and I would suggest that you should look not at what the opinion writer said... he gave several different points in which the opinion writer concluded that there was a continued detention and that there was conduct unrelated to the violation going on, and the only thing the court said appears in number 2, syllabus 2, which when you put the two together, I think the only holding of the court is there was continued detention at the time the consent was sought because of the failure to give the free-to-leave warning, and that questioning was unrelated to the violation.\nI think when you look at the first point, it would... the opinion writer's view is flawed for two reasons, and that is, 1) he relies on the motivation of the officer, which under this Court's decision in Wren is simply incorrect, it's an objective test, and the second point is, at the point in time at which the officer ordered the respondent out of the car, he had not yet issued a warning, he had not yet returned a license, so it simply is not true that the business of the traffic stop had been completed at that point.\nI think what the Ohio supreme court opinion writer was suggesting was that the officer was required to reach into the car and to give back the license and to say, here's your warning, rather than order the person out of the car for those purposes, but I think under this Court's decision in Mimms, it is very clear that an officer can do those two things outside the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1227.195, 1241.995, 1282.713, 1320.117], "stop_times": [1241.995, 1282.713, 1320.117, 1344.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1227.195}, "reply_to": "20842__1_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_013", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, he didn't order him out of the car for those purposes.\nI think it's conceded, it's not in controversy, is it, that he ordered him out of the car so he could turn on the video tape in the police officer's car and have a video tape of what next transpired?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1344.763, 1346.714], "stop_times": [1346.714, 1362.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.763}, "reply_to": "20842__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__1_014", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That is correct, but as I was just saying, Justice Ginsburg, it does not matter under the Fourth Amendment what the officer's subjective motivation was, it is what is a reasonable conduct under the circumstances, and under this Court's decision in Mimms, as long as the business of that traffic stop was not completed, a reasonable officer can order a person out of the car to issue the warning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1362.435], "stop_times": [1388.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1362.435}, "reply_to": "20842__1_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_015", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "What is your recollection of the Mimms rationale for saying the officer had that authority?\nIt had nothing to do with giving warnings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1388.582, 1392.095], "stop_times": [1392.095, 1395.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.582}, "reply_to": "20842__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_016", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Well, it had to do with officer safety.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1395.147], "stop_times": [1397.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1395.147}, "reply_to": "20842__1_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_017", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Right.\nWas officer safety implicated here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1397.44, 1398.029], "stop_times": [1398.029, 1400.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.44}, "reply_to": "20842__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_018", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I think that what Mimms says is that officer safety is categorically implicated every time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1400.232], "stop_times": [1405.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1400.232}, "reply_to": "20842__1_017", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_019", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Even when the officer just wants to give the guy a lecture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1405.999], "stop_times": [1408.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.999}, "reply_to": "20842__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_020", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1408.299], "stop_times": [1409.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1408.299}, "reply_to": "20842__1_019", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_021", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That's what's involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1409.649], "stop_times": [1410.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.649}, "reply_to": "20842__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_022", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Well, every time the officer wants to have interaction with a motorist, he can take into account his safety, yes, that a reasonable officer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1410.961], "stop_times": [1419.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1410.961}, "reply_to": "20842__1_021", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_023", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And Wren would say even if he doesn't himself subjectively take into account his safety, if that is an objective reason, that's enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1419.478], "stop_times": [1427.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.478}, "reply_to": "20842__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__1_024", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Rehnquist.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1427.804, 1429.456], "stop_times": [1429.456, 1430.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1427.804}, "reply_to": "20842__1_023", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_025", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But I thought it was on the record objective, the reason that he had Robinette get out of the car was he wanted to video tape their ensuing conversation, which was not going to be related to the traffic stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1430.267], "stop_times": [1443.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.267}, "reply_to": "20842__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__1_026", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--But Justice Ginsburg, the... that was what the officer said he wanted to, but the question is, what could a reasonable officer have done in those circumstances where the business of the traffic stop was not yet completed, and a reasonable officer can take into account safety in issuing the warning and giving the lecture and returning the license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1443.004], "stop_times": [1464.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1443.004}, "reply_to": "20842__1_025", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_027", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mr.--\n--Mr. Gornstein, do you know whether the Ohio supreme court has had a repeat of this holding, and if so, has it used the Fourth Amendment in addition to the State constitution?\nHas there been another holding about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1464.679, 1465.1, 1478.509], "stop_times": [1465.1, 1478.509, 1480.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.679}, "reply_to": "20842__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__1_028", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I am not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1480.071], "stop_times": [1480.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1480.071}, "reply_to": "20842__1_027", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_029", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--bright line test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1480.522], "stop_times": [1481.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.522}, "reply_to": "20842__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__1_030", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I am not familiar with any additional holding, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1481.471], "stop_times": [1484.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1481.471}, "reply_to": "20842__1_029", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_031", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, just so I understand your argument, you were saying that all of the reasons why there was continuing detention set forth in the opinion as opposed to the one perhaps set forth in number 2 of the syllabus are all invalid reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1484.683], "stop_times": [1505.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.683}, "reply_to": "20842__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__1_032", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1505.657], "stop_times": [1506.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1505.657}, "reply_to": "20842__1_031", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_033", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And so it's either... it's either part 2 of the appendix or nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1506.959], "stop_times": [1513.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.959}, "reply_to": "20842__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__1_034", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1513.724], "stop_times": [1515.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1513.724}, "reply_to": "20842__1_033", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_035", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Of the syllabus or nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1515.226], "stop_times": [1518.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.226}, "reply_to": "20842__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__1_036", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Correct.\nThe reason that the Ohio supreme court's per se test should be rejected, for three reasons.\nFirst, this Court has in a wide variety of contexts decided whether there is a Fourth Amendment seizure based on the totality of the circumstances.\nThe relevant inquiry has always been whether under the totality of the circumstances an officer's conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not free to leave.\nThat is the test that has been applied in street encounters, in airports, on buses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1518.418, 1518.887, 1527.174, 1537.752, 1548.922], "stop_times": [1518.887, 1527.174, 1537.752, 1548.922, 1554.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1518.418}, "reply_to": "20842__1_035", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_037", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And under that test, is his testimony he thought he was free to leave therefore irrelevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1554.475], "stop_times": [1558.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.475}, "reply_to": "20842__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_038", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I don't think it is entirely irrelevant, Justice Stevens.\nI think in this case an admission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1558.889, 1561.333], "stop_times": [1561.333, 1564.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1558.889}, "reply_to": "20842__1_037", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_039", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "His subjective motivation is relevant, but the officer's subjective motivation is not relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1564.705], "stop_times": [1569.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.705}, "reply_to": "20842__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_040", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Well, it tends to show whether... it's of some relevance, but then you have to go on from there and examine whether... what a reasonable officer would do.\nIt is not dispositive.\nSimilarly, the cases here, what this particular person thought is of some relevance.\nYou still then have to go on and conclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1569.451, 1579.267, 1580.739, 1586.034], "stop_times": [1579.267, 1580.739, 1586.034, 1588.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1569.451}, "reply_to": "20842__1_039", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_041", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, similarly, then, is what this particular officer thought of some relevance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1588.696], "stop_times": [1592.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.696}, "reply_to": "20842__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_042", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--It is of some relevance, but it ends up being--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1592.46], "stop_times": [1594.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1592.46}, "reply_to": "20842__1_041", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_043", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Not controlling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1594.233], "stop_times": [1595.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.233}, "reply_to": "20842__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__1_044", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Not dispositive, because a reasonable officer could always conclude that it is reasonable to order somebody out of the car when you're going to have interaction and you haven't completed the work of the stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1595.412], "stop_times": [1605.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1595.412}, "reply_to": "20842__1_043", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_045", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Is there any difference between a consensual encounter, where the person has never been under detention, and a case where there has been a detention and then it's asserted that the detention ended and the rest was consensual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1605.26], "stop_times": [1625.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.26}, "reply_to": "20842__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__1_046", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I would say that you apply the same totality of the circumstances test, but of course, in applying that test, you take into account in deciding whether at a later point in time something is consensual or a seizure, that at an earlier point in time there was a seizure.\nThat is a relevant factor in deciding, but it does not change the ultimate inquiry, which is whether on the totality of the circumstances at the later point in time the officer's conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not free to leave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1625.051, 1641.594], "stop_times": [1641.594, 1656.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1625.051}, "reply_to": "20842__1_045", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_047", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, maybe... maybe we should adopt a new rule that in addition to when you're still in custody, there's another situation in which things have to be made absolutely clear, and that is, when your denial of permission for a search may impose upon you some sanction that otherwise wouldn't be imposed.\nI mean, there is the suggestion here that even if this person was no longer under custody, his saying no to the search of his car might have produced a traffic ticket.\nI agree, it's... I would have taken the traffic ticket rather than the conviction for marijuana, but does that coercion invalidate the search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1656.714, 1681.829, 1697.811], "stop_times": [1681.829, 1697.811, 1710.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.714}, "reply_to": "20842__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__1_048", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "It does not, because that is not anything that the officer said or communicated to this particular individual, and that is the test for deciding whether there is coercion in... for purposes of whether a search should be invalidated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1710.129], "stop_times": [1725.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1710.129}, "reply_to": "20842__1_047", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20842__1_049", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Ruppert, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1725.009, 1726.681], "stop_times": [1726.681, 1730.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.009}, "reply_to": "20842__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__2_000", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, if it please the Court:\nBefore I discuss specifically the merits of the case, if I might I'd like to approach a ground which we think would be dispositive of the case, and that is whether the writ should be dismissed for having been improvidently granted.\nThe reason for the position is twofold.\nNumber 1, it is clear that if there are adequate and independent State grounds for the decision of the State's highest court that that situation, when confronted by this Court, is such that the Court will generally not review the case, and we believe that is the case here.\nThe second syllabus starts, the right guaranteed by the Federal and high Constitution to be secure in one's person and property requires the citizen stopped for traffic offenses be clearly informed when they are free to go.\nUnder the law in Ohio, the supreme court has recognized its own inherent power.\nIt did that in Arnold v. Cleveland, where it indicated that the Ohio constitution is a document of independent force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1730.235, 1736.699, 1750.757, 1754.32, 1778.125, 1794.778, 1801.912], "stop_times": [1736.699, 1750.757, 1754.32, 1778.125, 1794.778, 1801.912, 1809.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.235}, "reply_to": "20842__1_049", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_001", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well now, Mr. Ruppert, as I recall, the Ohio supreme court appeared to be interpreting Federal law here, and cited a number of Federal cases, and in general Ohio has followed the Federal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, isn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1809.919], "stop_times": [1836.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.919}, "reply_to": "20842__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__2_002", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I would agree that in some cases, but the Ohio court has also recognized its inherent power to reject--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1836.976], "stop_times": [1843.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.976}, "reply_to": "20842__2_001", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_003", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, there's no question that Ohio could adopt this per se rule as a matter of Ohio law if it wants to, but unless it's clear from the face of the opinion that it has rejected the Federal rule and is adopting something as a matter of State law only, under Michigan v. Long we assume that it's interwoven with Federal law and we have jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1843.741], "stop_times": [1868.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.741}, "reply_to": "20842__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__2_004", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1868.769], "stop_times": [1869.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1868.769}, "reply_to": "20842__2_003", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_005", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I think your position would require us to reject or overturn Michigan v. Long.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1869.63], "stop_times": [1875.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.63}, "reply_to": "20842__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__2_006", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I don't think so in my first analysis, Justice O'Connor, and my reason for saying that is when one looks at the syllabus, which indicates the right which the court is addressing is guaranteed by the Federal and Ohio constitution.\nUnder Ohio law, under Williamson Heater Company, that's cited in the brief, the syllabus of the decision of the Ohio supreme court states the law of Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1875.672, 1889.302], "stop_times": [1889.302, 1898.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.672}, "reply_to": "20842__2_005", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_007", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But Mr. Ruppert, in Michigan v. Long we talked about opinions of State courts, not syllabi, and although Ohio may have a special rule as to the holding of its court, I think Michigan v. Long would require us to look at the opinion rather than just the syllabus to decide whether the Michigan v. Long test is satisfied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1898.559], "stop_times": [1918.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.559}, "reply_to": "20842__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__2_008", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I would agree with the Chief Justice that would be appropriate, Your Honor.\nThere is an issue concerning Michigan v. Long, given subsequent cases that arose.\nColeman v. Thompson and Ylst v. Nunnemaker, decided by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1918.841, 1925.056, 1931.44], "stop_times": [1925.056, 1931.44, 1935.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.841}, "reply_to": "20842__2_007", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_009", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Ylst.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1935.854], "stop_times": [1936.334], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.854}, "reply_to": "20842__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20842__2_010", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Ylst v. Nunnemaker, yes, Mr. Chief Justice, and it indicated... the Court's review of the cases in that seemed to indicate that a rebuttable presumption might be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1936.334], "stop_times": [1948.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.334}, "reply_to": "20842__2_009", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_011", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "It's your position that if the Ohio supreme court says, we are basing our interpretation of the Ohio constitution's unreasonable searches and seizure provision upon the interpretation the Supreme Court of the United States has given to the Federal provision, but it is nonetheless an independent provision of the Ohio constitution, you think that's enough to get around Michigan v. Long?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1948.513], "stop_times": [1972.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.513}, "reply_to": "20842__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_012", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That is my position, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1972.769], "stop_times": [1974.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1972.769}, "reply_to": "20842__2_011", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_013", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, I don't think it's ours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1974.249], "stop_times": [1975.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.249}, "reply_to": "20842__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_014", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1975.271], "stop_times": [1975.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1975.271}, "reply_to": "20842__2_013", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_015", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I think our cases indicate that if you're basing your interpretation of State law upon the Federal Constitution, even though you say it's a separate provision of State law, the issue is not whether it's a separate provision of State law, it's whether your interpretation of it rests upon this Court's interpretation of the Federal Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1975.892], "stop_times": [1993.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.892}, "reply_to": "20842__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_016", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I understood that, Justice Scalia.\nMy own interpretation, in terms of analyzing the case, was that if this Court acts and based upon syllabus number 2, if this Court would, for example, determine the Ohio court was in error under the Federal Constitution, the result under the Ohio constitution would not change, and this Court's opinion would be in advisory in nature--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [1993.473, 1995.135], "stop_times": [1995.135, 2015.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.473}, "reply_to": "20842__2_015", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_017", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Mr. Ruppert--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2015.699], "stop_times": [2016.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.699}, "reply_to": "20842__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__2_018", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--with regard to that State ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2016.571], "stop_times": [2017.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.571}, "reply_to": "20842__2_017", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_019", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--do you... would you answer the question I asked Mr. Gornstein any differently?\nHas there... have there been any subsequent decisions in Ohio that place this warning solely on the Ohio constitution rather than on both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2017.322, 2022.264], "stop_times": [2022.264, 2032.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.322}, "reply_to": "20842__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20842__2_020", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "There are no cases, Justice Ginsburg, that I have located that predicate its decision solely upon the Ohio case law.\nLooking at the merits of the case, obviously the issues that the supreme court confronted were significant in terms of its citizens in Ohio, and the backdrop of the case is extremely important, because the Court of Appeals of the Second District, that reviewed this case initially, indicated that it was adopting its holding and its opinion in State v. Rutherford, which was another case involving the same deputy, and what the Ohio court was confronted with, and what gave rise to this significant issue, was that the officer in that case, Deputy Newsome, who is the same officer in this case, indicated that in the year Mr. Robinette was stopped he had obtained consent searches in 786 cases.\nThat's one officer in one county in the State of Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2032.832, 2041.788, 2091.029], "stop_times": [2041.788, 2091.029, 2093.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.832}, "reply_to": "20842__2_019", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_021", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, good for him, so long as he hasn't violated the Federal Constitution.\nI mean, the fact that it's effective doesn't show that it's unlawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2093.761, 2097.745], "stop_times": [2097.745, 2101.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.761}, "reply_to": "20842__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_022", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I would agree with that, Justice Scalia.\nWhat it does raise, however, are two significant points which the supreme court was concerned about.\nThat's one officer in one county, which certainly could indicate that this same practice is affecting Ohio citizens and other citizens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2101.188, 2103.531, 2109.357], "stop_times": [2103.531, 2109.357, 2118.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.188}, "reply_to": "20842__2_021", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_023", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "What county was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2118.361], "stop_times": [2119.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.361}, "reply_to": "20842__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__2_024", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your... Mr. Chief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2119.202], "stop_times": [2121.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.202}, "reply_to": "20842__2_023", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_025", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "What county was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2121.386], "stop_times": [2122.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.386}, "reply_to": "20842__2_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__2_026", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--That was Montgomery County, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2122.835], "stop_times": [2124.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.835}, "reply_to": "20842__2_025", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_027", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2124.348], "stop_times": [2124.548], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.348}, "reply_to": "20842__2_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20842__2_028", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Dayton, Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2124.548], "stop_times": [2125.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.548}, "reply_to": "20842__2_027", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_029", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Dayton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2125.059], "stop_times": [2125.389], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.059}, "reply_to": "20842__2_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20842__2_030", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "So the Court was concerned that this may literally be involving thousands of motorists.\nSecondly, the fact that the officer indicated that in all cases in which he sought a search, he got consent to search, would simply indicate to the court in its facing the problem that perhaps motorists do not realize that they do not have the liberty of refusing consent to search, so it is significant data, and there is very little other data that's available, no record to tell us how many innocent citizens are stopped, are subjected to search, and how that impacts not only citizens of Ohio but citizens of other States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2125.389, 2131.644], "stop_times": [2131.644, 2168.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.389}, "reply_to": "20842__2_029", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_031", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, this fellow certainly wasn't innocent.\nHe was driving 69 miles an hour in a 45-mile-an-hour zone, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2168.499, 2170.39], "stop_times": [2170.39, 2174.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.499}, "reply_to": "20842__2_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__2_032", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThere's no question that he violated the statute and the stop was appropriate.\nWhat is important when the court looked at this case is that it is clear from the record in this case that the deputy had indicated that he in fact had determined in his own mind that he was going to give a warning and nothing more, and he made that determination after he obtained the driver's license and before he ever removed Mr. Robinette from the vehicle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2174.894, 2176.757, 2182.553], "stop_times": [2176.757, 2182.553, 2206.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.894}, "reply_to": "20842__2_031", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_033", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "So you agree that the criterion for deciding what he could and couldn't do, what was lawful, what was unlawful, was not his subjective determination, but an objective assessment of the facts.\nYou agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2206.188, 2220.029], "stop_times": [2220.029, 2220.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.188}, "reply_to": "20842__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20842__2_034", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "What the officer could do would be an objective determination.\nWhat the facts are in this case, which the Supreme Court is looking at to make its judgment on, is subjective in nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2220.941, 2225.192], "stop_times": [2225.192, 2233.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.941}, "reply_to": "20842__2_033", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_035", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But the subjective fact is not dispositive.\nYou agree with that, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2233.379, 2235.16], "stop_times": [2235.16, 2236.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.379}, "reply_to": "20842__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20842__2_036", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I would agree that the subjective fact itself is not dispositive of the broader issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2236.732], "stop_times": [2240.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.732}, "reply_to": "20842__2_035", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_037", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Okay.\nAnd also, in cases where we've been trying to determine for Fourth Amendment purposes at what point a seizure occurs, have we not looked at the totality of the circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2240.936, 2241.233], "stop_times": [2241.233, 2255.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.936}, "reply_to": "20842__2_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__2_038", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2255.935], "stop_times": [2257.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.935}, "reply_to": "20842__2_037", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_039", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And why shouldn't the converse be true when we're looking to determine when a seizure has ended?\nWhy wouldn't we look again at the totality of the circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2257.415, 2264.07], "stop_times": [2264.07, 2268.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.415}, "reply_to": "20842__2_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__2_040", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I would believe that under the Ohio court opinion that they did not discard the totality of circumstances, because the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2268.943], "stop_times": [2275.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.943}, "reply_to": "20842__2_039", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_041", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, do you think that's the proper rule, then, look to the totality of the circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2275.318], "stop_times": [2279.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2275.318}, "reply_to": "20842__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__2_042", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I think that the totality of circumstances rule is fine in search and seizure cases.\nThis Court's... the Ohio court's opinion did not intend, nor does it suggest that it's going to supplant that.\nThe Ohio--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2279.471, 2284.395, 2290.839], "stop_times": [2284.395, 2290.839, 2292.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.471}, "reply_to": "20842__2_041", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_043", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, it certainly looks like it to me, as I read paragraph 2 of the syllabus, accompanied by the opinion.\nThey appear to have engrafted on it a per se rule in determining when a seizure ends, that you have to have a warning.\nNow, I thought in general we would look to the totality of the circumstances.\nNow, maybe we would end up with the same result here.\nI don't know.\nNobody applied that test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2292.33, 2298.374, 2305.9, 2311.845, 2314.045, 2315.037], "stop_times": [2298.374, 2305.9, 2311.845, 2314.045, 2315.037, 2316.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.33}, "reply_to": "20842__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20842__2_044", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Well, as this Court said, Justice O'Connor, in Florida v. Royer, in that opinion the Court addressed one of the issues in regard to that was an unlawful detention, and therefore any consent obtained was invalid, but the Court indicated in that opinion very similar to what the Ohio court rationalized, and that is that all that would have been necessary for the officer to do is return the driver's license and the ticket, and advise Mr. Royer that he was free to go.\nThat is in the language of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2316.63, 2348.68], "stop_times": [2348.68, 2350.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.63}, "reply_to": "20842__2_043", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_045", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But the difference between the Royer opinion, as I read it, and the supreme court of Ohio opinion here, is the Supreme Court opinion says in so many words we're laying down a per se rule, regardless of the circumstances, and Royer was a totality of the circumstances case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2350.8], "stop_times": [2366.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.8}, "reply_to": "20842__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__2_046", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I would agree with that, Mr. Chief Justice, it certainly was, and... but what the court has recognized here in light of the facts of this case and what's developed is, how does the citizen truly know when he can or cannot leave, when he can walk away, because part of the totality of the circumstance is an analysis of what is the citizen confirming, what is the officer doing, what is the citizen, or the motorist standing there, what understanding did he have of what is transpiring, and what the Ohio supreme court looks at is, attempting to provide at least some very minimal protection to the motorist who's confronted with the situation.\nBecause it is true that until the officer tells the motorist that he can leave, the average person would certainly not feel free to depart if the officer continues his discussion with him.\nHe's inquiring about where you've been and where you're going, and who's with you and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2366.821, 2409.27, 2419.796], "stop_times": [2409.27, 2419.796, 2427.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.821}, "reply_to": "20842__2_045", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_047", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--May I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2427.381], "stop_times": [2428.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.381}, "reply_to": "20842__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_048", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--the average person does not feel free--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2428.853], "stop_times": [2430.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.853}, "reply_to": "20842__2_047", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_049", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--May I ask you one question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2430.753], "stop_times": [2431.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.753}, "reply_to": "20842__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_050", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--while the officer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2431.694], "stop_times": [2432.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.694}, "reply_to": "20842__2_049", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_051", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Mr. Ruppert?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2432.055], "stop_times": [2432.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.055}, "reply_to": "20842__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_052", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2432.776], "stop_times": [2433.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.776}, "reply_to": "20842__2_051", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_053", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Refresh my recollection.\nDid the court of appeals, the intermediate court in Ohio, did thev decide that the detention continued without relying on any per se rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2433.527, 2434.779], "stop_times": [2434.779, 2446.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.527}, "reply_to": "20842__2_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_054", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, Justice Stevens.\nThe court of appeals opinion did not refer to any per se rule at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2446.246, 2448.396], "stop_times": [2448.396, 2452.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.246}, "reply_to": "20842__2_053", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_055", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Does that... is that holding entitled to any deference, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2452.72], "stop_times": [2456.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.72}, "reply_to": "20842__2_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_056", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "From the Ohio supreme court, or this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2456.963], "stop_times": [2461.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.963}, "reply_to": "20842__2_055", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_057", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "From a Federal court reviewing the results of a State criminal proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2461.326], "stop_times": [2466.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.326}, "reply_to": "20842__2_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_058", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "My understanding of this Court's opinion in Arnell is that that review would be de novo.\nIt certainly would be considered by the court, but the court is not... it's not necessary to give deference to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2466.439, 2471.825], "stop_times": [2471.825, 2481.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.439}, "reply_to": "20842__2_057", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_059", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And the other question I had, in your view that you... I know you argue the detention continued during the interrogation.\nIn your view, was that detention lawful or unlawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2481.121, 2487.545], "stop_times": [2487.545, 2490.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.121}, "reply_to": "20842__2_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_060", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--In my view the decention was unlawful, and the supreme court very precisely analyzed that issue.\nThe court pointed out that when Newscme returned to Robinette's vehicle, at... all aspects of the traffic stop had been concluded.\nHe had checked the license, it was valid, the registration was okay, he had already determined he was going to issue a warning, so he then went back, and the only reason, according to the record in this case and Deputy Newsome, for removing Robinette from his vehicle was for the purpose of placing him in front of the cruiser so that he could begin... then begin the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2490.947, 2498.882, 2513.993], "stop_times": [2498.882, 2513.993, 2534.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.947}, "reply_to": "20842__2_059", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_061", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "We've just gone around on that.\nThat has to do with his subjective intentions, and the issue was whether objectively an officer could have asked... he still had to issue the warning.\nHe hadn't issued the warning yet, had he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2534.345, 2536.718, 2546.846], "stop_times": [2536.718, 2546.846, 2548.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.345}, "reply_to": "20842__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_062", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--He had not issued the warning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2548.828], "stop_times": [2550.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.828}, "reply_to": "20842__2_061", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_063", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "He had determined he was going to issue a warning, but he hadn't issued it, and the question is whether, knowing there was still going to be interaction, a reasonable officer could have had the intention of having him exit the car just to be sure he wasn't armed.\nThat's perfectly okay.\nBut let... as I understand it, Mr. Ruppert, you are not contending that this is invalid because there was some coercion placed upon the motorist in his knowing that if he didn't allow the search he might get a traffic ticket instead of just a warning.\nThat's not in this case, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2550.529, 2564.658, 2567.162, 2588.086], "stop_times": [2564.658, 2567.162, 2588.086, 2589.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.529}, "reply_to": "20842__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_064", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I have no evidence of that, Your Honor.\nThat is an issue that obviously comes to mind, because the citizen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2589.118, 2590.269], "stop_times": [2590.269, 2595.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.118}, "reply_to": "20842__2_063", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_065", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But it's not in your question presented, and it's not before us, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2595.413], "stop_times": [2598.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.413}, "reply_to": "20842__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_066", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--It is... there isn't... there are no facts in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2598.705], "stop_times": [2600.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.705}, "reply_to": "20842__2_065", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_067", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But I thought there was a fact in the record.\nI thought he testified that in fact he did not feel that he could refuse the request for the search.\nIsn't that a relevant fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2600.798, 2602.451, 2610.197], "stop_times": [2602.451, 2610.197, 2611.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.798}, "reply_to": "20842__2_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20842__2_068", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Perhaps I misunderstood the import of Justice Scalia's question.\nIt is true that the record indicates that the first thing that happened was, he was asked, did you feel at the time that the officer gave you your license you were free to go?\nHe said yes, but the immediate conversation after that took place, and his response was that he was shocked when he was asked about drugs, or about, are you carrying any illegal contraband.\nThen the followup question to that was, do you mind if I searched?\nHe testified that he was shocked, and felt that he had no choice but to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2611.928, 2615.13, 2626.287, 2638.495, 2644.198], "stop_times": [2615.13, 2626.287, 2638.495, 2644.198, 2648.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.928}, "reply_to": "20842__2_067", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_069", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Did he say why he was shocked, in view of the fact that he did have drugs in the car?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2648.392, 2652.085], "stop_times": [2652.085, 2653.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.392}, "reply_to": "20842__2_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__2_070", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--He did not indicate why he said that he was shocked, Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice.\nHe simply indicated he was shocked when confronted with that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2653.494, 2659.299], "stop_times": [2659.299, 2662.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.494}, "reply_to": "20842__2_069", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_071", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well, Mr. Ruppert--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2662.822], "stop_times": [2663.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.822}, "reply_to": "20842__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_072", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Perhaps he didn't remember that he had a half a pill there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2663.553], "stop_times": [2666.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.553}, "reply_to": "20842__2_071", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_073", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Mr. Ruppert, your question presented still only presents the question of whether this transaction was unlawful because the detention hadn't concluded.\nIt doesn't raise the other question at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2666.305, 2679.194], "stop_times": [2679.194, 2680.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.305}, "reply_to": "20842__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_074", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nIt's just a very narrow decision by the Ohio supreme court.\nThe detention was unlawful, and any consent he had given was invalid as a result of the unlawful detention.\nIn fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2680.696, 2681.627, 2684.87, 2690.683], "stop_times": [2681.627, 2684.87, 2690.683, 2691.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.696}, "reply_to": "20842__2_073", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_075", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2691.964], "stop_times": [2692.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.964}, "reply_to": "20842__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20842__2_076", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--I'm sorry, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2692.495], "stop_times": [2694.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2692.495}, "reply_to": "20842__2_075", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_077", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--The trial judge looked at the tape and reached a conclusion in part on the basis of the tape.\nIs there anything that suggests whether or not the two appellate courts looked at the tape?\nI couldn't find anything in the opinion that said that they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2694.158, 2701.431, 2706.216], "stop_times": [2701.431, 2706.216, 2709.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.158}, "reply_to": "20842__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20842__2_078", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "The appellate court, I don't think it's clear.\nIt was... the tape was in the record.\nI do not specifically recall whether any specific comments that would indicate that they did look at the tape.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2709.328, 2713.969, 2715.591], "stop_times": [2713.969, 2715.591, 2721.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.328}, "reply_to": "20842__2_077", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_079", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "If that's so, I'm wondering if there's some deference due.\nThe tapes are awfully good checks against serious police abuse, very good checks.\nIs there any sense in deferring more to those judges who use them than those who don't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2721.866, 2725.968, 2732.842], "stop_times": [2725.968, 2732.842, 2740.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.866}, "reply_to": "20842__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20842__2_080", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I think that may provide some added assistance in reviewing the opinion for those judges who do.\nHowever, in the trial court's decision, the trial court never approached the issue of whether this was an unlawful detention.\nThat issue was not discussed by the trial judge.\nJustice... I think it was Justice Ginsburg that had asked earlier concerning the first syllabus in this case.\nSyllabus number 1 that appears in this case, neither the State nor the Government in its brief or in argument have contested syllabus number 1 which is before the Court, which clearly finds that there was an unlawful detention, and that any consent that was obtained from Mr. Robinette as a result of that unlawful detention cannot be upheld, since it is the product of that illegal detention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2740.807, 2748.334, 2757.352, 2759.843, 2768.509], "stop_times": [2748.334, 2757.352, 2759.843, 2768.509, 2805.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.807}, "reply_to": "20842__2_079", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_081", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, but the question is, why was the detention found to be illegal, and what the Government says is, there are only two alternatives, number 1 for the reasons set forth on the opinion, but both of those are on their face wrong under Federal law, or perhaps it was unlawful because of the reasons set forth in number 2 of the syllabus, and that's what we're debating about now, isn't it, whether the mere fact that the officer did not give notice that you were free to leave rendered it unlawful.\nAre you content to rest the debate on that, or do you think that we have to look somewhere else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2805.421, 2839.294], "stop_times": [2839.294, 2848.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.421}, "reply_to": "20842__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_082", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I think the only... I'm content with the issue as framed by the Justice.\nHowever, it is clear that, at least in my understanding of both Federal and Ohio law, that the syllabus, syllabus number 1 that directs itself to the unlawful detention, is in compliance with Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2848.33, 2854.235], "stop_times": [2854.235, 2873.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.33}, "reply_to": "20842__2_081", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_083", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "You still think that syllabus 1 could mean that the detention was unlawful for a reason that is neither set forth in the opinion nor is set forth in syllabus number 2?\nWe should read it that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2873.016, 2884.233], "stop_times": [2884.233, 2887.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2873.016}, "reply_to": "20842__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_084", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor, I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2887.164, 2887.625], "stop_times": [2887.625, 2888.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.164}, "reply_to": "20842__2_083", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_085", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2888.566], "stop_times": [2889.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.566}, "reply_to": "20842__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_086", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I don't mean to suggest that.\nThe... syllabus number 1 clearly rests upon the facts, as the high Supreme Court set forth in its opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2889.186, 2889.687], "stop_times": [2889.687, 2897.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2889.186}, "reply_to": "20842__2_085", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_087", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Well, not the facts.\nWhat principle of law do you think rendered the determination in syllabus number 1 that the detention was... had not ended?\nWhat principle of law was that based on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2897.213, 2898.205, 2908.853], "stop_times": [2898.205, 2908.853, 2912.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.213}, "reply_to": "20842__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_088", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "It was based upon the Terry analysis that the initial intrusion that was justified in the first instance had been... that there were no additional facts that expanded the scope of the basis for the original detention, and therefore the officer was... had exceeded permissible search as a result of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2912.797], "stop_times": [2938.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2912.797}, "reply_to": "20842__2_087", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_089", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I thought that what we're talking about is the duration of the detention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2938.463], "stop_times": [2944.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.463}, "reply_to": "20842__2_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20842__2_090", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I think one of the facts the supreme court looked at was the time.\nThat is, the time relationship between when the initial stop occurred and when the officer had completed his, and the subsequent events.\nThe Court also looked to the question of whether there were any intervening circumstances that impacted upon the officer's conduct, and finally looked at the conduct of the officer in terms of whether what were his specific actions, and was it flagrant and purposeful, and basically the analysis seemed to parallel this Court's analysis in the Royer case in viewing the conduct that was involved, and the Ohio supreme court specifically addressed the fact that once the officer had determined that in his mind all of the circumstances relating to the original purpose of the stop were completed, then one could not justify the subsequent actions that occurred.\nIt is basically respondent's position that what the Ohio supreme court attempted to do in reviewing the facts of this case was to provide some minimal protection that is available under the Fourth Amendment, and that's all they were trying to do.\nThe court does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [2944.186, 2948.41, 2956.887, 3001.785, 3025.841], "stop_times": [2948.41, 2956.887, 3001.785, 3025.841, 3027.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.186}, "reply_to": "20842__2_089", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_091", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "May I ask... I want to be sure about some facts.\nWhen exactly did the officer give him back the driver's license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3027.203, 3029.484], "stop_times": [3029.484, 3032.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.203}, "reply_to": "20842__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_092", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--After he removed him from the car and placed him in front of the cruiser, the officer then went to his cruiser, turned on the video, returned back, and then as he began talk to him, he handed his license--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3032.947], "stop_times": [3047.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.947}, "reply_to": "20842__2_091", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_093", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "After he had started questioning him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3047.297], "stop_times": [3048.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.297}, "reply_to": "20842__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_094", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--After he had started questioning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3048.869], "stop_times": [3050.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3048.869}, "reply_to": "20842__2_093", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_095", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And the dissenters on the court will say that that's the moment when he gave him the driver's license, that's when the detention ended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3050.437], "stop_times": [3055.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.437}, "reply_to": "20842__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_096", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3055.532], "stop_times": [3056.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.532}, "reply_to": "20842__2_095", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_097", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "So ordering him out of the car was part of the detention, and the first few questions were part of the detention, or at least... I don't know, just the first question or two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3056.073], "stop_times": [3064.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.073}, "reply_to": "20842__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_098", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Right.\nThat was the view of the dissent, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3064.22, 3064.571], "stop_times": [3064.571, 3066.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.22}, "reply_to": "20842__2_097", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_099", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3066.741], "stop_times": [3066.962], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.741}, "reply_to": "20842__2_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20842__2_100", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3066.962], "stop_times": [3067.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3066.962}, "reply_to": "20842__2_099", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_101", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "I guess that's the State's view here, too, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3067.67], "stop_times": [3070.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3067.67}, "reply_to": "20842__2_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__2_102", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Still... there still arises the issue of the officer's conduct behind that, and one of the things the Ohio supreme court was concerned about was the fact that while that is transpiring, that one follows the other.\nThere is no interval.\nThe officer didn't stop talking.\nHe hands him his license, and he's talking about, we've had some traffic accidents, and... but let me... before you get going let me ask you one other question.\nAnd then the subsequent sequence of events occurred.\nIt is respondent's position that under the Fourth Amendment the analysis that was entertained by the Ohio supreme court was an appropriate one.\nIt certainly is consistent with the authority of this Court on... under Fourth Amendment cases, and we would urge affirmance of the supreme court's decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3070.054, 3083.773, 3084.754, 3087.166, 3099.393, 3103.587, 3113.663], "stop_times": [3083.773, 3084.754, 3087.166, 3099.393, 3103.587, 3113.663, 3125.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3070.054}, "reply_to": "20842__2_101", "speaker": "james_d__ruppert"}
{"id": "20842__2_103", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ruppert.\nMs. Ingram, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3125.571, 3127.414], "stop_times": [3127.414, 3130.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3125.571}, "reply_to": "20842__2_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__3_000", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe State's position is that there's nothing so peculiar about a traffic stop that requires the imposition of a bright line threshold, and this is a threshold, not a test.\nIt's a burden without a benefit, because once that threshold is met of showing that these warnings were given, the analysis must proceed to whether or not, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a detention and consent was voluntary, so while it imposes the burdens of a bright line test, it doesn't afford the benefit of clarity or certainty that bright line tests normally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3130.205, 3133.079, 3141.416], "stop_times": [3133.079, 3141.416, 3162.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3130.205}, "reply_to": "20842__2_103", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__3_001", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Am I correct that you think the detention ended when the officer gave him the driver's license back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3162.7], "stop_times": [3167.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3162.7}, "reply_to": "20842__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__3_002", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3167.934], "stop_times": [3168.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3167.934}, "reply_to": "20842__3_001", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__3_003", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "But it continued up until then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3168.595], "stop_times": [3170.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.595}, "reply_to": "20842__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20842__3_004", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Yes, and it was lawful, lawfully continued until then.\nFor these reasons, I'd ask the Court to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3170.485, 3173.567], "stop_times": [3173.567, 3175.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3170.485}, "reply_to": "20842__3_003", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__3_005", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Ingram.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3175.559], "stop_times": [3176.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.559}, "reply_to": "20842__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20842__3_006", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "--reject... thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3176.18], "stop_times": [3176.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3176.18}, "reply_to": "20842__3_005", "speaker": "carley_j_ingram"}
{"id": "20842__3_007", "conversation_id": "20842", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-891", "start_times": [3176.57], "stop_times": [3178.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.57}, "reply_to": "20842__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_000", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-6556, Johnny Lynn Old Chief v. United States.\nMr. Donovan, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [0.0, 8.618], "stop_times": [8.618, 29.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_001", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe fact of the prior felony conviction, not the nature of the prior felony conviction, is an element of the offense of felon in possession of a firearm.\nThe name and nature of that underlying conviction is not relevant to that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [29.07, 32.531, 43.32], "stop_times": [32.531, 43.32, 48.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 29.07}, "reply_to": "20091__0_000", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_002", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, when we're talking about... we're talking about admissibility of evidence, here, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [48.904], "stop_times": [53.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 48.904}, "reply_to": "20091__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_003", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [53.385], "stop_times": [53.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 53.385}, "reply_to": "20091__0_002", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_004", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Ordinarily you don't start talking about the relevance of a... you look at the piece of evidence and you say, is it relevant, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [53.976], "stop_times": [61.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 53.976}, "reply_to": "20091__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_005", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, and in this particular case there were pieces of evidence that we contended weren't relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [61.293], "stop_times": [66.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 61.293}, "reply_to": "20091__0_004", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_006", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, what was it, a certificate of prior conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [66.624], "stop_times": [69.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.624}, "reply_to": "20091__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_007", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, also the indictment itself.\nIt's a practice of this judge to have the prosecutor read the indictment to the jury at the time of the voir dire, so we had come in pretrial and filed a motion in limine asking the judge to prohibit that reading as well as the prejudicial... we contend the prejudicial parts from the judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [69.957, 71.389], "stop_times": [71.389, 86.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 69.957}, "reply_to": "20091__0_006", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_008", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But that's not raised in your petition for certiorari.\nThe question is, if the defendant in a felon in possession of firearms case offers to stipulate to his status as a felon, should the district court require the Government to accept the stipulation.\nSo it's no different whether the judge read the indictment or whether there was a certificate of prior conviction, is there, under that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [86.369, 89.291, 98.777], "stop_times": [89.291, 98.777, 105.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 86.369}, "reply_to": "20091__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_009", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, yes, but we did do three things.\nThe first thing was move in limine to exclude, the second thing was offer to stipulate, and the third thing, we submitted a proposed jury instruction we felt even went farther than stipulation and admitted, basically, the fact or the element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [105.382, 108.385], "stop_times": [108.385, 121.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.382}, "reply_to": "20091__0_008", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_010", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But your... the question you raise with us is whether the Government should have been required to accept the stipulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [121.492], "stop_times": [126.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 121.492}, "reply_to": "20091__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_011", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [126.946], "stop_times": [127.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 126.946}, "reply_to": "20091__0_010", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_012", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And so we're talking now about a piece... what, a certificate of conviction of some sort was offered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [127.957], "stop_times": [135.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 127.957}, "reply_to": "20091__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_013", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, we only made a verbal offer.\nWe never got farther than that because the Government basically said we don't have to stipulate if we don't want to.\nThe trial judge said they don't have to stipulate if they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [135.509, 138.181, 144.756], "stop_times": [138.181, 144.756, 146.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.509}, "reply_to": "20091__0_012", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_014", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "So what was it that the Government offered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [146.967], "stop_times": [149.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 146.967}, "reply_to": "20091__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_015", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--They offered a... well, aside from reading the indictment and mentioning it during the trial, they offered the judgment and conviction document.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [149.06], "stop_times": [158.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.06}, "reply_to": "20091__0_014", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_016", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Okay, so the question, it seems to me, if you're talking about normal application of the rules of evidence, is, is this judgment of conviction relevant, and it seems to me you have to answer yes, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [158.287], "stop_times": [168.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.287}, "reply_to": "20091__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_017", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, it may be relevant in general, but what I was saying was, parts of it were not relevant, and I tried to solve that problem pretrial, and the judge basically said no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [168.503], "stop_times": [179.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.503}, "reply_to": "20091__0_016", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_018", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mr. Donovan, when the judge had said no, did you then offer the statement as a signed admission, even though the Government had not stipulated to its correctness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [179.468], "stop_times": [189.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.468}, "reply_to": "20091__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_019", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No.\nI just fell back and put the Government to their proof, basically, but I still renewed the objection during the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [189.396, 189.757], "stop_times": [189.757, 198.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 189.396}, "reply_to": "20091__0_018", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_020", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, do you agree that the Government... I mean the stipulation is by... I think is by definition a statement in which each party concurs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [198.232], "stop_times": [207.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 198.232}, "reply_to": "20091__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_021", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [207.058], "stop_times": [207.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 207.058}, "reply_to": "20091__0_020", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_022", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And I presume there isn't any power in a court to make the Government concur in something it doesn't want to concur in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [207.769], "stop_times": [214.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.769}, "reply_to": "20091__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_023", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That's true.\nWhat I'm really saying is that I think a stipulation is the best remedy for this problem, and I'm asking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [214.203, 216.034], "stop_times": [216.034, 221.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.203}, "reply_to": "20091__0_022", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_024", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No, but the problem doesn't arise under the rule until there is at least some alternative evidence under the rule, and if you're saying the evidence is the stipulation, and the Government hasn't signed it, you haven't got a stipulation, and you don't have that kind of evidence.\nAnd that's why I asked you the question, when the Government wouldn't stipulate so that you couldn't offer a stipulation, did you have a kind of fallback evidence like saying, okay, judge, we've signed it, and my client has signed a statement saying, I did thus and so, or I was convicted of thus and so, and we're offering this as evidence as an admission.\nThat, I presume, would have been evidence, but I take it that was not in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [221.766, 239.038, 260.723], "stop_times": [239.038, 260.723, 264.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.766}, "reply_to": "20091__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_025", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--What I did, though, I did offer a proposed jury instruction whereby the jury would instruct the... or the judge would instruct the jury that you are hereby instructed that the defendant, Johnny Lynn Old Chief, has been convicted of an offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year, and I think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [264.045], "stop_times": [280.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.045}, "reply_to": "20091__0_024", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_026", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That was in the nature of an admission, you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [280.636], "stop_times": [283.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.636}, "reply_to": "20091__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_027", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [283.658], "stop_times": [283.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.658}, "reply_to": "20091__0_026", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_028", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, but you did that on the assumption, or in order to build a case that the evidence of the nature of the crime must have been... must be excluded based on your instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [283.908], "stop_times": [295.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.908}, "reply_to": "20091__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_029", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [295.846], "stop_times": [298.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 295.846}, "reply_to": "20091__0_028", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_030", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well--\n--It seems to me this is very much of a 403 case, and I think the Government concedes as much.\nI don't see that as necessarily presented by your question.\nThat's why the case is a little hard to grasp, and I don't see you arguing it in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [298.447, 298.908, 305.403, 311.095], "stop_times": [298.908, 305.403, 311.095, 313.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.447}, "reply_to": "20091__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_031", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I think the problem is the Ninth Circuit case, the Breitkreutz case, which the Government... the prosecutor and the trial judge relied on I think is decided wrong, because it says if there is an offer to stipulate in this kind of a case you don't apply 403, but I think clearly the Government's admitted here, and they admitted I think in 1992 in a case that was argued called Hadley, that an offer to trigger, or offer to stipulate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [313.667], "stop_times": [337.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.667}, "reply_to": "20091__0_030", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_032", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [337.663], "stop_times": [337.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.663}, "reply_to": "20091__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_033", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--does trigger a 403 balancing analysis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [337.903], "stop_times": [339.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.903}, "reply_to": "20091__0_032", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_034", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [339.984], "stop_times": [340.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.984}, "reply_to": "20091__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_035", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--and we never had such an analysis here.\nIt's therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [340.405, 341.544], "stop_times": [341.544, 342.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 340.405}, "reply_to": "20091__0_034", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_036", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I don't... excuse me.\nSupposing that a criminal defendant is charged with the offense of murder, is the Government required to simply accept a statement from him that yes, I killed this person, rather than have the evidence put on by the Government as to how the person was killed, and that sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [342.565, 344.248], "stop_times": [344.248, 360.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.565}, "reply_to": "20091__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_037", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I don't... I don't think the Government's required to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [360.548], "stop_times": [364.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.548}, "reply_to": "20091__0_036", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_038", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, why... if you're right on the felony point, why isn't the Government required to accept a stipulation on some other element of the crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [364.001], "stop_times": [372.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.001}, "reply_to": "20091__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_039", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I think this... I'm asking the Court just to focus on this one statute, and I'm saying in addition to the stipulation issue that the nature of the prior conviction is not relevant, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [372.126], "stop_times": [383.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.126}, "reply_to": "20091__0_038", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_040", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, maybe... can't the defendant in my hypothesis argue that this... the evidence as to how he killed the defendant could be very prejudicial, and it really doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the law so long as he killed him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [383.492], "stop_times": [394.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.492}, "reply_to": "20091__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_041", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I think that's true, but you start with a proposition that that evidence is relevant, and then of course you could argue 403.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [394.829], "stop_times": [400.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.829}, "reply_to": "20091__0_040", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_042", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But you start with the proposition that this evidence is relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [400.064], "stop_times": [403.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.064}, "reply_to": "20091__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_043", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, if you combine the total... if you're calling the total judgment and conviction document itself relevant, yes, but what I'm saying is part of that judgment includes the nature and name of the prior felony, which isn't relevant, as well as the fact that Old Chief got 60 months, obviously, which is more than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [403.377], "stop_times": [420.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.377}, "reply_to": "20091__0_042", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_044", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But why doesn't that just raise a section 403 balance question, rather than some question of whether the Government has to accept a stipulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [420.948], "stop_times": [432.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.948}, "reply_to": "20091__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_045", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, I did raise that at the trial level, and the problem with the Ninth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [432.455], "stop_times": [436.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.455}, "reply_to": "20091__0_044", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_046", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But not here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [436.697], "stop_times": [437.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.697}, "reply_to": "20091__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_047", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I argued 403 balance here.\nI'm saying if you assume this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [437.368, 439.759], "stop_times": [439.759, 441.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.368}, "reply_to": "20091__0_046", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_048", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But the question, as the Chief Justice pointed out, just asks whether we have to accept the offer of the defendant to stipulate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [441.91], "stop_times": [453.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.91}, "reply_to": "20091__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_049", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [453.59], "stop_times": [455.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.59}, "reply_to": "20091__0_048", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_050", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And surely the answer to that is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [455.059], "stop_times": [457.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.059}, "reply_to": "20091__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_051", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, that's true, Justice O'Connor, but what I'm trying to get the Court to look at are some of the circuit cases, Tavares in the First Circuit, and what... basically what that says is the offer to stipulate triggers a process and then the Government has to come in and prove under 403 that there is probative value which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [457.811], "stop_times": [476.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.811}, "reply_to": "20091__0_050", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_052", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I don't see what relevance the offer to stipulate has.\nI mean, if the Government doesn't have to accept it, and I think it doesn't, then it just doesn't trigger anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [476.965, 483.95], "stop_times": [483.95, 492.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.965}, "reply_to": "20091__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_053", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [492.196], "stop_times": [492.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.196}, "reply_to": "20091__0_052", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_054", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "You'd have to raise the 403 issue, and ask whether what is offered by the Government is unduly prejudicial and unfair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [492.626], "stop_times": [503.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.626}, "reply_to": "20091__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_055", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--And I think I did that, but I got ignored, and again, I feel because of the law in the Ninth Circuit, the case... Breitkreutz says if you object, if you offer to stipulate, you don't apply the 403 balancing test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [503.184], "stop_times": [516.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.184}, "reply_to": "20091__0_054", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_056", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But--\n--Well, I think it's true that even the Government at page 28 of its brief, a paragraph I can't quite square with its position, says that once there is an unconditional offer to stipulate, then 403 analysis is triggered, so in that sense I think the Government seems to agree with you on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [516.091, 516.371], "stop_times": [516.371, 534.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.091}, "reply_to": "20091__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_057", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, and Ninth Circuit law says you don't trigger it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [534.825], "stop_times": [538.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.825}, "reply_to": "20091__0_056", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_058", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But the... Tavares was a pure 403 case, wasn't it?\nI mean, I think I remember.\nI think I was on the panel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [538.758, 542.127, 543.278], "stop_times": [542.127, 543.278, 544.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.758}, "reply_to": "20091__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20091__0_059", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [544.27], "stop_times": [545.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.27}, "reply_to": "20091__0_058", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_060", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Pure 403.\nIt says that in the presence... there are a lot of ways you can keep the prejudicial thing out.\nYou can redact it.\nThere may be dozens of ways, and if the defendant comes in, offers to stipulate, then there's just one additional important way that the Government doesn't need it, and that goes in the 403 balance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [545.011, 545.78, 549.663, 550.803], "stop_times": [545.78, 549.663, 550.803, 560.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.011}, "reply_to": "20091__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20091__0_061", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And the Tavares test in the first Circuit stands for the proposition if the Government refuses to stipulate, you still exclude that evidence by some other means, and the First--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [560.51], "stop_times": [570.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.51}, "reply_to": "20091__0_060", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_062", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I thought--\n--Mr. Donovan, your argument and also your reliance on 403 assumes that the only evidence admissible is evidence which is probative.\nThat's what 403 says, if it's probative value is outweighed by something else.\nIs that the case?\nIt seems to me a lot of evidence gets in in trial routinely to simply place a crime in its context.\nFor example, the identity of the victim, as the Chief Justice was alluding to.\nDo you think the identity of the victim, if it happened to be Mother Teresa, could be kept out of the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [570.648, 571.139, 578.962, 582.595, 584.065, 591.041, 595.523], "stop_times": [571.139, 578.962, 582.595, 584.065, 591.041, 595.523, 600.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.648}, "reply_to": "20091__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_063", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [600.418], "stop_times": [600.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.418}, "reply_to": "20091__0_062", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_064", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--on the grounds of what difference does it make who it was?\nIt was a murder, and pleading 403, you should suppress the fact that it was Mother Teresa.\nI doubt whether you have to do that.\nIt's part of the circumstances of the event which the State is entitled to get in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [600.898, 602.989, 609.822, 611.365], "stop_times": [602.989, 609.822, 611.365, 617.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 600.898}, "reply_to": "20091__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_065", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I think in comparison you start with the proposition that the victim of the... the evidence of the victim of the crime is a relevant question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [617.128], "stop_times": [624.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.128}, "reply_to": "20091__0_064", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_066", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No.\nIt's no more relevant than the nature of the prior crime in your case.\nIt was a dead human being is all that's necessary for the conviction.\nThe identity of the human being makes no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [624.632, 625.132, 628.294, 632.237], "stop_times": [625.132, 628.294, 632.237, 634.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.632}, "reply_to": "20091__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_067", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [634.468], "stop_times": [634.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.468}, "reply_to": "20091__0_066", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_068", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "So if I come in with a stipulation, I stipulate there was a dead human being, whereupon you think the State could be precluded from introducing who the human being was, placing this event in its real life context, simply because that would be harmful to the defendant?\nI doubt it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [634.989, 649.909], "stop_times": [649.909, 650.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.989}, "reply_to": "20091__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_069", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I think that does place it in the real life context and get into evidence of the act and intent of the crime, and one thing I'm saying here, the status of the felon is not part of the act and intent of the crime.\nIt's something different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [650.33, 660.144], "stop_times": [660.144, 662.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.33}, "reply_to": "20091__0_068", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_070", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Are you saying that because of the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit there was no way you could have gotten a 403 balance?\nI'm confused about what... the exact question you were asking us to decide, however you phrased it in your cert petition.\nI thought you said that in the Ninth Circuit, as distinguished from the First Circuit, there is no possibility for a 403 balancing on whether the jury will be told the name of the felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [662.167, 670.342, 678.317], "stop_times": [670.342, 678.317, 692.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.167}, "reply_to": "20091__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__0_071", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That's how I read the Ninth Circuit Breitkreutz case, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [692.546], "stop_times": [697.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.546}, "reply_to": "20091__0_070", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_072", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "So what you're challenging is circuit law that says that the character, the crime, the actual crime, the name of that crime is not something that the judge should weigh in a 403 balance, it just comes in automatically.\nIs that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [697.291, 715.212], "stop_times": [715.212, 717.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.291}, "reply_to": "20091__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__0_073", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I think the Ninth Circuit says that automatically comes in regardless of defense objection or defense offer to stipulate.\nAnd I think that's how I got here.\nThat's why I got here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [717.684, 723.216, 725.738], "stop_times": [723.216, 725.738, 726.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.684}, "reply_to": "20091__0_072", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_074", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But that certainly isn't the question you present us with.\nIt's whether that Ninth Circuit decision might be wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [726.619, 728.48], "stop_times": [728.48, 731.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.619}, "reply_to": "20091__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_075", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No, I... I mean, it's an aspect of the question, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [731.141], "stop_times": [737.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.141}, "reply_to": "20091__0_074", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_076", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, what if a criminal defendant and his lawyer figure that our only chance is to raise a defense of justifiable homicide, that you killed in self-defense, can that defendant come in and say, I stipulate to all the elements of the crime of murder, that it was... I killed him unlawfully, et cetera, et cetera, and can the Government be required to accept that sort of stipulation, and only argue about... the only evidence you really hear is about whether there was justification or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [737.426], "stop_times": [767.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.426}, "reply_to": "20091__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_077", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I don't think so.\nI think the Government is entitled to present a full picture of that, and it also relates to whether or not there was self-defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [767.906, 768.728], "stop_times": [768.728, 774.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.906}, "reply_to": "20091__0_076", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_078", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, why can't it present a full picture of the felony that the person was convicted of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [774.512], "stop_times": [778.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.512}, "reply_to": "20091__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_079", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, my first argument is, it's not relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [778.953], "stop_times": [782.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.953}, "reply_to": "20091__0_078", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_080", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, if it's not relevant, then you don't ever get to a 403 balancing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [782.997], "stop_times": [787.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.997}, "reply_to": "20091__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_081", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [787.348], "stop_times": [787.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.348}, "reply_to": "20091__0_080", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_082", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "You simply would exclude it automatically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [787.618], "stop_times": [790.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.618}, "reply_to": "20091__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_083", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And I think that's the rule of the First Circuit, is just that, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [790.57], "stop_times": [795.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.57}, "reply_to": "20091__0_082", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_084", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "It is a relevant part.\nThe relevant part is that the felony was committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [795.773, 802.569], "stop_times": [802.569, 805.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.773}, "reply_to": "20091__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20091__0_085", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [805.049], "stop_times": [806.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.049}, "reply_to": "20091__0_084", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_086", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "The question is, how do you... I mean, the question is, how do you get in that relevant part without going into all the details, and the difference between doing that with an ancient felony and doing it with the details of the accused felony, i.e. the present crime, the difference, because you don't allow it with the present crime, I thought the Chief Justice's question is, why do you allow it with the past crime, and the answer to that is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [806.141], "stop_times": [829.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.141}, "reply_to": "20091__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20091__0_087", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, the... I believe the answer is whether or not it's a qualifying crime is a question of law for the Court to determine, and whether or not the defendant in fact committed that crime, or was convicted of that crime, is a question of fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [829.055], "stop_times": [842.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.055}, "reply_to": "20091__0_086", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_088", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, perhaps--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [842.836], "stop_times": [844.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.836}, "reply_to": "20091__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_089", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--A question of fact for the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [844.035], "stop_times": [845.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.035}, "reply_to": "20091__0_088", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_090", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--on a somewhat broader picture, can the criminal defense in a sense require the Government to accept a lot of stipulations so that a very abstract picture is presented to the jury simply almost in terms of judges, rather than having live evidence describe what happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [845.157], "stop_times": [862.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.157}, "reply_to": "20091__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_091", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No.\nNo, I don't think it can, but the defendant can offer to stipulate or object and get a 403 analysis and ask the Court to exclude that over Government objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [862.308, 863.08], "stop_times": [863.08, 872.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.308}, "reply_to": "20091__0_090", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_092", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "It seems to me what you have to say in order to avoid some of these very difficult problems is that evidence of the prior crime for the felon in possession statute is somehow sui generis and we should have a special rule for that.\nI'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [872.844, 884.341], "stop_times": [884.341, 885.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.844}, "reply_to": "20091__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_093", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That's essentially--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [885.623], "stop_times": [886.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.623}, "reply_to": "20091__0_092", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_094", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I think that's a difficult principle to explain if I have to write the opinion, but it seems to me that that's where you're going.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [886.354], "stop_times": [892.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.354}, "reply_to": "20091__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_095", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, I think I am going there, and I'm asking the Court to consider the Tavares rule, and I think the Tavares rule is better summarized in the case of Melvin, which is cited in the amicus brief, and that basically Melvin states that in a felony possession of a firearm case, evidence of the nature of a prior... of the nature of the prior conviction is not admissible unless the Government establishes probative value in the 403 balancing process, and I think that is a simple rule to apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [892.788], "stop_times": [928.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.788}, "reply_to": "20091__0_094", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_096", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Could I go back to your answer to the Chief Justice's question?\nI really didn't understand it.\nHe asked you whether the defendant could in effect render a trial a very abstract proceeding by asking the Government to stipulate all of the elements of the crime with the only issue left being whether the defendant in fact committed it or not, and you said no, but then you followed up with an explanation that seemed to me to mean yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [928.372, 931.812, 932.834], "stop_times": [931.812, 932.834, 955.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.372}, "reply_to": "20091__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_097", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [955.307], "stop_times": [955.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.307}, "reply_to": "20091__0_096", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_098", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "You said no, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [955.598], "stop_times": [956.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.598}, "reply_to": "20091__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_099", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [956.75], "stop_times": [956.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.75}, "reply_to": "20091__0_098", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_100", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--but the defendant could offer the Government a stipulation, and if the Government refused the trial court could exclude that information, which I think is the opposite of your first answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [956.96], "stop_times": [967.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.96}, "reply_to": "20091__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_101", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, I think what I'm trying to say is that the defendant can't preclude... cannot on his own preclude, but he could offer to stipulate it, otherwise object and ask the judge to preclude, and of course the Government would... would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [967.146], "stop_times": [982.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.146}, "reply_to": "20091__0_100", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_102", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Are you saying the Government... and what must the judge do?\nYou think the judge should preclude?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [982.966, 986.279], "stop_times": [986.279, 987.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.966}, "reply_to": "20091__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_103", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--No, the Gov... the judge... well, I would argue in certain cases, in certain situations the judge should apply 403 and exclude the evidence, but the Government would argue, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [987.43], "stop_times": [996.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.43}, "reply_to": "20091__0_102", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_104", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "What cases are they?\nI mean, in all cases, it seems to me, putting before the jury the gory, real life facts is always going to be harmful to the defendant, number 1.\nNumber 2, it is always going to be unnecessary in the strictest sense.\nYou can always stipulate there was a dead human being.\nWhat criterion are you urging upon us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [996.205, 997.906, 1009.827, 1013.488, 1017.04], "stop_times": [997.906, 1009.827, 1013.488, 1017.04, 1020.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.205}, "reply_to": "20091__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__0_105", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, I think... if I may give an example, I think the trial court's rule on photographs, for example, every day, and the defense may say, this photograph is too gory, but this one isn't, and the prosecution may say, we want to use a real gory photograph, and the judge applies 403 and decides that gory photograph is so highly prejudicial I'm going to keep it out, even though the Government wants to introduce it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1020.773], "stop_times": [1041.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.773}, "reply_to": "20091__0_104", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_106", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "What if we were to rule in your favor in this case and then a year from now you get a defendant, maybe, and the felony... a similar charge, the felony of which he's convicted is having trafficked in counterfeit Louis Vuitton bags.\nAnd this time the Government wants to stipulate what the felony is, and you say, no, I think the jury should know that this guy was just trafficking in counterfeit Louis Vuitton bags.\n[Laughter]\nOr short lobsters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1041.476, 1056.587, 1068.123, 1068.983], "stop_times": [1056.587, 1068.123, 1068.983, 1071.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.476}, "reply_to": "20091__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_107", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "The First Circuit addressed that, and in me advocating the First Circuit rule, the First Circuit basically says, that would also be irrelevant, so that doesn't come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1071.904], "stop_times": [1080.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1071.904}, "reply_to": "20091__0_106", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_108", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "So the defendant couldn't make that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1080.71], "stop_times": [1082.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.71}, "reply_to": "20091__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_109", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Right.\nIt applies both ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1082.743, 1082.954], "stop_times": [1082.954, 1085.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1082.743}, "reply_to": "20091__0_108", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_110", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Under your view I take it the certified copy of previous conviction cannot be shown to the jury.\nIt seems to me a very odd evidentiary rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1085.054, 1092.669], "stop_times": [1092.669, 1096.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.054}, "reply_to": "20091__0_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_111", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Unless it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1096.352], "stop_times": [1097.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.352}, "reply_to": "20091__0_110", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_112", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Redacted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1097.463], "stop_times": [1098.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.463}, "reply_to": "20091__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_113", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Redacted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1098.742], "stop_times": [1099.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.742}, "reply_to": "20091__0_112", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_114", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And then the jury has to read something that's redacted.\nThat's an odd way to proceed, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1099.203, 1100.996], "stop_times": [1100.996, 1103.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.203}, "reply_to": "20091__0_113", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_115", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I think... and that's one of my arguments to advocate a stipulation is better than a redacted judgment and conviction, because if you redact the judgment and conviction by crossing out lines and such, I think that invites jury speculations of what was crossed out, whereas if you have a clean stipulation, it is hereby stipulated, the jury either hears that or reads that, and there's less likelihood for speculation to come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1103.887], "stop_times": [1131.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.887}, "reply_to": "20091__0_114", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_116", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, but if there's so much trouble in enforcing the rule you propose, maybe that indicates that we shouldn't try to make the effort.\nThe historical fact is the historical fact and the jury considers it for what it's worth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1131.113, 1137.678], "stop_times": [1137.678, 1143.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.113}, "reply_to": "20091__0_115", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_117", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, but I think the reason this Court has to do something is, there's a different rule in some of the circuits, and my circuit, obviously the Ninth Circuit happens to be against the defendant, and the other circuits, most of the other circuits now would rule in my favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1143.271], "stop_times": [1158.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.271}, "reply_to": "20091__0_116", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_118", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, I guess the first question is whether the evidence of the nature of the felony offense, the prior offense is relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1158.992], "stop_times": [1170.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.992}, "reply_to": "20091__0_117", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_119", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1170.44], "stop_times": [1171.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.44}, "reply_to": "20091__0_118", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_120", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That would be the starting point, I would guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1171.882], "stop_times": [1174.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.882}, "reply_to": "20091__0_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_121", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--That's my first points.\nThat isn't... the nature of the offense is not relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1174.283, 1174.764], "stop_times": [1174.764, 1178.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1174.283}, "reply_to": "20091__0_120", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_122", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "If it is relevant, then the section 403 balance would exclude it if it unfairly prejudices the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1178.047], "stop_times": [1190.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.047}, "reply_to": "20091__0_121", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_123", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Unless the Government had some other legitimate reason for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1190.402], "stop_times": [1191.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.402}, "reply_to": "20091__0_122", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_124", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And I think it's pretty hard to say that disclosing the name of the offense is an unfair prejudice.\nI mean, what the defendant did, he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1191.955, 1201.613], "stop_times": [1201.613, 1203.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.955}, "reply_to": "20091__0_123", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_125", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1203.746], "stop_times": [1204.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.746}, "reply_to": "20091__0_124", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_126", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And he was convicted of it, and it's hard for me at least to say it's unfair to have it known.\nA much harder question for me is to answer whether it is relevant at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1204.063, 1211.029], "stop_times": [1211.029, 1217.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.063}, "reply_to": "20091__0_125", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_127", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--It's unfair in the sense of this case is a prior conviction, and was assault resulting in serious bodily injury which first brands Old Chief as a violent felon.\nAnd then when you have this case where you have count 1 as a felon in possession, count 3 as a new felony assault, then we have the propensity, well, if he did it before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1217.042, 1228.239], "stop_times": [1228.239, 1236.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.042}, "reply_to": "20091__0_126", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_128", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, but what's unfair about it?\nHe was convicted of what he was convicted of, and I don't see why it's unfair that the jury know it.\nIt's a matter of public record.\nSo I have trouble saying it's unfair, but I don't know, yet, whether I think it's irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1236.294, 1237.285, 1244.661, 1246.171], "stop_times": [1237.285, 1244.661, 1246.171, 1255.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.294}, "reply_to": "20091__0_127", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__0_129", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Okay.\nWell, if the element is a conviction of an offense, of a crime for an offense with the punishment exceeding 1 year, then I'm saying that's all the jury needs to know.\nIt doesn't need to know that it was assault, or theft, or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1255.047, 1256.158, 1266.274], "stop_times": [1256.158, 1266.274, 1270.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1255.047}, "reply_to": "20091__0_128", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_130", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But as a practical matter, the Government doesn't have to stipulate, you agree.\nUnder your view, what can the Government bring in to prove the prior felony that you think would be permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1270.798, 1274.759], "stop_times": [1274.759, 1282.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.798}, "reply_to": "20091__0_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_131", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Aside from the redacted and... the redacted judgment and conviction they could bring in the Clerk of the Court to testify, a probation officer to testify--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1282.787], "stop_times": [1293.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.787}, "reply_to": "20091__0_130", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_132", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "These are superior to the certificate?\nBecause... and I suppose the Clerk could not be asked what the prior felony was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1293.602, 1296.474], "stop_times": [1296.474, 1301.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.602}, "reply_to": "20091__0_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_133", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--That would be my position, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1301.756], "stop_times": [1303.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.756}, "reply_to": "20091__0_132", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_134", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "How would you know it was felony?\nWould the Clerk of the Court know it was a felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1303.108, 1305.189], "stop_times": [1305.189, 1307.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.108}, "reply_to": "20091__0_133", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_135", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, the judge would... the judge I think would instruct the jury that this offense that the Government has introduced, this prior case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1307.831], "stop_times": [1313.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.831}, "reply_to": "20091__0_134", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_136", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "This offense which shall remain nameless was a felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1313.925], "stop_times": [1316.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.925}, "reply_to": "20091__0_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_137", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1316.196], "stop_times": [1317.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.196}, "reply_to": "20091__0_136", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_138", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Is this only if the defendant stipulates that he's not going to contest the prior conviction?\nSuppose he says, I'm going to contest the prior conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1317.378, 1323.062], "stop_times": [1323.062, 1326.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.378}, "reply_to": "20091__0_137", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_139", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I think if he contests the prior conviction the whole thing's open for evidence, but if he says, I'm going to contest whether or not I was convicted of it, but I admit that it was an offense for which the term of imprisonment could exceed 1 year, then I think the judge could instruct the jury that that part of the element's proven as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1326.114], "stop_times": [1346.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.114}, "reply_to": "20091__0_138", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_140", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "So you have a rule in advance based on what the defendant's tactical decision is and how that tactical decision is communicated to the prosecution and to the court.\nThat also strikes me as a little odd.\nAnd how does the best evidence rule fit in here?\nNormally the best evidence is considered the official order or record, and that is what the State would be required to, offer and seek admission of, because that's better evidence than the testimony of some clerk or probation officer.\nSo I don't know how the application of that rule would--\n--Mr. Donovan, I don't understand why... I've been in a lot of courtrooms... why if the defendant comes in and says I'm willing to stipulate to X, Y, and Z, why does the Government have to sign that stipulation?\nCan't the judge accept that as a fact that's taken as proved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1346.266, 1357.115, 1358.866, 1362.378, 1381.89, 1389.136, 1397.61], "stop_times": [1357.115, 1358.866, 1362.378, 1381.89, 1389.136, 1397.61, 1400.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.266}, "reply_to": "20091__0_139", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_141", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "The judge accept it as an admission of fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1400.532], "stop_times": [1403.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1400.532}, "reply_to": "20091__0_140", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_142", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1403.635], "stop_times": [1404.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.635}, "reply_to": "20091__0_141", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__0_143", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I think the judge could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1404.015], "stop_times": [1405.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1404.015}, "reply_to": "20091__0_142", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_144", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I don't understand why there's all this complication about this.\nThis fellow was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year, or whatever it was, and he's willing to admit it.\nThat takes care of the whole issue in about 15 seconds, it would seem to me.\nIs there a provision in the criminal rules for admission of facts the way there is in the civil rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1405.456, 1408.427, 1413.843, 1417.843], "stop_times": [1408.427, 1413.843, 1417.843, 1425.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.456}, "reply_to": "20091__0_143", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__0_145", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I believe... I don't know if there's a difference, but there's a jury instruction that as I understand it would say if the parties have... or a party has admitted this fact.\nYou should consider this fact proven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1425.259, 1435.625], "stop_times": [1435.625, 1437.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.259}, "reply_to": "20091__0_144", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_146", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And the other party can be required to accept that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1437.486], "stop_times": [1440.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1437.486}, "reply_to": "20091__0_145", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_147", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1440.638], "stop_times": [1446.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1440.638}, "reply_to": "20091__0_146", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_148", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mr.--\n--Mr. Donovan, could we be concrete about that?\nI thought that you have been trying to tell us that this crime is different from all others.\nThere are cases out there, like one in the D.C. Circuit, the Crowder case, which does say defendant wants to admit... as in Rule 36 of the Civil Rules, defendant can admit so intent can be taken out of the case, knowledge can be taken out of the case.\nI thought you had consistently distinguished your case from those others on the ground that the only thing that Congress has made relevant is that there was a prior felony conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1446.302, 1446.873, 1448.923, 1456.96, 1472.949], "stop_times": [1446.873, 1448.923, 1456.96, 1472.949, 1489.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.302}, "reply_to": "20091__0_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__0_149", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And I think I tried to say to that previously was that that doesn't relate to the act and the intent of the offense or the picture of the offense.\nIt only relates to the accused's status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1489.381, 1499.786], "stop_times": [1499.786, 1502.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1489.381}, "reply_to": "20091__0_148", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_150", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "In the case of your client, were there other prior felony convictions that could have been used to establish this that were less close to the current charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1502.538], "stop_times": [1513.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.538}, "reply_to": "20091__0_149", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__0_151", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "There actually was one that the Government considered more prejudicial, was a robbery.\nHe had a robbery--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1513.775, 1518.71], "stop_times": [1518.71, 1520.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.775}, "reply_to": "20091__0_150", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_152", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Did he have any that was less?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1520.04], "stop_times": [1521.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.04}, "reply_to": "20091__0_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__0_153", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--No, none less.\nThere were just two to pick from, basically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1521.412, 1522.711], "stop_times": [1522.711, 1525.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1521.412}, "reply_to": "20091__0_152", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_154", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mr. Donovan, I want to get clear on what happened in this case, because in responding to Justice Stevens' question about the general rule, I think you're talking about a case which as you described it was different from what you described to me earlier.\nI take it in this case you said we are prepared to stipulate.\nThe Government said no, we won't stipulate.\nWe won't sign this document, or whatever you wanted it to agree to, and the judge said, okay, they don't have to.\nThat's the end of that.\nYour response came in effect later on when you said I would like a jury instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1525.816, 1539.273, 1544.146, 1546.947, 1554.233, 1555.943], "stop_times": [1539.273, 1544.146, 1546.947, 1554.233, 1555.943, 1561.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.816}, "reply_to": "20091__0_153", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_155", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "See, it was all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1561.546], "stop_times": [1563.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1561.546}, "reply_to": "20091__0_154", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_156", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Is that what happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1563.079], "stop_times": [1564.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.079}, "reply_to": "20091__0_155", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_157", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--It was all part of a written motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1564.028], "stop_times": [1565.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.028}, "reply_to": "20091__0_156", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_158", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No, but is that what happened?\nDid you... let me put it the other way, then.\nDid you ever... when the Government said, I won't... we won't stipulate, did you ever say to the judge, all right, we will sign an admission or make an admission in open court in some fashion that in fact he was convicted and he has this status.\nDid you ever offer to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1565.66, 1566.611, 1568.732, 1583.802], "stop_times": [1566.611, 1568.732, 1583.802, 1586.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.66}, "reply_to": "20091__0_157", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_159", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No, but in the process of... what I did in writing was... I tried to say this.\nNot only did I offer to stipulate, but I moved in limine to exclude the evidence, and I offered this jury instruction, and the judge's motion denied the whole motion in limine, so... I've been dealing with the judge for 15 years.\nYou state your objection, you get overruled, and that's it, you know.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1586.654, 1591.596, 1603.304, 1606.597], "stop_times": [1591.596, 1603.304, 1606.597, 1606.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.654}, "reply_to": "20091__0_158", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_160", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, that's... that probably moves things right along.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1606.817, 1609.709], "stop_times": [1609.709, 1609.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.817}, "reply_to": "20091__0_159", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__0_161", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And another thing that happened here is the judge read the jury instructions to the jury before we had a settlement conference, so I didn't have an opportunity to object or resubmit or have any discussions with the court until after the instructions were read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1609.9], "stop_times": [1626.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1609.9}, "reply_to": "20091__0_160", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_162", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "So all you can do then is object.\nYou can't argue it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1626.459, 1628.282], "stop_times": [1628.282, 1629.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.459}, "reply_to": "20091__0_161", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_163", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Right.\nI can't submit... ask to change the instructions or withdraw, you know, so I was kind of boxed in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1629.601, 1629.791], "stop_times": [1629.791, 1634.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1629.601}, "reply_to": "20091__0_162", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_164", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, could you raise a 403 objection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1634.116], "stop_times": [1636.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.116}, "reply_to": "20091__0_163", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_165", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I just... I renewed the motion in limine when the judgment and conviction was admitted into the evidence, and I also renewed it as a basis of the objection to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1636.427], "stop_times": [1645.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1636.427}, "reply_to": "20091__0_164", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_166", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Did you base your objection on 403?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1645.323], "stop_times": [1648.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.323}, "reply_to": "20091__0_165", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__0_167", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I didn't use the words 403 except pretrial, Mr. Justice Kennedy.\nMay I reserve the remaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1648.796, 1653.617], "stop_times": [1653.617, 1656.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1648.796}, "reply_to": "20091__0_166", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_168", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, you may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1656.719], "stop_times": [1657.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.719}, "reply_to": "20091__0_167", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__0_169", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1657.13], "stop_times": [1657.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1657.13}, "reply_to": "20091__0_168", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__0_170", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "We'll hear from you now, Mr. Estrada.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1657.701], "stop_times": [1660.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.701}, "reply_to": "20091__0_169", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__1_000", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nSection 922(g) expressly requires proof that a defendant has been convicted before.\nThere can be no doubt, and I think it has been conceded here today, that in the absence of a proffered stipulation the certified judgment of conviction would no longer be the most probative evidence, but the evidence that the Government naturally would be expected to rely on.\nThe question, then, in this case is whether a criminal defendant can keep the Government from proving a criminal case in the usual and ordinary way by interjecting its own alternative method of proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1660.131, 1673.479, 1679.115, 1693.285], "stop_times": [1673.479, 1679.115, 1693.285, 1705.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.131}, "reply_to": "20091__0_170", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_001", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, Mr. Estrada, under the particular statute that we're... that says if the defendant has been convicted of a felony punishable by more than a year in prison, is the nature of the prior offense relevant under that statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1705.432], "stop_times": [1726.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.432}, "reply_to": "20091__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_002", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Under our view, yes, it is, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1726.475], "stop_times": [1728.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.475}, "reply_to": "20091__1_001", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_003", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1728.808], "stop_times": [1729.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.808}, "reply_to": "20091__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_004", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Because the definitional section that lets us know what is a felony, or what is a crime punishable for more than 1 year imprisonment, exclude certain offenses, and in order for the jury to fulfill its factfinding function it would have to be instructed as to what offenses are covered and whether the one that they have heard evidence on is actually one of those offenses.\nIn other words, under our theory of the case, a proper instruction would be, I instruct you that mail fraud is one of the offenses that is covered.\nIt is for you to find that... whether this particular defendant has been found guilty of mail fraud.\nUnder their view, the instruction would be, I instruct you that he has been convicted of a covered felony and you have no further factual finding functions in this case as to that element.\nAnd I think that that difference highlights that at the threshold, to get back to your earlier question, the type of the felony is indeed relevant, even taking their own conception of how relevancy should work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1729.296, 1753.512, 1764.281, 1773.297, 1787.575], "stop_times": [1753.512, 1764.281, 1773.297, 1787.575, 1806.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.296}, "reply_to": "20091__1_003", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_005", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Is it true that the Ninth Circuit says that there would never have to be a 403 balancing in these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1806.059], "stop_times": [1814.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.059}, "reply_to": "20091__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_006", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No.\nThat is close to true, but not exactly, and I think it is sufficiently distinct to warrant some emphasis.\nWhat they say is that a stipulation, as a stipulation, does not get factored into the Rule 403 balance, and I think if you take what a stipulation is strictly, that would be true.\nIt is possible to conceive of an offer to stipulate in the sense that Justice Souter pointed out earlier as an offer to tender an admission and then put in an admission, and viewed in that light, we would concede that (a) it wouldn't truly be a stipulation in the technical sense, but (b) that Rule 403 could contemplate that that could be factored into the Rule 403--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1814.494, 1815.513, 1824.95, 1838.879], "stop_times": [1815.513, 1824.95, 1838.879, 1861.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.494}, "reply_to": "20091__1_005", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_007", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, what about the best evidence rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1861.004], "stop_times": [1863.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.004}, "reply_to": "20091__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_008", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1863.034], "stop_times": [1863.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.034}, "reply_to": "20091__1_007", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_009", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "How does that fit in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1863.625], "stop_times": [1865.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.625}, "reply_to": "20091__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_010", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--The best evidence rule I think textually would apply, and I think it is not usually thought to have direct bearing because everybody understands in the more specific factual context here that the relevant unit of what the evidence is is the judgment of conviction itself, as the Chief Justice pointed out, rather than particular information within the judgment or conviction, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1865.017], "stop_times": [1893.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.017}, "reply_to": "20091__1_009", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_011", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, why is 403 balancing, Mr. Estrada, necessary if your position is that the nature of the offense is relevant for the jury's consideration, or for the jury's determination?\nI had that trouble with... at page 28 of your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1893.285, 1908.375], "stop_times": [1908.375, 1911.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.285}, "reply_to": "20091__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__1_012", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Maybe we didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1911.167], "stop_times": [1912.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1911.167}, "reply_to": "20091__1_011", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_013", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "It seems to me that you con... I read it as a concession that 403 analysis can apply in these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1912.008], "stop_times": [1919.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.008}, "reply_to": "20091__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__1_014", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, I guess that is literally true, but it does not convey the understanding that maybe we inartfully put into it.\nWhat we meant is that in every ruling in a trial court there is always a 403 issue.\nThat is to say, there is always open the argument that upon a consideration of the proper factors the evidence should be excluded.\nThe fact that a weighing might be conducted, and the fact that an admission might properly be considered in the weighing says nothing about the outcome of the weighing, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1919.023, 1929.989, 1935.552, 1944.018], "stop_times": [1929.989, 1935.552, 1944.018, 1954.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.023}, "reply_to": "20091__1_013", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_015", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mr. Estrada, I have problems with that argument in this context, that we can allow every district judge in the land to have a 403 balance when, say, the conviction is for assault with a deadly weapon, and Judge A will come out this way, and Judge B will come out that way.\nI think that's why the Court had some interest in this case, because there is disarray, and the one thing that we all have an interest in is to say what the law is, and it should be that same law, so what's disturbing about your suggestion is that, oh, 403, and that's it, it will all wash out in every individual court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1954.254, 1970.235], "stop_times": [1970.235, 1988.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.254}, "reply_to": "20091__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__1_016", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1988.358], "stop_times": [1988.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.358}, "reply_to": "20091__1_015", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_017", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That can't be the Government's position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1988.628], "stop_times": [1990.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.628}, "reply_to": "20091__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__1_018", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--that's not what we mean to convey, Justice Ginsburg.\nLet me step back and put Rule 403 in context from our point of view.\nRule 402 in effect says all evidence must come in unless it is specifically excludable by some source of law, and if it is a rule made up by a court, it has to be made by this Court, noting the exercise of freewheeling authority, but under statutory authority.\nRule 403 is an exclusionary rule that gives the district courts authority to have play in the joints, if you will, but it's not a source of rulemaking authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [1990.168, 1992.151, 1998.185, 2015.476], "stop_times": [1992.151, 1998.185, 2015.476, 2025.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1990.168}, "reply_to": "20091__1_017", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_019", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Nothing escapes it, so that it really is a question to be considered under 403 whether the identity of the victim as Shirley Temple or Mother Teresa can get to the jury.\nIt's up to... that's really a 403 question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2025.801, 2036.99], "stop_times": [2036.99, 2040.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.801}, "reply_to": "20091__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20091__1_020", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, there are lots of questions, Justice Scalia.\nIt doesn't mean that they all require the same answer, and I agree with you that in a criminal case in effect you have a categorical rule that this evidence always comes in.\nBut let me make this point, and I think the Chief Justice pointed out to what the problem is here earlier, which is trying to tease this particular result out of the rules of evidence is to some extent an exercise in misdirection, because these are matters that tend to flow from the controlling substantive law.\nThey may be different in civil cases or in criminal cases, and they're dealt, to the extent that they're different, in the civil rules or in the criminal rules.\nIn the civil rules, you are encouraged to get your adversary to narrow down the issues and under Rule 8 you have to say what's true and what isn't and what is not under dispute, and that's enforced through Rule 11.\nUnder Rule 36 of the civil rules, you can ask your adversary for an admission that you can use.\nNow you switch to the criminal rules.\nIn the criminal rules, you have a trial of the general issue unless you enter a complete guilty plea.\nThere is no inbetween.\nThere is Rule 11 that says that you can have a guilty plea, but there is nothing that contemplates what is being argued for here, which is in effect a partial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2040.233, 2044.825, 2056.141, 2077.577, 2084.871, 2100.281, 2110.278, 2112.899, 2118.823, 2120.053], "stop_times": [2044.825, 2056.141, 2077.577, 2084.871, 2100.281, 2110.278, 2112.899, 2118.823, 2120.053, 2130.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2040.233}, "reply_to": "20091__1_019", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_021", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mr. Estrada, this situation is a little bit different, in that the defendant isn't contending that any of the part of the story of the crime at issue, the current possession, can be kept out.\nHe's just talking about an element that puts the defendant eligible for this particular guilt.\nAnd if for your... to give an example that troubles me, supposing there are two felonies that the man had been guilty of before.\nIn your view, does the Government have the right to put both in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2130.872, 2139.807, 2145.891, 2152.186], "stop_times": [2139.807, 2145.891, 2152.186, 2156.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.872}, "reply_to": "20091__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_022", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--We can... generally, yes, but I would like to qualify that in the following respect, Justice Stevens.\nThe principle that we are contesting here is not that the district court has no discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2156.197, 2164.835], "stop_times": [2164.835, 2172.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.197}, "reply_to": "20091__1_021", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_023", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Let me put them the other way.\nDoes... would... I guess the same question.\nDo you think the district judge could not exclude one of the two felonies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2172.169, 2173.01, 2175.531], "stop_times": [2173.01, 2175.531, 2178.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.169}, "reply_to": "20091__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_024", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "The answer is, probably it could, and when it did, we likely would have no remedy in most of the cases, but let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2178.963], "stop_times": [2189.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.963}, "reply_to": "20091__1_023", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_025", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And why could he exclude one?\nWhat would be the reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2189.419, 2190.601], "stop_times": [2190.601, 2191.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.419}, "reply_to": "20091__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_026", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Okay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2191.791], "stop_times": [2192.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2191.791}, "reply_to": "20091__1_025", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_027", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Is... would it not be that the second felony is really irrelevant because the condition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2192.141], "stop_times": [2195.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.141}, "reply_to": "20091__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_028", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2195.063], "stop_times": [2195.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.063}, "reply_to": "20091__1_027", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_029", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--had been established?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2195.253], "stop_times": [2195.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.253}, "reply_to": "20091__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_030", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No.\nIt would be that the second felony is cumulative.\nIt is relevant, but I as the district judge have to keep this trial moving along.\nYou, the Government, have the burden of proof as to every fact, and conceivably you could bring 20 people to testify as to every relevant fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2195.874, 2196.255, 2199.056, 2203.668], "stop_times": [2196.255, 2199.056, 2203.668, 2211.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.874}, "reply_to": "20091__1_029", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_031", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, but you could certainly put two... you could certainly put two convictions in in 2 minutes.\nYou wouldn't need... I think you can't... cumulative evidence to save the time is a waste of time, but you think that's the only reason for excluding it, would be that it would be cumulative?\nYou don't think the fact it would be prejudicial would be relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2211.843, 2216.086, 2223.911], "stop_times": [2216.086, 2223.911, 2226.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.843}, "reply_to": "20091__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_032", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--No, I think all... I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2226.873], "stop_times": [2227.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.873}, "reply_to": "20091__1_031", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_033", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "You don't think the fact that the second conviction would be prejudicial and would not add to the person's eligibility for the particular offense he's now on trial for, you don't think that the relevance is a factor in that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2227.814], "stop_times": [2238.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.814}, "reply_to": "20091__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_034", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I don't think relevance is a factor in that.\nI think that if you have more than one, and if it is plain that the Government is just piling on, as someone said, it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2238.541, 2242.284], "stop_times": [2242.284, 2250.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.541}, "reply_to": "20091__1_033", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_035", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, what else could be the Government's purpose?\nWell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2250.859, 2252.111], "stop_times": [2252.111, 2252.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.859}, "reply_to": "20091__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_036", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, let me get to that, because I think that is an important issue, and it has gone... and the argument has been that we could have no conceivable purpose to turn down a stipulation.\nAnd let me outline four for you.\n1.\nWe get to try our own case, and what I mean by that is that there is a tactical value in not letting our opponent set for the jury what the case is about.\nHave the argument to the jury that we only fight the Government on the little detail on which they are wrong, which incidentally is all you need to find to let my client go.\nThe second point is that we want the jury to have evidence that it can touch and see.\nIt is an exhibit.\nUnder their approach the jury would hear nothing from the Government during the trial on one entire element of the offense.\nUnder our approach--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2252.342, 2269.091, 2273.135, 2274.384, 2285.992, 2296.6, 2302.673, 2303.923, 2312.028], "stop_times": [2269.091, 2273.135, 2274.384, 2285.992, 2296.6, 2302.673, 2303.923, 2312.028, 2313.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.342}, "reply_to": "20091__1_035", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_037", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, that's not necessarily true.\nThe Government... the stipulation could be the first element of the Government's proof.\nThe Government could start out by saying, we've accused him of X and they have admitted X, so we don't have to waste any time proving it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2313.33, 2314.9, 2319.044], "stop_times": [2314.9, 2319.044, 2324.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.33}, "reply_to": "20091__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_038", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, that wasn't done here, Justice Stevens.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2324.026, 2325.849], "stop_times": [2325.849, 2326.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2324.026}, "reply_to": "20091__1_037", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_039", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, what if there was... what if there was the written admission?\nThe Government offers the paper, exactly what you want it to be able to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2326.139, 2330.001], "stop_times": [2330.001, 2333.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.139}, "reply_to": "20091__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__1_040", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I think that that is a somewhat different case, but not enough, and let me explain to you why.\nThe principle that we're sticking up for here is not that the district judge has to let us run how the courtroom is run, but that we have a right to try our own case without our adversary shaping how our evidence comes in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2333.533, 2343.17], "stop_times": [2343.17, 2358.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.533}, "reply_to": "20091__1_039", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_041", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, I'll grant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2358.891], "stop_times": [2359.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.891}, "reply_to": "20091__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__1_042", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--through technical concessions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2359.4], "stop_times": [2360.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.4}, "reply_to": "20091__1_041", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_043", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--I'll grant you that as a general principle, but how does it square with what you said before, because I thought you said before that in the instance in which the written admission is offered so that it's evidence within the meaning of Rule 403, that there would at least have to be a 403 balancing.\nAre you saying now that although there would have to be a 403 balancing, your interest in structuring your own case is such that you will always win that balancing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2360.641, 2376.372], "stop_times": [2376.372, 2387.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.641}, "reply_to": "20091__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__1_044", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "When the facts are those, yes, that is what I'm saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2387.598], "stop_times": [2390.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2387.598}, "reply_to": "20091__1_043", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_045", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, then that's not much of a balancing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2390.781], "stop_times": [2392.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.781}, "reply_to": "20091__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__1_046", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2392.371], "stop_times": [2392.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.371}, "reply_to": "20091__1_045", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_047", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I mean, you're saying you win as a matter of law.\nI mean, I assume balancing means there's a real issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2392.851, 2394.394], "stop_times": [2394.394, 2397.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.851}, "reply_to": "20091__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__1_048", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--No.\nWhat I said earlier about what the rules of evidence contemplate as being within the proper scope, I think there's emphasis, because at the time that the rules came into being in 1975, it was already a settled rule that the Government could not be required to accept a stipulation because it always has the burden of proof and it always bears the risk of nonpersuasion, and it is their burden to show that there is something in the rules that changes that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2397.155, 2397.894], "stop_times": [2397.894, 2427.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.155}, "reply_to": "20091__1_047", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_049", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Is there such a thing in... is... what has been referred to as a written admission, is there any recognition of that sort of an instrument in the Rules of Criminal Procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2427.654], "stop_times": [2436.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.654}, "reply_to": "20091__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__1_050", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "No.\nI guess the close that you could... the closest that you could come is that there are cases in which a defendant will confess, and under the hearsay rules you can have evidence of the confession as an admission, which is not hearsay, but it is not in the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2436.77, 2437.131], "stop_times": [2437.131, 2453.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.77}, "reply_to": "20091__1_049", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_051", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That comes under the Rules of Evidence.\nCould I ask you, we found this... I still find it quite a difficult case.\nIn Tavares the circuit felt that we had to answer the question, pure 403 question.\nYou could say leave it up to the judges, but we felt we had to answer it because these cases came up all the time and different judges were making in the mill, mine-run average case, the same calls differently, so we thought we had to answer it, telling them how they should exercise their discretion, either let it in or don't let it in.\nAnd I guess we are in that same boat here, though normally 403 is just up to the district judge, but if we have to answer it, and I guess we do, we ultimately in the First Circuit said, well, there are four special things.\nOf course the Government can present anything, it's normal order of proof, all the facts, et cetera, but here the reason for that rule doesn't apply.\nThe reason was to give the Government a chance to present the full picture.\nThat reason doesn't apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2453.882, 2455.344, 2462.616, 2470.553, 2488.645, 2500.663, 2507.756, 2511.67], "stop_times": [2455.344, 2462.616, 2470.553, 2488.645, 2500.663, 2507.756, 2511.67, 2513.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2453.882}, "reply_to": "20091__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__1_052", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2513.54], "stop_times": [2514.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2513.54}, "reply_to": "20091__1_051", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_053", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And the second part was that by and large, with the exception whether it's an antitrust violation or not, you know, by and large it's not relevant except for the fact that it was committed, and the third reason was, by and large it's very prejudicial.\nAll right, so you add those three things together, and the fourth reason was, it's easily separable from the rest of the case, very administrable, people won't get mixed up.\nThey added those four things together, and then the... we said in Tavares, we are not saying the Government's... the stipulation has to be accepted.\nIt doesn't have to be accepted, but if it's offered and the Government refuses to accept it, at that point the judge in his 403 exercise of discretion should require the Government, if it wants to prove the point, to submit or redact it, a piece of paper telling of the fact of conviction.\nAll right.\nNow, I'm bringing that up because I'm... that was, of course, before how we balanced this difficult case and came out with it, and I want to know specifically why, which of course you don't accept that, and I just want you to focus directly on that and explain why.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2514.091, 2528.611, 2538.088, 2545.501, 2565.295, 2565.615], "stop_times": [2528.611, 2538.088, 2545.501, 2565.295, 2565.615, 2578.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.091}, "reply_to": "20091__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20091__1_054", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, let me start out with the last point, which is the redaction point.\nThere is no issue as to the appropriateness of redaction in this case in this Court, because the defendant never asked for it in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2578.425, 2585.791], "stop_times": [2585.791, 2593.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.425}, "reply_to": "20091__1_053", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_055", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I'm not... we're trying to get a rule.\nI'm saying that was the general rule for these cases that came up all the time, and they come up all over the country, and the different judges in the different circuits are treating them differently, so I'd say why don't you focus on Tavares, which would be most helpful to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2593.254, 2594.814], "stop_times": [2594.814, 2607.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.254}, "reply_to": "20091__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20091__1_056", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I don't want to fight with the formulation of the question, merely to note that if you took the case to answer that question, it doesn't raise the question, because it's not within the question that he brought to the Court.\nThe question that he brought to the Court is limited to the stipulation issue.\nMoving to the merits, we have a fundamental disagreement with how your former court dealt with the question, because it seems to me that it wrongly started on the wrong assumption, which is that the nature of the type of felony is not relevant, if you want to use that word, and that was wrong.\nIt was also wrong--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2607.564, 2620.013, 2622.814, 2644.658], "stop_times": [2620.013, 2622.814, 2644.658, 2645.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.564}, "reply_to": "20091__1_055", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_057", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, but wasn't... isn't your position that the reason it's wrong is that there some felonies, some business crimes and so forth that don't give rise to this particular liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2645.888], "stop_times": [2654.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.888}, "reply_to": "20091__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_058", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2654.504], "stop_times": [2655.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2654.504}, "reply_to": "20091__1_057", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_059", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But isn't that something that the judge will cure by his instructions to the jury?\nIn any event, even if you put in the crime itself, the judge still has to tell the jury as a matter of law this is a qualifying felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2655.235, 2659.318], "stop_times": [2659.318, 2667.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2655.235}, "reply_to": "20091__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_060", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, but it is an instruction on the law that is no different from every other instruction that the judge gives, and as I said earlier, the instruction that would be the outcome of the First Circuit's case is quite different.\nIt is, I instruct you that on this element you have no factfinding rule, which is quite different, and it opens up the Government to other risks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2667.723, 2682.373], "stop_times": [2682.373, 2690.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.723}, "reply_to": "20091__1_059", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_061", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, he doesn't say you have no factfinding role.\nHe says either the stipulation if there was one, or the admission if there was one, or the redacted judgment if there was, whatever the method used, he would say that is sufficient.\nThe Government, by using that, has proved this element of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2690.878, 2693.26, 2702.526], "stop_times": [2693.26, 2702.526, 2706.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.878}, "reply_to": "20091__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_062", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, that was not even the... that was not the instruction that was tendered in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2706.239], "stop_times": [2712.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2706.239}, "reply_to": "20091__1_061", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_063", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Oh, I understand that, but if you're asking us to decide whether the procedure used in this particular case was sufficient, you might win this case, but are you asking for a general rule that no matter how the defendant tries to keep this out the Government always can get the nature of the crime in evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2712.323], "stop_times": [2729.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.323}, "reply_to": "20091__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_064", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Yes, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2729.403], "stop_times": [2730.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.403}, "reply_to": "20091__1_063", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_065", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, then you don't have to argue about these other... the procedural difficulties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2730.495], "stop_times": [2733.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.495}, "reply_to": "20091__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20091__1_066", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, yes we do, because they're different arguments that different members of the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2733.527], "stop_times": [2738.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2733.527}, "reply_to": "20091__1_065", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_067", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "You can ask for a rule broader than the question raised by the petition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2738.359], "stop_times": [2741.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.359}, "reply_to": "20091__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__1_068", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, that's right, and that seems what the question that Justice Breyer asked--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2741.291], "stop_times": [2745.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.291}, "reply_to": "20091__1_067", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_069", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--But that doesn't necessarily change the proposition that we decide only the question... we may do it by invoking a broader rule than necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2745.463], "stop_times": [2753.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.463}, "reply_to": "20091__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__1_070", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2753.559], "stop_times": [2754.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2753.559}, "reply_to": "20091__1_069", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_071", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "So Mr. Estrada, 403 does not apply unless you determine first that the evidence offered is relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2754.538], "stop_times": [2766.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.538}, "reply_to": "20091__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_072", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2766.136], "stop_times": [2766.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2766.136}, "reply_to": "20091__1_071", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_073", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "You say it is relevant because of the crimes that are excluded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2766.797], "stop_times": [2770.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.797}, "reply_to": "20091__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_074", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2770.881], "stop_times": [2771.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.881}, "reply_to": "20091__1_073", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_075", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "If we agree with that, then it can be excluded, may be excluded, if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger, not of prejudice, but unfair prejudice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2771.231], "stop_times": [2785.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.231}, "reply_to": "20091__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_076", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That is correct, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2785.242], "stop_times": [2786.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.242}, "reply_to": "20091__1_075", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_077", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Is that not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2786.262], "stop_times": [2786.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.262}, "reply_to": "20091__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_078", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That is correct, Justice O'Connor, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2786.462], "stop_times": [2788.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.462}, "reply_to": "20091__1_077", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_079", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "So what is your position on whether it's unfair or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2788.004], "stop_times": [2791.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.004}, "reply_to": "20091__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20091__1_080", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--It is never unfair, because it is inherent in the nature of the crime that Congress necessarily contemplated that we would prove this element in the vast run of cases in which there was a trial with this very evidence, and it may be that the defendant doesn't like it, but it is his judgment of conviction, and it is relevant evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2791.644], "stop_times": [2810.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.644}, "reply_to": "20091__1_079", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_081", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mr. Estrada, if you are now taking the position that the Government would win every time assuming a 403 balance, then what in the world did you mean in your brief when you said, consistent with those principles, where a defendant offers an unconditional stipulation coupled with an adequate jury charge, the trial court should consider the availability of the stipulation as one of the factors in the Rule 403 balance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2810.476], "stop_times": [2832.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.476}, "reply_to": "20091__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__1_082", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Maybe that wasn't clear, and that's our fault, Justice Ginsburg, but the structure of the argument is as follows:\nIn 1975 the rule was settled that we didn't have to do this.\nIf you disagree that a stipulation is something that can be forced upon the Government, then it only comes into play once it has given us adequate insurance against the risk of nonpersuading the jury, which means that it has to be coupled with an instruction that effectively tells the jury that we are home on the element, have no doubt about it.\nIn this case, and it bears emphasis, while tendering an instruction that ostensibly took this issue from the jury, Mr. Old Chief also tendered an instruction that reminded the jury that we kept the burden of proof on every element of the crime, and that is exactly the danger that I'm trying to highlight for the Court.\nAll of the issues that Justice Breyer brought up, whether you could enter a severance, whether you could have a redacted judgment, had to do with how courts have traditionally dealt with evidence before and after the Rules of Evidence.\nWhat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2832.76, 2838.614, 2843.159, 2865.333, 2885.105, 2898.943], "stop_times": [2838.614, 2843.159, 2865.333, 2885.105, 2898.943, 2899.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.76}, "reply_to": "20091__1_081", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_083", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I could understand what you were telling me, Mr. Estrada, if the portion I read had been proceeded by, this is the Supreme Court's case law and so because of that case law, we have to make this qualified semi-concession, but what it flows from is the Advisory Committee's note to Rule 403.\nIt's nothing about the Court's case law.\nIt's about--\n--What page is this on?\nThis is on page 27 and 28 of the Government's brief, and the particular... the paragraph is the runover paragraph starting from the bottom of page 27, and the sentence that puzzles me is, Consistent with those principles which seem to be the principle that motivated Rule 403.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2899.523, 2919.806, 2923.78, 2924.35, 2925.913], "stop_times": [2919.806, 2923.78, 2924.35, 2925.913, 2945.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.523}, "reply_to": "20091__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20091__1_084", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Mm-hmm.\nThat flows not from a case from this Court, Justice Ginsburg, but from a recognition that the Advisory Committee note indicates that the availability of alternative means of proof is a factor that should be considered by a court in ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Rule 403, and conceivably, the existence of a stipulation that acts as an alternative means of proof, if it is, in fact, such, should be considered in keeping with what the Advisory Committee said.\nThat is not to say that unless we're entering 20 judgments of conviction, or we're doing other things of the type that Rule 403 contemplates, that we're not entitled to prove our case in our own way.\nThere is a vast difference in saying that the judge can keep the case moving along after considering all relevant facts and saying that we're going to have for the first time as a rule of law the proposition that the criminal defendant can dictate how the Government's case is tried, because acceptance of the latter proposition is what we're fighting here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [2945.385, 2946.144, 2980.218, 2992.516], "stop_times": [2946.144, 2980.218, 2992.516, 3011.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.385}, "reply_to": "20091__1_083", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_085", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Let me go back... can I ask you to answer Justice O'Connor's question for a second, because I had thought that it was... you said on the question of unfair prejudice the reason that I think... and at the heart of Tavares, frankly, I think is that issue, and what we thought was the unfair prejudice was this.\nEven if you assume it is relevant to show it isn't an antitrust violation, which is I guess the only way in which it's relevant, that it isn't a business violation... there was an argument in the court about that.\nWe did think that there was tremendously unfair prejudice, and the reason that it was unfair prejudice was because there would be concern, as the policy of Rule 404 suggests, that a jury uncertain about whether the person committed the crime in front of them... in front of them.\nYou know, the present crime... might think, well, I've just learned he was a triple ax murderer, he was... in fact had loads of drugs previously, in fact beat his family, in fact did seven other really quite bad things previously, and therefore, although I, the juror, am uncertain about whether he committed the present crime, he's a bad guy, we'll put him away.\nI mean, it's that kind of unfair prejudice that we thought might flow from introducing the irrelevant, except for antitrust, fact of the nature of the previous crime.\nSo I'm putting that in front of you so you can then respond to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3011.376, 3029.229, 3038.915, 3054.006, 3073.877, 3083.884], "stop_times": [3029.229, 3038.915, 3054.006, 3073.877, 3083.884, 3087.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.376}, "reply_to": "20091__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20091__1_086", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well, the answer, Justice Breyer, is that the irrelevant item of evidence is the judgment of conviction.\nThe Rules of Evidence treat the possibility that parts of a relevant piece of evidence will be misused not as a question of relevancy but as a question to be dealt with under Rule 105 with limiting instructions, because a background principle of our system is that juries will follow such instructions.\nWith respect, I would also suggest to you that part of what drove the court of appeals in Tavares is a little bit of a disagreement with the congressional policy that is reflected in the statute, that it is unfair to have a crime that holds someone who has already done his time and paid his debt to society, but if the evidence is what Congress necessarily must have anticipated would be used to prove that element of the crime, you may think that it is not a fair statute, but that's not a problem with the evidence, it's a problem with the policy of the statute, which is for the people across the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3087.598, 3093.271, 3112.574], "stop_times": [3093.271, 3112.574, 3150.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.598}, "reply_to": "20091__1_085", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_087", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "I don't think we thought that.\nIt seems to me that you have a per se answer for your position, and that Tavares is based on an assessment of the likelihood of prejudice that the two arguments don't quite meet.\nI'm not saying it's not responsive, but it does leave one with the lingering feeling that there's going to be unfair prejudice in some cases, and you say that's just the way the statute works.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3150.869, 3152.291, 3166.899], "stop_times": [3152.291, 3166.899, 3179.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.869}, "reply_to": "20091__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20091__1_088", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3179.338], "stop_times": [3179.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3179.338}, "reply_to": "20091__1_087", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_089", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "And I know of no other area... we're talking about the difficulty of having a per se rule in the petitioner's favor.\nOn the other hand, you have almost a per se rule that you're arguing for in your favor, and I'm not sure I know of another one in the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3179.677, 3186.862], "stop_times": [3186.862, 3195.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.677}, "reply_to": "20091__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20091__1_090", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--Well, the answer is this, Justice Kennedy.\nUnder the substantive criminal law, we always bear the burden of proof and the risk of nonpersuasion.\nWe cannot get a directed verdict no matter how overwhelming the evidence, and it is open to the defendant to invite doubt as to any piece of evidence, even his own admission, and because that has always been the rule in our system, it was already the substantive law in 1975 that we could not be required to accept a stipulation from our opponent.\nOur burden--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3195.026, 3197.748, 3202.653, 3225.867], "stop_times": [3197.748, 3202.653, 3225.867, 3226.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3195.026}, "reply_to": "20091__1_089", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_091", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "But isn't the extreme... Mr. Estrada, isn't the extreme unlikelihood of success in inviting doubt about either a stipulation or an admission what takes the stipulation and the admission about a status out of what might be a general rule in your favor about proving the elements of the... or the case in the sense of the acts of the defendant in this particular instance?\nIsn't it unlikely that they will doubt the one, more likely that they will doubt the other, and that is why bloodless and nonprejudicial evidence is more justifiable in the first case than in the second case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3226.608, 3251.985], "stop_times": [3251.985, 3265.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.608}, "reply_to": "20091__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__1_092", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "--No, and you need go no further than this case to realize... and we quote this at page 29 of our brief.\nIt was proposed jury instruction number 22, tendered in this very case in conjunction with their stipulation instruction, saying that his plea of guilty puts at issue every fact, and the Government retains the burden.\nAnd it is possible for someone who has to do nothing other than to raise doubt in the minds of the jury to give what in effect amounts to Mark Anthony's speech, Brutus is an honorable man, and keep saying it.\nWe've stipulated.\nMaybe it wasn't provident, but we've stipulated it, and under our rule... under our system, when we always have the risk of nonpersuasion, we're entitled to put in front of the jury evidence that they can see and touch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3265.224, 3272.748, 3285.517, 3297.065, 3298.295], "stop_times": [3272.748, 3285.517, 3297.065, 3298.295, 3311.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3265.224}, "reply_to": "20091__1_091", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_093", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Your answer is that the evil that men do live after them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3311.162], "stop_times": [3314.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.162}, "reply_to": "20091__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20091__1_094", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "That's right.\n[Laughter]\nThat's correct.\nThat is correct, and I fully concede it is a practical concern, but it's one that has shaped what the substantive law is in this country since the beginning.\nBecause, as I said earlier, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, we can always be nonsuited by a jury that has any doubt on any reason, even an irrational one.\nAnd our view is very simple.\nSeeing is believing.\nWe want the jury to have in their hands the judgment of conviction with the gun, the shell casings, and the photos.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3314.405, 3315.106, 3315.356, 3316.766, 3327.124, 3335.91, 3337.931, 3339.133], "stop_times": [3315.106, 3315.356, 3316.766, 3327.124, 3335.91, 3337.931, 3339.133, 3345.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3314.405}, "reply_to": "20091__1_093", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_095", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Estrada.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3345.524], "stop_times": [3346.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.524}, "reply_to": "20091__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__1_096", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3346.676], "stop_times": [3347.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3346.676}, "reply_to": "20091__1_095", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20091__1_097", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Mr. Donovan, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3347.637], "stop_times": [3349.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.637}, "reply_to": "20091__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__2_000", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "If I may, I'd like to make four quick points.\nFirst, the Government never objected to my proposed stipulation until this level.\nIt was never talked about at the trial court or the circuit court, so we never had any discussion to resolve it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3349.187, 3352.74, 3357.953], "stop_times": [3352.74, 3357.953, 3363.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3349.187}, "reply_to": "20091__1_097", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__2_001", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "They did refuse to stipulate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3363.477], "stop_times": [3365.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.477}, "reply_to": "20091__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__2_002", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Right.\nThat's true, and that was the entire focus.\nSecondly, I agree the Government has a right or a duty to present the case as they see fit, but I don't think they can do that and violate the Rules of Evidence at the same time.\nWe're contending they violated 401, 402, 404, and 403.\nThirdly, I think this is significant.\nAt footnote 12, page 20 of the Government's brief, and it goes on to page 21, I feel the Government admits that the question of whether or not there's... it is a qualifying felony is a question of law for the judge to decide, and if it's a question of law for the judge to decide, there's no need to tell the jury the nature of the felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3365.039, 3365.309, 3367.961, 3378.229, 3381.879, 3384.991], "stop_times": [3365.309, 3367.961, 3378.229, 3381.879, 3384.991, 3403.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3365.039}, "reply_to": "20091__2_001", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__2_003", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Donovan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3403.303], "stop_times": [3404.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.303}, "reply_to": "20091__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20091__2_004", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3404.905], "stop_times": [3405.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3404.905}, "reply_to": "20091__2_003", "speaker": "daniel_donovan"}
{"id": "20091__2_005", "conversation_id": "20091", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-6556", "start_times": [3405.106], "stop_times": [3406.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3405.106}, "reply_to": "20091__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__0_000", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1478, Jay Printz, the sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana... is that the correct pronunciation of Ravalli?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [10.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__0_001", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Ravalli, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [10.438], "stop_times": [11.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.438}, "reply_to": "21206__0_000", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_002", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And United States v. Richard Mack, the sheriff of Graham County, Arizona.\nMr. Halbrook.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [11.259, 15.702], "stop_times": [15.702, 17.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 11.259}, "reply_to": "21206__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__0_003", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn the Federal-State context, this Court has upheld laws passed under the spending power, the commerce power, including the power to preempt State legislation, and the Article VI duty of State judges to hear Federal causes of action.\nThe interim provisions of the Brady act at issue here is not an exercise of any of those powers.\nThe Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, in essence, Congress may commandeer the sheriffs departments of our country as long as the laws concerned do not interfere unduly with their duties.\nThe only alternative for the States is to enact laws which meet Congress' standards to get out from under or exempt themselves from the Federal commands to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [17.534, 19.885, 34.273, 39.657, 53.216], "stop_times": [19.885, 34.273, 39.657, 53.216, 65.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 17.534}, "reply_to": "21206__0_002", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_004", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "May I ask a preliminary question, please?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [65.704], "stop_times": [68.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.704}, "reply_to": "21206__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_005", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [68.024], "stop_times": [69.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.024}, "reply_to": "21206__0_004", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_006", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "You represent both Sheriff Printz and Sheriff Mack?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [69.907], "stop_times": [73.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 69.907}, "reply_to": "21206__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_007", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [73.59], "stop_times": [74.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 73.59}, "reply_to": "21206__0_006", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_008", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Sheriff Mack lost the election for sheriff of Graham County in the last election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [74.489], "stop_times": [80.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 74.489}, "reply_to": "21206__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_009", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That's correct.\nAs of January, this coming January, Sheriff Mack--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [80.022, 80.463], "stop_times": [80.463, 82.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 80.022}, "reply_to": "21206__0_008", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_010", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "What date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [82.774], "stop_times": [83.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 82.774}, "reply_to": "21206__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_011", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I believe it's January 1, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [83.605], "stop_times": [85.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 83.605}, "reply_to": "21206__0_010", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_012", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Mm-hmm, and will the case likely become moot as to Sheriff Mack on that date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [85.897], "stop_times": [91.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 85.897}, "reply_to": "21206__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_013", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, I note that the successor in office has been identified to the Clerk, and I believe that this matter will be addressed further in the future, but I don't think it will be moot.\nDepending on... under this Court's rule the succession in office is automatic, is my understanding, unless that person withdraws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [91.59, 102.399], "stop_times": [102.399, 110.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 91.59}, "reply_to": "21206__0_012", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_014", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [110.182], "stop_times": [110.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.182}, "reply_to": "21206__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_015", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And Sheriff Mack may also be employed by a police department in the same county and, as such, would continue doing the same kinds of duties that are at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [110.773], "stop_times": [121.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 110.773}, "reply_to": "21206__0_014", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_016", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, but he wouldn't be a CEO then, would he--\n--Yes.\n--or whatever you call the... he wouldn't be covered by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [121.32, 125.453, 125.964], "stop_times": [125.453, 125.964, 129.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 121.32}, "reply_to": "21206__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_017", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "A chief law enforcement officer.\nCLO.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [129.086, 131.59], "stop_times": [131.59, 131.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.086}, "reply_to": "21206__0_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_018", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "He would continue to be a chief law enforcement officer as defined by the statute here, and therefore he would be in a position of conducting the checks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [131.868], "stop_times": [138.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.868}, "reply_to": "21206__0_017", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_019", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And would you mind telling us where in the record we can find the evidence about the extent of the burden on the sheriffs departments in enforcing this law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [138.413], "stop_times": [152.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.413}, "reply_to": "21206__0_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_020", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [152.073], "stop_times": [152.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 152.073}, "reply_to": "21206__0_019", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_021", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Is there some reference to the record where we can find--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [152.611], "stop_times": [155.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.611}, "reply_to": "21206__0_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_022", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "In both cases there were affidavits, and then there was a hearing with testimony, and I would refer Your Honor in the Printz, the petition, the appendix to the Printz petition for cert, the affidavit... I'm sorry.\nIt's in the joint appendix.\nThat will be at page 9a of the joint appendix, and the exhibits at 19a, and then a partial transcript of the hearing where testimony was heard at page 25a, and in the Mack appendices there would be the affidavit in the joint appendix at page 5--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [155.894, 176.157, 177.459], "stop_times": [176.157, 177.459, 202.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.894}, "reply_to": "21206__0_021", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_023", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Maybe you can file that with the Clerk later, the references, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [202.235], "stop_times": [206.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.235}, "reply_to": "21206__0_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_024", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [206.137], "stop_times": [206.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.137}, "reply_to": "21206__0_023", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_025", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Would you like to summarize for us what it showed in your view as to the extent of the burden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [206.687], "stop_times": [212.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.687}, "reply_to": "21206__0_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_026", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [212.171], "stop_times": [213.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 212.171}, "reply_to": "21206__0_025", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_027", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "How many applications are filed in theses two counties, and how much time of the deputies is required to deal with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [213.673], "stop_times": [223.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 213.673}, "reply_to": "21206__0_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_028", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIn regard to the Printz case, we have approximately a dozen officers.\nWe have a situation where the checks were estimated to take between 1 hour per day and several days, in the case of a very thorough check.\nIn the case of Mack, we have testimony that the checks routinely took 1 to 2 hours per day.\nThese are departments where between one-and-a-half and two officers are on patrol at any given time.\nThese are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [223.26, 223.418, 232.205, 242.622, 247.954, 255.05], "stop_times": [223.418, 232.205, 242.622, 247.954, 255.05, 257.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.26}, "reply_to": "21206__0_027", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_029", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, it would be rather strange to have one-and-a-half on patrol, wouldn't it?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [257.922, 260.894], "stop_times": [260.894, 261.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.922}, "reply_to": "21206__0_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__0_030", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--That's just an average Your Honor.\nIn the case of Graham County I believe there were 10 deputies, total, employed and when you count time off and 8-hour days and what-not, you end up with an average of one-and-a-half and, in the case of Ravalli County, Montana, we have about two on patrol at any given time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [261.245, 262.694], "stop_times": [262.694, 280.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.245}, "reply_to": "21206__0_029", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_031", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, do you think that that's determinative here, how extensive the incursion upon the officer's duties are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [280.866], "stop_times": [289.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.866}, "reply_to": "21206__0_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_032", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [289.121], "stop_times": [290.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.121}, "reply_to": "21206__0_031", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_033", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I mean, would the statute be constitutional as to those officers who didn't take a large proportion of their time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [290.914], "stop_times": [295.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 290.914}, "reply_to": "21206__0_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_034", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Not at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [295.716], "stop_times": [296.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 295.716}, "reply_to": "21206__0_033", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_035", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--and unconstitutional as to others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [296.797], "stop_times": [297.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.797}, "reply_to": "21206__0_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_036", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Not at all.\nThese are just the facts of the case.\nI think that these departments could have plenty of staff and not much to do and these commands would be unconstitutional.\nWe've not heard cited yet a specific provision of the Constitution that justifies these commands.\nWe've seen a lot of dancing around the Commerce Clause and Article VI of the Constitution and my answer is no, that regardless of the burden or lack thereof, that these commands are not constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [297.387, 298.057, 299.72, 306.433, 312.716], "stop_times": [298.057, 299.72, 306.433, 312.716, 325.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.387}, "reply_to": "21206__0_035", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_037", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, has Congress imposed a burden on these chief law enforcement officers to report, or some State official to report on traffic fatalities, for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [325.676], "stop_times": [335.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.676}, "reply_to": "21206__0_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_038", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Your Honor, that comes under the spending power.\nThere is a provision in regard to highway funds that provides that to get the highway funds there are a number of burdens on the States, including the drinking age and including--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [335.083, 338.265], "stop_times": [338.265, 349.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.083}, "reply_to": "21206__0_037", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_039", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "In exchange for receiving the highway funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [349.162], "stop_times": [351.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.162}, "reply_to": "21206__0_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_040", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [351.161], "stop_times": [351.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.161}, "reply_to": "21206__0_039", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_041", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Is that... excuse me.\nNow, the Government has... the SG has filed a brief citing any number of cases, instances through the years where Congress has required States or local officials to perform some duties, and you assert that in every case it was linked somehow to funding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [351.712, 353.023], "stop_times": [353.023, 369.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.712}, "reply_to": "21206__0_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_042", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "As far as we could determine, the statutes we looked at that were prominently cited by the Government... the one that you mentioned, the fatalities reporting, and then the reporting the missing children relates to the National Crime Information Center, which is a voluntary system of record reporting between the Federal Government and the States... and we haven't found an instance where there was not some nexus with receipt of a grant or some other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [369.894], "stop_times": [393.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.894}, "reply_to": "21206__0_041", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_043", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Inducement to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [393.32], "stop_times": [396.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 393.32}, "reply_to": "21206__0_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_044", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Inducement that would be under the spending power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [396.011], "stop_times": [397.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.011}, "reply_to": "21206__0_043", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_045", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Now, did--\n--How about some of the early cases that seem to involve immigration and required court clerks to keep some sort of a record or take some sort of an affidavit, a State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [397.423, 397.992], "stop_times": [397.992, 407.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.423}, "reply_to": "21206__0_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__0_046", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "In our view that clearly comes under Article VI, the special duty of State judges to hear Federal causes of action and to do other things that Congress passes that relate to the Article VI provision and Congress, under Article I, section 8, is empowered to enact a uniform rule of naturalization, and we interpret those early naturalization statutes as being under that provision and then being applied through the State judiciary through Article VI.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [407.349], "stop_times": [437.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.349}, "reply_to": "21206__0_045", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_047", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, you don't think that under the uniform rule of naturalization that Congress could compel State sheriffs to make background checks of aliens, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [437.318], "stop_times": [444.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.318}, "reply_to": "21206__0_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__0_048", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Absolutely not, because the sheriff is not a State judge, and Article VI refers explicitly to State judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [444.832], "stop_times": [450.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.832}, "reply_to": "21206__0_047", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_049", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, so... but I don't think a whole lot turns, then, on the power of Congress to pass uniform rules of naturalization.\nCongress is acting within its appropriate sphere, just as it acts within its appropriate sphere under the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [450.168, 458.042], "stop_times": [458.042, 462.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.168}, "reply_to": "21206__0_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__0_050", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And the State judges have to apply that through Article VI, so I think the clearest example of the early Congress that applies here was the same day that Congress passed the Tenth Amendment they passed a resolution that the States would be encouraged to enact legislation authorizing State local officials, rather, to keep Federal prisoners in their jails.\nIt was seen as a completely voluntary function for which the sheriffs would be paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [462.974, 487.501], "stop_times": [487.501, 493.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.974}, "reply_to": "21206__0_049", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_051", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Mr. Halbrook, the Government in its brief on page 31 has a footnote 21 citing several laws.\nDo all of those, as far as you know, fit within the kind of, we give you this and in return you give us that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [493.345, 502.952], "stop_times": [502.952, 513.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.345}, "reply_to": "21206__0_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21206__0_052", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I don't know whether all of them do.\nI know that several of them do, and these are very... some of them are very obscure laws.\nI don't know that there's ever been any litigation on them, so I cannot say that there is a specific power in the case of every one of these laws that one could link, for example, to the spending power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [513.297, 515.618, 522.624], "stop_times": [515.618, 522.624, 532.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.297}, "reply_to": "21206__0_051", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_053", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, my question is, are you saying that there's nothing like this, that in every case there's either something explicit in the Constitution, like the obligation of State courts that you get from Article VI, or extradition?\nIs this the first of a kind, or is there anything that you would concede is like it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [532.421, 551.082], "stop_times": [551.082, 560.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.421}, "reply_to": "21206__0_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21206__0_054", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, I think there may be some of these laws... for example, I believe there's one cited here about underground storage facilities, where the States are supposed to inventory and report underground storage facilities and frankly, Your Honor, I was not able to find a specific item in that statute that related to the spending power.\nIt's just one of those obscure laws that I'm not really sure what the basis of it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [560.0, 577.271], "stop_times": [577.271, 581.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.0}, "reply_to": "21206__0_053", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_055", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "May--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [581.823], "stop_times": [582.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.823}, "reply_to": "21206__0_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21206__0_056", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "But in terms of precedents for this law that we have here, I think the law in New York v. United States was one that was on all fours with the laws here in terms of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [582.454], "stop_times": [592.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.454}, "reply_to": "21206__0_055", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_057", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--May I ask not about precedent but just about your theory of the case?\nIs it your position that, without having any spending power at all, but just acting under the Commerce Clause, Congress would not have the power to have States report to it the number of fatalities involving children caused by airbags for... in 30-day period, or something like that?\nIt would not have the power to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [592.589, 595.48, 613.044], "stop_times": [595.48, 613.044, 614.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.589}, "reply_to": "21206__0_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_058", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Justice Stevens, we find no power in the Constitution just to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [614.745], "stop_times": [617.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 614.745}, "reply_to": "21206__0_057", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_059", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, the power... I suppose the argument would be the power is to regulate commerce, and they're trying to improve safety on the highways and all the rest of it by getting this data, but you'd say that the Commerce Clause doesn't authorize that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [617.807], "stop_times": [626.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.807}, "reply_to": "21206__0_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_060", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "It would authorize commerce to be regulated, but it would not authorize the immersion of the States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [626.813], "stop_times": [633.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.813}, "reply_to": "21206__0_059", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_061", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Requiring information to be provided by the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [633.825], "stop_times": [634.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.825}, "reply_to": "21206__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_062", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--to do that kind of reporting, and I'd like to point out that this reporting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [634.637], "stop_times": [638.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.637}, "reply_to": "21206__0_061", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_063", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Couldn't Congress do it under this spending help they give the States for the road systems?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [638.44], "stop_times": [643.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.44}, "reply_to": "21206__0_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_064", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--That's the way they do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [643.643], "stop_times": [645.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.643}, "reply_to": "21206__0_063", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_065", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [645.155], "stop_times": [645.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 645.155}, "reply_to": "21206__0_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_066", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--now.\nThat is the basis for this law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [645.576, 646.013], "stop_times": [646.013, 647.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.576}, "reply_to": "21206__0_065", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_067", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Mr. Halbrook, the obligation, as I understand it, on the part of the law enforcement officers is to use reasonable efforts.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [647.646, 654.83], "stop_times": [654.83, 655.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 647.646}, "reply_to": "21206__0_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_068", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [655.41], "stop_times": [655.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.41}, "reply_to": "21206__0_067", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_069", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Do whatever's reasonable.\nIs there in the statute any mechanism for review by anybody as to whether a given law enforcement officer did use reasonable efforts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [655.911, 656.802], "stop_times": [656.802, 667.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.911}, "reply_to": "21206__0_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_070", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIt's a very vague term, and basically the law says that the CLEO, or the chief law enforcement officer, shall use reasonable efforts to ascertain whether receipt or possession of a handgun is lawful, but then it goes on to say, including, and we interpret this as a minimum that has to be carried out, including research into whatever State and local record-keeping systems are available and in the national system designated by the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [667.408, 668.49], "stop_times": [668.49, 691.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.408}, "reply_to": "21206__0_069", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_071", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Do you think it would be open to a court, to this Court to construe that reasonable effort criterion as one which turns on the law enforcement officer's own view of what in relation to all of his other responsibilities, and in relation to his resources, is reasonable?\nCan he be the judge of reasonableness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [691.855, 710.058], "stop_times": [710.058, 712.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.855}, "reply_to": "21206__0_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_072", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "To some extent, perhaps, because the language is there, but I think that there's a vanishing point or an ending point.\nIf he doesn't do any... makes no effort whatever to conduct these background checks and to make these legal determinations, it seems that he is not making a reasonable effort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [712.549, 719.712], "stop_times": [719.712, 730.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 712.549}, "reply_to": "21206__0_071", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_073", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, unless he is the judge of reasonableness.\nIf he were the sole judge of reasonableness, so that there was, in effect, no review of the adequacy of his efforts, would you have a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [730.2, 733.302], "stop_times": [733.302, 741.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.2}, "reply_to": "21206__0_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_074", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I don't think he is the sole judge, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [741.697], "stop_times": [744.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.697}, "reply_to": "21206__0_073", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_075", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, but I'm asking you to assume my hypothesis.\nIf he were... if the statute were construed in such a way as to make him the sole judge, would you have a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [744.729, 747.091], "stop_times": [747.091, 754.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.729}, "reply_to": "21206__0_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_076", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--We would have no case if it was totally optional, and I think your hypothetical would be equivalent to changing shall to may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [754.627], "stop_times": [761.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.627}, "reply_to": "21206__0_075", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_077", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, that isn't optional.\nI mean, if I'm... if I am compelled to make an honest judgment about whether I have the resources to do this, presumably I'm not going to, you know, perjure myself, and I will therefore as a practical matter be compelled to use resources if they are available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [761.67, 762.892], "stop_times": [762.892, 782.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.67}, "reply_to": "21206__0_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_078", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [782.103], "stop_times": [782.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.103}, "reply_to": "21206__0_077", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_079", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Wouldn't I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [782.544], "stop_times": [783.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.544}, "reply_to": "21206__0_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_080", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--As I... I agree with you, and as I understood the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [783.195], "stop_times": [786.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 783.195}, "reply_to": "21206__0_079", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_081", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "So therefore your answer should be, we would continue to have a case because it would, indeed, continue to compel the State officers to do something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [786.097], "stop_times": [791.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 786.097}, "reply_to": "21206__0_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_082", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--As I understood the question, there will be no duty at all, and if there is any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [791.811], "stop_times": [797.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 791.811}, "reply_to": "21206__0_081", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_083", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, that wasn't the question.\nNo, the question was... no, I'm sorry.\nThe question was, there was no review, that the final decision as to what was reasonable would be the decision of the law enforcement officer and there would be no review of that decision.\nThat's the hypothesis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [797.033, 797.924, 799.013, 808.661], "stop_times": [797.924, 799.013, 808.661, 810.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.033}, "reply_to": "21206__0_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_084", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [810.831], "stop_times": [811.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.831}, "reply_to": "21206__0_083", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_085", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "On that hypothesis, would you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [811.372], "stop_times": [812.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.372}, "reply_to": "21206__0_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_086", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I would still have one problem left, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [812.784], "stop_times": [813.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.784}, "reply_to": "21206__0_085", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_087", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [813.883], "stop_times": [814.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.883}, "reply_to": "21206__0_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_088", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Which is the perception of the sheriff as not being a law-abiding sheriff.\nIn other words, if Congress enacts a law, constituents in the community, many of them think the law should be enforced if it's on the books, and the sheriff in all cases decides that he doesn't have to do anything and he completely rejects any execution of the law or consideration of execution of the law, then he does have the political damage, and this is a particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [814.264, 818.377], "stop_times": [818.377, 837.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.264}, "reply_to": "21206__0_087", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_089", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, he would have... and I think your point is well-taken, but would that... would that place him in the position that the opinion in the New York case, for example, described as being essentially an agent or employee, as it were, of the national Government to carry out a national Government policy?\nIt might put him in a political spot, I think you're right.\nBut would that rise to the level of the obligation that in the broader passages in the New York case was condemned as unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [837.88, 855.331, 858.483], "stop_times": [855.331, 858.483, 868.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.88}, "reply_to": "21206__0_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_090", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, I think it would still come under the prohibition on requiring a State to administer a Federal regulatory program in the sense that there's got to be some kind of minimal requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [868.941], "stop_times": [878.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.941}, "reply_to": "21206__0_089", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_091", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, of course, in this situation are there not criminal penalties for someone who doesn't follow the requirements of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [878.985], "stop_times": [886.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.985}, "reply_to": "21206__0_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_092", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Your Honor, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [886.632], "stop_times": [887.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.632}, "reply_to": "21206__0_091", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_093", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "So it would be a jury that would be interpreting, presumably, whether the sheriff had reasonably performed the requirements under the statute and could result in a criminal punishment, as I read the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [887.781], "stop_times": [901.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.781}, "reply_to": "21206__0_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_094", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--The statute broadly says whoever violates 922(s) is subject to incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [901.382], "stop_times": [907.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.382}, "reply_to": "21206__0_093", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_095", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [907.256], "stop_times": [907.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.256}, "reply_to": "21206__0_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_096", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And the... one district court held that that meant exactly what it said in the Mack case, that that was a threat of criminal prosecution when the law was first enacted and, in fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms spokesman on this law said that there were criminal penalties that applied to law enforcement officers.\nHowever, none of the appellate courts have held that the criminal penalties apply.\nThey have held basically that that issue is moot because the Justice Department interpreted the law not to apply... interpreted criminal penalties not to apply to CLEO's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [907.667, 926.537, 931.082], "stop_times": [926.537, 931.082, 942.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.667}, "reply_to": "21206__0_095", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_097", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And what is your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [942.929], "stop_times": [944.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.929}, "reply_to": "21206__0_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_098", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "My position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [944.139], "stop_times": [946.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.139}, "reply_to": "21206__0_097", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_099", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Do the criminal penalties apply to your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [946.68], "stop_times": [948.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.68}, "reply_to": "21206__0_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_100", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--It says whoever.\nI think under the plain language of the statute it does apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [948.242, 949.304], "stop_times": [949.304, 952.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.242}, "reply_to": "21206__0_099", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_101", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Is that your position that it does apply, that you're taking the position before us that your clients are subject to the criminal penalties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [952.436], "stop_times": [958.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.436}, "reply_to": "21206__0_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_102", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "What I have to say, because I represent real clients here, is that if the Government says they don't apply and... the criminal penalties don't apply and these are my clients, I'm going to agree with the Government, because I do not want my clients subject to a court ruling saying that criminal penalties apply to conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [958.619], "stop_times": [973.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 958.619}, "reply_to": "21206__0_101", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_103", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And that's a reasonable enough position, isn't it?\nThere are a lot of statutes, for example, that impose civil penalties and criminal penalties upon regulatory violations and they have a general penalty provision that says whoever violates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [973.407, 975.2], "stop_times": [975.2, 986.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.407}, "reply_to": "21206__0_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_104", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [986.186], "stop_times": [986.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 986.186}, "reply_to": "21206__0_103", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_105", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--this law, and there are a lot of provisions in the statute that require the Secretary to conduct rulemaking, that require the Secretary to do this or that.\nI don't know anybody who's ever tried to prosecute the Secretary if he fails to conduct a rulemaking.\nI mean, it's a violation of the APA, but it's hard to say he's in violation of the act within the meaning of the penalty provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [986.737, 992.752, 996.994], "stop_times": [992.752, 996.994, 1002.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.737}, "reply_to": "21206__0_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_106", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, I think you have to look at each statute and what the criminal penalties say, but in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1002.408], "stop_times": [1005.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.408}, "reply_to": "21206__0_105", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_107", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Is that a reasonable way to interpret this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1005.839], "stop_times": [1008.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.839}, "reply_to": "21206__0_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_108", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, Your Honor it says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1008.032], "stop_times": [1009.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.032}, "reply_to": "21206__0_107", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_109", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That, you know, we're going to go after the sheriffs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1009.461], "stop_times": [1010.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.461}, "reply_to": "21206__0_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_110", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--It says dealers shall do certain things, and then it says CLEO's shall do certain things.\nThe word shall appears in both, and if you want to say that the criminal penalties don't apply to the sheriffs, I don't know, maybe they don't apply to the dealers, either.\nI don't know who they apply to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1010.172, 1014.755, 1021.619], "stop_times": [1014.755, 1021.619, 1022.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.172}, "reply_to": "21206__0_109", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_111", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "But I take it your position here, as you announced it a moment ago, is the Justice Department says those penalties don't apply to the sheriffs and that's your position here too, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1022.701], "stop_times": [1032.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.701}, "reply_to": "21206__0_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_112", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, I have to say, frankly we're in a dilemma, because we're faced with the language of the statute, which is clear enough, and when we went into this litigation we asked for preliminary injunctions protecting our clients from criminal prosecution, and then the Justice Department came up with a memorandum saying that we're not going to interpret the law in that way, so we certainly would like to preserve in essence these letters of immunity that our clients are not pros--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1032.537], "stop_times": [1060.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1032.537}, "reply_to": "21206__0_111", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_113", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "But as I understand your brief, your... in your view the statute would be equally unconstitutional whether it has the criminal penalties or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1060.766], "stop_times": [1066.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.766}, "reply_to": "21206__0_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_114", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Oh, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1066.71], "stop_times": [1067.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.71}, "reply_to": "21206__0_113", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_115", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "So why are we fussing about this issue, I wonder.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1067.331, 1069.041], "stop_times": [1069.041, 1070.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.331}, "reply_to": "21206__0_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_116", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "We think there's other... I mean, the Government has said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1070.782], "stop_times": [1073.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1070.782}, "reply_to": "21206__0_115", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_117", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Except you have to answer questions that are put.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1073.726, 1074.885], "stop_times": [1074.885, 1076.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.726}, "reply_to": "21206__0_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_118", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--The Government has clearly argued that they could bring the sheriffs into court on mandamus or injunction actions if they don't enforce these laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1076.437], "stop_times": [1084.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.437}, "reply_to": "21206__0_117", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_119", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "There's something of a paradox in this whole area, is there not, in that if you prevail it means that you 1) have a huge Federal bureaucracy, or 2) withdrawal of funds, perhaps funds well in excess of what... the funds that you would really expend in this area.\nIn a way, if you prevail you might be striking a blow for big Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1084.11, 1105.635], "stop_times": [1105.635, 1113.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.11}, "reply_to": "21206__0_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__0_120", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Absolutely not, Your Honor.\nThe funds are specifically prohibited to go to CLEO's.\nThe funds are for the updating of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1113.27, 1114.88, 1119.845], "stop_times": [1114.88, 1119.845, 1122.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.27}, "reply_to": "21206__0_119", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_121", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I'm assuming a complete revision of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1122.226], "stop_times": [1125.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.226}, "reply_to": "21206__0_120", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__0_122", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, not even then, because by November of 1998 there is to be on line the permanent Brady act provisions under which the Federal Government will undertake these functions.\nThere will be an instant check where the Federal Bureau of Investigation, basically, will be conducting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1125.738, 1137.696], "stop_times": [1137.696, 1143.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.738}, "reply_to": "21206__0_121", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_123", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1143.691], "stop_times": [1143.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.691}, "reply_to": "21206__0_122", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__0_124", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--background checks, and all of our Tenth Amendment problems go away with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1143.941], "stop_times": [1146.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.941}, "reply_to": "21206__0_123", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_125", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, wouldn't they go away as well if the Government offered money to chief law enforcement officers to administer the program, and you would have an option whether to accept the money and administer it or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1146.552], "stop_times": [1160.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.552}, "reply_to": "21206__0_124", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_126", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "As long as the option was there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1160.432], "stop_times": [1161.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1160.432}, "reply_to": "21206__0_125", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_127", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "You wouldn't be here under those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1161.701], "stop_times": [1163.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.701}, "reply_to": "21206__0_126", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_128", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--We would not be here, absolutely not.\nBut there was no money, and there was no option in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1163.884, 1164.914], "stop_times": [1164.914, 1167.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.884}, "reply_to": "21206__0_127", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_129", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Now, do a lot of chief law enforcement officers around the country comply voluntarily with this act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1167.345], "stop_times": [1174.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.345}, "reply_to": "21206__0_128", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_130", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, I don't know how the word voluntarily would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1174.161], "stop_times": [1176.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1174.161}, "reply_to": "21206__0_129", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_131", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, they are complying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1176.892], "stop_times": [1177.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.892}, "reply_to": "21206__0_130", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_132", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--They are complying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1177.984], "stop_times": [1179.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1177.984}, "reply_to": "21206__0_131", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_133", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Like 40 States or more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1179.363], "stop_times": [1181.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.363}, "reply_to": "21206__0_132", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_134", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Actually, the Brady act, the provisions we're talking about only apply in about half the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1181.146], "stop_times": [1185.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.146}, "reply_to": "21206__0_133", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_135", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1185.077], "stop_times": [1185.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.077}, "reply_to": "21206__0_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_136", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Maybe 24 States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1185.518], "stop_times": [1187.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.518}, "reply_to": "21206__0_135", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_137", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Some of them have enacted their own program, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1187.07], "stop_times": [1189.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.07}, "reply_to": "21206__0_136", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_138", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Some States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1189.221], "stop_times": [1189.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.221}, "reply_to": "21206__0_137", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_139", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--that's sufficient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1189.822], "stop_times": [1190.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.822}, "reply_to": "21206__0_138", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_140", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nSome States already had laws on the books that met the Federal criteria, and in other States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1190.112, 1190.773], "stop_times": [1190.773, 1194.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.112}, "reply_to": "21206__0_139", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_141", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And some are complying without protest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1194.644], "stop_times": [1196.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1194.644}, "reply_to": "21206__0_140", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_142", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, I'm not sure what you mean.\nI mean, some States enacted laws to get out from under this provision.\nThat's how we get up to the 50 percent of the States are exempt from this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1196.417, 1199.726, 1202.798], "stop_times": [1199.726, 1202.798, 1206.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.417}, "reply_to": "21206__0_141", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_143", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1206.601], "stop_times": [1207.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1206.601}, "reply_to": "21206__0_142", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_144", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And then, as far as compliance, I'm not sure how much compliance there is, even in the States where... even on the part of the law enforcement personnel who support this law.\nThe brief of the State of Maryland and other States says that... in support of Government said that all you have to do is the computer, the Federal computer check, and that's not what the law says.\nIt seems like they're nullifying the law if that's all they're doing, because it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1207.212, 1217.638, 1229.198], "stop_times": [1217.638, 1229.198, 1232.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.212}, "reply_to": "21206__0_143", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_145", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "It says States as well, does it not, records?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1232.479], "stop_times": [1235.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.479}, "reply_to": "21206__0_144", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_146", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--All available State and local records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1235.33], "stop_times": [1239.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1235.33}, "reply_to": "21206__0_145", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_147", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1239.313], "stop_times": [1239.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.313}, "reply_to": "21206__0_146", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_148", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "May I ask you a question?\nI want to be sure I understand your position now, prompted by Justice Kennedy's question.\nSupposing they amended the statute to say that all the investigations shall be done by Federal employees, FBI agents or something, but that the chief law enforcement officer of each community must make available to the Federal officer any records that will help him find out this information, would that be constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1239.644, 1240.475, 1245.206], "stop_times": [1240.475, 1245.206, 1260.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.644}, "reply_to": "21206__0_147", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_149", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1260.748], "stop_times": [1261.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.748}, "reply_to": "21206__0_148", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_150", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1261.459], "stop_times": [1261.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.459}, "reply_to": "21206__0_149", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_151", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Not as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1261.737], "stop_times": [1262.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.737}, "reply_to": "21206__0_150", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_152", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That's just the question that I have, actually.\nI mean, if you track this through, I take it there's a statute, for example, which says that States have to report missing children, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1262.428, 1266.232], "stop_times": [1266.232, 1274.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.428}, "reply_to": "21206__0_151", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_153", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--A statute that's based on highway funding, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1274.319], "stop_times": [1276.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.319}, "reply_to": "21206__0_152", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_154", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "It's not... I just see they're setting up a task force, and they say in the task force... what it says here is every Federal, State, and local law enforcement shall report each case of a missing child under age 18.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1276.85], "stop_times": [1287.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.85}, "reply_to": "21206__0_153", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_155", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "To the NCIC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1287.616], "stop_times": [1288.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1287.616}, "reply_to": "21206__0_154", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_156", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, right.\nPeriod.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1288.857, 1289.278], "stop_times": [1289.278, 1289.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.857}, "reply_to": "21206__0_155", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_157", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1289.578], "stop_times": [1290.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.578}, "reply_to": "21206__0_156", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_158", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Not whether you take money, you don't take money, so I take it you're saying that's unconstitutional, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1290.059], "stop_times": [1294.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.059}, "reply_to": "21206__0_157", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_159", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, I interpret that as being based on NCIC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1294.643], "stop_times": [1299.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1294.643}, "reply_to": "21206__0_158", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_160", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I don't see anything here that says you have to do it only if you take money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1299.356], "stop_times": [1301.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.356}, "reply_to": "21206__0_159", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_161", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Your Honor, when you look at the other provisions establishing the NCIC--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1301.857], "stop_times": [1305.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.857}, "reply_to": "21206__0_160", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_162", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Then if it says you only have to do it if you take money, then I'm not right.\nIt's not a good example.\nThere must be an example, maybe it's this case, where Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to say, report some things, right?\nBut the issue is whether it's necessary and proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1305.2, 1309.493, 1310.512, 1319.758], "stop_times": [1309.493, 1310.512, 1319.758, 1322.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.2}, "reply_to": "21206__0_161", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_163", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1322.91], "stop_times": [1323.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.91}, "reply_to": "21206__0_162", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_164", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That's the issue.\nNow, why is it that in Germany, in Switzerland, in the Common Market, in many other federal associations, people think it is more respectful of the States to impose minor duties upon State officials than to set up central bureaucracies?\nWhere is it in our history, or our Constitution, or in the language, that it is more respectful of States to have a Nationwide computer system run by the FBI than to impose minor reporting requirements on State officials?\nWhat is it in law, or history, or anything you want to refer to that says it's more consistent with States rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1323.701, 1324.871, 1343.905, 1361.225], "stop_times": [1324.871, 1343.905, 1361.225, 1368.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.701}, "reply_to": "21206__0_163", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_165", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "In our Constitution, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1368.771], "stop_times": [1370.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.771}, "reply_to": "21206__0_164", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_166", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Where does it say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1370.192], "stop_times": [1371.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.192}, "reply_to": "21206__0_165", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_167", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--It says that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and it provides for a Federal executive branch to execute the laws that Congress passes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1371.093], "stop_times": [1379.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1371.093}, "reply_to": "21206__0_166", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_168", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And why is that more respectful of State rights to set up, let's say, a Federal police service than to say the local police service has to report a few things?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1379.619], "stop_times": [1389.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.619}, "reply_to": "21206__0_167", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_169", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1389.415], "stop_times": [1390.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.415}, "reply_to": "21206__0_168", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_170", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "In other countries they think the opposite, and so what I'm looking for is history or language that says why it is here the opposite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1390.125], "stop_times": [1396.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.125}, "reply_to": "21206__0_169", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_171", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Because of the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers we've rejected the so-called New Jersey plan under which the Federal laws would be executed by State and local officials, and that's the plan that we have.\nThat's our Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1396.177, 1407.856], "stop_times": [1407.856, 1408.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.177}, "reply_to": "21206__0_170", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_172", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Of course, when the Federal Government executes the laws the Federal Government also has to pay for their execution, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1408.837], "stop_times": [1414.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.837}, "reply_to": "21206__0_171", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_173", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "They pay for it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1414.15], "stop_times": [1415.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.15}, "reply_to": "21206__0_172", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_174", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "So if you vote for a massive regulatory program you also have to vote for the taxes at the Federal level, which makes Federal representatives less popular back home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1415.151], "stop_times": [1424.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.151}, "reply_to": "21206__0_173", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_175", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--And it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1424.348], "stop_times": [1425.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1424.348}, "reply_to": "21206__0_174", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_176", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "It's much easier if you allow the... impose an obligation on the States to do it and the State legislators can take the heat by raising the taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1425.297], "stop_times": [1432.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.297}, "reply_to": "21206__0_175", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_177", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--It's also clear in terms of political responsibility who's responsible for enacting the law and executing the law, and that's something that's broken down here.\nWe have Congress passing a law, taking credit to that extent, but then having the administration of the law being imposed on the shoulders of local law enforcement officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1432.893, 1441.488], "stop_times": [1441.488, 1450.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.893}, "reply_to": "21206__0_176", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_178", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Let me follow up on an earlier answer you gave, Mr. Halbrook.\nI understood you to say that even if the Federal Government were to send out people to look at State records, that that would not be permissible, and I think that's a rather strange answer, if I understood it correctly.\nCertainly, in... say, in voting rights cases, Federal, FBI people come and look at State voter registrations.\nIf no activity were required on the part of a State agent, just the Federal Government would send an agent to look at some, say, criminal history records, would that be violative of the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1450.074, 1452.755, 1466.254, 1474.169], "stop_times": [1452.755, 1466.254, 1474.169, 1484.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.074}, "reply_to": "21206__0_177", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__0_179", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, in the Voting Act cases, we've got the Fifteenth Amendment and we've got several other amendments that relate to voting rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1484.786], "stop_times": [1490.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1484.786}, "reply_to": "21206__0_178", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_180", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "But here you have the Commerce Clause, which certainly gives general authority over things that move in commerce, and there's no challenge here on that ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1490.339], "stop_times": [1497.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.339}, "reply_to": "21206__0_179", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__0_181", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, these are not commercial records they would be looking at.\nThere's no nexus to interstate commerce if they want to go through the records, but this is the kind of thing where cooperative federalism really works.\nThere's always been the sharing of information voluntarily.\nIt's not a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1497.294, 1499.746, 1505.59, 1508.451], "stop_times": [1499.746, 1505.59, 1508.451, 1510.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1497.294}, "reply_to": "21206__0_180", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_182", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, but you're saying it would be unconstitutional to require that challenge.\nWasn't that your answer to Justice Stevens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1510.054, 1513.203], "stop_times": [1513.203, 1514.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.054}, "reply_to": "21206__0_181", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_183", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes Your Honor.\nI don't know what the constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1514.585, 1515.396], "stop_times": [1515.396, 1516.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1514.585}, "reply_to": "21206__0_182", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_184", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, take criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1516.285], "stop_times": [1517.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.285}, "reply_to": "21206__0_183", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_185", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--authorization would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1517.116], "stop_times": [1517.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.116}, "reply_to": "21206__0_184", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_186", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Just take criminal records, for example, not necessarily tied to commerce.\nYou mean it would... I take it it's your position that it would be unconstitutional to require access by a Federal investigator to State conviction records, is that correct?\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1517.677, 1522.202, 1536.25], "stop_times": [1522.202, 1536.25, 1537.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.677}, "reply_to": "21206__0_185", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__0_187", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Access from a police department, perhaps, but by the same token, there's no constitutional power that the States would have to require the Federal Government to share their records, but it's the kind of thing that comes under cooperative federalism where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1537.651], "stop_times": [1548.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1537.651}, "reply_to": "21206__0_186", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_188", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That's an extreme position.\nI thought you were here taking the position that this particular program required the county to expend its efforts and occupy the time of their deputies to devote first and foremost to the execution of this particular law, as opposed to their own needs for hunting murderers or rapists or robbers.\nI thought that was the position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1548.759, 1550.56, 1575.615], "stop_times": [1550.56, 1575.615, 1577.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.759}, "reply_to": "21206__0_187", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_189", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Absolutely that is why we're here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1577.528], "stop_times": [1577.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1577.528}, "reply_to": "21206__0_188", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_190", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, but you're changing your position--\n--And I think that's totally different when you say no, we wouldn't even agree that a law that says a Federal agent can come and look at State records--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1577.798, 1579.27], "stop_times": [1579.27, 1588.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.798}, "reply_to": "21206__0_189", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_191", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1588.497], "stop_times": [1589.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.497}, "reply_to": "21206__0_190", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_192", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--would be allowed.\nI mean, that's a remarkable difference in position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1589.238, 1589.936], "stop_times": [1589.936, 1592.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.238}, "reply_to": "21206__0_191", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__0_193", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--That's a hypothetical question.\nThat issue hasn't been briefed here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1592.649, 1594.341], "stop_times": [1594.341, 1595.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1592.649}, "reply_to": "21206__0_192", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_194", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, but your position, counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1595.86], "stop_times": [1597.302], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.86}, "reply_to": "21206__0_193", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21206__0_195", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--the citation to the authority for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1597.302], "stop_times": [1598.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1597.302}, "reply_to": "21206__0_194", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_196", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Your position, counsel, has been that there's a lack of power here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1598.925], "stop_times": [1602.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.925}, "reply_to": "21206__0_195", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_197", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1602.167], "stop_times": [1602.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1602.167}, "reply_to": "21206__0_196", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_198", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And even if it's 10 minutes a month required by the officer, if the Federal Government orders it, you can't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1602.768], "stop_times": [1607.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.768}, "reply_to": "21206__0_197", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_199", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1607.46], "stop_times": [1608.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1607.46}, "reply_to": "21206__0_198", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_200", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "If it's 10 minutes a month or 10 minutes a year.\nThat's your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1608.412, 1610.773], "stop_times": [1610.773, 1611.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.412}, "reply_to": "21206__0_199", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_201", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--That's our position, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1611.674], "stop_times": [1612.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1611.674}, "reply_to": "21206__0_200", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_202", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And if they pay a million dollars, if they pay a million dollars of the cost, if the State says, we don't want your million dollars, we don't want a billion dollars, we don't want to do it, period--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1612.743], "stop_times": [1622.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.743}, "reply_to": "21206__0_201", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_203", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1622.639], "stop_times": [1623.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1622.639}, "reply_to": "21206__0_202", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_204", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--in your position, they can't be forced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1623.17], "stop_times": [1624.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.17}, "reply_to": "21206__0_203", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__0_205", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--That's been the precedents of this Court under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1624.139], "stop_times": [1626.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1624.139}, "reply_to": "21206__0_204", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_206", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I thought it was 10 minutes a month in the execution of a Federal law, 10 minutes a month in acting in an executive capacity to implement... not to obey, but to implement a Federal law.\nIsn't there a difference between that and simply obeying a subpoena for documents, or a statute that requires information to be provided, which statute could apply to public... to private individuals as well as to a Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1626.032, 1642.122], "stop_times": [1642.122, 1654.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.032}, "reply_to": "21206__0_205", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_207", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nWe don't object to that, and we don't object to subpoenas.\nThis Court's precedents under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1654.009, 1654.53, 1656.571], "stop_times": [1654.53, 1656.571, 1658.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1654.009}, "reply_to": "21206__0_206", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_208", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "But requiring information to be turned over is something that you can do vis-a-vis a private citizen.\nIt doesn't treat the Government as a Government.\nYou're treating the State as a governmental institution, however, when you require it to enforce a law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1658.815, 1663.726, 1665.677], "stop_times": [1663.726, 1665.677, 1671.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.815}, "reply_to": "21206__0_207", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__0_209", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--If it's a law that applies universally under this Court's precedents such as Garcia, this law would be valid.\nIf it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1671.272, 1677.157], "stop_times": [1677.157, 1677.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1671.272}, "reply_to": "21206__0_208", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_210", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, but private citizens cannot open up public records.\nPrivate citizens don't have authority to make public records available.\nIf the State has its own secret files on people who violated the law, the question is, can the Federal Government command the State to make... give access to those documents, and you say no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1677.655, 1680.748, 1684.801], "stop_times": [1680.748, 1684.801, 1695.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.655}, "reply_to": "21206__0_209", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_211", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, if it's records related to criminal conduct and subject to a subpoena, we have no problem at all with those records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1695.227], "stop_times": [1700.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1695.227}, "reply_to": "21206__0_210", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_212", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, but I'm not talking about a subpoena.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1700.85], "stop_times": [1701.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.85}, "reply_to": "21206__0_211", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__0_213", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Halbrook.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1701.971], "stop_times": [1703.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.971}, "reply_to": "21206__0_212", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__0_214", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1703.263], "stop_times": [1703.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1703.263}, "reply_to": "21206__0_213", "speaker": "stephen_p_halbrook"}
{"id": "21206__0_215", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "General Dellinger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1703.671], "stop_times": [1705.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.671}, "reply_to": "21206__0_214", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__1_000", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nMr. Halbrook's answers at oral argument are, I believe, fully consistent with the position that they have taken in their brief, and I think for understandable reasons.\nThey believe that there's an entire failure of power on the part of the Federal Government to enact a law of this kind just as if it were the Government of Brazil or the King of Belgium.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1705.223, 1711.238, 1724.278], "stop_times": [1711.238, 1724.278, 1735.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.223}, "reply_to": "21206__0_215", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_001", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, can the State require the Federal Government to do something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1735.004], "stop_times": [1738.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.004}, "reply_to": "21206__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_002", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1738.356], "stop_times": [1739.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.356}, "reply_to": "21206__1_001", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_003", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Why doesn't it work in reverse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1739.115], "stop_times": [1740.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.115}, "reply_to": "21206__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_004", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Because of the Supremacy Clause, I think, Justice Kennedy.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1740.546, 1743.498], "stop_times": [1743.498, 1744.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.546}, "reply_to": "21206__1_003", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_005", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, but there's a Federal design here, and the question is whether or not it is consistent with the political relation that subsists between the citizens to have one Government interfere with another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1744.279], "stop_times": [1757.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.279}, "reply_to": "21206__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_006", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--The Supremacy Clause resolved that issue, Justice Kennedy, where Congress is acting as it is here, fully within the core of one of its enumerated powers.\nThe three critical points, I think, are first that... just to tell you what I think I would hope to discuss... are first that, because this law does not impermissibly require the States to govern but, rather, essentially applies Federal law to local law enforcement officers and to gun dealers, requiring them to exchange vital information, and because Brady uses local law enforcement as the source of this information for the very good reason that these offices have, for now, the most ready access to the relevant information, and finally, because the interim Brady provisions are by definition so reasonable in their approach that it is necessary to resort to resurrecting a rigid rule like the repudiated position of Kentucky v. Dennison--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1757.347, 1770.127], "stop_times": [1770.127, 1828.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1757.347}, "reply_to": "21206__1_005", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_007", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, suppose that the Congress had said that because we have an emergency here and we're not up and running, that for 5 years gun permits, gun transfer forms will be processed by the House of Representatives in their field offices, in their home offices.\nThe entire burden of complying with the act was up to the Congress of the United States, the individual Congressmen and their staffs.\nThat would be a clear violation of separation of powers, would it not?\nYou don't think the Congress itself could administer this scheme through its congressional field offices?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1828.453, 1844.716, 1852.12, 1855.192], "stop_times": [1844.716, 1852.12, 1855.192, 1862.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.453}, "reply_to": "21206__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_008", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Congress may not be saddled with a duty of executive branch Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1862.338], "stop_times": [1870.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.338}, "reply_to": "21206__1_007", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_009", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "It saddles... it saddles--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1870.836], "stop_times": [1872.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.836}, "reply_to": "21206__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_010", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1872.496], "stop_times": [1872.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.496}, "reply_to": "21206__1_009", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_011", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1872.726], "stop_times": [1873.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.726}, "reply_to": "21206__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_012", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1873.287], "stop_times": [1873.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.287}, "reply_to": "21206__1_011", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_013", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And that is because there are some very basic notions of accountability that underlie separation of powers.\nWhy should, if the Congress could not ignore separation of powers, how can it ignore the Federal balance when the same consideration are applicable... that is to say, a blurring of political accountability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1873.608, 1881.041], "stop_times": [1881.041, 1893.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.608}, "reply_to": "21206__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_014", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, I... it is not the case that Congress is ignoring the principles of federalism, Your Honor.\nI think the act is quite sensitive to those concerns.\nI would not necessarily concede that Congress could not seek information that was in the hands of congressional offices and require them to transmit it.\nIf Congress can require congressional offices to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1893.419, 1899.734, 1903.827, 1911.391], "stop_times": [1899.734, 1903.827, 1911.391, 1915.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.419}, "reply_to": "21206__1_013", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_015", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, my hypothetical was a rather strange hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1915.355], "stop_times": [1918.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.355}, "reply_to": "21206__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_016", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1918.478], "stop_times": [1918.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.478}, "reply_to": "21206__1_015", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_017", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I will admit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1918.938], "stop_times": [1919.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.938}, "reply_to": "21206__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_018", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, I understand that, Justice Kennedy, and it's a fair one, but it is important to realize the extent to which this is a law that applies to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1919.239], "stop_times": [1926.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.239}, "reply_to": "21206__1_017", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_019", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, let me ask you whether you think that under the constitutional framework we have, which preserves States as sovereign entities, the Congress can pass a law mandating that every State administer Congress' welfare plan without offering financial assistance and an option to the States to do that?\nCan they just pass a law saying we think it's in the public interest to resolve issues of poverty, and we mandate the States to carry out our extensive program that we devise, and the States are to manage it.\nNo money, no option.\nYou go do it, States.\nOr some health program, or some State highway safety program, same thing.\nCan Congress just pass it, and without giving the States and option or funding for it say, you attend to this, States.\nYou manage it.\nYou enforce these laws we pass.\nCan they do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1926.844, 1952.25, 1970.052, 1972.083, 1974.414, 1979.118, 1986.622, 1987.333, 1989.453], "stop_times": [1952.25, 1970.052, 1972.083, 1974.414, 1979.118, 1986.622, 1987.333, 1989.453, 1990.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.844}, "reply_to": "21206__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__1_020", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, Congress can impose upon State and local government officials the responsibility for assisting in the execution of a Federal program as long as, first, it does not implicate the serious concerns of State sovereignty and political accountability that are identified in New York--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [1990.585], "stop_times": [2014.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1990.585}, "reply_to": "21206__1_019", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_021", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, don't you think it does when Congress says, we're passing this law and setting a national standard for health care, or welfare--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2014.512], "stop_times": [2023.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.512}, "reply_to": "21206__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__1_022", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2023.447], "stop_times": [2024.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.447}, "reply_to": "21206__1_021", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_023", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--or highway safety, and passes it off to the States directly to administer those programs, not giving them an option, not funding it.\nNot giving them an option to take money and participate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2024.448, 2032.193], "stop_times": [2032.193, 2034.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.448}, "reply_to": "21206__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__1_024", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I understand that.\nMy answer is a predictive one, that it would quite likely be the case that such a program would, in fact, run afoul of the principles of sovereignty and accountability because it would place the States in a position of making policy according to a Federal mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2034.854, 2035.124], "stop_times": [2035.124, 2056.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.854}, "reply_to": "21206__1_023", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_025", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "And this is just a smaller version of that example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2056.208], "stop_times": [2059.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.208}, "reply_to": "21206__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__1_026", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2059.942], "stop_times": [2060.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2059.942}, "reply_to": "21206__1_025", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_027", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2060.429], "stop_times": [2060.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.429}, "reply_to": "21206__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__1_028", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Let me put a hypothetical where it wouldn't put the states in the position of making any policy.\nIt's a federally designed welfare program.\nAll the... every jot and tiddle of it is set forth in painful detail in the statute.\nYour answer, then, would have to be, then it would be okay.\nCongress could go home and say, well, we've balanced the budget, having left all of the welfare cost to the States.\nYour answer would be yes, that's constitutional, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2060.76, 2065.184, 2067.065, 2073.119, 2076.65, 2083.146], "stop_times": [2065.184, 2067.065, 2073.119, 2076.65, 2083.146, 2085.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.76}, "reply_to": "21206__1_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_029", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--My answer is that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2085.578], "stop_times": [2086.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.578}, "reply_to": "21206__1_028", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_030", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No policy judgments left to the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2086.746], "stop_times": [2088.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.746}, "reply_to": "21206__1_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_031", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--My answer is that such a statute would not, as you define it, violate the principles of sovereignty and accountability set out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2088.75], "stop_times": [2094.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.75}, "reply_to": "21206__1_030", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_032", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "The answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2094.893], "stop_times": [2095.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.893}, "reply_to": "21206__1_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_033", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Now... yes, exactly.\nNow, I do not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2095.893, 2096.985], "stop_times": [2096.985, 2097.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.893}, "reply_to": "21206__1_032", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_034", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Because you think that it is... and this is what the Government's brief says.\nIt seems to me totally counterintuitive that it is better when you leave the States no option, no policy judgments at all, and make them simply dance like marionettes on the fingers of the Federal Government.\nThat's okay.\nBut it is bad if you leave the States some policy judgment.\nI mean, that's so counterintuitive.\nWhy wouldn't that make it worse, to leave them no policy judgment, rather than make it better?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2097.657, 2102.047, 2114.957, 2118.109, 2122.57, 2124.123], "stop_times": [2102.047, 2114.957, 2118.109, 2122.57, 2124.123, 2128.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.657}, "reply_to": "21206__1_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_035", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Because, for the reasons this Court sets forth in New York v. United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2128.275], "stop_times": [2133.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2128.275}, "reply_to": "21206__1_034", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_036", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "New York v. United States gave the States an option.\nThey could manage the waste or they could, by taking over it themselves, act purely executively rather than legislatively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2133.079, 2135.491], "stop_times": [2135.491, 2147.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.079}, "reply_to": "21206__1_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_037", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "What Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2147.868], "stop_times": [2149.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2147.868}, "reply_to": "21206__1_036", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_038", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That would have been purely executive action.\nThat option was available in New York, and we nonetheless held that it was bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2149.348, 2151.0], "stop_times": [2151.0, 2154.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.348}, "reply_to": "21206__1_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_039", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--What Congress has done here is, I think, Justice O'Connor, not a smaller version of that large program, because they have been careful to take responsibility for the policy choices and then for the administrative policy choices.\nThis act is administered by the Departments of Justice and Treasury, by the ATF, the FBI, by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, by the Bureau of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2154.631, 2168.642], "stop_times": [2168.642, 2176.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.631}, "reply_to": "21206__1_038", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_040", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, I think Justice Scalia has addressed that point in exploring whether taking away the policy choices saves it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2176.257], "stop_times": [2183.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.257}, "reply_to": "21206__1_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__1_041", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2183.221], "stop_times": [2184.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.221}, "reply_to": "21206__1_040", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_042", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "The notion that the Federal Government can just commandeer State and local government totally to administer some federally enacted program, all the details of which are spelled out, is the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2184.3], "stop_times": [2198.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.3}, "reply_to": "21206__1_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__1_043", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I think it is important to note what Congress cannot do.\nFirst of all, in answer to your question and Justice Scalia's about the extent of the burden, there is some limit, as this Court suggested in Garcia, to how much of a purely financial burden Congress could put on the States if Congress made all the policy choices itself.\nThat... and answering those hypothetically is difficult, because it would depend on the degree of the national interest.\nIn 1917, Congress had every State government devote its entire resources for a brief period of time to registering people for the World War I draft.\nYou would want to know the degree of flexibility and discretion that were permitted to the States to carry out their own functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2198.552, 2201.334, 2217.864, 2223.186, 2232.813], "stop_times": [2201.334, 2217.864, 2223.186, 2232.813, 2237.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.552}, "reply_to": "21206__1_042", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_044", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Also you would say there was some difference between wartime and peacetime as to congressional authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2237.906], "stop_times": [2243.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.906}, "reply_to": "21206__1_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__1_045", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt would depend upon that and all the other circumstances as to how great a burden Congress could put.\nBut I want to be clear that we believe that, under the vital principles of New York v. United States, there are provisions that would be unconstitutional, that are different from the provision here.\nFor example, even if it only cost the State $5 and their officials 5 minutes of their time, the Constitution would be violated if Congress had decided to off-load some of the political responsibility here by requiring each city council and county commission to vote in the provisions of the Brady act.\nEven though that's fairly costless, requiring them to act like puppets and to call the roll saying, all those in favor raise your hand, and they're required to raise their hand when they're not in favor, or have some other draconian alternative, such as taking title to handgun liability.\nThat would violate the sovereignty principles.\nSimilarly, if Congress had said that the States must, by the year 2010, reduce the number of handgun sales in the State by 50 percent, it would be worse than simply having Congress take the political responsibility for the choices Congress made, because the States would then be forced to undertake what might be politically unpopular choices to solve a problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2243.119, 2245.032, 2250.115, 2263.265, 2282.866, 2298.177, 2299.99], "stop_times": [2245.032, 2250.115, 2263.265, 2282.866, 2298.177, 2299.99, 2325.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.119}, "reply_to": "21206__1_044", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_046", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "They can do that with the environment, can't they?\nI mean, aren't there hundreds of billions of dollars of unfunded mandates that the States complain about and create a political issue?\nI mean, what's the line?\nFrom what I read, the CAMEL is lots and lots of money in obligations that Congress imposes upon the States all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2325.796, 2327.456, 2333.931, 2335.343], "stop_times": [2327.456, 2333.931, 2335.343, 2343.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.796}, "reply_to": "21206__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_047", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2343.298], "stop_times": [2344.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.298}, "reply_to": "21206__1_046", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_048", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "So what's the principle of federalism that says they can do that but asking a police officer to report a missing child, or asking a police officer to report a safety statistic, or to look something up in a computer, suddenly is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, but imposing hundreds of billions of dollars of costs, as Congress does in many laws, is not?\nWhat's the principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2344.069, 2363.209], "stop_times": [2363.209, 2364.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.069}, "reply_to": "21206__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_049", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I don't believe there is any principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2364.461], "stop_times": [2368.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.461}, "reply_to": "21206__1_048", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_050", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I don't believe there's any such unfunded mandate.\nWhat unfunded mandates are you talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2368.014, 2370.685], "stop_times": [2370.685, 2372.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.014}, "reply_to": "21206__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_051", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I know... mandates in... I'm not saying here.\nI just read in the newspaper--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2372.556, 2373.618], "stop_times": [2373.618, 2374.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.556}, "reply_to": "21206__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_052", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2374.516], "stop_times": [2374.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.516}, "reply_to": "21206__1_051", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_053", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--that there is a thing called unfunded mandates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2374.807], "stop_times": [2376.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.807}, "reply_to": "21206__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_054", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2376.519], "stop_times": [2377.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.519}, "reply_to": "21206__1_053", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_055", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--that the States complain about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2377.338], "stop_times": [2378.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.338}, "reply_to": "21206__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_056", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Justice Breyer, those are often unfunded within the context of some other provision where the courts... where the States ostensibly have a choice.\nI mean, I do believe they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2378.6, 2386.414], "stop_times": [2386.414, 2387.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.6}, "reply_to": "21206__1_055", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_057", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "If you don't do it, we'll do it, and the States do it simply to avoid having the Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2387.245], "stop_times": [2390.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.245}, "reply_to": "21206__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_058", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2390.889], "stop_times": [2391.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.889}, "reply_to": "21206__1_057", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_059", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--But you don't have to do it.\nIf you don't have to do it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2391.24, 2391.911], "stop_times": [2391.911, 2392.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.24}, "reply_to": "21206__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_060", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2392.528], "stop_times": [2393.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.528}, "reply_to": "21206__1_059", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_061", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--we'll send the Feds in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2393.199], "stop_times": [2393.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.199}, "reply_to": "21206__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_062", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Those are not constitutionally impermissible, but if Congress were to pass the Perfectly Clean Air Act of 1998 and say to the States, you've got to have 99-44/100 percent pure air by the year 2000, Congress gets all the credit, and the States are then forced to choose between adopting mandatory car-pooling, or exorbitant gasoline taxes.\nThat's not what happens here when Congress takes the political responsibility, and I believe that once you're in this area, although we believe and have as our most difficult question thinking about what the outer limit would be if Congress were, contrary to 200 years of its history, to start imposing burdens so substantial, even though they did not implicate sovereignty and accountability, that the States would be impaired in carrying out their functions.\nI think the more serious question is the one that I think that Mr. Halbrook dealt with as well as he can, which is, what is the principle that tells Congress, that has extraordinary legislative power to regulate these mobile items called handguns, that they simply may not impose these duties on gun dealers and local law enforcement officers who are sitting there on the information, if they'll look it up, to tell Congress when guns are being sold to violent felons and other dangerous buyers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2393.97, 2414.005, 2438.559], "stop_times": [2414.005, 2438.559, 2470.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.97}, "reply_to": "21206__1_061", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_063", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Only governmental duties cannot be imposed, is all he's saying.\nIf it's informational... or it's all he should be saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2470.683, 2473.853], "stop_times": [2473.853, 2476.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.683}, "reply_to": "21206__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_064", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2476.704, 2477.425], "stop_times": [2477.425, 2478.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.704}, "reply_to": "21206__1_063", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_065", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "It can get information--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2478.597], "stop_times": [2480.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.597}, "reply_to": "21206__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_066", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "As Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2480.818], "stop_times": [2481.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.818}, "reply_to": "21206__1_065", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_067", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--It can get information from the... from a Government just as it can get information from an individual, but to require a Government to perform governmental functions is something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2481.259], "stop_times": [2489.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.259}, "reply_to": "21206__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_068", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Well, this... it would be, Justice Scalia, in the sense of New York v. United States, if those governmental functions were the kind of policy impositions that Congress was imposing with the Low Level Radioactive Waste Act at issue in New York, that forced the States to undertake the hard policy choices that Congress, in fact, made here.\nWhat they are... here, Congress is simply telling the States to do something that local, State, and Federal Governments have done for a very long time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2489.804, 2514.031], "stop_times": [2514.031, 2526.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.804}, "reply_to": "21206__1_067", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_069", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No unpleasant policy choices are left for the local government.\nThey... the local government does not have to decide whether (a) to raise taxes, or (b) to divert police officers from hunting murderers and rapists to looking up these records, or (3)... I don't know what, to declare bankruptcy.\nAren't these all unpleasant policy choices that the Government has imposed upon the localities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2526.108, 2529.181, 2544.76], "stop_times": [2529.181, 2544.76, 2552.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.108}, "reply_to": "21206__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_070", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "The only policy choice that I think you could honestly call a policy choice that Congress requires the chief local law enforcement officers to engage in here is one that creates the flexibility of the Brady act.\nIt is telling them that the efforts that they need to make need only be reasonable efforts.\nThey give them the flexibility to decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2552.356, 2566.424, 2571.356], "stop_times": [2566.424, 2571.356, 2574.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2552.356}, "reply_to": "21206__1_069", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_071", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, why isn't that enough of a policy choice to create the problem?\nI mean, it seems to me that even assuming that the scheme is not voluntary, and I take it you're not conceding that it is, the local law enforcement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2574.088, 2575.821], "stop_times": [2575.821, 2585.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.088}, "reply_to": "21206__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__1_072", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--We do not... we do not take the position that it is voluntary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2585.318], "stop_times": [2588.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.318}, "reply_to": "21206__1_071", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_073", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Right, so that the local law enforcement officer has got a real policy choice, number 1, in choosing between his Brady act responsibilities and whatever other local law enforcement abilities he's got, and number 2, I suppose even independently of that, he's at least got an initial policy choice to make about how intrusive an investigation is reasonable enough, and I would suppose that that latter decision could be politically a very explosive one in some communities.\nSo even on your own standard, why isn't that enough for unconstitutionality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2588.43, 2617.678], "stop_times": [2617.678, 2622.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.43}, "reply_to": "21206__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__1_074", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Because the kind of policy choice that he's making... if you... I have to agree that you can call anything a policy choice.\nI don't agree that the way this act works imposes or forces the CLEO to make these decisions about intrusiveness.\nThat is to say, he decides what efforts are reasonable.\nHe gets guidance from... the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau of the Department of Treasury has put out guidance and they have said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2622.531, 2632.178, 2639.182, 2642.313], "stop_times": [2632.178, 2639.182, 2642.313, 2649.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.531}, "reply_to": "21206__1_073", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_075", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, that may be fine, but the people who are being investigated I don't think either know or much care that there may be a BATF memo, and the... to the extent there is flexibility it's the local officer's choice and, to the extent that he is even exercising guidance from BATF in his relationship to his constituents, he is still being placed, in effect, in the position of a policymaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2649.238], "stop_times": [2673.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.238}, "reply_to": "21206__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__1_076", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--This is, I think, a difficult point in the case, but I think it is a policy choice so limited and so beneficial in its flexibility... that is, rather than saying you must check a certain number of records, what the Brady act says is, we're going to give you flexibility to make the kind of choice you have to make already, of how you allocate your resources.\nWhat Brady does is simply to add one more additional item to the list of duties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2673.565, 2702.773], "stop_times": [2702.773, 2708.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.565}, "reply_to": "21206__1_075", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_077", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, but it has to be done in 5 days, and so the local county has some massive prison escape, or riots going on, and the sheriff can't send his deputies out to deal with that because he's only got 5 days to apply, and doesn't the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms take a position in the memo that the criminal penalties do apply to these sheriffs?\nI think there are some problems--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2708.427, 2730.142], "stop_times": [2730.142, 2734.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2708.427}, "reply_to": "21206__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21206__1_078", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, first of all, the... it is emphatically the case that where there's a prison breakout the sheriff has the discretion to do no, zero, Brady act checks where it's not... where... this is entrusted to his sound discretion.\nThe reason that the reasonable efforts clause is put in there is precisely so that he could choose to carry out his State functions instead.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2734.205, 2753.016, 2761.614], "stop_times": [2753.016, 2761.614, 2761.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.205}, "reply_to": "21206__1_077", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_079", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Doesn't the reasonableness include the amount of funding that the county gives the sheriff?\nDoesn't the county have to provide enough funding to allow him to do this duty that's been imposed upon him?\nWouldn't it be declared unreasonable if the county clearly has not provided the sheriff's office enough funds to do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2761.953, 2767.007, 2772.51], "stop_times": [2767.007, 2772.51, 2778.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.953}, "reply_to": "21206__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_080", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--He is required to make some judgments.\nHe's required to make some choices.\nHe has some political accountability for those choices.\nI don't deny any of those things, but all of the political responsibility that can possibly be claimed has been taken by the Federal agencies in this case.\nYou can call--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2778.104, 2782.396, 2785.798, 2788.369, 2798.707], "stop_times": [2782.396, 2785.798, 2788.369, 2798.707, 2799.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2778.104}, "reply_to": "21206__1_079", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_081", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, what about a situation in which the county says, as a footnote to the budget, not a penny of the sheriff's budget is going to be spent doing Brady act investigations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2799.488], "stop_times": [2809.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.488}, "reply_to": "21206__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__1_082", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2809.362], "stop_times": [2812.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2809.362}, "reply_to": "21206__1_081", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_083", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "It seems to me the point of political accountability at that point is directly on the sheriff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2812.135], "stop_times": [2815.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.135}, "reply_to": "21206__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21206__1_084", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Justice Souter, when the State says you may not do any Brady act checks, or you may not spend a penny doing Brady act checks, that statute is preempted under the Supremacy Clause by the Brady act.\nThe... every private who sorts potatoes thinks that... between large and small ones thinks that when you get a medium sized potato you're making a policy choice, but here, it is only in the flexibility about the amount of resources to be expended.\nThink about how... the same choices are going to be made when the State has to have somebody report missing children to a national system--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2815.277, 2827.095, 2842.196], "stop_times": [2827.095, 2842.196, 2851.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.277}, "reply_to": "21206__1_083", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_085", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "What if the board of supervisors from one of these counties says, you know, you're doing a lot of stuff for us already, and go ahead and do the Brady act stuff, but put it at the bottom of the list, and then as... it turns out, in fact, that they put it at the bottom of the list and they never get to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2851.671], "stop_times": [2868.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.671}, "reply_to": "21206__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__1_086", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--If there are... this is a law that is entrusted to the sound discretion of the law enforcement officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2868.262], "stop_times": [2878.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.262}, "reply_to": "21206__1_085", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_087", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, and the way they exercise their discretion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2878.27], "stop_times": [2880.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.27}, "reply_to": "21206__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__1_088", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "My--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2880.801], "stop_times": [2881.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2880.801}, "reply_to": "21206__1_087", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_089", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--is they obey the board of supervisors and put the Brady act stuff last.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2881.332], "stop_times": [2884.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.332}, "reply_to": "21206__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__1_090", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--My answer would be that it would not be reasonable to make an a priori determination going forward that this was always the last matter to be done.\nThe fact of the matter is, Justice O'Connor I think asked an important question, don't many CLEO's like this law, and they're happy to comply with it.\nI mean, the answer is not just some, the answer is most, but I mean... in fact, they wanted this duty.\nThey want... the major law enforcement organizations wanted this duty placed on local law enforcement for some of the reasons Justice Kennedy suggested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2884.564, 2894.728, 2904.646, 2910.039], "stop_times": [2894.728, 2904.646, 2910.039, 2917.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2884.564}, "reply_to": "21206__1_089", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_091", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, we don't ordinarily decide constitutional questions... I mean, are we going to say to someone who raises a First Amendment claim, gee, plenty of other people have obeyed this law, and here you are complaining about it?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2917.035, 2928.342], "stop_times": [2928.342, 2929.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.035}, "reply_to": "21206__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21206__1_092", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "No, Mr. Chief Justice.\nMy point is that they wanted it for a very good reason, for the reason suggested in part by a question from Justice Kennedy, that the alternative of having these duties imposed upon a substantial Federal bureaucracy when they are more easily done in the 3,000 counties that have more local familiarity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2929.414, 2930.453], "stop_times": [2930.453, 2950.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2929.414}, "reply_to": "21206__1_091", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_093", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well, but I suppose the answer to that is, as the Constitution recognizes, that each branch of the Government, State and Federal, has to make a certain cost-benefit choice, and if Congress wants to have some huge program, I suppose it can pay the political cost for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2950.237], "stop_times": [2964.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.237}, "reply_to": "21206__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_094", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--In this case the... given the fact that you have, for example, 56 FBI field offices, one for every 30 counties, it would be extraordinarily inconvenient, as well as inefficient, and the relevant records are where local law enforcement is.\nCongress didn't do this simply to off-load its burdens.\nThat's where the arrest warrants are for fugitives from justice that are not on the NCIC, where you could look up the local search warrants.\nJustice O'Connor naturally leads to the question why not make it voluntary if most CLEO's want it?\nI think there's something much more serious than a free ride or problem here.\nThis is a chain that may be no stronger than its weakest link, and I think the reason that local law enforcement offices wanted Congress to make this mandatory was that they understood that if you have one county in a region or a State that simply announces we are not going to look up and find out whether gun buyers are felons, that's the counties where felons will buy their guns--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [2964.757, 2982.198, 2985.169, 2992.153, 2996.767, 3001.019], "stop_times": [2982.198, 2985.169, 2992.153, 2996.767, 3001.019, 3026.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.757}, "reply_to": "21206__1_093", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_095", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "So federalism is now being used to ensure uniformity.\nI thought it was for just the opposite purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3026.356, 3029.639], "stop_times": [3029.639, 3032.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.356}, "reply_to": "21206__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_096", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Federalism is being used here, Justice Kennedy, to mitigate in this case the effects of the enormous interstate mobility in handguns by ensuring that there is some effort made to see which illegal buyers are doing so before guns are sold.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3032.43, 3057.355], "stop_times": [3057.355, 3058.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.43}, "reply_to": "21206__1_095", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_097", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Would you agree with me that this is a very rare exercise of Federal power?\nI noticed in your brief that you could find very few examples.\nIt's surprising how--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3058.807, 3063.56, 3067.483], "stop_times": [3063.56, 3067.483, 3068.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.807}, "reply_to": "21206__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_098", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I think that observation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3068.702], "stop_times": [3069.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3068.702}, "reply_to": "21206__1_097", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_099", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--And it's surprising how often the Federal Government tells the State... or how rarely it tells a State you must do something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3069.273], "stop_times": [3077.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3069.273}, "reply_to": "21206__1_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_100", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3077.668], "stop_times": [3079.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.668}, "reply_to": "21206__1_099", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_101", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "As opposed to the fact that you shouldn't do something under the Supremacy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3079.16], "stop_times": [3081.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3079.16}, "reply_to": "21206__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_102", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "I agree with that observation and I think that in a sense it cuts both ways here.\nIt shows, I think, that Congress has not abused the fact that when it's acting under its legislative power it may call upon... impose, require some duties on local offices.\nIt has not abused that, even though I think the founders would be surprised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3081.521, 3085.145, 3097.653], "stop_times": [3085.145, 3097.653, 3100.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3081.521}, "reply_to": "21206__1_101", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_103", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--So if it is necessary and proper in carrying out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3100.704], "stop_times": [3104.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3100.704}, "reply_to": "21206__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_104", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Where it's necessary and proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3104.387], "stop_times": [3105.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3104.387}, "reply_to": "21206__1_103", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_105", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--If it is necessary and proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3105.028], "stop_times": [3105.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.028}, "reply_to": "21206__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_106", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "If it is necessary and proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3105.859], "stop_times": [3106.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.859}, "reply_to": "21206__1_105", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_107", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "If it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3106.678], "stop_times": [3107.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3106.678}, "reply_to": "21206__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_108", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3107.649], "stop_times": [3108.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3107.649}, "reply_to": "21206__1_107", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_109", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--necessary and proper on occasion to impose minor duties, but not take over whole programs and implementation of enormous kinds of welfare programs or whatever, what's the distinction?\nWhat is it that makes it okay to impose a duty upon a State court to hear Federal cases, upon a Governor to extradite officials, upon policemen to report missing children, but doesn't impose a duty upon those same officials that's really much more burdensome than that.\nWhat's the principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3108.5, 3119.929, 3138.651], "stop_times": [3119.929, 3138.651, 3140.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.5}, "reply_to": "21206__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_110", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3140.581], "stop_times": [3141.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.581}, "reply_to": "21206__1_109", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_111", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "How do you interpret the Necessary and Proper Clause to get there, in light of the Tenth Amendment interests, et cetera?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3141.132], "stop_times": [3147.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3141.132}, "reply_to": "21206__1_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_112", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--I take your question to be, where you have a law such as this that does not implicate the concerns of sovereignty and accountability, what happens if the number of those duties expands so greatly that it begins to inhibit the ability of the States to carry out their functions, unlike this law, which builds in the flexibility to carry out State functions.\nI think that is a question that, of course, you need not decide here.\nI think you... because of Justice Kennedy's observation about how rarely Congress has used this, you will probably never have to decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3147.046, 3170.29, 3174.632], "stop_times": [3170.29, 3174.632, 3180.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3147.046}, "reply_to": "21206__1_111", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_113", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "But... well, my particular question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3180.158], "stop_times": [3181.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3180.158}, "reply_to": "21206__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21206__1_114", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--the standard will be, Justice Breyer... the standard will be whether you have so seriously interfered with the ability of the State to carry out its own functions, in light, perhaps, of whether it's the war power or some other very serious national emergency that is causing you to do it.\nIt is not unlike a question that would come up under other issues, even under laws of general applicability that might at some point interfere with the State's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3181.027, 3195.316], "stop_times": [3195.316, 3202.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3181.027}, "reply_to": "21206__1_113", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_115", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--General Dellinger, may I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3202.773], "stop_times": [3204.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.773}, "reply_to": "21206__1_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21206__1_116", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Mr. Dellinger, may I ask you one basic question?\nDo you think the Tenth Amendment has different meaning, depending on what affirmative exercise... what power of Congress it is relying on, whether it's the Commerce Clause, the War Powers Clause, the Spending Clause?\nDoes the Tenth Amendment vary in its meaning, depending on the clause, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3204.372, 3205.814, 3215.761], "stop_times": [3205.814, 3215.761, 3219.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.372}, "reply_to": "21206__1_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__1_117", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--It may, Justice Stevens, with respect to the Civil War amendments, which, I think as the Chief Justice has noted, were designed as a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3219.291], "stop_times": [3225.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3219.291}, "reply_to": "21206__1_116", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_118", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3225.486], "stop_times": [3225.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.486}, "reply_to": "21206__1_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21206__1_119", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--as a limit on it.\nI do not think it otherwise varies, except that it is important not to wholly disentangle these issues.\nThis is so fully within Congress' commerce power.\nBecause at the time of the Constitution handguns were made locally by craftsmen and available only locally, it is due in significant measure to commerce among the States and the extraordinary mobility of handguns that guns made anywhere are now available everywhere that roads or waterways or airports can reach, and it was to mitigate the harm of that cheap national availability that Congress tried to take steps in '68 to prevent those guns from being sold to persons who were convicted felons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3225.977, 3226.888, 3234.993, 3239.076], "stop_times": [3226.888, 3234.993, 3239.076, 3271.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3225.977}, "reply_to": "21206__1_118", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_120", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "But what Congress has done here is say local police officers are available throughout the country also, and therefore we can regulate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3271.936], "stop_times": [3279.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.936}, "reply_to": "21206__1_119", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21206__1_121", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I think it is significant that it's not merely their availability, but the fact that they were uniquely well-situated.\nThe frustration is that a gun dealer who is forbidden to sell a gun to a convicted felon but doesn't know who they are... he gets a form that they check off that says they're not convicted felons.\nThe information that this individual may be a convicted felon is right there in the same town.\nIt may be a few blocks away in the office of the local law enforcement chief.\nSo in the 5 years before we get this national system online, which will itself not contain all of the categories of 922(g)... it's a rough and ready way to get the most readily available information with minimal efforts to check reasonable records.\nIt makes all the sense in the world in this interim period.\nWhy not wait until there's a national system with these records available at the gun dealer's desk?\nThe answer is that there are 13,000 handgun murders a year in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3279.302, 3288.658, 3296.763, 3302.767, 3309.082, 3324.503, 3327.484, 3333.898], "stop_times": [3288.658, 3296.763, 3302.767, 3309.082, 3324.503, 3327.484, 3333.898, 3338.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3279.302}, "reply_to": "21206__1_120", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_122", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--A Federal system is often inefficient, is all that you're saying.\nI mean... yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3338.56, 3341.853], "stop_times": [3341.853, 3342.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.56}, "reply_to": "21206__1_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_123", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Sometimes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3342.772], "stop_times": [3343.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3342.772}, "reply_to": "21206__1_122", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_124", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "That's why not many countries in the world have it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3343.643], "stop_times": [3346.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.643}, "reply_to": "21206__1_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_125", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Sometimes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3346.695], "stop_times": [3347.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3346.695}, "reply_to": "21206__1_124", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_126", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "It's a lot easier to do everything, you know, by command from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3347.507], "stop_times": [3350.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.507}, "reply_to": "21206__1_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21206__1_127", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--Sometimes the solution to a serious problem can't be reconciled with the requirements of the Constitution, but this is not such a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3350.648], "stop_times": [3357.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3350.648}, "reply_to": "21206__1_126", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_128", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--General Dellinger, may I ask you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3357.404], "stop_times": [3358.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.404}, "reply_to": "21206__1_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21206__1_129", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3358.894], "stop_times": [3359.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.894}, "reply_to": "21206__1_128", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_130", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "--before you finish if you could just address the severability question, because you said something before about, if you... if it was voluntary it wouldn't work, because everybody would buy their guns in a place that doesn't participate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3359.204], "stop_times": [3375.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.204}, "reply_to": "21206__1_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21206__1_131", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Thank you for allowing me to say that it doesn't work as well--\n[Laughter]\n--if it were voluntary.\nThat is to say, if one CLEO could put up a sign saying, we won't check for records, it will not, but it nonetheless works as Congress intended, and therefore I think there's no serious question of nonseverability here.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3375.553, 3380.538, 3381.768, 3384.159, 3400.602], "stop_times": [3380.538, 3381.768, 3384.159, 3400.602, 3401.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3375.553}, "reply_to": "21206__1_130", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "21206__1_132", "conversation_id": "21206", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1478", "start_times": [3401.062, 3401.895], "stop_times": [3401.895, 3421.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.062}, "reply_to": "21206__1_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__0_000", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1671, Frederick D. Raines v. Robert C. Byrd, and counsel have been advised, I believe, that you are to have 35 minutes each on a side.\nGeneral Dellinger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [0.0, 12.474], "stop_times": [12.474, 13.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__0_001", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe single most important point I want to make this morning is a point that goes both to standing and the merits, and it is this: the passage of the Line Item Veto Act does not alter the authority or the ability of Congress to require the executive branch to spend appropriated funds.\nAfter the act, as before, every legislative option about whether an appropriation should be mandatory or discretionary remains fully available to a simple majority of Congress.\nWhen the time comes to vote on an appropriations bill, the legal effect of each option, mandatory, discretionary, linked or unlinked, will be perfectly clear.\nEvery Member's vote will be fully counted.\nThe simple majority of Congress retains full authority to protect any item of spending from presidential cancellation.\nThis point goes to the heart of the appellee's claim of standing.\nConsider their best shot, I believe is the example with which they... they feature in the opening of their reply brief, an example where a Member votes for an ABC bill which might lead, they say, to the post hoc creation of an ABC law or an AC law.\nSuppose, they say, the items A, B, and C are aid to Egypt, to Jordan, and to Israel.\nA Member of Congress might well wish to vote for the delicate balance embodied in the entire package, but have objections to keeping any of the items if the others were to be stricken.\nThe act converts a vote, they say, for ABC in toto into a vote for a three-item menu from which the President may select any combination that he alone prefers, and the Member is injured at the moment he must cast his vote.\nThis is simply a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the situation.\nWhen the time comes for Congress to vote on the omnibus foreign aid bill it can, by simple majority, make any choice it wants about mandating or linking those funds.\nCongress can say with respect to the appropriation for each country that, quote, no funds under this act may be expended for payments to country A unless funds are provided concurrently to the other two countries, or Congress can vote to mandate all three, using the language it actually sets out in the bill for limited tax benefits by saying something like, section 1021(a) of the Empowerment Control Act shall not apply to provisions I, J, and E of this appropriations act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [13.558, 16.593, 35.756, 47.814, 58.92, 61.121, 68.56, 76.797, 97.395, 104.15, 114.172, 128.848, 134.92, 148.728], "stop_times": [16.593, 35.756, 47.814, 58.92, 61.121, 68.56, 76.797, 97.395, 104.15, 114.172, 128.848, 134.92, 148.728, 178.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.558}, "reply_to": "20803__0_000", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_002", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, it could do that all across the board, I suppose, General Dellinger, simply perhaps render the thing kind of a nullity if it incorporated that sort of a provision in every appropriations item.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [178.163], "stop_times": [188.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.163}, "reply_to": "20803__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__0_003", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It could, of course, though we doubt that it would.\nWe think that the act has important functions as a background default mode but it is... would not be at all surprising if particular projects were put forth at an appropriation and also with the notion that section 1021(a) should not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [188.721, 192.089], "stop_times": [192.089, 211.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 188.721}, "reply_to": "20803__0_002", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_004", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, of course, the President then could veto such subsequent bill and that would then require a larger vote of Congress to override the veto.\nI mean, it does put them in a different position to that extent, perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [211.134, 223.108], "stop_times": [223.108, 227.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.134}, "reply_to": "20803__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__0_005", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, I'm not sure that I agree, if I understand your question, Justice O'Connor.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [227.91, 232.797], "stop_times": [232.797, 234.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.91}, "reply_to": "20803__0_004", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_006", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, suppose Congress decides later on that maybe some type of appropriations shouldn't be subject to this line item veto, so they include passage in a subsequent bill saying that the Line Item Veto Act won't apply to a certain type of appropriation.\nThat, of course, has to go to the President for signature, and he then can veto that and that then would require enough votes to override that veto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [234.147, 256.993], "stop_times": [256.993, 267.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.147}, "reply_to": "20803__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__0_007", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [267.368], "stop_times": [267.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.368}, "reply_to": "20803__0_006", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_008", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And to that extent it kind of changes the equation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [267.868], "stop_times": [271.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.868}, "reply_to": "20803__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__0_009", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--But in your example Congress passes the requirement that the provision be exempt from this provision only after it has first passed an omnibus appropriations act, but Congress is more likely to choose to do that with an appropriation it cares about in the process of passing the omnibus appropriations act, and that's not, you know, unfamiliar.\nCongress in the very act that they use as an example provided that the assistance for Israel and Egypt shall be provided with the President's assurance that the level does not cause an adverse impact on the total level of military support, that the sum of $815 million available only for Egypt with the understanding that Egypt will undertake significant economic reforms, et cetera.\nThat is to say, Congress is quite familiar with that process, so that I think if you looked at this in the context of a real case or controversy after the fact, you might well have seen that Senator Byrd or Senator Moynihan had moved to link the aid to Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, and had that rejected, 53-47, and then moved to make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [271.07, 295.868, 322.233], "stop_times": [295.868, 322.233, 341.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 271.07}, "reply_to": "20803__0_008", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_010", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, but in all events, Mr. Dellinger, you are defending the line item veto as it was enacted and as it was intended to work, are you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [341.611], "stop_times": [351.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.611}, "reply_to": "20803__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_011", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [351.3], "stop_times": [352.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.3}, "reply_to": "20803__0_010", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_012", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And it does seem to me that there is some point to the argument that this changes the legislative dynamic.\nNow, whether or not that is sufficient to create a cause of action or standing is what we're here to decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [352.167, 360.421], "stop_times": [360.421, 367.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.167}, "reply_to": "20803__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_013", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes.\nIt was intended to and it does change the legislative dynamic, but not in a way that creates a legal injury.\nSenator--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [367.075, 367.658, 376.078], "stop_times": [367.658, 376.078, 376.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.075}, "reply_to": "20803__0_012", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_014", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Solicitor General, your example of the ABC and a small number certainly is easy to understand.\nThey can do that.\nBut isn't it true that it the... it is anticipated that the budget bill will include maybe hundreds of items, or a very large number, and it's unlikely that you could work out all combinations in advance, so that for example if a Congressman was interested in the Navy Yard in San Diego or something he wouldn't know whether that would survive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [376.344, 382.148, 382.815], "stop_times": [382.148, 382.815, 399.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 376.344}, "reply_to": "20803__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_015", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--No, he wouldn't, but that's only because he will have been unable to convince a majority of his colleagues to make that mandatory.\nI mean, the critical aspect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [399.341, 406.763], "stop_times": [406.763, 407.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.341}, "reply_to": "20803__0_014", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_016", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes, but isn't it true... isn't it true that the typical bill is anticipated to have a large number of items and that the ABC example is really not very realistic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [407.529], "stop_times": [415.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.529}, "reply_to": "20803__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_017", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is correct.\nThat is their example, and I do understand that the bill has a large number of items, but a Member who has a very particular interest in preserving the San Diego Shipyard has it within his power to convince a majority of his colleagues by simply adding the phrase that to this item section 1021(a) shall not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [415.333, 417.035], "stop_times": [417.035, 433.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.333}, "reply_to": "20803__0_016", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_018", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes, but then you might have 300 different Congressmen wanting to put that rider on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [433.461], "stop_times": [437.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.461}, "reply_to": "20803__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_019", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [437.263], "stop_times": [437.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.263}, "reply_to": "20803__0_018", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_020", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--that particular item.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [437.781], "stop_times": [437.864], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 437.781}, "reply_to": "20803__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20803__0_021", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And what it would take is the political will on the part of Congress to maintain the commitment that the Line Item Veto Act represents the deficit reduction, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [437.864], "stop_times": [446.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.864}, "reply_to": "20803__0_020", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_022", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "General Dellinger, it sounds to me from what you've said so far that no one would have standing because no one would be injured, because all choices are always open to Congress.\nIn your brief, you took the position that this is not a whether question but a who and a when question, but now you seem to say, well, there's nothing really that's changed.\nCongress retains the power to do anything it wants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [446.201, 458.86, 469.983], "stop_times": [458.86, 469.983, 472.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.201}, "reply_to": "20803__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__0_023", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, it is a whether question, and a when question.\nI'm sorry, I did it again.\nMy--\n[Laughter]\nMay I take... once you get that in your mind, you know, you're lost.\nMay I apologize to Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg, and to Chief Justice Souter.\nJustice Ginsburg, it's a particularly good question, too, so I'm... the... I hate to attribute it elsewhere.\nThat is not what I am suggesting, because of course there will be standing at the appropriate time by someone who is injured.\nI'm suggesting that these Senators and Members do not have standing now and never will have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [472.335, 478.422, 480.857, 492.546, 482.257, 487.494, 495.664, 504.252, 512.191], "stop_times": [478.422, 480.857, 492.546, 482.257, 487.494, 495.664, 504.252, 512.191, 516.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.335}, "reply_to": "20803__0_022", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_024", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [516.893], "stop_times": [517.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.893}, "reply_to": "20803__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__0_025", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But I'll tell you who would have standing.\nIf Congress passes an appropriation for a hog for every farmer on certain conditions, and the President cancels that item, a farmer who is supposed to get his hog under the appropriation act sues the Secretary of Agriculture and says, I want my hog.\nThis conferral of authority on the President--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [517.609, 519.76, 539.258], "stop_times": [519.76, 539.258, 540.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.609}, "reply_to": "20803__0_024", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_026", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--And isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [540.874], "stop_times": [541.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.874}, "reply_to": "20803__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_027", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--of a line item or items is unconstitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [541.541], "stop_times": [543.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.541}, "reply_to": "20803__0_026", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_028", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--And isn't his argument that there is a lack of legislative regularity that violates the Constitution?\nIsn't that what his argument is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [543.341, 549.128], "stop_times": [549.128, 550.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.341}, "reply_to": "20803__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_029", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--I suppose that is his argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [550.48], "stop_times": [552.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 550.48}, "reply_to": "20803__0_028", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_030", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Just as in the Chadha case there was a violation of the Constitution in the way the bill was enacted as to Chadha.\nNow, if that's so, if there's a violation of the constitutional regularity that is mandated on the Congress, why isn't there an injury now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [552.98, 559.436], "stop_times": [559.436, 568.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.98}, "reply_to": "20803__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_031", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "There's not an injury now because these Members of Congress at this point can vote and persuade their colleagues to vote for any item they wish.\nThe... Senator Byrd and Senator Moynihan and the others allege that they are presently uncertain about what the consequence of their vote will be, but as I noted at the outset they have in the hands of the majority of their colleagues the key to their own uncertainty by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [568.941, 582.349], "stop_times": [582.349, 600.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.941}, "reply_to": "20803__0_030", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_032", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "They don't.\nHow... are we talking about injury in fact?\nI mean, injury in fact?\nA Senator or Congressman is sitting there with a bill that's about this high and says, I don't even... I've never read this entire thing, frankly, with the budget.\nI'm relying on other people to tell me everything in it, and I can't figure out every permutation and combination, and if you're telling me I'm supposed to go start having special laws passed as a factual matter I can't do it, and so I'm injured in fact.\nNow, why isn't that an injury in fact?\nMaybe there are prudential reasons why in certain circumstances a Congressman or Senator should not be allowed to make such a claim to have standing, but why isn't it an injury in fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [600.58, 601.03, 604.614, 607.149, 615.422, 629.996, 632.679], "stop_times": [601.03, 604.614, 607.149, 615.422, 629.996, 632.679, 642.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 600.58}, "reply_to": "20803__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__0_033", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--It is not an injury sufficient for Article III purposes.\nI know that he may be harmed at present, because that uncertainty he shares in common with any Member of Congress who does not know how certain the future is.\nIf you're voting on the Omnibus Crime Control Act, it may be that the death penalty provision or the gun control provision is the sole reason you would vote for such a bill, and yet you do not know at the point you have to vote whether this Court would sustain such a provision.\nYou in that sense have, if you want to call it that, a factual injury which may lead you to seek an advisory opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [642.885, 646.503, 655.193, 670.203], "stop_times": [646.503, 655.193, 670.203, 676.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.885}, "reply_to": "20803__0_032", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_034", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Fine, so why aren't all those things, which are excellent points, excellent reasons as to why prudential rules of standing make it virtually impossible for such a legislator ever to bring such a case, but not constitutional reasons, because there might be, and is in this instance, say the other side, an injury in fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [676.439], "stop_times": [697.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.439}, "reply_to": "20803__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__0_035", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "We believe it is... we concede and concur that the prudential standing of objections have been set to one side by the act of Congress setting aside Members, but we believe that there is an absence here of an Article III injury because it is fundamentally inconsistent with our separation of powers to assume that a Member of the legislature has an interest in the legislation for which he voted after it is enacted and when it is being implemented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [697.27], "stop_times": [727.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.27}, "reply_to": "20803__0_034", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_036", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "What do you do with Coleman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [727.705], "stop_times": [728.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.705}, "reply_to": "20803__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_037", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I think Coleman is both dubious, at best, and distinguishable.\nThat is to say, the conferral of standing upon the legislative Members of the Kansas Senate was on the basis of an allegation that their actual vote was not properly counted in the legislative process itself.\nThey were seeking a mandate to compel a proper record of legislative action.\nHere, they're... everything that needs to be known they can find out before they vote, and they're really complaining about the President's hypothetical implementation of an act in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [728.789, 734.459, 754.94, 760.058], "stop_times": [734.459, 754.94, 760.058, 773.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.789}, "reply_to": "20803__0_036", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_038", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I guess I'm not sure why the distinction between the two cases isn't simply one of characterization.\nWasn't the... weren't the Kansas legislators subjected, in effect, to the same portent that the Members of Congress is subjected to, however you may want to describe them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [773.985, 778.805], "stop_times": [778.805, 789.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.985}, "reply_to": "20803__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_039", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "A majority of the Kansas legislature, which is already a difference, 21 of the 40 Members, brought that action complaining that 20 of them had voted no, and that their vote had been erroneously recorded as approving the child labor amendment when they had in fact rejected it.\nNow, there may be other prudential reasons for a court not to get involved in intralegislative battles, but as the executive branch we would not have a concern there, and would recognize that that may be an injury within the executive branch.\nI do think that the fact that the case was brought in State court, when no one objected to Justice Frankfurter's assertion for four justices in dissent that no one would dispute you could not have brought this in Federal court at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [789.594, 806.723, 819.631], "stop_times": [806.723, 819.631, 832.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.594}, "reply_to": "20803__0_038", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_040", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, but even apart from that, I mean, the fact is that on appeal the standing requirement is exactly the same, so the fact that it began in a State court and the fact that no one objected up to a certain point still leaves the jurisdictional necessity to deal with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [832.539], "stop_times": [847.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.539}, "reply_to": "20803__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_041", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Again, I think that Coleman is dubious and shows--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [847.197], "stop_times": [850.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.197}, "reply_to": "20803__0_040", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_042", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But not for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [850.732], "stop_times": [852.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 850.732}, "reply_to": "20803__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_043", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Not for that... I think it is dubious to consider that this is a justiciable controversy.\nI mean, in the wisdom of Article III's having this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [852.449, 856.553], "stop_times": [856.553, 859.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.449}, "reply_to": "20803__0_042", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_044", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "General Dellinger, did all of the judges weigh in on the standing question with... some of them didn't discuss it.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [859.505, 866.509], "stop_times": [866.509, 866.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.505}, "reply_to": "20803__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__0_045", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, there were... there was sort of a missing judge on one of the issues, a nine-justice court.\nThey were said to be equally divided on one of the issues, but four justices, including Justice Black, Justice Douglas and Justice Frankfurter, joined a very strong opinion by Justice Frankfurter that made the basic point that it is not for this Court to issue opinions.\nYou know, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [866.775, 872.996, 886.904], "stop_times": [872.996, 886.904, 887.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.775}, "reply_to": "20803__0_044", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_046", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--And it was on the way to throwing the case out for want of a... because it was a political question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [887.172], "stop_times": [891.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.172}, "reply_to": "20803__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__0_047", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That's right, but the Court did resolve important constitutional questions in Coleman v. Miller, in a case that still isn't ripe to this day, which shows the benefits of adhering to Article III.\nThere still haven't been a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [891.724, 903.882], "stop_times": [903.882, 904.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.724}, "reply_to": "20803__0_046", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_048", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But on the ripeness question the very example that you gave, you said it's a ripeness question.\nSomebody eventually can sue, but who could sue if the President cancels the aid to, say, Jordan?\nWho could sue after the fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [904.532, 911.869, 924.109], "stop_times": [911.869, 924.109, 926.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.532}, "reply_to": "20803__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__0_049", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, there well may not be anyone who could sue but that... on that particular cases.\nThere will certainly be people who can challenge the validity of giving to the President, delegating to the President the cancellation authority, because the President will no doubt, or some President will promptly cancel items where there are domestic U.S. citizens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [926.395, 931.349], "stop_times": [931.349, 948.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.395}, "reply_to": "20803__0_048", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_050", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Oh, and if there is nobody, I suppose your response would be then there's been nobody harmed, and no harm done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [948.394], "stop_times": [954.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.394}, "reply_to": "20803__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__0_051", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is absolutely right, and if there's nobody, so be it.\nThis Court does not sit to issue pronouncements about matters of constitutional law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [954.314, 956.364], "stop_times": [956.364, 959.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 954.314}, "reply_to": "20803__0_050", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_052", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes, but I just wanted to make sure that you were acknowledging--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [959.566], "stop_times": [962.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.566}, "reply_to": "20803__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__0_053", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "That is correct.\nThere could be some cancellations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [962.601, 962.701], "stop_times": [962.701, 962.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 962.601}, "reply_to": "20803__0_052", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_054", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--that there would be many cases where no one... no one would have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [962.934], "stop_times": [966.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 962.934}, "reply_to": "20803__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__0_055", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes.\nJustice Ginsburg, there should be some cancellations for which there would be no one who had standing, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [966.053, 966.27], "stop_times": [966.27, 970.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 966.053}, "reply_to": "20803__0_054", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_056", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Do you also agree that ripeness really is not a concern for us at this point?\nDoesn't the statutory authorization take care of the prudential concern about ripeness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [970.305, 975.44], "stop_times": [975.44, 980.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.305}, "reply_to": "20803__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_057", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Not in the following sense.\nI think that there is not a genuine Article III case or controversy at this moment.\nI think what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [980.494, 984.129, 987.915], "stop_times": [984.129, 987.915, 988.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.494}, "reply_to": "20803__0_056", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_058", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Okay, but that's different from ripeness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [988.417], "stop_times": [990.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.417}, "reply_to": "20803__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_059", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--But in this sense.\nI think what the very able attorneys for the Members of Congress have done, they've taken two fundamental jurisdictional flaws, lack of standing and lack of ripeness, and merged them together in an alchemic process that produces the illusion of a case or controversy.\nI think if we had had an actual cancellation of aid to hog farmers, clearly a hog farmer could sue, but we would not at that point believe that a Member of Congress could come into court and say, this is not, and the President is not implementing this and in a way that I thought so.\nBy moving--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [990.067, 992.317, 1006.093, 1024.538], "stop_times": [992.317, 1006.093, 1024.538, 1025.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.067}, "reply_to": "20803__0_058", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_060", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But we might have passed a statute that said the Senators from Iowa on hog-farming matters should have only a half-a-vote.\nWould they have standing to challenge that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1025.054, 1033.558], "stop_times": [1033.558, 1036.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.054}, "reply_to": "20803__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_061", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--I think so.\nWe have no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1036.425, 1038.026], "stop_times": [1038.026, 1038.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.425}, "reply_to": "20803__0_060", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_062", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "You don't limit it to salary matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1038.892], "stop_times": [1040.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.892}, "reply_to": "20803__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_063", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--We take no dispute.\nThat is an internal matter in the legislature, but I think if you actually denied a Member--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1040.657, 1042.594], "stop_times": [1042.594, 1045.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.657}, "reply_to": "20803__0_062", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_064", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "So I guess the question here is whether there really is that kind of an injury to the legislature, and you're very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1045.094], "stop_times": [1049.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.094}, "reply_to": "20803__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_065", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is precisely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1049.629], "stop_times": [1050.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1049.629}, "reply_to": "20803__0_064", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_066", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--You forcefully argue no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1050.629], "stop_times": [1052.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.629}, "reply_to": "20803__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_067", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "They state--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1052.795], "stop_times": [1053.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.795}, "reply_to": "20803__0_066", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_068", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "We don't know at this point whether the President will ever exercise this kind of cancellation.\nI mean, it's something that could be politically costly to him, just as it's politically costly to Congress to do some of these things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1053.145, 1059.299], "stop_times": [1059.299, 1065.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.145}, "reply_to": "20803__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__0_069", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice, and the... it... I think this would be much clearer to the Court... I understand this is a prudential point, but the merits and indeed, even the lack of standing of these Member plaintiffs would be much clearer to the Court after the fact.\nYou might well have a case come before you where Senator Moynihan had voted to link all three provisions, or where Senator Byrd had moved to make the Dellinger Center a mandatory item exempted from 1021 on the floor.\nYou would have seen that he'd been able to make that motion, he'd been able to vote on it, and his only problem would have been his inability to persuade a majority of his colleagues to do so.\nThe President's cancellation would come to you informed by the legislative record and all of the determinations that the President would make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1065.953, 1086.866, 1103.876, 1112.247], "stop_times": [1086.866, 1103.876, 1112.247, 1122.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1065.953}, "reply_to": "20803__0_068", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_070", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr.... General Dellinger, do you think ripeness is a matter just, you know, prudential, or does it have some sort of Article III component?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1122.019], "stop_times": [1129.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.019}, "reply_to": "20803__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__0_071", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I believe it does have an Article III component when there is not yet an actual case or controversy.\nThat is to say, even if a Member was going to have standing after the President cancelled his or her favorite project, Article III standing and an injury... my project was cancelled... which we would dispute, they clearly would not have standing now to say that I'm worried that the President may cancel my favorite project, and I'm worried anticipatorily that I will not be able to convince a majority of my colleagues to make an exemption, and you're saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1129.959, 1138.814], "stop_times": [1138.814, 1164.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1129.959}, "reply_to": "20803__0_070", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_072", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But the basis for objecting to the cancellation is that there is an irregularity, an unconstitutional regularity in the legislative process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1164.195], "stop_times": [1172.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.195}, "reply_to": "20803__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_073", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That's what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1172.951], "stop_times": [1173.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.951}, "reply_to": "20803__0_072", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_074", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And Mr. Morrison is going to tell us that exists now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1173.901], "stop_times": [1177.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.901}, "reply_to": "20803__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_075", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--And I would submit to you that to this extent you have to look, you know, to resolve the standing question, Justice Kennedy, that you have to look at least this far at the merits of their allegation.\nIt is impossible to resolve it without looking at it and say no, wait a minute.\nThey vote for any provision they want to.\nThey know exactly what they're voting on.\nIf it's made mandatory, they know that.\nIf it's made discretionary by the effect of the Line Item Veto Act, they know that.\nThe President signs it.\nIt fully complies with the Presentment Clause, and as I take them to concede at page 39 of their brief, that the President signs the whole appropriations tax spending bill and the whole bill becomes law the instant the President signs it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1177.353, 1191.094, 1193.879, 1197.081, 1198.699, 1201.134, 1204.769, 1206.169], "stop_times": [1191.094, 1193.879, 1197.081, 1198.699, 1201.134, 1204.769, 1206.169, 1221.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1177.353}, "reply_to": "20803__0_074", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_076", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "So you are saying the dynamic of the legislative process has not changed as of this point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1221.195], "stop_times": [1226.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.195}, "reply_to": "20803__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_077", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I would not dispute that the dynamic of the legislative process has changed, but that is true whatever the background assumption is.\nIf it's the Empowerment Control--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1226.481, 1234.836], "stop_times": [1234.836, 1235.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1226.481}, "reply_to": "20803__0_076", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_078", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But I thought that was the injury that they're alleging, that they're bringing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1235.669], "stop_times": [1239.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.669}, "reply_to": "20803__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__0_079", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is not a legal injury.\nThe dynamic has changed because Senator Byrd will tell you he now has to persuade a majority of his colleagues if he wants to make sure that a bill, a provision he wants remains the law, and in case you think that I am imagining Members seeking exemptions for their own pet projects and having the majority vote on it, if you have occasion, look at page 55a of the appendix to the Jurisdictional Statement.\nIt's the section of the bill, section 1027, it happens to deal with the limited tax benefit, but they actually set out in the bill the language to be used to exempt targeted tax benefits from the provisions of the act, and that language works perfectly well for any provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1239.304, 1242.923, 1268.871], "stop_times": [1242.923, 1268.871, 1283.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1239.304}, "reply_to": "20803__0_078", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_080", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "All right, but General, couldn't we recharacterize the provision in this way, not merely in a vague way that the dynamics have changed, which everybody agrees that they have, but by saying that as a result of this bill unless Congress in, let's say, a given appropriations act agrees to exempt every single item in that act from the effect of this statute, which is highly unlikely, then when any given Member votes on a bill with those provisions on it, he does not know in the sense that he has traditionally known, what it is that he is voting on that will, depending on the vote, either become law or not become law.\nHe does not simply have a bill in front of him which is going to be subject to a, in effect an up or down determination, and that's something more than just dynamic, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1283.981, 1330.879], "stop_times": [1330.879, 1342.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.981}, "reply_to": "20803__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_081", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Justice Souter, he does indeed know that the bill for which he votes is going to be subject to an up or down determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1342.17], "stop_times": [1350.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.17}, "reply_to": "20803__0_080", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_082", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But he does not know the combination of provisions which his up or down determination will either, in the old sense, require the President to act on up or down.\nThat's gone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1350.542, 1362.916], "stop_times": [1362.916, 1363.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.542}, "reply_to": "20803__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_083", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Nor does he know that when he votes on a lump sum appropriations bill.\nHe has exactly the same uncertainty about how the President will do that, and we have had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1363.533, 1367.587], "stop_times": [1367.587, 1372.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.533}, "reply_to": "20803__0_082", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_084", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1372.455], "stop_times": [1372.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.455}, "reply_to": "20803__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_085", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Now, I think this ignores a 200-year tradition in which all three branches have understood that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1372.889], "stop_times": [1379.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.889}, "reply_to": "20803__0_084", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_086", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes, but the lump sum appropriation act simply does not give the President in effect a definitive power to eliminate a spending authority.\nUnder this bill, under the act in question; once the President has acted, he can't unring the bell.\nUnder a lump sum appropriation, he can unring the bell because he can change his mind in midstream.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1379.293, 1390.5, 1397.706], "stop_times": [1390.5, 1397.706, 1403.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.293}, "reply_to": "20803__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_087", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is not always practically true, though.\nI will admit the difference.\nBut if you take a bill like the very first defense appropriations act passed in 1789, where Congress said the funds are authorized not to exceed X amount to defray the expenses of the Department of War, when a Member votes for that, he knows he is voting for a bill where the President can choose to build ships or not build ships.\nIn this case, it is true that the bill as it finally passed made the President's decision to cancel irrevocable, and the irony I think of this litigation is that the very steps that Congress took to make sure that the delegation was not excessive, that is to cabin the President's discretion to deal with what Senator Byrd has called the Sword of Damocles problem... the President can hold out over Members the possibility that he may cancel their project, or that he may, having cancelled it, uncancel it if a Member will be sufficiently favorable to executive branch prerogatives... these two provisions have the effect of limiting, cabining and guiding the President's discretion by saying you have to make it at the outset of the appropriations period--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1403.426, 1406.295, 1407.462, 1427.959], "stop_times": [1406.295, 1407.462, 1427.959, 1473.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1403.426}, "reply_to": "20803__0_086", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_088", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "General Dellinger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1473.404], "stop_times": [1474.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.404}, "reply_to": "20803__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__0_089", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--within 5 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1474.189], "stop_times": [1474.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.189}, "reply_to": "20803__0_088", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_090", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--General Dellinger, I assume that none of these consequences to the legislator, the uncertainty about how to vote, and the alteration of the dynamics and so forth, none of those things really occur if, indeed, the respondents are correct that the exercise of the power given to the President here, the cancellation, would be a violation of the Constitution as constituting an unlawful delegation of legislative power, so really all we're talking about is the uncertainty created by an unconstitutional statute, or an unconstitutional provision in a statute, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1474.189], "stop_times": [1515.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.189}, "reply_to": "20803__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__0_091", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I think that's right.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1515.516, 1517.182], "stop_times": [1517.182, 1518.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.516}, "reply_to": "20803__0_090", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_092", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Which I assume legislators often face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1518.099], "stop_times": [1520.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.099}, "reply_to": "20803__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__0_093", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Exactly, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1520.968], "stop_times": [1521.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.968}, "reply_to": "20803__0_092", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_094", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "They have to decide whether to vote for a statute that has an... what they believe is an unconstitutional provision in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1521.67], "stop_times": [1526.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.67}, "reply_to": "20803__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__0_095", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--The question is, do you have the courage of your constitutional convictions, and if they do, they suffer no injury.\nThat is, if a Member says, I am voting for this appropriations bill.\nI believe that my... I believe that the Center for the Study of the Senate will be... authorization for my university will go forward.\nI believe that the cancellation will be a nullity, and that when the president of my university back home sues for the appropriation it will be speedily forthcoming as this Court will invalidate the cancellation.\nYou can vote on that assumption, or you can vote on the assumption of the presumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1526.388, 1530.773, 1534.225, 1542.145, 1553.853], "stop_times": [1530.773, 1534.225, 1542.145, 1553.853, 1556.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1526.388}, "reply_to": "20803__0_094", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_096", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "May I ask you, on the question of timing, in my hypothetical example about giving the Senator from Iowa a half-a-vote, would he have to wait until the statute was passed before he'd have standing to challenge that rule, or the... at least a bill was introduced, or could he just challenge it right away, saying you're diluting my vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1556.353], "stop_times": [1574.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.353}, "reply_to": "20803__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_097", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--I would assume that... again, this is a matter in which the executive branch has no particular interest.\nI would assume that he could sue as soon as the rule was passed.\nI believe that Powell v. McCormack... that far--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1574.599, 1580.218, 1583.753], "stop_times": [1580.218, 1583.753, 1586.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.599}, "reply_to": "20803__0_096", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_098", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "So what's the difference here on the question of timing?\nIf this change does change the legislative process in a similar way, and I know you disagree, and I'm not sure it does, why can't they challenge it right away, those who are adversely affected by it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1586.003, 1588.388], "stop_times": [1588.388, 1598.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.003}, "reply_to": "20803__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_099", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Again, I think the answer is that they have no legal injury because nothing has happened to them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1598.929], "stop_times": [1607.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1598.929}, "reply_to": "20803__0_098", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_100", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1607.266], "stop_times": [1607.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1607.266}, "reply_to": "20803__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__0_101", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--that has legal consequence.\nThey're complaint--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1607.951, 1609.085], "stop_times": [1609.085, 1609.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1607.951}, "reply_to": "20803__0_100", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_102", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That's irrespective of timing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1609.685], "stop_times": [1610.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.685}, "reply_to": "20803__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__0_103", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--is merely with the majority of their colleagues, but I have to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1610.035], "stop_times": [1614.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1610.035}, "reply_to": "20803__0_102", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_104", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "General Dellinger, you mentioned the Adam Clayton Powell case.\nAre you making a distinction based on a person or particular group being targeted for adverse action, as was true there and would be true of the Iowans who were given only half a vote, as opposed to this situation, where they're all treated... they treat themselves alike?\nThere's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1614.57, 1620.141, 1639.204], "stop_times": [1620.141, 1639.204, 1640.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.57}, "reply_to": "20803__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__0_105", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is correct.\nI think that is a valuable decision.\nLet me say that, you know, my immediate executive branch clients would very much like to see this Court get to the merits and hold that this delegation of authority not to spend money is constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1640.02, 1640.704, 1642.156], "stop_times": [1640.704, 1642.156, 1652.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1640.02}, "reply_to": "20803__0_104", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_106", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, on the merits, may... since you've had almost no time to address it, may I ask whether you think that this Line Item Veto Act gives any useful guidance or context for the President to exercise this veto?\nThere are three general criteria, but they are so general that they appear to apply across the board to everything, and is that enough for an adequate delegation of Congress' powers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1652.695, 1668.205], "stop_times": [1668.205, 1680.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.695}, "reply_to": "20803__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__0_107", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, I think they are fully adequate to supply the intelligible principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1680.263], "stop_times": [1685.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1680.263}, "reply_to": "20803__0_106", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_108", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, aren't they broader than anything we've ever held--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1685.565], "stop_times": [1689.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.565}, "reply_to": "20803__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__0_109", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1689.35], "stop_times": [1689.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1689.35}, "reply_to": "20803__0_108", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_110", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--could suffice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1689.817], "stop_times": [1689.817], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.817}, "reply_to": "20803__0_109", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20803__0_111", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I do not think that they are broader than the delegation to the Sentencing Commission to seek fairness and do equity, but moreover--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1689.817], "stop_times": [1698.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1689.817}, "reply_to": "20803__0_110", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_112", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Do you have another example?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1698.071, 1699.754], "stop_times": [1699.754, 1701.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.071}, "reply_to": "20803__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__0_113", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, I understand... if I could persuade eight justices, that would be enough, but--\n[Laughter]\nBut the... you have to understand that the difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1701.356, 1706.724, 1709.49], "stop_times": [1706.724, 1709.49, 1711.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1701.356}, "reply_to": "20803__0_112", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_114", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "You've got public convenience and necessity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1711.24], "stop_times": [1713.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.24}, "reply_to": "20803__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_115", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1713.756], "stop_times": [1714.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1713.756}, "reply_to": "20803__0_114", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_116", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "You've got public convenience and necessity.\nThat certainly is broad, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1714.192, 1716.108], "stop_times": [1716.108, 1717.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.192}, "reply_to": "20803__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__0_117", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "The Federal Communications Commission, thank you, is a very good example, but here you're talking about a matter that is within the President's normal control.\nThe fact that the Court emphasized in Loving administering the budget as administrator-in-chief is the person to whom you're giving this... this act respects the congressional power of the purse in a very profound way.\nThe Framers did care that Congress control spending, but they cared by setting a maximum.\nThey said in Article I, section 9, that no money should be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, but it does not require express congressional approval to leave money in the Treasury.\nThis is a case where the intelligible principle of saving money is itself so understandable in a country that is spending more money than it is taking in, and where the President is directed through elaborate procedures to explain the basis for his decision, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1717.791, 1724.964, 1738.521, 1743.858, 1758.701], "stop_times": [1724.964, 1738.521, 1743.858, 1758.701, 1774.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1717.791}, "reply_to": "20803__0_116", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_118", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But he's given no guidance.\nYou know, anything that isn't spent obviously can reduce the deficit.\nHow does that guide as between A, B, C, and D, or that it be in the national interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1774.211, 1775.994, 1780.28], "stop_times": [1775.994, 1780.28, 1784.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.211}, "reply_to": "20803__0_117", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__0_119", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, there is a very real--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1784.732], "stop_times": [1786.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1784.732}, "reply_to": "20803__0_118", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_120", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "That is such a broad, vague sort of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1786.582], "stop_times": [1787.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.582}, "reply_to": "20803__0_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__0_121", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, the President may well gain guidance from the particular underlying statute that informs the appropriations... the National Park Act may give him a sense of where there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1787.848], "stop_times": [1798.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1787.848}, "reply_to": "20803__0_120", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_122", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, what if Congress had gone further and not simply limited this to appropriations, but said under these same three standards the President could cancel any provision of a bill that he didn't like?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1798.204], "stop_times": [1809.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.204}, "reply_to": "20803__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__0_123", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--I think it would be quite different, and you'd have a much more... a much greater need for a more concrete, intelligible principle if you were affecting private ordering, if you were affecting prior acts, if you were regulating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1809.761], "stop_times": [1821.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1809.761}, "reply_to": "20803__0_122", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_124", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, not prior acts, but just current acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1821.469], "stop_times": [1824.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.469}, "reply_to": "20803__0_123", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__0_125", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Even for the future I think the instruction, the intelligible principle is always in context, and here all you're talking about is not spending money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1824.069], "stop_times": [1832.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1824.069}, "reply_to": "20803__0_124", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_126", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, you're not.\nYou're also talking about the tax law, and so assuming everything in your favor up to that point, what do we do about the fact that it says that the President can simply set aside a tax law, any tax law that affects fewer than a certain number of people?\nI mean, how is there a sufficient intelligible principle for that, and if that's no good, isn't the whole thing no good?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1832.341, 1833.007, 1849.95], "stop_times": [1833.007, 1849.95, 1857.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.341}, "reply_to": "20803__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__0_127", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, to answer the second question first, no.\nI mean, under the Court's severability standards, that unless it is evident that the legislature would not have acted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1857.638, 1860.674], "stop_times": [1860.674, 1869.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1857.638}, "reply_to": "20803__0_126", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_128", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, you might say, look, tax loopholes basically help richer people.\nSpending basically helps poorer people, and we don't know if Congress would have passed one without the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1869.18, 1874.334], "stop_times": [1874.334, 1881.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.18}, "reply_to": "20803__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__0_129", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--I... they have not made out that case at all, and I think that the targeted tax benefit part is quite minor.\nIf you look at it carefully, there are very few things that qualify.\nTax benefits for three taxpayers is not a limited tax benefit if they're the only ones in the industry, like the automotive industry, and Congress specifically... and we may never see a limited tax benefit if you look at how easy Congress has made it to list the ones that apply and to which it does not apply.\nThere is always a baseline tax.\nThis is not a matter where the President is going out creating tax liability without an underlying tax law.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1881.071, 1886.975, 1890.093, 1908.804, 1910.84, 1915.458], "stop_times": [1886.975, 1890.093, 1908.804, 1910.84, 1915.458, 1917.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1881.071}, "reply_to": "20803__0_128", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__0_130", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Very well, General Dellinger.\nMr. Morrison, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1917.244, 1918.927], "stop_times": [1918.927, 1921.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.244}, "reply_to": "20803__0_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__1_000", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Line Item Veto Act of 1996 fundamentally alters the Federal lawmaking process by giving the President the new power of cancellation.\nThis cancellation applies to traditional spending items; to new items of direct spending, such as entitlements, which includes the rights of individuals to food stamps, medicare, State and local governments to contracts... and of those that are increased; and to limited tax benefits, precisely the kind of private ordering that Solicitor General Dellinger just mentioned.\nAnd while I'm on that subject, if I may answer Justice Breyer's inquiry, this was a very important part of the legislation.\nWe have prepared a legislative summary, which was submitted in the District Court.\nIt's part of the joint appendix.\nAt page 82, there is a description of how important it was in summary of the testimony of a number of witnesses who expressed the view that the tax element was an important balance, and that the votes were very close on the substitutes.\nAnd we believe it's quite evident in this case that if there had been no tax benefit provision in the bill, there would have been no bill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1921.112, 1929.218, 1938.908, 1961.606, 1968.76, 1972.545, 1973.862, 1990.34], "stop_times": [1929.218, 1938.908, 1961.606, 1968.76, 1972.545, 1973.862, 1990.34, 1998.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.112}, "reply_to": "20803__0_130", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_001", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Morrison, on the tax benefit part, the legislation instructs the joint committee to flag every one of these limited tax items, where fewer than 100... fewer than 10 benefit.\nIs there anything just in that flagging requirement so that people could know what those tax measures are?\nIs there anything unconstitutional about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [1998.093, 2010.837, 2019.359], "stop_times": [2010.837, 2019.359, 2022.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.093}, "reply_to": "20803__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_002", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I do not believe so, because that must be in the text of the Act itself.\nThat is, the joint committee identifies them.\nThey go into the text of the Act.\nAnd if they are listed in the text of the Act, then those are the only limited tax benefits.\nSimilarly, if the joint committee says there are no limited tax benefits, then the President may not cancel any.\nBut if the joint committee does not state either way, then the President may use his normal tools of interpretation to decide whether any of the tax benefits conferred come within it.\nBut I do not believe... and I thought about it long and hard whether that's independently a constitutional defect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2022.145, 2027.03, 2029.632, 2031.266, 2036.552, 2042.991, 2053.08], "stop_times": [2027.03, 2029.632, 2031.266, 2036.552, 2042.991, 2053.08, 2059.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.145}, "reply_to": "20803__1_001", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_003", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Morrison, before we get too deeply into the merits, can I ask you about the standing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2059.068], "stop_times": [2064.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.068}, "reply_to": "20803__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_004", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2064.888], "stop_times": [2065.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.888}, "reply_to": "20803__1_003", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_005", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--the standing issue?\nI cannot think of a case in which an individual Federal officer, in 200 years, has brought suit, claiming a... a derogation of his powers as a Federal officer.\nI'm trying to understand how far the principle you're asking us to... to adopt would go.\nWhat about a district court judge, who, in a lawsuit, in order to preserve the school system that... that he's decreed, in order to eliminate segregation, imposes a tax.\nHe is reversed by the court of appeals.\nThe court of appeals says he has no power to impose a tax.\nThe losing party does not appeal.\nDoes the district judge have a cause of action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2065.554, 2066.674, 2085.051, 2090.554, 2103.713, 2106.965, 2111.202, 2113.837], "stop_times": [2066.674, 2085.051, 2090.554, 2103.713, 2106.965, 2111.202, 2113.837, 2117.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.554}, "reply_to": "20803__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_006", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2117.389], "stop_times": [2117.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.389}, "reply_to": "20803__1_005", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_007", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--against the court of appeals for taking away his power to impose a tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2117.989], "stop_times": [2121.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.989}, "reply_to": "20803__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_008", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2121.657], "stop_times": [2122.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.657}, "reply_to": "20803__1_007", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_009", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2122.291], "stop_times": [2122.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.291}, "reply_to": "20803__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_010", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Because he has not been injured in any ongoing way.\nHis decision has been rejected.\nAnd if all we were seeking here was a decision, saying to the court that a matter on which I voted for as a member of Congress... suppose I voted for a flag... against the flag burning amendment and it passed.\nI would not have an opportunity to go to court to object to the substance.\nWhat our clients are objecting to here is that the Act fundamentally changes the process by which laws will be made in the future, and that these members are among the 535 people in the United States who make the laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2122.859, 2127.328, 2129.93, 2143.856, 2148.308], "stop_times": [2127.328, 2129.93, 2143.856, 2148.308, 2163.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.859}, "reply_to": "20803__1_009", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_011", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But that's irrelevant unless they have a personal interest in the power that they exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2163.651], "stop_times": [2168.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.651}, "reply_to": "20803__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_012", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, that depends on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2168.103], "stop_times": [2168.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.103}, "reply_to": "20803__1_011", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_013", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And you... and you say that the district judge does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2168.519], "stop_times": [2171.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.519}, "reply_to": "20803__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_014", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That depends on the meaning of the word \"personal interest\" in your hypothetical.\nI believe that the Constitution gives members of Congress the right to vote.\nAnd that, to that extent, it is as much a personal interest here as was Adam Clayton's Powell interest personal when he was deprived a seat in Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2171.554, 2175.256, 2180.327], "stop_times": [2175.256, 2180.327, 2189.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.554}, "reply_to": "20803__1_013", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_015", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "All of the things that the Constitution gives a right to are not necessarily enforceable in court.\nThe Constitution also gives members of Congress the right to be admitted to Congress if they're qualified.\nBut it's very clear that we don't pass upon that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2189.932, 2194.55, 2199.602], "stop_times": [2194.55, 2199.602, 2201.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.932}, "reply_to": "20803__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_016", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "That's because... it's not because of standing, Your Honor.\nIt's because it's textually committed to another branch.\nThose are two different questions.\nPart of what Your Honor was suggesting about the Federal officer has to do with an underlying theme in the Solicitor General's position, which is separation of powers.\nThat it's somehow inappropriate for legislators to be coming into court, both for reasons of the court's usurping the business of the political branches and, second, because of a fear of some floodgates.\nWe have a different situation here than in almost any case that the congressional standing has come up in before.\nAnd that is the situation where we have an express judicial review provision put in by the Congress, signed into law by the President.\nSo the prudential considerations are such that where we ought to be concerned about separation of powers, we can say to ourselves that the political branches have said that this is an appropriate use of the judicial forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2201.954, 2204.906, 2207.858, 2209.491, 2217.911, 2231.67, 2237.408, 2245.997], "stop_times": [2204.906, 2207.858, 2209.491, 2217.911, 2231.67, 2237.408, 2245.997, 2260.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2201.954}, "reply_to": "20803__1_015", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_017", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But stand... standing is... is an Article III proposition, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2260.571], "stop_times": [2263.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.571}, "reply_to": "20803__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__1_018", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It certainly is, Your Honor, and I agree.\nBut to the extent that there are prudential separation of powers considerations, as Justice Scalia suggested, I'm suggesting that one of the elements of the judicial review provision is that it limits both the possibility of unjust usurpation and excess use of the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2263.337, 2265.123], "stop_times": [2265.123, 2281.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.337}, "reply_to": "20803__1_017", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_019", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Do you agree that rightness is a factor that goes into the Article III calculus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2281.9], "stop_times": [2287.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.9}, "reply_to": "20803__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__1_020", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I do.\nBut I would say, Your Honor, that this case is as ripe as a case like Buckley against Valeo, in which there was a very comparable judicial review provision to the one here.\nAnd the challenge was a separation of powers challenge to the composition of the Federal Election Commission.\nThe people who were bringing that challenge were candidates or voters.\nAlthough the Commission had done a few things, it had done nothing to which any of them objected... rather like the fact that the President hasn't cancelled anything here.\nThe court said, we will reach that constitutional issue because the Congress has told us we may do it and should do it.\nAnd I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2287.638, 2288.254, 2298.244, 2304.248, 2308.552, 2317.491, 2324.728], "stop_times": [2288.254, 2298.244, 2304.248, 2308.552, 2317.491, 2324.728, 2324.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2287.638}, "reply_to": "20803__1_019", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_021", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Morrison, can I try a few other examples?\nI don't understand the... the scope of the principle you're arguing from.\nWhat about a bill that is originated in the Senate, which... which an individual member of the House believes is a tax measure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2324.961, 2327.68, 2331.132], "stop_times": [2327.68, 2331.132, 2339.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.961}, "reply_to": "20803__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_022", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Such as Moore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2339.087], "stop_times": [2340.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.087}, "reply_to": "20803__1_021", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_023", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And, therefore, violates the origination clause.\nDoes that individual member of the House have a right to come to this Court immediately, saying I've been deprived of my power to vote on the original measure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2340.104, 2343.356], "stop_times": [2343.356, 2351.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.104}, "reply_to": "20803__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_024", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I think that is a more difficult case.\nI would say the answer is probably not.\nBut it's clearly distinguishable from this case for two reasons.\nThe first reason is that we have the judicial review statute.\nI believe that there is a significant consideration of separation of powers that ought to caution the courts before taking them up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2351.062, 2353.828, 2355.597, 2359.132, 2362.434], "stop_times": [2353.828, 2355.597, 2359.132, 2362.434, 2369.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.062}, "reply_to": "20803__1_023", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_025", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes.\nMy... my question is as a constitutional matter.\nSo that... that... that distinction is irrelevant.\nMy question is constitutionally, can... can the individual member of the House sue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2369.088, 2369.304, 2371.29, 2374.242], "stop_times": [2369.304, 2371.29, 2374.242, 2378.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.088}, "reply_to": "20803__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_026", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I... I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2378.444], "stop_times": [2380.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.444}, "reply_to": "20803__1_025", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_027", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Article III.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2380.46], "stop_times": [2381.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.46}, "reply_to": "20803__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_028", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--I believe that... that the injure... that the person may have suffered an injury.\nBut I do believe that there are some separation of powers elements in Article III that there may not be a case or controversy in that... in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2381.36, 2385.931], "stop_times": [2385.931, 2393.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.36}, "reply_to": "20803__1_027", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_029", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "What about the President is about to enter into an executive agreement with a foreign country regarding the Panama Canal, regarding NATO, regarding whatever, and an individual member of the Senate believes that this is in fact a matter that should be subject to treaty, and therefore, that he has been deprived of his right to vote on the conclusion of that treaty; does that matter come before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2393.87], "stop_times": [2420.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.87}, "reply_to": "20803__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_030", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, as far as a standing question is concerned, when this Court had before it the Goldwater case, which is the converse of that, the Court declined to reach the merits, but no member of this Court said that there was a lack of standing for Senator Goldwater, although that issue had been specifically passed upon by the court of appeals in a divided opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2420.437], "stop_times": [2442.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.437}, "reply_to": "20803__1_029", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_031", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "That was a summary disposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2442.183], "stop_times": [2443.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.183}, "reply_to": "20803__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__1_032", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It was, Your Honor.\nI simply observe that, and Your Honor is quite correct, and I don't want to make too much of it.\nBut insofar as standing is concerned, if we are talking about the injury component of standing, I believe in all of those cases, as in this one, the members have been injured.\nWhether there are other reasons why they should not be entitled to come to court is a different question.\nIn this case, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2443.516, 2444.416, 2448.087, 2459.126, 2463.846], "stop_times": [2444.416, 2448.087, 2459.126, 2463.846, 2465.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.516}, "reply_to": "20803__1_031", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_033", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "So I have to think of something else other than standing to... to prevent these matters from being brought immediately into the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2465.296], "stop_times": [2473.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.296}, "reply_to": "20803__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_034", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--I think you do.\nAnd I think you may.\nAnd I think you have them in the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2473.135, 2473.985, 2474.651], "stop_times": [2473.985, 2474.651, 2476.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.135}, "reply_to": "20803__1_033", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_035", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, no.\nYou mean... when you say no, you mean you have to think of something else other than constitutional standing; there could be prudential standing?\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2476.503, 2476.586, 2481.121], "stop_times": [2476.586, 2481.121, 2481.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.503}, "reply_to": "20803__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__1_036", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2481.387, 2482.371], "stop_times": [2482.371, 2482.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.387}, "reply_to": "20803__1_035", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_037", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--But not here, because Congress can always wipe that out by providing that the... providing a right to sue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2482.871], "stop_times": [2489.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.871}, "reply_to": "20803__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_038", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And I think it's particularly important that they provided the right to sue in the bill itself.\nThis is not a general standing provision, allowing members to go to court any time they want.\nThis is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2489.977, 2494.845, 2499.083], "stop_times": [2494.845, 2499.083, 2499.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.977}, "reply_to": "20803__1_037", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_039", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, what... what about the situation of a bill passed by Congress that we would all agree is an improper delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch.\nHas a member of Congress been injured by that improper delegation?\nCan they come sue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2499.516, 2511.323, 2516.442], "stop_times": [2511.323, 2516.442, 2517.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.516}, "reply_to": "20803__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__1_040", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--In my view, that member has been injured in a constitutional sense, but I do not believe that you have to agree with me on that proposition to find standing here.\nBecause what we have here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2517.394, 2526.4], "stop_times": [2526.4, 2527.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2517.394}, "reply_to": "20803__1_039", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_041", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes, but we're trying to explore with you how far your theory would take you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2527.916], "stop_times": [2531.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2527.916}, "reply_to": "20803__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__1_042", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd... and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2531.887, 2531.97], "stop_times": [2531.97, 2531.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.887}, "reply_to": "20803__1_041", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_043", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "So they would have been able to come in, in Mistretta, for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2531.97], "stop_times": [2535.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.97}, "reply_to": "20803__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__1_044", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2535.088], "stop_times": [2536.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.088}, "reply_to": "20803__1_043", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_045", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Have standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2536.155], "stop_times": [2536.155], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.155}, "reply_to": "20803__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20803__1_046", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Because it's after the fact.\nWhat we are talking about here is a continuous, ongoing change in the dynamic of the lawmaking process.\nThat members now have to consider a whole different range of options and opinions and things that they had... did not have to consider before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2536.155, 2537.855, 2544.925], "stop_times": [2537.855, 2544.925, 2553.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2536.155}, "reply_to": "20803__1_045", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_047", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But there is a concern that if this Court is routinely invited to be the referee for legislative matters that the legislators themselves will not take the constitutional positions that they ought to take within their own branch of the government.\nAnd that is part of the standing rules... of the standing rules that inform separation of powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2553.781, 2568.873], "stop_times": [2568.873, 2574.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.781}, "reply_to": "20803__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__1_048", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I think that is correct, Your Honor.\nAnd if it were the ordinary kind of case, where someone was complaining about the result of a law rather than the result of the... the impact on the continuing operation on the constitutional right to vote, that only 535 members have, we would have a different situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2574.508, 2575.86], "stop_times": [2575.86, 2593.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.508}, "reply_to": "20803__1_047", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_049", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, why is it only a law that can be challenged that way?\nWhy not the leadership's putting together of a bill that contains an unconstitutional provision?\nAnd the member of Congress says, I don't know how to vote on this bill because one of the provisions, in my view, is unconstitutional, and I don't know whether I am voting for all of it without that provision or all of it including that provision.\nI am in legislative doubt, just as you claim your clients are here.\nAnd therefore, I ought to have a right to come into court immediately to determine whether that provision is constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2593.821, 2596.523, 2603.01, 2613.752, 2617.554], "stop_times": [2596.523, 2603.01, 2613.752, 2617.554, 2622.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.821}, "reply_to": "20803__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_050", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "This is not a case involving injury based on legislative doubt.\nThis is a case involving a situation in which members of Congress now have a new mountain to climb.\nIn the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2622.272, 2626.141, 2632.395], "stop_times": [2626.141, 2632.395, 2632.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.272}, "reply_to": "20803__1_049", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_051", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Oh, but I disagree.\nIt is based on legislative doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2632.395, 2633.045], "stop_times": [2633.045, 2634.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.395}, "reply_to": "20803__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_052", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, they are certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2634.795], "stop_times": [2635.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.795}, "reply_to": "20803__1_051", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_053", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "There is no mountain, if you are correct, that this provision is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2635.347], "stop_times": [2640.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.347}, "reply_to": "20803__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_054", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Except insofar as they have to deal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2640.065], "stop_times": [2640.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.065}, "reply_to": "20803__1_053", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_055", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "If this provision is unconstitutional, the... the congressman can vote for whatever he likes, because he knows that the President's cancellation will be ineffective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2640.065], "stop_times": [2649.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.065}, "reply_to": "20803__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_056", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Except that he has to deal with and negotiate with all the remaining members of his or her body.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2649.087], "stop_times": [2656.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2649.087}, "reply_to": "20803__1_055", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_057", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Because of constitutional doubt.\nWhat the case boils down to is constitutional doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2656.008, 2657.441], "stop_times": [2657.441, 2658.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.008}, "reply_to": "20803__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_058", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, the other people may have no constitutional doubt.\nIn terms of injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2658.607, 2661.059], "stop_times": [2661.059, 2662.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.607}, "reply_to": "20803__1_057", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_059", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, help me, Mr. Morrison, I'm... I'm a little puzzled and I want to be sure I understand.\nI didn't understand the doubt to be doubt as to the constitutionality of the statute, but rather doubt as to what the President might do with the particular mix that comes to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2662.892, 2666.277], "stop_times": [2666.277, 2674.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.892}, "reply_to": "20803__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_060", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2674.283], "stop_times": [2674.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2674.283}, "reply_to": "20803__1_059", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_061", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "So I don't understand the constitutional doubt argument.\nBut he can't do anything with that mix if the cancellation provision is unconstitutional.\nIf you are right that it's an unconstitutional delegation, there is no problem whatever.\nThe whole thing boils down to the constitutional doubt of whether the cancellation provision is valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2674.949, 2677.299, 2682.203, 2685.905], "stop_times": [2677.299, 2682.203, 2685.905, 2691.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.949}, "reply_to": "20803__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_062", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It can also affect bills that the President may choose, for whatever reason, not to exercise his power of cancellation over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2691.059], "stop_times": [2698.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.059}, "reply_to": "20803__1_061", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_063", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, but... but isn't Justice Scalia correct in the way he states your position?\nI... I want to understand this.\nIsn't it your position and your client's position that there is now a cloud, a sword of Damocles, hanging over the legislation, that the dynamic is altered because of this constitutional... constitutionally questionable procedure, and that is what gives them the standing now to come in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2698.879, 2703.299, 2705.016], "stop_times": [2703.299, 2705.016, 2720.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.879}, "reply_to": "20803__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__1_064", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes.\nAnd... and in addition to the dynamic, every time they cast a vote, the meaning and effect of that vote is changed.\nIt is no longer simply the vote that they had in the past, knowing that if they voted for a bill, it would be the law or not the law, but only in that forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2720.994, 2721.661, 2727.832], "stop_times": [2721.661, 2727.832, 2736.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2720.994}, "reply_to": "20803__1_063", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_065", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Do I understand you-- --But the rejoinder to that is that that's not a problem if it's unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2736.088], "stop_times": [2739.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.088}, "reply_to": "20803__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__1_066", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "That is... that is correct if it's... in... only... but only if in fact the constitutionality is determined on the very first bill that comes up there.\nBecause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2739.723, 2748.979], "stop_times": [2748.979, 2749.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.723}, "reply_to": "20803__1_065", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_067", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well... go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2749.279], "stop_times": [2751.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.279}, "reply_to": "20803__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__1_068", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--if... if... if a bill passes and the President doesn't challenge it, people will have taken steps along the way and done different things that may... that may not show up.\nMay I give an example, if I may?\nOne of the features of this bill that makes it so significant to change the dynamic is that the President's power of cancellation extends not simply to items on the face of the statute, but everything in the legislative history that can be separately identified or specified.\nSo that members now must, in addition to negotiating over the terms of the bill, they must now go and read the legislative history and figure out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2751.414, 2760.953, 2762.655, 2780.165], "stop_times": [2760.953, 2762.655, 2780.165, 2789.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.414}, "reply_to": "20803__1_067", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_069", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I didn't realize that.\nThat... this puts it all in a different light for me.\n[Laughter]\nMr. Morrison, how does that differ from suppose Congress had said, instead of having this fancy arrangement, the expenditures in all the categories that it designated, that expenditures of that nature must be covered... must be enrolled as a separate bill; would there be any problem with that?\nAnd wouldn't that cause the same difficulty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2789.805, 2790.388, 2792.174, 2796.376, 2816.354], "stop_times": [2790.388, 2792.174, 2796.376, 2816.354, 2819.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.805}, "reply_to": "20803__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_070", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Let me be very clear about the concept of separate enrollment, because I do not believe the Solicitor General's brief is as clear as it might be on this.\nThere are two concepts of separate enrollment.\nOne item, one bill passed through both houses of Congress as separate items, and then signed by the President.\nThat concept would be perfectly constitutional.\nThe concept of separate enrollment as it passed the Senate... and this is explained in... in our joint... in the joint appendix... was a different concept.\nThe bill would be agreed upon by the committee, the conference committee.\nIt would then be sent back to the enrollment clerks in each house... in the House.\nAnd they would then go through and separate out each item in both the text and the legislative history.\nThose separate items would then come forward.\nAnd Senator Byrd and others estimated there would be something like 2,000 of them in... in these... in most of these appropriations bills.\nThey would then come back to the floor, and they would be voted on, en masse, not separately, as Article I, Section 7 says.\nThey would then be voted on, en masse.\nOnly at that point would the respective officers in the House and Senate have to sign each of them.\nAnd the President could then sign and veto each.\nIn our view, that is just as an unconstitutional as this bill.\nAnd, indeed, Mr. Dellinger testified before the Senate he believed that that was unconstitutional as well.\nBecause the bill that has passed the Congress is not what is being presented to the President.\nIt is a violation of the Presentment Clause.\nSo, if I may, to answer your question that way, a true separate enrollment is of course constitutional.\nBut the concept that passed the Senate was not true separate enrollment, but it was pass it as a group and then sign it separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2819.54, 2827.027, 2829.543, 2835.883, 2839.601, 2847.521, 2851.14, 2857.396, 2863.55, 2866.768, 2872.489, 2879.743, 2882.112, 2888.016, 2890.349, 2893.801, 2899.019, 2904.423, 2906.625, 2912.26], "stop_times": [2827.027, 2829.543, 2835.883, 2839.601, 2847.521, 2851.14, 2857.396, 2863.55, 2866.768, 2872.489, 2879.743, 2882.112, 2888.016, 2890.349, 2893.801, 2899.019, 2904.423, 2906.625, 2912.26, 2920.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2819.54}, "reply_to": "20803__1_069", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_071", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "What about something more modest, like no riders on appropriation bills?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2920.58], "stop_times": [2924.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.58}, "reply_to": "20803__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_072", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I'm sorry?\nI want to be sure I understand the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2924.751, 2927.02], "stop_times": [2927.02, 2927.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.751}, "reply_to": "20803__1_071", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_073", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Could... would there be any problem about that being constitutional for... for Congress to restrain itself by doing, either through rules or perhaps a statute, saying that there can be no riders attached to an appropriation bill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2927.186], "stop_times": [2941.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.186}, "reply_to": "20803__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_074", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I don't know how that could be enforced.\nBut... and without having thought about it more, I... I think it would probably be... what would concern me was that somehow you're restricting the rights of members... members to... to put in the bills what... what they choose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2941.244, 2947.683], "stop_times": [2947.683, 2960.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2941.244}, "reply_to": "20803__1_073", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_075", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Morrison, let's go back for a minute to Justice Scalia's question about there being no injury here if in fact the... that would really do away with all of our declaratory judgment jurisprudence, would it not, to accept that, if you... you can't bring a declaratory judgment, because if the statute you're attacking is unconstitutional, they can't do anything to you anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2960.741], "stop_times": [2982.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.741}, "reply_to": "20803__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__1_076", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I had not thought of that, but it certainly seems that it would... would put a big dent in it, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2982.337], "stop_times": [2986.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.337}, "reply_to": "20803__1_075", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_077", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "May... may I go back to another point?\nBut that... that would depend, would it not, upon whether the assertion of standing, whether the personal injury you're alleging, is nothing more than your not knowing how to vote because of doubt, because of constitutional doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [2986.872, 2987.808], "stop_times": [2987.808, 3001.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.872}, "reply_to": "20803__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_078", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "That is not our injury, with all due respect, Justice Scalia.\nOur injury is not that we can't... don't know how to vote because of doubt.\nIt is because the statute has created a different process in the legislation... legislature now.\nThat members now have a small mountain to climb every time they want to take out one of these provisions.\nThey've got to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3001.532, 3005.084, 3008.036, 3015.125, 3020.677], "stop_times": [3005.084, 3008.036, 3015.125, 3020.677, 3021.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.532}, "reply_to": "20803__1_077", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_079", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And... and isn't that going to be true, going back to an answer... an earlier answer to a question... that's going to be true even if the very first instance is challenged and nothing else happens in Congress until that challenge is decided.\nBecause as I understand your position, if half the Congress is convinced that the statute is un... or not quite half... is convinced that it's unconstitutional and the rest are convinced that it is constitutional, nobody is in any doubt.\nBut the process is still going to be affected; depending on one's opinion on constitutionality.\nAnd as I understand it, that's enough for your position on injury; am I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3021.029, 3032.235, 3047.762, 3052.631], "stop_times": [3032.235, 3047.762, 3052.631, 3057.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.029}, "reply_to": "20803__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__1_080", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, it is constitutionality plus... plus the fact that... that both the constitutional uncertainty and the fact that people will of course disagree substantively about provisions, and the combination of the two will work together to change the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3057.333], "stop_times": [3069.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.333}, "reply_to": "20803__1_079", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_081", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "So it's uncertainty, not doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3069.974], "stop_times": [3071.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3069.974}, "reply_to": "20803__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__1_082", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3071.557, 3071.757], "stop_times": [3071.757, 3072.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3071.557}, "reply_to": "20803__1_081", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_083", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, but I mean I think that's a valid distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3072.923], "stop_times": [3075.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.923}, "reply_to": "20803__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__1_084", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I think that that is correct, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3075.375], "stop_times": [3076.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.375}, "reply_to": "20803__1_083", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_085", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, why doesn't that apply to a bill, just a bill that's before Congress, as I asked before, which has in it a provision that 49 percent of Congress think is unconstitutional and 51 percent think is constitutional?\nDoesn't that uncertainty, doubt, whatever you want to call it, doesn't that affect the legislative process?\nAnd shouldn't they all be able to come here and get us to resolve that uncertainty so they could get about the business of legislating?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3076.425, 3088.2, 3093.003], "stop_times": [3088.2, 3093.003, 3098.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.425}, "reply_to": "20803__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_086", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That, of course, in the isolated bill context, is different from this, because we have an identifiable act, the Line Item Veto Act, which has already gone into effect and law.\nIn the hypothetical that Your Honor is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3098.705, 3110.715], "stop_times": [3110.715, 3111.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3098.705}, "reply_to": "20803__1_085", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_087", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, the bill is an identifiable act, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3111.715], "stop_times": [3113.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.715}, "reply_to": "20803__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_088", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--But it hasn't gone--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3113.465], "stop_times": [3113.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3113.465}, "reply_to": "20803__1_087", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_089", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It's just an act of... of one house of Congress instead of both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3113.548], "stop_times": [3116.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.548}, "reply_to": "20803__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_090", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--It is not a law, nor is it a rule of Congress.\nIt has no prospective effect.\nIt is simply part of the debate about the merits of that particular law.\nWe are talking about an extrinsic circumstance, the passage of a statute, the Line Item Veto Act, which casts a pallor over the... the statute that come before the Congress in their appropriations capacity and causes members to act differently from the way they did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3116.417, 3119.869, 3122.235, 3126.689], "stop_times": [3119.869, 3122.235, 3126.689, 3140.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3116.417}, "reply_to": "20803__1_089", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_091", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Morrison-- --Okay, the answer to my question is, if it were determined in... if it were determined in the... the... the first instance before any other legislation was considered, that wouldn't give standing.\nIf we could assume that was going to happen, there wouldn't be standing.\nThere's got to be the assumption that in fact there will be an ongoing process of at least more than one bill which this... it affects?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3140.865, 3153.173, 3156.375], "stop_times": [3153.173, 3156.375, 3163.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3140.865}, "reply_to": "20803__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__1_092", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes.\nFor instance, now, the supplemental appropriations bills are being considered by Congress.\nThere may or may not be a cancellation with respect to them.\nBut the pallor of the Act is hanging over them as they... members have to decide what to put in, what to take out, how to proceed with this bill, whether or not there is ever going--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3163.945, 3164.445, 3169.063, 3172.365], "stop_times": [3164.445, 3169.063, 3172.365, 3182.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3163.945}, "reply_to": "20803__1_091", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_093", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But, so far, they're injured only by their own colleagues.\nThe President has done absolutely nothing.\nA majority of the colleagues of the plaintiffs have decided that this law is constitutional and sound policy.\nIsn't... I know that the standing is a specialty for lawyers, but practically it is the majority of the members of Congress that have caused this injury, and not the President.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3182.157, 3184.94, 3187.04, 3195.879], "stop_times": [3184.94, 3187.04, 3195.879, 3212.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.157}, "reply_to": "20803__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_094", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--If this were a case in which the President of the United States said, I don't know why you gave me this power; I'm not going to use it, we would be in a different situation with respect to prudential aspects of rightness.\nThe President made clear when he sent his witnesses to testify that he wanted this bill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3212.59, 3222.213], "stop_times": [3222.213, 3225.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3212.59}, "reply_to": "20803__1_093", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_095", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But I'm not talking about prudential; I'm talking about the reality of who has caused the injury.\nIf there is an injury, it hasn't been caused by the President.\nIt has been caused by the members of the House and Senate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3225.915, 3231.069, 3234.021], "stop_times": [3231.069, 3234.021, 3237.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.915}, "reply_to": "20803__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_096", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, I... I do believe that the... that the concern we have is over the threat of... of the exercise of the veto, not simply the... the actuality of the veto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3237.306], "stop_times": [3245.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3237.306}, "reply_to": "20803__1_095", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_097", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, and isn't also the answer that the President signed the Line Item Veto Act, and that is now a law that regulates the legislative process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3245.56], "stop_times": [3252.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.56}, "reply_to": "20803__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20803__1_098", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It... it certainly does.\nBut, in addition, the defendants we have here... Defendant Raines, is of course the President's chief advisor on the... on budgetary matters, and Defendant Rubin is... is the tax matters.\nAnd that surely they will participate with the President in... in the... in the process by which decisions are made or threatened to be made on... on the line item veto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3252.732, 3253.599, 3262.754], "stop_times": [3253.599, 3262.754, 3273.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3252.732}, "reply_to": "20803__1_097", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_099", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, Mr. Morrison, your theory of standing would seem to come into play even if the Senate or the House changed their rules of operation to cut off debate or anything else.\nIt changes the dynamics of the operation of the House--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3273.145, 3289.489], "stop_times": [3289.489, 3293.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.145}, "reply_to": "20803__1_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__1_100", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "In terms of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3293.041], "stop_times": [3293.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3293.041}, "reply_to": "20803__1_099", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_101", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--or the Senate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3293.559], "stop_times": [3294.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.559}, "reply_to": "20803__1_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__1_102", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--In terms of constitutional injury, I would agree with Your Honor.\nBut there are other elements of Article III case or controversy, such... the prudential elements--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3294.225, 3298.427], "stop_times": [3298.427, 3304.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.225}, "reply_to": "20803__1_101", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_103", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, suppose Congress passes a law and says, well, you can sue on it immediately, just like here, but, nevertheless, we're going to change our rules.\nAnd you... we're going to cut off debate after 5 minutes and whatever it is.\nIn your view, they'd be able to file suit in court, because the dynamics are changed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3304.145, 3312.818, 3317.853], "stop_times": [3312.818, 3317.853, 3322.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.145}, "reply_to": "20803__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__1_104", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--They might be able to, Your Honor.\nThe... the possibility exists.\nSurely, Adam Clayton Powell's exclusion from the House of Representatives was not simply about money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3322.988, 3324.923, 3327.459], "stop_times": [3324.923, 3327.459, 3334.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3322.988}, "reply_to": "20803__1_103", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_105", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, but a total exclusion of a member, that deprives him of the emoluments of the office... can't get paid, can't take a seat... that may well be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3334.446], "stop_times": [3344.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.446}, "reply_to": "20803__1_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20803__1_106", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I don't believe that... the Powell case would have come out differently if the House of Representatives had continued to pay him his salary during the time that they excluded him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3344.468], "stop_times": [3352.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3344.468}, "reply_to": "20803__1_105", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_107", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "There is also a difference, Mr. Morrison, as Justice Ginsburg was suggesting, between a provision adopted by the whole body that affects only an individual member and a provision adopted by the body, such as a rule change, such as this law, which affects all the members of the House and all the members of the... of the Senate equal.\nIsn't that a distinction that can be taken into account in determining whether there is standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3352.991, 3373.921], "stop_times": [3373.921, 3378.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3352.991}, "reply_to": "20803__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_108", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It may be... it may have some... some bearing on it.\nBut I... the Solicitor General conceded earlier that the... that if members from Iowa only had a half a vote on the... on the farm prices, that that... that they would have injury.\nI... we suggested in our... our reply brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3378.725, 3383.527, 3396.085], "stop_times": [3383.527, 3396.085, 3397.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3378.725}, "reply_to": "20803__1_107", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_109", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "That wouldn't affect everybody equally.\nThat... that's the reason.\nThis is a provision every member of the House is in the same boat, and the House... the House voted it, you know, by a majority vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3397.918, 3399.287, 3400.57], "stop_times": [3399.287, 3400.57, 3406.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3397.918}, "reply_to": "20803__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_110", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well, of course, the House cannot change the Constitution.\nThat was clear from the beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3406.205, 3409.34], "stop_times": [3409.34, 3411.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3406.205}, "reply_to": "20803__1_109", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_111", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But the distinction between the Adam Clayton Powell case, which you brought up in your brief, and the half a vote for the Iowans--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3411.607], "stop_times": [3418.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3411.607}, "reply_to": "20803__1_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_112", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "We gave another hypothetical in which there is a statute passed on a conflict of interest theory, under which members of Congress are forbidden from voting on projects of more than $50 million if it's in their district.\nAnd a member wants to go to court and says, I have been injured because I can no longer vote on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3418.346, 3430.653], "stop_times": [3430.653, 3435.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3418.346}, "reply_to": "20803__1_111", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_113", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Every member has a district.\nI mean, General Dellinger recognized that the Powell case, that suit could be brought even if the salary wasn't stopped.\nI'm not allowed to be a legislator, or my vote counts only half.\nThe... the majority is... is seizing on a particular person or group of persons and treating them adversely.\nBut your... your example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3435.521, 3437.307, 3445.413, 3450.281, 3459.32], "stop_times": [3437.307, 3445.413, 3450.281, 3459.32, 3460.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.521}, "reply_to": "20803__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_114", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Every member has a right to vote on... on pending bills.\nIt's in the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3460.403, 3463.871], "stop_times": [3463.871, 3464.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3460.403}, "reply_to": "20803__1_113", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_115", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes.\nBut the... the... you make nothing of the distinction between we single out a group and treat them adversely and what we do to others we do unto ourselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3464.221, 3464.921], "stop_times": [3464.921, 3473.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3464.221}, "reply_to": "20803__1_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20803__1_116", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But in terms of injury, I think that they are... that they are injured.\nAnd that may make a difference in terms of... of how we... we... we feel about it and whether there ought to be prudential reasons why we ought not to allow members of Congress to go to court principally when they're complaining about the... the fact that they were outvoted on... on a matter in their own house.\nBut here we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3473.075, 3477.729, 3491.87], "stop_times": [3477.729, 3491.87, 3491.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3473.075}, "reply_to": "20803__1_115", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_117", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No.\nBut your... your... your standing would apply even if the voter voted for the bill.\nHe'd still have standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3491.87, 3492.57, 3496.738], "stop_times": [3492.57, 3496.738, 3497.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3491.87}, "reply_to": "20803__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_118", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--He might be disqualified for other reasons.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3497.572, 3500.574], "stop_times": [3500.574, 3501.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3497.572}, "reply_to": "20803__1_117", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_119", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But why would he be disqualified?\nThe statute... he'd be injured just as much as somebody who voted against the bill.\nI don't see a distinction based on how you vote.\nHe might change his mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3501.826, 3503.009, 3506.361, 3509.146], "stop_times": [3503.009, 3506.361, 3509.146, 3510.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3501.826}, "reply_to": "20803__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_120", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--That is true.\nI was thinking of... of the equitable situation of clean hands, that somebody might not allow you to come to court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3510.412, 3511.479], "stop_times": [3511.479, 3516.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3510.412}, "reply_to": "20803__1_119", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_121", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes, but we don't look at equities.\nAll of that is put to one side with the statutory provision you rely on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3516.066, 3517.183], "stop_times": [3517.183, 3520.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3516.066}, "reply_to": "20803__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_122", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Well... well, I agree with... I agree with that.\nBut we don't have to face that issue here.\nAnd, of course, it's hard to imagine that this case would come out differently if instead of the five members that we had here, that we had joined us a person who was newly elected to the Congress in November of 1996, who never had an opportunity to vote on it.\nDoes anything in Article III suggest that the result ought to be different?\nAnd I suggest to you that it's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3520.252, 3521.22, 3522.987, 3538.998, 3543.383], "stop_times": [3521.22, 3522.987, 3538.998, 3543.383, 3544.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3520.252}, "reply_to": "20803__1_121", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_123", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Can I ask you one question on the merits?\nSuppose... imagine we have somewhat different laws, but two laws like the following.\nThe first one, Congress says: There follow a list of 1,000 appropriations.\nWe delegate to the President the authority to impound or not to impound those monies.\nIs that objectionable?\nThe second statute says... by the way, they put in a 5-day deadline for him to make up his mind... the second statute says: The following are 5 or 50 special provisions of the tax code that will benefit particular individuals.\nWe do two things.\nWe instruct the head of the IRS to consider the merits of each under ordinary rule-delegating powers, and then, within 5 days, to adopt or to reject those which he feels are warranted on the basis of the money available.\nNow, what would the constitutional objection be to either of those bills, and why aren't they this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3544.902, 3546.752, 3553.222, 3559.995, 3569.1, 3571.2, 3586.543, 3588.312, 3604.505], "stop_times": [3546.752, 3553.222, 3559.995, 3569.1, 3571.2, 3586.543, 3588.312, 3604.505, 3610.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3544.902}, "reply_to": "20803__1_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__1_124", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "If the... if the... you used... Your Honor used the word \"impoundment\" in the first statement, and I wanted to be clear about the meaning of that term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3610.225], "stop_times": [3619.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3610.225}, "reply_to": "20803__1_123", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_125", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, don't hold me to the... to the... I'm not trying to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3619.747], "stop_times": [3621.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3619.747}, "reply_to": "20803__1_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__1_126", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But if... if Your Honor... I don't mean the word itself, but if in that context the concept is the concept which we have here, which is a permanent repeal of the law, such that the President cannot change his mind again, nor can his successors, nor can changed circumstances revive the law, that the only thing that can... can do it is a new law, in my view, that is precisely what we have here, and it is a repeal.\nIt is the power to extinguish the law and not to execute the law.\nNow, in the second situation, it was a little harder for me to understand what the rejection was.\nIf it is the same kind of provision, the same kind of permanent change, off or on, it is the same kind of lawmaking, not law executed that we have here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3621.013, 3648.93, 3653.567, 3662.589], "stop_times": [3648.93, 3653.567, 3662.589, 3672.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3621.013}, "reply_to": "20803__1_125", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_127", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--It wouldn't be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3672.445], "stop_times": [3673.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3672.445}, "reply_to": "20803__1_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__1_128", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--in the line item veto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3673.695], "stop_times": [3673.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3673.695}, "reply_to": "20803__1_127", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_129", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--It wouldn't be surprising... I mean, maybe it is... they don't normally do it.\nBut it... it wouldn't be surprising for Congress to say to the head of the IRS, We direct you to consider the five following measures.\nConsider whether or not you want to enact a rule that will turn them into law.\nDecide, yes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3673.778, 3677.063, 3684.567, 3688.621], "stop_times": [3677.063, 3684.567, 3688.621, 3690.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3673.778}, "reply_to": "20803__1_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__1_130", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, they surely have the constitutional authority to ask the IRS--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3690.921], "stop_times": [3695.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3690.921}, "reply_to": "20803__1_129", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_131", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3695.791], "stop_times": [3695.874], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3695.791}, "reply_to": "20803__1_130", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20803__1_132", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--as part of its interstitial lawmaking authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3695.874], "stop_times": [3698.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3695.874}, "reply_to": "20803__1_131", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_133", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Yes.\nAnd then they say, by the way, you have to say yes or no within 5 days, and... and, by the way, unless you actually say no, it's yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3698.057, 3698.124], "stop_times": [3698.124, 3706.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3698.057}, "reply_to": "20803__1_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20803__1_134", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But then it doesn't... if--\n[Laughter]\nIf it leaves the statute intact, unlike this one, where for all practical purposes, these provisions are gone upon cancellation, if it leaves the statute intact, that's one thing.\nBut what we have here is a permanent change in the law, as if the pages were being cut out of the United States Code.\nThe statute says that these provisions shall have no further legal force and effect.\nThe words \"repeal\" and \"veto\" were repeatedly used in the legislative history.\nThe Congress sought to enact a line item veto, and that is what they did here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3706.063, 3708.163, 3708.846, 3721.339, 3728.059, 3733.13, 3737.665], "stop_times": [3708.163, 3708.846, 3721.339, 3728.059, 3733.13, 3737.665, 3742.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3706.063}, "reply_to": "20803__1_133", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_135", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, there's a similar result with some of those statutes that gave the President authority to cease foreign aid when a certain event should occur or, you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3742.069], "stop_times": [3755.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3742.069}, "reply_to": "20803__1_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_136", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "In virtually every one of those cases... I believe every one that we have been able to discover a point or two... the President could change his mind again.\nIf the situation changed, the words used were \"suspension\" rather than \"cancellation\".\nThe notion of administering the law rather than permanently changing the law.\nAnd we believe that every one of those cases, including the lump sum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3755.809, 3764.063, 3769.95, 3774.604], "stop_times": [3764.063, 3769.95, 3774.604, 3777.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3755.809}, "reply_to": "20803__1_135", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_137", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Is that... is that true of the agricultural statute they cite in their reply brief?\nThey... I think I remember reading that, saying that statute is totally... put an end... am... am I right or wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3777.104, 3781.091], "stop_times": [3781.091, 3789.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3777.104}, "reply_to": "20803__1_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_138", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes, it was based upon a narrow set of circumstances.\nThat statute, by the way, was enacted in 1933, and it continues in effect today.\nI find that relative little precedent in terms of what kind of thing we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3789.178, 3792.399, 3797.45], "stop_times": [3792.399, 3797.45, 3802.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3789.178}, "reply_to": "20803__1_137", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_139", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, is it strictly the 5 days?\nI mean I don't know why 20 years--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3802.087, 3803.721], "stop_times": [3803.721, 3804.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3802.087}, "reply_to": "20803__1_138", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_140", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "No, it's not strictly the 5 days, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3804.706], "stop_times": [3805.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3804.706}, "reply_to": "20803__1_139", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_141", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Okay.\nSo that a statute that said, whenever the President decides to terminate this program, he may do so, period, and that's the end of it, that would be unconstitutional, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3805.872, 3806.139], "stop_times": [3806.139, 3814.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3805.872}, "reply_to": "20803__1_140", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_142", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "If that is all that it said... and that it was permanently terminated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3814.562], "stop_times": [3818.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3814.562}, "reply_to": "20803__1_141", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_143", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3818.364], "stop_times": [3818.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3818.364}, "reply_to": "20803__1_142", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_144", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--that he could not revive it again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3818.864], "stop_times": [3819.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3818.864}, "reply_to": "20803__1_143", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_145", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3819.78], "stop_times": [3820.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3819.78}, "reply_to": "20803__1_144", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20803__1_146", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--that, to us, is... is lawmaking rather than law executing.\nBut we can envision a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3820.347, 3823.649], "stop_times": [3823.649, 3824.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3820.347}, "reply_to": "20803__1_145", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_147", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I think it's worse that he should be able to repeal it and reenact it, repeal it and reenact it.\nYou think... you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3824.768, 3828.97], "stop_times": [3828.97, 3829.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3824.768}, "reply_to": "20803__1_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_148", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--It's not worse or better, Your Honor.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3829.303, 3831.005], "stop_times": [3831.005, 3831.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3829.303}, "reply_to": "20803__1_147", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_149", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--it seems to me that's giving him even... even greater power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3831.205], "stop_times": [3832.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3831.205}, "reply_to": "20803__1_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_150", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--It's the... that is not the test, I believe.\nI believe the test is whether, under the Constitution, he is engaging in Article II activities, carrying out the laws, or whether he is engaging in Article I activities, making the law.\nAnd by permanently ending the law, he has shifted the line from Article II to Article I.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3832.872, 3835.038, 3846.596], "stop_times": [3835.038, 3846.596, 3852.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3832.872}, "reply_to": "20803__1_149", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_151", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Unless he has criteria.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3852.934], "stop_times": [3854.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3852.934}, "reply_to": "20803__1_150", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__1_152", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It is possible that he is no longer... that if he's permanently terminating... there are circumstances in which, if... even though it becomes legally reversible, that it might be considered, at least on an individual basis, carrying out the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3854.801], "stop_times": [3873.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3854.801}, "reply_to": "20803__1_151", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_153", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "I don't understand that.\nYou can give him criteria for terminating the law?\nHe can terminate the law so long as he has criteria?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3878.584, 3873.48, 3876.049], "stop_times": [3873.48, 3876.049, 3879.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3878.584}, "reply_to": "20803__1_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_154", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Well, there have been some laws in which the... the President's power, as a practical matter, at a... at a given time, and he's told he has to do something and he... and he carries out the law in that particular fashion.\nI would not want to say that there is no law that I can think of in which a President could not be given the authority to say that, at this point, that... that the law may be... may be terminated because he would be ending the execution of the law.\nIf the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3879.667, 3893.094, 3908.853], "stop_times": [3893.094, 3908.853, 3910.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3879.667}, "reply_to": "20803__1_153", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_155", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "But the... the theory is that he wouldn't be terminating the law.\nThe theory there would be that the law had a termination point upon the making of a finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3910.453, 3915.007], "stop_times": [3915.007, 3918.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3910.453}, "reply_to": "20803__1_154", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__1_156", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3918.625], "stop_times": [3918.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3918.625}, "reply_to": "20803__1_155", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_157", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "And isn't that where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3918.692], "stop_times": [3919.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3918.692}, "reply_to": "20803__1_156", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20803__1_158", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "It is... it is... it is legislating in contingency, as... as the Court has referred to it in several cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3919.609], "stop_times": [3925.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3919.609}, "reply_to": "20803__1_157", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_159", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3925.029], "stop_times": [3925.296], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3925.029}, "reply_to": "20803__1_158", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20803__1_160", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--in which the... the termination process is part of the law itself.\nHere the... the President has the unfettered power to decide whether to cancel anything or not.\nAnd if so, how much.\nHe is no mandated to save a single nickel under this program if he chooses not to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3925.296, 3929.081, 3934.883, 3936.535], "stop_times": [3929.081, 3934.883, 3936.535, 3941.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3925.296}, "reply_to": "20803__1_159", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_161", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "So--\n--But once... but once you acknowledge the legitimacy of these other statutes, all we're really arguing about is an excessive delegation question, not... not at all a... you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3941.722, 3941.939], "stop_times": [3941.939, 3950.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3941.722}, "reply_to": "20803__1_160", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20803__1_162", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "We don't believe so for the reasons set forth in my brief.\nI see my time is up.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3950.827, 3953.279, 3953.996], "stop_times": [3953.279, 3953.996, 3954.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3950.827}, "reply_to": "20803__1_161", "speaker": "alan_b_morrison"}
{"id": "20803__1_163", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Morrison.\nGeneral Dellinger, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3954.946, 3955.898], "stop_times": [3955.898, 3958.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3954.946}, "reply_to": "20803__1_162", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20803__2_000", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy raised the question about irregularity in the legislative process as being an allegation that would give rise to standing.\nI want to note that the Defendants in this case are the Secretary of the Treasury and Director of OMB.\nIf there is... we don't believe there was any defect in the internal procedures because the members' votes were counted and the bill was presented to the President and he complains about what the President does thereafter.\nBut if there were an actual deprivation of the right to vote, the appropriate suit would be against, I would assume, someone in the legislative branch.\nIt is not the case that when the President exercises his discretion to cancel in order to carry out deficit reduction that the provision has no legal force and effect.\nWhat the statute actually says is that the budget authority has no legal force or effect.\nThe Act... the provision continues to define the amount of money that, for Gramm-Rudman and pay-as-you-go purposes and sequestration purposes, the amount of allowable spending is reduced.\nHere you have a restriction of the President's delegated authority to cover one-third of the budget only for a period of 8 years, where he may draw upon the entire expertise of the executive branch in making a conclusion that it is better to allocate some money exclusively to deficit reduction.\nWe believe that that broad congressional and executive consensus should be sustained.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [3958.6, 3969.622, 3975.71, 3985.418, 3992.072, 4002.194, 4007.996, 4019.989, 4038.533, 4042.752], "stop_times": [3969.622, 3975.71, 3985.418, 3992.072, 4002.194, 4007.996, 4019.989, 4038.533, 4042.752, 4043.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3958.6}, "reply_to": "20803__1_163", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20803__2_001", "conversation_id": "20803", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-1671", "start_times": [4043.002, 4044.768], "stop_times": [4044.768, 4045.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4043.002}, "reply_to": "20803__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__0_000", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1694... the spectators are admonished not to talk until you get out of the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nWe'll hear argument next in Number 95-1694, Regents of the University of California v. John Doe.\nMr. Miller, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [0.0, 12.479, 14.522, 24.767], "stop_times": [12.479, 14.522, 24.767, 41.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__0_001", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue presented for review in this case is whether the Eleventh Amendment immunity is lost if the State or a State entity has a claim for indemnification or reimbursement for any judgment entered against it.\nHere, the potential indemnitor is the United States Department of Energy.\nThe issue arises in the context of a breach of contract action brought in Federal court on diversity grounds where the plaintiff is a citizen of New York and, thus, the issue does not implicate the question of the scope of the Eleventh Amendment that the Court has focused on in a number of cases, most recently in the Seminole Tribe case of last year, for even under the most narrow view of the scope of the amendment the question presented in this case would need to be addressed.\nThe Ninth Circuit court held that the university lost its immunity in this case because in this particular case it had a claim for indemnification against the United States Department of Energy.\nThe core error of the court below was its premise that in each case involving a State entity the court can consider, and parties can litigate, the question of the payment source that would be used to satisfy a judgment that might be entered in that particular case.\nNothing in the Court's Eleventh Amendment cases supports that view, and we believe it is inconsistent with the terms, the meaning, and the purpose of the Eleventh Amendment.\nThe core purpose of the Eleventh Amendment is to withhold jurisdiction from Federal courts and to withhold the exercise of Federal judicial power against a State in respect of that State's sovereignty.\nUnder the Ninth Circuit approach, Federal judicial power is potentially exercised against the State or its entity in virtually every case, or any case in which the plaintiff alleges that there is some payment source for the judgment that might be entered in the case that would satisfy the judgment and that would avoid payment of that judgment directly from the State treasury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [41.68, 44.862, 62.013, 66.496, 98.77, 114.327, 135.583, 147.122, 164.554], "stop_times": [44.862, 62.013, 66.496, 98.77, 114.327, 135.583, 147.122, 164.554, 191.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 41.68}, "reply_to": "20426__0_000", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_002", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Mr. Miller, I want to make sure I understand one thing.\nI take it that it's your position that this reference to a source of indemnity is simply irrelevant as a matter of law, that there is no circumstance in which that should be taken into consideration in order to determine the Eleventh Amendment status of some supposed arm of the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [191.391, 193.424], "stop_times": [193.424, 211.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.391}, "reply_to": "20426__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20426__0_003", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, with this one qualification.\nWe acknowledge that at some point any entity, not the State itself, may have to be subject to a determination as to whether it is a State entity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [211.316, 213.969], "stop_times": [213.969, 223.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.316}, "reply_to": "20426__0_002", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_004", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [223.714], "stop_times": [224.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.714}, "reply_to": "20426__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20426__0_005", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--for Eleventh Amendment purposes, and it would be looked at with its overall character.\nIf in some case there were an agency of the State which was entirely supported by indemnification from an outside source like the Federal Government, in that hypothetical situation conceivably the factor of indemnification would be relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [224.135, 228.148], "stop_times": [228.148, 243.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.135}, "reply_to": "20426__0_004", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_006", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, are you assuming in the hypothetical that you raise, are you assuming in that case that the State treasury or \"State funds\" could never be reached, and that the only funds that could be reached would be those of the third party nongovernmental indemnitor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [243.76], "stop_times": [261.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.76}, "reply_to": "20426__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20426__0_007", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "In fact, Your Honor, yes, and beyond that, that the entity was established on the premise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [261.56], "stop_times": [266.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.56}, "reply_to": "20426__0_006", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_008", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [266.586], "stop_times": [266.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.586}, "reply_to": "20426__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20426__0_009", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--that its... the State funds would never be reached.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [266.947], "stop_times": [269.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.947}, "reply_to": "20426__0_008", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_010", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "So that... in other words, that doesn't really qualify, I take it, your answer, because your answer is, on the assumption that State funds are reachable at least in theory, the existence of a third party indemnitor is irrelevant as a matter of law to the Eleventh Amendment determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [269.688], "stop_times": [289.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 269.688}, "reply_to": "20426__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20426__0_011", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [289.033], "stop_times": [289.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.033}, "reply_to": "20426__0_010", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_012", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [289.353], "stop_times": [289.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.353}, "reply_to": "20426__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20426__0_013", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "That's the position.\nWhether it's an indemnification, insurance claim, a possible claim over or against a third party, a possible joint tortfeasor, anything of the sort.\nNone of those possibilities we say should be relevant, and yet the Ninth Circuit court decision would seem to make any one of those possibilities relevant to a determination in a particular case as to whether a State entity would be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [289.483, 289.814, 299.581], "stop_times": [289.814, 299.581, 316.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.483}, "reply_to": "20426__0_012", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_014", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "There was discussion in the Hess case of the potential for judgments to reach or not reach the State treasury.\nWe seemed to think that was important in the Hess case.\nWhy is that not important here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [316.623, 328.431, 332.244], "stop_times": [328.431, 332.244, 334.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.623}, "reply_to": "20426__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__0_015", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Two reasons, Your Honor.\nFirst, in the Hess case the inquiry that the Court made was whether that bi-State entity there, the path, had been established by the two States involved, New York and New Jersey, with an intention that those States be responsible for its various debts, and in that case the Court looked at that overall structure and concluded that the States did not intend their treasuries to be responsible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [334.405, 336.297], "stop_times": [336.297, 362.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.405}, "reply_to": "20426__0_014", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_016", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "So you're saying that the discussion there simply was a way for us to inquire or measure the connection between the bi-State entity and the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [362.335], "stop_times": [375.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.335}, "reply_to": "20426__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__0_017", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIn fact, that was the standard that the Court announced when it made that... when it took those factors into account.\nThe Court asked--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [375.764, 377.085, 383.229], "stop_times": [377.085, 383.229, 384.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 375.764}, "reply_to": "20426__0_016", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_018", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Mr. Miller, was an antecedent to getting to that in the Hess case that we were dealing with an entity that had not simply two States as creators, but the Federal Government as well, and then said, there is a presumption that such an entity founded by three sovereigns does not wear the mantle of a State, and maybe that presumption is undone if the States are legally obligated to pick up the tab for it, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [384.441], "stop_times": [417.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.441}, "reply_to": "20426__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__0_019", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--That is absolutely right, Your Honor.\nThat was going to be my second point, that the Court in the Hess case adopted a standard which started with a presumption against cloaking that particular entity with Eleventh Amendment immunity and required a demonstration that not only the States involved intended for the agency to have their sovereign power, but that the Congress agreed with it.\nThat's not the standard that would apply in judging whether an arm of the State is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, but even under that approach there have been situations where a bi-State entity has been found to have Eleventh Amendment immunity.\nI think of the case in the D.C. Circuit of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which Justice Ginsburg's opinion cited in the Hess case, I think, but that was again an application of a special standard for the bi-State entity situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [417.443, 419.395, 440.538, 455.999], "stop_times": [419.395, 440.538, 455.999, 472.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.443}, "reply_to": "20426__0_018", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_020", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--But in any event, here there is no legal... there's no release of the university from legal liability.\nAs there was in the Hess case there was no legal liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [472.46, 483.538], "stop_times": [483.538, 488.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.46}, "reply_to": "20426__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__0_021", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "That's unquestionably true, Your Honor, and were a judgment to be entered on this breach of contract case, claim against the university, the university would be legally liable, and all of the consequences that would flow from having had a court make a legal determination of a violation of someone's rights would apply in the case.\nThe university, to be sure, under the contract here would look to the Department of Energy to satisfy the monetary judgment awarded by the court, and it would hope, in the unlikely event that this occurs, that the Department would respond, but if it didn't, the university would be on the hook to pay the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [488.062, 508.267], "stop_times": [508.267, 525.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.062}, "reply_to": "20426__0_020", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_022", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "In these cases involving universities, is it important for us to inquire whether, as a matter of State law, there is sovereign immunity that attaches to the institution, or is it not important, because sovereign immunity can always be waived?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [525.839], "stop_times": [540.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.839}, "reply_to": "20426__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__0_023", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I think it's an element, Your Honor, of the inquiry, the ultimate inquiry which this Court announced in the Mount Healthy case, and I think it's been repeated again in the Hess case and others, was what is the intention of the State in establishing the entity?\nDid the State intend this entity to exercise State sovereign powers?\nWhether that particular entity has State sovereign immunity could be relevant to that inquiry.\nIn this particular case, there is a general State statute that explains just exactly how, and to what extent, the State waives its sovereign immunity for itself and its entities, and the Regents of the University of California are explicitly named as one of the entities covered by that provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [540.047, 556.058, 559.57, 565.385], "stop_times": [556.058, 559.57, 565.385, 584.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.047}, "reply_to": "20426__0_022", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_024", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Do those statutes, do you think, supersede the California supreme court's decision, the 1899 decision where they... in the Royer case where the California supreme court said that the university, while a governmental institution, is not clothed with the sovereignty of the State and it's not a sovereign?\nDo we just ignore that sentence, or has it been superseded by statute, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [584.93, 602.881], "stop_times": [602.881, 606.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.93}, "reply_to": "20426__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__0_025", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I think that sentence has to be read for precisely what it said.\nThe Court pursued it by saying the State is an instrument... I mean, the Regents is an instrumentality of the State.\nIt is not, however, the State itself, and I think that's what the State, what the supreme court was saying, and for that reason, it said, it can be subjected to legislative enactments.\nIn that case, it was enactments relating to the probate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [606.894, 609.406, 615.951, 628.829], "stop_times": [609.406, 615.951, 628.829, 632.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.894}, "reply_to": "20426__0_024", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_026", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Haven't we held in one of our decisions that even though the State may... State law may say it's... an entity is suable in State court, that does not conclude the Eleventh Amendment inquiry in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [632.432], "stop_times": [645.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.432}, "reply_to": "20426__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__0_027", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThis Court has made clear that a waiver of Federal court Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity must be explicit, and is not accomplished simply by a general waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [645.361, 646.052], "stop_times": [646.052, 657.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.361}, "reply_to": "20426__0_026", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_028", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "What about the converse proposition, not waiver, but could a State... let's take a cement plant as an example... go into the cement business and create the cement administration entity as an arm of the State and say it shall not be immune... it shall be immune from all suit in Federal court and also in State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [657.502], "stop_times": [675.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.502}, "reply_to": "20426__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__0_029", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI mean, it could.\nIt would have to make a decision that it wants the cement operation to be part of the State government, to be clothed with the rights and attributes of State sovereignty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [675.614, 675.834, 676.766], "stop_times": [675.834, 676.766, 687.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.614}, "reply_to": "20426__0_028", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_030", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Is there any Federal limit on the extent to which a State can create subdivisions that will be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [687.445], "stop_times": [694.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.445}, "reply_to": "20426__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__0_031", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I don't think there are any Federal limits, Your Honor, because the whole point here of the Eleventh Amendment is to respect State sovereignty and the State's decision as to how to organize itself to carry out its governmental functions, and if the State decides hypothetically that the... operating a cement plant is a sovereign function it wants to undertake, that decision should be respected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [694.46], "stop_times": [715.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.46}, "reply_to": "20426__0_030", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_032", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, it is not respected in international law any more.\nThere is an exception to international sovereign immunity with respect to commercial activities of Governments, and that may well be ex... I mean, it isn't out of the question that that could be extended to the Eleventh Amendment as well, but that's not involved here anyway, is it?\nI mean, this is not a commercial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [715.854, 718.288, 733.719], "stop_times": [718.288, 733.719, 735.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.854}, "reply_to": "20426__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__0_033", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "It's not involved in this case but I'm happy to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [735.501], "stop_times": [736.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.501}, "reply_to": "20426__0_032", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_034", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [736.853], "stop_times": [736.901], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 736.853}, "reply_to": "20426__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20426__0_035", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--comment on it, Justice Scalia.\nI mean, this Court has looked at the commercial versus governmental distinction in a number of contexts and has tended to find it wanting in every case.\nThe most prominent one I'm thinking of is the Garcia case, where it rejected that basis for distinguishing between functions of governmental entities that would be beyond Federal regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [736.901, 738.433, 747.81], "stop_times": [738.433, 747.81, 762.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.901}, "reply_to": "20426__0_034", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_036", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "And of course, if you applied that distinction here you'd be on the proprietary side of the distinction, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [762.501], "stop_times": [766.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.501}, "reply_to": "20426__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__0_037", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor, because I think what you'd be looking at would be the university as a whole, and the whole point of this case is that you've got to look at the university as a whole and examine its overall character.\nAnd the fact that it happens to have a particular operation that someone might say looks more commercial in nature, just as one might say providing parking lots for the faculty is a little more commercial in nature than a governmental... one could break this down and in every case perhaps find some basis for arguing that there is an exception to the immunity, and under such an approach I think in the end there would be no immunity, because the university and every other State entity would have to defend itself in every case against the contention that in that particular case its functions are not protected by the immunity, and instead of having an immunity suit, which is what was intended by the Eleventh Amendment, what you'd have would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [766.663, 779.392], "stop_times": [779.392, 822.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.663}, "reply_to": "20426__0_036", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_038", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I don't understand that argument.\nThere are clearly some things that the Government would do that are purely governmental... I mean, carrying out Government policy in one way or another.\nYou're saying there is no... you're just saying there is no valid distinction between the two kinds of function, and there's a lot of support for that, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [822.81, 824.472, 832.759], "stop_times": [824.472, 832.759, 839.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.81}, "reply_to": "20426__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__0_039", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and I would say, Justice Stevens, that in the context that we're talking about here, which is how does the State organize itself to carry out functions, I don't think there's any evidence that States elect their form of organization or their activities based upon whether the Eleventh Amendment applies, and no one would make such a suggestion, so if a State, to take your hypothetical, decides--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [839.903], "stop_times": [863.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.903}, "reply_to": "20426__0_038", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_040", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I don't know why they wouldn't.\nIf they go into the cement business, as Colorado did, why, they might take that into account.\nIt seems to me perfectly legitimate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [863.488, 864.71, 869.345], "stop_times": [864.71, 869.345, 870.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.488}, "reply_to": "20426__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__0_041", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--I don't know of any evidence that any State in fact takes that kind of consideration into account.\nAt least until that evidence was present it would seem to me not worth distorting the purposes of the Eleventh Amendment simply to protect against that somewhat unlikely scenario.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [870.807, 877.399], "stop_times": [877.399, 888.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.807}, "reply_to": "20426__0_040", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_042", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "In any event, Mr. Miller, in this case you're saying that we have to deal with the University of California as an entity and not whatever Livermore Laboratory might be if it were a discrete entity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [888.277], "stop_times": [903.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.277}, "reply_to": "20426__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__0_043", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and you may ask why is that the case, and my response would be because the minute you start breaking down the activity of an entity function by function, activity by activity, you are inviting in every case an opportunity for litigation in the Federal court as to whether or not that particular entity is entitled to immunity in that particular case.\nAnd that series of events has as its ultimate consequence the evisceration of the immunity that the Eleventh Amendment was intended to present, and it makes no difference whether it's a Federal question case or a diversity case like this case, where the issue involved is one of State law, and it seems to us in that situation the cases of this Court are clear that the entity needs to be viewed as a whole.\nIf I may reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [903.948, 925.94, 953.46], "stop_times": [925.94, 953.46, 957.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.948}, "reply_to": "20426__0_042", "speaker": "charles_a_miller"}
{"id": "20426__0_044", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Very well, Mr. Miller.\nMs. Blatt, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [957.291, 958.313], "stop_times": [958.313, 962.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.291}, "reply_to": "20426__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__1_000", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe believe that the court of appeals erred for two reasons.\nFirst, regardless of whether a State entity has a potential right of indemnity from a third party, the State's sovereign interests are implicated whenever the State has been sued.\nSecond, the court of appeals approach creates an unworkable approach to resolving the immunity question.\nAs to our first point, this Court has repeatedly held that the Eleventh Amendment does not exist simply to protect a State against damages that must be paid out of the State's treasury.\nIt also exists to protect the State's dignitary interest in not being sued by private parties without the State's consent, and it applies regardless of the relief sought.\nHere, respondent seeks both damages and injunctive relief from the State.\nThe fact that the Federal Government might be contractually obligated to pay the cost of any judgment in this case does not change the fact that the university has been sued and legally will be responsible for any judgment.\nSecondly, this case illustrates the problems created by the court of appeals decision.\nThe Department of Energy has not determined whether the cost of any judgment in this case would be indemnified under its contract.\nThe court of appeals opinion that the Department of Energy must pay those costs is merely advisory as to the Department, which is not a party to the case.\nA binding determination on the indemnity issue will be made by the Department of Energy's contracting officer after he or she reviews the relevant facts in the contract.\nThus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [962.055, 980.618, 984.369, 994.867, 1002.372, 1013.379, 1024.195, 1030.26, 1044.869, 1051.073, 1058.69, 1068.407, 1079.614], "stop_times": [980.618, 984.369, 994.867, 1002.372, 1013.379, 1024.195, 1030.26, 1044.869, 1051.073, 1058.69, 1068.407, 1079.614, 1080.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 962.055}, "reply_to": "20426__0_044", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_001", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "You say binding?\nIs that not... that will be reviewable in court, certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1080.363, 1082.476], "stop_times": [1082.476, 1086.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.363}, "reply_to": "20426__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__1_002", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Yes.\nUnder the contract there's an issue resolution process, and then it would be appealable to the Energy Board of Contract Appeals or the Court of Federal Claims, and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1086.758, 1087.379], "stop_times": [1087.379, 1096.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1086.758}, "reply_to": "20426__1_001", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_003", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Ms. Blatt, you mentioned with respect to the Department of Energy's... what it assumes, what liabilities it will assume, that that is now undergoing revision.\nWhat is the status of the revision that you described in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1096.865, 1109.624], "stop_times": [1109.624, 1114.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.865}, "reply_to": "20426__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__1_004", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--The final rule has not been issued yet, but the Department of Energy hopes to have it out in the near future.\nIt's just in the form of a notice, and they're assembling responses to the public comments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1114.737, 1121.413], "stop_times": [1121.413, 1127.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1114.737}, "reply_to": "20426__1_003", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_005", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "What would be the principal change from the indemnity as it now exists and as it will exist if this rulemaking is final?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1127.536], "stop_times": [1135.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.536}, "reply_to": "20426__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__1_006", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "There's a very significant change in the third party liability clause.\nIt will now be... the burden of proof will be on the contractor to persuade the contracting officer that damages were not caused by lack of prudent business judgment by the contractor's managerial personnel.\nIt's both a widening of the scope of the potential contractor's officers that can commit misconduct or, if you will, conduct that would result in unallowable costs, as well as it's a heightening of the standard.\nIt's no longer wilful misconduct or lack of good faith.\nIt's simply lack of prudent business judgment, and the Department and the University of California are currently negotiating their contract to begin in the fall of '97, so we'll know then what that clause looks like.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1135.32, 1140.314, 1153.964, 1167.673, 1170.768], "stop_times": [1140.314, 1153.964, 1167.673, 1170.768, 1186.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1135.32}, "reply_to": "20426__1_005", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_007", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Thank you.\nMs. Blatt, does the United States have a position on the question of whether the University of... the Regents of the University of California are an arm of the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1186.639, 1188.592], "stop_times": [1188.592, 1197.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.639}, "reply_to": "20426__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__1_008", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "No, other than to assume that they are, based on the way the question presented is worded, that if they're otherwise immune, then as a State entity the Department of Energy's contractual obligation to indemnify them doesn't change anything because it is the university who is subject to the coercive enforcement powers of the court and in any event may turn around to the Department of Energy and the Department may not pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1197.455], "stop_times": [1220.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1197.455}, "reply_to": "20426__1_007", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_009", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Ms. Blatt, that was the way the question presented was worded, but the Ninth Circuit decision was more diffuse, wasn't it?\nThey said, this is one of... they have five factor tests, and we're reviewing that determination, so how could we just pick out the neat question presented and say that's what's before us, when we're reviewing a Ninth Circuit decision that says there are these five factors, add them all up, and we come out with not an arm of the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1220.712, 1227.885], "stop_times": [1227.885, 1253.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1220.712}, "reply_to": "20426__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__1_010", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I think it's a fair characterization of the Ninth Circuit's opinion that what distinguished the university in this situation was the court of appeals view of the Department of Energy's contractual obligations, and our position is not to dispute any of the factors the Ninth Circuit looked at except for what they relied on, this payment factor that an indemnity allegation is solely a matter between the university and the Department of Energy.\nIt doesn't affect the fact that the university is the party against whom judgment is sought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1253.183, 1280.622], "stop_times": [1280.622, 1285.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1253.183}, "reply_to": "20426__1_009", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_011", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "And you take the position also, I understand, that in making the determination of the university's status for Eleventh Amendment purposes that the existence of an indemnification agreement as such is simply an irrelevant consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1285.675], "stop_times": [1302.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1285.675}, "reply_to": "20426__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20426__1_012", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "That's correct, and you have here what certainly we did not dispute, was that the State of California is legally obligated to satisfy the university's debts based on both the Constitution and the fact it appropriates significant amounts of money to the university each year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1302.444], "stop_times": [1319.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1302.444}, "reply_to": "20426__1_011", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_013", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Given that fact, that's where you stop, on your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1319.447], "stop_times": [1322.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.447}, "reply_to": "20426__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20426__1_014", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Yes.\nGiven those facts, if there's a legal connection, a legal liability to the State entity in question the existence of an indemnity agreement with a third party does not alter that entity's status under the Eleventh Amendment, and that's again because the university is on the hook for the judgment and that third party may or not... may or may not be forthcoming, and in any event, that doesn't change the relationship between the plaintiff, the university as a defendant, and the court, who can enforce the court's enforcement powers against the university.\nAnd this case could... illustrates what could happen is, the court of appeals opinion that the university will have the Department of Energy pay its judgment, the university might find itself compelled to pay damages in this case, yet ultimately unable to shift those costs to the Department of Energy, and in our view that would be impermissible under the Eleventh Amendment, and again that's because judgment is sought against a State entity.\nI don't have any more points to make, so if there are no questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1322.471, 1322.729, 1358.024, 1386.291], "stop_times": [1322.729, 1358.024, 1386.291, 1393.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1322.471}, "reply_to": "20426__1_013", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_015", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I don't believe my colleagues do, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1393.855], "stop_times": [1395.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.855}, "reply_to": "20426__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__1_016", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Okay.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1395.787, 1396.599], "stop_times": [1396.599, 1397.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1395.787}, "reply_to": "20426__1_015", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20426__1_017", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Blatt.\nMr. Gayer, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1397.788, 1399.29], "stop_times": [1399.29, 1402.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.788}, "reply_to": "20426__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__2_000", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice... excuse me... and may it please the Court:\nThis is a Federal case involving 100 percent Federal money at a Federal facility, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which executes a Federal program for an exclusively Federal interest: nuclear weapons research.\nThe Regents here, Regents' corporation is not managing a university.\nIt's not even running its hospital.\nWhat it's doing is managing the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as a public service to the Nation, for no loss or gain.\nThat's on page 1 of the contract, which is not part of the joint appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1402.192, 1409.957, 1426.389, 1431.284, 1433.187, 1443.024], "stop_times": [1409.957, 1426.389, 1431.284, 1433.187, 1443.024, 1446.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1402.192}, "reply_to": "20426__1_017", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_001", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But I didn't think we had taken this case to go into whether, absent the indemnification provision, there is sovereign immunity or not.\nYou know, there are a million different entities, and each one of them have different considerations, and we normally don't take up each case to decide whether the court of appeals got it right that applying the normal factors this was the State or this wasn't the State.\nI thought the only issue before us here was whether, assuming it is otherwise the State, the indemnification feature makes a change.\nThat's a point of law I think we can grapple with that has, you know, permanent significance Nationwide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1446.907, 1456.493, 1471.853, 1478.177], "stop_times": [1456.493, 1471.853, 1478.177, 1484.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.907}, "reply_to": "20426__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_002", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Focusing on that narrow issue, which I personally believe that the broader issue is subsumed within the question presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1484.091], "stop_times": [1491.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1484.091}, "reply_to": "20426__2_001", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_003", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, let's read--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1491.828], "stop_times": [1492.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.828}, "reply_to": "20426__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_004", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Focusing on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1492.308], "stop_times": [1492.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1492.308}, "reply_to": "20426__2_003", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_005", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Let's read the question presented.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1492.869, 1494.091], "stop_times": [1494.091, 1494.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1492.869}, "reply_to": "20426__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_006", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, I agree with Your Honor's statement of the question presented so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1494.531], "stop_times": [1498.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1494.531}, "reply_to": "20426__2_005", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_007", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1498.075], "stop_times": [1498.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.075}, "reply_to": "20426__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__2_008", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--I'd like to focus on that.\nHere we have something where the university is really some sort of facade or name between the outside world and the Federal Government.\nThe Federal Government has made a solemn, written promise to pay directly... not to indemnify, not to reimburse, but to pay directly any judgment awarded against the name of the university.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1498.275, 1499.377, 1509.024], "stop_times": [1499.377, 1509.024, 1522.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1498.275}, "reply_to": "20426__2_007", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_009", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, if the university is just a facade, Mr. Gayer, perhaps you should sue only the Federal Government, not the university.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1522.424], "stop_times": [1528.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.424}, "reply_to": "20426__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__2_010", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "The problem is we have no jurisdiction in the Federal District Court over the Department of Energy until... ever, and we don't have any jurisdiction in the Federal District Court over the Department of Energy until and unless such time as the plaintiff in this case gets a judgment against the name of the university, so step one is to sue the university here in U.S. district court and get a judgment.\nAt that point, we would have a claim against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1528.231, 1557.99], "stop_times": [1557.99, 1560.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1528.231}, "reply_to": "20426__2_009", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_011", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But the university says the court has no jurisdiction over it either, because of the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1560.604], "stop_times": [1566.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.604}, "reply_to": "20426__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__2_012", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Obviously, we contend that the university is wrong, because there can be no impact on the State treasury.\nThat was the point of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1566.027, 1572.752], "stop_times": [1572.752, 1573.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1566.027}, "reply_to": "20426__2_011", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_013", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, what if the university just had a big insurance policy to cover any liability.\nSame question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1573.902, 1578.715], "stop_times": [1578.715, 1579.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.902}, "reply_to": "20426__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20426__2_014", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Different answer.\nThere, the university paid for the insurance, therefore that has an impact on the university's treasury, which happens to be separate and distinct from the State treasury, but that's a different situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1579.576, 1581.827], "stop_times": [1581.827, 1592.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1579.576}, "reply_to": "20426__2_013", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_015", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "They paid for the Government's indemnification promise as well.\nI mean, you don't think that promise is made for free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1592.615, 1595.219], "stop_times": [1595.219, 1598.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.615}, "reply_to": "20426__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_016", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1598.371], "stop_times": [1598.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1598.371}, "reply_to": "20426__2_015", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_017", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "The contract would... you know, the university would have demanded a lot more money for the contract if that indemnification provision weren't in it, so the payment isn't the difference between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1598.932], "stop_times": [1609.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.932}, "reply_to": "20426__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_018", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Your Honor, I would respectfully disagree, because here the university is doing this as a public service.\nThe contract says so.\nIt's true they get a $20 million annual fee for using the name of the university, but this is not a case where there's any connection between this nominal fee and any indemnity or judgmental risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1609.821, 1615.952, 1617.214], "stop_times": [1615.952, 1617.214, 1630.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1609.821}, "reply_to": "20426__2_017", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_019", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Do you deny that they would have demanded much more reimbursement from the Federal Government if they did not have the Federal Government's indemnification guarantee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1630.972], "stop_times": [1638.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.972}, "reply_to": "20426__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_020", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, this calls for my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1638.699], "stop_times": [1640.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1638.699}, "reply_to": "20426__2_019", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_021", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "If they had to be either self-insurers, or had to buy insurance from an insurance company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1640.77], "stop_times": [1645.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.77}, "reply_to": "20426__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_022", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, we can only... Your Honor, we can only speculate on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1645.445], "stop_times": [1648.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.445}, "reply_to": "20426__2_021", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_023", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I know.\nHow would you speculate about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1648.834, 1649.045], "stop_times": [1649.045, 1650.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.834}, "reply_to": "20426__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_024", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I would speculate that the--\n[Laughter]\nI would speculate that the university would never sign such a contract.\nThey would tell the Department of Energy to get lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1650.247, 1650.918, 1651.118, 1654.771], "stop_times": [1650.918, 1651.118, 1654.771, 1657.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.247}, "reply_to": "20426__2_023", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_025", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Because the cost is too high.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1657.304], "stop_times": [1662.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.304}, "reply_to": "20426__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_026", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "There's too much risk.\nIt's not worth the risk.\nThe Department of Energy wants to use the good and prestigious name of the University of California to attract talented scientists, technical professionals to work on Government projects, and the DOE has determined that it's to its advantage to get a prestigious name, and the DOE is willing to pay for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1662.477, 1663.819, 1664.319], "stop_times": [1663.819, 1664.319, 1682.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1662.477}, "reply_to": "20426__2_025", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_027", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Aside from the fact that the university would pay for a private insurance policy, is there any other feature that would distinguish Justice O'Connor's question from the case before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1682.111], "stop_times": [1695.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.111}, "reply_to": "20426__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_028", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Thank you, Justice Scalia, yes, there's an important distinction here, I think, that in general an indemnitor such as an insurance company is quite separate from the contract, say, between the Government and the Regents corporation.\nIt would be some outside insurance company that would be agreeing to indemnify.\nHere, it's the Department of Energy itself, for which the Regents is doing the work, that is saying, you do this work for us, you run our labcratory, and we'll pay directly any judgment, so there is no outside insurers.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1695.782, 1709.369, 1714.214, 1728.984], "stop_times": [1709.369, 1714.214, 1728.984, 1729.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.782}, "reply_to": "20426__2_027", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_029", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I thought they didn't pay just any judgment no matter what.\nIsn't there some provision in the contract for reimbursement that if it's willful misconduct they won't reimburse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1729.845, 1733.388], "stop_times": [1733.388, 1740.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.845}, "reply_to": "20426__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20426__2_030", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, that's true.\nI assume that means we're talking about something wherein perhaps an employee of the laboratory engaged in some sort of assault and battery, or embezzlement, or what-have-you, something approaching on the criminal, but that's neither alleged here, and there's no hint of it here.\nIn the joint appendix near the end at page... let's see if I can find this.\nI believe it's 82a--we have a letter from the Department of Energy directly to the plaintiff dated November 23, 1993, where they make a technical reservation regarding Justice O'Connor's mention of bad faith and willful misconduct.\nBut if you read this in context, knowing that the event sued upon in this case occurred in June of 1991, and this letter was issued approximately 2-1/2 years later, we have a statement that, you know, while we still reserve this business about bad faith, which never occurs, the Department is saying we'll bear the cost of defending the university, and of any monetary judgment in your favor.\nI submit there has been no hint of willful misconduct or bad faith.\nIt's not alleged, it didn't happen, it's not going to happen, and this is something that in any event the Solicitor General in its brief says these exceptions are rarely, if ever, applied... not to worry.\nI think with regard to any arm of the State question, if... the Regents corporation first of all has never been established as an arm of the State in any decision by this Court, and according to the Solicitor General the... this Court has never determined whether any State university or college is an arm of the State for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, so I don't think we can just sort of assume that.\nAnd what the Ninth Circuit did, it says, let's look at the facts.\nWe look at the facts, and we assume that a promise made by the Federal Government in writing is a solemn promise, that the Department of Energy, when it says it's going to pay directly, will pay directly.\nWhy not assume that the Government is going to act in bad faith?\nI think that's a fair presumption.\nI think it would unduly expand the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment if you could let States structure entities as they pleased which would be totally commercial, and for which they would have no risk at all financially, and still give them immunity.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1740.234, 1741.796, 1758.237, 1765.003, 1782.965, 1811.045, 1819.13, 1831.427, 1864.66, 1867.983, 1880.228, 1886.082, 1887.825, 1906.088], "stop_times": [1741.796, 1758.237, 1765.003, 1782.965, 1811.045, 1819.13, 1831.427, 1864.66, 1867.983, 1880.228, 1886.082, 1887.825, 1906.088, 1906.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.234}, "reply_to": "20426__2_029", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_031", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Mr. Gayer, I'd like to know how far your position about a State university goes with respect to insulating the State against any monetary liability for that piece of the university.\nLet's take an athletic department, where they sell tickets to the games and there's a big profit-making center for the university, and a spectator at such an event slips and falls, says it's because the stairs were in disrepair, and sues the University of California in Federal court, a diversity case, and the State says, we're the State university.\nUnder your theory, could the plaintiff prevail by saying, not in this instance, because we've got a money-making venture, and any money that's going to be paid will come out of the profits of that entity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1906.668, 1919.927, 1949.227], "stop_times": [1919.927, 1949.227, 1965.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.668}, "reply_to": "20426__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_032", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, it depends on how the entity is structured.\nI don't know if this is going beyond Justice Ginsburg's question, but in this particular case we assume the athletic endeavor has no contract with the Department of Energy, and there's no pay directly provision there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1965.778, 1968.291], "stop_times": [1968.291, 1983.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1965.778}, "reply_to": "20426__2_031", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_033", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "It's just that the State budget is never going to be touched because this is such a profitable department that it pays all its own bills.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1983.392], "stop_times": [1990.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.392}, "reply_to": "20426__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_034", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Oh, I think that's what happened in Hess, that initially the bi-State entity was receiving something like $100,000 a year from each State, but that was years and years ago and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [1990.868], "stop_times": [2002.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1990.868}, "reply_to": "20426__2_033", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_035", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "It was not an entity of any single State.\nI mean, it was a totally different situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2002.996, 2004.946], "stop_times": [2004.946, 2006.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.996}, "reply_to": "20426__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_036", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--But according to the dissent in Hess the same test applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2006.899], "stop_times": [2010.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.899}, "reply_to": "20426__2_035", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_037", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But, Mr.--\n--You stand squarely with the dissent in Hess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2010.592, 2010.952], "stop_times": [2010.952, 2013.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.592}, "reply_to": "20426__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_038", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I stand squarely with the entire decision in Hess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2013.476], "stop_times": [2015.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.476}, "reply_to": "20426__2_037", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_039", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2015.699], "stop_times": [2016.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.699}, "reply_to": "20426__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_040", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I'm trying to harmonize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2016.53], "stop_times": [2016.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.53}, "reply_to": "20426__2_039", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_041", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--You must admit it's rather peculiar to do what you did in your brief.\nThat is, to take the essence of what the majority held from a statement in the dissenting opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2016.8, 2019.573], "stop_times": [2019.573, 2026.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.8}, "reply_to": "20426__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_042", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--No, I'm trying to harmonize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2026.498], "stop_times": [2027.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.498}, "reply_to": "20426__2_041", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_043", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "It is rather unusual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2027.93], "stop_times": [2028.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.93}, "reply_to": "20426__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_044", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Because we... in our proposed test the first thing you look at is the impact on the S-t-a-t-e treasury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2028.17], "stop_times": [2035.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.17}, "reply_to": "20426__2_043", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_045", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "You don't agree that, in general, to find out what the majority opinion says one looks to the majority opinion rather than the dissent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2035.646], "stop_times": [2043.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.646}, "reply_to": "20426__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_046", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "It sounds like a good idea, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2043.002, 2044.684], "stop_times": [2044.684, 2046.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.002}, "reply_to": "20426__2_045", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_047", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Occasionally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2046.237], "stop_times": [2047.268], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.237}, "reply_to": "20426__2_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20426__2_048", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "And that's why in our proposed test we say first you look to the State treasury factor as the majority did in Hess.\nIf that's dispositive of the case, that's the end of the inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2047.268, 2054.581], "stop_times": [2054.581, 2057.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2047.268}, "reply_to": "20426__2_047", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_049", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "The majority did not do that first.\nThe first thing the majority said is, this is a creature of three sovereigns.\nOne of them is the U.S. Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2057.496, 2060.018, 2064.411], "stop_times": [2060.018, 2064.411, 2066.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.496}, "reply_to": "20426__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_050", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "In any event, as Your Honor pointed out, the respondents do rely on Hess, where it said that the twin reasons for being of the Eleventh Amendment are State treasury and dignity, and we take the State treasury factor, very important here.\nThat's why we're here.\nIf the State treasury factor wasn't here we couldn't argue about the pay directly provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2066.065, 2082.634, 2084.147], "stop_times": [2082.634, 2084.147, 2088.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2066.065}, "reply_to": "20426__2_049", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_051", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "You say, but you don't take the dignity factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2088.918], "stop_times": [2091.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.918}, "reply_to": "20426__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_052", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, yes, we do, because here we claim that the attorneys for the Regents corporation in submitting for 1 year to discovery, taking depositions, submitting to depositions, answering interrogatories, responding to requests for production of evidence, has diluted its dignitary interest, has said, in effect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2091.641], "stop_times": [2115.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.641}, "reply_to": "20426__2_051", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_053", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Oh, so dignitary interest is one that's... that you waive.\nWithout waiving the... you can sort of back into waiving the Eleventh Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2115.676, 2118.888], "stop_times": [2118.888, 2124.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.676}, "reply_to": "20426__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_054", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--No.\nWell, you weaken your Eleventh Amendment claim if you act as though you don't mind being coerced by the discovery power of the court not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2124.241, 2124.982], "stop_times": [2124.982, 2133.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.241}, "reply_to": "20426__2_053", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_055", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But you don't have any ready appeal from a discovery order pretrial.\nI mean, a discovery order isn't appealable as a matter of right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2133.778, 2139.122], "stop_times": [2139.122, 2143.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.778}, "reply_to": "20426__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__2_056", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, that's true, but here the petitioners cooperated with discovery.\nThey didn't say, we have an Eleventh Amendment dignitary interest and therefore we're not going to respond to your discovery on the merits.\nThey just went along as if it were ordinary litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2143.135, 2148.779, 2156.044], "stop_times": [2148.779, 2156.044, 2158.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.135}, "reply_to": "20426__2_055", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_057", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Isn't that just one form of good lawyering?\nYou don't have any right to appeal the... either your order to discover, or the discovery order makes... the discovery request is reasonable.\nYou raise what you can at a different time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2158.548, 2162.79, 2170.856], "stop_times": [2162.79, 2170.856, 2174.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.548}, "reply_to": "20426__2_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__2_058", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "With due respect, Your Honor, it's our position that if a purported Eleventh Amendment entity takes its Eleventh Amendment immunity seriously, especially its dignitary interest, that the first thing it will do is move to dismiss based on the Eleventh Amendment.\nIt won't play around with litigation for a year.\nThe... it's also our position that each case, especially since the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue can be raised sua sponte by any court at any time, that any time a court, especially the Supreme Court, considers an Eleventh Amendment case, it will look at the whole picture, and so whether or not, of course, the university has been held to be an arm of the State in other contexts in other cases that were not in this Court doesn't really matter.\nIt's certainly not determinative or dispositive or anything.\nI think that each case, as the Ninth Circuit did, looks at the facts, looks at the law as presented by the plaintiffs.\nIn our proposed procedure, we suggest that the plaintiff had the burden of inducing facts and law that shows that the purported... that the State entity is not a State agency, that is to say, is not an arm, therefore doesn't deserve Eleventh Amendment protection.\nOtherwise, you run the risk of undue expansion of Eleventh Amendment immunity, and anything that says \"of California\" is immune, and that's the end of it.\nNow, Justice Ginsburg, I was thinking of something about insulating treasuries, and in this case the State law of California does insulate the State treasury from the Regents.\nUnder State of California law, a judgment against the Regents can be executed only against the treasury of the Regents.\nThere is no claim against the very separate and probably larger State treasury.\nThat applies under all circumstances.\nSo it's our position that even absent the pay directly provision in the contract, that the State treasury... as opposed to the Regents' treasury, the State treasury has no risk at all in any case, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2174.948, 2193.451, 2196.375, 2233.128, 2236.53, 2243.955, 2260.897, 2271.733, 2287.494, 2296.52, 2302.945, 2305.857], "stop_times": [2193.451, 2196.375, 2233.128, 2236.53, 2243.955, 2260.897, 2271.733, 2287.494, 2296.52, 2302.945, 2305.857, 2321.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.948}, "reply_to": "20426__2_057", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_059", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "So a State university is not an arm of any State if that university has a budget that's discrete and pays all its expenses out of that.\nThat's the end of a State university being an arm of the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2321.216, 2330.104], "stop_times": [2330.104, 2334.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2321.216}, "reply_to": "20426__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_060", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--A State... a treasury, a treasury that's independent and wherein the university or college has no claim against the treasury of the State itself.\nIn other words, here, the Regents' treasury has a lot of money in it.\nI think according to a footnote in the reply brief something... in one particular year, $10 billion.\nNow, in that year, $2.2 billion came in the form of a block grant from the State.\nThe legislature made an appropriation to give the money to the Regents to use for any lawful purpose.\nAfter that, the State lets go.\nThe legislature lets go, and the Regents must make do with whatever money they can get, and most of their money comes from outside the State, but the point is that a judgment creditor of the Regents has no claim against the State treasury, ever, and that's why I think this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2334.096, 2346.545, 2350.138, 2357.384, 2364.076, 2371.011, 2373.834], "stop_times": [2346.545, 2350.138, 2357.384, 2364.076, 2371.011, 2373.834, 2396.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.096}, "reply_to": "20426__2_059", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_061", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, do I understand that the question that's before us is, even if the university would otherwise be a State agency, it isn't when this particular liability is covered in full by a third party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2396.16], "stop_times": [2413.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.16}, "reply_to": "20426__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_062", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Yes.\nI think we've addressed that fully in the briefs, and perhaps this morning.\nThat's true, but I think in order to do a thorough, complete, and meaningful job this Court might consider the general question, otherwise the courts below are still having to wonder about this fundamental issue, and one can assume arguendo so many things that there's nothing left to argue about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2413.301, 2413.731, 2417.854], "stop_times": [2413.731, 2417.854, 2437.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.301}, "reply_to": "20426__2_061", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_063", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, perhaps there would be a problem of parties who are not before us.\nThere must be many State universities that are patterned the same way, intended to have a large budget and to pay their expenses out of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2437.728, 2441.451], "stop_times": [2441.451, 2450.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.728}, "reply_to": "20426__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_064", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "My research, although not complete, says the answer to that question, Your Honor, is no, that those cases I have read... for instance, the Rutledge case, Rutledge v. the Regents of the University of Arizona, another Ninth Circuit case, held that there, there is control by the legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2450.608], "stop_times": [2471.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.608}, "reply_to": "20426__2_063", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_065", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But now, you haven't been talking about control.\nYou've been talking about does... the university has to operate out of a special budget for it with no call on other State funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2471.032, 2473.403], "stop_times": [2473.403, 2483.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.032}, "reply_to": "20426__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_066", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, the point I'm trying to make is that in the Rutledge case the Ninth Circuit held that the Regents there were very different, and they were not separate and independent and autonomous, whereas in the instant case the Regents are very separate, very independent, and very autonomous of any control by the elected branches of State government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2483.29], "stop_times": [2505.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.29}, "reply_to": "20426__2_065", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_067", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "May I... I'd like to make sure I understand one part of your argument.\nThe court of appeals applied this five-factor test, the first factor whether this money judgment would be satisfied out of State funds, and they said it would not be because of the indemnity agreement.\nYou are arguing, if I understand you correctly, that even without the indemnity agreement, the judgment would not have been satisfied out of State funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2505.495, 2509.236, 2519.044], "stop_times": [2509.236, 2519.044, 2525.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.495}, "reply_to": "20426__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__2_068", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIt says I could have done a better job in the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2525.709, 2526.671], "stop_times": [2526.671, 2529.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2525.709}, "reply_to": "20426__2_067", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_069", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "And... but... so we're not... what's... we're only addressing the indemnity question, or are we supposed to decide the whole case?\nI'm still a little puzzled about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2529.242, 2538.936], "stop_times": [2538.936, 2540.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.242}, "reply_to": "20426__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__2_070", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2540.427], "stop_times": [2540.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.427}, "reply_to": "20426__2_069", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_071", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Because this focuses on... everything focuses on point 1 in their five-factor test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2540.747], "stop_times": [2545.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.747}, "reply_to": "20426__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__2_072", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2545.21], "stop_times": [2546.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.21}, "reply_to": "20426__2_071", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_073", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Does your opponent agree that it would not be satisfied out of State funds even without the indemnity agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2546.501], "stop_times": [2551.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.501}, "reply_to": "20426__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__2_074", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2551.725], "stop_times": [2553.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2551.725}, "reply_to": "20426__2_073", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_075", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2553.007], "stop_times": [2553.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.007}, "reply_to": "20426__2_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__2_076", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I don't think so, but Your Honor, to respond to your question, I'm not an expert on this Court's Rule 14.1, but I believe that the general question of the Regents' overall immunity is subsumed within the question presented.\nIf I'm wrong, I'm sure Your Honors will tell me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2553.517, 2567.095], "stop_times": [2567.095, 2569.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2553.517}, "reply_to": "20426__2_075", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_077", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, subsumed generally means a smaller question included in a larger question.\nWhat you're saying is that a larger question is included in a smaller question, which is quite different.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2569.537, 2573.281, 2578.556], "stop_times": [2573.281, 2578.556, 2578.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.537}, "reply_to": "20426__2_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__2_078", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, as I say, I'm here to please the Court--\n[Laughter]\n--and if that doesn't do so, I'll just move on.\nI think the point made by the Ninth Circuit in its conclusion is really important.\nCertainly under its decision the Regents corporation would lose very little.\nThey would still retain all the immunity they have in Justice Ginsburg's athletic event question, and any... certainly anything related to their universities which provide higher education.\nThey... the only thing they would lose, so to speak, is immunity if they're sued in the operation of the laboratory, wherein the owner of the laboratory will pay directly any judgment.\nThat's really no loss, because it's not the university's operation.\nIt's really the Department of Energy's operation.\nIt's their facilities, their building, their ground, everything, and so that there is really no impact at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2578.636, 2585.411, 2581.918, 2587.973, 2601.672, 2606.004, 2616.961, 2630.883, 2635.076, 2637.869], "stop_times": [2585.411, 2581.918, 2587.973, 2601.672, 2606.004, 2616.961, 2630.883, 2635.076, 2637.869, 2645.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.636}, "reply_to": "20426__2_077", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_079", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Excuse me for being so slow to grasp this, but in the dissenting opinion the judge... dissenting judge said, no one has disputed that a judgment against the University of California is a legal obligation of the State of California.\nIs that a correct statement of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2645.063, 2657.342], "stop_times": [2657.342, 2659.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.063}, "reply_to": "20426__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__2_080", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, as, of course, it wasn't disputed, it wasn't even mentioned.\nThere was no... no argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2659.134, 2661.846], "stop_times": [2661.846, 2664.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.134}, "reply_to": "20426__2_079", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_081", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But did you argue in the court below that even without the indemnity agreement the judgment could not have been satisfied out of State funds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2664.577], "stop_times": [2672.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.577}, "reply_to": "20426__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__2_082", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Unfortunately, no.\nI was, shall we say... I won't use the dirty word, but that was an omission on my part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2672.652, 2674.954], "stop_times": [2674.954, 2680.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.652}, "reply_to": "20426__2_081", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_083", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Well, you... it wasn't such a... I mean, it was an understandable omission, inasmuch as the Ninth Circuit had held in a number of cases that the State universities were, indeed, the State for purposes of sovereign immunity, haven't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2680.419], "stop_times": [2695.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.419}, "reply_to": "20426__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_084", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But those cases are built, I submit, on a foundation of sand.\nIn those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2695.456, 2698.799], "stop_times": [2698.799, 2699.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.456}, "reply_to": "20426__2_083", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_085", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "I understand, but you didn't want to antagonize the district court and the court of appeals.\nYou were there to please them, just as you're here to please us--\n[Laughter]\n--and they wouldn't have been pleased at your calling their whole circuit law into question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2699.7, 2704.252, 2706.846, 2707.324], "stop_times": [2704.252, 2706.846, 2707.324, 2711.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2699.7}, "reply_to": "20426__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20426__2_086", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, the point is there the issue wasn't fully litigated, and one of the cases, the Jackson v. Hayakawa, the Regents corporation was not even a party.\nThe other cases, BV Engineering, Armstrong v. Meyers, and the Mascheroni case out of the Tenth Circuit, all those cases simply cited either Jackson v. Hayakawa, where the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2711.858, 2724.257], "stop_times": [2724.257, 2737.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.858}, "reply_to": "20426__2_085", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_087", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Yes, but Mr. Gayer, if you did not call into question... I don't think your job is to please the court.\nYour job is to represent your client, and if, on behalf of your client, you did not challenge a line of authority in the Ninth Circuit, I'm not sure you can challenge it for the first time up here, despite everybody else's saying how important it is to be friendly to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2737.434, 2741.778], "stop_times": [2741.778, 2754.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.434}, "reply_to": "20426__2_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20426__2_088", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, I... if I'm wrong, Your Honor, I apologize, but I don't think this Court is bound by any decision of the Ninth Circuit or the Tenth Circuit, and if they were wrong, they were wrong.\nThey can't be reversed, I guess, without--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2754.767, 2765.267], "stop_times": [2765.267, 2767.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.767}, "reply_to": "20426__2_087", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_089", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Mr. Gayer, this is the point, that we review rulings that have been made by a court below.\nWe don't make rulings here in the first place, and you are asking us to decide something as though we were a... the court getting this in the first instance, and that is not what we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2767.169, 2772.772], "stop_times": [2772.772, 2786.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.169}, "reply_to": "20426__2_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_090", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, that being the case, Your Honor, then I think the safest and most appropriate thing to do is simply affirm the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and let us proceed.\nThat... because that does apply the five factor test.\nIt's not contrary to anything in Hess, since it focused almost entirely on the impact of the State treasury, and it has minimal policy impact on the immunity generally of the Regents corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2786.663, 2795.749, 2800.211], "stop_times": [2795.749, 2800.211, 2814.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.663}, "reply_to": "20426__2_089", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_091", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Are you suggesting that if we are of the view that whatever this arm is or is not should not be affected by whether they've got insurance from the Government or somebody else that covers this particular risk, this particular liability, as even if we think that we should nonetheless affirm because the Ninth Circuit used a five-factor test and we have nothing to say about those other factors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2814.77], "stop_times": [2846.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.77}, "reply_to": "20426__2_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_092", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Oh, sure, this Court has everything to say about the other factors, but it's my position that the Ninth Circuit applied the factors correctly and did nothing contrary to this Court's decision in Hess or any other decision of this Court.\nThe Ninth Circuit properly distinguished these other opinions, of which I disapprove, and said on the facts of this case there's no possible, conceivable impact on a State treasury, and Justice Canby in his dissent got it wrong.\nHe assumed something that had not been argued at all.\nNeither side said anything about who would actually bear the burden of the judgment, and he just assumed that the State would do it.\nThat was incorrect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2846.574, 2860.32, 2875.171, 2878.353, 2886.21], "stop_times": [2860.32, 2875.171, 2878.353, 2886.21, 2887.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.574}, "reply_to": "20426__2_091", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_093", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Are you saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2887.459], "stop_times": [2888.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.459}, "reply_to": "20426__2_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_094", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--and once you assume that it's all over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2888.531], "stop_times": [2889.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.531}, "reply_to": "20426__2_093", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_095", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Are you saying it would be irrelevant to the Ninth Circuit where we would say, we think you were wrong, we are telling you you were wrong in one particular, it's not relevant whether there was indemnity for this liability, what's relevant is who has the legal liability?\nIf we were to say that, do you think that would be... wouldn't make any difference in how the Ninth Circuit came out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2889.452, 2906.002], "stop_times": [2906.002, 2911.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2889.452}, "reply_to": "20426__2_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_096", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "If I understand the question, Your Honor, it's my position that since the State of California has no legal liability in this case, that the result would be the same.\nNow, I've also... I've been lectured by Mr. Chief Justice that that may not be within the question presented, and I'll have to accept that, but it's still our position, as I stated, that Judge Canby is wrong when he said the State is legally liable.\nThat's simply wrong as a matter of California State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2911.498, 2922.565, 2939.054], "stop_times": [2922.565, 2939.054, 2942.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.498}, "reply_to": "20426__2_095", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_097", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Which is a determination you're asking us to make in the first instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2942.797], "stop_times": [2947.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.797}, "reply_to": "20426__2_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_098", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2947.479], "stop_times": [2949.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.479}, "reply_to": "20426__2_097", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_099", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "You're asking us to make that determination in the first instance, because it certainly wasn't made by the Ninth Circuit or the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2949.032], "stop_times": [2956.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.032}, "reply_to": "20426__2_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20426__2_100", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Yes.\nI think the answer is yes, because I think that would be the best way to give guidance to the courts below and to attorneys who might bring a suit against some purported, or... some purported arm of the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2956.296, 2958.088], "stop_times": [2958.088, 2969.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.296}, "reply_to": "20426__2_099", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_101", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Of course, you say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2969.578], "stop_times": [2970.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.578}, "reply_to": "20426__2_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__2_102", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "It would be very helpful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2970.166], "stop_times": [2970.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.166}, "reply_to": "20426__2_101", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_103", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--You say it's wrong as a matter of State law.\nThat's... that makes the further assumption that the treasury of the Regents of the University of California is not part of the State, and I'm sure the counsel for the appellants are going to tell us that the whole purpose of the very substantial separation that the California constitution decrees for the university is to clothe it with attributes of sovereignty and to make sure that it is an instrumentality of the State, actually separate from the legislative and executive branches.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [2970.537, 2972.71], "stop_times": [2972.71, 3005.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.537}, "reply_to": "20426__2_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__2_104", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3005.243], "stop_times": [3005.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.243}, "reply_to": "20426__2_103", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_105", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "So to say that it's not part of the State's liability in a way elides the question, because the treasury of the University of California are State funds in one sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3005.892], "stop_times": [3019.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.892}, "reply_to": "20426__2_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__2_106", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3019.99], "stop_times": [3020.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3019.99}, "reply_to": "20426__2_105", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_107", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--and in a very important sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3020.411], "stop_times": [3021.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.411}, "reply_to": "20426__2_106", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__2_108", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "--Well, Justice Kennedy, my reading of State law is that the Regents funds are not State funds in that they're not under the control of the legislature or the Governor or any other part of the executive branch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3021.672], "stop_times": [3035.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3021.672}, "reply_to": "20426__2_107", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_109", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "But they're in control of another State entity which has to... which happens to be the Regents of the University of California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3035.052], "stop_times": [3040.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.052}, "reply_to": "20426__2_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20426__2_110", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "And that State entity is not an arm of the State.\nIt's a separate and independent public corporation established to manage the University of California and free to engage in other businesses, such as running a hospital for which it charges the market rates for services, and for managing the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.\nOf course it's a State entity, but it's very independent, and it's treasury is separate and apart from the State treasury, and the Regents have no claims at all to anything in the State treasury.\nThey get a block grant from the State, from the State legislature once a year, and that's it.\nIf there are no further questions, thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3040.335, 3042.268, 3056.978, 3066.614, 3071.897], "stop_times": [3042.268, 3056.978, 3066.614, 3071.897, 3076.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3040.335}, "reply_to": "20426__2_109", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_111", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gayer.\nMr. Miller, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3076.15, 3077.292], "stop_times": [3077.292, 3079.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.15}, "reply_to": "20426__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20426__2_112", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI'd like to begin by referring to this... I don't mean to be... try to inject too much levity, but the foundation of sand.\nThe foundation of sand starts here, because the ultimate foundation is the Hamilton v. Board of Regents case in 293 U.S., where this Court determined, based upon a study of the California constitution and statutes, that the university and its Regents were the State, and in fact that its orders, the orders of the Board of Regents, were equivalent to state statutes, would be deemed the same for purposes of that case.\nNow, that wasn't an Eleventh Amendment case, but I do think it's an important decision that was built upon in the decisions of the district courts and in the Ninth Circuit court that have held repeatedly that the university is an arm of the State.\nThe decision in the Vaughn case which is cited in our brief, a district court case, is the case in which the factors were reviewed and then, in the various Ninth Circuit cases, Vaughn and other cases subsequent to Vaughn were referred to and relied upon as precedent.\nThe fact that the university is an arm of the State is now beyond serious debate as far as the Ninth Circuit's concerned as a general proposition, and it ultimately rests on the decision of this Court in Hamilton.\nThat leads me to the next point, which is the contention that the university is separate from the State because the State is not responsible for its debts.\nJustice Kennedy, you anticipated our point on this.\nThe treasury of the Regents is very much a State fund, and all of the attributes of sovereignty that are given to the Regents in the California constitution and statutes are designed to assure that the Regents would be treated as a branch of State government, albeit independent of political control, for the very important reasons of academic freedom and independence of education that animated the founders of the State back in the middle 19th Century.\nNotwithstanding that, the constitution of California, Article XVI, section 8, provides a very special provision for any obligations of State universities.\nIt states as follows, that all... from all State revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for the support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education.\nWe referred to that in our brief, and pointed out that that gives in effect a first charge on the revenues of the State to satisfy the obligations of the university.\nThe manner in which that is done is the same manner in which the Congress funds Federal agencies, by appropriation, and no doubt until the appropriation is made a debt can't be paid if the Regents don't have otherwise sufficient funds, but in the end, the legislature is responsible, by constitutional provision, to meet the obligations of the university, and in that additional way ties the university tightly to the State of which it is a part and an arm, if not a branch.\nI want to make just one other point, and that is that the relief in this case seeks not only damages against the university, but also hiring of the plaintiff.\nHe calls it reinstatement.\nHe never was instated in the first place, so it's really instatement.\nOne of the... he asks for specific performance of the alleged contract, and he asks that in any event that he be hired by the university, or at the very least that his application for employment be reconsidered.\nEach of those forms of relief, if granted, would work--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3079.413, 3084.365, 3093.341, 3122.373, 3138.433, 3155.376, 3169.035, 3180.19, 3186.966, 3217.317, 3231.486, 3247.087, 3257.195, 3286.474, 3300.583, 3302.633, 3306.515, 3320.007], "stop_times": [3084.365, 3093.341, 3122.373, 3138.433, 3155.376, 3169.035, 3180.19, 3186.966, 3217.317, 3231.486, 3247.087, 3257.195, 3286.474, 3300.583, 3302.633, 3306.515, 3320.007, 3324.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.413}, "reply_to": "20426__2_111", "speaker": "richard_gayer"}
{"id": "20426__2_113", "conversation_id": "20426", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Miller.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1694", "start_times": [3324.401, 3325.463], "stop_times": [3325.463, 3327.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.401}, "reply_to": "20426__2_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__0_000", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-511, Janet Reno v. The American Civil Liberties Union.\nMr. Waxman and Mr. Ennis, I would like to tell both of you before you start your argument that each counsel will be allowed 35 minutes instead of the usual 30 in this case.\nYou may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [0.0, 0.5, 9.539], "stop_times": [0.5, 9.539, 10.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__0_001", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe Internet is a revolutionary advance in information technology.\nIt also provides a revolutionary means for displaying patently offensive, sexually explicit material to children in the privacy of their homes.\nWith as many as 8,000 sexually explicit sites on the World Wide Web alone at the time of the hearing, and the number estimated to double every 9 months, the Internet threatens to render irrelevant all prior efforts to protect children from indecent material.\nAll of the laws regulating the display of indecent materials in theaters and book stores, on radio, TV, cable, and telephone, all of these approach insignificance when the Internet threatens to give every child with access to a connected computer a free pass into the equivalent of every adult bookstore and video store in the country.\nCongress debated for a year-and-a-half before enacting the Communications Decency Act which, as we explain in our brief, contains three distinct provisions.\nLet me go right to the broadest one, which prohibits the display of patently offensive material\n\"in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age. \"\nWhen read together with the statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [10.772, 11.272, 14.158, 18.295, 28.25, 45.279, 67.525, 76.814, 83.218, 88.122], "stop_times": [11.272, 14.158, 18.295, 28.25, 45.279, 67.525, 76.814, 83.218, 88.122, 90.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.772}, "reply_to": "20985__0_000", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_002", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That is (d)(1)(A)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [90.074], "stop_times": [90.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.074}, "reply_to": "20985__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__0_003", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That is (d)(1)(B).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [90.991], "stop_times": [92.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 90.991}, "reply_to": "20985__0_002", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_004", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "(d)(1)(B).\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [92.51, 93.36], "stop_times": [93.36, 93.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.51}, "reply_to": "20985__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__0_005", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "When read together with the statutory defenses, this provision permits persons to post indecent material on the Internet so long as they take reasonably effective steps not to expose it to children.\nThe district court found that on the World Wide Web, where most of the material that concerned Congress is posted, it is technologically feasible for speakers to screen for age, and on commercial sites that is commonly done.\nEven as to noncommercial sites, the evidence showed that the technology exists, and is operating, to provide adults with a verification code that allows them to access adult-only sites at no cost to those who post information on those sites.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [93.793, 105.401, 120.077], "stop_times": [105.401, 120.077, 137.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 93.793}, "reply_to": "20985__0_004", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_006", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Waxman, does that technology require use of something called CGI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [137.372], "stop_times": [141.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.372}, "reply_to": "20985__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_007", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [141.741], "stop_times": [142.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.741}, "reply_to": "20985__0_006", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_008", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--in order to screen it out, in effect?\nIs that the mechanism by which that can be done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [142.693, 145.276], "stop_times": [145.276, 148.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.693}, "reply_to": "20985__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_009", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--The... Justice O'Connor, the mechanism by which a Web site can screen for age, or a particular page, or indecent material on a Web site could screen for age is, or at least at the time of the hearing was by the use of something called CGI script.\nBut the obtaining of an adult ID is something that the unrebutted evidence showed was a service that even at the time of the hearing, without the benefit of the Communications Decency Act in effect, an adult, somebody over 18 who wanted to view patently offensive material on a screen site could, for $5 a year, obtain an adult identification that would give that person access to any and all adult sites, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [148.395, 164.439], "stop_times": [164.439, 191.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.395}, "reply_to": "20985__0_008", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_010", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Of course, the problem is not at that end.\nIt is at the other end.\nHow can a person putting material out in the system assure that it's only going to be accessible by somebody with that code?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [191.756, 192.723, 193.875], "stop_times": [192.723, 193.875, 203.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.756}, "reply_to": "20985__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_011", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Exactly, and what the record... what the district court found as fact was that on the World Wide Web it is technologically feasible and economically feasible, either by use of a credit card, which is more expensive, or by requiring the punching in of an adult ID code that is available from a third party for as little as $5 a year, to get access, but the technology on the World Wide Web exists to display this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [203.914], "stop_times": [231.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 203.914}, "reply_to": "20985__0_010", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_012", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, how does that fit in with use of Web sites by noncommercial users, or just private individuals or libraries, or something of that kind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [231.333], "stop_times": [240.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.333}, "reply_to": "20985__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_013", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Do you mean use, that is that they want to view material, or use that they want to post indecent material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [240.606], "stop_times": [246.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.606}, "reply_to": "20985__0_012", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_014", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [246.093], "stop_times": [246.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.093}, "reply_to": "20985__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_015", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [246.676], "stop_times": [247.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.676}, "reply_to": "20985__0_014", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_016", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I mean, the library wants to have material on its Web site which might be viewed as indecent, I guess.\nWe're not talking about obscene material--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [247.243, 257.817], "stop_times": [257.817, 260.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.243}, "reply_to": "20985__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_017", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [260.101], "stop_times": [260.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.101}, "reply_to": "20985__0_016", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_018", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--are we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [260.401], "stop_times": [260.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.401}, "reply_to": "20985__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_019", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's right.\nLet--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [260.634, 261.053], "stop_times": [261.053, 261.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.634}, "reply_to": "20985__0_018", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_020", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "We're talking about some other category of material.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [261.503], "stop_times": [264.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.503}, "reply_to": "20985__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_021", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Let me address the example of the library.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [264.722], "stop_times": [265.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.722}, "reply_to": "20985__0_020", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_022", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And while you're at it, I want you to tell me how... what percentage of Web sites are incapable of using this CGI script, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [265.638], "stop_times": [276.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.638}, "reply_to": "20985__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_023", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Okay.\nLet me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [276.796, 277.43], "stop_times": [277.43, 277.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.796}, "reply_to": "20985__0_022", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_024", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Not all of them can use it, and so I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [277.913], "stop_times": [280.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.913}, "reply_to": "20985__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_025", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, let me answer your second question first and then go to your library example, but the testimony in the record before the district court was that on... for certain third party access providers like America Online and CompuServe, which allow customers to create their own Web sites for free, they do not currently have CGI software, so for example I, I am a member of America Online.\nIf I want to create my own Web page I have to go to somebody else.\nThere are hundreds, if not thousands of servers that you can go to to create a Web page.\nI would have to write my own Web page on something other than America Online, or of course America Online could simply adopt CGI script, which at the time of the hearing at least it had chosen not to do.\nNow, as to the library, the Carnegie Library is an appellee in this case, and it is a very good example of what we think represents the overblown nature of the challenge to this act.\nThe library wants to do two things.\nIt wants to put its card catalogue on line so that anybody anywhere in the country can see what it is that the Carnegie Library has, and it also wants to put on line journals and abstracts that it in turn receives on line in an electric form.\nNow, the definition, the accepted definition of what is patently offensive, that is a term of art.\nIt is very narrow, and it is exceedingly difficult to see how it would apply to more than a handful of cards in a card catalogue, but to the extent that it does, you can simply run it through some sort of word processor or computer program to screen... it's only text, after all, on cards, and if you find a card that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [280.332, 305.947, 309.334, 313.969, 327.795, 342.055, 346.09, 363.552, 372.324], "stop_times": [305.947, 309.334, 313.969, 327.795, 342.055, 346.09, 363.552, 372.324, 391.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.332}, "reply_to": "20985__0_024", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_026", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Mr. Waxman, may I ask you to go back to the first point that you were answering, because I'm puzzled.\nI thought the district court found as a fact... and this is at 929 F. Supp. 846 to847... found as a fact that noncommercialorganizations particularly would find age verification prohibitivelyexpensive and that indeed, in the Shea case, that same fact-findingwas made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [391.219, 396.623], "stop_times": [396.623, 419.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.219}, "reply_to": "20985__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__0_027", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That is correct, and we do not think that that finding, as we read it, Justice Ginsburg, is either clearly in error or in error at all.\nWhat the court found, though, was that for noncommercial Web sites... that is, people who aren't businesses that want to post speech on the World Wide Web... it would be prohibitively expensive to create their own adult validation system.\nThat is the finding that the court made on page 55a of the Joint Appendix.\nI do not have the F. 2d site, but that was not the only... or F. Supp. site.\nSorry.\nThat was not the only other alternative.\nWe put on... in response to their claim that the Communications Decency Act acts as a ban, we put on evidence showing that even prior... even before the CBA came into effect there were third party entities that on line would provide any adult with an adult number for a fee of between $5 and $9.95 a year, at no cost to the person who wants to create their own Web site and put indecent material on it, which would allow you to go to any of those Web sites, or any of those pages, punch in your number and get access to it, and there was... that evidence is unrebutted on the record.\nSo while we don't challenge the court's findings that if people like you or I wanted to post our... or nonprofit organizations wanted to create their own adult verification system it would be unduly expensive, we do challenge the adequacy of that finding to support the conclusion that this statute is unconstitutional on its face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [419.222, 426.559, 440.886, 445.723, 451.525, 452.043, 453.443, 496.072], "stop_times": [426.559, 440.886, 445.723, 451.525, 452.043, 453.443, 496.072, 516.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.222}, "reply_to": "20985__0_026", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_028", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--May I ask you just for a little more clarification about your specific example of the Carnegie--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [516.735], "stop_times": [522.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.735}, "reply_to": "20985__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_029", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [522.121], "stop_times": [522.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.121}, "reply_to": "20985__0_028", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_030", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--the library posting a card that they know would violate the statute if it is read by an... 17-year-old.\nNow, what does this software do exactly, that you are describing?\nIt identifies all the adult people who have access to adult material.\nThat means that anybody who does not have that cannot see it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [522.472, 529.393, 534.447, 538.916], "stop_times": [529.393, 534.447, 538.916, 542.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.472}, "reply_to": "20985__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_031", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "What the... Justice Stevens, what the... if the library found that there were any library cards that contained material that could be deemed patently offensive, they would take the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [542.368], "stop_times": [552.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.368}, "reply_to": "20985__0_030", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_032", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Let's assume they know something would be, so it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [552.825], "stop_times": [553.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.825}, "reply_to": "20985__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_033", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Okay.\nLet's assume there's that.\nIf they had that, what they would do is, with respect to those cards, or those journals that they know to be patently offensive, they would put them in a little section of their Web site in which to get access to it.\nIf you want to see... we have certain other cards--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [553.675, 553.908, 554.525, 565.716], "stop_times": [553.908, 554.525, 565.716, 568.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.675}, "reply_to": "20985__0_032", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_034", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--So that everyone who does not have the adult identification equipment, whatever it is, those people just don't see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [568.268], "stop_times": [575.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.268}, "reply_to": "20985__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_035", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [575.339], "stop_times": [576.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.339}, "reply_to": "20985__0_034", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_036", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "So that in order to get access to that if you're a viewer, you have to do whatever's necessary to become an identified adult.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [576.024], "stop_times": [582.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 576.024}, "reply_to": "20985__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_037", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's right.\nIt's the exact analogy to what may very well happen to the Carnegie Library itself in Pittsburgh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [582.028, 582.645], "stop_times": [582.645, 587.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.028}, "reply_to": "20985__0_036", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_038", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "What if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [587.665], "stop_times": [587.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.665}, "reply_to": "20985__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_039", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Pittsburgh may have an ordinance that requires that patently offensive material be kept--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [587.999], "stop_times": [593.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.999}, "reply_to": "20985__0_038", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_040", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--What if an identified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [593.319], "stop_times": [594.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.319}, "reply_to": "20985__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_041", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--in a different room and supervised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [594.402], "stop_times": [595.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.402}, "reply_to": "20985__0_040", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_042", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--What if an identified adult wrote the library a letter and said, I have the adult stuff, but I have a 17-year-old son that I'm going to have watch this with me.\nWhat should they do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [595.219, 605.21], "stop_times": [605.21, 606.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.219}, "reply_to": "20985__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_043", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, the act does not make illegal the provision to adults of this material.\nIf a father or mother--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [606.91, 614.233], "stop_times": [614.233, 616.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.91}, "reply_to": "20985__0_042", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_044", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "They would know there's a 17-year-old the audience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [616.066], "stop_times": [619.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.066}, "reply_to": "20985__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_045", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--If... well, I think here it depends a little on the mode of communication.\nIf I... if you ask me to send you an indecent E-mail, and you tell me that your son is sitting right next to you and is going to read it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [619.018, 624.272], "stop_times": [624.272, 633.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.018}, "reply_to": "20985__0_044", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_046", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "No, but my motive is that I'm Anthony Comstock, and I don't want this stuff to go out, so I'm telling you I've got a 17-year-old son who's going to help me police the airwaves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [633.444], "stop_times": [642.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.444}, "reply_to": "20985__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__0_047", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Then I... then under the specific child and transmission provisions as well as the display provision, you could not send it, but there is nothing to... there is nothing in this act that in any way gets in the way of adult-to-adult communication.\nI may very well find that my 16-year-old son in my judgment, in my responsibilities rearing my child, should be able to see material that a jury would find patently offensive, and I can certainly do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [642.566, 655.643], "stop_times": [655.643, 668.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.566}, "reply_to": "20985__0_046", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_048", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "You're saying that any adult has a heckler's veto on the whole operation by simply saying I'm going to let my child watch it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [668.034], "stop_times": [674.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.034}, "reply_to": "20985__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_049", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Oh, no.\nNo, no.\nAbsolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [674.271, 674.804, 675.404], "stop_times": [674.804, 675.404, 676.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.271}, "reply_to": "20985__0_048", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_050", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [676.389], "stop_times": [676.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.389}, "reply_to": "20985__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_051", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "The only thing that is prohibited under... if I can separate out the provisions, under the two more specific provisions, what we call the transmission and specific child provision, they only apply to transmissions where you know that the recipient, or a recipient is a child.\nIf you don't know that, actually know it, it doesn't apply.\nNow, on the display provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [676.906, 694.518, 697.637], "stop_times": [694.518, 697.637, 699.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.906}, "reply_to": "20985__0_050", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_052", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--It's more than knowing it, isn't it?\nYou have to send it to a specific person under 18.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [699.22, 699.922], "stop_times": [699.922, 703.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.22}, "reply_to": "20985__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_053", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Yes.\nKnowing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [703.974, 704.591], "stop_times": [704.591, 705.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.974}, "reply_to": "20985__0_052", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_054", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And it seems to me if you're sending it to the adult and he says, by the way, I'm going to have a child watching, you're not sending it to the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [705.224], "stop_times": [710.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.224}, "reply_to": "20985__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_055", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [710.461], "stop_times": [711.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.461}, "reply_to": "20985__0_054", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_056", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "You're sending it to the adult.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [711.095], "stop_times": [711.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.095}, "reply_to": "20985__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_057", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That is absolutely right.\nNow, the... what becomes more problematic is the display provision, because it is broader.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [711.896, 712.946], "stop_times": [712.946, 718.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.896}, "reply_to": "20985__0_056", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_058", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Yes.\nThose two other provisions, as you interpret knowing, are virtually worthless as I understand it.\nI mean, they're not going to accomplish much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [718.383, 718.966, 724.454], "stop_times": [718.966, 724.454, 726.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.383}, "reply_to": "20985__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_059", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "They are actually very, very important to us in terms of our prosecutions of sexual predators.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [726.822], "stop_times": [732.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.822}, "reply_to": "20985__0_058", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_060", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Which two provisions are you talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [732.893], "stop_times": [735.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.893}, "reply_to": "20985__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__0_061", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "This is... I think it's (a)(1)(D), the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [735.012], "stop_times": [739.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.012}, "reply_to": "20985__0_060", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_062", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Transmission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [739.464], "stop_times": [740.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.464}, "reply_to": "20985__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__0_063", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--transmission provision, and (d)(1)(A), the specific transmission, the specific child provision.\nThey are really designed, Justice O'Connor, to get at the determined sexual predator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [740.514, 747.32], "stop_times": [747.32, 752.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.514}, "reply_to": "20985__0_062", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_064", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, is it the case under those provisions that... suppose a group of high school students decide to communicate across the Internet, and they want to tell each other about their sexual experiences, whether those are real or imagined.\nThey're all... every high school student who would do this is then guilty of a Federal crime, and subject to 2 years in prison?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [752.723, 767.566], "stop_times": [767.566, 775.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.723}, "reply_to": "20985__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_065", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "If high school... I mean, when you say they want to talk about their sexual experiences--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [775.72], "stop_times": [779.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.72}, "reply_to": "20985__0_064", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_066", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's been known to happen in high school.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [779.874, 781.257], "stop_times": [781.257, 781.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.874}, "reply_to": "20985__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_067", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I'm shocked to learn that there is gambling in this establishment.\n[Laughter]\nThere is a big difference, Justice Breyer, between discussing sexual experiences and communications and speech that is patently offensive as that term of art has come to be understood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [781.974, 788.147, 789.013], "stop_times": [788.147, 789.013, 802.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.974}, "reply_to": "20985__0_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_068", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, I mean, I even imagine high school students might read from, let's say, books or magazines that have what people might think of as patently offensive ways of describing those experiences.\nIf you get seven high school students on a telephone call, I bet that same thing happens from time to time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [802.387, 815.13], "stop_times": [815.13, 821.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.387}, "reply_to": "20985__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_069", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [821.618], "stop_times": [822.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.618}, "reply_to": "20985__0_068", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_070", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And so my concern is whether, analogizing this to the telephone, it would suddenly make large numbers of high school students across the country guilty of Federal crimes as they try to communicate to each other either singly or in groups.\nThat's one concern I have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [822.434, 836.727], "stop_times": [836.727, 838.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.434}, "reply_to": "20985__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_071", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "If high school students, like anybody else, communicates what a jury would find and what this Court would establish, given its responsibility to create a constitutional floor to be patently offensive within the meaning of this statute, they would violate it, because the alternative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [838.412], "stop_times": [855.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.412}, "reply_to": "20985__0_070", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_072", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "There's no high school student exemption?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [855.189, 857.124], "stop_times": [857.124, 857.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.189}, "reply_to": "20985__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_073", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Justice Scalia, you may find it in the legislative history, but it is not apparent on the face of the statute.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [857.691, 864.195], "stop_times": [864.195, 864.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.691}, "reply_to": "20985__0_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_074", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Wouldn't there then be a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [864.98], "stop_times": [870.282], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 864.98}, "reply_to": "20985__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20985__0_075", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "My point, if I could just finish, Justice Breyer, there is something that is... there is a deadly serious point here, and that is that when the alternative is that every child in this country who has access to a computer and can click a mouse has access in his or her own bedroom or home or library to Hustler Magazine and Penthouse Magazine, and the kind of indecent speech that people sitting in the anonymity of their own bedrooms anywhere in the world or anywhere in the country wants to make available to them, we think that this is a small price to pay, and Congress could legitimately say that this is a narrowly tailored alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [870.282], "stop_times": [908.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.282}, "reply_to": "20985__0_074", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_076", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [908.24], "stop_times": [908.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 908.24}, "reply_to": "20985__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_077", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I take it then that you would also defend the constitutionality of a statute which, tracking the words we have here, prohibited indecent conversations on a public street with minors present--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [908.94], "stop_times": [923.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 908.94}, "reply_to": "20985__0_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__0_078", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [923.583], "stop_times": [925.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.583}, "reply_to": "20985__0_077", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_079", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--or between minors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [925.118], "stop_times": [926.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.118}, "reply_to": "20985__0_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__0_080", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, I think that a municipality certainly could.\nI think it is a harder case, but I think a municipality could make it a crime for an... for two adults to engage in patently offensive, sexually explicit communications in the presence of a minor child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [926.651, 930.922], "stop_times": [930.922, 947.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.651}, "reply_to": "20985__0_079", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_081", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Why is that a harder case?\nIt seems to me easier.\nIt's easier to verify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [947.099, 948.051, 948.717], "stop_times": [948.051, 948.717, 950.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.099}, "reply_to": "20985__0_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__0_082", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Oh, it's a harder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [950.034], "stop_times": [951.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.034}, "reply_to": "20985__0_081", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_083", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "The presence of that minor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [951.753], "stop_times": [953.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.753}, "reply_to": "20985__0_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__0_084", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--It's a harder case because a public park is a... it's a free space.\nIt's an area where, unlike the Internet, speech is free, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [953.538, 960.524], "stop_times": [960.524, 964.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 953.538}, "reply_to": "20985__0_083", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_085", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "You're asking us to say that the Internet is not a public forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [964.06], "stop_times": [967.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.06}, "reply_to": "20985__0_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__0_086", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--The Internet is... we don't think it is, but if it is, in any event it certainly is, like other public forums, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [967.695], "stop_times": [976.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.695}, "reply_to": "20985__0_085", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_087", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "A public forum is something created by the Government, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [976.218], "stop_times": [979.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.218}, "reply_to": "20985__0_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__0_088", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Right.\nWe don't think it's a public forum, whereas a park would be, but let me... if I can just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [979.036, 979.336], "stop_times": [979.336, 983.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.036}, "reply_to": "20985__0_087", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_089", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, it's a pretty public place, though, because anyone with a computer can get on line--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [983.657], "stop_times": [989.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.657}, "reply_to": "20985__0_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_090", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Right, and... yes, and that is one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [989.628], "stop_times": [991.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 989.628}, "reply_to": "20985__0_089", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_091", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--and convey information and images, so it is much like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [991.561], "stop_times": [993.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 991.561}, "reply_to": "20985__0_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_092", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--It's one of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [993.746], "stop_times": [994.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.746}, "reply_to": "20985__0_091", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_093", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--a street corner or a park, in a sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [994.546], "stop_times": [996.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.546}, "reply_to": "20985__0_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_094", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--It's one of the wonderful things about it, and if I can just finish answering Justice Kennedy's question, you know, if a theater company wanted to put on a production at the Sylvan Theater on the National Mall that contained material that was patently offensive... I don't know what a current production would be, but assume that they did.\nIt would not be at all unreasonable or unlawful for the Park Service to say, you have got to screen for age.\nYou have got to require people to show adult ID.\nYou have got to cover the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [996.781, 1015.343, 1022.199, 1024.634], "stop_times": [1015.343, 1022.199, 1024.634, 1026.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.781}, "reply_to": "20985__0_093", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_095", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But that's in the commercial context, and Justice Breyer's question and my following question pertained to people that don't have counsel, that aren't broadcasters or regular Net users which understand what the concepts of decency or indecency are in any institutional sense, and conversations between two minors, between a minor and an adult, between two adults on public streets and public places would all be prohibited, it seems to me, under your analysis in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1026.401], "stop_times": [1056.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.401}, "reply_to": "20985__0_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__0_096", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--It's... I think the analogy here really is to Renton and Young.\nThis is really a zoning issue.\nLet me give you an example.\nLet's assume on the Mall--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1056.938, 1060.64, 1063.176, 1064.376], "stop_times": [1060.64, 1063.176, 1064.376, 1065.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.938}, "reply_to": "20985__0_095", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_097", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "May I suggest... before... it seems to me that the case that Justice Kennedy poses is a more difficult case, but isn't the reason that... I don't think people throughout the country are worried about their kids hanging around conversations going on on the public street.\nIsn't the scope of the risk involved very much related to what the Government can do by way of avoiding that risk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1065.628, 1083.505], "stop_times": [1083.505, 1090.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.628}, "reply_to": "20985__0_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_098", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I don't think there's any question about it.\nI mean, what Congress was faced with, and what the record below shows, if you look at the testimony of Mr. Schmidt, our expert, and the exhibit that he produced of the sites that he visited on one visit, the problem is very, very serious.\nBut even looking to the National Mall example, Justice Kennedy, if a park policeman finds somebody sitting on one of the benches on the National Mall making a speech with a bull horn or speaking in such a loud voice that it can be heard by others, and using patently offensive language, I don't think there's anything constitutionally impermissible with saying, sir, if you want to do that, there's a specific place on the Mall for that, or for $3 you can buy a cone of silence, and we'll put you in this little cone and you can talk to yourself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1090.576, 1092.528, 1106.753], "stop_times": [1092.528, 1106.753, 1135.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.576}, "reply_to": "20985__0_097", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_099", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "The point of my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1135.788], "stop_times": [1136.64], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.788}, "reply_to": "20985__0_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20985__0_100", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And that's what this is about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1136.64], "stop_times": [1137.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.64}, "reply_to": "20985__0_099", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_101", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Mr. Waxman, you know, there was once prevalent throughout this country a kind of ordinance that went like this.\nIt made it a misdemeanor to use offensive language in the presence of women and children.\nI was wondering while you were speaking whether you were saying the assumption that those laws are no longer tenable would flunk the First Amendment, that that's not a correct assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1137.857, 1144.128, 1151.115], "stop_times": [1144.128, 1151.115, 1165.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1137.857}, "reply_to": "20985__0_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__0_102", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Those laws, Justice Ginsburg, are distinguishable in two very fundamental ways, and it's critical, I think, to this case.\nOne, this Court has recognized that, as opposed to minors, there is a constitutional right to make indecent, patently offensive speech to adults, and insofar as this was trying to protect women from hearing such speech, that would be unconstitutional.\nSecondly, the notion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1165.457, 1171.795, 1190.442], "stop_times": [1171.795, 1190.442, 1193.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.457}, "reply_to": "20985__0_101", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_103", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, let's take out women.\nJust children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1193.561, 1194.311], "stop_times": [1194.311, 1194.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1193.561}, "reply_to": "20985__0_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__0_104", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Okay.\nThe notion in those laws... this is my second point... of what is offensive was I think subject to a very serious vagueness challenge.\nWhat we have here is a definition of patently offensive material that is not vague, that has been held by this Court and the FCC and the lower courts not to be constitutionally vague, and we have set out at page 17 of our reply brief pretty much in haec verba what a jury would have to be instructed in determining whether something was patently offensive under their prevailing community standards.\nAnd added onto that we also have now, in light of Miller, and Jenkins, and Hamling, and Ferber, this Court's unequivocal statement that in the area of patently offensive, where First... where there is a First Amendment implication on where the floor is drawn, the Court will and must draw a constitutional floor below which juries and legislatures can't go, so we have a standard here that has been accepted, and can be refined by this or other courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1194.811, 1195.327, 1203.916, 1229.667], "stop_times": [1195.327, 1203.916, 1229.667, 1261.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1194.811}, "reply_to": "20985__0_103", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_105", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Waxman, let me ask you another question more or less along the lines, I guess, of Justice Breyer's, who spoke of the high school students who might go to prison.\nIf we combine the display section and the knowingly permit section, I take it that a parent who allowed his computer, the computer that the parent owned, to be used by his child in viewing offensive material, indecent material, the parent would also go to prison, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1261.619, 1272.244], "stop_times": [1272.244, 1298.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.619}, "reply_to": "20985__0_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_106", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I don't see why that would... maybe I'm missing something--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1298.061], "stop_times": [1301.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.061}, "reply_to": "20985__0_105", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_107", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1301.096], "stop_times": [1301.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.096}, "reply_to": "20985__0_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_108", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--in the language, but it prohibits a transmission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1301.663], "stop_times": [1303.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.663}, "reply_to": "20985__0_107", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_109", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--it's an offense to display the material, as I understand it under the display section, where minors will obtain it, and if a parent says I'm going to allow, knowingly allow my computer to be used by my child to observe these displays, isn't the parent therefore guilty of the knowing, under the knowingly permit section?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1303.631], "stop_times": [1331.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.631}, "reply_to": "20985__0_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_110", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I don't think so.\nThis is a statute that is self-consciously directed solely at the content provider, the person who is putting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1331.365, 1332.716], "stop_times": [1332.716, 1339.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.365}, "reply_to": "20985__0_109", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_111", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "No, but this isn't a content provider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1339.804], "stop_times": [1341.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.804}, "reply_to": "20985__0_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_112", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--information on the World Wide Web.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1341.688], "stop_times": [1342.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.688}, "reply_to": "20985__0_111", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_113", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It's a person who knowingly permits a device under his control to be used in effect to accomplish or facilitate any of these other offenses, and one of the offenses is the display offenses, and if the parent says, my computer can be used, in effect, to complete this display offense, because I'm going to let my child view it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1342.29], "stop_times": [1365.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.29}, "reply_to": "20985__0_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_114", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I see your point.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1365.104, 1366.037], "stop_times": [1366.037, 1366.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1365.104}, "reply_to": "20985__0_113", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_115", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--why isn't a parent guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1366.237], "stop_times": [1367.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.237}, "reply_to": "20985__0_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_116", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, you're referring here... I now understand.\nYou're referring here to a separate... a provision separate from the three provisions that are at issue in this case.\nThat is, (c)... I can't remember.\nIn any event, the knowing permission provision.\nIt's number--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1367.237, 1369.472, 1374.21, 1380.197, 1382.197], "stop_times": [1369.472, 1374.21, 1380.197, 1382.197, 1382.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.237}, "reply_to": "20985__0_115", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_117", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "(d)(2), and according to the three-judge district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1382.816], "stop_times": [1386.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.816}, "reply_to": "20985__0_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__0_118", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Yes, (d)(2).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1386.183], "stop_times": [1386.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1386.183}, "reply_to": "20985__0_117", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_119", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--plaintiffs also challenged those provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1386.883], "stop_times": [1388.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.883}, "reply_to": "20985__0_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__0_120", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, we think... we think that in order to... if necessary to save the constitutionality of that provision, this Court certainly could exempt the provision of this material for parents.\nI mean, one of the major--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1388.985, 1400.86], "stop_times": [1400.86, 1402.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1388.985}, "reply_to": "20985__0_119", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_121", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "How... you mean under the... by severance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1402.093], "stop_times": [1404.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.093}, "reply_to": "20985__0_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_122", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1404.412], "stop_times": [1404.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1404.412}, "reply_to": "20985__0_121", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_123", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Under severability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1404.962], "stop_times": [1406.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.962}, "reply_to": "20985__0_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_124", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, you can call it a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1406.112], "stop_times": [1407.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1406.112}, "reply_to": "20985__0_123", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_125", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1407.347], "stop_times": [1409.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.347}, "reply_to": "20985__0_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_126", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--If you found it would be unconstitutional... I can think of instances in which it might actually constitute child abuse, which this Court's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1409.383], "stop_times": [1415.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.383}, "reply_to": "20985__0_125", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_127", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I take it you agree that the parent would be guilty under that section.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1415.87], "stop_times": [1420.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.87}, "reply_to": "20985__0_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_128", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I think it depends on the way you construe it.\nThis Court has the power and the authority in dealing with a statute which is either arguably vague, or arguably overbroad, to construe it or to partially invalidate provisions or applications to save the constitutionality.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1420.239, 1422.541, 1437.966], "stop_times": [1422.541, 1437.966, 1438.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.239}, "reply_to": "20985__0_127", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_129", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "How could I construe it more narrowly than my hypothesis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1438.483], "stop_times": [1441.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.483}, "reply_to": "20985__0_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_130", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--You could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1441.235], "stop_times": [1441.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.235}, "reply_to": "20985__0_129", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_131", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "What do you have in mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1441.735], "stop_times": [1442.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.735}, "reply_to": "20985__0_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_132", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--You could certainly construe it to exclude parents.\nYou could certainly say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1442.487, 1444.889], "stop_times": [1444.889, 1446.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.487}, "reply_to": "20985__0_131", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_133", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That would just be grabbing a limitation out of thin air.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1446.472], "stop_times": [1450.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.472}, "reply_to": "20985__0_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_134", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--It wouldn't any more be grabbing it out of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1450.091], "stop_times": [1452.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.091}, "reply_to": "20985__0_133", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_135", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Exclude parents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1452.21], "stop_times": [1454.912], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.21}, "reply_to": "20985__0_134", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20985__0_136", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Let me just say, it wouldn't, because there's a very clear record before Congress that what Congress was concerned about was not protecting children from their parents, but protecting children and their parents from the children getting access to material that the children--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1454.912], "stop_times": [1468.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1454.912}, "reply_to": "20985__0_135", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_137", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I could view this but Justice Scalia couldn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1468.671], "stop_times": [1469.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.671}, "reply_to": "20985__0_136", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_138", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--No, I think Justice--\n[Laughter]\nJustice Scalia could and would, because--\nI didn't say will.\nIf you look at cases that this Court has decided with respect to overbreadth, this would be, I suppose, an overbreadth challenge that it includes parents, or doesn't exclude parents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1469.654, 1480.229, 1470.671, 1477.443, 1480.845], "stop_times": [1480.229, 1470.671, 1477.443, 1480.845, 1492.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1469.654}, "reply_to": "20985__0_137", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_139", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1492.62], "stop_times": [1493.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1492.62}, "reply_to": "20985__0_138", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_140", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "This Court would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1493.353], "stop_times": [1494.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.353}, "reply_to": "20985__0_139", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_141", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--At this point it's an overbreadth... I suppose it's an overbreadth challenge when you say well, it's interfering... not as a matter of overbreadth.\nIt's interfering with the relationship between parent and child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1494.52, 1501.643], "stop_times": [1501.643, 1505.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.52}, "reply_to": "20985__0_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_142", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Yes, and you could do exactly what you did, for example, in United States v. Grace, where there was a criminal prosecution for demonstrating on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court.\nThe statute defined the Supreme Court grounds literally by metes and bounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1505.111, 1514.05], "stop_times": [1514.05, 1519.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.111}, "reply_to": "20985__0_141", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_143", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Would I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1519.02], "stop_times": [1519.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.02}, "reply_to": "20985__0_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_144", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "There was no exclusion for sidewalks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1519.554], "stop_times": [1521.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.554}, "reply_to": "20985__0_143", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_145", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Excuse me.\nWould I have to do that in order to save the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1521.404, 1521.672], "stop_times": [1521.672, 1524.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.404}, "reply_to": "20985__0_144", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_146", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1524.122], "stop_times": [1525.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1524.122}, "reply_to": "20985__0_145", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_147", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1525.174], "stop_times": [1525.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.174}, "reply_to": "20985__0_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__0_148", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, I think... because I think as a practical matter it is so clear that this does not cover what a parent shows a child in the absence of true abuse, which is separately actionable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1525.791], "stop_times": [1536.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1525.791}, "reply_to": "20985__0_147", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_149", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, but it's not clear that it doesn't cover the coffee shop owner who has a computer network, or a teacher, or a high school librarian who under her supervision, or his supervision allows this material to be accessed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1536.899], "stop_times": [1552.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.899}, "reply_to": "20985__0_148", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__0_150", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "If you think that it is necessary to save the (d)(2) provision from an overbreadth challenge, you should construe it, you must construe it in a manner that saves it as to those applications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1552.408], "stop_times": [1565.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1552.408}, "reply_to": "20985__0_149", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_151", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Could we talk about the defense clauses for a moment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1565.066], "stop_times": [1567.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.066}, "reply_to": "20985__0_150", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_152", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1567.585], "stop_times": [1568.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1567.585}, "reply_to": "20985__0_151", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_153", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And does the Government accept that it is a defense under the act if a parent or any owner or user of a computer buys some of this software that is designed to screen out indecent speech?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1568.051], "stop_times": [1586.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.051}, "reply_to": "20985__0_152", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_154", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, it... would it be a defense to the prosecution of the person who provided the content on the Internet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1586.397], "stop_times": [1593.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.397}, "reply_to": "20985__0_153", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_155", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, I would be charged presumably under the display provision as... for putting on some kind of indecent speech under your theory.\nNow, is it a defense that there are these programs and software to prevent the use of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1593.485, 1594.002, 1606.476], "stop_times": [1594.002, 1606.476, 1616.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.485}, "reply_to": "20985__0_154", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_156", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1616.184], "stop_times": [1616.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1616.184}, "reply_to": "20985__0_155", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_157", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And how about the parent who lets the child use the machine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1616.851], "stop_times": [1619.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.851}, "reply_to": "20985__0_156", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_158", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Thank you, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1619.803], "stop_times": [1620.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.803}, "reply_to": "20985__0_157", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_159", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--that buys the software to screen it out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1620.886], "stop_times": [1623.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.886}, "reply_to": "20985__0_158", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__0_160", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--The district court... the district court in this case did not find, and properly so, that the purported... that this purported solution that the appellees have offered, these parental control software programs like SurfWatch, are an effective alternative.\nIt didn't find that, and the reason is that with hundreds of thousands of Web sites and tens of millions of pages that can be discretely accessed, and with the number of sites increasing so rapidly, and the ability to change the name of the site so easy, there is simply no way that companies like SurfWatch or parents can keep up with what can and can't be screened out, and even if they could, with computers in libraries and community centers and schools, it is not an effective alternative as matters currently stand.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1623.438, 1636.329, 1668.551], "stop_times": [1636.329, 1668.551, 1668.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1623.438}, "reply_to": "20985__0_159", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_161", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "What about tagging, Mr. Waxman?\nWhy wouldn't it be adequate to meet the problem that is concerned about for Congress to say, you'll have a complete defense so long as you tag it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1668.801, 1669.985], "stop_times": [1669.985, 1678.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.801}, "reply_to": "20985__0_160", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_162", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1678.341], "stop_times": [1678.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1678.341}, "reply_to": "20985__0_161", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_163", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And we'll establish a system.\nXXX means that it contains the kind of material that would violate this act, and therefore so long as you put XXX on it, you'll be safe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1678.891, 1679.924], "stop_times": [1679.924, 1689.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.891}, "reply_to": "20985__0_162", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_164", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--In the... Justice Scalia, in the absence of a regime in which there is a universal tag... that is, everybody knows and everybody uses, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1689.547], "stop_times": [1697.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1689.547}, "reply_to": "20985__0_163", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_165", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Congress could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1697.653], "stop_times": [1699.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.653}, "reply_to": "20985__0_164", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_166", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Okay, and software that is available on all machines that are sold as a default mode to screen under that tag--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1699.355], "stop_times": [1707.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1699.355}, "reply_to": "20985__0_165", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_167", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But that would be pretty easy if they were tagged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1707.009], "stop_times": [1709.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.009}, "reply_to": "20985__0_166", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_168", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Congress... that would essentially be the mandated V-chip option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1709.028], "stop_times": [1712.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1709.028}, "reply_to": "20985__0_167", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_169", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1712.062], "stop_times": [1712.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.062}, "reply_to": "20985__0_168", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__0_170", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And it would be better than what we have now, but it would not be either more effective or less restrictive than the Communications Decency Act.\nUnlike television, we're not talking about a handful of broadcasters here who have their own lawyers and their own advertisers and other restraints on speech, and we're also not talking... we're talking about millions and millions and millions of people who are putting speech on, and that's where the burden has to be put, and on the other hand, we're also not talking about television sets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1712.529, 1720.085], "stop_times": [1720.085, 1741.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1712.529}, "reply_to": "20985__0_169", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_171", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But we are... might be talking about telephones, which was the point of my example with the children.\nCan Congress suddenly decide that all private telephone conversations will be monitored to see if there is indecent material going across the telephone that children will knowingly pick up?\nThat was my concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1741.265, 1746.836, 1761.078], "stop_times": [1746.836, 1761.078, 1762.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.265}, "reply_to": "20985__0_170", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_172", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I think the answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1762.462], "stop_times": [1764.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1762.462}, "reply_to": "20985__0_171", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_173", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "If the answer is no, then how does this differ, because the Internet after all is, in addition to being a little bit like a common, is very much like a telephone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1764.03], "stop_times": [1774.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.03}, "reply_to": "20985__0_172", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_174", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "The difference... the regime you've hypothesized is one in which all telephone calls between all people in the United States would be monitored.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1774.986], "stop_times": [1783.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1774.986}, "reply_to": "20985__0_173", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_175", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "No, what you'd have is an analogous statute that applied to the telephone so that when the high school students get on the phone and talk about their experiences, suddenly that all becomes a crime, and it suddenly looks a little bit worse from a First Amendment point of view--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1783.742], "stop_times": [1802.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.742}, "reply_to": "20985__0_174", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_176", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1802.155], "stop_times": [1802.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1802.155}, "reply_to": "20985__0_175", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_177", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--if what you're talking about is the telephone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1802.939], "stop_times": [1804.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.939}, "reply_to": "20985__0_176", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_178", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1804.489], "stop_times": [1805.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1804.489}, "reply_to": "20985__0_177", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_179", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But the Internet is rather like the telephone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1805.191], "stop_times": [1807.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.191}, "reply_to": "20985__0_178", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__0_180", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I have to disagree with your last statement.\nIt looks a little bit... it looks a lot different, because on the telephone you are not displaying graphic images.\nYou are not talking about a medium which, once it's placed on a computer by anybody, anywhere, is available to everybody everywhere.\nYou're talking about discrete communications--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1807.124, 1809.143, 1816.38, 1824.653], "stop_times": [1809.143, 1816.38, 1824.653, 1826.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1807.124}, "reply_to": "20985__0_179", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_181", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "The question here is overbreadth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1826.788], "stop_times": [1827.871], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.788}, "reply_to": "20985__0_180", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20985__0_182", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--and it would be hard... if I can just finish, it would be much harder for Congress to demonstrate and I don't think Congress believes that there's a compelling interest, because of those differences, in doing so.\nYou know, in the face of the problem, in the face of this serious problem, I need to focus just for a minute on what the district court did.\nThe district court threw up its hands and struck down a statute without attempting to narrow it, without attempting to make it more specific, and most significantly, without finding that any more narrowly tailored, constitutionally acceptable solution exists.\nThat is error of law of the first order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1827.871, 1837.828, 1846.684, 1864.895], "stop_times": [1837.828, 1846.684, 1864.895, 1867.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1827.871}, "reply_to": "20985__0_181", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_183", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Waxman, the district court was concerned about legislating.\nYou know, it would be one thing if you could just say, take out this sentence, or take out this section, but just the kind of thing you describe with respect to the parent, that's a lot.\nThat kind of tinkering courts don't do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1867.93, 1871.215, 1881.671], "stop_times": [1871.215, 1881.671, 1883.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.93}, "reply_to": "20985__0_182", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__0_184", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, all I can say is that... I mean, I could rattle off the name of a dozen or two dozen cases in which this Court in either the overbreadth context of the vagueness context has done just that even without a severability clause, and when there is a severability clause that includes the language of applications as well as provisions, this Court has always heeded that.\nIn fact, in Wyoming v. Oklahoma where the request was that, okay, if it's invalid as to one particular company, just strike them out, what this Court said was, severability clauses may easily be written to provide that if application of a statute to some classes is found unconstitutional, severance of those classes permits application to the acceptable classes.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1883.873, 1906.702, 1929.902], "stop_times": [1906.702, 1929.902, 1930.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1883.873}, "reply_to": "20985__0_183", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_185", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It was my impression from Califano v. Westcott, which I think is the last time the Court dealt with that, and it dealt with it up front, that the point was made that you can lop of something, you can include or exclude, you can put a caret mark, but nothing fancier than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1930.535], "stop_times": [1948.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.535}, "reply_to": "20985__0_184", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__0_186", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I... our understanding of the cardinal rule, even in the absence of a severability clause, is the rule stated in Ferber, in which this Court said, when a Federal court dealing with a Federal statute challenged as overbroad, it should, of course, construe the statute to avoid constitutional problems if the statute is subject to a limiting construction.\nEven if the Federal statute is not subject to a narrowing construction and is impermissibly overbroad, it nevertheless should be stricken down... should not be stricken down on its face.\nIf it is severable only the unconstitutional portion should be invalidated, and here, where we have a severance clause that directs the Court to sever as to unconstitutional applications, we think that rule should apply, too.\nMay I reserve the balance of my time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1948.046, 1971.395, 1981.953, 1994.777], "stop_times": [1971.395, 1981.953, 1994.777, 1996.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1948.046}, "reply_to": "20985__0_185", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__0_187", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Yes, Mr. Waxman.\nMr. Ennis, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1996.296, 1997.712], "stop_times": [1997.712, 1999.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.296}, "reply_to": "20985__0_186", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_000", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere are four reasons why the preliminary injunction should be affirmed.\nThe CDA bans speech.\nIt will not be effective.\nThere are less-restrictive alternatives that would be much more effective.\nAnd the combination of an imprecise standard, coupled with the threat of severe criminal sanctions, will chill much speech that would not be indecent.\nFirst, the District Court found as fact that the CDA completely bans a vast amount of speech, all of which is constitutionally protected for adults, from all of the unique means of communication in cyberspace except the World Wide Web, and effectively bans that speech from most of the Web as well.\nVirtually all speech that is displayed on the Internet in a manner that would be available to adults would also be available to minors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [1999.748, 2017.626, 2022.864, 2025.815, 2028.198, 2033.635, 2046.027, 2072.527], "stop_times": [2017.626, 2022.864, 2025.815, 2028.198, 2033.635, 2046.027, 2072.527, 2083.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.748}, "reply_to": "20985__0_187", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_001", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Excuse me.\nYou say it banned it from other applications but not from the Web.\nIs it your contention... and there is much of this in the briefs... that every... every facet of... of cyberspace must be open to this kind of communication?\nI mean what is wrong with saying, well, if you want to use cyberspace, you have to use the Web?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2083.085, 2083.685, 2092.19, 2106.6], "stop_times": [2083.685, 2092.19, 2106.6, 2111.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.085}, "reply_to": "20985__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_002", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2111.521], "stop_times": [2112.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.521}, "reply_to": "20985__1_001", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_003", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "You can't get into... into some of the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2112.404], "stop_times": [2113.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.404}, "reply_to": "20985__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_004", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Justice Scalia, let me try to answer that question this way.\nThere are 40 million speakers who use news groups, listservs and chat rooms.\nIt is not technologically possible in those means of communication to screen for age.\nThe Government's expert conceded that.\nThere are about 100,000 Web sites in all.\nAnd most speakers cannot afford the $1,000 to $10,000 it costs to have their own Web site.\nFurthermore, there is a much--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2113.721, 2115.473, 2122.693, 2127.764, 2129.983, 2134.787, 2143.024], "stop_times": [2115.473, 2122.693, 2127.764, 2129.983, 2134.787, 2143.024, 2144.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2113.721}, "reply_to": "20985__1_003", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_005", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--But, look.\nLet's take printed communications.\nIt is certainly lawful... and we have upheld provisions that require pornographic materials to be kept away from minors and not to be sold in such a fashion that minors can obtain them.\nThis effectively excludes the publishers of pornographic publications from vending their material on the streets in vending machines, where minors can get access to them.\nDo we say it's unconstitutional because they cannot use that manner of communication?\nI don't think so.\nWe say tough luck, you have to sell it in stores.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2144.893, 2145.243, 2146.76, 2157.883, 2168.508, 2172.476, 2173.412], "stop_times": [2145.243, 2146.76, 2157.883, 2168.508, 2172.476, 2173.412, 2176.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.893}, "reply_to": "20985__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_006", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Your Honor, in Southeastern Promotions, in Schad, in Bolger, in case after case, the Court has held, both under intermediate scrutiny and under strict scrutiny... particularly under strict scrutiny... that the possibility of a functionally equivalent alternative does not save the Government.\nHere the alternative is not functionally equivalent.\nLet me say why.\nIn news groups, chat rooms and listservs, you are engaging in an interactive dialogue, a conversation, in which you speak and the listeners reply and you can reply to what they say.\nThey can be outraged.\nThey can be offended.\nThey can have a good point to make.\nA Web site is static.\nWhat the Government is saying is that the 40 million people who can speak in an interactive dialogue in the other modes of communication on the Internet should post a static message on their Web site.\nAnd maybe the people who are in the news group would come to see it, maybe not.\nBut the speaker would not get any feedback.\nThere would be no dialogue.\nSecond, there are only 100,000 Web sites.\nBut most of those do not have the screening capability that is required to screen for age.\nOnly those Web sites that have what is called CGI Script capability can screen for age.\nWe know from the record that all of the 12 million subscribers to the Internet who gain access through America Online, Compuserve, Prodigy, Microsoft, the major online service providers, those service providers provide Web site to those 12 million subscribers, but not one of those Web sites can have the capacity to screen for age.\nSo, in effect, there is a minuscule portion of the population that... for which it is technologically possible to screen for age.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2176.114, 2193.039, 2196.258, 2197.443, 2207.982, 2208.815, 2209.667, 2212.117, 2214.169, 2225.51, 2229.728, 2231.847, 2233.032, 2236.151, 2242.805, 2248.959, 2270.038], "stop_times": [2193.039, 2196.258, 2197.443, 2207.982, 2208.815, 2209.667, 2212.117, 2214.169, 2225.51, 2229.728, 2231.847, 2233.032, 2236.151, 2242.805, 2248.959, 2270.038, 2277.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.114}, "reply_to": "20985__1_005", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_007", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Why are the others incapable of screening for age?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2277.192], "stop_times": [2280.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.192}, "reply_to": "20985__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_008", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Because the... the unique ways that cyberspace works, you have to be able to have a computer software program that has a form that can be filled in, you can interrogate the listener who is trying to have access to your speech, and then you can have other data processing to figure out whether the listener can have access or not.\nThat kind of software does not work, as the Government's expert conceded, on news groups, listservs, and chat rooms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2280.061, 2300.325], "stop_times": [2300.325, 2308.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.061}, "reply_to": "20985__1_007", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_009", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Is that still true?\nHow long ago were all of these technological conclusions arrived at?\nThere are some aspects of cyberspace that didn't even exist when... when the hearing was held; is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2308.163, 2308.73, 2312.449], "stop_times": [2308.73, 2312.449, 2318.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.163}, "reply_to": "20985__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_010", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Justice Scalia, it is still true.\nThe Government, in a highly unusual... for the Government... has cited in its reply brief to the Washington Post and NewsWeek, to suggest that it is possible to screen news groups and chat rooms on Web sites today.\nThe fact that the Government is forced to refer to extra-record material shows there is no evidence in this record that you can.\nAnd in fact, the Government is wrong.\nIt is not possible, using a Web browser, which can gain access to a news group, to screen for age, because news groups exist in cyberspace on perhaps 200,000 different news group servers.\nAnd it would be necessary for the separate owners and operators of each of those servers to screen for age.\nOtherwise, the speaker would not be protected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2318.353, 2320.138, 2334.481, 2341.385, 2343.92, 2359.68, 2366.0], "stop_times": [2320.138, 2334.481, 2341.385, 2343.92, 2359.68, 2366.0, 2367.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.353}, "reply_to": "20985__1_009", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_011", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, it could be done, then.\nIt could be done.\nYou're just saying it would defeat the purpose of some of these things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2367.583, 2367.933, 2369.035], "stop_times": [2367.933, 2369.035, 2371.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.583}, "reply_to": "20985__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_012", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Your Honor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, it is technologically possible on some Web sites to screen for age.\nBut the... the District Court also found as a fact that even on that small subset of Web sites, the cost of screening would be economically prohibitive for all speakers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2371.904, 2379.474], "stop_times": [2379.474, 2391.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.904}, "reply_to": "20985__1_011", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_013", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "What does it mean when they say \"prohibitively expensive\" or \"economically prohibitive\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2391.048], "stop_times": [2396.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.048}, "reply_to": "20985__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_014", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Let me try to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2396.519], "stop_times": [2397.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.519}, "reply_to": "20985__1_013", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_015", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Those are value-laden adverbs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2397.119], "stop_times": [2398.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.119}, "reply_to": "20985__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_016", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, let... let me try to explain, Chief Justice.\nThe principal way to screen for age is through use of a credit card.\nIf you are not a commercial speaker, most credit card companies will not verify the credit card at all, period, for any cost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2398.804, 2400.604, 2404.273], "stop_times": [2400.604, 2404.273, 2414.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.804}, "reply_to": "20985__1_015", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_017", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "So if you're a commercial speaker, they will?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2414.231], "stop_times": [2416.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2414.231}, "reply_to": "20985__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_018", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "They will verify if you're a commercial speaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2416.599], "stop_times": [2418.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2416.599}, "reply_to": "20985__1_017", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_019", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And what... what do you mean by a \"commercial speaker\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2418.483], "stop_times": [2420.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.483}, "reply_to": "20985__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_020", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "A speaker who is charging for access to his or her speech.\nAnd that is a very small subset of all Internet speakers.\nNone of the enormous rauge of plaintiffs in this case is a commercial speaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2420.385, 2425.539, 2428.99], "stop_times": [2425.539, 2428.99, 2433.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.385}, "reply_to": "20985__1_019", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_021", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, the credit card people will verify for the commercial speaker because he can pay for it or because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2433.042], "stop_times": [2438.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.042}, "reply_to": "20985__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_022", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2438.179], "stop_times": [2438.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.179}, "reply_to": "20985__1_021", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_023", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--In other words, they would verify for anyone who could pay for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2438.662], "stop_times": [2441.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.662}, "reply_to": "20985__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_024", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, there are two questions... two points.\nMost credit card companies simply will not verify for any price for a noncommercial transaction.\nThey are not set up to do that.\nA few credit card companies will, but the record evidence showed they charge a dollar per verification for a noncommercial verification.\nNow, if you are a speaker who wants to make your speech available to 100,000 listeners, that means you, the speaker, would have to pay $100,000 for the privilege of speaking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2441.381, 2443.75, 2449.154, 2450.42, 2457.51], "stop_times": [2443.75, 2449.154, 2450.42, 2457.51, 2468.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2441.381}, "reply_to": "20985__1_023", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_025", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, what about the first radio people, you know, before the Federal Radio Act in 1927?\nI'm sure that imposed a lot of operating requirements on radio stations.\nAnd before that, they could just say, well, we like it the way it is.\nThe Government shouldn't have to tell us we've got to have all this equipment.\nBut, nonetheless, the Government did tell them, and that's certainly been upheld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2468.716, 2474.785, 2478.987, 2482.373, 2485.891], "stop_times": [2474.785, 2478.987, 2482.373, 2485.891, 2489.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.716}, "reply_to": "20985__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_026", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Chief Justice Rehnquist, there is an enormous difference between some burden, some cost... which this Court has upheld in other contexts... and a burden or cost that is economically prohibitive.\nLet me continue to answer your question by saying that, for example, there is evidence in this record that the Carnegie Library, which has been used as an example, in order to classify which of its speech is indecent and which is decent within the meaning of this law, that would require a human judgment and it would cost about $3 million to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2489.629, 2501.603], "stop_times": [2501.603, 2522.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.629}, "reply_to": "20985__1_025", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_027", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And that's prohibitively expensive for the Carnegie Library?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2522.45], "stop_times": [2526.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.45}, "reply_to": "20985__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_028", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Yes, it is, Your Honor.\nThere is no dispute on that in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2526.052, 2527.202], "stop_times": [2527.202, 2529.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.052}, "reply_to": "20985__1_027", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_029", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Ennis--\n--Well, I suppose it depends on how... I mean on whether... what is prohibitively certainly depends to some extent upon the goal to be achieved.\nI mean we do stop individual citizens from running radio stations, because of all the regulations, say it's prohibitively expensive, you can't run your own radio station.\nAnd we say, well, you know, that's tough luck.\nThe goal to be achieved is everybody can't talk at once, so we have to limit the numbers and we have to have all of these technological requirements.\nIt's going to cost you $3 million, and we say that's too bad.\nNow, how valuable, how important is the goal to be achieved here?\nIs it equivalently important?\nIsn't that very much a policy judgment that Congress is able to arrive at?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2529.587, 2530.504, 2535.674, 2543.764, 2545.716, 2552.202, 2555.404, 2560.391, 2561.825], "stop_times": [2530.504, 2535.674, 2543.764, 2545.716, 2552.202, 2555.404, 2560.391, 2561.825, 2566.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.587}, "reply_to": "20985__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_030", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Let me answer that, Justice Scalia, first, by saying and emphasizing that we did not challenge this law insofar as it prohibits obscene speech, child pornography, solicitation of minors, harassment of minors.\nThat kind of speech was not challenged and is not enjoined by the injunction below.\nWe are only talking about a much different subset of speech that is called patently offensive or indecent speech.\nI want to emphasize that that standard is broader than any standard this Court has ever upheld even with respect to sale or display directly to a minor, and is vastly broader than the standards applied in the 48 States which use a \"harmful to minors\" standard, which requires that the speech be not only patently offensive for minors, but also appeal to a prurient interest for minors and lack serious value for minors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2566.629, 2579.353, 2584.155, 2591.744], "stop_times": [2579.353, 2584.155, 2591.744, 2620.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.629}, "reply_to": "20985__1_029", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_031", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Ennis, there is one thing I don't want to lose before you go away from the prohibitively expensive point.\nWould you comment on Mr. Waxman's argument that those who transmit and display could do so subject to a requirement that access be conditioned on an adult identification number?\nIs that a response to the prohibitively expensive argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2620.161, 2626.298, 2638.475], "stop_times": [2626.298, 2638.475, 2643.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.161}, "reply_to": "20985__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__1_032", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Justice Souter, Mr. Waxman said there was unrebutted evidence below.\nIf you'll look at the court's opinion, the court... what the court said was the government presented virtually no evidence about these third-party verification bureaus.\nBut what the evidence does show is those third-party systems do not work at all for listservs, news groups, chat rooms, all of the modes of communication in cyberspace except the World Wide Web.\nSo those third-party bureaus effectively shut down the 40 million speakers who use those other means of communication.\nThey cannot be used in those other means of communication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2643.009, 2647.247, 2655.667, 2670.427, 2677.267], "stop_times": [2647.247, 2655.667, 2670.427, 2677.267, 2680.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.009}, "reply_to": "20985__1_031", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_033", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Would it be effective, in effect, in all Web transmissions and display?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2680.468], "stop_times": [2685.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.468}, "reply_to": "20985__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__1_034", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Not in all Web transmissions.\nIt would only be effective in Web... in a certain number of Web transmissions.\nBut I... I want to emphasize that one of the real democratizing and speech-enhancing attributes of the Internet is that average citizens can speak to the world for free.\nIn order to own your own Web site, the Government conceded, it would cost a thousand dollars to $10,000 to set up your own Web site, and then maintenance costs.\nSo we're... we're reducing the number of speakers dramatically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2685.788, 2687.688, 2692.626, 2703.417, 2711.488], "stop_times": [2687.688, 2692.626, 2703.417, 2711.488, 2714.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.788}, "reply_to": "20985__1_033", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_035", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Can you at some point... Mr. Ennis, could you at some point, at your choice, address the question of severability?\nIn particular, I'm thinking is it possible to narrow the statute perhaps far more extremely than the Government would like, but to commercial pornographers?\nIs there a way of reading it so it only applies to people who make significant amounts of money out of selling pornography across the Internet?\nIs there some such construction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2714.79, 2721.628, 2730.067, 2738.405], "stop_times": [2721.628, 2730.067, 2738.405, 2740.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.79}, "reply_to": "20985__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__1_036", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Justice Breyer, the District Court did focus on that question.\nAnd it found that no such limiting construction was possible for many reasons.\nFirst, the Act, by its terms, applies to both commercial and noncommercial entities.\nThe legislative history makes clear that Government intended to regulate both commercial and noncommercial entities.\nIt applies, by its terms, to the speech of libraries and educational institutions.\nNone of whom, by the way, are regarded as pornographers in the common understanding of that term.\nIt... it is simply not possible to construe the statute that way.\nAnd if you did, it would be a nonsensical construction.\nBecause before this Act was passed, the commercial pornographers already charged with credit card for access to their speech.\nThey don't make that speech available for free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2740.09, 2742.725, 2746.761, 2753.6, 2759.235, 2765.138, 2770.192, 2774.596, 2777.982, 2785.386], "stop_times": [2742.725, 2746.761, 2753.6, 2759.235, 2765.138, 2770.192, 2774.596, 2777.982, 2785.386, 2787.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.09}, "reply_to": "20985__1_035", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_037", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "How about narrowing the definition of what's patently offensive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2787.321], "stop_times": [2791.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.321}, "reply_to": "20985__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__1_038", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, Your Honor, again, you would have to do violence to the text of the Act and to the legislative history.\nBecause Congress squarely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2791.706, 2798.962], "stop_times": [2798.962, 2800.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.706}, "reply_to": "20985__1_037", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_039", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "The Act just isn't specific.\nIt says \"indecent speech\".\nI don't know that it's all that clear from the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2800.831, 2801.88, 2803.464], "stop_times": [2801.88, 2803.464, 2805.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.831}, "reply_to": "20985__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__1_040", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--On the text of the Act, it's not, Justice O'Connor.\nBut the conference report, at page 188 and 189, makes very clear that Congress expressly rejected the more narrow \"harmful to minors\" standard, which would require that the speech be not only patently offensive, but also appeal to prurience and lack serious value.\nSecond, the conference report makes clear that Congress intended to apply the Act under... using the FCC broadcast standard for indecency that was at issue in the Pacifica case.\nAs the FCC said in Pacifica and as this Court noted, under that standard, speech can be found indecent even if it is not prurient and even if it has serious value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2805.699, 2807.651, 2824.761, 2837.586], "stop_times": [2807.651, 2824.761, 2837.586, 2847.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.699}, "reply_to": "20985__1_039", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_041", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, we construed the term \"patently offensive\" in our Denver Area opinions last term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2847.859], "stop_times": [2853.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.859}, "reply_to": "20985__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_042", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Chief Justice Rehnquist, I think that, with respect to the vagueness argument, the Denver Area case is dramatically different from this case.\nFirst, that case did not involve any criminal sanction whatsoever and did not even involve any direct prohibition on speakers.\nIt simply... the only provision that was upheld under a vagueness challenge simply permitted cable operators, who have their own first amendment rights, permitted them to exercise their own editorial judgment.\nAnd it even required that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2853.096, 2861.036, 2873.51, 2884.901], "stop_times": [2861.036, 2873.51, 2884.901, 2887.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.096}, "reply_to": "20985__1_041", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_043", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, you might say that the... what the Court came up with in Denver maybe was too lenient for a criminal statute, but certainly the term was construed there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2887.101], "stop_times": [2898.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.101}, "reply_to": "20985__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_044", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--It was, Chief Justice Rehnquist, but it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2898.475], "stop_times": [2900.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.475}, "reply_to": "20985__1_043", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_045", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It was construed in a quite limited way, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2900.594], "stop_times": [2903.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.594}, "reply_to": "20985__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_046", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Let me answer it this way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2903.796], "stop_times": [2905.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.796}, "reply_to": "20985__1_045", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_047", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Was it construed, do you think, in a limited way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2905.315], "stop_times": [2907.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.315}, "reply_to": "20985__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_048", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I don't think that the term was actually construed in any particularly limited way in Denver Area.\nI think the Court didn't need to.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2907.698, 2912.052, 2913.419], "stop_times": [2912.052, 2913.419, 2914.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2907.698}, "reply_to": "20985__1_047", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_049", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I thought the Court adhered to Pacifica in... in defining indecency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2914.421], "stop_times": [2919.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.421}, "reply_to": "20985__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__1_050", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I think the Court did refer to Pacifica, Justice Ginsburg.\nPacifica also, itself, stressed that that case did not involve any criminal sanctions at all.\nAn administrative slap on the wrist was what was at issue.\nAnd the Court, three times, said... it was emphasizing that the Court was not upholding a prohibition of even broadcast indecency if it was accompanied by a criminal prohibition.\nThat's what this case does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2919.306, 2921.408, 2927.561, 2930.096, 2941.821], "stop_times": [2921.408, 2927.561, 2930.096, 2941.821, 2943.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2919.306}, "reply_to": "20985__1_049", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_051", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Ennis, you did say in... in your opening that you were going to tell us about a less restrictive, more effective means.\nAnd I was intrigued by that, and I hope, before your time is up, you will be able to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2943.504, 2950.777], "stop_times": [2950.777, 2956.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.504}, "reply_to": "20985__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__1_052", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Yes.\nI'd be very happy to turn to that.\nThe court below found as a fact, at pages 32a to 42a of the appendix to the jurisdictional statement, that there is a broad range of technologies and software programs that enable parents either completely to block all access to the Internet, if the parents are really concerned or, more selectively, to screen and filter access to the Internet if they want to allow their children to have access to certain parts of the Internet but not to others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2956.498, 2958.198, 2960.283], "stop_times": [2958.198, 2960.283, 2992.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.498}, "reply_to": "20985__1_051", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_053", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Those cost money, though, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2992.937], "stop_times": [2994.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2992.937}, "reply_to": "20985__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_054", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Chief Justice Rehnquist, the basic ones don't cost a thing.\nEveryone... all of the 12 million Americans who subscribe to the Internet through the major online service providers get, at no additional cost, the parental control options that all of the major online service providers offer.\nUsing those options, by clicking one box, you can completely prevent all access to the Internet, including to foreign speech on the Internet, which this law will not deter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [2994.539, 2998.491, 3011.232], "stop_times": [2998.491, 3011.232, 3023.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.539}, "reply_to": "20985__1_053", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_055", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "So, there will be no cost involved in any part of this alternative to the parents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3023.808], "stop_times": [3028.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.808}, "reply_to": "20985__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_056", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Not if the listener uses those software programs.\nNo cost at all.\nThere are other software programs, some of which are available for free and some of which cost perhaps $30, which parents can use to filter content in different ways.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3028.027, 3030.979, 3032.029, 3041.52], "stop_times": [3030.979, 3032.029, 3041.52, 3042.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3028.027}, "reply_to": "20985__1_055", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_057", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, Mr. Ennis, the Government says that these programs aren't effective.\nAnd that's pretty much what the District Court concluded, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3042.154, 3046.305], "stop_times": [3046.305, 3050.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.154}, "reply_to": "20985__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20985__1_058", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, with respect, I don't think that's a fair characterization.\nIf you look at page 42a of the joint appendix, the District Court summarized by saying that these were effective, and there was reason to believe they would soon be more widely available.\nEven the Government, if you look at pages 13 and 9 of the Government's reply brief, the Government concedes, at page 13, that parents today, using these software controls, can effectively prevent their children from having access to any indecent speech, including indecent speech posted abroad.\nThe Government's response to that, however, is to say, well, yes, if parents want to be really safe and secure, they can completely protect their children; but that might deprive the children of access to some parts of the Internet they should have access to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3050.209, 3054.327, 3066.385, 3085.382], "stop_times": [3054.327, 3066.385, 3085.382, 3098.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3050.209}, "reply_to": "20985__1_057", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_059", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Ennis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3098.873], "stop_times": [3099.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3098.873}, "reply_to": "20985__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_060", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's not a first amendment problem.\nThat's a parental judgment issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3099.656, 3100.725], "stop_times": [3100.725, 3102.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3099.656}, "reply_to": "20985__1_059", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_061", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Mr. Ennis, so much of your argument is based upon what is currently available.\nYou know, I throw away my computer every 5 years.\nI think most people do.\nThis is an area where change is enormously rapid.\nIs it possible that this statute is unconstitutional today, or was unconstitutional 2 years ago when it was examined on the basis of a record done about 2 years ago, but will be constitutional next week?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3102.558, 3106.546, 3109.831, 3111.264, 3115.485], "stop_times": [3106.546, 3109.831, 3111.264, 3115.485, 3130.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.558}, "reply_to": "20985__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_062", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3130.745], "stop_times": [3131.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3130.745}, "reply_to": "20985__1_061", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_063", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Or next year or in two years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3131.345], "stop_times": [3132.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.345}, "reply_to": "20985__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_064", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Not as it is presently worded, Justice Scalia.\nBecause the way it's worded now, it makes it a crime for a speaker to make available on the Internet speech that would be... to display speech that would be available to a minor.\nAnd even if everybody agreed on a tagging system and even if everyone's computer had a browser that was set to read the tag, the speaker would have no assurance that those browsers were set in that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3132.828, 3135.447, 3145.754], "stop_times": [3135.447, 3145.754, 3158.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3132.828}, "reply_to": "20985__1_063", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_065", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But it depends on the... on the security of the safe harbor.\nAnd how secure the safe harbor is depends so much upon technology, I frankly think that this case depends upon who has the burden of proof.\nI have no way of understanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3158.645, 3165.668, 3173.838], "stop_times": [3165.668, 3173.838, 3176.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.645}, "reply_to": "20985__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_066", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, I'm glad you asked that question, Justice Scalia.\nBecause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3176.207, 3177.807], "stop_times": [3177.807, 3178.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3176.207}, "reply_to": "20985__1_065", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_067", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--what is going to be what.\nNow, who has it?\nThis is a distinctive kind of first amendment statute.\nI don't know that we've ever adjudicated one like this, which... which only prohibits speech which is prohibitable.\nThere's no doubt that you can prevent people from saying these things to minors.\nAnd that's all that is prohibited.\nThe argument is not, as it was in.\nPacifica, you've not only prohibited communications to minors, you've prohibited communications to adults during those viewing hours.\nThat's not the case here.\nThe only thing prohibited is clearly constitutionally prohibitable.\nAnd your argument is, ah, but in prohibiting what is prohibitable, you've done it in such a fashion that you... you needlessly, unnecessarily, effectively prohibit non-prohibitable speech... that is, speech to adults.\nThat's... that's a new case for us.\nAnd I wonder whether it isn't true that you have the burden of proof.\nSo long as the statute only says we're prohibiting these communications to minors, it's your burden to show that, in doing so, you're going to affect adults.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3178.04, 3178.507, 3179.023, 3182.777, 3191.05, 3195.769, 3197.453, 3199.236, 3206.392, 3207.492, 3211.511, 3226.39, 3228.506, 3234.144], "stop_times": [3178.507, 3179.023, 3182.777, 3191.05, 3195.769, 3197.453, 3199.236, 3206.392, 3207.492, 3211.511, 3226.39, 3228.506, 3234.144, 3242.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.04}, "reply_to": "20985__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_068", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Justice Scalia, that was an issue below.\nThe Government conceded the Government had the burden below.\nThat was an issue in the Shea case.\nIn Shea, at 930 F. Supp. 923, the Government concedes that it bears the burden of proving that the display provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3242.565, 3244.351, 3246.501, 3248.136], "stop_times": [3244.351, 3246.501, 3248.136, 3255.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3242.565}, "reply_to": "20985__1_067", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_069", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, we don't... we don't decide cases here on the basis of concessions, Mr. Ennis.\nI mean, that's an independent judgment that we make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3255.307, 3260.111], "stop_times": [3260.111, 3262.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.307}, "reply_to": "20985__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_070", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That's correct, Chief Justice Rehnquist.\nI didn't mean to suggest you'd be bound by the Government's concession.\nI simply want to suggest that the Government has made that concession for very good reason.\nThe Government is attempting to regulate speech that is constitutionally protected for adults and some of which is constitutionally protected for older minors.\nIt bears the burden of justifying that regulation.\nThe Government conceded below and in the Shea case that the display provision, standing alone, is an unconstitutional ban on speech.\nAnd it said that provision is justified because of its argument that speakers could use the affirmative defenses to communicate indecent messages to adults, while shielding those same messages from minors.\nBut the District Court below found as fact that that is not so.\nIt is not technologically possible for the vast majority of Internet speakers to use those affirmative defenses.\nTherefore, this law is a ban on indecent speech in cyberspace.\nReturning to the effectiveness point that Justice Ginsburg asked, it's critical to note here that the court below found as fact that about 40 percent or more of all speech on the Internet is posted abroad in foreign countries.\nAnd that at least 30 percent of all indecent speech in cyberspace is posted abroad in foreign countries.\nThe Government's own expert acknowledged below that the CDA would have no impact on that foreign indecent speech, and that parents would have to rely on parental control technologies to shield their children from that foreign speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3262.979, 3264.596, 3267.615, 3272.085, 3281.441, 3284.309, 3292.831, 3305.805, 3308.841, 3315.494, 3320.731, 3337.193, 3345.78], "stop_times": [3264.596, 3267.615, 3272.085, 3281.441, 3284.309, 3292.831, 3305.805, 3308.841, 3315.494, 3320.731, 3337.193, 3345.78, 3361.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3262.979}, "reply_to": "20985__1_069", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_071", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But if 70 percent is shielded and 30 percent isn't, what kind of an argument is that against the constitutionality of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3361.491], "stop_times": [3368.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3361.491}, "reply_to": "20985__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_072", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "First, Chief Justice Rehnquist, I think it's more like 50/50 today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3368.395], "stop_times": [3371.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3368.395}, "reply_to": "20985__1_071", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_073", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, whatever the situation is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3371.681], "stop_times": [3373.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.681}, "reply_to": "20985__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_074", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, here's why.\nIt's... suppose we were talking about an enormous adult bookstore.\nEverything in the store is indecent.\nAnd the Government says, children can come into this enormous adult bookstore and browse unsupervised, but we're going to remove half the books, half the videos.\nThat would not, directly and materially, advance the Government's interest of protecting those children from access to indecent materials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3373.549, 3374.583, 3380.603, 3382.639, 3393.011], "stop_times": [3374.583, 3380.603, 3382.639, 3393.011, 3400.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3373.549}, "reply_to": "20985__1_073", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_075", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, it would certainly... it would certainly go halfway.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3400.866, 3402.052], "stop_times": [3402.052, 3402.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.866}, "reply_to": "20985__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_076", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3402.535], "stop_times": [3403.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3402.535}, "reply_to": "20985__1_075", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_077", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "What about 500 bookstores, 500 obscene bookstores, and the Government eliminates 250 of them; would that be no progress at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3403.418], "stop_times": [3410.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.418}, "reply_to": "20985__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_078", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--If they're obscene, they can eliminate them all, Justice Scalia.\nWe don't challenge that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3410.456, 3411.324], "stop_times": [3411.324, 3411.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3410.456}, "reply_to": "20985__1_077", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_079", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Never mind obscene... pornographic--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3411.641], "stop_times": [3412.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3411.641}, "reply_to": "20985__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_080", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Pornographic--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3412.558], "stop_times": [3414.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3412.558}, "reply_to": "20985__1_079", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_081", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--succeeds in excluding children from 250 out of 500, that's no use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3414.058], "stop_times": [3419.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.058}, "reply_to": "20985__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_082", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Justice Scalia, the way the Internet works, a child using a search engine can sit down at their typewriter and they type in, if they want to go somewhere... and it's important to stress that in cyberspace, listeners must affirmatively choose where they want to go.\nThe Government's expert testified that the odds are slim that a child would come across a sexually explicit site by accident.\nBut if a child wants to go to an indecent site, the child sits down and types in something like \"triple-X sex\".\nIf that home computer is not using parental control software, that search engine will go out there in the world and list the triple-X sites that are available.\nAll the triple-X sites that are foreign will be listed there.\nThe kid then clicks the mouse, and they have access to all the indecent speech they could possibly want to see.\nThe Government's interest here was not limiting children to 50 four-letter words a day instead of 100.\nThe Government's interest was protecting children from access to indecent speech at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3419.378, 3436.189, 3443.093, 3449.897, 3460.872, 3464.574, 3470.495, 3478.416], "stop_times": [3436.189, 3443.093, 3449.897, 3460.872, 3464.574, 3470.495, 3478.416, 3483.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3419.378}, "reply_to": "20985__1_081", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_083", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Does this statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3483.135], "stop_times": [3484.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3483.135}, "reply_to": "20985__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__1_084", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And this Act would be completely ineffective in achieving that goal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3484.07], "stop_times": [3486.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3484.07}, "reply_to": "20985__1_083", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_085", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Does this statute, with respect to foreign speech, prohibit United States users to post information that goes abroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3486.403], "stop_times": [3496.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3486.403}, "reply_to": "20985__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__1_086", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It doesn't specifically address that question at all, Justice Kennedy.\nWhich is a big problem.\nBecause there was evidence in the record below that if this law were upheld, so that it completely suppressed all indecent speech by all domestic speakers, it would be very simple for commercial purveyors of sexually explicit speech to move all of their operations abroad.\nAnd they don't even have to do that.\nUsing a dedicated computer here, they can post the messages here.\nIt goes to a foreign computer, an anonymous re-mailer, and that speech then comes back to this country.\nIt seems, to all intents and purposes, it comes from a foreign country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3496.128, 3499.08, 3500.096, 3519.374, 3520.826, 3523.861, 3528.932], "stop_times": [3499.08, 3500.096, 3519.374, 3520.826, 3523.861, 3528.932, 3532.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3496.128}, "reply_to": "20985__1_085", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_087", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Why, just out of curiosity, is it not applicable to messages that emanate from abroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3532.134], "stop_times": [3537.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3532.134}, "reply_to": "20985__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__1_088", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It's not applicable, Your Honor, because, first of all, as a practical matter, the Government would not have personal jurisdiction over foreign speakers, and could not realistically expect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3537.705], "stop_times": [3548.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3537.705}, "reply_to": "20985__1_087", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_089", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, I mean if they came here.\nSuppose they came here, they have assets here, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3548.643, 3549.345], "stop_times": [3549.345, 3552.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3548.643}, "reply_to": "20985__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__1_090", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, there may be one or two or 10 or 20 applications--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3552.964], "stop_times": [3555.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3552.964}, "reply_to": "20985__1_089", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_091", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Is it totally practically or is there some legal reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3555.499], "stop_times": [3557.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3555.499}, "reply_to": "20985__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20985__1_092", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, there are also legal reasons, Your Honor.\nThis Court has indicated... and Justice Scalia's opinion for the... that there are two canons of statutory construction that are relevant here.\nThe first is... the first canon is that you do not presume that a domestic law is intended to have extraterritorial effect.\nSecond, even if it is, you do not presume that it does apply extraterritorially if that would create a conflict with the laws of foreign countries.\nAnd the Government's own expert testified in this case that there are many foreign countries in which the law that's considered criminally indecent here would be perfectly lawful.\nSo there would be that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3557.082, 3558.868, 3567.324, 3576.263, 3583.917, 3591.839], "stop_times": [3558.868, 3567.324, 3576.263, 3583.917, 3591.839, 3592.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3557.082}, "reply_to": "20985__1_091", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_093", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "So Congress could cure this constitutional defect as you see it simply by making it clear that the law applied everywhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3592.805], "stop_times": [3598.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3592.805}, "reply_to": "20985__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_094", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--No, it wouldn't cure the second problem, Your Honor, because that would then be a conflict with the laws of those many foreign countries--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3598.843], "stop_times": [3604.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3598.843}, "reply_to": "20985__1_093", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_095", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, but supposing the Congress said we don't care if there's a conflict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3604.397], "stop_times": [3606.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3604.397}, "reply_to": "20985__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_096", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, Congress could violate that standard of statutory interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3606.782], "stop_times": [3610.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3606.782}, "reply_to": "20985__1_095", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_097", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, when Congress expressly provides something, it's not violating a standard of statutory interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3610.634], "stop_times": [3616.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3610.634}, "reply_to": "20985__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_098", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Your Honor, I... I agree that Congress could have drafted a much different statute than the one it drafted.\nIt could have drafted a statute that did not apply at all to noncommercial speakers.\nIt did not.\nIt could have drafted a statute that only applied to visual images, not just four-letter words.\nIt could have drafted a statute that was, in many respects, narrower than the statute at issue here.\nIt could have limited it to prurient speech that lacked serious value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3616.99, 3623.477, 3633.249, 3629.047, 3634.432, 3639.32], "stop_times": [3623.477, 3633.249, 3629.047, 3634.432, 3639.32, 3642.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3616.99}, "reply_to": "20985__1_097", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_099", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But I'm talking about broader statute.\nA broader statute, in that respect, saying that it was all over the world that it applied, would cure this one constitutional defect that you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3642.705, 3643.974], "stop_times": [3643.974, 3653.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3642.705}, "reply_to": "20985__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_100", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It would take care of that defect.\nBut that's not the statute we have before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3653.346, 3656.198], "stop_times": [3656.198, 3657.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3653.346}, "reply_to": "20985__1_099", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_101", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, I'm not sure.\nWhile I certainly agree that normally statutes are not interpreted to be extraterritorial, I don't know that we've ever had a case in which it has been asserted that the difference between the constitutionality and unconstitutionality of the statute is whether it is extraterritorial.\nI think if the only way to make it constitutional is to interpret it as being extraterritorial, I'm not sure that we wouldn't say, well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3657.865, 3658.248, 3676.009], "stop_times": [3658.248, 3676.009, 3681.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3657.865}, "reply_to": "20985__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_102", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Justice Scalia, this is not that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3681.747], "stop_times": [3683.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3681.747}, "reply_to": "20985__1_101", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_103", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I mean if that's your only argument, I'm saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3683.115], "stop_times": [3685.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3683.115}, "reply_to": "20985__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_104", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It's not... it's not the only argument.\nIt's not the only argument at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3685.065, 3685.717], "stop_times": [3685.717, 3687.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3685.065}, "reply_to": "20985__1_103", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_105", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I think it's a pretty weak argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3687.367], "stop_times": [3689.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3687.367}, "reply_to": "20985__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_106", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But it's not the only argument at all, Justice Scalia.\nOur argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3689.503, 3691.288], "stop_times": [3691.288, 3692.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3689.503}, "reply_to": "20985__1_105", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_107", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I thought you were making the point that it would be ineffective because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3692.621], "stop_times": [3695.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3692.621}, "reply_to": "20985__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__1_108", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3695.507], "stop_times": [3696.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3695.507}, "reply_to": "20985__1_107", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_109", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--but not unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3696.323], "stop_times": [3699.125], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3696.323}, "reply_to": "20985__1_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20985__1_110", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It would be ineffective for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3699.125], "stop_times": [3699.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3699.125}, "reply_to": "20985__1_109", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_111", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3699.692], "stop_times": [3700.061], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3699.692}, "reply_to": "20985__1_110", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20985__1_112", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But even if... excuse me, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3700.061], "stop_times": [3701.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3700.061}, "reply_to": "20985__1_111", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_113", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--you did bring up an interesting point.\nAre there other nations that have regulated indecent speech in cyberspace?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3701.294, 3703.013], "stop_times": [3703.013, 3710.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3701.294}, "reply_to": "20985__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__1_114", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Not that I know of, Justice Ginsburg.\nThere may be.\nBut there are other nations that have attempted to regulate the content of speech in cyberspace.\nChina attempts to regulate speech that's critical of the Chinese Government.\nIt's not inconceivable that Iran might attempt to regulate speech that's critical of religious--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3710.682, 3713.034, 3714.151, 3719.455, 3723.157], "stop_times": [3713.034, 3714.151, 3719.455, 3723.157, 3727.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3710.682}, "reply_to": "20985__1_113", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_115", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "And might want to control the world with respect to that, to rule the world with respect to the kind of speech that that nation doesn't like?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3727.878], "stop_times": [3735.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3727.878}, "reply_to": "20985__1_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20985__1_116", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think... in fact, the Chamber... U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in this case, criticizing this law for precisely that reason... that this law sends precisely the wrong signal.\nThat it is appropriate for governments, in their own interest, to ban whatever speech they want to ban from a global medium, which will cripple the competitiveness of U.S. business in competing in this increasingly important business--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3735.484, 3747.089], "stop_times": [3747.089, 3760.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3735.484}, "reply_to": "20985__1_115", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_117", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I suppose we better let obscenity in, too, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3760.015], "stop_times": [3762.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3760.015}, "reply_to": "20985__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_118", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3762.317], "stop_times": [3762.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3762.317}, "reply_to": "20985__1_117", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_119", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's just the point.\nIf that's a global principle--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3762.817, 3763.801], "stop_times": [3763.801, 3765.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3762.817}, "reply_to": "20985__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_120", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I don't think obscenity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3765.269], "stop_times": [3766.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3765.269}, "reply_to": "20985__1_119", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_121", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Right.\n--if we shouldn't ban stuff that we don't like, it would apply to obscenity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3766.453, 3766.853], "stop_times": [3766.853, 3768.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3766.453}, "reply_to": "20985__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_122", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--I don't think obscenity is considered appropriate or lawful speech in any country that I'm aware of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3768.955], "stop_times": [3774.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3768.955}, "reply_to": "20985__1_121", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_123", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, but I do think it's a weak argument to say that the United States, if it has a strong public policy, cannot lead the way, and maybe other nations would follow.\nI think your argument is... is not your strongest argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3774.109, 3781.446], "stop_times": [3781.446, 3784.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3774.109}, "reply_to": "20985__1_122", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__1_124", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "No, that's not our strongest argument.\nOur strongest argument, Justice Kennedy, is that this law will have the unconstitutional effect of banning indecent speech from adults in all of cyberspace.\nFor 40 years, this Court has repeatedly and unanimously ruled that Government cannot constitutionally reduce the adult population to reading and viewing only what is appropriate for children.\nThat is what this law does.\nIn Sable, this Court, in the telephone context, struck down a law that had precisely that effect.\nIt banned telephone indecent speech.\nAnd that had the unlawful effect of banning that speech from adults, as well as from minors.\nThis Court unanimously struck that down.\nAnd to answer Justice Breyer's question about telephone, I do not believe it is a crime in this country today for private persons, including private teenagers, to communicate indecent speech by telephone.\nIt would be a crime to communicate exactly the same speech under the CDA.\nSo, returning, the principal arguments we have is that this is a ban on adult speech.\nIt is not going to be effective, for the reasons I've expressed, about all of the foreign indecent speech.\nAnd even if it were effective, there are less-restrictive alternatives that enable parents, completely, to decide what they think is appropriate for their 17-year-old, as opposed to their 16-year-old.\nUnder this law, there is no parental choice.\nThe Government decides what's appropriate for all 17-year-olds.\nA parent who disagrees with the Government cannot, through the Internet, gain access to speech, safer sex information, very similar to the information at issue in the Bolger case.\nThat parent would have no opportunity, using the Internet, to make that speech available to the parent's 17-year-old child.\nAnd even worse than the hypothetical you asked, Justice Souter, about the 2 years in jail, for a parent to send an indecent E-mail message to the parent's 17-year-old college freshman son or daughter.\nThat's a direct transmission, not just a permitting the use.\nThe parent would... would be committing a criminal act to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3784.648, 3786.249, 3800.224, 3811.798, 3813.817, 3820.571, 3823.773, 3828.743, 3830.695, 3842.753, 3847.907, 3852.875, 3858.596, 3871.086, 3873.455, 3877.057, 3886.948, 3893.619, 3910.73, 3913.865], "stop_times": [3786.249, 3800.224, 3811.798, 3813.817, 3820.571, 3823.773, 3828.743, 3830.695, 3842.753, 3847.907, 3852.875, 3858.596, 3871.086, 3873.455, 3877.057, 3886.948, 3893.619, 3910.73, 3913.865, 3916.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3784.648}, "reply_to": "20985__1_123", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_125", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Ennis, do you think it would be constitutional to require all transmitters to tag their material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3916.801], "stop_times": [3922.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3916.801}, "reply_to": "20985__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__1_126", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, I think it would raise significant compelled speech questions, Justice Stevens.\nWhether it be constitutional or not, I don't know.\nBut even if that were required, that would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3922.288, 3927.609, 3929.759], "stop_times": [3927.609, 3929.759, 3931.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3922.288}, "reply_to": "20985__1_125", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_127", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "If it's not, then that's not a less-restrictive alternative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3931.911], "stop_times": [3933.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3931.911}, "reply_to": "20985__1_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__1_128", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Well, it wouldn't be a less-restrictive alternative under the way this law is worded.\nBecause this law makes it a crime to make speech available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3933.929, 3938.381], "stop_times": [3938.381, 3941.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3933.929}, "reply_to": "20985__1_127", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_129", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "No, I'm assuming you just start from scratch, with a law that requires that as the principal means of screening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3941.267], "stop_times": [3945.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3941.267}, "reply_to": "20985__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20985__1_130", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I think... I think what would be constitutional is what this Court found would be constitutional in Denver Area.\nAnd that is encouraging, facilitating parents to use the parental control options that are readily available to them right now.\nIf parents use the software tools they have, they can block or screen all indecent speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3945.071, 3949.955, 3959.044], "stop_times": [3949.955, 3959.044, 3964.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3945.071}, "reply_to": "20985__1_129", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_131", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Nothing with any teeth in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3964.465], "stop_times": [3965.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3964.465}, "reply_to": "20985__1_130", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_132", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, you could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3965.734], "stop_times": [3967.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3965.734}, "reply_to": "20985__1_131", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_133", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "They're not readily available without labelling.\nThat's the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3967.167, 3968.852], "stop_times": [3968.852, 3969.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3967.167}, "reply_to": "20985__1_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_134", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--No, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3969.536], "stop_times": [3969.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3969.536}, "reply_to": "20985__1_133", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_135", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Without tagging.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3969.769], "stop_times": [3970.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3969.769}, "reply_to": "20985__1_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_136", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--That's wrong, Justice Scalia.\nRight now... I'm a parent.\nI subscribe to one of the major online service providers.\nI clicked the kid's only box.\nAnd that means my child does not have any access to the Internet unless I'm there to supervise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3970.302, 3971.452, 3973.404, 3975.756, 3977.792], "stop_times": [3971.452, 3973.404, 3975.756, 3977.792, 3983.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3970.302}, "reply_to": "20985__1_135", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_137", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Does the Government have any interest in protecting children who do not have parents available in the home or do not have adequate parental supervision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3983.177], "stop_times": [3991.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3983.177}, "reply_to": "20985__1_136", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20985__1_138", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy, we do not dispute that the Government has a legitimate interest in protecting some children from some forms of speech that could be found indecent.\nBut the problem with this law is, in order to achieve that objective, it completely bans all of that speech from adults and also bans it from the substantial portion of minors who themselves have first amendment rights, under Bolger and Erznoznik, to have access to the banned speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [3991.849, 4002.823], "stop_times": [4002.823, 4019.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3991.849}, "reply_to": "20985__1_137", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_139", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Ennis, if I had to be present whenever my 16-year-old is on the Internet, I would know less about this case than I know today.\n[Laughter]\nThat is simply not a realistic possibility... to tell every parent, if you're worried about it, just don't let your teenager use the Internet unless you're there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4019.702, 4027.439, 4028.141], "stop_times": [4027.439, 4028.141, 4036.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4019.702}, "reply_to": "20985__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_140", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's the point, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4036.746], "stop_times": [4038.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4036.746}, "reply_to": "20985__1_139", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_141", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's not reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4038.246], "stop_times": [4038.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4038.246}, "reply_to": "20985__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20985__1_142", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "That's the point.\nThe parental control devices that are available on the Internet are more effective than any control devices available for broadcast TV, cable or telephone, because the parents don't have to be there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4038.563, 4038.913], "stop_times": [4038.913, 4050.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4038.563}, "reply_to": "20985__1_141", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_143", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ennis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4050.369], "stop_times": [4051.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4050.369}, "reply_to": "20985__1_142", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__1_144", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4051.721], "stop_times": [4052.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4051.721}, "reply_to": "20985__1_143", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20985__1_145", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Mr. Waxman, you have a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4052.987], "stop_times": [4055.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4052.987}, "reply_to": "20985__1_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__2_000", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I have five points.\nI will try and make them very quickly.\nThe burden of proof... this is an act of Congress that's being challenged on its face... the burden of proof, under long precedent, is with the party challenging it.\nThat's verified by Federal Rule of Evidence 301, and this Court's precedence in Walters and Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Center.\nWith respect to the classification burden on the Carnegie Library, this Court's precedence in the obscenity context have indicated that there is no obligation for the Carnegie Library to read every one of its books in order to decide it has to be classified.\nIn order to prove a criminal case, we have to prove that the defendant actually knew the content.\nSo the Carnegie Library only has to do what it has to do under its local ordinance, which is take the indecent stuff and put it in a different room.\nThis is the electronic equivalent of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4055.006, 4056.958, 4058.208, 4066.663, 4073.9, 4087.144, 4093.631, 4101.669], "stop_times": [4056.958, 4058.208, 4066.663, 4073.9, 4087.144, 4093.631, 4101.669, 4103.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4055.006}, "reply_to": "20985__1_145", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__2_001", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "But that's' not true under the display... that's not true under the display provision here, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4103.938], "stop_times": [4108.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4103.938}, "reply_to": "20985__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__2_002", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "It is true under the display provision.\nThat is, if they find that they have certain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4108.057, 4110.009], "stop_times": [4110.009, 4112.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4108.057}, "reply_to": "20985__2_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__2_003", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I thought that was not a knowing offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4112.109], "stop_times": [4113.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4112.109}, "reply_to": "20985__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__2_004", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4113.544], "stop_times": [4115.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4113.544}, "reply_to": "20985__2_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__2_005", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "The display provision is not a knowing offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4115.327], "stop_times": [4117.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4115.327}, "reply_to": "20985__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20985__2_006", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "Well, you have to knowingly display it.\nAnd it, in the context... if I may just finish this point... it, in the context of this Court's decisions in the patently offensive prong of the obscenity context, has said that whatever the standard of proof, whatever the scienter is, you may not, as a constitutional matter, convict somebody unless you prove not that they knew that it was pornographic, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4117.595, 4119.948], "stop_times": [4119.948, 4147.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4117.595}, "reply_to": "20985__2_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__2_007", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "I think you've... I think you've... Mr. Waxman, I think you've answered the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4147.432], "stop_times": [4149.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4147.432}, "reply_to": "20985__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20985__2_008", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4149.182], "stop_times": [4149.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4149.182}, "reply_to": "20985__2_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20985__2_009", "conversation_id": "20985", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-511", "start_times": [4149.682], "stop_times": [4150.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4149.682}, "reply_to": "20985__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_000", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 94-1455, Janet Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, and George Price v. Bossier Parish School Board.\nHow do you pronounce the name of this parish, do you know, Mr. Patrick?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [0.0, 20.546], "stop_times": [20.546, 35.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_001", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "It... we... it is usually referred to and has been in the litigation as Bossier Parish, but in Louisiana it's Bossier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [35.305], "stop_times": [42.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 35.305}, "reply_to": "19804__0_000", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_002", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Bossier, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [42.782], "stop_times": [44.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 42.782}, "reply_to": "19804__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_003", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And if you say Bossier... if you say Bossier in the course of this I'll probably be confused, so if you say Bossier it would be helpful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [44.442], "stop_times": [50.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 44.442}, "reply_to": "19804__0_002", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_004", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "You would think in French it would be Bossier rather than Bossier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [50.636], "stop_times": [53.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 50.636}, "reply_to": "19804__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_005", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Bossier, oui.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [53.358], "stop_times": [55.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 53.358}, "reply_to": "19804__0_004", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_006", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Very well, Mr. Patrick--\n[Laughter]\n--you may proceed, whatever the name of the parish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [55.11, 60.954, 58.282], "stop_times": [60.954, 58.282, 62.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 55.11}, "reply_to": "19804__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_007", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Allez-y.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [62.203], "stop_times": [63.095], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 62.203}, "reply_to": "19804__0_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19804__0_008", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Oui.\nAllons.\nThank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Bossier Parish School Board adopted the redistricting plan at issue in this case with a discriminatory purpose, plain and simple, and in finding otherwise, the district court ignored evidence that this Court has required fact-finders to consider since its decision in the Arlington Heights case, evidence of racial block voting and of the recent history of discrimination in voting and otherwise in Bossier Parish, evidence that was undisputed, indeed was stipulated below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [63.095, 63.965, 65.165, 69.238], "stop_times": [63.965, 65.165, 69.238, 99.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 63.095}, "reply_to": "19804__0_007", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_009", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Patrick, when you say the district court ignored the evidence, you don't mean that it excluded it as a matter of admission of evidence, but just that it refused to take it into consideration in making its conclusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [99.048], "stop_times": [110.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.048}, "reply_to": "19804__0_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_010", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Frankly, Mr. Chief Justice, it's very hard to say.\nThere was not an evidentiary ruling in the classic sense, in... because all of the evidence came into the record by way of stipulation without objection by the parties, but what is plain is that the court did not even mention the Arlington Heights case or the Arlington Heights standards, and in one point in the decision went so far as to say that it would not expressly consider the evidence of the history of discrimination in the school board, and when you... excuse me, Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [110.125, 112.526], "stop_times": [112.526, 143.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 110.125}, "reply_to": "19804__0_009", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_011", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "If it came in by stipulation, or it's not an evidentiary point, really, it's an argument that the court's refusal to take it into consideration makes its findings clearly erroneous or wrong as a matter of law, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [143.197], "stop_times": [155.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.197}, "reply_to": "19804__0_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_012", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well, as a matter of law in the first instance, Your Honor, because under Arlington Heights, which requires that in making a determination of purposeful discrimination that the court take into account the totality of the circumstances, and where Rogers v. Lodge has said that this specific kind of evidence is important to a determination of purposeful discrimination, we argue in the first instance that there was a violation of... that there is a legal error and, indeed, when you take--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [155.995], "stop_times": [180.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.995}, "reply_to": "19804__0_011", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_013", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--How do we know that they didn't take that into account?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [180.911], "stop_times": [183.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.911}, "reply_to": "19804__0_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_014", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Because they did not, in the first instance, even cite the Arlington Heights precedent.\nThey did not indicate what standard was being used in the... if you look at the analysis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [183.463, 189.906], "stop_times": [189.906, 194.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.463}, "reply_to": "19804__0_013", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_015", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I'm talking about particular evidence.\nWhat particular evidence do you maintain they did not take account of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [194.652, 196.031], "stop_times": [196.031, 201.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.652}, "reply_to": "19804__0_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_016", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [201.435], "stop_times": [201.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.435}, "reply_to": "19804__0_015", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_017", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--and how do you know that they didn't take account of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [201.925], "stop_times": [203.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.925}, "reply_to": "19804__0_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_018", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--There are two kinds of evidence that bends to the question, Your Honor, about how we know they didn't take account of it.\nFirst of all, the evidence of racial bloc voting.\nThis is a community where the parties have stipulated that 80 percent of the voters in the parish will not vote for a candidate of a race different than them.\nThat is stipulated at 122a of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [203.886, 208.96, 211.682, 221.089], "stop_times": [208.96, 211.682, 221.089, 224.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 203.886}, "reply_to": "19804__0_017", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_019", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But didn't the... I mean, the response that's made by the appellee here is that the court... that all that that would prove is that therefore, since there was bloc voting, it would advantage the black voters if there were majority black districting, but didn't the court assume that to be true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [224.001], "stop_times": [245.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.001}, "reply_to": "19804__0_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_020", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [245.413, 246.174], "stop_times": [246.174, 246.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.413}, "reply_to": "19804__0_019", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_021", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "It didn't assume that... I thought it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [246.825], "stop_times": [248.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.825}, "reply_to": "19804__0_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_022", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I... excuse me.\nDid you... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [248.105, 248.395], "stop_times": [248.395, 248.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.105}, "reply_to": "19804__0_021", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_023", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Yes.\nI thought that the court's discussion just takes as a given that it would be to the benefit of the blacks if they had a majority-minority district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [248.966, 249.547], "stop_times": [249.547, 259.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.966}, "reply_to": "19804__0_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_024", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I'm not sure that we can fairly assume that from the district court's opinion.\nWhat the district court said is that evidence of this kind is relevant to section 2, there's no question about that.\nBut we contend, and Arlington Heights supports us, that it is independently relevant to the question of purposeful discrimination.\nThere is no evidence, in fact, on this record which is relevant to the one question, the section 2 question, but not relevant to the purpose determination in the case and, indeed, the court expressly refused in its opinion at 34a, footnote 18, the evidence that the board itself was in violation of the Federal desegregation order with respect to the schools, so that when you take into account the evidence that was excluded and the... both the racial bloc voting and the history of discrimination, all of which is stipulated and uncontested below, and you think... and you consider that in light of the other evidence that was considered, that the plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [259.993, 263.235, 269.629, 276.133], "stop_times": [263.235, 269.629, 276.133, 313.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.993}, "reply_to": "19804__0_023", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_025", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, the evidence wasn't so much excluded as not considered--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [313.487], "stop_times": [315.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.487}, "reply_to": "19804__0_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_026", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [315.858], "stop_times": [316.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.858}, "reply_to": "19804__0_025", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_027", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--in the technical sense here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [316.639], "stop_times": [317.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.639}, "reply_to": "19804__0_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_028", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I think that's fair to say.\nWhen I think of excluded as a trial lawyer I think of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [317.631, 318.041], "stop_times": [318.041, 321.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.631}, "reply_to": "19804__0_027", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_029", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Evidentiary rule, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [321.203], "stop_times": [323.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 321.203}, "reply_to": "19804__0_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_030", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Of a rule of evidence... that's right, and because all of the stipulations came into the record without objection on relevance or any other grounds, I think Your Honor is right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [323.675], "stop_times": [334.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.675}, "reply_to": "19804__0_029", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_031", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Has this Court applied Arlington Heights in a section 5 determination, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [334.992], "stop_times": [340.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.992}, "reply_to": "19804__0_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__0_032", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "What this Court has done--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [340.756], "stop_times": [342.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 340.756}, "reply_to": "19804__0_031", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_033", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I thought we had not, but what do you rely on for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [342.218], "stop_times": [346.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.218}, "reply_to": "19804__0_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__0_034", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I rely on Rogers v. Lodge, which is a... which, as you know, is a case where the court has said that the Arlington Heights factors are probative of the judgment about whether there's purposeful discrimination under the Voting Rights Act.\nI think what is key in your analysis and consideration of this case is that you bear in mind all of the facts, as Arlington Heights requires, all of the facts and circumstances known to the board at the time, and ask yourself, does it add up?\nThis is a plan, you understand, that is against the school board's own interests, both its districting and its governance interests.\nThis is a school board that is typically concerned about distributing the schools among the school districts, and yet adopted a plan that has some school districts with no schools in it at all.\nThat is stipulated at 112a and 73a of the record.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [346.35, 358.136, 374.97, 382.957, 392.911, 396.685], "stop_times": [358.136, 374.97, 382.957, 392.911, 396.685, 397.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.35}, "reply_to": "19804__0_033", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_035", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Patrick, would you clarify for me what you think the legal standard is before we go much further into the argument?\nThat is, we know that the effect, what they call the effect problem of section 5 is about retrogression.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [397.205, 405.531], "stop_times": [405.531, 411.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.205}, "reply_to": "19804__0_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__0_036", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [411.755], "stop_times": [412.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.755}, "reply_to": "19804__0_035", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_037", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "What does the purpose... what does it mean?\nWhat does the statute mean when it says, shall not have the purpose of denying the right to vote on account of race?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [412.606, 416.668], "stop_times": [416.668, 422.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.606}, "reply_to": "19804__0_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__0_038", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "We take that to mean that the factors... that the school board has to show a nondiscriminatory purpose within the meaning of Arlington Heights by taking into account the totality of the circumstances, looking at the actions and inactions in this case of the school board, in reaching the conclusion they did, all the facts and circumstances known to the board at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [422.762], "stop_times": [442.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.762}, "reply_to": "19804__0_037", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_039", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And that it has the burden of proof on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [442.646], "stop_times": [445.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.646}, "reply_to": "19804__0_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__0_040", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "That's right.\nI was saying that the... about the plan that they did adopt that this is a plan which it is conceded does not respect school attendance zones.\nThat's also stipulated in this record, at 112a.\nIt pits incumbents against each other.\nThe way the district court put it was that it wreaks havoc on incumbent... incumbency.\nThat's 28a in the court's opinion.\nAbout half of the parish was placed in one district.\nThat's also at 120a, and in other places it fractures neighborhoods, 110a to 111a.\nThese are all stipulated facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [445.699, 446.627, 457.864, 460.726, 463.698, 467.802, 470.063, 473.815, 479.369], "stop_times": [446.627, 457.864, 460.726, 463.698, 467.802, 470.063, 473.815, 479.369, 480.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.699}, "reply_to": "19804__0_039", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_041", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Patrick, would it have been open or was it open at the district court to accept all of this and say, look, all of this evidence does point in the direction of intent to discriminate, but there's a piece of counterevidence here and that is, the moment at which the board seemed to turn around and suddenly embrace the police district plan, which it did not originally want, was the moment at which it became apparent that there was going to be a fight about this.\nIt was the moment following the NAACP's submission, I think, of a couple of plans.\nAnd it is findable on this record that what the board wanted to do was to avoid 7 years of litigation, and basically the board said, look, we'll take peace, even though we don't like the way we're getting it.\nWe'll take peace with all of these defects.\nIf that was the court's reasoning process, would that have been clearly erroneous, or, indeed, was that clearly erroneous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [480.891, 509.419, 514.309, 529.541, 533.094], "stop_times": [509.419, 514.309, 529.541, 533.094, 540.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.891}, "reply_to": "19804__0_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__0_042", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "It was clearly erroneous.\nIt's not entirely clear that that was the court's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [540.421, 542.371], "stop_times": [542.371, 544.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.421}, "reply_to": "19804__0_041", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_043", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I realize that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [544.642], "stop_times": [545.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.642}, "reply_to": "19804__0_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__0_044", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--the court's reasoning.\nWhat the court said was that it might be a legitimate reason to seek easy preclearance.\nWhat Your Honor's question implies is that the reason was that they wanted to avoid a controversy with the black citizens, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [545.252, 545.863, 552.086], "stop_times": [545.863, 552.086, 559.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.252}, "reply_to": "19804__0_043", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_045", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, they wanted to avoid litigation, and they could see it coming.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [559.681], "stop_times": [562.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.681}, "reply_to": "19804__0_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__0_046", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--If that's what it was.\nI do think Your Honor is right that the process and the sequence of events leading up to the decision is extremely telling and, indeed, Arlington Heights requires that that be considered as well.\nThis was a process that was undertaken more than 3 years before they needed the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [562.113, 564.184, 573.59], "stop_times": [564.184, 573.59, 579.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.113}, "reply_to": "19804__0_045", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_047", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "So if we didn't have the process and the sequence, if we just had a lazy school board that said, oh, the police jury got this plan, and it was precleared, so we'll take it with all its faults, if it hadn't been that, would this... would it have been okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [579.093], "stop_times": [597.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.093}, "reply_to": "19804__0_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__0_048", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I think it would be a very different case.\nClearly, the... that's not the case we have here, because we have a board that expected to draw a plan different from the police jury plan at the outset.\nThat is stipulated, too, as well in the record and, indeed, we have a board that had a different plan from the police jury for a decade or more before they were faced with the redistricting considerations.\nThis is a board that hired a cartographer with the expectation he would spend 200... 250 hours drawing a plan different from the police jury and went about that at a leisurely pace for over a year.\nEverything changed when the black citizens came forward and asked that they be fairly represented in the districting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [597.776, 600.428, 609.064, 621.923, 634.672], "stop_times": [600.428, 609.064, 621.923, 634.672, 640.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.776}, "reply_to": "19804__0_047", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_049", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Are you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [640.816], "stop_times": [641.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.816}, "reply_to": "19804__0_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19804__0_050", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [641.184], "stop_times": [641.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.184}, "reply_to": "19804__0_049", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_051", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Are you certain that the district court here meant to exclude evidence that he called relevant to the section 2, meant to... was he saying, I'm not even going to consider that when I think about whether section 5 is violated, or is he saying, you can't build a section 5 case out of only that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [641.734], "stop_times": [661.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.734}, "reply_to": "19804__0_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19804__0_052", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, we're certainly not contending that you can build a section 5 out of only... section 5 case out of only that, but frankly there is no way to understand the district court's opinion by saying that it won't consider for section 5 purposes evidence that's relevant to section 2 on a record where all of the evidence is relevant both to section 2 and section 5, as other than... meaning the purpose prong of section 5 as other than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [661.307], "stop_times": [687.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.307}, "reply_to": "19804__0_051", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_053", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "What is the evidence... and this was what Justice Scalia asked at the very first, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [687.944], "stop_times": [693.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.944}, "reply_to": "19804__0_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__0_054", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [693.079], "stop_times": [693.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.079}, "reply_to": "19804__0_053", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_055", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I wasn't sure that you completed your answer, and it's relevant to what you're discussing now with Justice Breyer.\nWhat is the evidence, other than bloc voting, that should have been considered and that was not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [693.55, 697.641], "stop_times": [697.641, 703.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.55}, "reply_to": "19804__0_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__0_056", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "That no black person had ever been elected to the school board.\nThat's stipulated at 115a.\nThat there had never been more than one black member of the police jury.\nThat's in the joint appendix at 55 to 60.\nThat blacks had rarely been elected anywhere in the parish at the time.\nThat's stipulated at 127a----", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [703.095, 707.949, 709.489, 712.672, 715.233, 719.185], "stop_times": [707.949, 709.489, 712.672, 715.233, 719.185, 721.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.095}, "reply_to": "19804__0_055", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_057", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Those are all subsidiary elements of the bloc voting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [721.107], "stop_times": [723.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.107}, "reply_to": "19804__0_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__0_058", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--That's right, and then in terms of the history of discrimination, at the time of the decision this board was in violation of its duty to redress school segregation under Brown.\nThat was noted by the district court, to be sure, in footnote 2 of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [723.069, 731.525], "stop_times": [731.525, 735.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.069}, "reply_to": "19804__0_057", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_059", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "All right.\nSo again, most of these things are in the record.\nIt's just not clear that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [735.278, 735.706, 737.228], "stop_times": [735.706, 737.228, 738.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.278}, "reply_to": "19804__0_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__0_060", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well, they're all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [738.657], "stop_times": [739.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.657}, "reply_to": "19804__0_059", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_061", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--district court weighed them in a section 2 context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [739.268], "stop_times": [741.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.268}, "reply_to": "19804__0_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__0_062", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--They're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [741.061], "stop_times": [741.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.061}, "reply_to": "19804__0_061", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_063", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Is that a fair statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [741.41], "stop_times": [743.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.41}, "reply_to": "19804__0_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__0_064", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--You're right that they're all in the record, Justice Kennedy, there's no question about that.\nWhat is apparent, however, is that the district court was not taking them into account as is required by Arlington Heights in making its judgment about purposeful discrimination.\nAnd with respect to the history of discrimination, remember, this is a school board that stipulated on the record that segregation has increased since the court... since they've been under Federal court order and, indeed, that they were assigning teachers to schools on racial grounds.\nThis is a... the district court said expressly in footnote 18 of its opinion that it would not consider evidence that the board itself was in violation of its duties under the Federal court order to desegregate the schools.\nThat's the evidence that was not considered.\nThat is the evidence that should have been considered under the Arlington Heights standard, and if you add to that, and I'm going to come back to the sequence issues in just a moment, but if you add to that that this is a school board that came before the United States district court, to say nothing of the Attorney General, and urged false reasons... false reasons for why it was... why it made the decision it did, I... we submit that a jurisdiction with a clean, nondiscriminatory motive does not come to the United States District Court and urge false reasons, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [743.773, 747.874, 756.57, 770.39, 786.66, 789.361], "stop_times": [747.874, 756.57, 770.39, 786.66, 789.361, 821.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.773}, "reply_to": "19804__0_063", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_065", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Patrick, here's what footnote 18 says.\nIt seems to me entirely reasonable.\nDefendant mentions the continuing duty of the--\n--Where are you reading?\nIt's on page 34a of the appendix to the jurisdictional statement.\nDefendant mentions the continuing duty of the school board to\n\"remedy any remaining vestiges of the dual school system under the order in Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Board, citing in particular the school board's failure to maintain a biracial committee. \"\n\"We fail to see how this can be in any way related to the school board's purpose in adopting the police jury plan. \"\nI don't... that seems to me quite reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [821.703, 824.146, 825.586, 828.177, 828.818, 833.611, 837.403, 848.429, 855.986], "stop_times": [824.146, 825.586, 828.177, 828.818, 833.611, 837.403, 848.429, 855.986, 861.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.703}, "reply_to": "19804__0_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_066", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [861.329], "stop_times": [863.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.329}, "reply_to": "19804__0_065", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_067", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "The court considered it, but in its judgment did not find it to be related.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [863.022, 868.505], "stop_times": [868.505, 869.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.022}, "reply_to": "19804__0_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_068", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [869.344], "stop_times": [869.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.344}, "reply_to": "19804__0_067", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_069", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--must the court find that it proves what you want it to prove in order to comply with the law?\nIt seems to me the court need only consider it, and then it's a matter of judgment whether it shows the animus or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [869.835, 876.059], "stop_times": [876.059, 884.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.835}, "reply_to": "19804__0_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_070", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--What weight it's given is a matter of judgment, guided by the precedents of this Court, but whether it relates has been resolved by this Court.\nThat's what Arlington Heights is about.\nArlington Heights says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [884.553, 896.322, 898.185], "stop_times": [896.322, 898.185, 899.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.553}, "reply_to": "19804__0_069", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_071", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I take it, can be in any way related, means whether it has anything to do with as a factual matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [899.403], "stop_times": [903.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.403}, "reply_to": "19804__0_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__0_072", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--That's right, and Arlington Heights says that it does have something to do with the determination about whether there was or was not purposeful discrimination.\nLegislative or administrative history at 268 of the Arlington Heights opinion was specifically noted and, indeed, the Rogers v. Lodge case states that the evidence, evidence of this very kind, bears heavily on the issue of purposeful discrimination, is, indeed, important evidence of purposeful exclusion.\nI'd like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [903.407, 910.14, 928.412], "stop_times": [910.14, 928.412, 932.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.407}, "reply_to": "19804__0_071", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_073", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Very well, Mr. Patrick.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [932.315], "stop_times": [933.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.315}, "reply_to": "19804__0_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__0_074", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [933.685], "stop_times": [934.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.685}, "reply_to": "19804__0_073", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__0_075", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Borkowski, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [934.186], "stop_times": [937.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.186}, "reply_to": "19804__0_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__1_000", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to start with the question Justice Scalia just asked about footnote 18, because that shows very clearly, I think, what has been going on in Bossier Parish.\nThe evidence that the court didn't look at that dealt with the board's exclusion, admitted exclusion of blacks from educational policy issues.\nThe court had ordered that a committee be established to allow blacks to have an opportunity for input into school board issues.\nThis is the kind of nonresponsiveness, the kind of exclusion that is exactly what happened in the redistricting process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [937.739, 945.833, 956.843, 966.196, 975.075], "stop_times": [945.833, 956.843, 966.196, 975.075, 982.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.739}, "reply_to": "19804__0_075", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_001", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, if we're... if you're going to get into the sort of detail that you say Arlington Heights requires us to get into, I would think that it would be important to know whether the school board's failure to maintain a biracial committee was the result of hostility to the idea, neglect, maybe unable to have the funds, maybe just got lost in the shuffle.\nIn other words, just saying it failed to maintain a biracial committee, if we're going to get into the sort of textual detail that Arlington Heights says, you have to know more about it than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [982.368, 1004.393], "stop_times": [1004.393, 1014.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.368}, "reply_to": "19804__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__1_002", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "That's absolutely right, and the facts on this record are that the board admitted in the direct testimonies of Mr. Musgrove and Mr. Myrick, the two board members who testified, that when this committee started getting into educational policy issues, they disbanded, because they did not want this committee having a role in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1014.719], "stop_times": [1031.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.719}, "reply_to": "19804__1_001", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_003", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, was the committee set up to deal with educational policy issues?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1031.06], "stop_times": [1035.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.06}, "reply_to": "19804__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__1_004", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes, it was.\nThe consent decree established it for that purpose, and the representations to the contrary, as we point out in our reply brief, in the appellee's brief, are simply false, and the record bears that out.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1035.152, 1035.863, 1046.99], "stop_times": [1035.863, 1046.99, 1047.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.152}, "reply_to": "19804__1_003", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_005", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And your position is that all these matters and many others like them must become a part of a section 5 case and must be resolved under section 2 standards before there can be... the preclearance decision can be made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1047.931], "stop_times": [1062.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.931}, "reply_to": "19804__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__1_006", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--These facts only become relevant in a purpose determination.\nHad the board come forward and not... and been able to show legitimate reasons, and there were not these... not this pattern there, this evidence wouldn't come in.\nThis is an unusual case.\nIn this purpose determination these factors have to be considered.\nJustice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1062.36, 1068.695, 1077.631, 1079.133, 1083.074], "stop_times": [1068.695, 1077.631, 1079.133, 1083.074, 1084.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.36}, "reply_to": "19804__1_005", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_007", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, but I thought there were two points.\nOne is that it may be relevant to purpose.\nThe other is that there must be a specific ruling on whether there is or is not a section 2 violation.\nDon't you have... don't you make both arguments here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1084.366, 1085.928, 1089.167, 1096.264], "stop_times": [1085.928, 1089.167, 1096.264, 1098.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.366}, "reply_to": "19804__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__1_008", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I'm focusing here on the purpose argument only, and Justice O'Connor asked whether the Arlington Heights standard was the standard for section 5, and in Pleasant Grove even the dissenters, who did not find discriminatory purpose, cited Arlington Heights as the proper standard to apply, and decisions that this Court has affirmed... Busbee v. Smith and Port Arthur... also apply to Arlington Heights, and it's the constitutional standard, and... so I'm just talking at this point about the purpose argument.\nAll of these factors under Arlington Heights are relevant to showing discriminatory purpose, and the court erred in excluding it.\nAs Justice Scalia asked, how do we know that the court did this?\nWell, the court said we will not permit section 2 evidence to prove discriminatory dis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1098.434, 1129.145, 1134.839, 1138.652], "stop_times": [1129.145, 1134.839, 1138.652, 1144.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.434}, "reply_to": "19804__1_007", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_009", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Where are you reading from, Mr. Borkowski?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1144.516], "stop_times": [1145.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.516}, "reply_to": "19804__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__1_010", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Twenty-four a, in the appendix to the jurisdictional statement.\nOn 23a the court said we must... it's argued that we must consider--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1145.445, 1150.419], "stop_times": [1150.419, 1155.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1145.445}, "reply_to": "19804__1_009", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_011", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Whereabouts on 23a, so we can follow you when you read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1155.493], "stop_times": [1159.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1155.493}, "reply_to": "19804__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__1_012", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--On 23a and 24a, the court at three different times says that it's not going to consider this evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1159.256], "stop_times": [1167.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1159.256}, "reply_to": "19804__1_011", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_013", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, point out at least one of them, will you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1167.062], "stop_times": [1168.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.062}, "reply_to": "19804__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__1_014", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Twenty-three a, at the beginning of the first paragraph, we... it's argued that we must still consider evidence of a section 2 violation as evidence of a discriminatory purpose under section 5.\nWe again disagree.\nAt the bottom of that paragraph, and Miller forecloses the permitting of section 2 evidence in a section 5 case, and then, at the end of that section, in 24a, we will not permit section 2 evidence to prove discriminatory purpose under section 5.\nJudge Kessler, in dissent, in footnote 4--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1168.713, 1176.927, 1178.439, 1194.059], "stop_times": [1176.927, 1178.439, 1194.059, 1197.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.713}, "reply_to": "19804__1_013", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_015", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, excuse me.\nI took that... evidence of a violation, I took that to mean evidence that a violation existed, rather than evidence which could be used to show a violation for the one could be used to show a violation for the other.\nI took that to mean, we reject the notion that you can come in and say, the district is in violation of section 2, and you quarrel with that statement, too.\nYou would allow a section 2 violation to be brought in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1197.912, 1199.754, 1216.657, 1228.655], "stop_times": [1199.754, 1216.657, 1228.655, 1232.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.912}, "reply_to": "19804__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__1_016", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1232.665], "stop_times": [1233.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1232.665}, "reply_to": "19804__1_015", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_017", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "What we're discussing here is whether evidence that would go to show a violation may be brought in, and I don't see this as contradicting that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1233.657], "stop_times": [1241.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.657}, "reply_to": "19804__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__1_018", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, there are three different statements, and one of the statements that... the statement you referred to could be interpreted that way, but Judge Kessler in dissent says to the... says in footnote 4 on page 42a that the majority is not considering this evidence, and the majority never says it is.\nIf you look at the evidence the majority analyzes, it only analyzes two types of evidence, and doesn't look at all sorts of evidence.\nYou asked what was excluded.\nThe fact that the board's plan fractures black neighborhoods, the same neighborhoods that the school board members consciously kept together in drawing 75-percent black school attendance boundaries were fractured by the plan.\nThat's a... those are stipulated, unrebutted facts on this record that appear nowhere in the majority's discussion of discriminatory intent, because they would also be relevant to section 2.\nThere are communities of interest that our clients have and other black voters in Bossier Parish have that are established by the testimony.\nThat is nowhere discussed in the majority's opinion.\nThe... what this Court has called the inexorable zero, the fact that no blacks have ever been elected to the school board, is nowhere discussed in the analysis of the board's purpose, and we think these... this kind of evidence cannot logically be excluded just because it's also relevant to a section 2--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1241.341, 1258.793, 1267.1, 1268.96, 1281.188, 1291.795, 1299.11, 1302.062], "stop_times": [1258.793, 1267.1, 1268.96, 1281.188, 1291.795, 1299.11, 1302.062, 1320.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.341}, "reply_to": "19804__1_017", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_019", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, when you say excluded, you mean the court may not fail to consider it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1320.933], "stop_times": [1324.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.933}, "reply_to": "19804__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__1_020", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Yes.\nI'm sorry, I misspoke there.\nAll of this evidence is stipulated facts, is testimony admitted into the record before this Court.\nIt's just not considered in the majority opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1324.286, 1324.726, 1325.948, 1332.173], "stop_times": [1324.726, 1325.948, 1332.173, 1334.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.286}, "reply_to": "19804__1_019", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_021", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Did... isn't mentioned in the majority opinion.\nSuppose the court considered it but didn't mention it in its opinion.\nIs it... is the judgment invalid because it was not mentioned in the opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1334.506, 1336.287, 1342.972], "stop_times": [1336.287, 1342.972, 1348.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.506}, "reply_to": "19804__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__1_022", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1348.155], "stop_times": [1350.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.155}, "reply_to": "19804__1_021", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_023", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I mean, there are two different points.\nNumber 1 is that the court didn't even consider it, and if I agree with your interpretation of the language we were just discussing, then you would have established that the court didn't even consider it, but arguably the court could have considered it but not have thought it germane enough or significant enough to be mentioned in its opinion.\nWould that also be a violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1350.606, 1352.108, 1368.537], "stop_times": [1352.108, 1368.537, 1370.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.606}, "reply_to": "19804__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__1_024", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I don't believe it would be a violation per se simply not to mention evidence that is considered.\nThe point here is that if the court actually did consider this evidence, which in every category of evidence in Arlington Heights shows discriminatory purpose, it could not have reached the conclusion that it reached.\nAs Judge Kessler said in dissent, this is... the evidence is far from being equally convincing on either side.\nIf you look at all of the stipulated and unrebutted evidence, this is not a close case.\nThe problem here with the majority's approach, and the problem in... if this Court would affirm the majority's decision, is that it would effectively eviscerate the purpose prong of section 5.\nIt would mean that the only kind of discriminatory purpose that would be reachable under section 5 would be publicly admitted or covertly tape recorded discriminatory purpose, because every other category of evidence that this Court has said in Arlington Heights requires a sensitive inquiry is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1370.359, 1376.544, 1391.273, 1398.126, 1403.061, 1414.959], "stop_times": [1376.544, 1391.273, 1398.126, 1403.061, 1414.959, 1433.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1370.359}, "reply_to": "19804__1_023", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_025", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "So what would you say is the instruction, on your view of this case, that the district court should be given were we to remand?\nWe'd say, district court, you did wrong, and this is what you should do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1433.98, 1442.966], "stop_times": [1442.966, 1447.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1433.98}, "reply_to": "19804__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__1_026", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I believe that on this record the Court should not... should simply remand with instructions that preclearance be denied, because the record here overwhelmingly establishes discriminatory purpose.\nThere's no way, unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1447.21, 1459.519], "stop_times": [1459.519, 1461.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.21}, "reply_to": "19804__1_025", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_027", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But if we don't agree with you on that and we think that the first shot, anyway, should be... or the second... done by the district court, what then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1461.169], "stop_times": [1470.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.169}, "reply_to": "19804__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__1_028", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Then I would say that you would have to remand with instructions to apply Arlington Heights and to look at all of the evidence that this Court in the voting context, in section 5 cases, in school cases, in all cases where intent is an issue, to look at that evidence in all of those categories, keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the school board here.\nThere was also evidence that the court considered that the court offered its own explanations for, which we cite in our briefs as another legal error.\nThe only evidence, contemporaneous, direct evidence of the board's intent are admissions that tend to show discriminatory purpose.\nThere are no contemporaneous minutes offering nonracial reasons for why the board did what it did.\nThere's no legislative history indicating nonracial reasons.\nThere are statements that some board members are hostile to black--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1470.585, 1493.599, 1501.285, 1510.201, 1516.065, 1520.336], "stop_times": [1493.599, 1501.285, 1510.201, 1516.065, 1520.336, 1523.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1470.585}, "reply_to": "19804__1_027", "speaker": "john_w_borkowski"}
{"id": "19804__1_029", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Borkowski.\nMr. Carvin, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1523.489, 1525.231], "stop_times": [1525.231, 1527.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.489}, "reply_to": "19804__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__2_000", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nLet me begin by focusing on the standard that the district court actually did apply in assessing the evidence.\nAppellants would have this Court believe that the district court had in front of it a body of evidence that it considered probative to the question of purpose, and it sifted through that evidence and threw out all the evidence that it also thought was relevant to section 2, but of course the district court did not say that, and did not do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1527.091, 1532.617, 1539.56], "stop_times": [1532.617, 1539.56, 1559.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1527.091}, "reply_to": "19804__1_029", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_001", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, my difficulty--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1559.833], "stop_times": [1560.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.833}, "reply_to": "19804__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_002", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "What... excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1560.914], "stop_times": [1561.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1560.914}, "reply_to": "19804__2_001", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_003", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--My... I'm sorry.\nMy difficulty with that argument is... goes to a statement which the court made back on 23a, which we were referring to a moment ago, in the appendix.\nDo you have that handy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1561.705, 1562.925, 1575.493], "stop_times": [1562.925, 1575.493, 1576.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.705}, "reply_to": "19804__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_004", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1576.485], "stop_times": [1577.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1576.485}, "reply_to": "19804__2_003", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_005", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Okay.\nI will agree that some of the court's statement about what it was doing with evidence perhaps were ambiguous and lent themselves to your interpretation, but at the bottom of the page the court quotes from--\n--Twenty-three a?\nYes, page 23a.\nThe court quotes from a panel opinion of a different panel but at the same court, and this is what it says:\nAs the panel noted, the court in Miller reaffirmed that the purpose prong of section 5 must be analyzed within the context of section 5's purpose, which has always been to ensure that no voting procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities.\nNow, it seems to me that the court is there making it clear that the only purpose evidence it would consider was evidence of purpose to effect a retrogression, as opposed to a broader purpose to discriminate.\nIsn't that fairly clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1577.354, 1577.855, 1592.264, 1592.845, 1593.987, 1601.66, 1620.874, 1636.643], "stop_times": [1577.855, 1592.264, 1592.845, 1593.987, 1601.66, 1620.874, 1636.643, 1638.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.354}, "reply_to": "19804__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_006", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No, it's not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1638.265], "stop_times": [1639.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1638.265}, "reply_to": "19804__2_005", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_007", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Then explain that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1639.654], "stop_times": [1640.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.654}, "reply_to": "19804__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_008", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "First of all, the case he is citing from did not... was making the point that in analyzing purpose you must look at the limited purpose of section 5 and not get into these additional section 2 issues that the Justice Department had urged upon the court in Texas and was also urging upon the court here.\nBut more directly to answer your question, of course, it was stipulated in this case that there was no retrogressive effect of the plan, so under your understanding of the district court opinion, the district court would have only been looking at, at did they have a purpose to effect a retrogression?\nThis would have been a very short opinion indeed if that had been its analysis.\nIt did not look at the purpose of the new plan compared to the status quo ante.\nIt looked at the purpose of the new plan as compared to the maximization alternative proposed by the NAACP.\nThe plan adopted had no black majority districts.\nThe NAACP plan had two black majority districts.\nThe district court spent its entire opinion analyzing, did the board do that... it's decision because of its negative impact on minority voters or in spite of it?\nDid it have legitimate nondiscriminatory motives for rejecting the NAACP plan, or was it motivated by a racial reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1640.455, 1661.1, 1679.051, 1682.774, 1688.467, 1696.072, 1699.004, 1702.977, 1714.194], "stop_times": [1661.1, 1679.051, 1682.774, 1688.467, 1696.072, 1699.004, 1702.977, 1714.194, 1721.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1640.455}, "reply_to": "19804__2_007", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_009", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Then why did it quote what I just read?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1721.7], "stop_times": [1723.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1721.7}, "reply_to": "19804__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_010", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1723.881], "stop_times": [1724.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.881}, "reply_to": "19804__2_009", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_011", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I mean, it doesn't... the quotation doesn't seem to make any sense on your theory of the court's view of purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1724.492], "stop_times": [1730.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.492}, "reply_to": "19804__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_012", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--No, but in isolation it may not, but the context is this, Your Honor.\nYou have five section 5 courts who were trying to analyze why did the submitting jurisdiction make a change?\nWhat was the purpose behind that change?\nAnd they are examining all the circumstantial and direct evidence relating to the change.\nThe Justice Department in all five of those cases and here says, don't just look at what was motivating the board at the time.\nWe also want you to consider all of this additional section 2 evidence, as they're arguing here.\nWe want you to consider racial bloc voting in prior elections.\nAnd the district courts in section 5 cases have consistently responded to the Justice Department, section 5 has a much more limited purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1730.266, 1733.856, 1741.513, 1743.994, 1748.509, 1755.943, 1761.555, 1766.379], "stop_times": [1733.856, 1741.513, 1743.994, 1748.509, 1755.943, 1761.555, 1766.379, 1774.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.266}, "reply_to": "19804__2_011", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_013", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, what is your position here?\nIs it your position here that the only purpose that is relevant under section 5 is purpose to cause retrogression, as distinct from purpose to discriminate by effecting a purposeful dilution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1774.685, 1776.555], "stop_times": [1776.555, 1789.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.685}, "reply_to": "19804__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_014", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Oh, no.\nNo, not at all.\nI think that decision, the Court's decision in Richmond and Pleasant Grove has already decided that issue and, indeed, since it was stipulated that it didn't even have the effect of retrogression, you can obviously assume they didn't have the purpose to retrogress, and this would have been a one-paragraph opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1789.234, 1790.183, 1790.894], "stop_times": [1790.183, 1790.894, 1806.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.234}, "reply_to": "19804__2_013", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_015", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But there could have been a purpose to dilute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1806.374], "stop_times": [1807.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.374}, "reply_to": "19804__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_016", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes.\nThat's the whole point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1807.776, 1808.726], "stop_times": [1808.726, 1809.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.776}, "reply_to": "19804__2_015", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_017", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1809.527], "stop_times": [1810.017], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.527}, "reply_to": "19804__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19804__2_018", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Even though you're not making things worse, We can conceive of circumstances where there's a fully reasonable alternative put in front of you that preserves black concentrations pursuant to traditional districting principles, but nonetheless, because you are a racist school board you say, no, we're not going to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1810.017], "stop_times": [1826.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.017}, "reply_to": "19804__2_017", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_019", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "So if everybody agrees on that, if everybody agrees that the purpose is really the purpose to cause discrimination, not just the purpose not to retrogress, if everybody agrees at least sometimes a lot of this section 2 evidence in this case would be relevant, if not dispositive... not necessarily dispositive but relevant to showing that, and all we're arguing about is how ambiguous the district court's opinion is, why don't we just send it back to the district court to work it out and say, be clear, take it into account and do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1826.219], "stop_times": [1853.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.219}, "reply_to": "19804__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19804__2_020", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "There is no dispute as to what the district court did.\nAppellants have now changed their opinion as to the legal standard applying.\nLet me proceed in two steps.\nThe district court, in analyzing whether or not two nonretrogressive plans reflect discriminatory purposes, compares the maximizing alternative to the plan adopted and again asks, do we have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory purpose?\nThere is an impact here.\nOne's got black majority districts, one does not.\nNow, what the appellants are asking the district court to do is, after they've figured out whether that impact is motivated by a discriminating purpose, go ahead and analyze racial bloc voting.\nWell, what would that show you?\nAll racial bloc voting is relevant to is whether the black majority districts have an impact.\nIf you have no racial bloc voting, if you have no history of discrimination that currently excludes blacks, then there's no difference, as this Court noted in Johnson v. DeGrandy, between white majority districts and black majority districts.\nBlacks can be elected in both districts.\nSo if the district court had gone on this detour that appellants insist they... insist it do, and agreed with them entirely, it would have returned to precisely the place it started, which is, yes, the NAACP plan, the failure to adopt it has an impact, but the relevant question under section 5 is whether that was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.\nYou see, all of the confusion comes here is because they keep quoting cases where plaintiffs, minority plaintiffs have the burden and, of course, in section 5 the burden is reversed.\nSo yes, in Rogers v. Lodge and Gingles and all of those cases, plaintiffs must prove racial bloc voting.\nThey must prove that you can create a compact black majority district, and then they must show that the failure to do so has an effect, and as Justice Brennan noted quite clearly in Gingles, it only has an effect if there is racial bloc voting.\nSo that is plaintiff's burden and, if they had the burden in the court below, they would have had to show that, but we had the burden, and we were making a much simpler argument.\nWe were saying, fine, the plan has an impact, but that's not the reason it did it... didn't... took the police jury plan over the NAACP plan.\nWe took the police jury plan over the NAACP plan because the NAACP plan clearly and irretrievably violated State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [1853.334, 1857.739, 1861.98, 1863.893, 1877.702, 1879.404, 1881.985, 1893.111, 1895.022, 1900.516, 1915.256, 1917.208, 1939.303, 1950.25, 1956.724, 1972.616, 1981.752, 1991.216], "stop_times": [1857.739, 1861.98, 1863.893, 1877.702, 1879.404, 1881.985, 1893.111, 1895.022, 1900.516, 1915.256, 1917.208, 1939.303, 1950.25, 1956.724, 1972.616, 1981.752, 1991.216, 2000.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1853.334}, "reply_to": "19804__2_019", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_021", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But this other evidence not only shows impact, it also shows what you might call disposition.\nDoesn't the evidence of a violation on racial grounds of section 2 show that you're talking about people here who are likely to discriminate on the basis of race--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2000.913, 2009.97], "stop_times": [2009.97, 2025.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.913}, "reply_to": "19804__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__2_022", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Oh, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2025.31], "stop_times": [2026.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.31}, "reply_to": "19804__2_021", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_023", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--and isn't that relevant to the section 5 determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2026.151], "stop_times": [2028.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.151}, "reply_to": "19804__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__2_024", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Your Honor, again, as appellants have correctly pointed out, the board was aware of the impact of this plan.\nI mean, they can count.\nThey knew that the NAACP plan had two black majority districts and their plan had none.\nNobody's disputing that they were aware of the impact of this plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2028.673, 2036.217, 2037.568, 2042.702], "stop_times": [2036.217, 2037.568, 2042.702, 2047.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.673}, "reply_to": "19804__2_023", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_025", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No, but the question goes to--\n--I'm not talking about awareness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2047.423, 2049.045], "stop_times": [2049.045, 2049.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.423}, "reply_to": "19804__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_026", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes, but... okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2049.717], "stop_times": [2050.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.717}, "reply_to": "19804__2_025", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_027", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I'm talking about intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2050.835], "stop_times": [2052.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.835}, "reply_to": "19804__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__2_028", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2052.598], "stop_times": [2053.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.598}, "reply_to": "19804__2_027", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_029", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I'm talking about disposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2053.039], "stop_times": [2054.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.039}, "reply_to": "19804__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__2_030", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2054.038], "stop_times": [2054.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.038}, "reply_to": "19804__2_029", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_031", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I'm talking about the character of the people who made the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2054.559], "stop_times": [2057.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.559}, "reply_to": "19804__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__2_032", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And how would that inquiry be aided by looking at regression analysis of racial elections that was done 3 years after the board's decision?\nThey brought in an expert to go through and produce this evidence of racial bloc voting which, by the way, it failed to produce and, of course, this plan has elected two black people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2057.491, 2067.755], "stop_times": [2067.755, 2078.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.491}, "reply_to": "19804__2_031", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_033", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, I suppose the answer is that people haven't changed that much over the course of 3 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2078.835], "stop_times": [2083.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.835}, "reply_to": "19804__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_034", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2083.337], "stop_times": [2084.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.337}, "reply_to": "19804__2_033", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_035", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Do you dispute the fact that evidence of bloc voting, which, in fact, is evidence which discloses an intent, is irrelevant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2084.199], "stop_times": [2092.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.199}, "reply_to": "19804__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_036", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2092.213], "stop_times": [2093.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.213}, "reply_to": "19804__2_035", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_037", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--to evidence of intent under section 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2093.445], "stop_times": [2094.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.445}, "reply_to": "19804__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_038", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No.\nAgain, it is not irrelevant, particularly when plaintiffs have a burden, but it adds nothing to what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2094.935, 2095.295], "stop_times": [2095.295, 2102.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.935}, "reply_to": "19804__2_037", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_039", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "You're saying it was just cumulative, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2102.0], "stop_times": [2104.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.0}, "reply_to": "19804__2_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_040", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--It was superfluous and cumulative because racial bloc voting only tells you, again, whether black majority districts have an impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2104.311], "stop_times": [2112.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.311}, "reply_to": "19804__2_039", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_041", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "So... but if I may just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2112.425], "stop_times": [2114.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.425}, "reply_to": "19804__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_042", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2114.188], "stop_times": [2114.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.188}, "reply_to": "19804__2_041", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_043", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--get clear on this, it would have been perfectly proper for the court to say, we will consider this evidence for the section 5 purpose issue.\nThat would have been legally correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2114.508, 2122.443], "stop_times": [2122.443, 2123.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.508}, "reply_to": "19804__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_044", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Oh, sure, and remember the issue here is whether the court committed legal error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2123.873], "stop_times": [2128.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.873}, "reply_to": "19804__2_043", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_045", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Did the court ever say that the reason it was keeping it out was that it was superfluous and cumulative?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2128.568], "stop_times": [2134.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.568}, "reply_to": "19804__2_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_046", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "It said, I am considering evidence that is relevant to purpose.\nNo, Your Honor, it didn't say what it's implicit assumptions were, just like this Court in Miller.\nThis Court in Miller analyzed a section 5 purpose case, and it compared the legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for adopting the plan with less majority black districts than the plan with more majority black districts.\nThe Justice Department in that brief urged upon them to... in this Court to independently consider the stark evidence of racial bloc voting in Georgia and the history of discrimination and all those sorts of things.\nNow, the Court didn't do that because, like the court below, it assumed that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2134.351, 2139.314, 2144.097, 2155.935, 2167.922], "stop_times": [2139.314, 2144.097, 2155.935, 2167.922, 2173.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.351}, "reply_to": "19804__2_045", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_047", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2173.138], "stop_times": [2173.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2173.138}, "reply_to": "19804__2_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_048", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--the absence of the majority districts had an impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2173.769], "stop_times": [2175.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.769}, "reply_to": "19804__2_047", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_049", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Mr. Carvin, I just don't think the court's opinion on page 23a is consistent with what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2175.779], "stop_times": [2181.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.779}, "reply_to": "19804__2_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_050", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2181.303], "stop_times": [2181.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.303}, "reply_to": "19804__2_049", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_051", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Go up to the top of that first full paragraph.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2181.814], "stop_times": [2185.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.814}, "reply_to": "19804__2_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_052", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2185.096], "stop_times": [2185.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.096}, "reply_to": "19804__2_051", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_053", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "The court summarizes the argument that it's responding to.\nDefendant argues that even if we decide that a section 2 action cannot be brought in a section 5 preclearance proceeding, we must still consider evidence of a section 2 violation as evidence of discriminatory purpose under section 5.\nAgain, we disagree.\nAs we have said, the statutory language sets forth differing standards for the two sections.\nIsn't that, when read in relation to the quote that I started from, the bloc vote from the earlier opinion, isn't that a pretty clear indication that what the court was finding was, or assuming was, not that this evidence was cumulative or superfluous, but that it was irrelevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2185.904, 2191.328, 2205.69, 2207.449, 2212.672], "stop_times": [2191.328, 2205.69, 2207.449, 2212.672, 2231.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.904}, "reply_to": "19804__2_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_054", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2231.386], "stop_times": [2232.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2231.386}, "reply_to": "19804__2_053", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_055", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And you have conceded that it was relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2232.397], "stop_times": [2233.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.397}, "reply_to": "19804__2_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_056", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well... well, but in that technical sense, as this Court has already pointed out, the court didn't rule it was irrelevant.\nIt admitted it into evidence, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2233.786, 2239.781], "stop_times": [2239.781, 2241.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2233.786}, "reply_to": "19804__2_055", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_057", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, it says the two sections have different purposes, and the argument was that you must consider the evidence that might go to section 2 for section 5 purpose, and the court says we disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2241.611], "stop_times": [2252.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.611}, "reply_to": "19804__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_058", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Right.\nYou must still consider evidence of a section 2 violation.\nNow, that means that section 5 courts trying to figure out the purpose of this discrete change must engage in the amorphous and very complicated analysis of whether... not, the change is purposefully discriminatory, but whether the underlying electoral system has the result of discriminating.\nIt therefore must analyze racial bloc--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2252.489, 2252.97, 2258.323, 2276.376], "stop_times": [2252.97, 2258.323, 2276.376, 2278.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.489}, "reply_to": "19804__2_057", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_059", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But that is not what the court said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2278.857], "stop_times": [2280.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.857}, "reply_to": "19804__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_060", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2280.026], "stop_times": [2280.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.026}, "reply_to": "19804__2_059", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_061", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "The court says, these two sections have different purposes.\nLet Justice Souter finish his question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2280.316, 2282.879], "stop_times": [2282.879, 2283.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.316}, "reply_to": "19804__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_062", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2283.64], "stop_times": [2284.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.64}, "reply_to": "19804__2_061", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_063", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--before you answer, Mr. Carvin.\nIt says, these two sections have different purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2284.1, 2285.302], "stop_times": [2285.302, 2286.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2284.1}, "reply_to": "19804__2_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_064", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And, of course, they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2286.46], "stop_times": [2287.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.46}, "reply_to": "19804__2_063", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_065", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "They do, but they also have a purpose in common, don't they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2287.421], "stop_times": [2290.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.421}, "reply_to": "19804__2_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_066", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2290.834], "stop_times": [2291.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.834}, "reply_to": "19804__2_065", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_067", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--because intent to cause dilution is relevant under section 2 and under section 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2291.575], "stop_times": [2296.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.575}, "reply_to": "19804__2_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_068", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2296.598], "stop_times": [2297.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.598}, "reply_to": "19804__2_067", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_069", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And doesn't the court's explanation indicate that that's not what the court thought?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2297.627], "stop_times": [2302.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.627}, "reply_to": "19804__2_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_070", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "If the court had said, we are not going to consider evidence that is relevant to both section 2 and section 5, you would be correct.\nBut what the court said was, we'll consider evidence that's relevant to section 5 but not relevant only to a section 2 violation.\nHow do the two statutes differ?\nOne has a purpose standard, and one has a result standard.\nSome evidence of section--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2302.352, 2313.749, 2322.385, 2324.696, 2327.787], "stop_times": [2313.749, 2322.385, 2324.696, 2327.787, 2330.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2302.352}, "reply_to": "19804__2_069", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_071", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No, they both have purpose standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2330.779], "stop_times": [2332.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.779}, "reply_to": "19804__2_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_072", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Yes, they both have that in common, but how do they differ?\nThey differ because section 2 can be violated wholly without regard to purpose and, therefore, the evidence for a section 2 violation has been consciously constructed to focus the court's inquiry not on the purpose for adopting this plan but on the results of the system, racial bloc voting and those sorts of things, and it was that subset of evidence that the court clearly said was the only evidence it wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2332.472, 2335.133], "stop_times": [2335.133, 2360.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.472}, "reply_to": "19804__2_071", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_073", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But on your own argument, as I understand it, there was an error there, because evidence of racial bloc voting would indeed go to purpose, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2360.139], "stop_times": [2367.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.139}, "reply_to": "19804__2_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_074", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--The error has... no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2367.114], "stop_times": [2368.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.114}, "reply_to": "19804__2_073", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_075", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Didn't... I thought you agreed that that was so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2368.904], "stop_times": [2371.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.904}, "reply_to": "19804__2_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_076", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2371.535], "stop_times": [2372.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.535}, "reply_to": "19804__2_075", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_077", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--and that the reason it was kept out was cumulativeness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2372.106], "stop_times": [2375.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.106}, "reply_to": "19804__2_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_078", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "The argument was, in that court and this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2375.109], "stop_times": [2378.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.109}, "reply_to": "19804__2_077", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_079", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "What is your position?\nDo you think... you agree, don't you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2378.581, 2379.643], "stop_times": [2379.643, 2381.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2378.581}, "reply_to": "19804__2_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_080", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2381.943], "stop_times": [2382.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.943}, "reply_to": "19804__2_079", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_081", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--that evidence of racial bloc voting would be relevant evidence under the purpose prong of section 5, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2382.314], "stop_times": [2388.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.314}, "reply_to": "19804__2_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19804__2_082", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--It would be relevant but superfluous.\nTherefore, what section 5 courts should do is not exclude it as a matter of law, but pay attention to it only if it furthers the inquiry.\nWhat appellants are asking this Court to do is to rule as a matter of law that they must always consider racial bloc voting, and my question again is, how does that further the analysis?\nYou have just gone through a comparison of a plan that you assume is better for black voters compared to one that you have assumed is not good for black voters, and you've found it is legal because it's not motivated by a discriminatory purpose.\nNow, you could spend 20 or so pages discussing the extraordinarily voluminous evidence showing that, indeed, plans with black majority districts are better for black voters, but I don't think that this Court as a matter of law should rule that section 5 courts must engage in that sort of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2388.308, 2391.2, 2399.776, 2409.85, 2424.162], "stop_times": [2391.2, 2399.776, 2409.85, 2424.162, 2444.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.308}, "reply_to": "19804__2_081", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_083", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, what do we do if we're truly, at the end of the day, uncertain what it is the district court really excluded from consideration, if it's unclear to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2444.795], "stop_times": [2455.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.795}, "reply_to": "19804__2_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__2_084", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2455.07], "stop_times": [2455.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.07}, "reply_to": "19804__2_083", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_085", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Don't we have to remand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2455.881], "stop_times": [2457.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.881}, "reply_to": "19804__2_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__2_086", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Your Honor, I had understood this Court's rule to be that ambiguities would be resolved in favor of district courts.\nRogers v. Lodge is a perfect example of that.\nRogers v. Lodge did not apply this Court's subsequent decision in Mobile v. Bolden, but the Court did a very searching analysis and said, could the district court have applied the purpose test under Mobile v. Bolden, and therefore it gave it the benefit of the doubt.\nI would submit, however, in the context, and given the language, that this Court did not make the ruling that appellants said.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2457.221, 2463.148, 2465.178, 2480.649, 2489.485], "stop_times": [2463.148, 2465.178, 2480.649, 2489.485, 2490.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.221}, "reply_to": "19804__2_085", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_087", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "May I ask you a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2490.296], "stop_times": [2491.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.296}, "reply_to": "19804__2_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19804__2_088", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2491.257], "stop_times": [2491.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.257}, "reply_to": "19804__2_087", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_089", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I think I understand your theory, and your argument's been very helpful to me, I might say.\nBut say there is in the record evidence that they drew boundary lines to segregate blacks when they were working out school districts and just the opposite kind of lines when they were doing voting districts.\nUnder your argument, that would be relevant and should have been considered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2491.588, 2494.887, 2508.057], "stop_times": [2494.887, 2508.057, 2511.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.588}, "reply_to": "19804__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19804__2_090", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2511.78], "stop_times": [2513.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.78}, "reply_to": "19804__2_089", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_091", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes.\nBecause that goes to purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2513.04, 2513.49], "stop_times": [2513.49, 2514.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.04}, "reply_to": "19804__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19804__2_092", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2514.412], "stop_times": [2515.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.412}, "reply_to": "19804__2_091", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_093", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And if there's evidence in the record that that happened, and there's nothing... no mention of it in the opinion, doesn't that lend some support to the view that the court took a different line of reasoning than you're advocating?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2515.533], "stop_times": [2527.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.533}, "reply_to": "19804__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19804__2_094", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Your Honor, if there was any evidence of fracturing in this case, I think that would not be my reasonable inference.\nThere was no evidence of fracturing based... Your Honor, if they had fractured black concentrations in Bossier Parish to create... to fail to create the black majority districts, then obviously appellants' job would be real easy.\nAll they would have to do is re... undo the fracture, and redraw the lines to create the black majority districts.\nBut we know that's not what occurred because if you look at the maps, no one redrew--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2527.231, 2532.163, 2547.904, 2553.878], "stop_times": [2532.163, 2547.904, 2553.878, 2559.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2527.231}, "reply_to": "19804__2_093", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_095", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But let me interrupt you with one other point there.\nI don't think our question is whether the court should have accepted the other proposed map.\nI agree with you, that isn't it.\nThe question is whether it was correct to adopt the plan it did adopt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2559.022, 2560.571, 2566.115, 2567.437], "stop_times": [2560.571, 2566.115, 2567.437, 2570.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.022}, "reply_to": "19804__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19804__2_096", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2570.769], "stop_times": [2571.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.769}, "reply_to": "19804__2_095", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_097", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2571.807], "stop_times": [2572.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.807}, "reply_to": "19804__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19804__2_098", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--and the appellants try and make something very sinister about the adoption of the police jury plan.\nThe consistent, contemporaneous evidence has been that they rejected the NAACP plan because it violated State law, and they adopted the police jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2572.288, 2578.202], "stop_times": [2578.202, 2587.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.288}, "reply_to": "19804__2_097", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_099", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But Mr. Carvin, this... clarify one thing about what you call the NAAC plan that was rejected.\nI didn't think that plan was put forward as a rival to some other plan.\nThis case is not like the one we just heard in that regard.\nI thought that plan was just put forward to show that it would be possible to create minority districts, not that this was a finished plan that was a rival to some other plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2587.969, 2593.393, 2599.066, 2602.578], "stop_times": [2593.393, 2599.066, 2602.578, 2614.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.969}, "reply_to": "19804__2_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_100", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well, whether it was a work in progress or a final plan, the point is that it is stipulated that it is impossible to create even a single black majority district without splitting a precinct, and it is also quite clear from Louisiana--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2614.326], "stop_times": [2629.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.326}, "reply_to": "19804__2_099", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_101", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But splitting a precinct is something that even the jury... the... whatever it's called, the police jury did.\nNot terribly many, but they did for their plan, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2629.677, 2636.913], "stop_times": [2636.913, 2640.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.677}, "reply_to": "19804__2_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_102", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Yes, and appellants have confused this issue, and it's very important that the Court be clear on it.\nThe police jury had no power under State law to split any precincts.\nIt was a facial violation for the police jury to split a precinct.\nit was a facial violation for the board to split a precinct.\nThat is on joint appendix at 277.\nThe law could not be clearer under Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2640.583, 2644.976, 2650.22, 2654.043, 2657.936, 2661.577], "stop_times": [2644.976, 2650.22, 2654.043, 2657.936, 2661.577, 2664.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.583}, "reply_to": "19804__2_101", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_103", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But you get permission to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2664.368], "stop_times": [2666.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.368}, "reply_to": "19804__2_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_104", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2666.231], "stop_times": [2666.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.231}, "reply_to": "19804__2_103", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_105", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well then, how was it done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2666.891], "stop_times": [2668.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.891}, "reply_to": "19804__2_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_106", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Because from April 1, '91 through May 15, 1991 police juries can split precincts.\nThe board here asked to work with the police jury at that time so they could split the precincts in April and May of 1991.\nThat's stipulated.\nThe police jury rejected the overture.\nAfter May 15, 1991, it was impossible for the police jury to split precincts or the board to split precincts, and that is because that window of opportunity that the State legislature had consciously given to police juries so they could account for the '90 redistricting was now gone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2668.082, 2677.379, 2684.543, 2685.222, 2687.215], "stop_times": [2677.379, 2684.543, 2685.222, 2687.215, 2706.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.082}, "reply_to": "19804__2_105", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_107", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Where is that in the joint appendix?\nYou gave a page number.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2706.137, 2707.378], "stop_times": [2707.378, 2708.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.137}, "reply_to": "19804__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__2_108", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2708.397], "stop_times": [2708.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.397}, "reply_to": "19804__2_107", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_109", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I didn't write it down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2708.748], "stop_times": [2708.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2708.748}, "reply_to": "19804__2_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__2_110", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "That's joint appendix 277, Justice Scalia, and it says, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the precinct boundaries shall not be divided, abolished, consolidated, or the boundaries otherwise changed until after December 31, 1992.\nNow, could the board have waited until after December 31, 1992 to do its redistricting as appellants contend?\nThe answer to that is found at the joint appendix on page 65.\nThe United States' own chronology of events states quite explicitly at the top of 65, 12/31/92... of course, the same date... date under Louisiana law by which school boards must reapportion.\nSo during the time that the school board was legally obliged to reapportion, the police jury and the board were legally prohibited from splitting a single precinct.\nThat law is not, unfortunately, in the joint appendix, but it is Louisiana Revised Statutes at 17: 71.5A.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2708.988, 2727.622, 2737.208, 2742.34, 2758.62, 2771.729], "stop_times": [2727.622, 2737.208, 2742.34, 2758.62, 2771.729, 2781.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.988}, "reply_to": "19804__2_109", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_111", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "is that law consistent with one-person-one-vote requirements, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2781.566], "stop_times": [2786.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.566}, "reply_to": "19804__2_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__2_112", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Your Honor, because of the window of opportunity.\nYou see, the logic of the law is this.\nYou get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2786.97, 2789.11, 2791.141], "stop_times": [2789.11, 2791.141, 2791.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.97}, "reply_to": "19804__2_111", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_113", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I'm sorry, I don't understand.\nIs such a State law consistent with the requirements of one person, one vote in drawing districts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2791.902, 2793.414], "stop_times": [2793.414, 2800.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.902}, "reply_to": "19804__2_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__2_114", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I took your question to mean, could they make adjustments for the 1990 census, but I may be misunderstanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2800.307], "stop_times": [2807.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.307}, "reply_to": "19804__2_113", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_115", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well, I'm asking, this Court has had several opinions that have required the utilization of the principle of one person, one vote in districting for whatever purpose, if it's for voting, a police jury or a school board that votes, and so forth, so is it consistent with that principle for a State law to say, you can't ignore a precinct boundary?\nWhat if you have to in order to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2807.724, 2833.64], "stop_times": [2833.64, 2836.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2807.724}, "reply_to": "19804__2_114", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__2_116", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Oh, in order to... I now understand.\nIn order to achieve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2836.351, 2838.402], "stop_times": [2838.402, 2839.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.351}, "reply_to": "19804__2_115", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_117", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--draw equal districts and achieve that requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2839.583], "stop_times": [2841.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2839.583}, "reply_to": "19804__2_116", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__2_118", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Right, but there was no violation, I don't believe, of the one-person-one-vote constitutional standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2841.915], "stop_times": [2850.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.915}, "reply_to": "19804__2_117", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_119", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "I'm asking, if it were, do you think that State law could prevail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2850.23], "stop_times": [2854.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.23}, "reply_to": "19804__2_118", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__2_120", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Oh, I believe there's an exception in the law for boards with different numbers of members than police juries to... they may split a precinct to come within plus or minus five in terms of ideal population deviation, but there was no argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2854.874], "stop_times": [2875.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2854.874}, "reply_to": "19804__2_119", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_121", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Has this Court said plus or minus five is okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2875.137], "stop_times": [2878.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.137}, "reply_to": "19804__2_120", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19804__2_122", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I thought Mahan v. Howe used that as even just a presumptive guideline.\nIn congressional redistricting you must be much clearer.\nI had understood this Court's decisions in Mahan and others to give local and State jurisdictions much broader discretion.\nAs long as within... it was within... roughly within 10 percent, then everything was okay, and even... I think Mahan went to about 16.4, and they did that to preserve the town boundary and here, so if you have to preserve a precinct boundary I think you'd also be okay under law, now that I understand your question, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2878.38, 2883.011, 2886.194, 2893.329], "stop_times": [2883.011, 2886.194, 2893.329, 2910.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2878.38}, "reply_to": "19804__2_121", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_123", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Why doesn't your... your argument, which is a very good argument as to why there was no purpose that violated section 5, not show... in order to see whether you're right or not we ought to introduce all the other evidence.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2910.38, 2922.418], "stop_times": [2922.418, 2922.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.38}, "reply_to": "19804__2_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19804__2_124", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2922.918], "stop_times": [2923.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.918}, "reply_to": "19804__2_123", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_125", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--on the other side they say that here are all these people on this board, which at that time had had only a black member for a very short period of time.\nThey didn't want the police jury district because they'd have to run against each other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2923.379, 2932.315], "stop_times": [2932.315, 2935.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.379}, "reply_to": "19804__2_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19804__2_126", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2935.765], "stop_times": [2936.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2935.765}, "reply_to": "19804__2_125", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_127", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "And they didn't want the police district for some reasons that then later on they just ignored, and what happened in between?\nWhat happened in between was that the NAACP got busy and began to talk about a more proportionate system, so why isn't whether there could have been a more proportionate system or had to be a more proportionate system highly relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2936.236, 2943.833], "stop_times": [2943.833, 2956.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.236}, "reply_to": "19804__2_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19804__2_128", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "It is highly relevant.\nThe court looked at the NAACP as an alternative, and then asked itself the question, the proportionate plan, was this alternative objectively reasonable, and was the board's rejection of it motivated by discriminatory purpose, and in doing so, just to eliminate any ambiguity on this, it went through precisely the analysis that this Court articulated in Arlington Heights.\nIt did not cite Arlington Heights by name, I agree.\nThe court had noted earlier on in its opinion citing cases where minority plaintiffs have the burden makes it confusing when you're dealing with a section 5 case where, of course, the burden is on the other side, so it cited this Court's voting rights cases of City of Richmond and McCain v. Lybrand, the purpose cases under section 5.\nBut if I could briefly go through the Arlington Heights factors, did it look at the specific sequence of events?\nThere is a heading in the court's opinion that says, we'll now look at the specific sequence of events.\nDid it look at the contemporary statements of the affected board members?\nIt spends about two pages walking through what it ultimately concluded were these ambiguous statements by other board members.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [2956.579, 2957.56, 2980.936, 2983.717, 3002.881, 3009.965, 3015.18, 3020.302], "stop_times": [2957.56, 2980.936, 2983.717, 3002.881, 3009.965, 3015.18, 3020.302, 3027.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.579}, "reply_to": "19804__2_127", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_129", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Carvin, I take it from what you said that you do accept that Arlington Heights is a relevant precedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3027.568], "stop_times": [3032.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.568}, "reply_to": "19804__2_128", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_130", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3032.41], "stop_times": [3032.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.41}, "reply_to": "19804__2_129", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_131", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Right, so you think that it was just so understood that the district court didn't need to mention it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3032.771], "stop_times": [3038.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.771}, "reply_to": "19804__2_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_132", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Your Honor, to be candid, I don't think what people look at, what district courts look at in discriminatory purpose cases is a very complicated inquiry.\nI mean, I think they looked at the direct and circumstantial evidence of, why did the board do this, and do we believe them, and is it objectively reasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3038.535, 3048.67], "stop_times": [3048.67, 3055.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.535}, "reply_to": "19804__2_131", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_133", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "The factors of Arlington Heights are not so arcane.\nIf you asked somebody on the street, what would you look at, he'd probably come up with the same things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3055.635, 3057.866], "stop_times": [3057.866, 3060.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.635}, "reply_to": "19804__2_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__2_134", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "So I really must insist that the appellants here are really seeking to elevate form over substance.\nThey're seeking to require district courts to recite the blazingly obvious.\nWe're now looking at the black majority district, and we're looking at the other plan.\nThe black majority plan, if it's not chosen, has an impact.\nThe court didn't do that in Miller.\nI don't know of any purpose case that does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3060.948, 3067.243, 3071.216, 3075.408, 3080.132, 3081.542], "stop_times": [3067.243, 3071.216, 3075.408, 3080.132, 3081.542, 3084.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3060.948}, "reply_to": "19804__2_133", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_135", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "If the appellants' argument is that the findings were clearly erroneous because there was so much other evidence pointing in the other direction, that isn't requiring the district court to put its opinion in some sort of procrustean bed.\nThat's an ordinary clearly erroneous argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3084.414, 3098.842], "stop_times": [3098.842, 3100.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3084.414}, "reply_to": "19804__2_134", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__2_136", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Oh, sure, and... but I don't think they think they can win the clearly erroneous argument, because no race-blind actor would have behaved in any way different from this board.\nAgain, the NAACP plan violated State law.\nThe police jury plan did not.\nEven assuming there was this loophole that appellants talked about, you could only make the NAACP comply with State law by going to the police jury, taking some affirmative steps.\nThe argument to the police jury for complying with State law would have been objectively irrational.\nIt would have been, we'd now like you to create 65 additional precincts in a district with 56 precincts.\nNo rational person would have taken the NAACP plan if you were blind to the racial composition, so their clearly erroneous case reduces to the proposition that it's not plausible to believe that this board did the only rational thing for rational reasons.\nYou must conclude, as a matter of law, that this board did the rational thing for a racial purpose.\nI concede that that is conceivable, but I don't think it's grounds for finding the district court's contrary conclusion clearly erroneous, particularly since, again, it was a facial violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3100.805, 3108.84, 3113.034, 3114.253, 3124.331, 3130.556, 3139.37, 3155.229, 3160.934], "stop_times": [3108.84, 3113.034, 3114.253, 3124.331, 3130.556, 3139.37, 3155.229, 3160.934, 3171.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3100.805}, "reply_to": "19804__2_135", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_137", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Why was it rational to set up school districts with some districts that had a few schools, several schools, and some districts that had no schools at all?\nIt just seems a very odd kind of a school districting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3171.872, 3181.456], "stop_times": [3181.456, 3185.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.872}, "reply_to": "19804__2_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_138", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Your Honor, school districts represents parents and children, they don't represent buildings.\nIt was never a redistricting criteria in Bossier Parish to have a school building in each district.\nMrs. Jackson's testimony below was that under the 1980 plan, the old plan, she did not have a building in her district.\nIt is stipulated that well before the NAACP plan ever came into existence they did not provide their cartographer, Mr. Joiner, with school attendance zones, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3185.11, 3189.053, 3195.188, 3203.683], "stop_times": [3189.053, 3195.188, 3203.683, 3214.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3185.11}, "reply_to": "19804__2_137", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_139", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But I thought that was one of the reasons why they were resisting the jury police--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3214.329], "stop_times": [3217.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3214.329}, "reply_to": "19804__2_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_140", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3217.75], "stop_times": [3218.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.75}, "reply_to": "19804__2_139", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_141", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--plan originally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3218.291], "stop_times": [3218.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.291}, "reply_to": "19804__2_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_142", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--That is what the appellants are attributing to them, and there is a stipulation that school boards typically look at that, but the undisputed evidence is, this school board did not care about that, and we know that to a certainty, because it didn't give their line-drawer any evidence of where the school buildings were, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3218.772], "stop_times": [3237.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3218.772}, "reply_to": "19804__2_141", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_143", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "So are you saying that it was... incumbency was the only thing that kept them from resisting the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3237.833], "stop_times": [3243.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3237.833}, "reply_to": "19804__2_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19804__2_144", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--And the incumbency paled in significance to the advantages of the police jury plan for guaranteeing preclearance.\nPairs of incumbents are, of course, only a problem if both incumbents are going to run again.\nThere was two pairs of incumbents here.\nBut the evidence again, by Mr. Musgrove at trial, by Mr. Harvey at trial, and by Ms. Jackson, again in a deposition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3243.14, 3249.133, 3255.168, 3256.908], "stop_times": [3249.133, 3255.168, 3256.908, 3264.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3243.14}, "reply_to": "19804__2_143", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_145", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I think you've answered the question, Mr. Carvin.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3264.741, 3266.594], "stop_times": [3266.594, 3267.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.741}, "reply_to": "19804__2_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__2_146", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3267.613], "stop_times": [3268.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.613}, "reply_to": "19804__2_145", "speaker": "michael_a_carvin"}
{"id": "19804__2_147", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Mr. Patrick, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3268.464], "stop_times": [3270.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.464}, "reply_to": "19804__2_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__3_000", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Thank you, and if the... Mr. Chief Justice, if the Court please, I'd just like to return to a question I didn't answer very well from Justice O'Connor.\nYou asked about cases where the Court has, in the section 5 context, reflected its respect for the Arlington Heights standards, and they... those cases are cited... they're beyond Rogers v. Lodge.\nThey're cited in the first full paragraph on page 17 of our brief.\nI'm sorry it wasn't very complete earlier.\nAlso, there was a statement made about precinct changes and precinct-splitting that was... has been argued by the parish.\nIn fact, precincts could be split, indeed, were split by the police jury.\nThey split 20 precincts.\nYou'll see that on... stipulated at 88a and 88... 89a.\nThe only argument is, the only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3270.065, 3279.572, 3289.79, 3293.343, 3294.913, 3305.09, 3308.353, 3309.842, 3314.536], "stop_times": [3279.572, 3289.79, 3293.343, 3294.913, 3305.09, 3308.353, 3309.842, 3314.536, 3316.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3270.065}, "reply_to": "19804__2_147", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__3_001", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Did they do that within the window that the legislature gave them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3316.568], "stop_times": [3322.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3316.568}, "reply_to": "19804__3_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19804__3_002", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I believe they did, yes, and the only argument, Justice Kennedy, is that the school board could not split precincts without the police jury's permission.\nThe school board never tried to get the police jury's permission.\nThey expected to do so.\nThey set out to draw a different plan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3322.051, 3332.369, 3335.31, 3337.552], "stop_times": [3332.369, 3335.31, 3337.552, 3339.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3322.051}, "reply_to": "19804__3_001", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__3_003", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "No, the argument's a little further than that, as I understood the last argument.\nThat is, even the police jury itself could not do it once the window of opportunity had closed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3339.141, 3342.173], "stop_times": [3342.173, 3346.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.141}, "reply_to": "19804__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__3_004", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well, but the window of opportunity opens again on... after the 1st of January, 1993, and that's important.\nThat was known to the school board at the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3346.607, 3352.831], "stop_times": [3352.831, 3354.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3346.607}, "reply_to": "19804__3_003", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__3_005", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "But they had... but again, the argument made was that they had an obligation to come up with districts before then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3354.802], "stop_times": [3360.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3354.802}, "reply_to": "19804__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__3_006", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Well, that's right.\nThey... I understand that argument, but what we do know is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3360.606, 3361.757], "stop_times": [3361.757, 3366.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3360.606}, "reply_to": "19804__3_005", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__3_007", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Is it wrong?\nDid they have no obligation to come up with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3366.17, 3366.861], "stop_times": [3366.861, 3368.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.17}, "reply_to": "19804__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19804__3_008", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--I'm not convinced it's right, Justice Scalia, but what is clear is that consolidation after the window opened again has happened in Bossier Parish.\nIt was done by the police jury and could have been done, and indeed the record indicates that the school board could have drawn a plan with two majority-minority districts in it that ended up with fewer precincts in it than the police jury plan.\nThe other point I wanted to make is that the Court needs to understand that this is not a choice.\nThis case is not about a choice between the plan they adopted and the NAACP alternative.\nThat is a... that's a ruse.\nIt's very important to understand that this is about the school board's unwillingness to consider any alternative at all to the plan that they knew at the time was dilutive, and which they admit on the record at the time they knew they could have drawn one with two reasonably compact majority-minority districts.\nIt is not maximizing for the Department of Justice to question a jurisdiction that draws a plan which hardly serves its own interests, that pits incumbents against each other, that distributes the schools in irrational ways, and is dilutive, rather than adopting a plan that is fair, and that is really what this case is about.\nIf there are no other questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3368.2, 3378.889, 3392.336, 3397.689, 3402.524, 3404.965, 3424.857, 3447.463], "stop_times": [3378.889, 3392.336, 3397.689, 3402.524, 3404.965, 3424.857, 3447.463, 3448.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3368.2}, "reply_to": "19804__3_007", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__3_009", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Patrick.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3448.944], "stop_times": [3450.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3448.944}, "reply_to": "19804__3_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19804__3_010", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3450.847], "stop_times": [3451.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3450.847}, "reply_to": "19804__3_009", "speaker": "deval_l_patrick"}
{"id": "19804__3_011", "conversation_id": "19804", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1455", "start_times": [3451.227], "stop_times": [3452.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3451.227}, "reply_to": "19804__3_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_000", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-5955, Steiney Richards v. Wisconsin.\nMr. Karpe, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [0.0, 7.737], "stop_times": [7.737, 13.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_001", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents the issue of whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule in drug-dealing cases.\nThis case turns on the sanctity of the home, the ultimate private place--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [13.891, 42.66, 53.985], "stop_times": [42.66, 53.985, 62.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.891}, "reply_to": "20357__0_000", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_002", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "This fellow was actually in a motel room, wasn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [62.323], "stop_times": [64.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 62.323}, "reply_to": "20357__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_003", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I fully agree, and as one who has been a resident of a hotel recently I would submit that it is the longstanding doctrine of this Court that a hotel room is a home for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment under Stoner v. California--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [64.556], "stop_times": [83.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.556}, "reply_to": "20357__0_002", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_004", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Is there a case that says a motel room is a home?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [83.404], "stop_times": [86.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.404}, "reply_to": "20357__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_005", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I believe Stoner v. California, U.S.... United States v. Jeffers, United States v.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [86.189], "stop_times": [92.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 86.189}, "reply_to": "20357__0_004", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_006", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I agree with you those cases said that a hotel room is protected by the Fourth Amendment.\nI don't know that any of them ever said a hotel room is a home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [92.176, 98.747], "stop_times": [98.747, 101.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.176}, "reply_to": "20357__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_007", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I... Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that those stand for the proposition that the hotel room has the same protection as a home.\nIf it has four walls and a roof, it's a home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [101.949, 114.19], "stop_times": [114.19, 117.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.949}, "reply_to": "20357__0_006", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_008", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I think that's probably correct, but to say... when you say that a motel room... we're talking here about the sanctity of the home.\nYou're talking about something that is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment in the same way that a home is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [117.725, 125.712], "stop_times": [125.712, 131.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.725}, "reply_to": "20357__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_009", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [131.032], "stop_times": [133.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.032}, "reply_to": "20357__0_008", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_010", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "The Fourth Amendment doesn't mention homes anyway, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [133.068], "stop_times": [134.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.068}, "reply_to": "20357__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_011", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "It mentions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [134.851], "stop_times": [136.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.851}, "reply_to": "20357__0_010", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_012", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, so I guess the real issue is whether a hotel room is a house.\nDo you think it's a house?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [136.287, 142.423, 143.59], "stop_times": [142.423, 143.59, 144.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 136.287}, "reply_to": "20357__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_013", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I believe that the textual use of house is not referring to the... protecting the structure but rather what occurs inside the house.\nThe Bill of Rights was adopted in reaction to the anti-Federalist concern that way too much Federal power was going to exist and it was going to invade the home and what it contained, the privacy of the... your family, your spouse, so I believe that the home is the core value of the Fourth Amendment.\nIf the Fourth Amendment does not protect the home, it doesn't protect anything.\nNow, the judge who issued the search warrant in this case weighed the sanctity of the home against the general allegation by the police that drug dealers tend to carry on, and the judge who issued the warrant found that no-knock was not appropriate, specifically instructed the police not to exercise no-knock, they chose to disregard that when--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [144.875, 158.95, 183.833, 188.469], "stop_times": [158.95, 183.833, 188.469, 213.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.875}, "reply_to": "20357__0_012", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_014", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Mr. Karpe, on that striking feature of this case, here it was the affidavit of the police with... asking for permission for no-knock, and the United States struck that out.\nIs that a common thing to include in affidavits, and how does it... is it ordinarily taken out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [213.437, 224.809], "stop_times": [224.809, 235.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 213.437}, "reply_to": "20357__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__0_015", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I have seen a number of different forms of applications for search warrants, Justice Ginsburg, and sometimes there's check-off boxes.\nIn this particular case, the police made an application for a no-knock and Judge Frankel, upon reviewing the facts that were pled in the complaint for the search warrant, decided that the circumstances did not merit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [235.831, 249.174], "stop_times": [249.174, 266.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.831}, "reply_to": "20357__0_014", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_016", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "What I'm asking, maybe you don't know the answer to this question, is, is it standard operating procedure in Wisconsin for the police to ask for no-knock permission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [266.284], "stop_times": [274.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.284}, "reply_to": "20357__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__0_017", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question.\nThere's no requirement that the police seek advance approval of no-knock.\nNo-knock warrants are neither specifically forbidden nor specifically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [274.622, 277.841, 283.061], "stop_times": [277.841, 283.061, 285.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.622}, "reply_to": "20357__0_016", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_018", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "As a matter of practice, do police... is this a common form of affidavit?\nDo police ask for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [285.763, 289.965], "stop_times": [289.965, 291.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.763}, "reply_to": "20357__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__0_019", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Often they do that, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [291.334], "stop_times": [293.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 291.334}, "reply_to": "20357__0_018", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_020", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "And is it also often that the judge X's it out, the magistrate X's it out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [293.334], "stop_times": [298.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.334}, "reply_to": "20357__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__0_021", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I cannot speak to that, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [298.488], "stop_times": [299.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.488}, "reply_to": "20357__0_020", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_022", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Would it be a fair interpretation to say that the judge instructed the officers that they must knock, and failure to do so was therefore a violation of the warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [299.654], "stop_times": [309.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.654}, "reply_to": "20357__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__0_023", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I hope I'm understanding your question correctly, but by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [309.344], "stop_times": [314.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.344}, "reply_to": "20357__0_022", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_024", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "By striking it out, does that mean that they must knock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [314.062], "stop_times": [317.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.062}, "reply_to": "20357__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__0_025", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I believe that was Judge Frankel's intention, that his review of the facts presented to him did not present that it would be reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [317.331], "stop_times": [329.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.331}, "reply_to": "20357__0_024", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_026", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Of course, that's not really in this case.\nThis case is here for us to test the rule announced by the Wisconsin court that did not depend on the interpretation of the warrant.\nWhat would your position be if in situations where the magistrate does authorize a no-knock entry, do you say that if police then follow such an authorization and enter without knocking, can we have a blanket rule saying that if the magistrate has authorized it it is going to be in compliance with the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [329.739, 331.405, 338.595], "stop_times": [331.405, 338.595, 368.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.739}, "reply_to": "20357__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__0_027", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, the way I understand the question, I think that the pre-approval would not necessarily make the search reasonable.\nIt depends on the particular circumstances confronted by the officer at the time of the entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [368.947, 379.47], "stop_times": [379.47, 386.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.947}, "reply_to": "20357__0_026", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_028", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I take it the converse would be true.\nThe court might very well have said, you've got to knock, but if they get to the porch and they hear guns being fired inside, I take it it would be quite reasonable for them to say, we're not going to knock, we're going to go in like gang-busters, and you wouldn't have a constitutional argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [386.374, 388.659], "stop_times": [388.659, 404.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.374}, "reply_to": "20357__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20357__0_029", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Granted, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [404.418], "stop_times": [405.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.418}, "reply_to": "20357__0_028", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_030", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Or even if they don't hear guns being fired, if they hear nothing but what the court expected them to hear, the court might have just been wrong, isn't that right, as to whether it would violate the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [405.885], "stop_times": [417.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.885}, "reply_to": "20357__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_031", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Yes, Justice Scalia, which is why it's so important that there not be a blanket exception that basically removes the judicial process and has law enforcement then acting in a way unfettered by legal process.\nIt basically makes the line officer the final judge, jury, and executioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [417.326, 431.967], "stop_times": [431.967, 439.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.326}, "reply_to": "20357__0_030", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_032", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "But, gee, that happens a lot of times with searches and seizures.\nI mean, the number of exceptions to the warrant requirement are innumerable now, and with respect to every one of those exception, exigent circumstances and so forth, it's up to the police officer to make his best judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [439.371, 444.108], "stop_times": [444.108, 458.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.371}, "reply_to": "20357__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_033", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Yes, Justice Scalia, but hopefully reviewable by a court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [458.784], "stop_times": [463.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.784}, "reply_to": "20357__0_032", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_034", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Okay.\nWe're not saying it's not reviewable, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [463.736, 465.354], "stop_times": [465.354, 468.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.736}, "reply_to": "20357__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_035", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "The blanket exception makes it, Justice Scalia, a very simplistic process.\nThe questions that are asked are, was there a search warrant?\nWas there evidence of drug dealing?\nAnd it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [468.223, 474.025, 476.977, 478.827], "stop_times": [474.025, 476.977, 478.827, 479.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.223}, "reply_to": "20357__0_034", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_036", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--What about automobiles?\nI mean, we have a blanket exception for automobiles, don't we?\nYou can search automobiles without a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [479.077, 480.627, 483.045], "stop_times": [480.627, 483.045, 485.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.077}, "reply_to": "20357__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_037", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Yes, Justice Scalia, and I don't... the Founders didn't include in the Fourth Amendment that we had a right to be secure in our carriages or whatever.\nThe house is textual.\nThe... this is... in this area of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [485.664, 496.539, 499.372], "stop_times": [496.539, 499.372, 501.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.664}, "reply_to": "20357__0_036", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_038", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I like that.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [501.872, 502.872], "stop_times": [502.872, 505.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.872}, "reply_to": "20357__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_039", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--In this area, we would submit that a blanket rule would never be acceptable with regard to unannounced entries.\nThe courts even found--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [505.324, 515.763], "stop_times": [515.763, 517.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.324}, "reply_to": "20357__0_038", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_040", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "We recently announced a blanket rule, did we not, in, I believe it's Maryland v. Wilson, with reference to people stepping out of automobiles.\nIsn't this just as sensible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [517.215, 526.487], "stop_times": [526.487, 529.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 517.215}, "reply_to": "20357__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__0_041", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I agree that that did set a blanket rule, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [529.772], "stop_times": [536.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.772}, "reply_to": "20357__0_040", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_042", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "So there are blanket rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [536.176], "stop_times": [537.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.176}, "reply_to": "20357__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__0_043", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Apart... but that was a very de minimis sort of intrusion.\nThe car is stopped anyway.\nThis is not a de minimis intrusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [537.726, 541.58, 543.513], "stop_times": [541.58, 543.513, 547.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.726}, "reply_to": "20357__0_042", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_044", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, that could be major.\nIt could be a storm, and it could be some poor woman nursing a tiny baby, or some sick person.\nThat's not a de minimis rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [547.048, 548.4, 554.804], "stop_times": [548.4, 554.804, 556.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 547.048}, "reply_to": "20357__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__0_045", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "The Court had already ruled in Pennsylvania v. Mimms that asking the driver to step out under the same circumstances was de minimis.\nI think that Maryland v. Wilson was a fairly simple extension.\nThis is simply not de minimis by any means.\nThis is one of those extraordinary searches, extraordinary invasion which is unusually dangerous and unusually invasive of someone's privacy and their safety.\nPeople get killed during these things.\nThere's a high risk in a no-knock search the citizens are going to experience some sort of injury.\nThe police come banging in through the door, weapons are drawn, there's no notice, and it's dangerous to police, too.\nPeople might think they're being burglarized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [556.737, 566.176, 570.394, 572.163, 587.34, 589.289, 596.711, 603.699], "stop_times": [566.176, 570.394, 572.163, 587.34, 589.289, 596.711, 603.699, 604.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.737}, "reply_to": "20357__0_044", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_046", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, it's dangerous even with a knock and announce as well, I assume, in situations like this where there's a drug dealer with weapons.\nBy knocking and saying, police here, it gives the person time to get the weapons ready and you can have just as much danger to the police who enter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [604.984, 612.955], "stop_times": [612.955, 626.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.984}, "reply_to": "20357__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__0_047", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice O'Connor, there was no indication that Steiney Richards had weapons.\nThis was a 19-year-old kid from Detroit who's dealing coke.\nHe's not a member of the Medellin cartel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [626.215, 631.118, 634.653], "stop_times": [631.118, 634.653, 635.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.215}, "reply_to": "20357__0_046", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_048", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "You were speaking in generalities--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [635.986], "stop_times": [637.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.986}, "reply_to": "20357__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__0_049", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [637.986], "stop_times": [638.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.986}, "reply_to": "20357__0_048", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_050", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--and so was I.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [638.169], "stop_times": [638.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.169}, "reply_to": "20357__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__0_051", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [638.938], "stop_times": [641.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.938}, "reply_to": "20357__0_050", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_052", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "He jumped out the window, didn't he?\nI mean, he had time.\nAs soon as he finds out the police are here he jumps out the window, runs away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [641.188, 642.306, 643.09], "stop_times": [642.306, 643.09, 646.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.188}, "reply_to": "20357__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20357__0_053", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [646.342], "stop_times": [647.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.342}, "reply_to": "20357__0_052", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_054", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Is that a legitimate concern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [647.308], "stop_times": [648.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 647.308}, "reply_to": "20357__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20357__0_055", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I think it's ambiguous that he knew that that was police.\nHe looks out, he sees someone--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [648.294, 652.412], "stop_times": [652.412, 653.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 648.294}, "reply_to": "20357__0_054", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_056", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Did he just jump out the window for fun?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [653.546], "stop_times": [654.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.546}, "reply_to": "20357__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20357__0_057", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--He knew someone was trying to bang the door down.\nHe figured, give up the drugs and save his skin.\nI mean, hop out the window.\nWe're talking about December 31 in Wisconsin.\nHe was not going to get very far without a shirt, Justice Breyer.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [654.948, 656.65, 659.2, 660.783, 663.735, 666.151], "stop_times": [656.65, 659.2, 660.783, 663.735, 666.151, 666.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.948}, "reply_to": "20357__0_056", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_058", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I take it that... right.\n[Laughter]\nThe police say... I think they have a legitimate interest in some... with drug deals in general, not announcing their presence, because a) they might get killed, or b) the person might jump out the window, or c) he might flush the drugs down the toilet.\nThey say that happens all the time... all the time.\nAs soon as they find out, police, it's into the bathroom, the drugs are gone, and they want to preserve the evidence, they don't want him to run away, and they don't want to get shot, so what is the response to those three?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [666.687, 670.139, 672.989, 690.802, 693.837], "stop_times": [670.139, 672.989, 690.802, 693.837, 703.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.687}, "reply_to": "20357__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20357__0_059", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice Breyer, there is certainly no indication that Mr. Richards was going to attempt to destroy drugs, and certainly the way they were packaged he would have had a heck of a time.\nThey were basically divided up into 120 little plastic packets, plus and to answer your question and at the same time sort of get back to Justice O'Connor's question, the mere fact that even if a drug dealer has guns, it does not mean he intends to use them against the police.\nMore than... more often than not it's to get... to enforce debts, to protect themselves against rivals, and people certainly are afraid of being burglarized.\nThe most dangerous instances that we've come across in terms of these sort of police invasions without announcement is that people think they're being burglarized and take weapons out, get ready to shoot, and when they learn it's the police, then they drop the weapons.\nThe instances where police tend to get shot is not this myth that the Allegro article that's often referred to speaks of, this fatal funnel where the drug dealer stands at the door with his weapon pointed at the door waiting for someone to come in.\nMore often than not, when an officer is killed during one of these searches it's because there's someone in a back room who's hiding, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [703.026, 710.097, 728.225, 739.164, 752.423, 768.116], "stop_times": [710.097, 728.225, 739.164, 752.423, 768.116, 776.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.026}, "reply_to": "20357__0_058", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_060", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Once again, I'd rather be inclined to rely on the judgment of the officers as to what is more or less likely to endanger their lives.\nYou're asking us to give them a form of protection that they are too stupid to give to themselves?\nI mean, if, indeed, they're getting themselves killed more often by crashing in, I assume they're not going to crash in.\nI don't know why we have to adopt a constitutional rule to protect police officers from themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [776.186, 786.661, 793.331, 798.552], "stop_times": [786.661, 793.331, 798.552, 803.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.186}, "reply_to": "20357__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_061", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I agree, the Fourth Amendment is not there to protect Government.\nIt's not there to protect law enforcement.\nIt's there to protect citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [803.687, 806.972, 808.372], "stop_times": [806.972, 808.372, 808.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.687}, "reply_to": "20357__0_060", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_062", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "So I mean, this argument you've been dwelling on that, you know, it's going to hurt the police officers more, I... you know, it's sort of... I don't see it.\nThat'll take care of itself.\nIf, indeed, it's more dangerous for the police officers, presumably, in the nature of things, police officers won't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [808.622, 820.93, 822.513], "stop_times": [820.93, 822.513, 829.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.622}, "reply_to": "20357__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_063", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice Scalia, I don't think there's any indication that in fact it is more dangerous to the police to announce.\nThat just is not there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [829.786, 843.343], "stop_times": [843.343, 845.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.786}, "reply_to": "20357__0_062", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_064", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, the State says so.\nI... you know, and I'm inclined to accept their judgment as to what's more dangerous or less dangerous for the police.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [845.176, 847.378], "stop_times": [847.378, 856.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.176}, "reply_to": "20357__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_065", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I... in any case... I don't... this is not really in response to your question, but in any case, in the... this Court's very well-reasoned and unanimous decision in Wilson v. Arkansas, this Court recognized the presumption in favor of announcement.\nI think that the blanket exception in fact ignores the precepts of Wilson and sets a presumption against announcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [856.251, 880.266], "stop_times": [880.266, 891.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.251}, "reply_to": "20357__0_064", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_066", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Suppose it weren't blanket, Mr Karpe.\nSuppose it were just a... this really wouldn't serve your purposes in this case anyway.\nSuppose we just had a rule, sure, ordinarily you must knock and announce.\nHowever, there are extraordinary circumstances where you don't have to and ordinarily, perhaps almost always, drug-dealing is one of those extraordinary circumstances.\nWould that rule satisfy you?\nIt's not an absolute rule.\nIt just says, you know, ordinarily.\nConceivably there's some situations in which drug-dealing wouldn't allow you to go crashing in if you know the drugs are being held in hundred-pound bales by little old ladies without guns.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [891.24, 894.625, 902.279, 907.581, 919.991, 921.657, 923.026, 924.376, 935.648], "stop_times": [894.625, 902.279, 907.581, 919.991, 921.657, 923.026, 924.376, 935.648, 937.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.24}, "reply_to": "20357__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_067", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice Scalia, again, that... the presumption there is going the wrong way.\nSir, I'm not saying there has to be announcement in every single case, but to basically except what I... I assume you're discussing the U.S.'s position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [937.648, 942.652], "stop_times": [942.652, 955.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.648}, "reply_to": "20357__0_066", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_068", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [955.46], "stop_times": [956.26], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 955.46}, "reply_to": "20357__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20357__0_069", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--would create a situation where the police would possibly have no motivation to uncover facts but might lead to an indication that this is the exception to the exception.\nI think it's a very hard to enforce rule for law enforcement, and is the defendant then to have the burden of persuasion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [956.26, 971.719], "stop_times": [971.719, 979.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.26}, "reply_to": "20357__0_068", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_070", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "What about a statute that settles it like the two that are in the appendix to this amicus brief from Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, that gives the magistrate authority, if he finds two things, one that there's a danger to life and limb, and that the... or that the property sought may be easily or quickly destroyed?\nIs that statute, those two statutes constitutional, where the magistrate relieves the officer of the decision to be made on the spot by authorizing in the warrant a no-knock search if these conditions... if the magistrate finds these conditions present, that the property sought can be quickly destroyed, or that there's danger to life and limb of the officer or another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [979.539, 1005.19], "stop_times": [1005.19, 1035.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.539}, "reply_to": "20357__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__0_071", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I think if there's a specific indication that there is danger to the officer, that would be acceptable.\nTo say it can be easily destroyed I think goes too far and leads to procrustean application, because we can't deny that many drugs, particularly in small quantities, can easily be destroyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1035.291, 1042.565], "stop_times": [1042.565, 1056.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.291}, "reply_to": "20357__0_070", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_072", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "And yet that is a standard reason for applying the exigent circumstances doctrine, and if exigent circumstances may be applied, why can't the kind of pre-warrant determination that the statute refers to and that Justice Ginsburg refers to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1056.373], "stop_times": [1072.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.373}, "reply_to": "20357__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20357__0_073", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice Souter, I think that it leads to a danger in application--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1072.751], "stop_times": [1078.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1072.751}, "reply_to": "20357__0_072", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_074", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, there's a danger in application, I suppose, to exigent circumstances, because it depends upon a judgment made on the spot.\nThis is somewhat less dangerous, because it's not being... a judgment made in the heat of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1078.738, 1085.225], "stop_times": [1085.225, 1091.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.738}, "reply_to": "20357__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20357__0_075", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I think that the mere fact that there's drugs present and that there's a toilet bowl nearby would not constitute exigent circumstances.\nIt's certainly easy enough for the police to turn off the water so the drugs can be flushed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1091.129, 1100.335], "stop_times": [1100.335, 1103.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.129}, "reply_to": "20357__0_074", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_076", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "How are they going to turn off... you mean, they're going to go into the basement of the building and turn the water--\n--You must have these fancy new toilets in your home.\nOurs has a tank.\nYou can shut off the water.\nYou get one flush anyway.\n[Laughter]\nYou've got to try something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1103.87, 1109.274, 1111.624, 1112.976, 1114.426, 1115.678, 1119.38], "stop_times": [1109.274, 1111.624, 1112.976, 1114.426, 1115.678, 1119.38, 1120.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.87}, "reply_to": "20357__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20357__0_077", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, I'm not arguing for the one-flush rule, but--\n[Laughter]\nThe... many toilets in apartments and hotels do not have tanks.\nThey can be easily flushed off from outside the room.\nAnd I suppose the police could even put a tap on the sewer line so that the evidence is recovered.\nIt fact, it has greater weight, so the penalty would be greater, because then instead of just having the drug, you've got the drug in solution.\nBut in any case, this would be a procrustean sort of application, which Mr. Richards certainly wouldn't fit.\nHe was not poised to destroy evidence.\nHe... there was no indication that he was going to be armed or violently resist, and it will fit a lot of people even less than it fit Mr. Richards.\nCertainly someone who has a marijuana-growing operation outside the house would not fit this sort of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1120.696, 1123.582, 1126.867, 1133.271, 1135.39, 1142.127, 1147.363, 1156.885, 1161.003, 1172.895], "stop_times": [1123.582, 1126.867, 1133.271, 1135.39, 1142.127, 1147.363, 1156.885, 1161.003, 1172.895, 1185.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.696}, "reply_to": "20357__0_076", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_078", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, under what circumstances, Mr. Karpe, do you think the police may dispense with the knock-and-announce rule in connection with a, say, a drug search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1185.035], "stop_times": [1195.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.035}, "reply_to": "20357__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_079", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I believe when there are particular circumstances indicating there are exigent circumstances present, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1195.426], "stop_times": [1203.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1195.426}, "reply_to": "20357__0_078", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_080", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "What would some of those indications be?\nI mean, how easy would your rule be to apply in practice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1203.247, 1207.318], "stop_times": [1207.318, 1210.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.247}, "reply_to": "20357__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_081", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, there's usually an informant involved in these things who's been in the home, who can see whether there's provisions being made for destruction of property, see whether the people are armed.\nCertainly in Wilson v. Arkansas the Court was aware of a number of factors that could have led the court to conclude that a blanket rule was acceptable and the Court wisely chose not to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1210.686, 1223.827], "stop_times": [1223.827, 1239.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.686}, "reply_to": "20357__0_080", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_082", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Would it be enough, Mr. Karpe, if the police had probable cause to believe that there were automatic weapons on the premises?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1239.837], "stop_times": [1247.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.837}, "reply_to": "20357__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__0_083", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice Stevens, that again would approach a blanket sort of rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1247.442], "stop_times": [1254.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.442}, "reply_to": "20357__0_082", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_084", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Are you suggesting that in all drug arrest cases that we should assume there are automatic weapons present?\nIt seems to me if you are you may be suggesting an automatic rule makes a lot of sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1254.929, 1262.266], "stop_times": [1262.266, 1267.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.929}, "reply_to": "20357__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__0_085", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, I... Justice Stevens, I don't know if I understood the question correctly, but I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusion each time there's drugs that there's both weapons and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1267.237], "stop_times": [1278.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.237}, "reply_to": "20357__0_084", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_086", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "No, I understand that.\nI'm saying if the application for a warrant indicates that police have probable cause to believe that the people who have the drugs also are armed with automatic weapons, would that justify a no-knock entry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1278.358, 1279.644], "stop_times": [1279.644, 1293.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.358}, "reply_to": "20357__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__0_087", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Stevens, I think you'd have to look at the particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1293.052], "stop_times": [1297.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.052}, "reply_to": "20357__0_086", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_088", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, those are the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1297.356], "stop_times": [1298.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.356}, "reply_to": "20357__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__0_089", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--There has to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1298.472], "stop_times": [1298.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.472}, "reply_to": "20357__0_088", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_090", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "The facts are that there are three men in the premises, in the motel room.\nIt is known that they have automatic weapons.\nThey have a large quantity of drugs with them.\nThat's all.\nThey don't know anything about their criminal history, but they know they're armed in that way.\nWould that justify a no-knock entry, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1298.972, 1304.375, 1306.391, 1308.327, 1309.01, 1312.379], "stop_times": [1304.375, 1306.391, 1308.327, 1309.01, 1312.379, 1315.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.972}, "reply_to": "20357__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__0_091", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--No, I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1315.314], "stop_times": [1317.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.314}, "reply_to": "20357__0_090", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_092", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "When would it be justified, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1317.266], "stop_times": [1320.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.266}, "reply_to": "20357__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__0_093", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "When there would be a particular circumstance that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1320.218], "stop_times": [1323.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.218}, "reply_to": "20357__0_092", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_094", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "But what more than I've told you?\nWhat would be an additional circumstance that would justify it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1323.503, 1325.72], "stop_times": [1325.72, 1328.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.503}, "reply_to": "20357__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__0_095", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--That threats had been made to other persons, that they had indicated some sort of intention to violently resist, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1328.153], "stop_times": [1337.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.153}, "reply_to": "20357__0_094", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_096", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I see.\nThese are violent people with automatic weapons, rather than peaceful people with automatic weapons.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1337.861, 1338.094, 1343.432], "stop_times": [1338.094, 1343.432, 1345.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.861}, "reply_to": "20357__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_097", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Scalia, some people collect automatic weapons.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1345.198, 1348.4], "stop_times": [1348.4, 1351.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1345.198}, "reply_to": "20357__0_096", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_098", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "And take them to the hotel room when they're in Wisconsin.\n[Laughter]\nI think your reluctance to answer the question to indicate that the police have the right to enter when automatic weapons are present is because you think we're going to say, oh, well, that's a per se rule.\nBut at some level you have to have certain standards and rules given by this Court for the police officer to act upon, and it seems to me that the presence of weapons is a perfectly sensible rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1351.502, 1353.804, 1355.59, 1367.112], "stop_times": [1353.804, 1355.59, 1367.112, 1378.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.502}, "reply_to": "20357__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__0_099", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, I think the reasonable suspicion standard is the applicable standard here.\nIt's one of the relatively simpler concepts under the Fourth Amendment.\nI think it's easy for the police to apply and should apply in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1378.253, 1385.609, 1392.429], "stop_times": [1385.609, 1392.429, 1396.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.253}, "reply_to": "20357__0_098", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_100", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "What about reasonable suspicion of automatic weapons?\nThen that would not be enough in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1396.881, 1400.333], "stop_times": [1400.333, 1401.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.881}, "reply_to": "20357__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_101", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1401.833], "stop_times": [1402.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.833}, "reply_to": "20357__0_100", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_102", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "So reasonable suspicion of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1402.399], "stop_times": [1404.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.399}, "reply_to": "20357__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_103", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Reasonable suspicion that the occupants in fact have the weapons, were prone to use them, weren't just collecting them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1404.618], "stop_times": [1417.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1404.618}, "reply_to": "20357__0_102", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_104", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, are you serious about saying, this is a drug bust and you would have to show that the automatic weapons that the putative defendants had weren't just being collected in the motel room?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1417.593, 1429.333], "stop_times": [1429.333, 1431.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.593}, "reply_to": "20357__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_105", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Perhaps... perhaps, Mr. Chief Justice, it would depend on the quantity of the drugs involved as well, but there would have to be a regard towards the particularity of the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1431.599], "stop_times": [1444.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.599}, "reply_to": "20357__0_104", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_106", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "What quantity of the automatic weapons?\nI suppose if you had, you know, a couple of hundred of them, maybe they were collecting them, right?\nI mean, more than they could use.\nIf... just suppose for a moment that I thought it was enough if you had probable cause to believe that there were weapons in the room, that that would be enough to go crashing in, weapons, you know, at the ready.\nIf I think that's enough, why wouldn't it be enough simply to know that this is a drug dealer, assuming I can establish that 95 percent of the time drug dealers are armed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1444.843, 1446.359, 1449.961, 1451.58, 1468.172], "stop_times": [1446.359, 1449.961, 1451.58, 1468.172, 1483.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.843}, "reply_to": "20357__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__0_107", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice Scalia, I believe that the answer to that lies in the fact that drug dealers do not necessarily have arms to use against the police but rather to defend against people who might steal from them, to enforce debts, and particularly many people have firearms just around, not for particularly drug-related purposes, even though they might be drug suspects.\nThis... the knock-and-announce rule protects the innocent and the relatively innocent as well, and if I may reserve my remaining time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1483.984, 1512.201], "stop_times": [1512.201, 1523.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1483.984}, "reply_to": "20357__0_106", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_108", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Very well, Mr. Karpe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1523.509], "stop_times": [1525.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.509}, "reply_to": "20357__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__0_109", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1525.228], "stop_times": [1525.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1525.228}, "reply_to": "20357__0_108", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__0_110", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "General Doyle, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1525.911], "stop_times": [1528.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.911}, "reply_to": "20357__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__1_000", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Wisconsin supreme court has made a common sense determination, in light of the modern-day drug trade, that in the execution of search warrants for... in felony drug-dealing cases it is reasonable under Fourth Amendment standards for the officers to knock, announce their presence, and give the occupants an opportunity to react.\nThere is discussion about what an invasive, intrusive entry into the home this search is, and we agree.\nAgents inform me that if you had videotapes of a no-knock search and a knock search in a drug case, you would be... you would see almost exactly the same events occur on that videotape, that even in the knock case, there will be an overpowering number of officers that are going to enter those premises.\nThe officers will have their guns drawn.\nThe officers will be shouting, police, police, search warrant.\nThe officers will round up all of the occupants on those premises.\nThose occupants may sometimes be children.\nThose occupants may sometimes be elderly.\nThose occupants... because in Wisconsin we have no rule against night-time searches, most of these searches in fact occur at night.\nThose occupants may frequently be sleeping.\nWhether there is a knock-and-announce or a no-knock, there will be a rapid, overpowering securing of the premises by the law enforcement officers who enter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1528.43, 1539.052, 1561.817, 1570.507, 1594.788, 1597.324, 1601.359, 1606.263, 1608.882, 1611.334, 1617.654, 1619.954], "stop_times": [1539.052, 1561.817, 1570.507, 1594.788, 1597.324, 1601.359, 1606.263, 1608.882, 1611.334, 1617.654, 1619.954, 1631.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1528.43}, "reply_to": "20357__0_110", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_001", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "General Doyle-- --How long do you wait after announce and a knock, a knock and announce?\nI mean, you knock, announce, nothing happens.\nHow long does the officer typically wait before they do crash in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1631.146, 1634.931, 1637.05], "stop_times": [1634.931, 1637.05, 1640.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.146}, "reply_to": "20357__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__1_002", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "We... in Wisconsin... it depends somewhat on the circumstances, the size of the room.\nA motel room is going to be less than a mansion, but roughly 10 to 15 seconds, enough time for somebody to come to the door and open the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1640.585, 1646.406], "stop_times": [1646.406, 1654.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1640.585}, "reply_to": "20357__1_001", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_003", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Just enough time for somebody who would hear the knock to come?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1654.392], "stop_times": [1657.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.392}, "reply_to": "20357__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__1_004", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1657.158], "stop_times": [1658.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1657.158}, "reply_to": "20357__1_003", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_005", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "General Doyle, if you're correct that the videotapes would show the same scenario regardless of whether there's a knock or no-knock, doesn't that suggest that the no-knock... that the requirement of a knock doesn't really harm the law enforcement operation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1658.027], "stop_times": [1673.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.027}, "reply_to": "20357__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_006", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "It harms law enforcement enormously, because in circumstances, and we would argue in drug-dealing cases, because that knock and announce, it's 10 to 15 seconds of waiting, and then it's however long a time it takes to get organized then to come through the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1673.437], "stop_times": [1690.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1673.437}, "reply_to": "20357__1_005", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_007", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1690.148], "stop_times": [1690.564], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.148}, "reply_to": "20357__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20357__1_008", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "And during that time a person on the other side who is going to train a gun at that door has full time to do it, or a person who is intent on destroying narcotics may do it.\nThere's a suggestion in this case that there's no evidence that anybody was going to destroy drugs.\nWell, it's interesting, these drugs were stored in the bathroom.\nThat... and under Wisconsin law, like under most law, even if you don't get them all destroyed, the fewer drugs they find the lesser penalties you have under our drug laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1690.564, 1703.222, 1708.276, 1710.977], "stop_times": [1703.222, 1708.276, 1710.977, 1720.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1690.564}, "reply_to": "20357__1_007", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_009", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, if you're going to rely on destruction of evidence, would it not be true that in every drug case there is a possibility that some of the drugs will be flushed down the toilet--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1720.417], "stop_times": [1729.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.417}, "reply_to": "20357__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_010", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "It is true--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1729.273], "stop_times": [1730.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.273}, "reply_to": "20357__1_009", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_011", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--and that therefore you don't really have to rely on the violence at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1730.339], "stop_times": [1733.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.339}, "reply_to": "20357__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_012", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--It is true that in every drug case there will be destruction, there is the potential of destruction.\nThe Wisconsin blanket rule applies only to felony drug cases because of the convergence in a violent and dangerous form of commerce of weapons and the destruction of drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1733.541, 1739.445], "stop_times": [1739.445, 1754.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1733.541}, "reply_to": "20357__1_011", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_013", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "My question really, General Doyle, is if the potential for destruction of evidence is sufficient by itself to justify no-knock, why shouldn't the rule encompass even misdemeanor cases, because there always is that potential there, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1754.103], "stop_times": [1769.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.103}, "reply_to": "20357__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_014", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I think in most misdemeanor cases, even on a case-by-case analysis with the police officers going to the door in a drug case, that in that case-by-case analysis... there may be some exceptions to it, but in that case-by-case analysis the balance would weigh heavily on the side of the police.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1769.73], "stop_times": [1788.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.73}, "reply_to": "20357__1_013", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_015", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Would it ever weigh the other way if the destruction of evidence is enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1788.526], "stop_times": [1792.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.526}, "reply_to": "20357__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_016", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "In a low-level... in a case-by-case analysis, in a low-level drug case in which there's information that it is only the grandmother who is on the premises, perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1792.061], "stop_times": [1802.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1792.061}, "reply_to": "20357__1_015", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_017", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "But she's fast enough to get to the bathroom in 10 seconds.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1802.917, 1805.802], "stop_times": [1805.802, 1807.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.917}, "reply_to": "20357__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_018", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, she may be, but as I say, in a case-by-case analysis with... in a misdemeanor simple possession of marijuana with a grandmother on the premises, perhaps it is sufficient.\nPerhaps in that balance you would come out with a knock-and-announce, but what we are advocating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1807.068, 1818.026], "stop_times": [1818.026, 1823.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.068}, "reply_to": "20357__1_017", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_019", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I'm suggesting that you rule out... you say you never need to knock-and-announce if destruction of evidence is a sufficient exigent circumstance.\nI don't know why you ever have to knock and announce, because there's always the danger, it seems to me, that you get some drugs flushed down the toilet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1823.597, 1831.417], "stop_times": [1831.417, 1838.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.597}, "reply_to": "20357__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_020", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I believe you do not have to knock and announce where you have reasonable suspicion to believe that destruction of evidence will occur.\nThe question before the Court here, I believe, is whether you can apply that in a blanket way, as the Wisconsin supreme court has done in felony drug-dealing cases, or whether in each individual case we have to have a suppression hearing in which those specific facts are laid out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1838.69, 1846.36], "stop_times": [1846.36, 1865.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.69}, "reply_to": "20357__1_019", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_021", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, may I ask you whether we're talking about anything but formality, and correct me if I'm wrong on these points.\nI assume that most drug cases do have a suppression hearing.\nIt may be a simple one.\nIt may not take very long, but usually there's a suppression motion.\nNumber 2, on the very premises of your argument, if you have to justify the failure to knock and announce, you're going to be able to do it, I would assume, without too much trouble.\nIn fact, I assume you could do it with virtually no trouble in most cases.\nThere will occasionally be a rare case in which, for example, the informant has told you there are no guns, the marijuana is stored in bales out in the barn so that there's no risk of destruction, and in those rare cases you wouldn't be able to justify the failure to knock and announce, but in most of them you could.\nSo are we talking really about the need for anything more than dispensing with what is probably in most cases almost a formality in the proof that you will adduce, the evidence that you will adduce at the suppression hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1865.59, 1873.327, 1877.029, 1878.029, 1881.397, 1893.622, 1898.192, 1918.856], "stop_times": [1873.327, 1877.029, 1878.029, 1881.397, 1893.622, 1898.192, 1918.856, 1937.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.59}, "reply_to": "20357__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20357__1_022", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, on the question of whether it will be a formality, much depends on what position this Court adopts in this case.\nIf you were to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1937.584, 1944.304], "stop_times": [1944.304, 1945.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.584}, "reply_to": "20357__1_021", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_023", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1945.006], "stop_times": [1945.006], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.006}, "reply_to": "20357__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20357__1_024", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--adopt the petitioner's position it is much more than a formality.\nWe'd have detailed hearings--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1945.006, 1947.839], "stop_times": [1947.839, 1948.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.006}, "reply_to": "20357__1_023", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_025", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, let's assume this Court says, look, we are perfectly willing to recognize that in most cases involving drug dealers the State will in fact have valid grounds for dispensing with knock-and-announce, because the marijuana won't be in the barn and the informant will not have said, these people are unarmed.\nSo that we said, we recognize that in most cases they'll be able to make their proof without great difficulty, but we're not going to adopt a blanket rule for the simple reason that if we do we're going to be starting down the road to more blanket exceptions, and more blanket exceptions after that.\nSo that in order to preserve the particularized inquiry value, which is a real value in the long run, we're still going to require the State in effect to make its proof knowing perfectly well that the State can do it in most cases.\nNow, that, I take it, would be a fairly benign atmosphere for you to present your proof in individual cases.\nAssuming we said something like that, are we then in this case arguing about anything much more than a formality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [1948.908, 1970.971, 1987.833, 2001.509, 2009.179], "stop_times": [1970.971, 1987.833, 2001.509, 2009.179, 2017.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.908}, "reply_to": "20357__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20357__1_026", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Yes, I believe you are, Justice Souter.\nLet me say that the position you've laid out, as I understand it, is essentially that of the Solicitor General, and it's one that we would prevail on in this case under the record and that we would accept, but I do think that there are values and reasons to go beyond it for the blanket rule, and there are two of them.\nThe first is that the officer at the scene, as he or she approaches the door, or as they approach the door in drug cases is... will be, under the blanket rule, able to make a strategic, tactical decision not worrying about whether or not it will meet a reasonableness Fourth Amendment test at a later time down the road.\nAnd in that regard I think it is... this case is very much in line with Michigan v. Summers, in which in the manner of the execution of the search warrant this Court did adopt a bright line rule that permitted officers to round up the people on the premises where a search warrant was being executed.\nAnd here we are talking, just as in Michigan v. Summers, with the manner of the execution of the search warrant, and I believe that police officers, for their safety, for the safety of the occupants within, should be able to make those decisions on the entry based on their tactical and strategic decisions.\nNow, they may decide for reasons that were mentioned earlier by my opponent that in some of those instances it may not be safe and wise to come barging in.\nIt may be safer for everyone to come in a different way, but that decision is a strategic and tactical one.\nThe second issue is, I think that over time you will see those relatively benign suppression hearings become very complicated hearings about what additional facts did the police know.\nOkay, you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2017.018, 2019.97, 2037.765, 2061.963, 2082.626, 2098.802, 2107.325, 2112.896, 2123.953], "stop_times": [2019.97, 2037.765, 2061.963, 2082.626, 2098.802, 2107.325, 2112.896, 2123.953, 2123.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.018}, "reply_to": "20357__1_025", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_027", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, wouldn't part of it be who had the burden of proof in those hearings?\nI mean, if the State had the burden of proof at the suppression that it didn't know anything more, it's very hard to prove a negative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2123.953, 2127.405], "stop_times": [2127.405, 2134.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.953}, "reply_to": "20357__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__1_028", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIf we have to prove these were the only facts we had, and we had no further facts... we knew he was a drug dealer, felony drug dealer, and that's what we knew, and then we go through a hearing on what more did you know, if we have to prove what we didn't know, it becomes almost an impossibility.\nI think you will also be led, Justice Souter, into a series of hearings and a whole area of new issues of law for you to be resolved about what further proof is enough to overcome the drug-dealing exception.\nAll right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2134.075, 2135.991, 2152.62, 2165.51], "stop_times": [2135.991, 2152.62, 2165.51, 2165.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.075}, "reply_to": "20357__1_027", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_029", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "General Doyle, there are two questions that I have with respect to your argument about how complicated this will be.\nOne is, what do we do about Wilson, where it was a drug case, and where the police knew in advance that she was armed?\nWas that just an idle exercise?\nAnd the second question is, in this very case there was one justice on the Wisconsin supreme court who said, I think that no-knock is generally required, but it's obvious that in this case it could be dispensed with, so it didn't seem like it's a very complicated exercise if you apply the rule, and if you don't apply the rule, aren't we just gutting what we said a couple of years ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2165.86, 2171.831, 2181.187, 2185.508], "stop_times": [2171.831, 2181.187, 2185.508, 2217.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.86}, "reply_to": "20357__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__1_030", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I think Wilson v. Arkansas is... was not a useless exercise.\nI think this Court clearly said that the knock-and-announce is part of the reasonableness consideration of the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2217.729, 2226.001], "stop_times": [2226.001, 2231.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.729}, "reply_to": "20357__1_029", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_031", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "And we said that in the case of a drug offense in which the police were told that the person they were going in to apprehend was armed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2231.636], "stop_times": [2239.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.636}, "reply_to": "20357__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__1_032", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "That's correct, and you made it clear in Wilson v. Arkansas that the facts, and whether there... whether it was justified to enter without a no-knock, would be remanded to the Arkansas courts to be determined, and this Court also made it clear in Wilson v. Arkansas that it was... you were going to leave it to the State courts at least for a while to begin to determine those times in which legitimate law enforcement concerns outweighed the requirement of knock-and-announce.\nAs I read Wilson v. Arkansas, the Arkansas supreme court just sort of put it to you pretty bluntly.\nI mean, they said this doesn't have any Fourth Amendment implications, and I think this Court said it does have Fourth Amendment implications, and we are here agreeing, and in fact the Wisconsin courts have always agreed it has Fourth Amendment implications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2239.392, 2269.511, 2275.415], "stop_times": [2269.511, 2275.415, 2287.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.392}, "reply_to": "20357__1_031", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_033", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "But we review a judgment, not an opinion, so I take it from what you're saying today that we really should have affirmed, not remanded in Wilson, because the factors that you're arguing for... drug offense, arms... were present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2287.723], "stop_times": [2304.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.723}, "reply_to": "20357__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__1_034", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I think that, if I might say so, you were correct at remanding to have the Arkansas court system consider the facts of that case under the... in light of the determination that knock-and-announce is part of the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and you sent it back to a State court to make that determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2304.066], "stop_times": [2329.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.066}, "reply_to": "20357__1_033", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_035", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "We don't always determine alternative grounds for affirmance on our own.\nWe often remand where there's an alternative ground argued.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2329.383, 2335.97, 2340.855], "stop_times": [2335.97, 2340.855, 2341.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.383}, "reply_to": "20357__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__1_036", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, that's correct, and again, after Wilson v. Arkansas, as this Court made it very clear, it said that failure to knock and announce might violate the Fourth Amendment, and that you were going to leave it to States.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2341.638, 2357.883], "stop_times": [2357.883, 2358.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.638}, "reply_to": "20357__1_035", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_037", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Then if we do that... I mean, what I'd be rather worried about here is, if a blanket rule crime-by-crime is constitutional, Wilson v. Arkansas doesn't mean too much, I would think, because after all, most people who are arrested and searched have committed, at least probable cause to believe they've committed rather serious crimes.\nSo if a State could go through its criminal code and sort of block off every serious crime, there aren't too many instances, are there, in which it would have to follow the Wilson v. Arkansas rule, while at least if you make it case-by-case you weed out at some hearing price the instances where there really wasn't a good reason to dispense with the requirement.\nThat's what I would be concerned about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2358.216, 2378.796, 2400.626], "stop_times": [2378.796, 2400.626, 2402.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.216}, "reply_to": "20357__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20357__1_038", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I think it is difficult, Justice Breyer, to come up with another category of cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2402.162], "stop_times": [2408.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.162}, "reply_to": "20357__1_037", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_039", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "A murder, for example, or armed bank robbery where people are injured, and let's try, you know, serious assaults, and we could go through and find lots of rather serious crimes in a criminal code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2408.316], "stop_times": [2420.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.316}, "reply_to": "20357__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20357__1_040", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--There is no doubt, I think, in a bank robbery where people are injured on the facts of that particular case there would be no problem with knock and announce, assuming it was close in time.\nTo say, however, that all murders or all bank robberies are exempt may be another case that will come along, but I would suggest that the drug-dealing case goes well beyond them, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2420.706, 2429.979], "stop_times": [2429.979, 2440.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.706}, "reply_to": "20357__1_039", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_041", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "So all felony... felonious use of marijuana is serious, and murder is subject to case-by-case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2440.101], "stop_times": [2451.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.101}, "reply_to": "20357__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20357__1_042", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Drug-dealing has... is a commerce in this country.\nIt is an illegal commerce.\nIt is a commerce, unfortunately, that is marked by danger and violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2451.976, 2458.665, 2460.565], "stop_times": [2458.665, 2460.565, 2462.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.976}, "reply_to": "20357__1_041", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_043", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I'm not saying it isn't serious.\nMy point is, many, many crimes are serious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2462.998, 2464.498], "stop_times": [2464.498, 2467.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.998}, "reply_to": "20357__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20357__1_044", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, many crimes are serious, but that drug-dealing fits into a particular... there is not a commerce in murders or in bank robberies.\nThere is a commerce in drug-dealing, and it is a commerce that is characterized by the use of weapons, by the willingness to use weapons, by gang-domination, by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2467.7, 2476.722], "stop_times": [2476.722, 2488.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.7}, "reply_to": "20357__1_043", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_045", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "That's currently so, General Doyle, but you could have said the same thing about moonshining during Prohibition.\nIt was the kind of a crime that attracted the mob, and there were machine guns and a lot of violence.\nI expect you wouldn't say the same thing about it today.\nNow, if we're going to adopt a constitutional rule, does this constitutional rule change as the... you know, as the proclivities of criminals change?\nWhy not just leave it the general rule that where you have cause to believe that you'll be endangered, or that drugs... or what you're searching for will be destroyed, you can enter without knocking, and as things now are that would work out that in 99 percent of the drug cases you'll be able to do it.\nBut if the culture changes and drug people become very laid back and pacific instead of the violent people they are, then we don't have to adopt a new constitutional rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2488.113, 2496.052, 2503.123, 2505.925, 2515.214, 2533.091], "stop_times": [2496.052, 2503.123, 2505.925, 2515.214, 2533.091, 2542.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.113}, "reply_to": "20357__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__1_046", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--What I am asking this Court to do is to, as you did in Maryland v. Wilson, is to determine reasonableness in a category of cases, and that reasonable test--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2542.697], "stop_times": [2555.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.697}, "reply_to": "20357__1_045", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_047", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "May I ask you... may I ask you in doing that if you have any statistical evidence that you want to point out to us that demonstrates that it is more dangerous to officers to knock and announce than not to?\nIs there any place we could look for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2555.522, 2572.365], "stop_times": [2572.365, 2574.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.522}, "reply_to": "20357__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__1_048", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Your Honor, the best that we can do is what is in our brief, which shows that drug-dealing is dangerous and it's dangerous to police, but frankly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2574.917], "stop_times": [2582.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.917}, "reply_to": "20357__1_047", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_049", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "General, I mean, as far as we know they're as apt to be hurt if they don't knock and announce as if they do.\nWe aren't able to make that decision, apparently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2582.505, 2588.826], "stop_times": [2588.826, 2592.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.505}, "reply_to": "20357__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__1_050", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--As a statistical matter I don't think you can make that decision because I agree, there's never been a scientific peer-reviewed study on if you knock and announce or you don't knock and announce, what happens.\nBut as I think Justice Scalia mentioned earlier, that's a judgment that's made by police officers every day as they approach--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2592.361, 2602.551], "stop_times": [2602.551, 2609.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.361}, "reply_to": "20357__1_049", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_051", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "But your State supreme court made the judgment here, or so you're saying that we should not rely on the danger of knocking versus danger of not knocking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2609.49], "stop_times": [2619.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2609.49}, "reply_to": "20357__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__1_052", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I believe that you should rely that it is frequently... it is dangerous for police to knock and announce their presence, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2619.178], "stop_times": [2628.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.178}, "reply_to": "20357__1_051", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_053", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Unless we could say that each State supreme court is capable of making that judgment.\nThen one State says it's more dangerous, the other State says it isn't, and then we have to accept that, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2628.451, 2632.955], "stop_times": [2632.955, 2636.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.451}, "reply_to": "20357__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__1_054", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2636.574], "stop_times": [2637.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.574}, "reply_to": "20357__1_053", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_055", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--I don't think that we would adopt that rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2637.324], "stop_times": [2639.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.324}, "reply_to": "20357__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__1_056", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, we're asking you to say that it's permissible under the Fourth Amendment.\nWhether States want to go to the full extent of what you declare to be the limit that they can go to under the Fourth Amendment will be for different States to make that decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2639.426, 2643.211], "stop_times": [2643.211, 2652.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.426}, "reply_to": "20357__1_055", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_057", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "General Doyle, isn't it true that just as there are no statistics comparing the relative danger with a knock and without a knock, isn't it also true that there are at least some drug cases in which it's the grandmother example and the marijuana growing in the backyard, and there really isn't any statistical study telling us what percentage are the dangerous ones and what percentage are the relatively not dangerous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2652.567], "stop_times": [2674.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.567}, "reply_to": "20357__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_058", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, that's correct, Justice Stevens, but also, on those kinds of hypotheticals there are certainly facts presented in our brief, and I think to the Court's common knowledge, that the fact that it's an elderly person, or the fact, for example, of those Justice Department numbers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2674.73], "stop_times": [2689.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2674.73}, "reply_to": "20357__1_057", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_059", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, you're going to say they generally would not bust in in those cases, but they would have a constitutional right to do so under your rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2689.656], "stop_times": [2696.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.656}, "reply_to": "20357__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__1_060", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--That's correct, and unfortunately in this day and age, because they're elderly may not mean they're not going to be violent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2696.559], "stop_times": [2701.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.559}, "reply_to": "20357__1_059", "speaker": "james_e_doyle"}
{"id": "20357__1_061", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "No.\nThank you, General Doyle.\nMr. Estrada.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2701.63, 2702.18, 2704.18], "stop_times": [2702.18, 2704.18, 2705.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.63}, "reply_to": "20357__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__2_000", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn our view, law officers who have a warrant to search for evidence of narcotics dealing ordinarily will be justified in concluding that announcement to the dwelling, or to those in the dwelling will endanger the safety of the officers and create a significant risk that evidence will be destroyed.\nTherefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2705.465, 2717.606, 2740.555], "stop_times": [2717.606, 2740.555, 2741.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2705.465}, "reply_to": "20357__1_061", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_001", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Rebus sic stantibus, right?\nUnder current circumstances.\nThat might change in the future.\nIs that the Government's view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2741.655, 2743.238, 2744.821, 2745.988], "stop_times": [2743.238, 2744.821, 2745.988, 2747.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.655}, "reply_to": "20357__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__2_002", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, that is right.\nA fundamental point in this case, Justice Scalia, is that all that is at issue in this case is what can be a basis for a reasonable belief on the part of the officers that they will be in danger, or that the drugs will be destroyed, and our fundamental point is that a judgment based on past experience with similar cases is just as valid a ground for a reasonable belief on the part of the officer as may be the circumstances that confront the officer at the specific time of the entry.\nAnd in our view those circumstances, if nothing more is known, will ordinarily warrant the officer in thinking that those dangers exist and to make an unannounced entry.\nOn the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2747.356, 2750.139, 2791.349, 2804.359], "stop_times": [2750.139, 2791.349, 2804.359, 2804.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2747.356}, "reply_to": "20357__2_001", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_003", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Mr. Estrada, one of the things that Chief Judge Abrahamson said in her concurring opinion was, well, if you're going to go by danger to the police officer, more police officers are killed responding to calls, domestic violence calls than in drug raids, so if it's danger to the police officer and you could have a blanket rule for drug raids, why not a blanket rule for domestic violence situations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2804.859], "stop_times": [2831.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.859}, "reply_to": "20357__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__2_004", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, I don't know that there is any reason to think that in those particular cases the manner of entry makes any difference.\nFundamentally as well, we're dealing in this case with a class of cases in which the fundamental intrusion is by right.\nThat is to say, a neutral and detached magistrate has already determined that the officers will come in.\nIn that other category of cases it is more likely to be the case that someone has made a call on the telephone indicating that there is a need for the officer simply to come and investigate, and it's not necessarily true in those cases that you know anything other than the fact that there has been a call as the basis for any further official action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2831.693, 2843.818, 2853.006, 2859.945], "stop_times": [2843.818, 2853.006, 2859.945, 2888.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2831.693}, "reply_to": "20357__2_003", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_005", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "But what about the statistics that inform the officer, if you're going to respond to one of those calls, you're walking into a very dangerous situation where your life is going to be on the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2888.445], "stop_times": [2898.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.445}, "reply_to": "20357__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__2_006", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, that may be true, but it is not... and just to put our point in context, our point in this case is that that may have significance in the officer's reasonable conduct.\nIt is a fact that the officer may take into account.\nThere may be other facts.\nI don't know that much about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2898.57, 2915.58, 2918.715, 2920.048], "stop_times": [2915.58, 2918.715, 2920.048, 2921.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2898.57}, "reply_to": "20357__2_005", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_007", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "But I'm just wondering why we can't have blanket rules for all these dangerous situations.\nWhat is it about the drug raid that distinguishes it from others if danger to the police officer is our standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2921.431, 2926.869], "stop_times": [2926.869, 2935.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.431}, "reply_to": "20357__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__2_008", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--It may be the case that there are other cases in which similar... in which a similar rule is warranted, Justice Ginsburg, but I think that the class of cases that we have here are significant in that we have the courts all over the country telling this Court that this is a class of cases in which there is a remarkable danger of violence, and a high danger that the evidence will be destroyed, and this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2935.475], "stop_times": [2967.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2935.475}, "reply_to": "20357__2_007", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_009", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "You also identify... you have a warrant issued by a magistrate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2967.946], "stop_times": [2973.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.946}, "reply_to": "20357__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__2_010", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, that's right, and as I pointed out earlier in that other class of cases it is likely to be the case that the fundamental intrusion into the home has not been authorized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2973.498], "stop_times": [2982.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2973.498}, "reply_to": "20357__2_009", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_011", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "You are suggesting a general standard, not a per se rule.\nIs that an appropriate characterization of your brief and of your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2982.354, 2986.306], "stop_times": [2986.306, 2990.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.354}, "reply_to": "20357__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__2_012", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "That is right, Justice Kennedy.\nAll we're saying is that the standard that is offered by Mr. Karpe is so low that in the absence of any further information the officer's knowledge that the case involves drug-dealing will itself be a reasonable basis for a case-specific reasonable belief that there is danger to the officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [2990.591, 2992.96], "stop_times": [2992.96, 3016.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2990.591}, "reply_to": "20357__2_011", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_013", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, you're not supporting the Wisconsin rule in any event, the Wisconsin supreme court per se rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3016.825], "stop_times": [3023.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.825}, "reply_to": "20357__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__2_014", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "No, we're not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3023.229], "stop_times": [3023.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3023.229}, "reply_to": "20357__2_013", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_015", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "And would you support the rule if we were only dealing with situations where the magistrate had specifically determined they should enter without knocking?\nWhat about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3023.812, 3035.62], "stop_times": [3035.62, 3037.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.812}, "reply_to": "20357__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__2_016", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "That is not a course that as I read this Court's cases is open to the Court, because it was an argument that was made in the Dalia case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3037.103], "stop_times": [3044.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3037.103}, "reply_to": "20357__2_015", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_017", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "So the statutes in Nebraska and Utah to that effect presumably are invalid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3044.725], "stop_times": [3050.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.725}, "reply_to": "20357__2_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__2_018", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "No.\nThey are not constitutionally required.\nIn making the judgment that a no-knock entry may be okay, it is possible for a State or for the Federal rules to have that sort of a mechanism.\nMy point is that it is not constitutionally required, because in the Dalia case this Court confronted that issue, whether the judge should authorize in advance an unannounced entry, and the Court answered that issue in the negative, so it may be a good--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3050.629, 3050.879, 3053.831, 3064.953], "stop_times": [3050.879, 3053.831, 3064.953, 3083.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3050.629}, "reply_to": "20357__2_017", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_019", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Yes, but what about those States that do, by statute, provide that the magistrate will consider and determine whether or not there can be a no-knock entry?\nNow, if that's the scheme, then is it constitutional to have a per se rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3083.516, 3092.872], "stop_times": [3092.872, 3099.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3083.516}, "reply_to": "20357__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20357__2_020", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--It is... it likely is, if the judge has made a finding that that is a course that is warranted in the circumstances.\nMy point was solely to say that that's not a course that can be required under the Fourth Amendment, because that is an issue that the Court has already considered in the Dalia case, and the answer was in the negative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3099.442, 3113.1], "stop_times": [3113.1, 3127.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3099.442}, "reply_to": "20357__2_019", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_021", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "I'm curious to know, if the magistrate makes the determination that you must knock, directs the officer to knock as part of the warrant, and the officers see something that they think overrides the judgment, and they don't knock, that does not necessarily invalidate the search, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3127.026], "stop_times": [3140.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.026}, "reply_to": "20357__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20357__2_022", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "That is right, and let me take that as an opportunity to answer something that Mr. Karpe said.\nWhen the warrant was sought in this case it was in 1991, and at that time the State courts in this State had a rule that a mere showing that the case involves drug-dealing and an assertion that those cases are likely to be categorically dangerous was insufficient to authorize a judge to issue a no-knock warrant, so all that the judge in this case did was to say that the facts that are in this case had no bearing on whether a... whether the officers should make a no-knock entry.\nIt is not that the judge made a determination under the right Fourth Amendment standard that the circumstances in this case did not justify a no-knock entry.\nFurther--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3140.834, 3147.689, 3186.148, 3197.872], "stop_times": [3147.689, 3186.148, 3197.872, 3197.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3140.834}, "reply_to": "20357__2_021", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_023", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Mr. Estrada, what do you do about General Doyle's concern that it's fine to have this general rule, but it will always be controverted at the exclusion hearing, where the defendant will come in and say, well, you knew that we didn't have... you knew that we didn't have weapons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3197.872], "stop_times": [3214.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.872}, "reply_to": "20357__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__2_024", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, I think that in our view someone would not be entitled to a hearing unless he can point to objectively ascertainable facts that indicate that prima facie at least the conduct was clearly unreasonable.\nIn the Federal system there are very few suppression hearings held, because unless someone is able to come forth with a prima facie showing that there is, in fact, a Fourth Amendment violation, one is not entitled to have a hearing so that one may inquire.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3214.715, 3229.324], "stop_times": [3229.324, 3248.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3214.715}, "reply_to": "20357__2_023", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_025", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, what does that require to show, that we didn't have weapons?\nIn fact, we didn't have weapons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3248.305, 3250.171], "stop_times": [3250.171, 3251.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.305}, "reply_to": "20357__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__2_026", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3251.34], "stop_times": [3251.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3251.34}, "reply_to": "20357__2_025", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_027", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "And I say, you knew it.\nIs that enough to get a hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3251.557, 3253.073], "stop_times": [3253.073, 3254.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.557}, "reply_to": "20357__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20357__2_028", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--Well, you would have to have a specific factual basis for the imputation that they knew it, and in the absence of that, no hearing would be required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3254.642], "stop_times": [3264.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3254.642}, "reply_to": "20357__2_027", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_029", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "On whom is the burden of proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3264.831], "stop_times": [3266.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.831}, "reply_to": "20357__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__2_030", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "In a search that is conducted under a search warrant, Mr. Chief Justice, the burden would be on the defendant.\nIf a search is conducted in the absence of such a warrant, it would be on the Government to show that the conduct was lawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3266.7, 3278.257], "stop_times": [3278.257, 3288.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3266.7}, "reply_to": "20357__2_029", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_031", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, let me just take... say you're not in a drug case but a financial crime or something like that, and the police had a warrant, went in without knocking or announcing, and the defendant proved just that, that this was a financial crimes case, and they came in with a warrant, but they did not knock and announce.\nWould that have satisfied their burden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3288.529, 3305.825], "stop_times": [3305.825, 3307.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3288.529}, "reply_to": "20357__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20357__2_032", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "May I answer, Mr. Chief Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3307.641], "stop_times": [3309.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3307.641}, "reply_to": "20357__2_031", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_033", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3309.474], "stop_times": [3310.174], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3309.474}, "reply_to": "20357__2_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20357__2_034", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Under the Wilson case, given that the background rule is that they should not, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3310.174], "stop_times": [3315.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3310.174}, "reply_to": "20357__2_033", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20357__2_035", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Estrada.\nMr. Karpe, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3315.628, 3318.263], "stop_times": [3318.263, 3320.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.628}, "reply_to": "20357__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20357__3_000", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "In Wilson v. Arkansas, this Court gave the State courts an inch, the Wisconsin State court took a mile, drained the blood out of the meaning of Wisconsin... excuse me, of Wilson v. Arkansas.\nThe instances where blanket rules have been applied by this Court don't apply.\nMichigan v. Summers regarded simply a detention while the search was going on.\nIt wasn't even about the search.\nIn United States v. Dunn, 480 United States 294 at page 301, footnote 4, this Court rejected a blanket rule even for curtilage of a house, and I made a mistake, we did not include this in the brief.\nIn fact, it wasn't until I read the as-to-yet undistributed Wayne County amicus brief that I was made aware of the Dunn case.\nIn Maryland v. Buie, this Court rejected a blanket rule involving a search of the house.\nIf I could speak to the manner of drug storage in this particular case, yes, the drugs were in the bathroom, but behind a ceiling tile, wrapped up several times in different bags, and again, among the packaging there were 120 separate little ziplock gem packs.\nThis rule is not to be given a grudging application by this Court.\nThen the blanket exception essentially swallows the rule.\nIt applies to all sorts of offenses.\nIn footnote 2 of a lower court opinion it refers even to maintaining a dwelling for use of drugs.\nI mean, it refers to obtaining drugs by contraband.\nOne of the very important purposes of this rule is to avoid unreasonable error.\nCertainly we have to tolerate some police errors, but it must be errors of the police acting as reasonable people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3320.449, 3334.458, 3341.195, 3346.599, 3348.549, 3368.694, 3376.116, 3384.055, 3399.982, 3406.836, 3409.504, 3413.741, 3420.061, 3425.549, 3433.719], "stop_times": [3334.458, 3341.195, 3346.599, 3348.549, 3368.694, 3376.116, 3384.055, 3399.982, 3406.836, 3409.504, 3413.741, 3420.061, 3425.549, 3433.719, 3443.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3320.449}, "reply_to": "20357__2_035", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__3_001", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Mr. Karpe, suppose we were to take Wisconsin's fallback position that not in every drug case, but at least when the object of the warrant is a drug dealer, at least in drug dealer cases as opposed to houses known to have drugs, where you're dealing with a drug dealer, you can infer that there will be arms, you can infer that there's going to be an effort to destroy evidence, so why not... and that's a narrower rule than any drug case.\nWhy won't that work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3443.094, 3479.767], "stop_times": [3479.767, 3481.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.094}, "reply_to": "20357__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__3_002", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that would apply to two college kids in a dorm room that doesn't even have a toilet that pass a joint back and forth.\nThey're committing a felony in Wisconsin, distribution, and there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3481.35, 3489.039], "stop_times": [3489.039, 3493.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3481.35}, "reply_to": "20357__3_001", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__3_003", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "But I'm narrowing it, as I think General Doyle did in the brief, to a known drug dealer.\nIn the case of a drug dealer, somebody who distributes grand-scale drugs, drug dealers more often than not will have guns, and more often than not will try to destroy evidence if they have notice, so we'll narrow it... remove your two kids in a college dorm and just take the dealer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3493.658, 3503.013], "stop_times": [3503.013, 3523.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3493.658}, "reply_to": "20357__3_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__3_004", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "--How about the single mother with six kids who's selling joints out the back door?\nWould that apply to her?\nDo we really want the police crashing in in that sort of situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3523.694, 3528.914, 3530.45], "stop_times": [3528.914, 3530.45, 3532.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3523.694}, "reply_to": "20357__3_003", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__3_005", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "No.\nI'm taking all those cases out, and we're concentrating on the dealer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3532.902, 3533.302], "stop_times": [3533.302, 3537.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3532.902}, "reply_to": "20357__3_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20357__3_006", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Well, I guess it's hard... it's hard perhaps to draw the line.\nThe more drugs someone has, the harder it is going to be to destroy them.\nI think that the... that rule would have problems, big problems in application just to decide at what point and what quantity of drug are we going to decide that the rule would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3537.104, 3543.091, 3548.793], "stop_times": [3543.091, 3548.793, 3565.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3537.104}, "reply_to": "20357__3_005", "speaker": "david_r_karpe"}
{"id": "20357__3_007", "conversation_id": "20357", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Karpe.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-5955", "start_times": [3565.087, 3566.587], "stop_times": [3566.587, 3567.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3565.087}, "reply_to": "20357__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__0_000", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-318, Daryll Richardson and John Walker v. McKnight.\nMr. Ray, you may proceed whenever you want to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [0.0, 9.036], "stop_times": [9.036, 72.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__0_001", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is whether correctional officers who are employed by a private concern, who perform traditional and historical police power functions, and act under the color of law for 1983 purposes, should have the benefit of qualified immunity.\nFirstly, we would like to put forth the proposition that should this Court extend qualified immunity to correctional officers of this nature, that the floodgates will not open, and qualified immunity will not be willy nilly conferred.\nFirstly, there are thousands, literally... maybe hundreds of thousands of contractors who contract with the State of Tennessee, but only those who are found to act under the color of State law as defined by this Court's jurisprudence in Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison would be needful of qualified immunity.\nSecondly, only objectively reasonable actions on the part of these private actors would give rise to qualified immunity.\nOf course, if their actions are not objectively reasonable under this Court's jurisprudence they would not have the benefit of qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [72.188, 75.721, 92.271, 108.272, 127.464, 136.329], "stop_times": [75.721, 92.271, 108.272, 127.464, 136.329, 142.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.188}, "reply_to": "20622__0_000", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_002", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Mr. Ray, would you put together the theory and the fact for me, because just looking at what is alleged here, what would... how would it not be clearly established that it's a violation to take someone who was over 300 pounds and put them in these tight restraints that are bound to cause extreme pain?\nWe are talking about qualified immunity and would a reasonable officer understand from the clearly established law that you don't do this.\nThat is my problem with this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [142.734, 169.812, 179.88], "stop_times": [169.812, 179.88, 182.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.734}, "reply_to": "20622__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_003", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, we never got to that point, and that's the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [182.131], "stop_times": [185.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.131}, "reply_to": "20622__0_002", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_004", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "What would be the defense?\nWhat would be the defense for these allegations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [185.763, 187.232], "stop_times": [187.232, 189.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.763}, "reply_to": "20622__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_005", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, perhaps under Woods v. Strickland, if Mr. McKnight can establish that the acts of our officers that he alleges were not objectively reasonable, then we don't have benefit of qualified immunity.\nThat is obvious.\nBut the district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [189.514, 200.791, 201.452], "stop_times": [200.791, 201.452, 202.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 189.514}, "reply_to": "20622__0_004", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_006", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, maybe it's an academic question, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [202.804], "stop_times": [204.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.804}, "reply_to": "20622__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_007", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Oh, that question is not academic, in that there are literally hundreds of vexatious and frivolous lawsuits filed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [204.534], "stop_times": [212.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.534}, "reply_to": "20622__0_006", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_008", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Oh, but I'm talking about in the context of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [212.02], "stop_times": [214.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.02}, "reply_to": "20622__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_009", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--In the context of this case, Mr. McKnight may well establish, if this Court should extend qualified immunity to correctional officers who are employed by private concerns, that our two officers don't have the benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [214.382], "stop_times": [226.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.382}, "reply_to": "20622__0_008", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_010", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "The Sixth Circuit decided this case on the basis that qualified immunity wasn't available to private contractors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [226.399], "stop_times": [232.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.399}, "reply_to": "20622__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__0_011", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [232.443], "stop_times": [233.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.443}, "reply_to": "20622__0_010", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_012", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "So that's why we've got it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [233.652], "stop_times": [234.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.652}, "reply_to": "20622__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__0_013", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That's why it's here.\nDuncan v. Peck, which is their case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [234.423, 235.114], "stop_times": [235.114, 237.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.423}, "reply_to": "20622__0_012", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_014", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "My question I asked you is, what good would qualified immunity do them if they had it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [237.616], "stop_times": [242.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.616}, "reply_to": "20622__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_015", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Well, in cases on down the road where their actions were objectively reasonable the litigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [242.709], "stop_times": [248.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.709}, "reply_to": "20622__0_014", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_016", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "But not cases on down the road.\nIn this case.\nI mean, we do have to have a live case, or a real case or controversy, so if you prevail, what good would that do to these parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [248.935, 249.354, 250.676], "stop_times": [249.354, 250.676, 259.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.935}, "reply_to": "20622__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_017", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I would submit, Justice Ginsburg, that this case would still have to be remanded to the district court for that specific finding, that their actions were not objectively reasonable and they don't have the benefit of qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [259.661], "stop_times": [271.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.661}, "reply_to": "20622__0_016", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_018", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, you make the argument for them when you're saying, now I have the benefit of this qualified immunity defense, so, district court, they are qualified immune, and so the district court goes, tell me what wasn't clearly established in relation to these facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [271.428], "stop_times": [286.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.428}, "reply_to": "20622__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_019", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, the specific issue before this Court is, we didn't get to that point.\nThe district court said, based on the jurisprudence of Manis v. Corrections Corporation of America, established by this Court, you don't have qualified immunity, Mr. Ray.\nYou're out of here.\nThat's what the Sixth Circuit said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [286.857, 290.58, 300.136, 301.248], "stop_times": [290.58, 300.136, 301.248, 303.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.857}, "reply_to": "20622__0_018", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_020", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Yes, but I'd just like you to tell me, suppose he had qualified immunity.\nWhat could he do with it?\nHe could try to prove his actions were objectively reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [303.309, 306.621, 308.852], "stop_times": [306.621, 308.852, 312.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.309}, "reply_to": "20622__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_021", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice, and again, we may fail on that issue, Justice Ginsburg, but the issue before this Court and what we want decided is the fact that qualified immunity should be extended to these individuals who act under the color of State law for 1983 purposes, are subjected to suit on a day-by-day basis, and they perform traditional historical police powers that this Court has extended qualified immunity to their public counterparts in Navarette.\nSo we would submit that though we may ultimately not prevail on that question... that question is not before us here... the question is whether we get over the first hurdle, i.e.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [312.745, 343.434], "stop_times": [343.434, 355.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.745}, "reply_to": "20622__0_020", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_022", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "The Sixth Circuit suggested that there might be another standard short of qualified immunity and said maybe good faith--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [355.582], "stop_times": [362.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.582}, "reply_to": "20622__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_023", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--The good faith defense.\nThat's correct.\nBut the good faith defense, as you well know, Justice Ginsburg, still allows us to be subjected to the discovery process.\nTo discover the subjective mind set of my clients we go through what may be needless and extended litigation, expensive litigation, whereas if qualified immunity applies, of course, that ends the dispute at that point.\nSo I would submit that the difference between a good faith defense and qualified immunity is quite, quite different, and the benefits that would be conferred not on my two petitioners, but on the citizens of the State of Tennessee, who would not have to bear the burden of litigating what may turn out to be a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit... which again this Court's jurisprudence from Harlow Ford has made it a consideration that the benefit you want to confer is not on the actors, but upon the citizens, who will benefit from not having their officers, who perform a traditional governmental function that utilizes a great deal of discretion, from being impeded, deterred, made timid by threat of litigation, and threatened with litigation.\nSo we would submit that the question here again is whether you confer qualified immunity on officers who historically have and do provide a fundamental governmental function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [362.517, 363.319, 364.117, 371.564, 387.085, 434.906], "stop_times": [363.319, 364.117, 371.564, 387.085, 434.906, 448.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.517}, "reply_to": "20622__0_022", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_024", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Mr. Ray, they do historically provide a... provide what was historically a governmental function, but have they historically had such immunity?\nI mean, we said in our earlier cases that this qualified immunity is a matter... it's not in the statute, but we say that it came along with the history of the statute.\nThat was simply what existed when this statute was passed, and therefore we think it exists today.\nNow, have you given us any evidence that a private individual not employed by the State has ever been given immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [448.815, 457.18, 466.908, 473.702], "stop_times": [457.18, 466.908, 473.702, 482.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.815}, "reply_to": "20622__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_025", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Justice Scalia, if I could address prison guards historically in the State of Tennessee--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [482.468], "stop_times": [489.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.468}, "reply_to": "20622__0_024", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_026", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Anybody historically, even if you could come up with a medical officer who was privately contracted for who somehow was given immunity, or a private policeman.\nAnything.\nI don't know that you've shown even one example of this historical exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [489.203, 497.207, 498.048], "stop_times": [497.207, 498.048, 504.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.203}, "reply_to": "20622__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_027", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I would submit that historically the Attorney General of the United States at one time was allowed to have a private law practice, and when acting in his official function for the Government that I'm sure that immunity would attach to him in any official acts.\nIn England, prior to 1871, when this particular statute was promulgated, lawyers were both public prosecutors and private prosecutors, and when they were acting as public prosecutors I would submit that immunity attached to them.\nThose are the only examples I can suggest, but let me state that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [504.683, 520.522, 538.504], "stop_times": [520.522, 538.504, 542.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 504.683}, "reply_to": "20622__0_026", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_028", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "It's a good one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [542.268], "stop_times": [543.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.268}, "reply_to": "20622__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_029", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Pierson v. Ray, this Court started out talking about a good faith immunity, which ultimately developed over the course of this Court's jurisprudence to the qualified immunity doctrine.\nPierson v. Ray dealt with police officers having a good faith defense to malicious prosecution actions.\nIn Tennessee, pursuant to statute TCA 4-3-609, correctional officers have the same core functions, the same grant of power as police officers do.\nThey have the right to bear arms.\nThey have the right to take people into custody, effectuate search and seizures, secure their facility from both outside invaders or quell disturbances inside.\nSo I would submit that Pierson v. Ray... I think it was footnote 7 where Mr. Justice White cited ample precedent that there was a historical basis for police officers having... excuse me.\nThat was Navarette, footnote 7, that correctional officers have qualified immunity.\nGiven the historical basis in Tennessee of there being coextensive powers between police officers and correctional officers, I would submit that the historical basis is there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [543.197, 554.346, 562.52, 574.939, 575.738, 586.156, 598.644, 603.857], "stop_times": [554.346, 562.52, 574.939, 575.738, 586.156, 598.644, 603.857, 615.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.197}, "reply_to": "20622__0_028", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_030", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "What about ordinary tort law?\nThat is, a policeman or a correctional officer working for the Government puts shackles on somebody, or hits them or whatever.\nThat's a tort.\nThat's a battery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [615.404, 616.624, 624.381, 625.022], "stop_times": [616.624, 624.381, 625.022, 625.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 615.404}, "reply_to": "20622__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_031", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That's correct.\nJustice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [625.951, 626.672], "stop_times": [626.672, 627.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.951}, "reply_to": "20622__0_030", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_032", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "And there must be their... State officials, some kind of State law tort immunity that gives a degree of leeway to a State officer who commits the battery where he does it in good faith.\nIs there any case, anywhere in any of these jurisdictions, that tells us in respect to ordinary tort law whether a private correctional official is treated similarly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [627.423, 637.237], "stop_times": [637.237, 646.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.423}, "reply_to": "20622__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_033", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "The... if I may answer it this way, Justice Breyer, the public correctional officer, sovereign immunity would suffice there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [646.744], "stop_times": [655.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.744}, "reply_to": "20622__0_032", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_034", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Not a suit individually against the officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [655.901], "stop_times": [658.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.901}, "reply_to": "20622__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_035", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Right.\nBut you would go through the court of claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [658.054, 658.071], "stop_times": [658.071, 659.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.054}, "reply_to": "20622__0_034", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_036", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "You sue the officer individually, there will be some kind of public-based, not immunity, but it will be a defense, and for good faith, et cetera, and I just wonder if there's any case that you've come across... it seems to me by now it should have come across somewhere... ordinary, garden variety tort law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [659.683], "stop_times": [675.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.683}, "reply_to": "20622__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_037", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "The answer to that is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [675.613], "stop_times": [676.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.613}, "reply_to": "20622__0_036", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_038", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "The answer to what is no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [676.723], "stop_times": [678.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.723}, "reply_to": "20622__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_039", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "The answer is no, there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [678.886], "stop_times": [680.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.886}, "reply_to": "20622__0_038", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_040", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--that you haven't found a case, or there's no case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [680.105], "stop_times": [680.696], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 680.105}, "reply_to": "20622__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20622__0_041", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I have found no case, but I would submit that our private correctional officers do not have the benefit of sovereign immunity and therefore would be subject to tort law and subject to being sued in State jurisdictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [680.696], "stop_times": [691.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.696}, "reply_to": "20622__0_040", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_042", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--And without a defense, so that if in fact he commits a battery by putting the shackle on, it is a defense to say I was acting according to law, period.\nBut if it turns out he was wrong that in fact there are too many shackles, it's a battery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [691.944, 701.269], "stop_times": [701.269, 707.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.944}, "reply_to": "20622__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_043", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "He must pay the piper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [707.214], "stop_times": [708.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 707.214}, "reply_to": "20622__0_042", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_044", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "And no qualified immunity defense under State law, you say.\nNot for the private person but for the public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [708.555, 712.346], "stop_times": [712.346, 714.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.555}, "reply_to": "20622__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_045", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "No, sir.\nNot for the private person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [714.149, 714.49], "stop_times": [714.49, 715.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.149}, "reply_to": "20622__0_044", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_046", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "And no good faith defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [715.511], "stop_times": [716.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.511}, "reply_to": "20622__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20622__0_047", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Oh, the good faith defense would be there, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [716.881], "stop_times": [718.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.881}, "reply_to": "20622__0_046", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_048", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Now, for the public person, yes.\nThe question is whether for the private person, if it's not available to you and me in our private capacities when we happen to go out as a joke and put shackles on somebody... not much of a joke, but do you see what I'm driving at?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [718.901, 722.725], "stop_times": [722.725, 734.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.901}, "reply_to": "20622__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_049", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I see what you're driving at, Justice Breyer, and I still believe that as you've stated your question the good faith defense would be available to that private correctional officer but not in the context of having any sort of immunity.\nIt would just be a common law defense to... I acted in good... just as if a private security guard at Wal-Mart took someone into custody thinking they were a shoplifter and they turned out not to be a shoplifter, then they're subject to malicious prose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [734.483, 748.921], "stop_times": [748.921, 765.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.483}, "reply_to": "20622__0_048", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_050", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I mean, I don't know if you want to comment on this, but where I'm having trouble with this case, and why I find it difficult, is because there are three interrelated things: a) to what extent does the 1983 apply in the first place when the person is private, b) to what extent is there ordinary tort law immunity, same or different from a private person, and 3) how do we fit into those answers this question here about whether there's an immunity?\nIf that's too general and vague for you to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [765.932, 788.247], "stop_times": [788.247, 790.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.932}, "reply_to": "20622__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_051", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I'll try to address those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [790.929], "stop_times": [791.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.929}, "reply_to": "20622__0_050", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_052", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--That's what's in my mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [791.509], "stop_times": [792.088], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 791.509}, "reply_to": "20622__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20622__0_053", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Justice Breyer.\nNumber 1 is without question that we act under color of State law and are amenable to suit under 42 U.S. section 1983 because we do perform those core governmental functions that historically and traditionally have been the police powers of the State, so I think it's not questioned by anyone, at least not by us, that we are amenable to suit under 1983.\nNow then, the second question becomes, what common law immunity do we have as a private person?\nI would submit that by contract the State of Tennessee denied us sovereign immunity so we are in a different position than our public counterparts, who are correctional officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [792.088, 792.339, 812.074, 817.367], "stop_times": [792.339, 812.074, 817.367, 827.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.088}, "reply_to": "20622__0_052", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_054", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, you just say that liability under section 1983 ought to go hand-in-hand with a qualified immunity defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [827.294], "stop_times": [838.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.294}, "reply_to": "20622__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20622__0_055", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Justice O'Connor, I think that that would be the common-sensical approach, and I recognize that Wyatt v. Cole was out there I think on the cutting edge of 1983 jurisprudence in that the Court found that there was color of law and amenable to suit because they utilized the replevin and garnishment statutes and went on to find that, because they were two cattle barons in a, if you will, spite suit, that qualified immunity didn't attach, and I don't disagree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [838.46], "stop_times": [874.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.46}, "reply_to": "20622__0_054", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_056", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, it has some relevance, though, here, and the question is, are we just going to apply that notion in this context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [874.672], "stop_times": [880.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.672}, "reply_to": "20622__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20622__0_057", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I would submit, Justice O'Connor, that where a private actor is acting under the color of law, amenable to suit under 1983, coupled with the fact that they are performing a core governmental function that traditionally and historically has been part of the police power of the State, that the reasonable approach would be to grant them qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [880.887], "stop_times": [903.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.887}, "reply_to": "20622__0_056", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_058", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Why isn't it reasonable to say, look, this is an extraordinary exception, that you hurt somebody and you're not liable.\nYou have this qualified immunity.\nWe want to limit it to those functions that are really core Government functions, and it doesn't seem to us that regardless of whether it used to be a core Government function, the Government isn't that serious about the function if it's willing to farm it out.\nWhy, just as a means of keeping the Governments honest, don't we say, if you're really serious that this is core Government functions, you want this qualified immunity, you have to have your own people doing it.\nYou can't farm it out to private individuals.\nIf you're that concerned about it, you'd exercise master-servant supervision over what's going on.\nThis State hasn't, so the State doesn't care that much, so why should we give qualified immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [903.723, 909.567, 910.747, 924.685, 937.154, 939.207, 946.59], "stop_times": [909.567, 910.747, 924.685, 937.154, 939.207, 946.59, 951.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.723}, "reply_to": "20622__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_059", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Justice Scalia, I beg to differ.\nThe State cares a great deal.\nThe State has on-site a functionaire designated as a liaison who oversees on a day-to-day basis how we run South Central Correctional Facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [951.282, 953.695, 954.344], "stop_times": [953.695, 954.344, 966.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 951.282}, "reply_to": "20622__0_058", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_060", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Yes, but I don't want to have to look into this on a case-by-case basis.\nI mean, we're talking about a general rule of law, and why shouldn't the general rule of law be, look, if you're as much in control of it that it's your own servants who are doing the thing, then we'll consider qualified immunity, but if you're insouciant enough to farm it out, whatever controls you put, we're not going to give qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [966.973, 969.675], "stop_times": [969.675, 987.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.973}, "reply_to": "20622__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_061", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Justice Scalia, I submit that the jurisprudence of this Court has always been that the States are free, as the hothouses of democracy, the laboratories of democracy, if you will, to attempt to chart their own course in how they delegate the duties, how they go about doing what they want to do.\nIf the State of Tennessee thinks it better serves its citizens to contract out the running of the prisons, then that is an issue that's left to the State of Tennessee.\nNow, whether this Court wants to decide an immunity question on that basis I would submit that that's clearly antithetical to what this Court's done in the past.\nThat's like the amici arguing that you should consider whether or not insurance comes into play, or whether we choose to indemnify our employees, or whether we choose to do... to give bonuses, et cetera.\nAll of these things are things that the State of Tennessee has taken into account when they initially decide that we're going to contract out at least part of our corrections facilities and compare whether a private run facility can operate more efficiently to be to the taxpayer's interest, or whether we should keep this governmental function our own, and I submit that once a State makes that decision, that's a valid and legitimate decision the State has a right to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [987.396, 1007.341, 1018.188, 1029.454, 1046.295], "stop_times": [1007.341, 1018.188, 1029.454, 1046.295, 1077.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.396}, "reply_to": "20622__0_060", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_062", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "And you would extend that to all contracting out to do a custodial job?\nSay, you'd apply the same thing to day care centers, that all the employees of the contracting... of the Government contractor would have qualified immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1077.877, 1084.852], "stop_times": [1084.852, 1094.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.877}, "reply_to": "20622__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_063", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "No, Justice Ginsburg.\nI believe that it should be maintained within the confines of this existing... of this Court's existing jurisprudence.\nSince Procunier v. Navarette has been decided that State prison guards, and then Cleavinger v. Saxner Federal prison guards are... have the right to have the qualified immunity doctrine applied in their favor, I would submit that it's core governmental functions of that nature--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1094.74, 1096.14, 1103.015], "stop_times": [1096.14, 1103.015, 1121.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.74}, "reply_to": "20622__0_062", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_064", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "How about education, and the Government saying our own schools are rotten so we're going to contract out that function to a private company that's going to do it for money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1121.848], "stop_times": [1134.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.848}, "reply_to": "20622__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_065", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Again, I think that would be a legitimate end of State Government to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1134.367], "stop_times": [1139.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.367}, "reply_to": "20622__0_064", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_066", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "But would those, the employees that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1139.897], "stop_times": [1143.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.897}, "reply_to": "20622__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_067", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I would say no, because this Court has never extended qualified immunity to educational facilities.\nIn fact, I think there's one case dealing with a contractor who provided educational service to the prison that attempted to invoke qualified immunity doctrine which was rejected by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1143.6, 1148.963], "stop_times": [1148.963, 1162.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.6}, "reply_to": "20622__0_066", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_068", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Wood v. Strickland was a school board, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1162.324], "stop_times": [1165.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.324}, "reply_to": "20622__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__0_069", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, a school board, but again, that was a question of the discretion that the school board exercises in fulfilling its function, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1165.326], "stop_times": [1174.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.326}, "reply_to": "20622__0_068", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_070", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Are private schools liable under 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1174.973], "stop_times": [1176.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.973}, "reply_to": "20622__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_071", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Mr. Justice Breyer, I would think that the acting under color of law coofficial would be missing from that particular... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1176.353], "stop_times": [1188.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.353}, "reply_to": "20622__0_070", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_072", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I wasn't talking about a private school.\nI was talking about, it's... the State has been running these day care centers and they haven't worked out very well, so the State decides it, not parents paying tuition to a private school, but the State is going to replace its own operation with a contracting-out arrangement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1188.34, 1189.742], "stop_times": [1189.742, 1207.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.34}, "reply_to": "20622__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__0_073", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Well, again, I think it would be dependent upon the amount of discretion that the officers utilized in furthering the public good and what this Court's jurisprudence had been in the past about conveying qualified immunity to actors of that nature, and it would be my belief that in the example you've given, Justice Ginsburg, that qualified immunity would not attach to that particular function.\nBut here we have a function that on a day-to-day basis I can't think of any other governmental function that utilizes as much discretion in dealing with a populace or a segment of the population that this Court has recognized where there's an unremitting tension between the keepers and the kept, and an unremitting tension between those folks that are being confined for antisocial behavior, who have a proclivity to make use of the court system in some cases for frivolous and vexatious litigation, and that it's the public good that is to be served by qualified immunity.\nIt's not Mr. Richardson or Mr. Walker that the benefit is meant to be conferred upon.\nIt's the belief by this Court that Mr. Richardson and Mr. Walker should have the right to carry out this governmental function with discretion, without timidity, to take care of business free from vexatious and frivolous litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1207.912, 1231.427, 1270.753, 1275.218], "stop_times": [1231.427, 1270.753, 1275.218, 1293.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.912}, "reply_to": "20622__0_072", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_074", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That, of course, is why I'm interested in this private part, because pure tort law, if it does apply to this private person like any other private person, would make this all meaningless, what you're saying, because the person would have a cause of action, the injured person, under State tort law, and it really wouldn't matter, and unto all these incentives, and which way the contract cuts and so forth would all be totally irrelevant, really, because it wouldn't matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1293.14], "stop_times": [1318.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.14}, "reply_to": "20622__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_075", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Justice Breyer, the only way I can answer that is a practical... practical... what happens in the real life out there.\nThese writ-writers all go to Federal court under 1983, for whatever reason.\nThe State court's there for them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1318.224, 1327.491, 1332.803], "stop_times": [1327.491, 1332.803, 1334.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.224}, "reply_to": "20622__0_074", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_076", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, probably for attorney's fees, don't you suppose?\nWe're arguing about attorney's fees here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1334.994, 1338.787], "stop_times": [1338.787, 1342.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.994}, "reply_to": "20622__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20622__0_077", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I think not, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1342.15], "stop_times": [1343.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.15}, "reply_to": "20622__0_076", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_078", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Mr. Ray, I assume if that's a problem for the private contractor officer, I suppose it's also a problem for the State-employed officer.\nHe can be sued under State tort law, can't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1343.78, 1354.409], "stop_times": [1354.409, 1356.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.78}, "reply_to": "20622__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_079", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1356.502], "stop_times": [1357.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.502}, "reply_to": "20622__0_078", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_080", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Does he have qualified immunity under State tort law?\nI don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1357.601, 1359.704], "stop_times": [1359.704, 1360.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.601}, "reply_to": "20622__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_081", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "If I could answer that question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1360.413], "stop_times": [1363.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.413}, "reply_to": "20622__0_080", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_082", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "If he does, your argument would be the State should make the same extension to contractors that you're asking the Federal Government to under 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1363.537], "stop_times": [1371.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.537}, "reply_to": "20622__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_083", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Well, for whatever reason, they chose not to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1371.192], "stop_times": [1373.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1371.192}, "reply_to": "20622__0_082", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_084", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "The State has chosen not to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1373.703], "stop_times": [1376.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.703}, "reply_to": "20622__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_085", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, they've chosen not to grant us sovereign immunity, which their public correction officers would have benefit of.\nWhat that means is, you have... your suit is brought--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1376.604, 1381.577], "stop_times": [1381.577, 1384.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.604}, "reply_to": "20622__0_084", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_086", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "You cannot bring an individual suit against a correctional officer who has beaten you up, just a tort suit?\nI'm not suing the State.\nI'm suing this individual.\nI'm saying, you know, this is a bad guy who has hurt me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1384.889, 1391.044, 1392.934, 1394.577], "stop_times": [1391.044, 1392.934, 1394.577, 1397.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.889}, "reply_to": "20622__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__0_087", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--It would be my belief you would have to go through the court of claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1397.278], "stop_times": [1400.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.278}, "reply_to": "20622__0_086", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_088", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "He'd have to--\n--So you're not trying to impose liability on the State?\nYou're just trying to sue the individual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1400.19, 1401.282, 1403.593], "stop_times": [1401.282, 1403.593, 1405.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.19}, "reply_to": "20622__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__0_089", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Again, Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1405.153], "stop_times": [1407.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.153}, "reply_to": "20622__0_088", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_090", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "You normally sue... you normally sue... I think in most States you sue a tort for tort, but there is an immunity that attaches to actions of a Government official under ordinary tort law.\nThe exact scope of it I couldn't tell you, but that's where qualified immunity comes from.\nIt's a transplant from that basic tort law principle.\nAt least that was my understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1407.544, 1416.072, 1419.754, 1422.343], "stop_times": [1416.072, 1419.754, 1422.343, 1423.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.544}, "reply_to": "20622__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__0_091", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Breyer, and as elucidated by this Court in Pierson v. Ray, the analogy to the good faith defense that a police officer would have had at common law to such a claim.\nIf I could reserve the rest of my time, if there's no other questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1423.475, 1435.402], "stop_times": [1435.402, 1438.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1423.475}, "reply_to": "20622__0_090", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__0_092", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Very well, Mr. Ray.\nMr. Vladeck, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1438.495, 1439.746], "stop_times": [1439.746, 1441.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.495}, "reply_to": "20622__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__1_000", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis is a damage action brought pursuant to section 1983, and that provision broadly imposes liability on any and every person who, acting under the color of State law, deprives a person of constitutional rights.\nIt contains no explicit immunities or exceptions.\nAnd nonetheless, this Court has recognized that when Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act back in 1871, it did not intend to abrogate wholesale the immunities that existed at that time.\nRather, this Court has said, and it has said it as recently as Wyatt v. Cole, that it will recognize immunities where, but only where, two conditions are met.\nFirst, that there is some firm historical antecedent for the immunity, and second that there are strong policy considerations consistent with the purpose of section 1983 that preserve the preservation of the immunity, and both conditions need be met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1441.958, 1448.492, 1462.08, 1466.574, 1480.133, 1491.001], "stop_times": [1448.492, 1462.08, 1466.574, 1480.133, 1491.001, 1508.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1441.958}, "reply_to": "20622__0_092", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_001", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "But isn't it also true that we've often said that the scope of the immunity is measured by the function being performed by the defendant in the office he held, and the function being performed by these private companies is precisely the same as a public function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1508.462], "stop_times": [1521.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.462}, "reply_to": "20622__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20622__1_002", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Yes, though the Court has, even in cases that post date Harlow, always looked at the historical basis.\nThe only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1521.98, 1529.165], "stop_times": [1529.165, 1529.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1521.98}, "reply_to": "20622__1_001", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_003", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Yes, but the history is that this function is one that has been entitled to... has generated immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1529.685], "stop_times": [1534.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.685}, "reply_to": "20622__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20622__1_004", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor, but this function, performed by State officials subject to the constraints that normally apply to State actors, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1534.218], "stop_times": [1543.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1534.218}, "reply_to": "20622__1_003", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_005", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Mr. Vladeck, can you say for sure that immunity was never extended to nonemployees of the State?\nI mean, the example brought forward by Mr. Ray is an impressive one.\nThat is, it certainly was the tradition at common law, and it still is the practice in England to have prosecutions conducted by barristers hired by the Crown.\nI expect that was the case in the early days in this country.\nDid those private prosecutors not have any immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1543.644, 1552.28, 1557.634, 1566.499, 1569.861], "stop_times": [1552.28, 1557.634, 1566.499, 1569.861, 1573.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.644}, "reply_to": "20622__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_006", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--The only case of this Court that addresses that issue is Tower v. Glover, which involved not a prosecutor but a public defendant, and this Court, relying both on history and public policy grounds, held that that... that person was not entitled to the immunity that was sought in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1573.835], "stop_times": [1592.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1573.835}, "reply_to": "20622__1_005", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_007", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "So if we have a lay magistrate system in this country the judges will lose their immunity, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1592.566], "stop_times": [1596.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.566}, "reply_to": "20622__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__1_008", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, Your Honor, judicial immunity is a different branch of sovereign immunity than the immunity that we're speaking of here today, and that gets back to my fundamental point, which is that there is no historical antecedent for immunity at common law for nongovernmental actors, particularly in torts involving the abuse of Government power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1596.92], "stop_times": [1617.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1596.92}, "reply_to": "20622__1_007", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_009", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "You say for sure that... you know for sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1617.522], "stop_times": [1620.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.522}, "reply_to": "20622__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_010", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1620.304], "stop_times": [1620.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.304}, "reply_to": "20622__1_009", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_011", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--that prosecutors at common law, private barristers who prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, had no immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1620.535], "stop_times": [1626.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.535}, "reply_to": "20622__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_012", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I do not know that for sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1626.579], "stop_times": [1627.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1626.579}, "reply_to": "20622__1_011", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_013", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I don't, either, but I would be surprised if they didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1627.818], "stop_times": [1630.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.818}, "reply_to": "20622__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_014", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the only discussion of that issue I've seen in this Court's case is in Tower v. Glover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1630.48], "stop_times": [1634.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1630.48}, "reply_to": "20622__1_013", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_015", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "In fact, even in England, isn't it true that the hue and cry that was raised to chase the fleeing felon often enlisted the help of all sorts of private citizens in performing police functions in apprehending fleeing felons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1634.714], "stop_times": [1647.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.714}, "reply_to": "20622__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20622__1_016", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I think that is very different.\nI do not know whether those parties had immunity.\nThe only historical evidence we have here is in the brief of the ACLU, which looks at the practice that existed in the turn of the century for privatized prisons.\nPrivate prisons were common in the late 1800's, and there are cases from that time involving private jailers who engaged in tortious conduct and they are not afforded immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1647.903, 1650.204, 1652.225, 1663.532], "stop_times": [1650.204, 1652.225, 1663.532, 1676.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.903}, "reply_to": "20622__1_015", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_017", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "This is... you're not talking about 1983 cases, I take it, but just State tort law cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1676.873], "stop_times": [1681.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.873}, "reply_to": "20622__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__1_018", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Your Honor, some are State tort law cases.\nOther are Federal cases brought in Federal court.\nThe reported decisions do not state the basis for Federal jurisdiction, so I do not... I can't tell you for a fact that these were 1983 cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1681.665, 1684.146, 1687.228], "stop_times": [1684.146, 1687.228, 1696.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1681.665}, "reply_to": "20622__1_017", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_019", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Could have been diversity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1696.234], "stop_times": [1697.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.234}, "reply_to": "20622__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__1_020", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I suppose so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1697.456], "stop_times": [1699.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.456}, "reply_to": "20622__1_019", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_021", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, was there any question about whether, in any of those cases about... I mean, weren't they the most outrageous violations of law, that there wouldn't be any question of whether the law was clear or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1699.038], "stop_times": [1709.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.038}, "reply_to": "20622__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_022", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1709.754], "stop_times": [1711.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.754}, "reply_to": "20622__1_021", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_023", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I mean, you know, if the immunity question wasn't even involved in the case they're not very good authority.\nEverybody agrees you can sue these people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1711.264, 1717.458], "stop_times": [1717.458, 1719.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.264}, "reply_to": "20622__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_024", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1719.802], "stop_times": [1721.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1719.802}, "reply_to": "20622__1_023", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_025", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "So the existence of suits doesn't prove anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1721.051], "stop_times": [1722.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1721.051}, "reply_to": "20622__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_026", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--No.\nThe question that this Court has looked to in every single case involving the question of whether an individual is entitled to immunity has looked first at the question of is there historical antecedent, and the burden on showing historical antecedent has always been placed on the proponents of the immunity.\nThis Court has ruled again and again that because immunities interfere with the enforcement of constitutional rights, the burden is on the proponent to explain both the historical basis and public policy arguments that support it.\nThe petitioners have never argued that there's a historical antecedent.\nThe courts that have looked at this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1722.783, 1724.003, 1743.076, 1758.537, 1761.208], "stop_times": [1724.003, 1743.076, 1758.537, 1761.208, 1763.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.783}, "reply_to": "20622__1_025", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_027", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Sure they have.\nTheir historical antecedent is, their argument goes like this.\nWhat counts is the function.\nThere is plenty of historical antecedent for this person performing this function to be given immunity.\nIt's plenty.\nAnd your response is, well, performing the same function, but he wasn't employed by the State, and I... it seems to me that's a good rebuttal argument, but I don't think you can say that they haven't brought forward any historical antecedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1763.55, 1763.8, 1766.782, 1768.002, 1773.607, 1774.397], "stop_times": [1763.8, 1766.782, 1768.002, 1773.607, 1774.397, 1785.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.55}, "reply_to": "20622__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_028", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Well, it is true that in common law Government prison guards had immunity, or had a defense that is now called an immunity, but there were... there was quite an extensive experience with private prisons, and there is no evidence that any of those actors were ever accorded immunity either in our jurisprudence or in the English jurisprudence.\nAnd to the extent that people have looked at it, the cases that exist... and I agree, they're not perfect on this, but do not accord private actors immunity.\nBut in any event, the policy considerations that I think are germane here argue very strongly against giving governmental immunity to private actors.\nOur main reason is this.\nPlacing governmental power in the hands of private actors is bound to increase the risk of constitutional torts, and I say that because the key constraints... qualified immunity is a tradeoff.\nOn one hand we accept the fact that there will be unremedied and undeterred violations of law because we find it necessary for Government to perform those functions.\nIt is an altogether different matter when we are transforming Government power to private actors who may operate in very different ways with very different incentives.\nFor example, here, the prison is being run by a for-profit corporation.\nCorporate... corporations, including prison corporations, have a duty to maximize their profits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1785.535, 1814.885, 1824.438, 1835.745, 1838.627, 1852.338, 1863.794, 1876.023, 1881.006], "stop_times": [1814.885, 1824.438, 1835.745, 1838.627, 1852.338, 1863.794, 1876.023, 1881.006, 1887.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.535}, "reply_to": "20622__1_027", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_029", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, don't they also have a very strong motive to avoid paying a lot of damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1887.09], "stop_times": [1892.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.09}, "reply_to": "20622__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__1_030", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, they have a motive to avoid paying damages if there's something in place to keep that motivation present.\nThe problem with qualified immunity is it removes the deterrence to do precisely that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1892.193, 1897.687], "stop_times": [1897.687, 1903.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.193}, "reply_to": "20622__1_029", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_031", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, why is it... I don't see any difference.\nI know you've made a big point of this in your brief, but I don't really see it.\nWhy doesn't the... a corporation wants to save money.\nSo the Government doesn't give a damn.\nThey always blame somebody else.\nBut boy, when money's at stake, they get busy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1903.01, 1905.622, 1908.884, 1911.776, 1913.106, 1914.378], "stop_times": [1905.622, 1908.884, 1911.776, 1913.106, 1914.378, 1916.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.01}, "reply_to": "20622__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__1_032", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, the easiest way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1916.879], "stop_times": [1917.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.879}, "reply_to": "20622__1_031", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_033", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--and therefore they will really hew the line.\nThey will... they don't want these judgments, and therefore, whatever reason we have for giving qualified immunity to private... to public officials, we'll just apply the same there.\nI mean, why does the fact that they make money mean they're more likely to violate people's rights?\nYou could as easily argue it's less likely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1917.921, 1920.923, 1933.269, 1939.153], "stop_times": [1920.923, 1933.269, 1939.153, 1941.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.921}, "reply_to": "20622__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__1_034", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--It is for two reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1941.006], "stop_times": [1943.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.006}, "reply_to": "20622__1_033", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_035", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I'm not saying it is less likely.\nI just don't see that it's more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1943.917, 1944.979], "stop_times": [1944.979, 1945.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.917}, "reply_to": "20622__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__1_036", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, my first answer, Justice Breyer, is, if we don't know the answer to that question, then the decision should be made by Congress, not this Court, because unless it is clear that the risks of conferring qualified immunity are not substantial and will not do violence to the policies in 1983, this Court has always said we ought not to proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1945.878], "stop_times": [1965.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.878}, "reply_to": "20622__1_035", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_037", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Why doesn't it... look.\nThe... suppose I were inventing the system, which I won't do, but you might have no qualified immunity for anybody, and just have an insurance policy, which would put terrifically accurate incentives on public officials, but that isn't our system.\nWe have qualified immunity.\nSo if our system is qualified immunity, it must be because we want the people performing this function to feel not totally worried that they're right at the line.\nIf that's the reason, why doesn't that reason apply here with equal force?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1965.252, 1966.592, 1978.15, 1979.381, 1987.886], "stop_times": [1966.592, 1978.15, 1979.381, 1987.886, 1992.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.252}, "reply_to": "20622__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__1_038", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Because the Court has said, in cases like Harlow, that in addition to whatever economic incentives that you're basing your question on, there are other constraints that operate on public officials that certainly are absent here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [1992.337], "stop_times": [2005.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.337}, "reply_to": "20622__1_037", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_039", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Like what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2005.467], "stop_times": [2005.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.467}, "reply_to": "20622__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__1_040", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "In Harlow, of course... excuse me.\nIn Nixon v. Fitzgerald the Court was talking about political accountability, and those constraints operate on public employees in a very real and very immediate way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2005.918, 2008.88], "stop_times": [2008.88, 2019.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2005.918}, "reply_to": "20622__1_039", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_041", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "So that's the problem.\nDo you think that the money is less of a restraint, or more?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2019.346, 2020.287], "stop_times": [2020.287, 2023.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.346}, "reply_to": "20622__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__1_042", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I think money is a restraint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2023.39], "stop_times": [2024.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.39}, "reply_to": "20622__1_041", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_043", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "What kind of public accountability do State-paid prison guards have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2024.909], "stop_times": [2031.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.909}, "reply_to": "20622__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__1_044", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, they are... they work in a very hierarchical, Civil Service system.\nThey give oaths of office.\nThey are subject to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2031.113, 2035.217, 2036.597], "stop_times": [2035.217, 2036.597, 2038.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2031.113}, "reply_to": "20622__1_043", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_045", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "There are intimations in your brief that the public employees kind of do it as a labor of love, and that may be true at some levels, but certainly not at the prison guard level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2038.269], "stop_times": [2048.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.269}, "reply_to": "20622__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__1_046", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I agree with that, but our point is not solely that the motivations of prison guards... here, of course, they're not simply prison guards.\nThey're shareholders of the corporation for which they work.\nIt's not simply their motivation.\nIt's they work within a structure.\nIt is the nature of the employer that is significant, and here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2048.214, 2057.0, 2060.172, 2061.945, 2063.603], "stop_times": [2057.0, 2060.172, 2061.945, 2063.603, 2066.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.214}, "reply_to": "20622__1_045", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_047", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "If the head of the operation were a State official... let's take a volunteer fire department, where the fire chief is a public employee.\nEverybody else is a private citizen.\nWhat then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2066.777, 2074.183, 2077.114], "stop_times": [2074.183, 2077.114, 2079.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.777}, "reply_to": "20622__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__1_048", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I still think... I think there's a continuum along which greater State control may be an element, but as long as there's a divided loyalty problem like you have here, where the correctional officers serve two masters, not one... they serve the shareholders as well as the State... you have problems of constitutional violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2079.565], "stop_times": [2100.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.565}, "reply_to": "20622__1_047", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_049", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, I take--\n--Well, but why doesn't the impetus for what you call public accountability work exactly the same way in this case with the accountability of a contractor to the person who may or may not renew the contract?\nIf there's a lot of trouble the next time around I suppose the State is going to say, gee, we ought to find somebody who doesn't seem to create so much trouble for us.\nWhy isn't that just as much and perhaps more of an impetus than what you call political accountability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2100.82, 2101.8, 2114.158, 2122.974], "stop_times": [2101.8, 2114.158, 2122.974, 2128.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.82}, "reply_to": "20622__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20622__1_050", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "There is supervision, biennial supervision by certain of the committees of the Tennessee legislature.\nThat, of course, is much more sporadic than the kind of public oversight that ordinarily obtains with public entities.\nBut when this legislation was passed, the one principal reservation was made by the Attorney General of Tennessee, who said... and this is obviously a paraphrase, but our concern is that suppose something goes wrong with this contract.\nIt is very difficult to substitute a new provider, if you will, on the spur of the moment, and so in some sense we are locked in and we're stuck with the contractor that we....", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2128.427, 2135.813, 2143.758, 2158.407], "stop_times": [2135.813, 2143.758, 2158.407, 2170.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2128.427}, "reply_to": "20622__1_049", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_051", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, we're stuck with the contract for the contract period, but all contracts are going to be renewed at some point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2170.445], "stop_times": [2175.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.445}, "reply_to": "20622__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20622__1_052", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That is correct, and there is some oversight, but that is very different than the day-to-day public accountability that we presume constrains the activities of our public officials.\nThat was part of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2175.998, 2185.725], "stop_times": [2185.725, 2187.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.998}, "reply_to": "20622__1_051", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_053", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, I take it the Solicitor General doesn't quite take your approach here, because as I read the brief, would advocate that qualified immunity be recognized for some private contractors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2187.495], "stop_times": [2199.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.495}, "reply_to": "20622__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20622__1_054", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I think that is correct, Justice O'Connor, but to the extent that a clear line could be discerned in the Government's brief, I think they point to the same two factors that we do.\nOne is the lack of divided loyalty.\nIn all of the hypotheticals that are given in the Solicitor General's brief, the contractor owes its... or his or her loyalty to the Government, and the second portion of their test, as I understand it, is direct and active governmental supervision.\nNeither of those factors are present here.\nThis is a classic turnkey operation in which the State has essentially given over to CCA, the Corrections Corporation of America, the responsibility for the day-to-day operations of this prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2199.393, 2212.183, 2215.335, 2229.563, 2231.965], "stop_times": [2212.183, 2215.335, 2229.563, 2231.965, 2244.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.393}, "reply_to": "20622__1_053", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_055", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, does your argument, then, across the board depend on the proposition that making money for shareholders or losing money, or the threat of losing money, is a less powerful motivating factor to keep people behaving properly than responsibility to voters, or general considerations of patriotism?\nI sort of wish you were right, but I'm not certain that that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2244.604, 2261.975], "stop_times": [2261.975, 2265.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.604}, "reply_to": "20622__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20622__1_056", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, Your Honor, in part I'm relying on what this Court has said in its prior immunity cases.\nThese are not my own views.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2265.497, 2269.27], "stop_times": [2269.27, 2271.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.497}, "reply_to": "20622__1_055", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_057", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "But is that a necessary proposition?\nThat is, if I don't think that, then would I have to decide the other way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2271.41, 2275.114], "stop_times": [2275.114, 2278.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.41}, "reply_to": "20622__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20622__1_058", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, I think if you look at the economic incentives, the provision of qualified immunity is the wrong way to go about enforcing compliance with the civil rights laws.\nIf you're simply looking at it dollars and cents, qualified immunity will save the Corrections Corporation of America, assuming that it indemnifies its employees and pays for their litigation expenses, an enormous amount of money, and removes the incentives--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2278.404, 2289.854], "stop_times": [2289.854, 2304.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.404}, "reply_to": "20622__1_057", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_059", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, it still costs money to come all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and fight some issue on qualified immunity.\nThis doesn't come cheaply.\nYou have to have lawyers go in, assert it, get it... it's expensive, and it is in the economic interests of the private contractor to avoid even that.\nThey will make more money if they aren't dragged into court at all, so they have every economic incentive to behave in ways that will keep them out of court, period, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2304.364, 2312.307, 2314.028, 2323.645], "stop_times": [2312.307, 2314.028, 2323.645, 2332.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.364}, "reply_to": "20622__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20622__1_060", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Well, that... that may be so, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2332.381], "stop_times": [2336.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.381}, "reply_to": "20622__1_059", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_061", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I would think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2336.264], "stop_times": [2337.045], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.264}, "reply_to": "20622__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20622__1_062", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--but if that is the case, then their plea is misdirected.\nThey ought to go to Congress and make that argument, where Congress can engage in the kind of fact determinations that this Court has said in the past--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2337.045, 2340.688], "stop_times": [2340.688, 2349.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.045}, "reply_to": "20622__1_061", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_063", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Oh, I don't know.\nIt goes to me to the balance that you weigh here, what our concerns are.\nI think they do have an economic incentive to behave in ways that won't get them even as far as a qualified immunity issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2349.574, 2350.025, 2355.047], "stop_times": [2350.025, 2355.047, 2362.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.574}, "reply_to": "20622__1_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20622__1_064", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Let's take this case, for example.\nHere, when the prisoner was transported to South Central Correctional Facility the original transportation was done by State correctional officers.\nThey recognized because of his bulk, and because of his size, they ought to take the ankle shackles and put them on his wrists, leaving his ankles unshackled, and when the transfer was made the State correctional officers told the CCA employees that this is the way he ought to be handled.\nThe CCA employees ignored that and shackled both his wrists and his legs, leading to his injuries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2362.661, 2364.554, 2373.4, 2390.701], "stop_times": [2364.554, 2373.4, 2390.701, 2399.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.661}, "reply_to": "20622__1_063", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_065", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "And you think that's because they were private employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2399.426], "stop_times": [2401.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.426}, "reply_to": "20622__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_066", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2401.787], "stop_times": [2401.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2401.787}, "reply_to": "20622__1_065", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_067", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--not because they were stupid or mean or anything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2401.968], "stop_times": [2405.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.968}, "reply_to": "20622__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_068", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--It could have been all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2405.05], "stop_times": [2405.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.05}, "reply_to": "20622__1_067", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_069", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "There's something inherent in the nature of private employees that would have made them the stupid ones rather than the... I don't see that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2405.951], "stop_times": [2411.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2405.951}, "reply_to": "20622__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_070", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I didn't finish, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2411.875], "stop_times": [2413.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2411.875}, "reply_to": "20622__1_069", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_071", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2413.806], "stop_times": [2413.976], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.806}, "reply_to": "20622__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20622__1_072", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Let me try to respond directly to your question.\nThe transportation of prisoners is done at a flat fee.\nThe better you do it, the more personnel you do it, you're not going to make any more money, and the problem that this case presents is, there's inevitably a tension... when it comes to spending money or safeguarding prisoners' rights, there's inevitably a tension here, and here, I submit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2413.976, 2416.097, 2420.321], "stop_times": [2416.097, 2420.321, 2436.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.976}, "reply_to": "20622__1_071", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_073", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "You really think that these employees have the... I mean, they're wonderful employees if they have the financial well-being of the corporation so much in mind that they know that by whipping this prisoner along a little bit faster the corporation is going to make more money and that makes them feel good?\nI can't imagine that that's in their mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2436.619, 2453.57], "stop_times": [2453.57, 2455.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.619}, "reply_to": "20622__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__1_074", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--I don't divorce the employees from the context in which they work, and here what I'm saying is that because corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximize their profits, that puts the needs of the corporation potentially on a collision course with the constitutional rights of their employees, and that is the danger of giving qualified immunity to private actors who are not subject--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2455.833], "stop_times": [2479.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.833}, "reply_to": "20622__1_073", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_075", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "You know, just from my own experience in private practice, private concerns are much more cost-conscious and willing to settle and willing to avoid liability than governments, which traditionally feel as I gather, that you know, we don't need to worry about how much this is costing us because we've got a principle at stake.\nI think your argument really proves the other thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2479.318, 2497.241], "stop_times": [2497.241, 2501.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.318}, "reply_to": "20622__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__1_076", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, all I can say is that one of the principal goals of section 1983 is to deter civil rights violations.\nThat's why... part of the reason why it was enacted, and it seems to me that if you put governmental power in the hands of private actors who are not subject to the constraints that we normally think inhibit unconstitutional acts by Government officials, that is a very risky proposition that counsels against extending qualified immunity to private persons here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2501.042, 2510.278], "stop_times": [2510.278, 2533.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.042}, "reply_to": "20622__1_075", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_077", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Do you agree with the Solicitor General on how you treat the doctors who have a contract to attend to all the inmates who get sick?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2533.555], "stop_times": [2543.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.555}, "reply_to": "20622__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__1_078", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I do not know whether there's any common law basis for affording those kinds of contractors who work within the governmental structure as it exists, who take supervision and direction and control from governmental prison officials, whether they have been accorded immunity in the past.\nBut I would urge the Court to retain the historic first question that is always asked in qualified immunity cases, which is simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2543.009, 2559.859], "stop_times": [2559.859, 2568.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2543.009}, "reply_to": "20622__1_077", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_079", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Vladeck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2568.615], "stop_times": [2569.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.615}, "reply_to": "20622__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__1_080", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2569.547], "stop_times": [2569.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.547}, "reply_to": "20622__1_079", "speaker": "david_c_vladeck"}
{"id": "20622__1_081", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2569.727], "stop_times": [2572.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.727}, "reply_to": "20622__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__2_000", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt is the position of the United States that guards employed by a private corporation that is operating a prison pursuant to a contract with the State for the operation of that prison are not entitled to invoke qualified immunity under section 1983 solely by virtue of the fact that they are performing functions that are similar to those performed by a publicly employed guard.\nHowever, as we explain in our brief, there are other circumstances not present in this case in which we do believe that private persons should be entitled to invoke immunity.\nSome of those have been referred to here, and some of them in fact have distinct common law antecedents.\nThere are... there's a common law recognition, for example, for private judicial activities in the area of arbitration.\nThere are common law antecedents for private citizens helping to find... to capture fleeing felons.\nThere are common law antecedents for immunities for informants and other volunteers, such as volunteer fire companies.\nWhere... in situations where the Government cannot get the assistance of private persons in the performance of public functions, the law has long recognized immunities or defenses, and we think in those circumstances that correspondingly under 1983, or Bivens, when a person is acting under color of law, that there would be also a basis for doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2572.459, 2583.746, 2604.699, 2613.044, 2617.919, 2626.244, 2633.21, 2640.753], "stop_times": [2583.746, 2604.699, 2613.044, 2617.919, 2626.244, 2633.21, 2640.753, 2661.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2572.459}, "reply_to": "20622__1_081", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_001", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Do we know that that isn't one of those situations?\nThat is to say, do we know that private companies, deep pockets, apparently, do not have the sovereign immunity that the State has and who are liable, you know, for vicarious master-servant liability for their individual functionaries, is it clear that they would take on these contracts and perform that governmental function if, indeed, they didn't have comparable qualified immunity to the one that the Government s own prison guards--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2661.387, 2663.788], "stop_times": [2663.788, 2692.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.387}, "reply_to": "20622__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__2_002", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I think there are really two questions, and that is whether the private corporation would be able to attract employees to serve as their guards, but then beyond that the question would be whether the State could accomplish the function of housing prisoners if that weren't so.\nAnd we know from history that the States have operated prisons themselves and have been able to hire employees and attract employees and give them the security of their job.\nIn fact, that's one of the functions of qualified immunity in the public sector.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2692.736, 2707.636, 2717.213], "stop_times": [2707.636, 2717.213, 2721.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2692.736}, "reply_to": "20622__2_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_003", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--If that's true, then... you're not going to know the answer to this either, I bet, because I bet there is no answer, but try it, but my impression, the qualified immunity thing, it's a creation by this Court interpreting a statute that rests upon common law tort law, and the kinds of immunity that under common law tort law went with public officials.\nSo if we're going back to history I would be quite interested as to how the States, again, have applied their common law tort law to people who suddenly privatize, take over State functions.\nIf, for example, they were to say, no, there is no immunity, you're treated just like Joe Blokes out in the street, that would support your historical argument very much, because then they would have evolved tort law the same way, and the opposite would be the opposite, and you're going to tell me you don't know because it probably hasn't come up yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2721.166, 2740.869, 2754.219], "stop_times": [2740.869, 2754.219, 2771.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.166}, "reply_to": "20622__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__2_004", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "No, my understanding is that that is, that that distinction does exist in tort law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2771.889], "stop_times": [2778.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2771.889}, "reply_to": "20622__2_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_005", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "All right.\nSo what happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2778.793, 2779.053], "stop_times": [2779.053, 2779.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.793}, "reply_to": "20622__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__2_006", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "For Government officials... and this is really the issue in this Court's decision in Westfall, which dealt with the qualified immunity of Federal employees from State common law torts.\nThe Court there referred to the fact that at common law employees were absolutely immune, essentially for acts performed within the scope of their discretion, and the Restatement of Torts refers to that same immunity for public officials acting within the scope of their discretion.\nThere is no comparable immunity as such for private--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2779.734, 2790.21, 2804.979], "stop_times": [2790.21, 2804.979, 2808.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2779.734}, "reply_to": "20622__2_005", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_007", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "No, but now what happens when... exactly right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2808.132], "stop_times": [2809.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.132}, "reply_to": "20622__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__2_008", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--for private persons.\nNow, I'm not aware of any law dealing specifically with contracting out, but I see no reason why contracts awarded to a private corporation for service contracts in this case, or procurement contracts, either way I see no reason why a private corporation in its ordinary functions, whether it's performing a contract for another private person or the Government, would not be subject to the... as a general rule, the same rule, that there would not be a comparable immunity.\nNow, there may be defenses at common law, and for example, there are privileges or defenses... these things had different labels at common law for... and I'm sure the guards here would have a defense, even a private person would, in assisting in an arrest, and I'm sure that there would be a good faith defense recognized at common law in Tennessee... not an immunity, but a defense in terms of the force that was reasonably believed to be necessary by a guard to restrain someone.\nThat would be a privileged battery, and the question would be whether the battery would be... was reasonable.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2809.614, 2810.623, 2835.882, 2865.53, 2871.024], "stop_times": [2810.623, 2835.882, 2865.53, 2871.024, 2871.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2809.614}, "reply_to": "20622__2_007", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_009", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Mr. Kneedler, you've confused me now.\nI thought when you began you acknowledged that there were some instances in which qualified immunity was given to private people where you said it was necessary to call for the services.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2871.594, 2873.094], "stop_times": [2873.094, 2883.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.594}, "reply_to": "20622__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__2_010", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2883.412], "stop_times": [2884.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2883.412}, "reply_to": "20622__2_009", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_011", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Now you're just... I thought you're just saying now that there aren't any instances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2884.441], "stop_times": [2889.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.441}, "reply_to": "20622__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__2_012", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "No, no.\nI was explaining the general common law rule of torts that the absolute immunity for Government actors did not apply in the private sector, but even under the common law there were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2889.186, 2889.726], "stop_times": [2889.726, 2899.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2889.186}, "reply_to": "20622__2_011", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_013", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "We're talking about qualified immunity here, though.\nWe're not talking about absolute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2899.682, 2900.924], "stop_times": [2900.924, 2902.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.682}, "reply_to": "20622__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__2_014", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--No, but I think that there is some parallel as Justice Breyer was suggesting in the tort law to support a distinction between people who are public employees and people who are employees of private corporations, but even under contracts, I do want to make one important point.\nIf a person operating under a contract is acting pursuant to a specific governmental directive, either in the contract that something shall be done in a certain way, or directives in a particular case that something shall be done in a certain way, we believe that qualified immunity should attach to that, because in that situation it is not the private actor but the government that is really accountable for that, and the Government agent or official who made that decision has been responsible for balancing the costs and benefits of doing that.\nI do think that there is an important distinction, both as a matter of history, constitutional law, and common sense, between Government and private corporations, between the Government way of doing things, or the Government model, and the private market model.\nFor one thing, Article VI of the Constitution requires every executive officer of a State, of the State or Federal Government to take an oath to support the Constitution, and those heads of executive departments, including the State correctional department, have direct responsibility and political accountability for those who work for them.\nIn that climate it is... I think the courts have been willing to assume the regularity of governmental operations.\nGovernment officials will be trained, but in any event they will be subject to direct political accountability.\nWhen a function is being performed by a private contractor, the Government can't step in and correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2902.183, 2917.995, 2944.832, 2958.941, 2974.842, 2982.476, 2987.07], "stop_times": [2917.995, 2944.832, 2958.941, 2974.842, 2982.476, 2987.07, 2992.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2902.183}, "reply_to": "20622__2_013", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_015", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--When you say political accountability you mean the electorate, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2992.023], "stop_times": [2995.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2992.023}, "reply_to": "20622__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__2_016", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--The electorate and public attention, public scrutiny on the acts of public officials.\nThat's not to say that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [2995.516, 3002.74], "stop_times": [3002.74, 3004.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2995.516}, "reply_to": "20622__2_015", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_017", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, does that... do you think there would be less, say, media attention on a prison riot if the... if prison officials and the workers were contract prisoners than if they were Government employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3004.06], "stop_times": [3016.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3004.06}, "reply_to": "20622__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__2_018", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--No, there wouldn't be less media attention, but I believe it may be that the public would hold the public warden or correctional superintendent more directly responsible for what happened, and perhaps properly so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3016.65], "stop_times": [3026.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3016.65}, "reply_to": "20622__2_017", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_019", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Why on earth would that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3026.765], "stop_times": [3027.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.765}, "reply_to": "20622__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__2_020", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Because the direct supervision of the guards on a day-to-day basis, anyway, is not the responsibility of the head of the correctional department.\nThe Government has turned over as a package the entire operation of the prison, and there are a series of financial and other incentives for the contractor to both protect the security of the prison and protect private rights.\nThat includes not just what happens in individual guard decisions but the broader questions.\nThe contractor has to decide, the training, the security measures, the way facilities are designed, the programs, all of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3027.707, 3038.763, 3051.221, 3055.395], "stop_times": [3038.763, 3051.221, 3055.395, 3061.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3027.707}, "reply_to": "20622__2_019", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_021", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, you'd better be very careful in picking the contractor.\nIt seems to me you can get just as mad at the State governmental corrections director for being very negligent in his selection of contractors as you can get mad at him for being negligent in his supervision of people who--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3061.957, 3063.8], "stop_times": [3063.8, 3075.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.957}, "reply_to": "20622__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__2_022", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Right.\nI'm not saying that there's no responsibility, but we do believe that it's attenuated and that in fact there's a pretty important break in the chain of control.\nThe very act of contracting over the operation of an entire institution... we're not talking about individual doctors who may be integrated into what's otherwise a governmental institution, but turning over the operation of an entire institution to a private corporation.\nThe model, then, would be that that private corporation, using whatever it believes would best promote the overall performance of the contract, to use its creativity, to use its financial resources in a way that will both win the contract the next time around and also to guard against constitutional rights, and the Government... I think this Court has been willing to assume that the accountability and the direct responsibility of the Constitution will help to deter constitutional violations.\nI think that there's less structural basis... I'm not saying necessarily empirical, but structural basis for concluding that the same assumption should not be applied in the case of private contractors, but we do urge this Court not to announce a rule that would say that immunity is not available in any case of private actors, but only in the Government contractor situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3075.138, 3075.308, 3083.853, 3096.211, 3125.05], "stop_times": [3075.308, 3083.853, 3096.211, 3125.05, 3147.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3075.138}, "reply_to": "20622__2_021", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20622__2_023", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.\nMr. Ray, you have 6 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3147.764, 3148.795], "stop_times": [3148.795, 3151.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.764}, "reply_to": "20622__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20622__3_000", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI promise you I won't use that.\nIn response to the Government, I really submit that their position seems to be a bit elitist, that doctors, counselors, those professions that you're going to have difficulty in bringing into the contracting service should have immunity, qualified immunity, but a mere prison guard, where the rubber meets the road, somehow they don't warrant qualified immunity, and I would submit that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3151.267, 3152.028, 3153.397], "stop_times": [3152.028, 3153.397, 3178.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3151.267}, "reply_to": "20622__2_023", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_001", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Mr. Ray, it wasn't quite that way, because they said the person who is helping out in the U.S. Marshalls Service, they have to get temporary people in the Marshalls Service.\nI don't think they're talking about elite people in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3178.074, 3186.61], "stop_times": [3186.61, 3190.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.074}, "reply_to": "20622__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__3_002", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--Well, again I would submit that if we're going to have qualified immunity for these types of people, the people who utilize the most discretion on a day-to-day basis and need it the most are correctional officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3190.343], "stop_times": [3202.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3190.343}, "reply_to": "20622__3_001", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_003", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Let me ask you this.\nIt's probably not a very great point, because nobody's made it on the other side, but this did occur to me.\nThey mostly argued this incentive thing, which we've been through, but if you go back into the history of these cases, I once thought that the reason this qualified immunity developed at all was the courts are focusing on a particular person who may not have insurance.\nHe's a defendant, and they're saying this poor person, you know, he's trying to do his job, here his life is ruined, he's stuck with $100,000 verdict... we'll hurt the plaintiffs a little bit in order to help him out a little bit.\nNow, if that was how this thing developed... and certainly Learned Hand probably had something like that in mind, I think, in Gregoire v. Biddle, all right... then it is a different world, isn't it, where people have insurance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3202.031, 3203.063, 3208.305, 3223.195, 3235.344], "stop_times": [3203.063, 3208.305, 3223.195, 3235.344, 3247.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.031}, "reply_to": "20622__3_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__3_004", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "No question about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3247.24], "stop_times": [3248.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3247.24}, "reply_to": "20622__3_003", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_005", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "And if we're going into this different world when people have insurance, like the private companies all must under contract, then that defendant is somewhat less in need of that protection, and that... though no one's made this, so maybe there's some obvious answer to this, but the... if they don't need the protection because we're now in a new world, does that sort of hurt the whole idea of qualified immunity, at least as applied to a field where they have to have insurance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3248.321], "stop_times": [3274.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.321}, "reply_to": "20622__3_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20622__3_006", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "In the case that was argued yesterday it was quite apparent that insurance played a great role in that particular case.\nThe county had insurance, whether or not it was enough.\nSo governments indemnify their employees just as private concerns do, and I don't believe that this Court has ever let that particular issue decide whether qualified immunity would pass on to a certain governmental official.\nAnd again, since Harlow, the focus I would submit has been upon what the public interest is in having qualified immunity conferred on this particular governmental official, who utilizes discretion on a daily basis.\nWe do indemnify our guards, but eventually that cost is going to be passed on to the State of Tennessee, and eventually passed on to the taxpayers of the State of Tennessee, so I would submit that the ultimate goal is to serve the taxpayers of the State of Tennessee, and therefore qualified immunity shouldn't turn on whether or not there's indemnification of our employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3274.669, 3281.392, 3284.835, 3299.214, 3311.312], "stop_times": [3281.392, 3284.835, 3299.214, 3311.312, 3330.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3274.669}, "reply_to": "20622__3_005", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_007", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, I don't know if that's the ultimate goal.\nThe statute is... was enacted to protect the constitutional rights of people from violation by State officials, and in your hypothesis, you've got a constitutional violation here, but it should go unredressed because of the qualified immunity doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3330.955, 3332.777], "stop_times": [3332.777, 3344.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.955}, "reply_to": "20622__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20622__3_008", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "No, Mr. Justice Stevens, that's not our policy at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3344.814], "stop_times": [3346.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3344.814}, "reply_to": "20622__3_007", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_009", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "You don't need the defense unless there's a constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3346.945], "stop_times": [3349.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.945}, "reply_to": "20622__3_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20622__3_010", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Well, if our actions were objectively reasonable under the standard established by this Court, then qualified immunity attaches to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3349.106], "stop_times": [3357.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3349.106}, "reply_to": "20622__3_009", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_011", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Qualified immunity attaches even though there was a constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3357.882], "stop_times": [3361.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.882}, "reply_to": "20622__3_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20622__3_012", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "But again, as I understand it, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Walker did not know or should not have known about their constitutional deprivation of Mr. McKnight's rights in order for them to have the benefit.\nBut one thing I do want to point out, one of the reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3361.986, 3378.525], "stop_times": [3378.525, 3381.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3361.986}, "reply_to": "20622__3_011", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_013", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I thought you said that was just down the road, when we opened this discussion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3381.848], "stop_times": [3386.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.848}, "reply_to": "20622__3_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20622__3_014", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nThat question has not been decided by the district court, the Sixth Circuit, and we never got that far.\nBut in response to one of Mr. Justice Breyer's questions earlier, one of the specific reasons that we can lose this contract is to violate the constitutional rights of the inmates that we have in our keep, and that is quite evident to all our employees, and if we want to succeed and retain this contract, then we have to proceed down a straight and narrow path that belies the parade of horribles that the respondent and amici have raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3386.202, 3387.792, 3392.557], "stop_times": [3387.792, 3392.557, 3427.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3386.202}, "reply_to": "20622__3_013", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_015", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "The contract says that in so many words, don't violate the constitutional rights of any prisoners, or just... it says that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3427.939], "stop_times": [3433.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.939}, "reply_to": "20622__3_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__3_016", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That's one of the provisions, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3433.082], "stop_times": [3434.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3433.082}, "reply_to": "20622__3_015", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_017", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "So that you could be declared in violation of your contract during its term.\nIt's not a mere problem of renewal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3434.864, 3440.148], "stop_times": [3440.148, 3442.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.864}, "reply_to": "20622__3_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20622__3_018", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "That's correct.\nWritten notice given for a number of reasons, constitutional deprivations being one of them, Mr. Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3442.398, 3443.26], "stop_times": [3443.26, 3449.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3442.398}, "reply_to": "20622__3_017", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_019", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Is that clause subject to the qualified immunity defense?\nYou may end up having a defense against a tort suit but you lose the contract because you've violated their constitutional rights, qualified immunity or not.\nThat's a real box you're in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3449.585, 3451.715, 3459.91], "stop_times": [3451.715, 3459.91, 3461.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3449.585}, "reply_to": "20622__3_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20622__3_020", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "I'm assuming... I've been known to put myself in such a box at 2:00 a.m. in the morning when I come in, Mr. Justice Scalia, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3461.64], "stop_times": [3469.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3461.64}, "reply_to": "20622__3_019", "speaker": "charles_r_ray"}
{"id": "20622__3_021", "conversation_id": "20622", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ray.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-318", "start_times": [3469.397, 3470.688], "stop_times": [3470.688, 3472.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3469.397}, "reply_to": "20622__3_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_000", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "We will hear argument next in No. 95-1376, Charles T. Robinson, Sr., v. Shell Oil Company.\nMr. Lenchek.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [0.0, 11.69], "stop_times": [11.69, 21.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_001", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and if it please the Court:\nThis case presents the question: Does the provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits retaliation against, quote, employees, unquote, for filing charges of discrimination or otherwise availing themselves of their rights under Title VII... namely Section 704(a)... does that section cover former employees, employees such as Petitioner, Charles Robinson, who were discharged prior to the alleged retaliation?\nIn this case, after Charles Robinson was terminated by Shell Oil, he filed a charge of discrimination against Shell under Title VII, and subsequently, Shell gave him a negative job reference.\nHe then brought the present action, alleging that that negative reference was made in retaliation for his earlier charge of discrimination.\nThe Fourth Circuit held that Charles Robinson was not even entitled to have the court determine whether that reference was retaliatory, because he was not employed by Shell at the time of the reference.\nIf Shell had given him that reference the day before he was terminated, everyone agrees, he would have had that right to a judicial determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [21.645, 27.849, 70.846, 85.138, 97.036, 117.188], "stop_times": [27.849, 70.846, 85.138, 97.036, 117.188, 128.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 21.645}, "reply_to": "20848__0_000", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_002", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, if you're right, it's... it's a rather sure way to make... make sure you don't get a bad reference; you just file a complaint with the EEOC a couple of days after... or a couple of days before you're fired, even though the firing is completely justified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [128.696], "stop_times": [144.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.696}, "reply_to": "20848__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_003", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, that is not, in fact, what actually happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [144.845], "stop_times": [153.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.845}, "reply_to": "20848__0_002", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_004", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No, it may not be what in fact happened in your case, but it certainly might happen in a number of other cases if we sustain your position.\nOr even if you're not going to be fired, even if you just intend to quit, it would be very wise, before you quit, to file an EEOC complaint.\nBecause then, if... if the employer gives you a bad reference in... in your later job, he takes the risk of being sued for that, on the basis of retaliation.\nHe's buying a lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [153.062, 160.415, 168.611, 178.889], "stop_times": [160.415, 168.611, 178.889, 180.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.062}, "reply_to": "20848__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_005", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "There are, in fact, disincentives to frivolous charges built into Title VII, which hopefully would take care of that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [180.04], "stop_times": [189.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.04}, "reply_to": "20848__0_004", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_006", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, what are... what are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [189.794], "stop_times": [191.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.794}, "reply_to": "20848__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__0_007", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "A principal brings a frivolous lawsuit under Title VII may be hit with attorney's fees and costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [191.985], "stop_times": [201.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.985}, "reply_to": "20848__0_006", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_008", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "What about, are there any disincentives to filing a frivolous complaint with the EEOC?\nAny similar disincentives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [201.322, 205.566], "stop_times": [205.566, 209.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.322}, "reply_to": "20848__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_009", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "There... there are... no, the EEOC can't apply any disincentives like that.\nThat's true.\nBut we believe that the language--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [209.338, 216.272, 217.033], "stop_times": [216.272, 217.033, 220.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.338}, "reply_to": "20848__0_008", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_010", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "What other remedies are available to someone who, after he's... he's been terminated, thinks that a reference was erroneously made and given by the former employer?\nIs there any other action at law that would be open for redress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [220.385, 236.164], "stop_times": [236.164, 240.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.385}, "reply_to": "20848__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__0_011", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--There are possible actions under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [240.508], "stop_times": [246.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.508}, "reply_to": "20848__0_010", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_012", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [246.482], "stop_times": [247.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.482}, "reply_to": "20848__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__0_013", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But it is well established that Title VII is intended to give parallel remedies to any other remedies that may be available.\nWe believe that the language of Title VII, and the purpose of Section 704(a), indicate that Congress intended former employer... employees... to be covered by the retaliatory section.\nSection 704(a) provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment because he has opposed the charge or because he has opposed an unlawful practice or because he has made a charge or participated in an EEOC proceeding as a possible witness.\nI emphasize that Section 704(a) protects an employee who has made a charge, because the substantive provision of Title VII, Section 703(a), cited in full and verbatim in the Respondent's brief at page 14, makes it an unlawful employment practice to discharge any individual because of his race, and so on.\nAn individual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [247.133, 258.48, 275.17, 304.459, 339.593], "stop_times": [258.48, 275.17, 304.459, 339.593, 341.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.133}, "reply_to": "20848__0_012", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_014", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And that... that complaint was made here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [341.906], "stop_times": [344.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.906}, "reply_to": "20848__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__0_015", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's exactly what happened in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [344.046], "stop_times": [345.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.046}, "reply_to": "20848__0_014", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_016", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And... and the plaintiff lost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [345.837], "stop_times": [346.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.837}, "reply_to": "20848__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__0_017", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Right.\nThat's right.\nNow, an employee who is discharged will necessarily file his charge of discrimination after he ceases working for that employer.\nSo when Congress wrote Section 704(a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [346.458, 347.179, 347.59, 360.817], "stop_times": [347.179, 347.59, 360.817, 364.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.458}, "reply_to": "20848__0_016", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_018", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, he'll file his charge if... if he claims the discharge is discriminatory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [364.711], "stop_times": [369.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.711}, "reply_to": "20848__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_019", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [369.384], "stop_times": [369.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.384}, "reply_to": "20848__0_018", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_020", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "He could... the employee could remain employed and file a complaint that a failure to promote was discriminatory, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [369.713], "stop_times": [376.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.713}, "reply_to": "20848__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_021", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.\nBut he would remain an employee, and if he were retaliated against because of that charge, he would ordinarily still be an employee and clearly be covered by the Act.\nThe point I want to make is that when Congress wrote this statute, it contemplated that people would file charges alleging that they were discriminatorily discharged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [376.999, 378.02, 392.529], "stop_times": [378.02, 392.529, 407.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.999}, "reply_to": "20848__0_020", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_022", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It... it's the time of the discrimination that... that... that's relevant for 704(a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [407.827], "stop_times": [414.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.827}, "reply_to": "20848__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_023", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [414.452], "stop_times": [414.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.452}, "reply_to": "20848__0_022", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_024", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--and the person who is fired because he filed a complaint--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [414.923], "stop_times": [417.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.923}, "reply_to": "20848__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_025", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Exact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [417.844], "stop_times": [418.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.844}, "reply_to": "20848__0_024", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_026", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--was an employee at the time he was fired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [418.616], "stop_times": [421.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.616}, "reply_to": "20848__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_027", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [421.808], "stop_times": [422.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.808}, "reply_to": "20848__0_026", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_028", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So he would be... he would be well covered, even if \"employee\" means only current employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [422.687], "stop_times": [426.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.687}, "reply_to": "20848__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_029", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "He would be covered by 7... 703(a).\nThe issue in this case is, if he's no longer an employee at the time of the retaliation, is he covered be the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [426.971, 431.673], "stop_times": [431.673, 438.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.971}, "reply_to": "20848__0_028", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_030", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well--\n--If he's fired as a means of retal... if he's either not promoted or fired--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [438.509, 438.9], "stop_times": [438.9, 443.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 438.509}, "reply_to": "20848__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_031", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Of course, if he's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [443.321], "stop_times": [444.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 443.321}, "reply_to": "20848__0_030", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_032", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--as a means of retaliation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [444.172], "stop_times": [445.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.172}, "reply_to": "20848__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_033", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Of course, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [445.574], "stop_times": [446.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.574}, "reply_to": "20848__0_032", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_034", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--he would be covered under 704(a), even if 704(a) is just limited to current employees, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [446.723], "stop_times": [451.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.723}, "reply_to": "20848__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_035", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [451.177], "stop_times": [451.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.177}, "reply_to": "20848__0_034", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_036", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [451.548], "stop_times": [452.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.548}, "reply_to": "20848__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_037", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [452.266], "stop_times": [452.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.266}, "reply_to": "20848__0_036", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_038", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [452.657], "stop_times": [453.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 452.657}, "reply_to": "20848__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_039", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But the point I want to make is that Congress knew that people would be subject to retaliation under 704(a) when they were no longer employees, because there would be people who file charges alleging that they were discharged because of race and so on, and those people would necessarily be no longer employees at the time they might be retaliated against.\nSo Congress must have contemplated that people who would be firing... fired, would be filing charges and then might be retaliated against when they were no longer employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [453.188, 482.277], "stop_times": [482.277, 501.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.188}, "reply_to": "20848__0_038", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_040", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, do we have to look at the definition in the applicable section here of the word \"employee\"?\nIs that how we should proceed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [501.52, 507.304], "stop_times": [507.304, 509.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.52}, "reply_to": "20848__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__0_041", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Un... unfortunately, that definition has... this Court has said that definition doesn't help us much--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [509.435], "stop_times": [519.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.435}, "reply_to": "20848__0_040", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_042", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, the definition says the term \"employee\" means an individual employed by an employer.\nAnd that is ambiguous in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [519.302, 525.096], "stop_times": [525.096, 527.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.302}, "reply_to": "20848__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__0_043", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [527.187], "stop_times": [529.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.187}, "reply_to": "20848__0_042", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_044", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It could include former employees, a person employed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [529.157], "stop_times": [533.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.157}, "reply_to": "20848__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__0_045", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That is precisely what we're saying.\nBecause, as the Court has said in Darden, that definition is a circular definition, which doesn't help much in deciding who is an employee.\nAnd as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [533.321, 535.782, 545.97], "stop_times": [535.782, 545.97, 548.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.321}, "reply_to": "20848__0_044", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_046", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--a purpose that's not relevant in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [548.293], "stop_times": [551.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.293}, "reply_to": "20848__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__0_047", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [551.245], "stop_times": [553.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.245}, "reply_to": "20848__0_046", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_048", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--a traditional common-law type employee versus an independent contractor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [553.746], "stop_times": [559.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.746}, "reply_to": "20848__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__0_049", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [559.681], "stop_times": [560.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.681}, "reply_to": "20848__0_048", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_050", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So it's not... it's not circular for that purpose, but it just doesn't speak to what's at here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [560.332], "stop_times": [565.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.332}, "reply_to": "20848__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__0_051", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's right.\nBut as... as Your Honor pointed out in the earlier argument, a word in a statute may have different meanings in different... different parts of the statute, and one must look at the purpose of the statute to decide what that particular meaning is in a given place in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [565.845, 567.003], "stop_times": [567.003, 585.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.845}, "reply_to": "20848__0_050", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_052", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, I understand it to be your position that the... circular though the... the definition may be, it is helpful to you in the sense that it is as consistent with the reading, who was employed by an employer, as with the reading, who is employed by an employer.\nSo... so you're still in the game, even though the word \"employed\" is the modifier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [585.617, 600.888], "stop_times": [600.888, 607.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.617}, "reply_to": "20848__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__0_053", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [607.101], "stop_times": [608.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.101}, "reply_to": "20848__0_052", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_054", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [608.251], "stop_times": [608.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.251}, "reply_to": "20848__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__0_055", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That is exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [608.511], "stop_times": [609.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.511}, "reply_to": "20848__0_054", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_056", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [609.192], "stop_times": [609.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.192}, "reply_to": "20848__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__0_057", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And... and in order to decide which of the multiple meanings the word \"employee\" has in this statute, one must look to the purpose of the statute.\nAnd the purpose of the statute, obviously, is to protect those people who get discharged and then file charges of discrimination, and may be subject to retaliation.\nAnd Congress clearly contemplated that those people would making charges, would be subject to retaliation, and wrote the retaliation provision, using the simple--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [609.783, 620.529, 635.599], "stop_times": [620.529, 635.599, 649.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.783}, "reply_to": "20848__0_056", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_058", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Why should Congress contemplate that?\nI would... if I were a congressman, I would have had a hard time figuring out how an employer could retaliate against somebody who is no longer an employee.\nHe could retaliate by refusing to rehire the guy, perhaps.\nBut, in that case, he's covered, because he would be an applicant for employment.\nBut the notion that he could retaliate once... once the employ... employment relationship is terminated... I mean, I guess he could... he could send somebody over to... to mug him or something like that, but--\n--How about cutting off his pension benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [649.04, 650.759, 657.505, 661.308, 665.679, 675.817], "stop_times": [650.759, 657.505, 661.308, 665.679, 675.817, 677.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.04}, "reply_to": "20848__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_059", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [677.527], "stop_times": [678.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.527}, "reply_to": "20848__0_058", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_060", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, that... surely that would be unlawful, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [678.178], "stop_times": [681.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.178}, "reply_to": "20848__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_061", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No question about it; this Court has said so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [681.371], "stop_times": [683.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.371}, "reply_to": "20848__0_060", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_062", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, would... would you need this Act to... to prevent his... that's like sending somebody over to mug him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [683.371], "stop_times": [687.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.371}, "reply_to": "20848__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_063", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes, one does need this Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [687.752], "stop_times": [689.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 687.752}, "reply_to": "20848__0_062", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_064", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "You don't have to worry about that?\nYou have laws against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [689.815, 690.856], "stop_times": [690.856, 691.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.815}, "reply_to": "20848__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_065", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes, one does need this Act.\nIn Arizona Governing Committee, which was cited in Hishon, which we cite in our case, this Court said that cutting off pension benefits or discriminating with regard to pension benefits on the basis of sex was a violation of the substantive provision of Title VII.\nThe reason one needs this Act is because, if an employer chose to cut off pension benefits as a retaliatory measure, and then were... was... was charged under the substantive provision of Title VII... the claim would be you cut off my pension benefits because I'm black... the employer then... if this Court upholds the Fourth Circuit... could come in and use the fact that it was motivated by retaliation as an affirmative defense to the charge that it was motivated by sex or race.\nIf this Court upholds the Fourth Circuit, an employer will have carte blanche to retaliate against discharged employees.\nAs a matter of fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [691.015, 692.407, 710.078, 753.605, 764.454], "stop_times": [692.407, 710.078, 753.605, 764.454, 765.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.015}, "reply_to": "20848__0_064", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_066", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I'm not sure... I'm not sure, in the context of a pension or a bonus, that there is not a sufficient ongoing relation, so that the discrimination that you are hypothesizing would be against an employee, even though the employee has been terminated.\nI think there still are certain subsisting relations between the... the individual and the employer, one of which is entitlements to pension, which would mean that he's an employee for that purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [765.273, 782.336], "stop_times": [782.336, 797.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.273}, "reply_to": "20848__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_067", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yes, Justice Kennedy, that's right.\nThat would take care of... of that one particular class.\nBut there's a broader class that would not be covered if this Court upheld the Fourth Circuit.\nAnd that is all those people who have no remaining relationship with that employer.\nAnd if the Court upholds the Fourth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [797.243, 800.055, 803.518, 808.232, 813.305], "stop_times": [800.055, 803.518, 808.232, 813.305, 815.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.243}, "reply_to": "20848__0_066", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_068", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I... I was... I was just directing my... my comments to the pension and bonus example.\nBut I... I agree with your next point that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [815.957, 819.119], "stop_times": [819.119, 822.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.957}, "reply_to": "20848__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_069", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yes.\nBut consider... consider what Shell Oil or any employer could do if this Court upholds the Fourth Circuit.\nThe day after this Court hands down its decision, Shell Oil could announce a policy that any terminated employee who then later files a charge of discrimination against the company will be subject to retaliation.\nWe will retaliate against you.\nWe will cut off your pension, if you have one.\nWe will cut off your health benefits, if you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [822.452, 822.702, 829.805, 849.839, 851.5, 853.621], "stop_times": [822.702, 829.805, 849.839, 851.5, 853.621, 856.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.452}, "reply_to": "20848__0_068", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_070", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--And it wouldn't violate this law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [856.192], "stop_times": [858.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.192}, "reply_to": "20848__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__0_071", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--And it would not violate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [858.004], "stop_times": [858.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 858.004}, "reply_to": "20848__0_070", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_072", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But--\n--But it would violate other laws, though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [858.836, 859.274], "stop_times": [859.274, 860.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.836}, "reply_to": "20848__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_073", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Maybe not.\nMaybe not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [860.856, 861.996], "stop_times": [861.996, 863.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.856}, "reply_to": "20848__0_072", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_074", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, you know, if a person has a vested pension and he's dismissed by an employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [863.098], "stop_times": [868.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.098}, "reply_to": "20848__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_075", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [868.682], "stop_times": [869.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.682}, "reply_to": "20848__0_074", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_076", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--there is no law that protects his enjoyment of that pension?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [869.102], "stop_times": [873.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.102}, "reply_to": "20848__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_077", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That is absolutely right.\nBut there is... that person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [873.134, 874.183], "stop_times": [874.183, 876.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.134}, "reply_to": "20848__0_076", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_078", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, I mean, I said... and there... there's no law that protects his--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [876.146], "stop_times": [878.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 876.146}, "reply_to": "20848__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_079", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yes, there is.\nOf course, ERISA would protect him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [878.648, 879.239], "stop_times": [879.239, 881.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.648}, "reply_to": "20848__0_078", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_080", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [881.029], "stop_times": [881.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.029}, "reply_to": "20848__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__0_081", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But there would be no cause of action against the employer who announced a policy of simply, we will not give you any reference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [881.95], "stop_times": [888.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.95}, "reply_to": "20848__0_080", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_082", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [888.693], "stop_times": [889.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.693}, "reply_to": "20848__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_083", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--and we will not even acknowledge you worked for us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [889.174], "stop_times": [890.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.174}, "reply_to": "20848__0_082", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_084", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I thought in my earlier... I thought in our earlier colloquy that we just had that you agreed that in the pension and bonus example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [890.696], "stop_times": [898.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.696}, "reply_to": "20848__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_085", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [898.411], "stop_times": [898.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 898.411}, "reply_to": "20848__0_084", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_086", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--the terminated individual would have a sufficient nexus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [898.721], "stop_times": [903.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.721}, "reply_to": "20848__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_087", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [903.454], "stop_times": [903.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.454}, "reply_to": "20848__0_086", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_088", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--for the purpose of pension, to be an employee, even under the Respondent's view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [903.674], "stop_times": [908.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.674}, "reply_to": "20848__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_089", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [908.759], "stop_times": [909.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.759}, "reply_to": "20848__0_088", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_090", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [909.347], "stop_times": [909.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.347}, "reply_to": "20848__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_091", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [909.908], "stop_times": [910.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.908}, "reply_to": "20848__0_090", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_092", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So, then, I don't think we should talk about employers who are going to threaten former employees with cutting off their pensions.\nBecause I thought we just agreed that that wasn't... wasn't a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [910.278, 917.714], "stop_times": [917.714, 920.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.278}, "reply_to": "20848__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_093", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, he could threaten not to give any reference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [920.636], "stop_times": [923.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.636}, "reply_to": "20848__0_092", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_094", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah, but can you speak for the... can you speak for the Respondent on that issue?\nThe Respondent's literal, plain language argument, it seems to me, applies there as well as here.\nHow... how do you know the Respondent will agree with Justice Kennedy's suggestion?\nI don't think you have authority to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [923.487, 925.118, 929.292, 933.824], "stop_times": [925.118, 929.292, 933.824, 935.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.487}, "reply_to": "20848__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__0_095", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--No, I... I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [935.607], "stop_times": [937.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.607}, "reply_to": "20848__0_094", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_096", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, but... but it... but it is certainly within the purview of a logical construction of his position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [937.927], "stop_times": [943.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.927}, "reply_to": "20848__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__0_097", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I... I'll... I'll leave that for Respondent to answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [943.581], "stop_times": [949.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.581}, "reply_to": "20848__0_096", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__0_098", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Very well.\nVery well, Mr. Lenchek.\n[Laughter]\nYou'll let Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy fight that out between themselves is what you mean?\nMr. Wolfson.\nWe'll hear from you Mr. Wolfson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [949.915, 950.196, 955.929, 951.946, 956.59, 958.099], "stop_times": [950.196, 955.929, 951.946, 956.59, 958.099, 959.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.915}, "reply_to": "20848__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__1_000", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nUnder the Court of Appeals reading of Section 704(a), any employee who was discharged and who went to the EEOC with a complaint of discrimination would lack protection against his former employer for... for... against retaliation by his former employer.\nI want to focus for a minute on why that seems just to be implausible that Congress would have carved out such a large category of employees from the reach of Section 704, especially since discharged employees are probably among the... the category of employees that are really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [959.51, 966.384, 982.217], "stop_times": [966.384, 982.217, 998.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 959.51}, "reply_to": "20848__0_098", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_001", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "If we are talking about what Congress might have intended, do you think Congress really intended that an action could be brought against an employer who makes a reference for a person after... after he's been discharged?\nDo you think that was what Congress had in mind when it talked about retaliation against an employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [998.546, 1013.155], "stop_times": [1013.155, 1017.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.546}, "reply_to": "20848__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__1_002", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, I... I mean, I... I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1017.549], "stop_times": [1019.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1017.549}, "reply_to": "20848__1_001", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_003", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Do... do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1019.199], "stop_times": [1019.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.199}, "reply_to": "20848__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__1_004", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I... I think that's... that is quite a possible reach within Section 704.\nOne of the things I want to focus is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1019.88, 1024.204], "stop_times": [1024.204, 1025.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1019.88}, "reply_to": "20848__1_003", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_005", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, I mean... but you're talking about what did Congress intend.\nDo you think that was what Congress had in mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1025.464, 1028.256], "stop_times": [1028.256, 1030.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.464}, "reply_to": "20848__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__1_006", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Congress... Congress made Section 704 very... a very clear and strong protection against retaliation.\nAnd I can't say that it focussed specifically on the issue of references, but it did know that it was very necessary for employees to be able to approach the EEOC without fear of adverse economic consequences from their employer for doing so.\nBecause the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1030.137, 1036.221, 1048.929], "stop_times": [1036.221, 1048.929, 1049.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1030.137}, "reply_to": "20848__1_005", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_007", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, what... what if, in this case, the... the thing... the request for references came 10 years--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1049.69], "stop_times": [1054.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.69}, "reply_to": "20848__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__1_008", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I... I... I'm aware of that hypothetical.\nI have to... first of all, I have to say that that hypothetical is not within the EEOC's experience, that that... that that happens.\nSecondly, I think that that is really a very remote situation, and it has to be contrasted with the very realistic situation, where somebody goes to the EEOC and, very quickly after that, suffers retaliation.\nTo focus on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1054.683, 1056.495, 1063.829, 1076.637], "stop_times": [1056.495, 1063.829, 1076.637, 1078.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1054.683}, "reply_to": "20848__1_007", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_009", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, but... we're... we're going to... we're going to have to cover them both, I gather--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1078.097], "stop_times": [1081.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.097}, "reply_to": "20848__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__1_010", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, I... I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1081.309], "stop_times": [1081.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1081.309}, "reply_to": "20848__1_009", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_011", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--either to not cover them both or cover them both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1081.95], "stop_times": [1083.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.95}, "reply_to": "20848__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__1_012", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I... I acknowledge, Mr. Chief Justice, that that could plausibly come within the... within the reach of the statute, under Section 704.\nBut, I have to say, I think that is a remote danger.\nI want to focus on a point that Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1083.773, 1090.826, 1093.189], "stop_times": [1090.826, 1093.189, 1096.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1083.773}, "reply_to": "20848__1_011", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_013", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Suppose... never mind that... suppose the retaliation comes not from the employer but from the... the individual employee, and not within the scope of the business at all... whom the... whom the... the complainant charged with discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1096.191], "stop_times": [1112.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.191}, "reply_to": "20848__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_014", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1112.66], "stop_times": [1113.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1112.66}, "reply_to": "20848__1_013", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_015", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That individual goes in the... scratches his car or slashes his tires or... or destroys his home or something of that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1113.331], "stop_times": [1121.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.331}, "reply_to": "20848__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_016", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1121.437], "stop_times": [1121.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1121.437}, "reply_to": "20848__1_015", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_017", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Would that be covered by this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1121.787], "stop_times": [1122.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.787}, "reply_to": "20848__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_018", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Two... two points.\nI mean, first of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1122.498, 1123.139], "stop_times": [1123.139, 1123.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1122.498}, "reply_to": "20848__1_017", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_019", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Would... would that be covered by the Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1123.638], "stop_times": [1124.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.638}, "reply_to": "20848__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_020", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Not necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1124.489], "stop_times": [1124.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1124.489}, "reply_to": "20848__1_019", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_021", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So, not at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1124.98], "stop_times": [1126.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.98}, "reply_to": "20848__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_022", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, it... it has to be an employer, first of all, who is... through a Section 704--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1126.82], "stop_times": [1130.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1126.82}, "reply_to": "20848__1_021", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_023", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Okay.\nSo... so you acknowledge there are some limitations within the Act upon retaliation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1130.533, 1130.893], "stop_times": [1130.893, 1133.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.533}, "reply_to": "20848__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_024", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1133.996], "stop_times": [1134.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1133.996}, "reply_to": "20848__1_023", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_025", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Not all retaliation is meant to be protected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1134.667], "stop_times": [1136.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.667}, "reply_to": "20848__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_026", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1136.687], "stop_times": [1137.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1136.687}, "reply_to": "20848__1_025", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_027", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So all we're arguing about is whether one of the limitations is a limitation between present employer and former employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1137.148], "stop_times": [1144.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1137.148}, "reply_to": "20848__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_028", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Right, present employer and... and former employer.\nAnd... but it's not... but it isn't just references that... that is at issue.\nI mean, Justice Kennedy had a colloquy... a colloquy earlier about the... the... the problem of pension benefits.\nContesting an unemployment claim is a situation that you would... might see.\nAnd the Court, in the sixties, had a case called Nash against Florida Unemployment Commission, where it said that, under the NLRA, that contesting an unemployment claim could be prohibited retaliation under the National Labor Relations Act.\nAnd that, I think, is a... a situation that one might very well expect to see.\nSomebody quits or is fired, believes that he was discharged, went to the EEOC, filed an unemployment claim, and, immediately thereafter, the employer decides, well, this one we'll contest, even though most unemployment claims for compensation we let go because it isn't worth it, because we're just... we're mad at the employee for filing a claim of discrimination.\nAnd references are also, I think, a situation where an employee might very well find that he receives an adverse reference or he receives no reference in all... at all... an employee... an employer might normally have a practice of saying, well, we... we say reasonably nice things about our employees once they've gone, but... but did he... because this one has filed a discrimination charge, this one, if we get any requests for a reference, we're just going to pitch the request in the bin and not say anything at... at all.\nThat could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1144.675, 1146.113, 1150.455, 1156.349, 1161.094, 1172.611, 1175.803, 1194.756, 1221.692], "stop_times": [1146.113, 1150.455, 1156.349, 1161.094, 1172.611, 1175.803, 1194.756, 1221.692, 1222.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1144.675}, "reply_to": "20848__1_027", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_029", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I don't know why you'd give any references if there is even the slightest risk of your being sued for it.\nI don't know why you'd give... why... why would an employer give any references?\nWhat... what is there in it for him, if... if there's a... a possible liability attached?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1222.574, 1226.587, 1230.698], "stop_times": [1226.587, 1230.698, 1234.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.574}, "reply_to": "20848__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_030", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, I mean, first of all, the... the fact is that employers still do give references.\nThe second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1234.331, 1239.834], "stop_times": [1239.834, 1240.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1234.331}, "reply_to": "20848__1_029", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_031", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well... well, isn't... isn't the answer going to be what you've just said... that if he doesn't, under your view of the case, it's going to be retaliation, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1240.845], "stop_times": [1246.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.845}, "reply_to": "20848__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__1_032", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, it's only... it's only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1246.71], "stop_times": [1248.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1246.71}, "reply_to": "20848__1_031", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_033", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "He must... he must... he must give a reference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1248.44], "stop_times": [1249.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.44}, "reply_to": "20848__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20848__1_034", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--It's only retaliation if he treats people differently.\nI mean, the Section 704 is... is discrimination against an employee because he has filed a charge with the EEOC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1249.501, 1252.413], "stop_times": [1252.413, 1259.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1249.501}, "reply_to": "20848__1_033", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_035", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But, Mr. Wolfson--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1259.599], "stop_times": [1260.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.599}, "reply_to": "20848__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__1_036", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And it is certainly the employee's burden to show that there was... there was a different approach taken in his case and that it was caused by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1260.769], "stop_times": [1267.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1260.769}, "reply_to": "20848__1_035", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_037", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--But, Mr. Wolfson, may I ask you a question right there?\nOne of the troubling things about the case is, even assuming a former employee may be an employee within the meaning of the statute, can file a charge and so forth, is it clear that the employer can discriminate against a former employee?\nWhy is it discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1267.202, 1269.033, 1279.511], "stop_times": [1269.033, 1279.511, 1280.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.202}, "reply_to": "20848__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__1_038", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, it doesn't say... the statute doesn't say specifically... 704, unlike 703, doesn't say discrimination in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\nIt just says discrimination.\nBut I would... but even if... even if that's not the case, I certainly would think that failing to give a reference or giving an adverse reference... if... if a reference is under the normal course of what an employer does for his employees once the employees leave the... leave the company... if that... if an employer decides, for one employee, because he's filed an EEO charge, I'm going to treat him differently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1280.731, 1291.309, 1292.889], "stop_times": [1291.309, 1292.889, 1314.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1280.731}, "reply_to": "20848__1_037", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_039", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah, but their policy assumes to tell the truth in all... in all... you know, whether they like the employee or not, they say, we didn't like this guy... that's discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1314.373], "stop_times": [1323.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.373}, "reply_to": "20848__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__1_040", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--It... it's only discrimination if it... if it is effected by the retaliation.\nThat is to say, if they say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1323.149, 1327.733], "stop_times": [1327.733, 1329.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1323.149}, "reply_to": "20848__1_039", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_041", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, wouldn't this play out in how... suppose this case had gone to court.\nThe employer says, We gave an honest reference.\nThe plaintiff is then out of court unless the plaintiff shows that's a pretext, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1329.053, 1334.827, 1339.341], "stop_times": [1334.827, 1339.341, 1344.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.053}, "reply_to": "20848__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__1_042", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1344.384], "stop_times": [1344.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1344.384}, "reply_to": "20848__1_041", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_043", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's a... that's a legitimate nonretaliatory reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1344.865], "stop_times": [1348.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.865}, "reply_to": "20848__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__1_044", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--It could be the... the allegation in this case, of course, is that the... the... and it's... the complaint is reprinted in the joint appendix... the allegation in this case is that the reference was false, in fact, and that it was motivated by... by retaliation.\nI want to talk about the word \"employee\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1348.585, 1361.684], "stop_times": [1361.684, 1364.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1348.585}, "reply_to": "20848__1_043", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_045", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I assume... I assume that the... that the employer cannot protect himself when he gets a request for a reference by simply saying, you know, I do normally give references, but I'm sorry, in the case of this employee, I don't want to say anything either good or bad, because he had filed a complaint and I'm worried about being prosecuted.\nYou would say that that is discrimination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1364.195, 1383.119], "stop_times": [1383.119, 1384.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.195}, "reply_to": "20848__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_046", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1384.98, 1385.351], "stop_times": [1385.351, 1385.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1384.98}, "reply_to": "20848__1_045", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_047", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--not giving a reference either way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1385.721], "stop_times": [1386.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.721}, "reply_to": "20848__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_048", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Certainly, if... if... if referring to the fact that that... that he's filed an EEOC charge.\nOne thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1386.71, 1392.804], "stop_times": [1392.804, 1393.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1386.71}, "reply_to": "20848__1_047", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_049", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So... so the only way for the employer to be sure that he... that he won't be sued is not to give any references for any employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1393.265], "stop_times": [1398.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.265}, "reply_to": "20848__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_050", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, not to treat any employee differently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1398.51], "stop_times": [1400.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1398.51}, "reply_to": "20848__1_049", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_051", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1400.279], "stop_times": [1400.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.279}, "reply_to": "20848__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__1_052", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--on the... on... not to affect a reference because the employee filed an EEOC charge.\nOne of the things, though, is that this... this is something that it doesn't really turn on just former... it doesn't turn on former and current employees.\nThat is, the lower court says... it pointed out that giving someone an adverse reference as retaliation for filing an EEO charge is some... something that a current employee could bring also.\nSo it doesn't... whatever problems there may be with what is retaliation, and is giving an adverse reference, you know, quote, you know, discrimination, or is it in... as retaliation?\nIt... it doesn't... it's not directly addressed to the analytical question in this case.\nAnd I don't think the Court has to reach any of the... the specific, difficult issue... the difficult issues that might arise on any specific factual circumstances about, you know, would a bad reference be a retaliation in a particular case?\nTurning to the question of employee, our position is that employee is... is susceptible of... of two meanings, and one... and certainly including former employee.\nAnd ordinary usage or common usage of the word bears that out.\nOne could say that he gives his employees good references and... in that... in that situation, the speaker would certainly be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1400.77, 1405.202, 1413.227, 1423.706, 1434.013, 1438.374, 1448.781, 1460.568, 1464.482], "stop_times": [1405.202, 1413.227, 1423.706, 1434.013, 1438.374, 1448.781, 1460.568, 1464.482, 1472.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1400.77}, "reply_to": "20848__1_051", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_053", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, I just want to make sure I understood the point you made before.\nYou are saying, commonly, people know that they're on their way out, and so they start looking around for a job earlier.\nSo, the... exactly, the employer is... faces the same problem with respect to references for people who are currently on the work force, but they didn't get the promotion, so they're just biding their time till they get a new job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1472.027, 1474.15, 1480.395], "stop_times": [1474.15, 1480.395, 1496.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.027}, "reply_to": "20848__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__1_054", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1496.485], "stop_times": [1497.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1496.485}, "reply_to": "20848__1_053", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_055", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Exactly the same problem for the employer.\nBut doesn't the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1497.596, 1499.747], "stop_times": [1499.747, 1500.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.596}, "reply_to": "20848__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__1_056", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But nobody suggests that that's not covered by Title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1500.949], "stop_times": [1503.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1500.949}, "reply_to": "20848__1_055", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_057", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1503.68], "stop_times": [1503.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.68}, "reply_to": "20848__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__1_058", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "At least--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1503.95], "stop_times": [1504.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1503.95}, "reply_to": "20848__1_057", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_059", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But if... if the interpretation that you are opposing were the law, then the message to the employer is, don't keep that person on and give him time to look for another job; get rid of him.\nBecause as soon as he's a nonemployee, then he has nothing that he can do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1504.849, 1516.098], "stop_times": [1516.098, 1520.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.849}, "reply_to": "20848__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__1_060", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, I... I... I think it's... the result you point is... is... and this was pointed out, I believe, in the... in the dissenting opinion below... that that's one of the anomalies of that construction, which is it encourages--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1520.81], "stop_times": [1530.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1520.81}, "reply_to": "20848__1_059", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20848__1_061", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I don't think that was a question, Mr. Lenchek.\nYour time has expired.\nNot Mr. Lenchek... Mr. Wolfson.\nMr. Butler, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1530.427, 1533.259, 1534.159, 1536.001], "stop_times": [1533.259, 1534.159, 1536.001, 1538.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1530.427}, "reply_to": "20848__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__2_000", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis is a case involving statutory interpretation.\nAny case involving the proper interpretation of a statute must begin by examining the statutory language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1538.943, 1548.55, 1552.411], "stop_times": [1548.55, 1552.411, 1558.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1538.943}, "reply_to": "20848__1_061", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_001", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Don't you think that language in the definition section can be read two ways?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1558.524], "stop_times": [1563.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.524}, "reply_to": "20848__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_002", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No, I don't, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1563.747], "stop_times": [1564.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.747}, "reply_to": "20848__2_001", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_003", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "\"Employed\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1564.539], "stop_times": [1565.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.539}, "reply_to": "20848__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__2_004", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No, I don't.\nNor do I think that the definition of employee within Title VII is a total tautology.\nIt does serve a purpose: to distinguish between individuals and employees.\nI think that that distinction between the two is very apparent when you look at Section 703.\nIf you look at Section 703(a), which is at page 14 of my brief, you can see that \"employee\", or \"employment\", is a status that is obtained by an individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1565.199, 1566.001, 1572.634, 1577.558, 1583.282], "stop_times": [1566.001, 1572.634, 1577.558, 1583.282, 1595.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1565.199}, "reply_to": "20848__2_003", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_005", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, but Title VII authorizes courts to order reinstatement or hiring of employees.\nNow, that has to include former employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1595.069, 1602.065], "stop_times": [1602.065, 1604.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.069}, "reply_to": "20848__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__2_006", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes, but I... I think you get back to what Justice Scalia pointed out: If there is an event, a discriminatory event that occurs, then you look at the event and the status of the individual at the time the event occurred.\nAnd certainly, if an employer fires someone--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1604.035, 1616.864], "stop_times": [1616.864, 1619.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1604.035}, "reply_to": "20848__2_005", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_007", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes, but not if the statute doesn't say that.\nOn filing charges, it says an employee may file a charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1619.096, 1620.067], "stop_times": [1620.067, 1622.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.096}, "reply_to": "20848__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_008", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's true.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1622.571, 1623.64], "stop_times": [1623.64, 1624.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1622.571}, "reply_to": "20848__2_007", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_009", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And even though he's a former employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1624.19], "stop_times": [1625.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.19}, "reply_to": "20848__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_010", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah, but I think you do have to look at the distinction between alleging discrimination under 703 and retaliation under 704, because they are not coextensive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1625.482], "stop_times": [1634.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1625.482}, "reply_to": "20848__2_009", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_011", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "There has been--\n--How do you resolve the... excuse me--\n--Go ahead.\nHow do you resolve the debate between Justice Kennedy and me?\nIs an... is a retired employee who's getting a pension still an employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1634.178, 1636.629, 1637.761, 1638.109, 1640.463], "stop_times": [1636.629, 1637.761, 1638.109, 1640.463, 1645.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.178}, "reply_to": "20848__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_012", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1645.264], "stop_times": [1646.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.264}, "reply_to": "20848__2_011", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_013", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So you agree with me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1646.686], "stop_times": [1647.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.686}, "reply_to": "20848__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_014", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I... I do agree with you, Justice Scalia.\n[Laughter]\nWith all due respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1647.295, 1648.907, 1649.856], "stop_times": [1648.907, 1649.856, 1652.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.295}, "reply_to": "20848__2_013", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_015", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Even if you lose the case?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1652.928, 1654.26], "stop_times": [1654.26, 1658.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.928}, "reply_to": "20848__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_016", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I would hope not, Justice Kennedy.\nBut I do not agree that a person can be an employee for the purposes of some benefits and not others.\nI think that that is a line drawing that is not justified by the statute.\nThe statute talks in terms of employment, and I think that is a bright line.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1658.522, 1660.946, 1668.46, 1672.223, 1675.945], "stop_times": [1660.946, 1668.46, 1672.223, 1675.945, 1676.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.522}, "reply_to": "20848__2_015", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_017", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But you've already... you've already acknowledged that the word \"employee\", the word \"employee\", in this very statute, means former employee in a number of contexts.\nOne, the time you have to file a charge.\nIt uses the word \"employee\", right?\nIt doesn't say \"former employee\".\nIt just says \"employee\", but obviously it's talking about former employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1676.635, 1685.9, 1689.733, 1691.604, 1693.417], "stop_times": [1685.9, 1689.733, 1691.604, 1693.417, 1697.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.635}, "reply_to": "20848__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_018", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, I would disagree, only to state, Justice Ginsburg, that, at the time the charge is filed, the status is irrelevant.\nIt is the time of the retaliatory act or the time of dis... discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1697.03, 1702.023], "stop_times": [1702.023, 1706.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.03}, "reply_to": "20848__2_017", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_019", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But the... the statute uses the word \"employee\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1706.103], "stop_times": [1707.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.103}, "reply_to": "20848__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_020", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1707.536], "stop_times": [1708.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1707.536}, "reply_to": "20848__2_019", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_021", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "The statute uses the word \"employee\" to describe an individual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1708.136], "stop_times": [1712.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.136}, "reply_to": "20848__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_022", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1712.649], "stop_times": [1713.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1712.649}, "reply_to": "20848__2_021", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_023", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--who happens to be a former employee.\nBut the statute identifies that individual as \"employee\", and everybody knows that \"employee\"... the word \"employee\", in that statute, means former employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1713.4, 1716.121], "stop_times": [1716.121, 1726.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.4}, "reply_to": "20848__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_024", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I... I disagree with the construction, because I do think it depends on when you have to identify the employee.\nNow, the words are the same.\nIt is used the same.\nBut I would add something else, Justice Ginsburg--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1726.388, 1732.25, 1733.372, 1734.173], "stop_times": [1732.25, 1733.372, 1734.173, 1736.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.388}, "reply_to": "20848__2_023", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_025", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "When the statute says an employee may file a charge within X number of days--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1736.714], "stop_times": [1742.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.714}, "reply_to": "20848__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_026", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1742.969], "stop_times": [1743.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.969}, "reply_to": "20848__2_025", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_027", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--does that word \"employee\" mean current employee and former employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1743.41], "stop_times": [1747.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.41}, "reply_to": "20848__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_028", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It can mean either... it can mean an employee at the time the event occurred.\nAlso, under 703--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1747.431, 1752.974], "stop_times": [1752.974, 1754.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.431}, "reply_to": "20848__2_027", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_029", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah, but the person who's filling out the form, at the time he fills out the form is what the statute is talking about.\nAnd at the time he fills out the form, he's not an employee; isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1754.706, 1760.631], "stop_times": [1760.631, 1764.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.706}, "reply_to": "20848__2_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__2_030", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That... that's right, at the time he fills out the form.\nBut are we under 703 or 704?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1764.803, 1766.284], "stop_times": [1766.284, 1768.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.803}, "reply_to": "20848__2_029", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_031", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But that's a different argument.\nAnd I don't know why you don't make that argument, that... that it can mean other things in... in other contexts, but in this context it doesn't.\nI really think you're taking on a terrible burden, to say that it always and everywhere means a current employee.\nIt quite obviously doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1768.545, 1769.917, 1777.981, 1784.265], "stop_times": [1769.917, 1777.981, 1784.265, 1785.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.545}, "reply_to": "20848__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_032", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Your Honor, I do accept that argument.\nBut I would point out there is an additional word that I think does bear looking at under Section 704.\nEmployers are told that they are responsible for his employees.\nAnd I think if you go... if you take the common usage of that term and you go to any employer in this country, and you say, for whatever purpose, you're responsible for your employees... his employees... no one is going to assume that, well, gee, I guess that means I'm responsible for Joe Blow who works for me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1785.167, 1788.407, 1794.492, 1799.346], "stop_times": [1788.407, 1794.492, 1799.346, 1814.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.167}, "reply_to": "20848__2_031", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_033", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "What you're saying is that the normal meaning is a current employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1814.506], "stop_times": [1816.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.506}, "reply_to": "20848__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_034", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1816.707], "stop_times": [1817.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.707}, "reply_to": "20848__2_033", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_035", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--although, in some contexts, it's... it can be used differently.\nThat's unusual, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1817.328, 1821.789], "stop_times": [1821.789, 1822.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.328}, "reply_to": "20848__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_036", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1822.841], "stop_times": [1823.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.841}, "reply_to": "20848__2_035", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_037", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--in some contexts, you... you have to understand that it... it's being used differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1823.421], "stop_times": [1825.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.421}, "reply_to": "20848__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_038", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1825.953, 1826.614], "stop_times": [1826.614, 1827.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.953}, "reply_to": "20848__2_037", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_039", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And you say this is just the normal context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1827.113], "stop_times": [1828.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.113}, "reply_to": "20848__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_040", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.\nThere is no reason not to accept the normal construction of the word 704.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1828.455, 1829.356, 1829.934], "stop_times": [1829.356, 1829.934, 1836.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1828.455}, "reply_to": "20848__2_039", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_041", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Butler, I... I know there's an answer to this, and I'm really asking you for help on it.\nIn 704 that's quoted on page 4 of your text, there's also reference to discriminating against any individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1836.499, 1840.152], "stop_times": [1840.152, 1846.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.499}, "reply_to": "20848__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_042", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1846.176], "stop_times": [1846.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.176}, "reply_to": "20848__2_041", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_043", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1846.847], "stop_times": [1848.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.847}, "reply_to": "20848__2_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_044", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's because if you look at who that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1848.056], "stop_times": [1850.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.056}, "reply_to": "20848__2_043", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_045", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That can't be right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1850.408], "stop_times": [1852.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.408}, "reply_to": "20848__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_046", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--affects, the \"individual\" language is used for employment agencies.\nSo if an employment agency... I'm sorry, I'm looking at 703--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1852.461, 1856.074], "stop_times": [1856.074, 1860.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1852.461}, "reply_to": "20848__2_045", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_047", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "You mean, it refers back... it says for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1860.396], "stop_times": [1864.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.396}, "reply_to": "20848__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_048", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yeah, I'm sorry.\nRight.\nIt... it... it does relate to employment agencies, joint labor management committees.\nWell, certainly the person would not be an employee of the agency or the labor management committee or other training programs.\nThat's why they have to use the word \"individual\" there.\nBut I think it's telling that they didn't use \"individual\" throughout.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1864.629, 1865.27, 1865.479, 1870.133, 1877.085, 1879.499], "stop_times": [1865.27, 1865.479, 1870.133, 1877.085, 1879.499, 1883.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.629}, "reply_to": "20848__2_047", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_049", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, it's not all that telling.\nBecause \"individual\" is a lot broader than \"present and former employee\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1883.459, 1886.162], "stop_times": [1886.162, 1892.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.459}, "reply_to": "20848__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_050", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1892.816], "stop_times": [1893.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.816}, "reply_to": "20848__2_049", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_051", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I mean, you can... you could want \"employee\" to include former employees without wishing it to include everybody in the world, former employee or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1893.627], "stop_times": [1901.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.627}, "reply_to": "20848__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_052", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's... that's certainly true.\nAnd I think the point there is that it demonstrates that 704 is a narrowly constructed statute.\nIt is not even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1901.462, 1902.343, 1911.139], "stop_times": [1902.343, 1911.139, 1912.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.462}, "reply_to": "20848__2_051", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_053", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Butler, would it cover a case where an applicant... an employee... current employee... doesn't get the promotion and is... stays on the payroll, continues to work, but is looking for another job; in the course of that job search, gets a reference which that employee says is retaliatory?\nSuch a person would have both the discrimination claim, the 703 claim and the retaliation claim, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1912.839, 1935.476], "stop_times": [1935.476, 1944.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.839}, "reply_to": "20848__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_054", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1944.9], "stop_times": [1945.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.9}, "reply_to": "20848__2_053", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_055", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It may be a baseless claim, it may be a frivolous claim, but he has it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1945.531], "stop_times": [1949.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.531}, "reply_to": "20848__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_056", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1949.334], "stop_times": [1950.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.334}, "reply_to": "20848__2_055", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_057", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So, now, let me go back to the question that I was putting before to Mr. Wolfson.\nDoesn't that scenario mean that the employer, once he doesn't give the promotion to this person, should say, And you're out, because if the employer keeps the person on for any interval, then the employer is subject to retaliation charge; but the employer can insulate the company from any retaliation charge by saying, if we don't promote this person, they're out the door... we don't keep them on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1950.646, 1954.857], "stop_times": [1954.857, 1985.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.646}, "reply_to": "20848__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_058", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I would... I would agree with you to this extent: That once the employment is over, yes, 704 does not apply.\nIf the employment relationship is ongoing, yes, it does apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1985.338, 1992.33], "stop_times": [1992.33, 1996.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.338}, "reply_to": "20848__2_057", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_059", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So the incentive for the employer, of your reading, is get rid of the person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [1996.193], "stop_times": [2000.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.193}, "reply_to": "20848__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_060", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2000.167], "stop_times": [2001.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.167}, "reply_to": "20848__2_059", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_061", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Then we insulate ourself, at least from the retaliation charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2001.617], "stop_times": [2004.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.617}, "reply_to": "20848__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_062", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "To the extent an employer is motivated by a desire to give negative references, I'd agree with that.\nBut that's a little--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2004.418, 2009.584], "stop_times": [2009.584, 2010.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.418}, "reply_to": "20848__2_061", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_063", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, he doesn't have to fire him.\nHe could just... he could just tell him, I'll... I'll write you a letter but... but not now.\nMy policy is to write reference letters after you've left the company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2010.142, 2010.994, 2015.007], "stop_times": [2010.994, 2015.007, 2019.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.142}, "reply_to": "20848__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_064", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2019.139], "stop_times": [2020.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.139}, "reply_to": "20848__2_063", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_065", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That... that would handle the problem, wouldn't it?\nYou don't have to fire him; just say, I... I don't give any reference letters for anybody while you're still employed here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2020.511, 2021.773], "stop_times": [2021.773, 2027.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.511}, "reply_to": "20848__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_066", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's correct.\nI do think that the statute does contain a bright-line test.\nAnd that bright line is whether or not you have an employment relationship.\nI listened with great interest to the case that was argued just before mine.\nAnd what interested me was not whether or not the Court decides between the payroll plan or the day-by-day plan and counting the number of employees, but the fact that each of the speakers in this morning's argument said that, at least to be an employee under that section of the statute, you had to have an ongoing employment relationship.\nAnd I couldn't agree more.\nYou cannot have an ongoing employment relationship... and if you do not have an ongoing employment relationship, I don't see how you can be covered by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2027.895, 2028.896, 2031.808, 2036.271, 2039.872, 2057.193, 2058.505], "stop_times": [2028.896, 2031.808, 2036.271, 2039.872, 2057.193, 2058.505, 2068.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.895}, "reply_to": "20848__2_065", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_067", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But, of course, there, in... in the previous case, the test was whether a small employer is covered.\nAnd that's probably a narrower definition of \"employee\" than someone who is entitled to sue under... under the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2068.563, 2072.424], "stop_times": [2072.424, 2077.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2068.563}, "reply_to": "20848__2_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__2_068", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's certainly true.\nBut I do think that it... it's a strained argument to suggest that \"employee\" means different things in different places within the Act.\nAnd to... for the EEOC to insist--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2077.228, 2077.795, 2086.034], "stop_times": [2077.795, 2086.034, 2088.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.228}, "reply_to": "20848__2_067", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_069", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah, but you've just admitted that.\nI mean, in response to Justice Scalia's attempt to help you out, you said, Well, yeah, that's right; I'd accept that argument.\n[Laughter]\nYou're... you're not going to... you're not going to kick him now, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2088.755, 2089.536, 2099.322, 2096.79], "stop_times": [2089.536, 2099.322, 2096.79, 2100.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.755}, "reply_to": "20848__2_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__2_070", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Perhaps I should have accepted his help.\n[Laughter]\nBut I think that the test that has been established--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2100.704, 2104.186, 2105.316], "stop_times": [2104.186, 2105.316, 2111.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2100.704}, "reply_to": "20848__2_069", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_071", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "You're sowing all sorts of dissension in the Court here, you know.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2111.65, 2114.572], "stop_times": [2114.572, 2114.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.65}, "reply_to": "20848__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_072", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I think the test that has been established does make some sense... not that I'm trying to divine the will of Congress from 32 years ago.\nI don't think any of us can do that.\nBut the point that you brought up, Justice O'Connor, about there being other remedies available under common law, is certainly true in this instance in particular.\nAnd in fact, it seems to be a burgeoning area of the law for the States to enact employment reference statutes that protect both the employee and an ability to get an employment reference and the employer, to protect them against frivolous claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2114.873, 2120.926, 2122.436, 2132.533], "stop_times": [2120.926, 2122.436, 2132.533, 2147.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.873}, "reply_to": "20848__2_071", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_073", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Butler, assuming... and I think we would all recognize that your interpretation is a reasonable one.\nIf one also thinks that the EEOC's interpretation is a reasonable one, without giving any undue deference, shouldn't the Court respect the agency that is administering the statute day in and day out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2147.093, 2152.957], "stop_times": [2152.957, 2169.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.093}, "reply_to": "20848__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_074", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, I would disagree in this case certainly, Your Honor.\nI think that the reason for that is because the EEOC position, the petitioner's position, is not supported by the statutory language.\nI mean, it's all well and good to speak about the policies and purposes of the Act, but Congress doesn't pass declarations of policy.\nIt doesn't pass resolutions of purpose.\nIt passes statutes.\nAnd we have to read the statute to see what it is they wanted to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2169.216, 2171.78, 2179.003, 2186.57, 2189.071, 2190.01], "stop_times": [2171.78, 2179.003, 2186.57, 2189.071, 2190.01, 2194.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.216}, "reply_to": "20848__2_073", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_075", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But the word \"employed by\" can mean past tense or present, I suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2194.285], "stop_times": [2199.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.285}, "reply_to": "20848__2_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__2_076", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "If you want to look at it from a linguist's standpoint, I think that's absolutely true.\nBut statutes aren't passed for linguists; they're passed for ordinary citizens.\nAnd if we accept--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2199.646, 2204.759, 2208.923], "stop_times": [2204.759, 2208.923, 2210.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.646}, "reply_to": "20848__2_075", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_077", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, I don't know.\nThis Court gets pretty picky sometimes about what language--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2210.225, 2210.553, 2214.266], "stop_times": [2210.553, 2214.266, 2215.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.225}, "reply_to": "20848__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__2_078", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I think if you... if you try to analyze the language into whether it's active or passive voice, and whether it's past or present tense, you completely lose sight of what any ordinary individual would read when they read 704... that an employer cannot do certain things to his employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2215.087], "stop_times": [2235.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2215.087}, "reply_to": "20848__2_077", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_079", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes.\nBut if you go back to the... if you go back to the pension example, there are some pension plans that allow disability benefits or, say, benefits based on length of service and so forth.\nAnd the disability plans will often require a medical examination to qualify for that particular benefit.\nAnd you're suggesting that the company could say to the doctor, black former employees, find them not disabled, but doctors, of others employees, they could.\nAnd that doesn't seem likely to fit into the scheme of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2235.58, 2235.86, 2242.676, 2247.879, 2257.006], "stop_times": [2235.86, 2242.676, 2247.879, 2257.006, 2260.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.58}, "reply_to": "20848__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_080", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I... I would say it would be highly illegal, but not necessarily under this Act.\nI think it would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2260.128, 2263.159], "stop_times": [2263.159, 2264.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.128}, "reply_to": "20848__2_079", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_081", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "What act would it violate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2264.539], "stop_times": [2265.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.539}, "reply_to": "20848__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_082", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--ERISA.\nYou couldn't get away with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2265.36, 2266.842], "stop_times": [2266.842, 2267.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.36}, "reply_to": "20848__2_081", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_083", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Oh, I see.\nAll right.\nBut this, of course, came before ERISA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2267.832, 2268.473, 2268.973], "stop_times": [2268.473, 2268.973, 2270.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.832}, "reply_to": "20848__2_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_084", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2270.914], "stop_times": [2271.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.914}, "reply_to": "20848__2_083", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_085", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It would have been... it would have been perfectly lawful until ERISA was passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2271.704], "stop_times": [2273.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.704}, "reply_to": "20848__2_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_086", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2273.524], "stop_times": [2274.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.524}, "reply_to": "20848__2_085", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_087", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Indeed, you say, that's why they passed ERISA, right, to bag that guy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2274.656], "stop_times": [2278.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.656}, "reply_to": "20848__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_088", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Exactly.\n[Laughter]\nYou took the words right out of my mouth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2278.938, 2285.203, 2283.592], "stop_times": [2285.203, 2283.592, 2286.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.938}, "reply_to": "20848__2_087", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_089", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "You only find that out if you go into the legislative history of ERISA... and... and great doubts.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2286.975, 2293.129], "stop_times": [2293.129, 2294.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.975}, "reply_to": "20848__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_090", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I find the statute, alone, impenetrable, so the legislative history, I doubt it'd be any help.\nI would conclude, Your Honor, by suggesting that a strained interpretation or, in fact, really, a rewording of 704 is what the petitioner is asking for... to include terms that were not included when this Act was passed 32 years ago.\nAnd if you do that, then you will lead to absurd results.\nIt will create is disincentive for employers to ever issue any reference.\nThey'd either issue no references, all good references, or all bad references.\nBecause if they do anything else, they're setting themselves up for a claim of retaliation by anyone who had previously filed a charge, valid or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2294.148, 2299.461, 2315.833, 2321.085, 2325.721, 2330.282], "stop_times": [2299.461, 2315.833, 2321.085, 2325.721, 2330.282, 2337.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.148}, "reply_to": "20848__2_089", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_091", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's true.\nBut as... as... as Justice Ginsburg points out, that problem isn't... isn't entirely solved by how we come out on this case.\nBecause you do have the problem of references for current employees.\nAnd... and you do subject yourself--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2337.966, 2338.597, 2345.703, 2348.475], "stop_times": [2338.597, 2345.703, 2348.475, 2350.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.966}, "reply_to": "20848__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_092", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's crue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2350.115], "stop_times": [2350.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.115}, "reply_to": "20848__2_091", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_093", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--to a problem there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2350.706], "stop_times": [2351.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.706}, "reply_to": "20848__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_094", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's true.\nAs long as you can prove that the issuance of a reference is a benefit of employment, yes, you do have that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2351.717, 2352.378], "stop_times": [2352.378, 2356.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.717}, "reply_to": "20848__2_093", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_095", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No, you don't even have to show that.\nIf it's a retal... retaliatory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2356.839, 2358.339], "stop_times": [2358.339, 2360.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.839}, "reply_to": "20848__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_096", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Oh, yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2360.322], "stop_times": [2360.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2360.322}, "reply_to": "20848__2_095", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_097", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--It doesn't... doesn't have to be a term or condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2360.933], "stop_times": [2362.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.933}, "reply_to": "20848__2_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_098", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I agree.\nThat's right.\nYou can do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2362.643, 2363.143, 2363.714], "stop_times": [2363.143, 2363.714, 2364.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.643}, "reply_to": "20848__2_097", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_099", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And so the... the... the problem that you brought up, which is a real one, about truthfulness in performance ratings and the remedy for that, do you make a false representation... all of that is just the same if you give the reference before the person leaves your employ.\nSo you don't... so you're putting out that this is a problem... yes, it's a problem, but the problem doesn't depend upon whether former employees are covered.\nThe problem exists for current employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2364.193, 2381.925, 2391.462], "stop_times": [2381.925, 2391.462, 2393.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.193}, "reply_to": "20848__2_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_100", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2393.085], "stop_times": [2394.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.085}, "reply_to": "20848__2_099", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_101", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It's a not a reason to reject inclusion of former employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2394.032], "stop_times": [2397.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.032}, "reply_to": "20848__2_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_102", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well, timing is everything.\nAnd under the Act, the time of the Act is important to determine the status.\nAnd the Act does offer more protection to people who are employed to those who are not employed.\nAnd I think that that is consistent with the purposes of the Act, such as we can divine from what they... they wrote.\nBecause the Act was not meant to be a bad acts law.\nIt was not designed to cure all forms of discrimination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2397.225, 2398.708, 2403.549, 2410.095, 2417.338, 2421.191], "stop_times": [2398.708, 2403.549, 2410.095, 2417.338, 2421.191, 2424.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.225}, "reply_to": "20848__2_101", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_103", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, your answer to me does say, then, for whatever reason, employers, you are home free by discharging someone; you will not be by keeping... keeping that person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2424.594], "stop_times": [2435.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.594}, "reply_to": "20848__2_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_104", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2435.132], "stop_times": [2436.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.132}, "reply_to": "20848__2_103", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_105", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--in the current position, where the person is doing okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2436.561], "stop_times": [2438.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.561}, "reply_to": "20848__2_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_106", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I would hesitate to say \"home free\", only because there are other acts, other statutes, other causes of actions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2438.624], "stop_times": [2445.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.624}, "reply_to": "20848__2_105", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_107", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "At least for purposes of Title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2445.039], "stop_times": [2446.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.039}, "reply_to": "20848__2_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_108", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yeah, for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2446.449], "stop_times": [2447.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.449}, "reply_to": "20848__2_107", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_109", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "For purposes of the retaliation section.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2447.33], "stop_times": [2449.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.33}, "reply_to": "20848__2_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_110", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--For the... yes, for... if you narrow it down to the purposes of 704(a), yeah, I agree with you.\nBut there are other acts and laws that would have to come into play.\nIt would be very foolish for an employer to retaliate against anyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2449.36, 2452.433, 2455.545], "stop_times": [2452.433, 2455.545, 2458.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.36}, "reply_to": "20848__2_109", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_111", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Butler, it just occurs to me, is it entirely clear that the... the phrase,\n\"to discriminate against any of his employees. \"\nis... is cut apart from... with respect to terms or conditions of employment?\nI mean, suppose I run a very small business and... and somebody... what happens is what happens here... somebody files a... a discrimination complaint that is totally groundless.\nI don't fire the individual, because I'm... I'm afraid that that'll be considered retaliation.\nHowever, I used to have other members of... or other employees home for dinner with my wife and me with some frequency, and I no longer invite this fellow, because I don't like him anymore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2458.437, 2464.892, 2466.612, 2474.018, 2485.444, 2491.349], "stop_times": [2464.892, 2466.612, 2474.018, 2485.444, 2491.349, 2505.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.437}, "reply_to": "20848__2_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_112", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2505.448], "stop_times": [2506.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.448}, "reply_to": "20848__2_111", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_113", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--because he filed this frivolous complaint.\nIs that covered by this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2506.189, 2507.508], "stop_times": [2507.508, 2509.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.189}, "reply_to": "20848__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_114", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, if he's no longer employed, my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2509.121], "stop_times": [2512.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.121}, "reply_to": "20848__2_113", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_115", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No, no, he's still employed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2512.523], "stop_times": [2513.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.523}, "reply_to": "20848__2_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_116", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yeah, oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2513.344], "stop_times": [2513.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2513.344}, "reply_to": "20848__2_115", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_117", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "He's still employed.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2513.685, 2514.246], "stop_times": [2514.246, 2514.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.685}, "reply_to": "20848__2_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_118", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I see.\nI see what you're saying.\nNo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2514.666, 2515.067, 2515.495], "stop_times": [2515.067, 2515.495, 2515.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.666}, "reply_to": "20848__2_117", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_119", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--You see--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2515.825], "stop_times": [2516.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.825}, "reply_to": "20848__2_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_120", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--I... I don't think he is.\nBecause... and I think the... the circuit courts that have tried to address that type of question have... have retreated into language about it being reasonably related to the employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2516.176, 2516.767], "stop_times": [2516.767, 2527.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2516.176}, "reply_to": "20848__2_119", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_121", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Reasonably related to the employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2527.115], "stop_times": [2528.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2527.115}, "reply_to": "20848__2_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_122", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2528.126], "stop_times": [2528.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.126}, "reply_to": "20848__2_121", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_123", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Butler, does the Act itself, does it use the word \"retaliate\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2528.396], "stop_times": [2533.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.396}, "reply_to": "20848__2_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__2_124", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No, actually, it does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2533.039], "stop_times": [2534.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2533.039}, "reply_to": "20848__2_123", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_125", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So why are we talking about retaliation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2534.321], "stop_times": [2536.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.321}, "reply_to": "20848__2_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__2_126", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--It's a shorthand term.\nIt says discriminate on the basis of having made a charge, participated in a investigation or proceeding.\nAnd that's just a shorthand term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2536.612, 2537.584, 2544.408], "stop_times": [2537.584, 2544.408, 2545.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2536.612}, "reply_to": "20848__2_125", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_127", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, what if the employer treats everybody alike who has made a charge, he retaliates against them all?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2545.779, 2550.96], "stop_times": [2550.96, 2552.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.779}, "reply_to": "20848__2_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__2_128", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, the argument on the other side, Your Honor, would be that he's treating them differently than the people who have not made charges.\nAnd, in that sense, it's discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2552.713, 2560.728], "stop_times": [2560.728, 2562.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2552.713}, "reply_to": "20848__2_127", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_129", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But it is... it's a... it's a short... \"retaliate\" is a shorthand form for the statutory language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2562.19], "stop_times": [2566.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.19}, "reply_to": "20848__2_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__2_130", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Exactly right.\nThe words VII, so it is... it's different.\nYou know, you don't need to look any further than the facts of this case to see what types of results can accrue.\nBecause we have tried the discrimination case.\nAnd as part of the discrimination case, we had to prove... I had to put on evidence that showed all of the events that form the basis for the discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2566.932, 2567.223, 2570.465, 2576.439, 2579.801], "stop_times": [2567.223, 2570.465, 2576.439, 2579.801, 2588.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.932}, "reply_to": "20848__2_129", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_131", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But wouldn't that evidence also show that you're... the discrimination charge has no merit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2588.778], "stop_times": [2592.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.778}, "reply_to": "20848__2_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20848__2_132", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Absolutely.\nAnd that's what Justice Motts... Judge Motts, in Baltimore, ruled, that there was no discrimination.\nWe put on that evidence and, in effect, proved the reasons for discharging the individual.\nAnd yet, truth is no defense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2592.348, 2593.279, 2597.973, 2604.666], "stop_times": [2593.279, 2597.973, 2604.666, 2607.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.348}, "reply_to": "20848__2_131", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_133", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And then set forth those same reasons in the reference to the new employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2607.358], "stop_times": [2611.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.358}, "reply_to": "20848__2_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_134", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--They are the basis for the reference, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2611.151], "stop_times": [2613.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.151}, "reply_to": "20848__2_133", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_135", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "The same... the same reasons that had been affirmed in litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2613.112], "stop_times": [2615.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.112}, "reply_to": "20848__2_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_136", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd there's nothing in the reference that says that the man filed a charge of discrimination.\nWe simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2615.713, 2616.664, 2620.949], "stop_times": [2616.664, 2620.949, 2621.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.713}, "reply_to": "20848__2_135", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_137", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But since... since the language relied on is the same... you refer to discrimination... is that not the law of the case now, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2621.838], "stop_times": [2631.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2621.838}, "reply_to": "20848__2_136", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__2_138", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--No it wouldn't be, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2631.023], "stop_times": [2632.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2631.023}, "reply_to": "20848__2_137", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_139", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--binding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2632.415], "stop_times": [2632.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.415}, "reply_to": "20848__2_138", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20848__2_140", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It wouldn't be, Your Honor, because of it being two different statutes, and each statute has a separate basis for discrimination.\nNot discrimination on the basis of sex or religion or national origin, but, rather, discrimination on the basis of having filed a charge or participated in a proceeding.\nNow, but I do think that I'd be entitled to collateral estoppel effect for the evidence that was put on, on the events themselves that led to the discharge.\nWell, those events were the basis for giving a bad employment reference.\nYou know, it's not like Title VII ignores what happens to people after they lose their employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2632.926, 2639.609, 2647.475, 2656.702, 2660.183], "stop_times": [2639.609, 2647.475, 2656.702, 2660.183, 2666.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.926}, "reply_to": "20848__2_139", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_141", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, nobody is disagreeing with that.\nI think the EEOC would agree with you that... that you have a very strong defense to this claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2666.647, 2667.379], "stop_times": [2667.379, 2672.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.647}, "reply_to": "20848__2_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_142", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, I think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2672.47], "stop_times": [2673.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.47}, "reply_to": "20848__2_141", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_143", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "The question is whether you have to defend.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2673.611], "stop_times": [2675.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.611}, "reply_to": "20848__2_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_144", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I... I think so.\nBut I don't think I should even have to put that evidence on twice.\nI've tried this case once.\nI don't think I should have to try it again, because he's not covered by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2675.041, 2675.892, 2678.334, 2679.646], "stop_times": [2675.892, 2678.334, 2679.646, 2683.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.041}, "reply_to": "20848__2_143", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_145", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I go back to my question about how much of a trial is involved.\nDon't you... aren't you a situation of getting summary judgment just by putting in the... the... the result of the prior trial, and then, the plaintiff has to... has a pretty heavy burden to overcome.\nIf he can't do anything, to say it was all a pretext or whatever.\nThe... that plaintiff would never get to trial on a case like this, would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2683.469, 2688.692, 2704.622, 2710.097], "stop_times": [2688.692, 2704.622, 2710.097, 2714.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.469}, "reply_to": "20848__2_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_146", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "No, I wouldn't think so.\nAnd that would have been the motion I filed if my motion to dismiss hadn't been granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2714.328, 2716.148], "stop_times": [2716.148, 2719.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2714.328}, "reply_to": "20848__2_145", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_147", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well, I don't know.\nWhy couldn't he put on the fact that you... you, the employer... had some very mean things to say about him after this complaint was filed, and after you were vindicated in court, and you said, that... you know, that son of a gun, we got him.\nAnd he is an odious and hateful person.\nAll right.\nAnd... and... and this is all put on the record.\nAnd the allegation to be made would be, oh, yes, there were good reasons for the bad recommendation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2719.761, 2721.453, 2732.601, 2735.423, 2736.184, 2738.715], "stop_times": [2721.453, 2732.601, 2735.423, 2736.184, 2738.715, 2745.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2719.761}, "reply_to": "20848__2_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_148", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2745.581], "stop_times": [2746.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.581}, "reply_to": "20848__2_147", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_149", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But, in fact, the motive here... the truth isn't a defense, is it?\nIf... if the... if the motive is retaliatory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2746.188, 2750.321], "stop_times": [2750.321, 2752.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.188}, "reply_to": "20848__2_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_150", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "You're exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2752.282], "stop_times": [2753.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2752.282}, "reply_to": "20848__2_149", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_151", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--it doesn't matter that what you say is true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2753.214], "stop_times": [2755.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.214}, "reply_to": "20848__2_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_152", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2755.204], "stop_times": [2756.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.204}, "reply_to": "20848__2_151", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_153", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So you have to convince a jury that this is not only true, but that the real reason you wrote that letter was... was what... I don't know... to be helpful to the new employer, rather than to retaliate against this fellow you've called hateful and odious?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2756.075], "stop_times": [2769.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.075}, "reply_to": "20848__2_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_154", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Exactly right.\nNo; it would take additional evidence, other than what was put on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2769.284, 2770.065], "stop_times": [2770.065, 2773.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.284}, "reply_to": "20848__2_153", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_155", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And the jury might not believe you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2773.136], "stop_times": [2774.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.136}, "reply_to": "20848__2_154", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_156", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's true.\nThat's true.\nSo, you know, even though we have proved the truth of the underlying basis, that truth forms no defense, absolute, against a claim of retaliation under 704(a).\nSo we're left with having told the truth about a former employee, and yet, find ourselves accused of retaliation under 704.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2774.368, 2775.527, 2776.509, 2787.345], "stop_times": [2775.527, 2776.509, 2787.345, 2794.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.368}, "reply_to": "20848__2_155", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_157", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Indeed, if truth were a defense, this retaliatory cause of action would... would give this particular plaintiff no... no... no more benefit than would the normal libel law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2794.43], "stop_times": [2804.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.43}, "reply_to": "20848__2_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_158", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Exactly.\nIt would... it would be pretty much the same as any defamation action in any State.\nBut, you know, I wanted to point out that 704--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2804.776, 2805.557, 2810.262], "stop_times": [2805.557, 2810.262, 2815.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.776}, "reply_to": "20848__2_157", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_159", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Butler... Mr. Butler, may I ask you one question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2815.254], "stop_times": [2816.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.254}, "reply_to": "20848__2_158", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20848__2_160", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2816.885], "stop_times": [2817.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2816.885}, "reply_to": "20848__2_159", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_161", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "How often do you give references in discharge cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2817.286], "stop_times": [2820.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.286}, "reply_to": "20848__2_160", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20848__2_162", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "In discharge cases?\nQuite often.\nThey do give references.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2820.037, 2821.299, 2823.009], "stop_times": [2821.299, 2823.009, 2825.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.037}, "reply_to": "20848__2_161", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_163", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "In discharge cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2825.002], "stop_times": [2826.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.002}, "reply_to": "20848__2_162", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20848__2_164", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Where it's discharge for cause?\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2826.312, 2828.603], "stop_times": [2828.603, 2829.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.312}, "reply_to": "20848__2_163", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_165", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2829.043], "stop_times": [2829.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.043}, "reply_to": "20848__2_164", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20848__2_166", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Even at that, we will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2829.324], "stop_times": [2830.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2829.324}, "reply_to": "20848__2_165", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_167", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And your solution for your case is... is a solution that will also preclude a claim in a case in which someone says... the employer says, Look, you file a charge against me, and I will see to it that you will never work in this business again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2830.295], "stop_times": [2844.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.295}, "reply_to": "20848__2_166", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20848__2_168", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2844.594], "stop_times": [2846.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.594}, "reply_to": "20848__2_167", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_169", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "So it's not... it's... well, what I'm getting at is that it is not just the frivolous case, the frivolous charge in your case, the reference, but it is also an instance in which an employer says you will absolutely never work in this business again?\nIt precludes that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2846.364, 2861.914], "stop_times": [2861.914, 2863.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.364}, "reply_to": "20848__2_168", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20848__2_170", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--It precludes any claim of retaliation by someone, after they've dis... been discharged, whether it's frivolous or whether it's serious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2863.296], "stop_times": [2871.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2863.296}, "reply_to": "20848__2_169", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_171", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2871.353], "stop_times": [2872.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.353}, "reply_to": "20848__2_170", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20848__2_172", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "You're... you're quite correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2872.562], "stop_times": [2873.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2872.562}, "reply_to": "20848__2_171", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_173", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And you could solve your problem by not giving references in discharge cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2873.514], "stop_times": [2877.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2873.514}, "reply_to": "20848__2_172", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20848__2_174", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's correct.\nBut, Your Honor, I would also point out that that does... the Act itself does give a cause of action to someone caught in that situation.\nAnd the Act points them to the direction of the next employer, the prospective employer.\nBecause if the second employer will refuse to hire somebody, will not accept their application in retaliation for having filed a charge or participated in a proceeding, that is a 704--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2877.077, 2878.039, 2885.341, 2890.404], "stop_times": [2878.039, 2885.341, 2890.404, 2903.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2877.077}, "reply_to": "20848__2_173", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_175", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But why wouldn't somebody who is not yet an employer retaliate?\nThat... I know that was in your brief, but that seemed to me very strange.\nThe... the employer that has fired a person gives a bad reference, and then your suggesting, well, there may be a claim against the next person who won't hire that person in reliance... I mean as a... as a lawyer, don't you, don't you have a much stronger case against the one who gave the reference, allegedly false, than the one who credited it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2903.213, 2905.755, 2909.217], "stop_times": [2905.755, 2909.217, 2934.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.213}, "reply_to": "20848__2_174", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20848__2_176", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--No, I don't, because that's not what the statute says.\nThe statute says that the person who is doing the hiring.\nI think it... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2934.413, 2937.187, 2940.336], "stop_times": [2937.187, 2940.336, 2941.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2934.413}, "reply_to": "20848__2_175", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_177", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "It wouldn't be retaliation, of course, but the statute doesn't use the word \"retaliation\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2941.758], "stop_times": [2946.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.758}, "reply_to": "20848__2_176", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_178", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's right.\nIt discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2946.15, 2946.541], "stop_times": [2946.541, 2947.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.15}, "reply_to": "20848__2_177", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_179", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "But if you are a... a prospective employer and you turn down an applicant because I don't want to hire an applicant who has filed an EEOC complaint with his previous employer... this guy is a troublemaker... it wouldn't really be retaliation, but it would violate this provision, because it specifically refers to applicants for employment, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2947.172], "stop_times": [2963.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.172}, "reply_to": "20848__2_178", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_180", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yes.\nWe may be getting ourselves in trouble by using the shorthand term of \"retaliation\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2963.795, 2963.992], "stop_times": [2963.992, 2967.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2963.795}, "reply_to": "20848__2_179", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_181", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Retaliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2967.404], "stop_times": [2967.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.404}, "reply_to": "20848__2_180", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20848__2_182", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2967.844], "stop_times": [2968.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.844}, "reply_to": "20848__2_181", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_183", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah, but as... as a practical matter, it seems to me the... the situation, because it is not what's going to happen except among very, very stupid employers, because the... the retaliatory letter is... is not going to say, Don't hire this guy because he filed a complaint.\nThe letter is going to say, Don't hire him because he does lousy work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2968.686, 2982.775], "stop_times": [2982.775, 2985.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2968.686}, "reply_to": "20848__2_182", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__2_184", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2985.597], "stop_times": [2986.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.597}, "reply_to": "20848__2_183", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_185", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And... and the prospective employer who relies upon that is... is not drawing any distinction among employees, that... or among prospective employees... that is not a legitimate distinction.\nSo there's not going to be any cause of action there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [2986.518, 2998.186], "stop_times": [2998.186, 3000.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.518}, "reply_to": "20848__2_184", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__2_186", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I would agree; if it is a truthful reference, why should there be?\nIf the employer is making a truthful reference about someone, does the employee really deserve to be protected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3000.297, 3004.751], "stop_times": [3004.751, 3011.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.297}, "reply_to": "20848__2_185", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_187", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Yeah, but I thought your argument... I thought your argument was that the person who is subject to this discrimination will have a cause of action under the statute against the prospective employer who relies upon the retaliatory letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3011.075], "stop_times": [3021.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.075}, "reply_to": "20848__2_186", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__2_188", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3021.37], "stop_times": [3022.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3021.37}, "reply_to": "20848__2_187", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_189", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "And unless the retaliatory letter is expressly based upon filing the EEOC complaint, that won't be true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3022.141], "stop_times": [3028.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.141}, "reply_to": "20848__2_188", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__2_190", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--That's right.\nOr if he could somehow prove that whatever statements were made in the letter were actually fabricated because of that, because of the charge, and he knew about it, the prospective employer knew... knew about it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3028.216, 3028.654], "stop_times": [3028.654, 3038.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3028.216}, "reply_to": "20848__2_189", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_191", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Right.\nBut that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3038.021, 3038.451], "stop_times": [3038.451, 3039.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.021}, "reply_to": "20848__2_190", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__2_192", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--then you could make a case on that, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3039.012], "stop_times": [3039.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.012}, "reply_to": "20848__2_191", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_193", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Yeah, that's a tough, uphill fight.\nBut that's not going to be the characteristic case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3039.443, 3040.642], "stop_times": [3040.642, 3042.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.443}, "reply_to": "20848__2_192", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20848__2_194", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "I... I would think not.\nBut... you know, it wasn't extensively discussed in any of the briefs, but I was struck by an analysis that Chief Justice Toflatt, in the 11th Circuit, wrote in 1990, where he analyzed this whole claim under Court v. Ash, and whether there would be an implied cause of action under that test.\nAnd he said there's no conclusion other than it cannot.\nBecause there is a remedy contained within the statute.\nAnd what you're doing is trying to broaden that statute for an additional remedy against additional parties.\nAnd that's not... you know, that's not what you should be doing, in recognizing a new cause of action.\nI think the... the language of the statute is very plain.\nI think it... it's plain to employers, certainly.\nAnd we can only assume it was plain to Congress when they wrote it.\nThis Act applies to employees and applicants for employment.\nIt does not apply to anyone else.\nThose two groups will always be able to claim their rights under 704, regardless of the outcome of this case.\nBut to rewrite this Act to include former employees will only destroy the Act by destroying the certainty of the statute itself.\nIf you rewrite it, then no one will be sure what it means in the future, and to whom it will apply.\nI think we're best sticking with the bright line.\nOnce the employment is over, any rights under 704 have terminated.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3042.445, 3043.545, 3063.688, 3066.14, 3071.252, 3076.616, 3082.641, 3085.452, 3088.313, 3091.385, 3096.59, 3098.511, 3105.065, 3114.202, 3119.756, 3122.217, 3126.261], "stop_times": [3043.545, 3063.688, 3066.14, 3071.252, 3076.616, 3082.641, 3085.452, 3088.313, 3091.385, 3096.59, 3098.511, 3105.065, 3114.202, 3119.756, 3122.217, 3126.261, 3127.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.445}, "reply_to": "20848__2_193", "speaker": "lawrence_c_butler"}
{"id": "20848__2_195", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Butler.\nMr. Lenchek, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3127.671, 3129.462], "stop_times": [3129.462, 3131.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.671}, "reply_to": "20848__2_194", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20848__3_000", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, unless the Court has additional questions, we have nothing further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3131.232], "stop_times": [3141.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3131.232}, "reply_to": "20848__2_195", "speaker": "allen_m_lenchek"}
{"id": "20848__3_001", "conversation_id": "20848", "text": "Very well, the case... the case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1376", "start_times": [3141.29], "stop_times": [3144.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3141.29}, "reply_to": "20848__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__0_000", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1764, Saratoga Fishing Company v. J. M. Martinac & Company.\nMr. Zakarin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [0.0, 10.067], "stop_times": [10.067, 11.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__0_001", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nThe task before the Court in this case is to now make explicit what East River requires but necessarily left implicit, a definition of the product itself which is true to the principles of East River and is capable of uniform application by the Federal courts sitting in admiralty.\nThe product itself is the thing sold by the original seller or manufacturer to the original buyer of that thing.\nIf that product self-destructs, its loss can only be recovered in contract.\nEast River teaches so.\nProperty destroyed by the defect which is not the product itself is recoverable in tort.\nThe Ninth Circuit in its final opinion, the last of three, has damaged that balance, and that balance must now be set aright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [11.888, 17.574, 36.434, 44.051, 48.616, 49.998, 56.28], "stop_times": [17.574, 36.434, 44.051, 48.616, 49.998, 56.28, 64.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.888}, "reply_to": "21154__0_000", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_002", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Mr. Zakarin, is it not possible in contract suit to recover also damages for property that it is clear would be at risk if the item sold were destroyed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [64.066], "stop_times": [83.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.066}, "reply_to": "21154__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_003", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [83.828], "stop_times": [85.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 83.828}, "reply_to": "21154__0_002", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_004", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I mean, there's some leeway, is there not, under a contract theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [85.08], "stop_times": [88.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 85.08}, "reply_to": "21154__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_005", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, that depends, of course, upon the existence both of privity and the scope of the contract at issue.\nThere may or may not be privity and there may or may not be recovery.\nNevertheless, the principles which drive the existence of strict liability, the necessity to make manufacturers responsible to produce safe goods put into the stream of commerce, counsel a broader interpretation of recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [88.402, 95.468, 98.761], "stop_times": [95.468, 98.761, 113.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 88.402}, "reply_to": "21154__0_004", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_006", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, but even in the East River situation where you're dealing with commercial sellers, if you would... you may not want to concede that, but assuming we're dealing with a commercial seller and a commercial buyer, does East River indicate that a contract recovery, if it were available for these other things, should be applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [113.422], "stop_times": [136.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.422}, "reply_to": "21154__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_007", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Ordinarily, the answer is... the answer is that East River is silent as to the recovery in a particular contract of those items.\nIt may be, under Hadley v. Baxendale and cases in particular State jurisdictions, that a contract could permit broader recovery than for the item itself, governed, of course, by the doctrine of foreseeability.\nNevertheless, East River speaks to a limitation and a balance between tort and contract which permit tort recovery for those other items where contract does not permit it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [136.357, 145.296, 156.755], "stop_times": [145.296, 156.755, 166.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 136.357}, "reply_to": "21154__0_006", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_008", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, do you think East River meant to not go as far as, say, Hadley v. Baxendale would?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [166.98], "stop_times": [173.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.98}, "reply_to": "21154__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__0_009", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The standards for recovery of damages are different in tort and in contract, and I do not believe that East River necessarily sets those parameters.\nEast River does say quite correctly that recovery in contract will be governed by foreseeability as to those items governed by contract, the product itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [173.035, 185.764], "stop_times": [185.764, 195.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 173.035}, "reply_to": "21154__0_008", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_010", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's Hadley v. Baxendale, too, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [195.32], "stop_times": [198.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.32}, "reply_to": "21154__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__0_011", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [198.051], "stop_times": [198.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.051}, "reply_to": "21154__0_010", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_012", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [198.883], "stop_times": [199.093], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 198.883}, "reply_to": "21154__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21154__0_013", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But that is, of course, the measure of contract recovery and not of tort recovery.\nTort recovery is necessarily those things... those damages proximately caused by the defect.\nIn this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [199.093, 203.848, 210.293], "stop_times": [203.848, 210.293, 210.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.093}, "reply_to": "21154__0_012", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_014", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Which is a more relaxed standard of foreseeability, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [210.914], "stop_times": [215.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.914}, "reply_to": "21154__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__0_015", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, it is indeed, but that relaxed standard is important in the area of unreasonably dangerous and defective products, since the manufacturer may not always be able to foresee, unlike a contracting party, the scope of damage that its product may cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [215.378], "stop_times": [231.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.378}, "reply_to": "21154__0_014", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_016", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Should it matter at all, for purposes of our analysis, that when the ship was sold it was incomplete for the purpose for which it was sold, and which it was understood that everyone was going to use it for, so that the ship was kind of... in a way, it was sort of a component that really wouldn't be of any use to tuna fishing until it was outfitted with a substantial amount of further equipment.\nShould that affect our view of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [231.729, 253.545], "stop_times": [253.545, 255.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.729}, "reply_to": "21154__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21154__0_017", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No, Justice Souter, it should not.\nThe product as it left the Martinac Shipyard with the Marco hydraulic system aboard was a fully complete ship, admittedly not complete for the purpose it had eventually been intended, tuna purse seine fishing, but she was capable of sailing away, and did sail away.\nWere that distinction of a changing product adopted by the Court, the balance given to us by East River... that is that the object of the bargain between the original manufacturer and/or seller, as it were, and the original buyer would be disturbed... the product would change as each went on, and the original focus upon the object of the contract would become diluted over time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [255.999, 257.511, 274.233], "stop_times": [257.511, 274.233, 295.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.999}, "reply_to": "21154__0_016", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_018", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Mr. Zakarin, I'm not clear as to whether what East River is saying is that the manufacturer has the opportunity to protect himself against tort liability and, therefore, if he doesn't he should be socked, or rather is saying that the purchaser has an opportunity to protect itself against injury through contract and, therefore, if he doesn't do so the purchaser should not be given the tort recovery.\nNow, if East River is looking to the purchaser and saying look, the purchaser could have put this in the contract, then logically we ought to look to the second contract and not to the first contract, whereas if East River is looking to the seller, then you're quite correct, we ought to look at the first contract.\nBut why do you say that East River focuses on the seller rather than the purchaser?\nI mean, each of them can protect themselves.\nWhy shouldn't we say, look, in this last transaction if the purchaser wanted to be able to recover for all of the incidentals besides the tuna, he could have put it in the contract.\nHe didn't do it.\nTough luck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [295.398, 328.887, 344.118, 348.321, 350.154, 359.84, 360.321], "stop_times": [328.887, 344.118, 348.321, 350.154, 359.84, 360.321, 361.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.398}, "reply_to": "21154__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_019", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "There are two reasons, Justice Scalia, why that would be the wrong focus.\nFor one thing, East River is not a singular focus upon the ability of the manufacturer, as you correctly point out, to protect itself, but it also looks to, as you also correctly point out, the buyer's ability to negotiate for additional warranties and the like, and that balance is respected in East River.\nHowever, if that object of the contract is... if we look to subsequent sales, the object of that contract becomes ignored.\nTherefore, looking at the downstream sales and looking at what protections the purchasers in those sales made or didn't make is an unrelated proposition to the balance in East River between the original purchaser and the original buyer.\nBut there's another reason, which is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [361.313, 365.767, 383.618, 392.116, 408.116], "stop_times": [365.767, 383.618, 392.116, 408.116, 409.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.313}, "reply_to": "21154__0_018", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_020", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, excuse me.\nI'm not sure what point you're making.\nAre you making the point that the immunity that the manufacturer had acquired for itself by the contract could be undone by a later reseller?\nIs that the point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [409.628, 410.539, 412.419, 423.058], "stop_times": [410.539, 412.419, 423.058, 424.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.628}, "reply_to": "21154__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_021", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nUnder the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [424.059, 424.517], "stop_times": [424.517, 424.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.059}, "reply_to": "21154__0_020", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_022", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [424.978], "stop_times": [425.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.978}, "reply_to": "21154__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_023", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Well, that is the point... that is the point I am making.\nThe original purchase provides an immunity for the product sold.\nIf that immunity is expanded, the expansion of that immunity bears no relation to the original object of the contract and is in effect a windfall for that manufacturer for immunity it never bargained for, never was paid for, and never discussed.\nBut looking beyond that, East River is not a singular focus upon contract but also recognizes the important necessities driving the tort system, which is the place of proper encouragement upon manufacturers to foresee, spread, and control the risk.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [425.188, 428.171, 433.196, 448.176, 464.135], "stop_times": [428.171, 433.196, 448.176, 464.135, 464.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 425.188}, "reply_to": "21154__0_022", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_024", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Why not upon purchasers?\nI mean, you know, they're both in this together, and we're only dealing with situations in which they're... it's arm's length between people of comparable bargaining power.\nWe're not talking about the purchase of a bottle of pop in the grocery store, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [464.706, 466.058, 475.026], "stop_times": [466.058, 475.026, 480.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.706}, "reply_to": "21154__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_025", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [480.281], "stop_times": [480.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.281}, "reply_to": "21154__0_024", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_026", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So I mean, why pick on the manufacturer?\nThey're both grown-ups, and they can both protect themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [480.842, 482.422], "stop_times": [482.422, 485.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.842}, "reply_to": "21154__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_027", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The proposed rule that we advance is not inconsistent with the manufacturer being able to protect itself in that instance.\nBy respecting the product, tort immunity for the product itself, that particular balance is respected.\nHowever, absurd results would obtain if we focus on continuing purchases down the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [485.445, 494.29, 499.625], "stop_times": [494.29, 499.625, 505.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.445}, "reply_to": "21154__0_026", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_028", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, can I ask about the circumstances of this sale?\nYour client, Saratoga, bought the boat with certain things added after the original sale of the boat from the original purchaser of the boat, Madruga, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [505.629, 508.732], "stop_times": [508.732, 522.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.629}, "reply_to": "21154__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_029", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [522.813], "stop_times": [524.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.813}, "reply_to": "21154__0_028", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_030", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And could Saratoga Fishing have asked for certain warranties at the time it bought from Madruga?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [524.172], "stop_times": [533.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.172}, "reply_to": "21154__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_031", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Of course it could have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [533.139], "stop_times": [534.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.139}, "reply_to": "21154__0_030", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_032", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And apparently it didn't, and made the sale on an as-is basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [534.32], "stop_times": [539.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.32}, "reply_to": "21154__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_033", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [539.473], "stop_times": [540.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.473}, "reply_to": "21154__0_032", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_034", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Are there any implied warranties from Madruga in the case of an as-is basis sale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [540.384], "stop_times": [548.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.384}, "reply_to": "21154__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_035", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I would believe not.\nNo contractual warranties, it is admitted, were extended, granted, or received by Captain Vargas through Saratoga Fishing Company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [548.329, 549.621], "stop_times": [549.621, 557.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.329}, "reply_to": "21154__0_034", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_036", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Does the record tell us whether Saratoga had insurance for loss of the boat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [557.097], "stop_times": [560.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.097}, "reply_to": "21154__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_037", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Sara... there are references to insurance in the record.\nIt is uncontested that Saratoga did have insurance, though the subrogation was not total.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [560.54, 564.581, 569.246], "stop_times": [564.581, 569.246, 570.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.54}, "reply_to": "21154__0_036", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_038", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So conceivably Saratoga paid a lesser price as a result of not requiring warranties and thought it could do so... protect itself more cheaply by just getting insurance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [570.037], "stop_times": [582.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.037}, "reply_to": "21154__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_039", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [582.742], "stop_times": [583.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.742}, "reply_to": "21154__0_038", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_040", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [583.162], "stop_times": [583.382], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 583.162}, "reply_to": "21154__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21154__0_041", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The existence... the existence of an as-is sale in a downstream transaction, which is as-is, where-is, is not hostile to the balance struck in East River of holding manufacturers strictly liable for unreasonably dangerous defects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [583.382], "stop_times": [597.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.382}, "reply_to": "21154__0_040", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_042", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, I thought the East River represented, as has been suggested in other questions this morning, a choice that in the commercial context we will focus on a contract remedy because the commercial buyer is able to protect itself by demanding warranties if it sees fit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [597.204], "stop_times": [618.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.204}, "reply_to": "21154__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_043", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That is only, Justice O'Connor, if we allow the focus of the bargain to shift with each subsequent sale.\nEast River, again, is not a singular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [618.129, 624.262], "stop_times": [624.262, 626.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.129}, "reply_to": "21154__0_042", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_044", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [626.706], "stop_times": [626.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.706}, "reply_to": "21154__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_045", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--focus upon contract, but a balance between contract and tort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [626.886], "stop_times": [630.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.886}, "reply_to": "21154__0_044", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_046", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--What is the first... suppose you have the first sale, a screw.\nA defective screw is in the engine, and then the engine goes in the boat, and then the boat is resold, all right.\nEverybody I think agrees that if it's a defective screw that blows up, and it blows up the engine, that you can't recover in tort for the engine because the it is the engine, right?\nIs that right?\nThat's the defective product.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [630.396, 633.629, 640.895, 651.743, 652.394], "stop_times": [633.629, 640.895, 651.743, 652.394, 653.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.396}, "reply_to": "21154__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_047", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I'm not sure I follow the hypothetical.\nThe screw--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [653.967, 655.676], "stop_times": [655.676, 656.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.967}, "reply_to": "21154__0_046", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_048", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, suppose you have a screw that's defective, and it's in an engine, and the engine blows up because of the screw.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [656.037], "stop_times": [661.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.037}, "reply_to": "21154__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_049", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--And the screw is part of the original engine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [661.551], "stop_times": [663.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.551}, "reply_to": "21154__0_048", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_050", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's what I'm getting at.\nWhat's original?\nYou see, I mean, what you had was a screw that was sold to an engine-builder that was sold to a shipbuilder that was sold to another captain.\nYou talk about the defective product, and then the downstream things from the defective product.\nI take it what your opponents are arguing is that this resold ship is the defective product.\nWhat I'm looking for... and the line of the defective product is a contract line.\nThat's what I think people... I mean, at least I think they're driving at that.\nSo what I want to know is, what's the line?\nWhat's the English words that would describe a circumstance so that we all agree that engine in my hypothetical case with the screw is the defective product but your resold ship is not the defective product?\nWhat words in English, or what line of law clearly defines those two, making the one the defective product but not the other, because I think you have to find that line in order to win the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [663.504, 664.583, 665.514, 675.582, 682.355, 688.118, 693.213, 696.395, 698.348, 714.47], "stop_times": [664.583, 665.514, 675.582, 682.355, 688.118, 693.213, 696.395, 698.348, 714.47, 726.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.504}, "reply_to": "21154__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_051", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I quite agree, Justice Breyer, that the... in English, the rule would be that the completed product as first placed into the stream of commerce in a commercial sale would be the product--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [726.187], "stop_times": [738.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.187}, "reply_to": "21154__0_050", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_052", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, but why isn't it the screw?\nThe screw entered the scream of... the screw entered the stream of commerce in the defect... so that doesn't work, so that would then mean that the engine wouldn't be the defective product, but we all agree it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [738.696, 740.178], "stop_times": [740.178, 754.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.696}, "reply_to": "21154__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_053", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--As I understood your hypothetical, the screws as sold to the first buyer was in an engine contained in a ship which all went in a completed product to the first buyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [754.73], "stop_times": [762.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.73}, "reply_to": "21154__0_052", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_054", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The whole ship went to... the completed product to your present client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [762.557], "stop_times": [766.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.557}, "reply_to": "21154__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_055", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's the Shipco case out of the Fifth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [766.008], "stop_times": [768.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.008}, "reply_to": "21154__0_054", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_056", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That would be the case where the engine manufacturer produces his own screws.\nI guess that is unusual.\nI think Justice Breyer was giving you the case where there are screws in the engine, but the engine manufacturer gets the screw from, you know--\n--Yes.\n--Screws Unlimited or something, the screw manufacturer.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [768.271, 773.695, 775.805, 782.03, 782.24, 784.931], "stop_times": [773.695, 775.805, 782.03, 782.24, 784.931, 785.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.271}, "reply_to": "21154__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_057", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's right.\nThat, indeed, is both in microcosm and in gross the East River case and the Shipco case out of the Fifth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [785.392, 785.943], "stop_times": [785.943, 794.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.392}, "reply_to": "21154__0_056", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_058", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But that is East River, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [794.309], "stop_times": [795.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.309}, "reply_to": "21154__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_059", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "East River--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [795.59], "stop_times": [796.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.59}, "reply_to": "21154__0_058", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_060", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That what caused the damage there was a defective component that East River didn't produce but incorporated in the equipment that was sold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [796.061], "stop_times": [803.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.061}, "reply_to": "21154__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_061", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [803.765], "stop_times": [804.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.765}, "reply_to": "21154__0_060", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_062", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And aren't the cases pretty much uniform in saying you look at the product that was sold the first time, the whole entity, not at the component parts that may have been produced by someone else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [804.576], "stop_times": [814.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.576}, "reply_to": "21154__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_063", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [814.382], "stop_times": [814.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.382}, "reply_to": "21154__0_062", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_064", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "At least that's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [814.683], "stop_times": [815.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.683}, "reply_to": "21154__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_065", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [815.703], "stop_times": [816.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 815.703}, "reply_to": "21154__0_064", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_066", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--The normal holding of the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [816.063], "stop_times": [818.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.063}, "reply_to": "21154__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_067", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--East River necessarily did not address the case that... the facts that Shipco later out of the Fifth Circuit did address and answered the question put by Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [818.036], "stop_times": [825.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 818.036}, "reply_to": "21154__0_066", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_068", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I understand.\nMy problem... you see my problem?\nMy problem is, what's the defective product?\nWhat's the first time?\nTo put it another way--\n--Yes.\n--why is a screw a component part of an engine, but an engine is not a component part of a ship under your theory?\nOr the first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [825.54, 825.7, 827.383, 831.516, 833.838, 835.31, 835.49, 843.555], "stop_times": [825.7, 827.383, 831.516, 833.838, 835.31, 835.49, 843.555, 843.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.54}, "reply_to": "21154__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_069", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The engine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [843.725], "stop_times": [844.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.725}, "reply_to": "21154__0_068", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_070", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--isn't the component part of the improved ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [844.126], "stop_times": [845.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.126}, "reply_to": "21154__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_071", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--The engine under our theory would most certainly be part of the component ship.\nThe ship as originally delivered into the stream of commerce with every widget, screw, wire, and fastener aboard, is that product originally placed into the stream of commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [845.395, 848.717], "stop_times": [848.717, 857.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.395}, "reply_to": "21154__0_070", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_072", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Fine.\nThen why isn't what your client bought the defective product?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [857.572, 857.792], "stop_times": [857.792, 861.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.572}, "reply_to": "21154__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_073", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [861.685], "stop_times": [861.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.685}, "reply_to": "21154__0_072", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_074", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Because all that happened was that the... they simply added a few nets and things, just as the engine manufacturer added some metal to the screw, just as the shipbuilder added some wood to the engine, and then, see, we have a line here that works against you if you're going to look at the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [861.926], "stop_times": [881.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.926}, "reply_to": "21154__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_075", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--I respectfully--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [881.258], "stop_times": [882.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.258}, "reply_to": "21154__0_074", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_076", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [882.03], "stop_times": [882.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.03}, "reply_to": "21154__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_077", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--disagree, Justice Breyer.\nThe... we have to look at the first commercial sale and what fully completed product was delivered out into that commercial sale.\nIn the Saratoga case, as Justice O'Connor focused us upon, the product was the completed product with all the widgets, screws, and wires that came out of the Martinac Shipyard.\nThat was the object of that original bargain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [882.711, 883.102, 889.376, 899.873], "stop_times": [883.102, 889.376, 899.873, 902.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.711}, "reply_to": "21154__0_076", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_078", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Is one definition of that whether or not the first user added the equipment, as opposed to a manufacturer adding the equipment?\nSuppose, for instance, leaving apart Saratoga... we just have as between Martinac and Madruga... the manufacturer had designed a special place for the skiff, and he designed a special place for the nets, and then Madruga just sailed it off and put the skiff on and the nets.\nWould the skiff and the nets then be part of the whole product in the case that I put?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [902.076, 912.22, 930.723], "stop_times": [912.22, 930.723, 935.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.076}, "reply_to": "21154__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21154__0_079", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "It would not be.\nIf the skiff and the nets were purchased separately by Madruga--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [935.816, 936.517], "stop_times": [936.517, 940.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.816}, "reply_to": "21154__0_078", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_080", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And that's because Madruga is the user, and the user added the parts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [940.421], "stop_times": [944.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.421}, "reply_to": "21154__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21154__0_081", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Quite correct.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [944.043, 944.684], "stop_times": [944.684, 944.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.043}, "reply_to": "21154__0_080", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_082", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No, but why do you characterize it that way?\nThe first buyer... is it Madruga or Magruda?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [944.985, 946.905], "stop_times": [946.905, 951.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.985}, "reply_to": "21154__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__0_083", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Madruga.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [951.098], "stop_times": [951.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 951.098}, "reply_to": "21154__0_082", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_084", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Madruga.\nThe first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [951.519, 952.19], "stop_times": [952.19, 952.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.519}, "reply_to": "21154__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__0_085", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "There was some confusion in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [952.72], "stop_times": [953.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.72}, "reply_to": "21154__0_084", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_086", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Okay.\nThe first buyer in effect went to the manufacturer of the ship and said, I want to buy 90 percent of a ship to fish for tuna.\nI will complete it.\nI will put in whatever it was, the navigation equipment, the skiff, the seines and so on.\nWhy isn't he to be regarded as the manufacturer of the completed product, which is the complete tuna fishing ship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [953.431, 953.612, 963.217, 964.278, 968.743], "stop_times": [953.612, 963.217, 964.278, 968.743, 976.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.431}, "reply_to": "21154__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__0_087", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Simply put, he's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [976.717], "stop_times": [977.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.717}, "reply_to": "21154__0_086", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_088", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [977.688], "stop_times": [977.868], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 977.688}, "reply_to": "21154__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21154__0_089", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Simply put, he's not a 402A seller.\nStrict liability does not apply under 402A, which the Court has given us as the standard in admiralty for product liability between casual sales or occasional sales.\nIt focuses on commercial sales by manufacturer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [977.868, 979.879, 989.814], "stop_times": [979.879, 989.814, 992.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.868}, "reply_to": "21154__0_088", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_090", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Suppose it was his business to convert bare boats into tuna boats and he did that in quantity?\nHere there were about seven boats, was it not the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [992.816, 998.242], "stop_times": [998.242, 1001.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.816}, "reply_to": "21154__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__0_091", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, but that would... although that might create liability if Madruga turned out to be a 402A seller from running to Saratoga Fishing Company, it would not vitiate liability as against Martinac, another seller in the chain of distribution.\nThe product vis... in any lawsuit for product liability between parties A and B may involve, indeed, a different product, but the rule... and it's important to have a uniform rule, is merely to find the product sold by that manufacturer to the ultimate consumer.\nLet me give you an example.\nIn our case, the product we contend was the complete ship with everything aboard, as the Shipco case teaches us, as it left the Martinac Shipyard.\nIf, later on, a defective heat tape or some other product had been added aboard, a completely different engine, some new machinery had been put aboard and had caught fire, and had destroyed the vessel, that comp... that additional equipment manufacturer would have tort immunity for that engine, widget, whatever it was that was sold, would not be able to get recovery of that product itself from that manufacturer, but would be liable for the hull and all the rest of the goods.\nIt may be in every instance, because every lawsuit is necessarily between two or more parties, that we focus on a somewhat different product, but it doesn't make the rule difficult to apply, because we look at the bargain between that manufacturer in its original sale and the purchaser in that original sale, assuming that it is a commercial sale, not a casual sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1001.693, 1016.323, 1036.165, 1036.767, 1046.113, 1073.842], "stop_times": [1016.323, 1036.165, 1036.767, 1046.113, 1073.842, 1094.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.693}, "reply_to": "21154__0_090", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_092", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, a commercial... not just a commercial sale, but a commercial sale to an end user.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1094.498], "stop_times": [1098.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.498}, "reply_to": "21154__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_093", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1098.339], "stop_times": [1099.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.339}, "reply_to": "21154__0_092", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_094", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That is how you decide where to draw the line between the screw and the engine and the ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1099.27], "stop_times": [1104.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.27}, "reply_to": "21154__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_095", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1104.273], "stop_times": [1105.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.273}, "reply_to": "21154__0_094", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_096", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Which sale was a sale to an ultimate user.\nThe screw was not sold to an ultimate user, since it was sold to a manufacturer of an engine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1105.354, 1107.184], "stop_times": [1107.184, 1112.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.354}, "reply_to": "21154__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_097", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "You're quite correct, Justice Scalia.\nIn fact, as I referred to the Shipco case, here was an attempt out of the Fifth Circuit which is illustrative, an attempt to get the component manufacturer for a part that they had put in the engine, and that was a specific end around, as it were, the East River, and the Fifth Circuit stopped it cold and said no, it is the negotiated, final, complete product that left that particular shipyard which is the product itself, and there was no property in that particular case outside of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1112.269, 1113.939], "stop_times": [1113.939, 1139.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.269}, "reply_to": "21154__0_096", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_098", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So I guess you're saying in answer to Justice Scalia's first question way back earlier on in the argument... I think you're saying that the capacity of the end user to contract is basically irrelevant.\nThere's simply got to be a conventional line, and the conventional line which would work as well as any other is the one that we've already given at least some lip service to, and that's the 402A line.\nSo it's not a... it doesn't turn on the power to contract.\nIt turns on the power of the court in effect to impose a conventional line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1139.779, 1151.565, 1162.554, 1164.767], "stop_times": [1151.565, 1162.554, 1164.767, 1169.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.779}, "reply_to": "21154__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__0_099", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That is correct, though I assume you don't mean the capacity to contract.\nI assume you mean, what is the nature of the original contract?\nIs it a commercial sale into the stream of commerce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1169.59, 1174.294, 1177.565], "stop_times": [1174.294, 1177.565, 1179.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.59}, "reply_to": "21154__0_098", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_100", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No, but one of the... I think one of the questions that plays around in this case is that when the ultimate end user, who later becomes a plaintiff, buys whatever he buys, he can contract in a way that will protect him.\nNo warranty, extended warranty, warranty plus or minus insurance, and so on.\nAnd you're saying that the capacity of that end user who later becomes a plaintiff to contract for protection when he buys whatever the thing is he buys is essentially irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1179.388, 1194.938, 1201.411], "stop_times": [1194.938, 1201.411, 1213.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.388}, "reply_to": "21154__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__0_101", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "It is indeed irrelevant for this purpose, because strict liability in its balance in contract as given by East River takes account of both.\nIt looks at the original purchaser's ability to contract with the manufacturer, what warranties might exist.\nIn other words, recovery for the product itself might be permitted in warranty.\nA warranty might be assignable, transferable and the like.\nBut it also takes account quite correctly of the purposes of product liability to impose a duty upon manufacturers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1213.509, 1221.617, 1227.309, 1231.122, 1233.506], "stop_times": [1221.617, 1227.309, 1231.122, 1233.506, 1239.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.509}, "reply_to": "21154__0_100", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_102", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1239.64], "stop_times": [1239.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.64}, "reply_to": "21154__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_103", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--to design and produce safe products.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1239.88], "stop_times": [1241.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1239.88}, "reply_to": "21154__0_102", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_104", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--That's nifty for the original purchaser.\nHe can protect himself.\nBut the original seller is really left without a way to protect himself.\nI guess he can interrogate the original purchaser and say, are you going to be the last end user, or are you going to sell to somebody else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1241.443, 1243.203, 1244.815, 1249.938], "stop_times": [1243.203, 1244.815, 1249.938, 1259.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.443}, "reply_to": "21154__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_105", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The original purchaser can protect itself under warranty, obviously, by putting restrictions as to the original purchaser, but cannot protect itself against tort liability for damage to other property, damage downstream, except by designing safe, reliable, and not unreasonably damaged goods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1259.605], "stop_times": [1278.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.605}, "reply_to": "21154__0_104", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_106", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I guess you could write a contractual provision that says, if you resell the ship, or whatever I'm selling you, you will be liable for any damaged goods that I'm held liable for in tort.\nYou could assume that contractually, couldn't you, or would that violate public policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1278.307, 1290.616], "stop_times": [1290.616, 1295.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.307}, "reply_to": "21154__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_107", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I suspect that would violate public policy, Justice Scalia, but it certainly is possible in the hands of the first purchaser, vis-a-vis a red letter clause or some other device, to limit tort liability to the original buyer, and that's done fairly conventionally.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1295.01, 1308.629], "stop_times": [1308.629, 1309.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.01}, "reply_to": "21154__0_106", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_108", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Do I understand your position to be that whatever Madruga... was other property in Madruga's hands stays other property vis-a-vis the manufacturer no matter how many subsequent sales there are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1309.36], "stop_times": [1322.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.36}, "reply_to": "21154__0_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__0_109", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1322.318], "stop_times": [1323.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.318}, "reply_to": "21154__0_108", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_110", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So as long as... Madruga could have recovered had there been... for the additional things, and anyone forthwith, no matter how much is added onto the boat.\nThe original product is what the manufacturer is insulated for and nothing that anyone else adds to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1323.728, 1334.895], "stop_times": [1334.895, 1342.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.728}, "reply_to": "21154__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__0_111", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I would suggest that the best focus would be what did the manufacturer sell as a completed product?\nAnything beyond that in the hands of the ultimate consumer, when a product--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1342.892, 1349.127], "stop_times": [1349.127, 1352.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.892}, "reply_to": "21154__0_110", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_112", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, but how does that... how does that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1352.33], "stop_times": [1354.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.33}, "reply_to": "21154__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_113", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--shows up in other property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1354.052], "stop_times": [1354.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1354.052}, "reply_to": "21154__0_112", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_114", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--How does that work, because what is the... I mean, suppose the screw blows up while the manufacturer's turning it into an engine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1354.252], "stop_times": [1362.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.252}, "reply_to": "21154__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_115", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's East River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1362.155], "stop_times": [1363.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1362.155}, "reply_to": "21154__0_114", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_116", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Fine... no, in the engine shop, the screw blows up, okay.\nSo I guess the manufacturer could sue the screw-making for damage to the engine, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1363.567, 1368.39], "stop_times": [1368.39, 1374.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.567}, "reply_to": "21154__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_117", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Assuming it was an admiralty case, and assuming--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1374.014], "stop_times": [1377.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1374.014}, "reply_to": "21154__0_116", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_118", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.\nYou're right.\nI'm just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1377.466, 1377.747, 1378.157], "stop_times": [1377.747, 1378.157, 1378.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.466}, "reply_to": "21154__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_119", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1378.458], "stop_times": [1378.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.458}, "reply_to": "21154__0_118", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_120", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--He could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1378.638], "stop_times": [1378.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.638}, "reply_to": "21154__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_121", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1378.898], "stop_times": [1379.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.898}, "reply_to": "21154__0_120", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_122", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But that doesn't mean that your client can sue for damage to the engine.\nOf course, he can't.\nIn other words, this line, ultimate consumer, is just as flaky as the other one.\nWhat's an ultimate consumer in a commercial context where a person uses a screw to make an engine to make a ship, to sail in the water to get fish to sell to the ultimate consumer who eats the fish?\nI mean, how does it work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1379.299, 1384.775, 1385.453, 1391.15, 1403.398], "stop_times": [1384.775, 1385.453, 1391.15, 1403.398, 1405.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.299}, "reply_to": "21154__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_123", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--I respectfully disagree, Justice Breyer.\nIt is not a flaky line at all.\nIf we have an... if I am an ultimate consumer, whatever I bought from the manufacturer is the thing itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1405.29, 1407.263, 1408.645], "stop_times": [1407.263, 1408.645, 1415.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.29}, "reply_to": "21154__0_122", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_124", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, fine.\nWhatever you bought from the manufacturer, then, after all, the maker of the engine could sue the screw-maker for damage to the engine, but we know he can't, so Madruga vis-a-vis the ship they're saying is in the same position as the engine-maker vis-a-vis the screw-maker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1415.24, 1415.661], "stop_times": [1415.661, 1439.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.24}, "reply_to": "21154__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_125", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "In your hypothetical the screw which was defective came with the engine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1439.229], "stop_times": [1443.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1439.229}, "reply_to": "21154__0_124", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_126", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, just as the engine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1443.992], "stop_times": [1446.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.992}, "reply_to": "21154__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_127", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Then that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1446.442], "stop_times": [1446.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1446.442}, "reply_to": "21154__0_126", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_128", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Do you see the... I'm looking for a line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1446.622], "stop_times": [1450.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.622}, "reply_to": "21154__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__0_129", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "If I'm understanding your question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1450.135], "stop_times": [1451.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.135}, "reply_to": "21154__0_128", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_130", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Is your answer to Justice Breyer's question that Madruga is not in the business of making engines and machines, and he's not even in the business of reselling boats.\nHe happened to sell this one boat.\nIs that the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1451.276, 1460.122, 1461.794], "stop_times": [1460.122, 1461.794, 1463.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.276}, "reply_to": "21154__0_129", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21154__0_131", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--It is certainly part of the answer.\nThe... whether Madruga could have liability to Vargas is a separate question, of course, from whether Martinac may have liability to the downstream consumer.\nThe product itself in Madruga's hands was the ship as it left the Martinac Shipyard with all the screws and widgets aboard.\nThere's... that's an easy line to determine.\nIt's easy in theory, anyway.\nThe trial of such a case is necessarily complicated, as I can personally vouch for, because one has to have lists of all the things that were aboard, but in a sophisticated commercial transaction, that's done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1463.275, 1465.167, 1475.032, 1483.27, 1485.931, 1487.62], "stop_times": [1465.167, 1475.032, 1483.27, 1485.931, 1487.62, 1497.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.275}, "reply_to": "21154__0_130", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_132", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Mr. Zakarin, what is magic about the end user?\nI mean, I can understand what's magic about the end user when you're talking about transactions that may involve unsophisticated end users... the pop bottle example.\nBut once you've limited the rule that you're concerned with to sophisticated buyers and sellers, merchants, people in commerce, why should the engine manufacturer not be able to get the cost of his engine from the screw manufacturer, but the fisherman who buys the whole boat, a sophisticated fisherman who has seven of them, who sells some of them for resale later on, he can get the value of his seines and other equipment added on?\nWhat's so magic about the end user?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1497.247, 1499.939, 1509.346, 1536.875], "stop_times": [1499.939, 1509.346, 1536.875, 1538.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.247}, "reply_to": "21154__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_133", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The end user is sought to be protected by the law of product liability, the ultimate consumer.\nThat is the intent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1538.628, 1543.75], "stop_times": [1543.75, 1545.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.628}, "reply_to": "21154__0_132", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_134", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Why?\nI understand you say that, but why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1545.801, 1545.971], "stop_times": [1545.971, 1548.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.801}, "reply_to": "21154__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_135", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Well, I suppose that the distinction might be that a sophisticated consumer was capable of a greater level of inspection to detect manufacturing or design defects, and therefore perhaps could enjoy a lesser protection, but that standard would be very difficult to draw in reality.\nIt would be hard to determine whether any particular user was so sophisticated that they would not get the benefit of 402A's focus upon the ultimate consumer.\nThe simpler rule, and simplicity in application given the uniformity of admiralty, is important, is to pick a line, the ultimate consumer, the user, and a user could be a user of a machine, for example, in a machine shop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1548.254, 1563.025, 1571.273], "stop_times": [1563.025, 1571.273, 1583.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1548.254}, "reply_to": "21154__0_134", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_136", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "It could be General Motors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1583.661], "stop_times": [1585.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.661}, "reply_to": "21154__0_135", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__0_137", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "General Motors could be an ultimate consumer, but the chances are in a relationship of that type we wouldn't be talking about a single screw.\nWe'd be talking about a fairly sophisticated transaction with tort remedies and the like.\nWe're talking about downstream purchasers here.\nSaratoga was certainly not a sophisticated fishing entity, as the contributory negligence findings of the district court show us.\nThis was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1585.113, 1592.799, 1598.115, 1599.965, 1605.879], "stop_times": [1592.799, 1598.115, 1599.965, 1605.879, 1606.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.113}, "reply_to": "21154__0_136", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_138", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But isn't... as far as the condition of the boat, Captain Vargas probably knew more about that boat than... and he probably knew about the defective hydraulic system--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1606.42], "stop_times": [1618.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.42}, "reply_to": "21154__0_137", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__0_139", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--He certainly did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1618.708], "stop_times": [1619.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.708}, "reply_to": "21154__0_138", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_140", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--when he bought it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1619.308], "stop_times": [1620.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.308}, "reply_to": "21154__0_139", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__0_141", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That is correct.\nThat is correct, but the... we do not place in product liability law the burden upon the ultimate consumer to redesign or inspect products for design defect, which is what we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1620.939, 1621.129], "stop_times": [1621.129, 1632.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1620.939}, "reply_to": "21154__0_140", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_142", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "May I ask a quick question?\nYou're almost out of time, but I'm curious.\nIf this Court were to apply the contract theory rather than your product liability theory to a successive purchase, what is other property?\nWould it include the tuna catch?\nWould it include the fuel?\nWould it include the replacement skiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1632.716, 1632.886, 1635.63, 1645.708, 1647.08, 1648.86], "stop_times": [1632.886, 1635.63, 1645.708, 1647.08, 1648.86, 1651.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.716}, "reply_to": "21154__0_141", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_143", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "It certainly would include the fish.\nI believe it would include the fuel, unless you say fuel is a fungible item and therefore is the same no matter what.\nThat would be the recovery under those circumstances, but again, employing a contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1651.682, 1653.965, 1660.968], "stop_times": [1653.965, 1660.968, 1664.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1651.682}, "reply_to": "21154__0_142", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_144", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And the replacement skiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1664.862], "stop_times": [1665.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.862}, "reply_to": "21154__0_143", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_145", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--The replacement skiff was a different skiff than Madruga got, but I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1665.083], "stop_times": [1668.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1665.083}, "reply_to": "21154__0_144", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_146", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1668.985], "stop_times": [1669.473], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.985}, "reply_to": "21154__0_145", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21154__0_147", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--I believe it was replaced in the hands of Vargas, and that's correct, but to conclude on that, using a contract analysis to determine the product itself is not hostile to the application of strict products liability for property not sold by that manufacturer.\nUnder the balance given to us by East River, they live in harmony with one another, assuming a line can be given to determine what is the product, and that product is that sold into the stream of commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1669.473, 1683.445], "stop_times": [1683.445, 1693.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1669.473}, "reply_to": "21154__0_146", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_148", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, well, East River says other property may still be recoverable in tort, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1693.062], "stop_times": [1696.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.062}, "reply_to": "21154__0_147", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__0_149", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1696.965, 1698.357], "stop_times": [1698.357, 1698.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1696.965}, "reply_to": "21154__0_148", "speaker": "keith_zakarin"}
{"id": "21154__0_150", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Zakarin.\nMr. Macleod, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1698.636, 1699.968], "stop_times": [1699.968, 1702.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.636}, "reply_to": "21154__0_149", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__1_000", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn this situation, a commercial business entity bargained with another commercial business corporation for the purchase of a fully outfitted, totally functional purse seiner.\nThat's exactly what it acquired.\nIt operated it for 12 years, and that's exactly what it lost.\nIt lost the benefit of its own bargain, nothing more and nothing less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1702.168, 1709.614, 1724.353, 1726.605, 1730.248], "stop_times": [1709.614, 1724.353, 1726.605, 1730.248, 1734.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.168}, "reply_to": "21154__0_150", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_001", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "May I ask you two questions, just to be sure I understand part of the case?\nIf the injury to the additional equipment had occurred while the original purchaser still owned it, Madruga, would you have been liable for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1734.652, 1739.345], "stop_times": [1739.345, 1748.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.652}, "reply_to": "21154__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_002", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Probably.\nI would suggest to Your Honor that the approach would be exactly the same, that the examination would be of the bargain made by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1748.06, 1752.654], "stop_times": [1752.654, 1760.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1748.06}, "reply_to": "21154__1_001", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_003", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Assume the bargain included warranties on the ship itself but nothing more, and then you add the... Madruga added the additional equipment, which was lost in the... for tortious reasons.\nWould your client be liable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1760.769, 1772.106], "stop_times": [1772.106, 1773.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.769}, "reply_to": "21154__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_004", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Yes, I think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1773.558], "stop_times": [1774.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.558}, "reply_to": "21154__1_003", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_005", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "All right.\nNow, supposing instead of Madruga selling it on an as-is basis, supposing Madruga had given a warranty to Saratoga covering both the additional equipment and the original ship, so that Saratoga then recovered on the warranty for the additional equipment.\nWould Madruga then have been able to recover over against you for precisely the same loss that would have occurred if they'd still owned the ship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1774.139, 1774.489, 1790.681], "stop_times": [1774.489, 1790.681, 1798.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.139}, "reply_to": "21154__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_006", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I think not, Your Honor.\nI think that the analysis in the hands of Mr. Madruga would be the analysis under the contract between Madruga's business corporation and J. M. Martinac, and I think that the warranties would have expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1798.395, 1800.037], "stop_times": [1800.037, 1812.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.395}, "reply_to": "21154__1_005", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_007", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But Madruga then would be the person who suffered the loss, but it would have been by paying its customer.\nWhy would that... why should that loss be different than if it occurs while he still owns the ship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1812.376, 1816.88], "stop_times": [1816.88, 1822.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.376}, "reply_to": "21154__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_008", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I think the proper focus is on the benefits and the responsibilities of the bargaining of the commercial contracting parties, and if Mr. Madruga chose for one reason or another to extend a warranty on the equipment that he put aboard, or extend the original manufacturer's warranty, I think that's Mr. Madruga's problem, and I think undoubtedly he would be compensated for it in the purchase price.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1822.324], "stop_times": [1843.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.324}, "reply_to": "21154__1_007", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_009", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "It seems to me that Madruga... let's assume that Madruga just sold one vessel.\nHe didn't sell seven of them.\nIf he's talking to Saratoga and Saratoga says, well, I want a warranty, Madruga would say, you know, I don't know anything about engines and boats.\nI'm a fisherman.\nI don't know how to draw a warranty.\nIt seems to me somewhat artificial for us to suggest that Madruga and Saratoga were well-positioned to design and to negotiate a warranty.\nMadruga doesn't know anything about ships insofar as their technical manufacture, as is shown by the fact that he added a turbocharger unit that caused the ship to sink.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1843.008, 1851.895, 1852.867, 1860.891, 1861.252, 1863.195, 1873.22], "stop_times": [1851.895, 1852.867, 1860.891, 1861.252, 1863.195, 1873.22, 1885.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.008}, "reply_to": "21154__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21154__1_010", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Actually that was the second purchaser, Your Honor.\nThat was Captain Vargas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1885.447, 1886.999], "stop_times": [1886.999, 1888.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.447}, "reply_to": "21154__1_009", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_011", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Vargas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1888.97], "stop_times": [1889.27], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.97}, "reply_to": "21154__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21154__1_012", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That turbocharger uncovered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1889.27], "stop_times": [1890.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.27}, "reply_to": "21154__1_011", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_013", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "It seems to me that this just goes to show that Madruga is not in the business of selling vessels, and that, it seems to me, may cut against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1890.672], "stop_times": [1901.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.672}, "reply_to": "21154__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21154__1_014", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, there is evidence in the record here that Madruga purchased a total of seven vessels from J. M. Martinac which were ultimately sold.\nThere is also substantial trial testimony concerning the fact that Madruga had a full-time engineer at the shipyard during the entire course of construction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1901.792, 1907.827], "stop_times": [1907.827, 1915.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.792}, "reply_to": "21154__1_013", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_015", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But Madruga had a case here in the fifties.\nHe's not an unknown person in maritime transactions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1915.843, 1919.005], "stop_times": [1919.005, 1922.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.843}, "reply_to": "21154__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__1_016", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, Madruga v. Superior Court was here in the fifties, and he was one of the parties to that partition of a vessel, if I remember correctly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1922.938], "stop_times": [1930.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.938}, "reply_to": "21154__1_015", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_017", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Under the East River theory, what do we really look to first and foremost in applying a contract theory of recovery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1930.823], "stop_times": [1938.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.823}, "reply_to": "21154__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_018", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1938.909], "stop_times": [1939.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.909}, "reply_to": "21154__1_017", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_019", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "To the commercial nature of the purchaser, or to the commercial nature of the seller?\nWould the real focus be on whether the purchaser is in a commercial business of acquiring products like this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1939.23, 1946.003], "stop_times": [1946.003, 1956.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.23}, "reply_to": "21154__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_020", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--I think the focus should be on the transaction as a whole, this being clearly a commercial transaction, whereas a business corporation transferring assets to another business corporation, and as I read East River and understand it, the public policy choice to be made is the choice between contract and tort, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1956.461], "stop_times": [1978.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.461}, "reply_to": "21154__1_019", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_021", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "In making that choice, should we be more concerned with what the purchaser might suffer, and therefore look to whether the purchaser is, indeed, a commercial entity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1978.745], "stop_times": [1992.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.745}, "reply_to": "21154__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_022", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI would suggest that the test is the benefit of the bargain, and in order to define the benefit of the bargain one has to look at what the purchaser purchased, which it was the ultimate decision in the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [1992.823, 1993.855], "stop_times": [1993.855, 2006.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.823}, "reply_to": "21154__1_021", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_023", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "What about the 402... is the 402A seller Madruga?\nBecause I think one possible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2006.754, 2009.877], "stop_times": [2009.877, 2013.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.754}, "reply_to": "21154__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__1_024", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "There is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2013.56], "stop_times": [2013.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.56}, "reply_to": "21154__1_023", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_025", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--line... what about a possible line that says where there are a series of suppliers, each one of them supplies an ingredient to a product that ends up eventually in somebody's hands, the it, the defective thing as compared to the other property, is whatever was that thing in its form when it last left the hands of the last 402A seller.\nThat would work.\nThat's very generous in your direction, but if that were the line, I don't see any reason for drawing a line beyond that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2013.78, 2034.703, 2036.354], "stop_times": [2034.703, 2036.354, 2042.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.78}, "reply_to": "21154__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__1_026", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, that seems to assume that there's a sort of an essential platonic product that we can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2042.699], "stop_times": [2048.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.699}, "reply_to": "21154__1_025", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_027", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, there is.\nThere is the defective product, and what we're trying to do is get a definition for the defective product compared to other property that surrounds the defective product, and I'm suggesting the most liberal possible definition in your favor would be the defective product is that product in its form when it left the hands of the last 402A seller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2048.862, 2049.254], "stop_times": [2049.254, 2072.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.862}, "reply_to": "21154__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__1_028", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--The application of that rule would result in a rather con... substantial amount of confusion, I believe, because the vessel... a vessel, complex products in the normal course of events, undergo modifications, additions, et cetera, and if the vessel is modified and added to in the hands of subsequent purchasers on down the line, the liability of the manufacturer of that product increases as the manufacturer's involvement becomes more remote in time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2072.06], "stop_times": [2112.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2072.06}, "reply_to": "21154__1_027", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_029", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, limited by foreseeability principles, which is a normal tort limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2112.836], "stop_times": [2116.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.836}, "reply_to": "21154__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__1_030", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, yes.\nI think the public policy choice there was made in East River in favor of contract, and I would suggest that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2116.6, 2120.68], "stop_times": [2120.68, 2127.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.6}, "reply_to": "21154__1_029", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_031", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I don't understand your suggestion in favor of contract.\nAs I understand your position, the manufacturer is protected from liability as soon as the product is resold regardless of the terms of the reseller's bargain with his customer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2127.205, 2129.348], "stop_times": [2129.348, 2139.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.205}, "reply_to": "21154__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_032", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Well, the manufacturer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2139.306], "stop_times": [2139.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.306}, "reply_to": "21154__1_031", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_033", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2139.937], "stop_times": [2140.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.937}, "reply_to": "21154__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_034", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--The manufacturer's not protected from liability for personal injuries, for damages to other property, et cetera.\nHe's simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2140.148, 2145.304], "stop_times": [2145.304, 2146.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.148}, "reply_to": "21154__1_033", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_035", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, talk about other property.\nThis is other property, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2146.245, 2149.017], "stop_times": [2149.017, 2150.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.245}, "reply_to": "21154__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_036", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--I suggest the manufacturer is insulated from liability for... for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2150.449], "stop_times": [2157.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.449}, "reply_to": "21154__1_035", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_037", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "For the other property added to the property he sold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2157.353], "stop_times": [2160.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.353}, "reply_to": "21154__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_038", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Yes.\nTo do otherwise would increase the manufacturer's liability with the passage of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2160.184, 2161.536], "stop_times": [2161.536, 2165.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.184}, "reply_to": "21154__1_037", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_039", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But that could happen... the original purchaser could keep adding things to the ship, but that would still... each addition to the ship would increase the exposure of the manufacturer for greater liability, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2165.419], "stop_times": [2176.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.419}, "reply_to": "21154__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_040", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "It could do, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2176.385], "stop_times": [2177.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.385}, "reply_to": "21154__1_039", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_041", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well--\n--But as I understand you, as soon as the ship is resold that exposure is extinguished, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2177.236, 2177.707], "stop_times": [2177.707, 2183.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.236}, "reply_to": "21154__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_042", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2183.862], "stop_times": [2184.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.862}, "reply_to": "21154__1_041", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_043", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Regardless of the terms of the bargain between the first purchaser and the second purchaser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2184.192], "stop_times": [2188.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.192}, "reply_to": "21154__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_044", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2188.616], "stop_times": [2191.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2188.616}, "reply_to": "21154__1_043", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_045", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But the manufacturer can protect himself against the increasing liability of new components added by the original purchaser.\nHe can protect himself against that by contract, can he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2191.268, 2200.775], "stop_times": [2200.775, 2203.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.268}, "reply_to": "21154__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_046", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "He certainly can, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2203.387], "stop_times": [2204.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.387}, "reply_to": "21154__1_045", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_047", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Okay, and he cannot protect himself against the addition of new components by someone downstream.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2204.528], "stop_times": [2208.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.528}, "reply_to": "21154__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_048", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That is absolutely correct.\nThere was also a balancing test suggested in the products liability cases in the consumer context to the extent that a manufacturer can, with very slight price increases, protect himself against that through the purchase of insurance, and I suggest that that's not economically available in the context of a manufacturer of a vessel where, if the price were increased to accommodate additional insurance the shipyard would become--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2208.431, 2210.262], "stop_times": [2210.262, 2233.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.431}, "reply_to": "21154__1_047", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_049", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But your--\n--Mr. Macleod, I didn't understand your answer to Justice Scalia, because I didn't understand you to be contesting that if Vargas, the second purchaser, bought all new equipment, a new seine, a new boat, that would be other property, would it not, for which the manufacturer would be liable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2233.697, 2234.227], "stop_times": [2234.227, 2252.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.697}, "reply_to": "21154__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__1_050", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--I would... no, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2252.349], "stop_times": [2253.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.349}, "reply_to": "21154__1_049", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_051", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2253.6], "stop_times": [2253.951], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.6}, "reply_to": "21154__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21154__1_052", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I'm suggesting that replacement property is not recoverable as other property, where parts of the ship wear out and are replaced or... and modified and repaired in the normal course of operations, for the same reason, that we're constantly going to have additions and modifications and repair with replacement parts being added to a vessel, or any large complex piece of machinery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2253.951], "stop_times": [2281.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.951}, "reply_to": "21154__1_051", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_053", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So there's nothing that... as part of the boat that Vargas puts on that the manufacturer... that would constitute other property vis-a-vis the manufacturer, is that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2281.35], "stop_times": [2295.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.35}, "reply_to": "21154__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__1_054", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No, I'm not suggesting that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2295.328], "stop_times": [2300.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.328}, "reply_to": "21154__1_053", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_055", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, what could... what would constitute other property vis-a-vis the manufacturer as far as the vessel that Vargas is operating is concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2300.061], "stop_times": [2312.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.061}, "reply_to": "21154__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__1_056", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Property of a third party, or property if Mr. Vargas, or Vargas' corporation which was unrelated to the bargain made by Mr. Vargas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2312.95], "stop_times": [2322.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2312.95}, "reply_to": "21154__1_055", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_057", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, anything that wasn't a replacement, I take it.\nIf he had come along and said, I think it would be great to have a second skiff, during the period in which the adder of the second skiff owned the boat, that would be other property under your rule, wouldn't it, and then it would cease to be other property if he sold the boat with the second skiff on it.\nIsn't that correct on your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2322.507, 2324.72, 2339.719], "stop_times": [2324.72, 2339.719, 2341.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.507}, "reply_to": "21154__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__1_058", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.\nIn fact, in the present case the property of other crewmen that was aboard the vessel is other property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2341.492, 2342.062], "stop_times": [2342.062, 2347.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.492}, "reply_to": "21154__1_057", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_059", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But was your answer to my earlier question correct, that the original seller can protect himself by contract against tort liability for other property added by the original purchaser?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2347.015], "stop_times": [2364.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.015}, "reply_to": "21154__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_060", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, it was.\nHe can protect himself by contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2364.166, 2364.627], "stop_times": [2364.627, 2367.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.166}, "reply_to": "21154__1_059", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_061", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "How does he do that?\nWhat does a contract say, there shall be no tort liability for other property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2367.769, 2368.29], "stop_times": [2368.29, 2371.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.769}, "reply_to": "21154__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_062", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The builder shan't be responsible for any of the property of the purchaser that's aboard the vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2371.741], "stop_times": [2378.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.741}, "reply_to": "21154__1_061", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_063", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But that shouldn't bind people further downstream.\nI don't think you can by contract restrict tort liability for people who aren't parties to the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2378.136, 2382.43], "stop_times": [2382.43, 2388.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2378.136}, "reply_to": "21154__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__1_064", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I... that's not my position, Your Honor.\nI think your statement is exactly correct, and exactly why we should be looking at the benefit of the bargain to what the purchaser acquired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2388.634, 2390.957], "stop_times": [2390.957, 2400.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.634}, "reply_to": "21154__1_063", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_065", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But I thought you had said in answer to Justice Scalia's question that the purchaser could... the manufacturer could protect himself from liability, tort liability simply by contracting with the purchaser.\nYou don't mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2400.324, 2414.582], "stop_times": [2414.582, 2415.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.324}, "reply_to": "21154__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__1_066", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "In the hands of the first purchaser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2415.103], "stop_times": [2416.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2415.103}, "reply_to": "21154__1_065", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_067", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2416.645], "stop_times": [2417.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.645}, "reply_to": "21154__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__1_068", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But not in the hands of the second or subsequent purchasers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2417.146], "stop_times": [2419.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.146}, "reply_to": "21154__1_067", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_069", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So all you're contracting for is no tort liability as between the manufacturer and the first purchaser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2419.727], "stop_times": [2425.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.727}, "reply_to": "21154__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__1_070", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2425.761], "stop_times": [2426.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.761}, "reply_to": "21154__1_069", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_071", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And then for subsequent sales it is the object sold in the subsequent sales that is the product, and that's what protects him, and the one loophole in that protection, I take it, is in the period between the time... between sales.\nLet's say, the period between the sale to the second buyer, who then adds not just replacement equipment but adds equipment to it like the second skiff.\nDuring that period the manufacturer has gotten other property liability if the second skiff gets blown up along with the ship, but if you're lucky, and the second skiff and the ship are then sold to a third purchaser, then he's off the hook again.\nIs that the way your theory works?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2426.472, 2440.931, 2450.849, 2466.649], "stop_times": [2440.931, 2450.849, 2466.649, 2468.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.472}, "reply_to": "21154__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__1_072", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, except that in the hands of the second purchaser I think the analysis should be of the bargain made by that purchaser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2468.891], "stop_times": [2481.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.891}, "reply_to": "21154__1_071", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_073", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, he bought a ship without a second skiff.\nThen he adds the second skiff, so the second skiff is not subject to the bargain that he made when he purchased the ship, so I thought on your theory the second skiff is other property during that second owner's ownership, but when the second owner then sells to a third, and the second skiff goes with it, then the second skiff is part of the bargain.\nThe product then includes the second skiff, and there wouldn't be product liability vis-a-vis the original manufacturer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2481.77, 2484.011, 2503.094], "stop_times": [2484.011, 2503.094, 2509.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.77}, "reply_to": "21154__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__1_074", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2509.229], "stop_times": [2509.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.229}, "reply_to": "21154__1_073", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_075", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Okay.\nMr. Macleod, is the response you gave to Justice Stevens before, is that settled law, that if there is a contract running between Madruga and Vargas, a warranty, and Madruga pays, that Madruga could not go back against the manufacturer for the... what would have been other property in Madruga's ownership period?\nIs that settled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2509.86, 2510.267, 2539.429], "stop_times": [2510.267, 2539.429, 2540.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.86}, "reply_to": "21154__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__1_076", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I think it is, and I think it's a matter of contract law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2540.748], "stop_times": [2545.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.748}, "reply_to": "21154__1_075", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_077", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "It was... there was a tort liability--\n--I don't think you can give me a case for that proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2545.313, 2549.434], "stop_times": [2549.434, 2550.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.313}, "reply_to": "21154__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__1_078", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I don't think I can either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2550.866], "stop_times": [2551.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.866}, "reply_to": "21154__1_077", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_079", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No, I really don't.\n[Laughter]\nThe tort liability that Madruga would have had vanishes, even as to Madruga.\nThat's... that's essentially what you said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2551.855, 2552.486, 2555.16, 2562.644], "stop_times": [2552.486, 2555.16, 2562.644, 2568.488], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.855}, "reply_to": "21154__1_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21154__1_080", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I'm suggesting that the second purchaser purchased a warranty from Mr. Madruga in the initial sale, that Mr. Madruga would have to make good on that warranty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2568.488], "stop_times": [2585.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2568.488}, "reply_to": "21154__1_079", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_081", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.\nNow the question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2585.568, 2586.649], "stop_times": [2586.649, 2588.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.568}, "reply_to": "21154__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__1_082", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "As a matter of contract law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2588.089], "stop_times": [2589.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.089}, "reply_to": "21154__1_081", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_083", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--can he turn around and get back from the manufacturer the extent to which the warranty covered what would have been other property in Madruga's hands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2589.801], "stop_times": [2598.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.801}, "reply_to": "21154__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__1_084", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I believe that the proper analysis of the relationship between Mr. Madruga and the shipbuilder at that point would be made under contract and warranty law with an examination of that particular contract and, if my memory serves me correctly, it would not be recoverable in this case because of a time limit on warranties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2598.076], "stop_times": [2616.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.076}, "reply_to": "21154__1_083", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_085", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, it wouldn't have been covered by the warranty anyway, because it's other property.\nYour... the manufacturer only warrants the original ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2616.529, 2619.682], "stop_times": [2619.682, 2622.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.529}, "reply_to": "21154__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_086", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Ah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2622.443], "stop_times": [2622.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.443}, "reply_to": "21154__1_085", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_087", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So there'd be no warranty recovery.\nThe only recovery would be the same tort recovery as if they had happened while he still owned the ship.\nHe'd say, well, I have suffered this loss as a result of your delivering me a dangerous product.\nIt's not loss of the original ship.\nI had to pay out this money to a third party.\nI don't know why it's any different if it's a purchaser or a passenger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2622.814, 2625.325, 2629.92, 2635.455, 2637.457, 2639.339], "stop_times": [2625.325, 2629.92, 2635.455, 2637.457, 2639.339, 2643.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.814}, "reply_to": "21154__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_088", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That would be assigning a tort claim, presumably... actually creating a tort claim, because no claim existed to be assigned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2643.473], "stop_times": [2653.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.473}, "reply_to": "21154__1_087", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_089", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, wait a minute.\nUnder East River it preserved liability in tort, product liability theory for other property loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2653.118, 2654.079], "stop_times": [2654.079, 2666.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.118}, "reply_to": "21154__1_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_090", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2666.637], "stop_times": [2667.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.637}, "reply_to": "21154__1_089", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_091", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And so why does that liability disappear in the event the ship is resold and the original purchaser had to pay damages to his purchaser?\nWhy can't he look back to the original manufacturer for those losses for other property under tort liability, assuming the statute hasn't run?\nIt would have been a tort theory all along, and it just stays that way.\nLet's talk about the tuna catch.\nThat's the most valuable thing in this whole lawsuit, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2667.809, 2682.298, 2694.276, 2708.365, 2712.048], "stop_times": [2682.298, 2694.276, 2708.365, 2712.048, 2715.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.809}, "reply_to": "21154__1_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_092", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2715.12], "stop_times": [2715.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2715.12}, "reply_to": "21154__1_091", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_093", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.\nWell, let's talk about the tuna catch, because that's other property under anybody's definition, and if the original buyer, Madruga, has to fork over under tort theory to Saratoga for the loss of the tuna, then why can't he in turn look back to the manufacturer for that loss.\nI think you say he can, don't you, unless there's been an exclusion of that in the original contract.\nNo, he said originally he could not.\nThat's his position, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2715.581, 2715.971, 2741.517, 2748.283, 2750.527], "stop_times": [2715.971, 2741.517, 2748.283, 2750.527, 2751.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.581}, "reply_to": "21154__1_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_094", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2751.656], "stop_times": [2752.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.656}, "reply_to": "21154__1_093", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_095", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "His position is you look entirely to the intermediate purchaser.\nWould you care to give us your own version?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2752.006, 2755.439, 2757.341], "stop_times": [2755.439, 2757.341, 2759.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.006}, "reply_to": "21154__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21154__1_096", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--I believe that the proper approach is contractual, and that the complete analysis should be made in contract because of the commercial contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2759.773], "stop_times": [2771.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.773}, "reply_to": "21154__1_095", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_097", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, under East River it is not contractual recovery as to other property.\nDo you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2771.149, 2777.223], "stop_times": [2777.223, 2778.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.149}, "reply_to": "21154__1_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_098", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2778.274], "stop_times": [2778.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2778.274}, "reply_to": "21154__1_097", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_099", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2778.544], "stop_times": [2778.775], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.544}, "reply_to": "21154__1_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21154__1_100", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's what East River says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2778.775], "stop_times": [2779.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2778.775}, "reply_to": "21154__1_099", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_101", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And tuna is other property.\nDon't we all agree with that... the catch?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2779.976, 2782.027], "stop_times": [2782.027, 2784.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.976}, "reply_to": "21154__1_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_102", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I don't agree with that proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2784.01], "stop_times": [2784.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.01}, "reply_to": "21154__1_101", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_103", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Oh, you don't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2784.531], "stop_times": [2785.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.531}, "reply_to": "21154__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_104", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2785.75], "stop_times": [2786.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.75}, "reply_to": "21154__1_103", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_105", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, that wasn't sold originally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2786.411], "stop_times": [2790.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.411}, "reply_to": "21154__1_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_106", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "I think... no, it was not sold--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2790.154], "stop_times": [2792.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.154}, "reply_to": "21154__1_105", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_107", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "By the manufacturer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2792.144], "stop_times": [2792.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.144}, "reply_to": "21154__1_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_108", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--But I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2792.775], "stop_times": [2793.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2792.775}, "reply_to": "21154__1_107", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_109", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That was something that was caught--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2793.476], "stop_times": [2794.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.476}, "reply_to": "21154__1_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_110", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2794.446], "stop_times": [2795.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.446}, "reply_to": "21154__1_109", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_111", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--by the original buyer, and I would have thought surely that was other property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2795.057], "stop_times": [2800.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.057}, "reply_to": "21154__1_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_112", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The approach that was taken to the analysis of the tuna was a lost profit analysis, and I think that lost profits are derived from the benefit of the bargain, and that what was actually lost here was an expectancy, which is the equivalent of lost products, a simple consequential economic loss flowing from the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2800.229], "stop_times": [2822.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.229}, "reply_to": "21154__1_111", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_113", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The fish had been caught and put in the hold.\nThat's other property.\nIt's not an expectancy.\nThey caught the fish, and they're worth something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2822.946, 2825.737, 2827.788, 2829.719], "stop_times": [2825.737, 2827.788, 2829.719, 2832.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.946}, "reply_to": "21154__1_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21154__1_114", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--It was still necessary that that catch be delivered, and the catch... the catch represents an expectancy of money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2832.253], "stop_times": [2841.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.253}, "reply_to": "21154__1_113", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_115", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Did you petition--\n--Yes, but if the boat hadn't broken down they would have been delivered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2841.64, 2842.13], "stop_times": [2842.13, 2844.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.64}, "reply_to": "21154__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__1_116", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "True.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2844.023], "stop_times": [2845.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.023}, "reply_to": "21154__1_115", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_117", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Did you petition on that question and we didn't... we didn't grant it, right, on the fish?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2845.794], "stop_times": [2851.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.794}, "reply_to": "21154__1_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21154__1_118", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "We did.\nWe petitioned on the... several liability issues, Your Honor, as well as that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2851.107, 2852.769], "stop_times": [2852.769, 2857.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.107}, "reply_to": "21154__1_117", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_119", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But if... I wondered if... what's bothering me basically is, I thought East River's like this: there's a glass on the table in the galley, and it's defective, and it cracks and breaks and people are cut, and there's a good claim that of course all these cut people can recover in tort, and then somebody says I also want tort recovery for the glass itself.\nYou say, wait a minute.\nWhen you have a defective glass you don't get the value of the glass in tort.\nI mean, it's the glass that was defective.\nRecover in contract or warranty for the defective glass.\nAnd now that principle, which seems right in that case, seems to have gotten way out of control.\nI mean, now suddenly we're talking about they have to recover in contract.\nThey can't get a tort recovery for the fish that are hurt, and they... all these other things.\nIt doesn't seem right that it's so far out of control, but I'm having trouble thinking of what the limiting principle is.\nIt doesn't seem right to me when you buy a ship, under all these other appurtenance things there's a little bit of a glass or something somewhere that breaks.\nYou say you can't get recovery in tort for all these other things that have nothing to do with the glass.\nWhat's the line you draw?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2857.831, 2880.545, 2881.877, 2887.161, 2889.752, 2894.017, 2899.418, 2904.152, 2907.856, 2914.291, 2921.026, 2925.638], "stop_times": [2880.545, 2881.877, 2887.161, 2889.752, 2894.017, 2899.418, 2904.152, 2907.856, 2914.291, 2921.026, 2925.638, 2928.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.831}, "reply_to": "21154__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21154__1_120", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The line that I would draw would be the object of the plaintiff's bargain, what the plaintiff bargained for and got, together with the economic loss that flows from the loss of that bargain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2928.051], "stop_times": [2942.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.051}, "reply_to": "21154__1_119", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_121", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "But we've rejected that.\nI mean, we have accepted that even out of a contract context there can arise tort recovery.\nI mean, we've gone beyond what you've said.\nThat's already been held.\nWhat you want to do is simply eliminate the basic rule that a tort recovery can be had on the basis of a transaction that was a contract.\nIsn't that what you're arguing?\nYour sole remedy has to be through the contract.\nI mean, that's not even... that's not even up for debate.\nWe've held that.\nAnd not only that, your point as I understand it is the sole remedy has to be against the person from whom you made the purchase, so that if a big company sells the ship to a small person who sells it to a third party, the third party can only sue the small person who may not be able to pay the judgment, but the person who manufactured the dangerous item is scott-free, under your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2942.59, 2943.349, 2951.756, 2954.849, 2956.399, 2965.735, 2968.136, 2970.858, 2973.92, 2976.16], "stop_times": [2943.349, 2951.756, 2954.849, 2956.399, 2965.735, 2968.136, 2970.858, 2973.92, 2976.16, 2998.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.59}, "reply_to": "21154__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_122", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Under my theory, but only as to the loss of the product and the economic losses that flow from the loss of the product.\nThey are not scott-free as to personal injuries or damages to property of a third party, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [2998.397, 3004.07], "stop_times": [3004.07, 3009.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.397}, "reply_to": "21154__1_121", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_123", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, why should there be a different rule for damages to property in a case like this and damage... personal injuries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3009.456], "stop_times": [3015.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3009.456}, "reply_to": "21154__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21154__1_124", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--The commercial purchaser in the commercial context can protect themselves, whereas the injured person is probably suffering a personal disaster in their life and has no method of protecting themselves against the dangerous product, or a defective product, or likely any knowledge about the dangerous--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3015.897], "stop_times": [3036.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.897}, "reply_to": "21154__1_123", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_125", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Ah, but if it was a personal injury of the buyer, then you'd say, tough luck, because you could have protected yourself.\nSo it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3036.892, 3041.445], "stop_times": [3041.445, 3041.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.892}, "reply_to": "21154__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_126", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Oh, no, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3041.946], "stop_times": [3042.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3041.946}, "reply_to": "21154__1_125", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_127", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--all personal injuries.\nIt's just personal injuries of third persons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3042.957, 3043.137], "stop_times": [3043.137, 3044.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.957}, "reply_to": "21154__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_128", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIf the buyer was personally injured... the human being buyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3044.977, 3045.328], "stop_times": [3045.328, 3051.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.977}, "reply_to": "21154__1_127", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_129", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "The only thing you're saying that contract controls I think is, the value of the... the identity of the product for the plaintiff's purpose when the plaintiff sues.\nThat's the only... that is the only point at which contract law is controlling on your theory, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3051.072, 3063.389], "stop_times": [3063.389, 3069.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.072}, "reply_to": "21154__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__1_130", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "--Contract law... yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3069.473], "stop_times": [3071.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.473}, "reply_to": "21154__1_129", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_131", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "All right, and that's why, as I understand it, you don't have a category... you don't make any categorical distinction between property loss and personal injury because in the case that I was giving you before you said, well, if the second skiff is injured as a result of the products defect while the product is owned by the person who bought the second skiff, the second skiff would be other property and would be recoverable.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3071.426, 3101.145], "stop_times": [3101.145, 3103.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.426}, "reply_to": "21154__1_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__1_132", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3103.636], "stop_times": [3103.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3103.636}, "reply_to": "21154__1_131", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_133", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And by the same token, if the second owner were injured personally, those personal injuries would be recoverable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3103.867], "stop_times": [3111.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.867}, "reply_to": "21154__1_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__1_134", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3111.791], "stop_times": [3112.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3111.791}, "reply_to": "21154__1_133", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_135", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "So the only categorical distinction you're making is the categorical distinction that involves saying, you define what product is for the plaintiff's purpose by looking to the contract by which the plaintiff bought whatever it was the plaintiff bought.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3112.442, 3127.402], "stop_times": [3127.402, 3128.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.442}, "reply_to": "21154__1_134", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__1_136", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3128.113], "stop_times": [3128.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.113}, "reply_to": "21154__1_135", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_137", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3128.804], "stop_times": [3129.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.804}, "reply_to": "21154__1_136", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21154__1_138", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And I would foreclose recovery for the loss of that thing, whatever it is, that's the object of the bargain and the economic losses that flow from the loss of the benefit of the bargain or the destruction of that thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3129.556], "stop_times": [3143.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.556}, "reply_to": "21154__1_137", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_139", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "And you acknowledge that the recovery for the skiff and the recovery for the personal injury in the hypothetical that Justice Souter just gave you would be tort recovery and not contract recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3143.803], "stop_times": [3153.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.803}, "reply_to": "21154__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_140", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3153.23], "stop_times": [3153.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3153.23}, "reply_to": "21154__1_139", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_141", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Well, that contradicts what you said earlier.\nThat's why I don't really understand your argument.\nI thought that this was what you were saying much earlier in the argument, but then in your quite recent exchange with the Chief Justice you said the exclusive recovery is under the contract.\nYou don't really believe that.\nThere is tort recovery in some instances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3153.861, 3155.942, 3159.896, 3169.754, 3171.115], "stop_times": [3155.942, 3159.896, 3169.754, 3171.115, 3173.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.861}, "reply_to": "21154__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21154__1_142", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Yes.\nThere are tort recoveries in some instances, personal injuries being the prime example.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3173.917, 3174.639, 3178.021], "stop_times": [3174.639, 3178.021, 3184.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.917}, "reply_to": "21154__1_141", "speaker": "daniel_b_macleod"}
{"id": "21154__1_143", "conversation_id": "21154", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Macleod.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1764", "start_times": [3184.826, 3186.817], "stop_times": [3186.817, 3188.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.826}, "reply_to": "21154__1_142", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__0_000", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 95-1065, Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York.\nMr. Sekulow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [0.0, 10.168], "stop_times": [10.168, 11.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__0_001", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nWhatever one thinks of abortion, this Court in both Bray and Casey has recognized that there are common and respectable reasons for opposing it.\nWe are not here challenging the prohibitions of the injunction which prohibit blockades, trespass, or obstruction of access.\nIn the Western District of New York, the opposition to abortion with which we are concerned involves demonstrations such as picketing, leafleting, the holding of a sign, or a prayer vigil.\nUnder the one-size-fits-all injunction issued by the district court, the petitioners are prohibited from engaging in these form of demonstrations inside overlapping speech-free zones that float without geographic limitation.\nThe injunction also allows, to a very limited extent, a form of demonstration that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [11.63, 14.211, 21.964, 29.639, 40.387, 54.317], "stop_times": [14.211, 21.964, 29.639, 40.387, 54.317, 59.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.63}, "reply_to": "20110__0_000", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_002", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Sekulow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [59.542], "stop_times": [60.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 59.542}, "reply_to": "20110__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__0_003", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [60.113], "stop_times": [60.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 60.113}, "reply_to": "20110__0_002", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_004", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I think we can hear you quite well if you were to lower your voice a little.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [60.702], "stop_times": [62.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 60.702}, "reply_to": "20110__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__0_005", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe other provision of the injunction that we are challenging involves a sidewalk counseling allowance.\nIt allows sidewalk counseling.\nHowever, that sidewalk counseling can be terminated based on facial gestures.\nIn other words, what we call and the lower courts recognized as a cease-and-desist provision.\nThis provision of the injunction is implemented on verbal or nonverbal indications.\nIn fact, the injunction itself prohibits and allows for... prohibits any person being approached.\nIt's not just limited to women seeking the services of an abortion facility.\nOn page 183 of the petition appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [62.655, 63.793, 70.759, 72.079, 77.932, 82.726, 87.639, 94.054, 97.937], "stop_times": [63.793, 70.759, 72.079, 77.932, 82.726, 87.639, 94.054, 97.937, 100.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 62.655}, "reply_to": "20110__0_004", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_006", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "You'd be content if we modified that so only verbal indications would suffice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [100.559], "stop_times": [107.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.559}, "reply_to": "20110__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_007", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia, we would not.\nThat would be certainly a step in the right direction.\nThe ACLU in their brief has acknowledged that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [107.752, 109.755, 111.606], "stop_times": [109.755, 111.606, 113.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.752}, "reply_to": "20110__0_006", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_008", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And that's not really what you're after here, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [113.586], "stop_times": [115.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.586}, "reply_to": "20110__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_009", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--That is not.\nWe think that the no consent, and that's what this is, without consent, the speech stops, and that could be before a word is even uttered, and we think that provision of the injunction, like the no approach zone in Madsen, because it is dependent upon consent of the people speaking and the people that are listening, therefore it is unconstitutional, because without a doubt it burdens more speech than necessary to serve any of these purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [115.83, 116.867], "stop_times": [116.867, 139.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 115.83}, "reply_to": "20110__0_008", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_010", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "How does it stop?\nI mean, we're 15 feet apart now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [139.765, 140.395], "stop_times": [140.395, 143.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.765}, "reply_to": "20110__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__0_011", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [143.258], "stop_times": [143.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.258}, "reply_to": "20110__0_010", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_012", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Even without this microphone I think I can hear you perfectly well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [143.859], "stop_times": [147.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.859}, "reply_to": "20110__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__0_013", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "The Chief Justice certainly said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [147.361], "stop_times": [149.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 147.361}, "reply_to": "20110__0_012", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_014", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes.\nSo what is the problem?\nI mean--\n[Laughter]\n--here we are, we're having a conversation, and we're 15 feet apart--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [149.111, 149.532, 151.345, 152.574, 152.855], "stop_times": [149.532, 151.345, 152.574, 152.855, 156.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.111}, "reply_to": "20110__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__0_015", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "We're in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [156.298], "stop_times": [157.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.298}, "reply_to": "20110__0_014", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_016", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--and the judge's decree allows everybody to go 15 feet apart, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [157.009], "stop_times": [160.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.009}, "reply_to": "20110__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__0_017", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I think that in reality we're talking about, of course, in Buffalo city sidewalks and city streets, with sidewalk escorts trying to get people into the clinic.\nIt's the hustle and bustle of any metropolitan area, and to carry on intimate conversation, one-on-one communication with a desire to dissuade, to tell someone we really don't you... want you to go into this particular abortion facility.\nThat is intimate conversation.\nSure, you could be 15 feet away, but in that 15 feet, if you were to ask me, as a demonstrator, if I was the demonstrator, you wanted some information, under this injunction consensual speech is also prohibited, and that's where I think, if we look at the burdening-no-more-speech-than-necessary standard, why is it that 15 feet serves as a standard, especially--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [160.458, 168.034, 180.644, 182.805], "stop_times": [168.034, 180.644, 182.805, 202.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 160.458}, "reply_to": "20110__0_016", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_018", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Let me ask you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [202.075], "stop_times": [202.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.075}, "reply_to": "20110__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_019", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [202.646], "stop_times": [203.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.646}, "reply_to": "20110__0_018", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_020", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Would 5 feet be okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [203.057], "stop_times": [204.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.057}, "reply_to": "20110__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_021", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I don't think so in the particular situation here.\nIf there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [204.339, 207.03], "stop_times": [207.03, 208.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.339}, "reply_to": "20110__0_020", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_022", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Two feet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [208.22], "stop_times": [209.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.22}, "reply_to": "20110__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_023", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Two feet I think would approach what we would consider probably blocking, certainly crowding, and crowding is prohibited by section 1(c) of the injunction and we're not challenging that, but crowding in the sense that if I were blocking your access.\nOne of the examples that we use, and I think it was one of the contempt proceedings... it's found in the Joint Appendix on page... beginning... commencing on page 101, actually 102 going forward.\nBonnie Behn and Carla Rainero were engaged in sidewalk counseling.\nThey were held in contempt.\nThe court held them in contempt.\nOn page 107 of the Joint Appendix, in describing what exactly was taking place, and then going on to page 108, and I'll refer to page 108, Bonnie Behn and Carla Rainero walked alongside the young woman, her companions and the escorts, and continued talking to the young woman.\nThey were engaged in a conversation.\nNow, ultimately, the woman in that particular case that was seeking the abortion said, please stop talking.\nThere's no finding of yelling, no finding of blockades, no finding of impeding access.\nShe just said, stop talking.\nThe two individuals, Carla Rainero and Bonnie Behn, continued to communicate, and for that the court held them, the district court held them in contempt, because the injunction itself prohibits that type of speech on a public sidewalk in New York absent evidence of yelling, absent evidence of blockades.\nThat information or that concern is handled by the injunction, as is the noise restrictions.\nWe're not challenging those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [209.152, 221.109, 231.428, 236.59, 238.321, 239.342, 255.221, 256.843, 262.646, 268.25, 270.651, 288.653, 292.947], "stop_times": [221.109, 231.428, 236.59, 238.321, 239.342, 255.221, 256.843, 262.646, 268.25, 270.651, 288.653, 292.947, 295.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.152}, "reply_to": "20110__0_022", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_024", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yelling.\nYou would accept this injunction if it prevented you from raising your voice to anyone going into the clinic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [295.799, 296.14], "stop_times": [296.14, 303.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.799}, "reply_to": "20110__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_025", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Oh, no, I don't think that is the prohibition that we're concerned with.\nThe noise provision, Justice Scalia, excessively loud noise to be heard inside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [303.523, 306.014], "stop_times": [306.014, 310.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 303.523}, "reply_to": "20110__0_024", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_026", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "To be heard inside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [310.078], "stop_times": [310.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.078}, "reply_to": "20110__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_027", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [310.919], "stop_times": [311.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.919}, "reply_to": "20110__0_026", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_028", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But you wouldn't say that this injunction would be okay if it prevented the counselors from shouting at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [311.578], "stop_times": [315.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.578}, "reply_to": "20110__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_029", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No.\nI think that's robust speech, and this Court has talked about the need to protect robust speech in public forums.\nThis is clearly a public forum.\nThe fact that these sidewalks abut an abortion clinic does not mean that they become enclaves immune from the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [315.852, 316.372, 321.045, 322.467], "stop_times": [316.372, 321.045, 322.467, 328.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.852}, "reply_to": "20110__0_028", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_030", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Well, are you challenging the fixed 15-foot limit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [328.929], "stop_times": [332.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.929}, "reply_to": "20110__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__0_031", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "We are challenging that as well.\nJustice O'Connor, the way that these zones work in operation, you have, as you acknowledge, the 15-foot fixed zone, which actually is really 45 feet, because as an individual approaches the clinic their bubble zone, their floating zone goes with them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [332.812, 334.742], "stop_times": [334.742, 348.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.812}, "reply_to": "20110__0_030", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_032", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I'm not talking about the floating bubble, I'm talking about the fixed buffer zone provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [348.153], "stop_times": [354.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.153}, "reply_to": "20110__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__0_033", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "The fixed buffer zone in and of itself, Justice O'Connor, we are challenging.\nTwo reasons.\nNumber 1, the Court here, before... when it issued the temporary restraining order had a speech-restrictive provision initially.\nI think what this Court said in Madsen as it relates to the entire issue of was there a... before a broader injunction is issued, is there a least restrictive or less restrictive injunction that just didn't do the job, and I don't think that's the facts here.\nThe reality is that the injunction had a speech restriction at the outset.\nThen the Court increased that speech restriction in the final... the preliminary injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [354.006, 356.708, 357.759, 364.151, 376.61, 380.714], "stop_times": [356.708, 357.759, 364.151, 376.61, 380.714, 385.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.006}, "reply_to": "20110__0_032", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_034", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Is it your position that there was no post-TRO conduct that justified the 15-foot limit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [385.266], "stop_times": [393.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.266}, "reply_to": "20110__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__0_035", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That is our position, and I think the record in that sense shows it, because there would have been six contempts, or actually seven contempt actions brought in an almost 18-month period, three of them involving cease and desist... yes, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [393.282], "stop_times": [404.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 393.282}, "reply_to": "20110__0_034", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_036", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "As I recall, Judge Meskill in the panel ruling did find that there had been violations after the issuance of the TRO, and if you would look at A-57 he refers to an incident on March 26, 1991, in which two men blocked the doorway to the clinic, and then another one on January 1, so Judge Meskill, whose position I think you are not challenging--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [404.91], "stop_times": [441.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.91}, "reply_to": "20110__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_037", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [441.844], "stop_times": [442.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.844}, "reply_to": "20110__0_036", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_038", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--did find post-TRO conduct that violated the Court's order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [442.324], "stop_times": [450.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.324}, "reply_to": "20110__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_039", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, that's correct, and we've acknowledged, and they're in the Joint Appendix, there are also contempt actions that have been filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [450.208], "stop_times": [456.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.208}, "reply_to": "20110__0_038", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_040", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But you did say in your reply brief that the district judge found no defendants physically blocked access after the issuance of the TRO, and as I read Judge Meskill's opinion that's not so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [456.632], "stop_times": [470.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.632}, "reply_to": "20110__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_041", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "What it's talking about there in the particular page A-57, the way we understand the evidence was submitted at trial and the way we've seen the case was, this was not a mass blockade, and what we were talking about in our reply brief, Justice Ginsburg, is, this is not a case involving mass blockades.\nThere have been occasions where protesters have trespassed, and we believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [470.003, 487.333], "stop_times": [487.333, 491.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.003}, "reply_to": "20110__0_040", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_042", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But I wanted to inquire, what is the principle that limits the Court to the conduct post-TRO and pre-preliminary injunction, given the long history of discord, to use the mildest term, what is it that confines the district judge in thoughtfully drawing a preliminary injunction after trying to preserve the peace with a TRO, from crafting it in a sensible way in light of all of the past history?\nWhy is he confined just to this post-TRO conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [491.865, 524.377], "stop_times": [524.377, 527.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.865}, "reply_to": "20110__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__0_043", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I think that the Court should only be looking at this particular injunction in light of the facts that the district court have.\nWas the injunction that was issued, Justice Kennedy, then, the question that we would submit is, did it burden more speech than necessary, and the provisions that we're challenging... we're not saying that it was inappropriate to say, as the court did... it increased the... under provision 1(c) from the TRO to the preliminary injunction, it did increase things such as no touching, no physical contact.\nWe're not challenging that.\nBut there's nothing that justifies the speech-free zones that float without any geographic limitation, and speech can be silenced on command.\nJustice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [527.589, 534.504, 553.125, 554.668, 561.932], "stop_times": [534.504, 553.125, 554.668, 561.932, 562.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.589}, "reply_to": "20110__0_042", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_044", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Was that 15-foot... not the floating zone, but the 15-foot absolute, that was in the TRO originally.\nThat wasn't added.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [562.733, 567.547], "stop_times": [567.547, 568.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.733}, "reply_to": "20110__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_045", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Actually, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [568.705], "stop_times": [569.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.705}, "reply_to": "20110__0_044", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_046", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Wasn't that in the original TRO as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [569.767], "stop_times": [571.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.767}, "reply_to": "20110__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_047", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Justice Scalia, actually it was the floating zone was in the TRO.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [571.908], "stop_times": [574.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.908}, "reply_to": "20110__0_046", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_048", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Ah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [574.71], "stop_times": [575.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.71}, "reply_to": "20110__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_049", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And the fixed zone came afterwards, and I think that points to the nature of what took place here, so we have these automatic floating zones, if you will, without geographic limitation, and then a 15-foot zone is imposed, and we would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [575.501], "stop_times": [587.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.501}, "reply_to": "20110__0_048", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_050", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "What Meskill says on A-57, after noting that there were these two violations after the TRO, he says, however, the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence clearly requires more than two isolated incidents over the course of 1-1/2 years before a court may banish an entire protest demonstration from a given area, and that's your contention here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [587.979], "stop_times": [609.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.979}, "reply_to": "20110__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_051", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--And that is our contention, and also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [609.772], "stop_times": [611.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.772}, "reply_to": "20110__0_050", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_052", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But Mr. Sekulow, I think you will agree that it is a standard in law regarding injunctions that if there is no incident following the TRO... the TRO is a very temporary thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [611.224], "stop_times": [625.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 611.224}, "reply_to": "20110__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_053", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [625.463], "stop_times": [626.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.463}, "reply_to": "20110__0_052", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_054", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And if there is no violation of it, that shows the injunction is working, not that it should be stopped.\nI think your proposition is extraordinary, that if the very brief TRO is working, then the injunction must be stopped, rather than maintained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [626.084, 632.379], "stop_times": [632.379, 643.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.084}, "reply_to": "20110__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_055", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But Justice Ginsburg, if it is working but infringes on free speech at the same time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [643.446], "stop_times": [647.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.446}, "reply_to": "20110__0_054", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_056", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, then... then there was something wrong with the TRO.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [647.566], "stop_times": [650.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 647.566}, "reply_to": "20110__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_057", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Well, precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [650.688], "stop_times": [652.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.688}, "reply_to": "20110__0_056", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_058", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But the notion that I thought you were putting forward to us was that because there was compliance with the TRO there was no longer need for that restraint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [652.15], "stop_times": [663.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.15}, "reply_to": "20110__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_059", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "We have not challenged, nor are we here challenging the restrictions other than the two speech provisions, but the district court and the court of appeals acknowledge, and it's on A-8 of the petition appendix, that the demonstrations are mostly peaceful in nature.\nTwelve judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated that in fact this was very different record than in Madsen.\nAnd in Madsen, this Court held that in fact the issue of a fixed zone was debatable.\nWe think the debate should tip in favor of free speech here, especially since this Court in Madsen said that precision of regulation is required, couched in the narrowest possible terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [663.367, 677.036, 684.101, 689.203], "stop_times": [677.036, 684.101, 689.203, 699.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.367}, "reply_to": "20110__0_058", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_060", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "We also said in Madsen, Mr. Sekulow, that some deference was due to the trial court's formulation of the thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [699.021], "stop_times": [706.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.021}, "reply_to": "20110__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__0_061", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes, and this Court, in looking at the... in giving some deference to the trial court struck down the no-approach zone in Madsen and also declared that a portion of the 36-foot zone burdened more speech than necessary.\nMr. Chief Justice, I think that's precisely our point, that the pinpoint precision that this Court talked about in Madsen is absent here.\nThis is a one... this injunction applies to every single facility where abortions are performed in the Western District of New York, and it is one size fits all.\nThey did not carve it to specific needs, and we think a floating zone is not justified anyways, and a cease-and-desist provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [706.327, 718.583, 725.619, 733.533], "stop_times": [718.583, 725.619, 733.533, 740.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.327}, "reply_to": "20110__0_060", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_062", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "May I ask on the floating zone--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [740.709], "stop_times": [742.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.709}, "reply_to": "20110__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_063", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [742.279], "stop_times": [742.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.279}, "reply_to": "20110__0_062", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_064", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--is it your position that a floating zone, no matter how carefully tailored, could never be justified as a remedy for repetitive speech?\nSay a person operated a fur store and some animal rights person wanted... day after day walked... followed the person going to business, repeating the same message over and over and over again, would the First Amendment permit or prohibit some kind of floating zone for... to protect that person from just the repetition of the same message over and over again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [742.759, 751.075], "stop_times": [751.075, 768.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 742.759}, "reply_to": "20110__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_065", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I think it would be prohibited by the First Amendment.\nI don't think we can say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [768.766, 771.08], "stop_times": [771.08, 772.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.766}, "reply_to": "20110__0_064", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_066", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "There's no... floating zone is per se bad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [772.689], "stop_times": [774.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.689}, "reply_to": "20110__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_067", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--There are times, Justice Stevens, where floating zones have been adopted in domestic violence situations where... of course, that's not involving speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [774.919], "stop_times": [780.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.919}, "reply_to": "20110__0_066", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_068", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No.\nI'm just talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [780.443, 780.784], "stop_times": [780.784, 781.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.443}, "reply_to": "20110__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_069", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [781.294], "stop_times": [783.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.294}, "reply_to": "20110__0_068", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_070", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--about harassing only in the sense of one must listen to the same message over and over and over again, and you say you just have to... you have to swallow that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [783.525], "stop_times": [790.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.525}, "reply_to": "20110__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_071", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, I think on a public sidewalk or a public street we're going to hear messages we may not like, we may disagree with, but it can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [790.942], "stop_times": [794.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.942}, "reply_to": "20110__0_070", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_072", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes, but I'm talking about the same message over and over and over--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [794.694], "stop_times": [797.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.694}, "reply_to": "20110__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_073", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--By one person to the same person.\nCould that approach harassment?\nMaybe it could.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [797.085, 798.127, 799.477, 800.298], "stop_times": [798.127, 799.477, 800.298, 801.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.085}, "reply_to": "20110__0_072", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_074", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--And then if one could do it, why is it different if, instead of one doing it 20 times, 20 different people do it in succession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [801.25], "stop_times": [807.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.25}, "reply_to": "20110__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_075", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I don't think that necessarily that would be inappropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [807.632], "stop_times": [811.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.632}, "reply_to": "20110__0_074", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_076", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [811.015], "stop_times": [811.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.015}, "reply_to": "20110__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_077", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "In the context of robust debate on a public issue like this, there is going to be a variety of speech.\nThis injunction, though, which is interesting, prohibits a person from... a demonstrator from approaching anyone.\nIn fact, interestingly, this injunction does not limit its impact to women seeking the services of an abortion clinic, or physicians and staff.\nIt applies to any person seeking access, and provision 1(c), the no approach zone, it's similar to the no-approach zone.\nIt's the cease-and-desist provision, says on its face... I mean, it's very clear that a person or a group of persons can prohibit, or use the provision and prohibit speech.\nHow does a group of persons do that?\nIs it one individual wants to hear a message, the other does not?\nWhat happens if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [811.464, 817.769, 823.503, 832.148, 839.164, 849.449, 852.341, 855.002], "stop_times": [817.769, 823.503, 832.148, 839.164, 849.449, 852.341, 855.002, 856.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.464}, "reply_to": "20110__0_076", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_078", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Is that the way you would distinguish, if you would distinguish this situation from the application of some of the new stalker laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [856.354], "stop_times": [864.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.354}, "reply_to": "20110__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_079", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I think the stalker laws are different in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [864.159], "stop_times": [866.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.159}, "reply_to": "20110__0_078", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_080", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [866.96], "stop_times": [867.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.96}, "reply_to": "20110__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_081", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Because the persistence is not necessarily, Number 1, protected speech.\nThere's a number of issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [867.781, 871.843], "stop_times": [871.843, 872.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.781}, "reply_to": "20110__0_080", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_082", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, let's assume that the stalker does have a message, and my guess is a lot of them do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [872.935], "stop_times": [878.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.935}, "reply_to": "20110__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_083", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And at some point that crosses the line from speech to harassment.\nWe've looked at that issue.\nIs there a way to prohibit one-on-one persistent speech on a public forum?\nI have trouble with that, because I think it leads to a dangerous provision, but if there was harassment, you had... we have the case in the Second Circuit involving Ms. Onassis, and there the court said that a zone was appropriate.\nBut of course, there the court out the zone.\nI also think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [878.247, 881.28, 882.201, 887.965, 898.731, 901.335], "stop_times": [881.28, 882.201, 887.965, 898.731, 901.335, 901.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.247}, "reply_to": "20110__0_082", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_084", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "This injunction doesn't prohibit following, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [901.712], "stop_times": [904.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.712}, "reply_to": "20110__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_085", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--It does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [904.724], "stop_times": [905.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.724}, "reply_to": "20110__0_084", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_086", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "It prohibits speaking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [905.145], "stop_times": [906.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.145}, "reply_to": "20110__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_087", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That's correct.\nIt is targeted directly at speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [906.106, 906.727], "stop_times": [906.727, 907.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.106}, "reply_to": "20110__0_086", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_088", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And you would feel differently about an injunction that prohibited following.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [907.777], "stop_times": [912.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.777}, "reply_to": "20110__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_089", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "It's a different scenario.\nIt's the purpose of the communication, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [912.031, 913.761], "stop_times": [913.761, 916.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.031}, "reply_to": "20110__0_088", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_090", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But I don't think this injunction prohibits the speech.\nIt just requires the speaker to stay 15 feet away, which is prohibiting following.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [916.122, 918.215], "stop_times": [918.215, 921.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.122}, "reply_to": "20110__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_091", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No, I think not, Justice Stevens, with respect, for two reasons.\nNumber 1... and I want to draw an analysis, if I could.\nIn NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, one of the most effective tools for the civil rights protestors was the stationing of sidewalk-based store watchers.\nThey were sometimes called deacons, sometimes called black hats.\nAnd the Court acknowledged... this Court acknowledged that, as the lower courts found, that the volition of many black citizens were just overcome by sheer fear because the presence of these black hats was so strong and it was intimidating, but the Court still said that that was protected speech, and the fact that here the speech is vigorous, and it's about an issue that is part of a debate, doesn't entitle it to less constitutional protection, or alternatively protecting platitude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [921.468, 924.978, 927.101, 937.967, 940.137], "stop_times": [924.978, 927.101, 937.967, 940.137, 965.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.468}, "reply_to": "20110__0_090", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_092", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I still don't understand, what is the word, or the idea, or the expression that one could make if you're within a 15-foot radius that you couldn't communicate being the distance, a little bit less than the distance that we are now.\nIs there some word, or expression, or thought, or idea, or view that is only communicable when I'm closer to you than I am at this moment, and if so, what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [965.326, 981.196], "stop_times": [981.196, 993.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 965.326}, "reply_to": "20110__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__0_093", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I think, Justice Breyer, all of the above.\nI think someone that is on the streets of New York that wants to talk to a woman who is about to engage in an abortion procedure, or for that matter a salesman who does business with this abortion facility, wants to communicate a message one-on-one, maybe wanting to share, as the records happen in this case, a Bible verse.\nIt's hard to show someone a Bible 15 feet away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [993.363, 995.566, 1011.045], "stop_times": [995.566, 1011.045, 1013.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.363}, "reply_to": "20110__0_092", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_094", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But then they can go up and do that, can't they, unless the person affirmatively says that they don't want that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1013.439], "stop_times": [1019.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.439}, "reply_to": "20110__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__0_095", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Actually, there's no demonstration allowed within the 15-foot zones at all.\nThe only carve-out is the sidewalk counseling, which is the distribution of literature, according to the lower court, to dissuade someone from not having an abortion based on a particular statement, and then, of course, the cease-and-desist language comes in.\nBut if someone were simply holding a sign, or handing a religious tract, or simply trying to show a Bible to someone, they cannot do it, and in the decorum of this courtroom, it's quite easy for you and I to communicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1019.561, 1023.382, 1034.281], "stop_times": [1023.382, 1034.281, 1044.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1019.561}, "reply_to": "20110__0_094", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_096", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Why couldn't the counselor show the person the Bible within the 15... if the person doesn't object.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1044.156], "stop_times": [1048.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1044.156}, "reply_to": "20110__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_097", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, the counselor could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1048.901], "stop_times": [1050.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1048.901}, "reply_to": "20110__0_096", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_098", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1050.13], "stop_times": [1050.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.13}, "reply_to": "20110__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_099", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Unless, of course, somebody in that group says, get away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1050.661], "stop_times": [1053.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1050.661}, "reply_to": "20110__0_098", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_100", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "You need more than two people to show the passage from the Bible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1053.013], "stop_times": [1054.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.013}, "reply_to": "20110__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_101", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, I don't think that's... I don't think that's what I'm saying, Justice Stevens.\nWhat I'm saying is, the Bible itself may not be deemed a form of demonstrating... a form of sidewalk counseling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1054.873, 1057.276], "stop_times": [1057.276, 1062.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.873}, "reply_to": "20110__0_100", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_102", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But you're saying that because it's small print you have to be close for the person to be able to read it.\nFifteen feet, you can't read the Bible, obviously.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1062.438, 1065.751], "stop_times": [1065.751, 1067.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.438}, "reply_to": "20110__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_103", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I think it's more than print.\nI think it's the communication and the print.\nI think if someone wearing a button that makes a statement, a religious statement, or a sentiment, that person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1067.511, 1068.253, 1069.892], "stop_times": [1068.253, 1069.892, 1075.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.511}, "reply_to": "20110__0_102", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_104", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No, but you're responding to a question about what can't you do at 15 feet that you could do in less than 15 feet, and it seems to me your point is you've got something they couldn't read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1075.047], "stop_times": [1082.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.047}, "reply_to": "20110__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_105", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I have something they couldn't read, it's hard to shout over sidewalk counselors, the lower courts acknowledge that the sidewalk counselors, the escorts, rather, trying to get these women in the clinic create an increased atmosphere, it's noisy, and it's hard to communicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1082.691], "stop_times": [1094.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1082.691}, "reply_to": "20110__0_104", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_106", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I understood from the record that the... whatever you call them, the antiabortion people had people called sidewalk counselors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1094.51], "stop_times": [1103.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.51}, "reply_to": "20110__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_107", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Sidewalk counselors, yes, Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1103.926], "stop_times": [1105.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.926}, "reply_to": "20110__0_106", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_108", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--and the clinics had people who were meant to counter the sidewalk counselors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1105.215], "stop_times": [1107.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.215}, "reply_to": "20110__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_109", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Escorts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1107.989], "stop_times": [1108.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.989}, "reply_to": "20110__0_108", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_110", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Who would surround the person coming in and talk about everything and anything, make noise, which made it quite difficult to speak to that person from 15 feet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1108.518], "stop_times": [1119.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.518}, "reply_to": "20110__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_111", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Precisely, and in that nature would also inform these women about their rights under the injunction, would encourage them to engage in a communication to stop the communication, they would surround them... this was not, as I said, courtroom decorum discussion.\nThis is discussion on a street where there's people on both sides of the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1119.617, 1131.844], "stop_times": [1131.844, 1134.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.617}, "reply_to": "20110__0_110", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_112", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Sekulow, you had--\n--But would that solve the problem if the injunction only applied to unescorted persons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1134.625, 1135.887], "stop_times": [1135.887, 1139.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.625}, "reply_to": "20110__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_113", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I don't think so.\nI think that would be like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1139.248, 1140.41], "stop_times": [1140.41, 1141.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1139.248}, "reply_to": "20110__0_112", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_114", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "So really you're not resting on the fact that they are escorts there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1141.109], "stop_times": [1144.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.109}, "reply_to": "20110__0_113", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__0_115", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--My response was, Justice Stevens, that Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia were asking about the issue of communicating a message.\nIt's difficult to communicate a message on a public sidewalk.\nHow does one hand someone a leaflet 15 feet away when this Court recognized that one need not ponder the contents of a leaflet to mechanically take it out of someone's hand.\nYou can't take it unless you have an awfully long hand.\nYou can't take it out of someone's hand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1144.111, 1149.296, 1152.028, 1159.912, 1161.853], "stop_times": [1149.296, 1152.028, 1159.912, 1161.853, 1163.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1144.111}, "reply_to": "20110__0_114", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_116", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, you can offer it, presumably, at the 15-foot boundary and say, here, I'd like you to take this to read it.\nThe person can refuse, and if you were closer and offer a leaflet, the person can refuse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1163.105, 1170.13], "stop_times": [1170.13, 1176.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.105}, "reply_to": "20110__0_115", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__0_117", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--But I think the point is, Justice O'Connor, that 15 feet away on a city street in Buffalo, New York, is not this courtroom, and I cannot just hand the leaflet, and I think I have the right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1176.742], "stop_times": [1187.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.742}, "reply_to": "20110__0_116", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_118", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I thought the injunction let you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1187.471], "stop_times": [1188.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.471}, "reply_to": "20110__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__0_119", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1188.66], "stop_times": [1189.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1188.66}, "reply_to": "20110__0_118", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_120", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I'm sorry.\nDoesn't the injunction allow someone to go right up next to the woman and say here, I'm 1 foot away, would you like to read this, I want to counsel you, and then the woman can say no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1189.141, 1189.842], "stop_times": [1189.842, 1198.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.141}, "reply_to": "20110__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__0_121", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "The woman can say no, which we think the consent provision alone is the reason this provision of the injunction should be declared to burden more speech than necessary and therefore unconstitutional, but that's one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1198.708], "stop_times": [1208.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.708}, "reply_to": "20110__0_120", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_122", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Sekulow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1208.396], "stop_times": [1208.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.396}, "reply_to": "20110__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_123", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1208.673], "stop_times": [1209.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.673}, "reply_to": "20110__0_122", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_124", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Unlike a statute that's just regulating everybody, we do have an injunction that's supposed to be tailored to these circumstances, and you had no objection, I take it, to injunction against grabbing, pushing, shoving.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1209.865], "stop_times": [1223.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.865}, "reply_to": "20110__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_125", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1223.874], "stop_times": [1225.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1223.874}, "reply_to": "20110__0_124", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_126", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "The district court did make a finding that the sidewalk counselors often crowded around the patients, and mustn't there be some kind of keep-your-distance rule to prevent the pushing, shoving, grabbing that had gone on before?\nThere is a past history here that the judge was taking into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1225.195, 1241.505], "stop_times": [1241.505, 1245.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.195}, "reply_to": "20110__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_127", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I think, though, the way to... if someone pushes, if someone grabs, if someone crowds so that someone can't move forward, there's provisions of the injunction that cover that, and they should be prosecuted for contempt.\nI don't think to limit speech, including prohibiting demonstrations completely... I mean, under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1245.459, 1255.196], "stop_times": [1255.196, 1260.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.459}, "reply_to": "20110__0_126", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_128", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No, but isn't the answer to that, Mr. Sekulow, that the closer they are, given the history, the more likely there are going to be incidents of pushing and shoving, and you can't as a practical matter, simply as a court, prosecute 100 contempts a day under these orders, so the idea, to have something... you're making a practicality argument.\nI think the court is making a practicality argument.\nThe court is saying, let's have some kind of a zone which isn't going to cut off speech entirely, but which is going to reduce the probability that we are going to have a multiplicity of contempt actions every time somebody walks into an abortion clinic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1260.628, 1279.239, 1281.332], "stop_times": [1279.239, 1281.332, 1295.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1260.628}, "reply_to": "20110__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_129", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1295.782], "stop_times": [1296.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.782}, "reply_to": "20110__0_128", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_130", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Isn't that the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1296.623], "stop_times": [1297.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.623}, "reply_to": "20110__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_131", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I don't think it is in this regard.\nThe court tailored its injunction, or attempted to tailor its injunction to say no grabbing, no physical abuse.\nWe're not challenging that, but this injunction itself says, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1297.572, 1299.454, 1304.106], "stop_times": [1299.454, 1304.106, 1307.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.572}, "reply_to": "20110__0_130", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_132", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No, but don't you agree that the probability of grabbing is going to be greater the closer people are in these situations?\nIsn't that the point upon which the court's order rests, and isn't that point correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1307.949, 1314.992], "stop_times": [1314.992, 1320.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.949}, "reply_to": "20110__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_133", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Well, they made that argument.\nThat was one of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1320.337, 1321.359], "stop_times": [1321.359, 1322.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.337}, "reply_to": "20110__0_132", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_134", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Isn't that point correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1322.08], "stop_times": [1322.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.08}, "reply_to": "20110__0_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_135", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Public access was one of the concerns that the court raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1322.38], "stop_times": [1324.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.38}, "reply_to": "20110__0_134", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_136", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1324.881], "stop_times": [1325.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.881}, "reply_to": "20110__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_137", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1325.332], "stop_times": [1325.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.332}, "reply_to": "20110__0_136", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_138", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And that's... I mean, the point is correct.\nWell, do you think that the requirement of very precise tailoring is consistent with sort of a prophylactic provision like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1325.682, 1327.223], "stop_times": [1327.223, 1333.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.682}, "reply_to": "20110__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_139", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I think no.\nIt has to be tailored specifically to what's taking place, and I think that precision of regulation is the standard, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1333.937, 1335.309], "stop_times": [1335.309, 1341.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.937}, "reply_to": "20110__0_138", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_140", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Sekulow, can you enter the 15-foot zone, crowd, and even grab, so long as you don't try to talk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1341.821], "stop_times": [1347.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.821}, "reply_to": "20110__0_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_141", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--You know, that's interesting.\nIt doesn't prohibit standing.\nIt doesn't prohibit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1347.335, 1348.737, 1350.096], "stop_times": [1348.737, 1350.096, 1351.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1347.335}, "reply_to": "20110__0_140", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_142", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "As long as you don't have a poster, and so long as you don't try to talk to the person, you can get within the 15 feet, grab, crowd, do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1351.007], "stop_times": [1356.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.007}, "reply_to": "20110__0_141", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_143", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Well, you know, it says that no demonstrator shall physically abuse, grab, or touch, but I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1356.972], "stop_times": [1362.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.972}, "reply_to": "20110__0_142", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_144", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--But the 15-foot zone does not apply to someone who is not trying to communicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1362.164], "stop_times": [1368.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.164}, "reply_to": "20110__0_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__0_145", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--That's... that is how I think this injunction can be read, and that's, I think, again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1368.259], "stop_times": [1372.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.259}, "reply_to": "20110__0_144", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_146", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Is there any evidence that the people who were grabbing and shoving before were tightlipped?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1372.072], "stop_times": [1376.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.072}, "reply_to": "20110__0_145", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_147", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No, there isn't, but I think... I think that--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1376.076, 1378.307], "stop_times": [1378.307, 1378.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.076}, "reply_to": "20110__0_146", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_148", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "The two go together, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1378.978], "stop_times": [1380.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.978}, "reply_to": "20110__0_147", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__0_149", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I think not in this context.\nI think yes, they can go together in the sense, is there a need for an injunction of some type?\nThe answer, yes.\nWe're not challenging the issuance of the injunction.\nHowever, does that mean that demonstrations, the holding of a sign, the wearing of a button within 15 foot, 15 feet of an individual, any person seeking access, is constitutional, and we think not.\nIt has to burden more speech than necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1380.297, 1381.709, 1385.349, 1386.401, 1388.374, 1400.121], "stop_times": [1381.709, 1385.349, 1386.401, 1388.374, 1400.121, 1401.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.297}, "reply_to": "20110__0_148", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_150", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Sekulow, what was... what is the meaning of something that the Government emphasizes in its brief, the provision that if the court concludes that some of the relief requested by the plaintiff should be granted, that the defendants will consent to the entry of an injunction against each and every one of them, and the Government tells us that the defendants thus stipulated below that any unlawful conduct found to have been performed by any of them could be attributed to all of them for purposes of the preliminary injunction.\nSo that sounds like if you did have some people crowding, pushing, needing this kind of keep-your-distance rule, that that same rule could apply to all of the people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1401.682, 1439.796], "stop_times": [1439.796, 1454.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.682}, "reply_to": "20110__0_149", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_151", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "There was a concession, Justice Ginsburg, in the district court regarding the nature of the evidence, and it simplified in a pretty real way, and a not necessarily beneficial one, it simplified the evidence that was presented.\nIt does not change the nature of what's being challenged here, though.\nWe're not saying that an injunction should not be issued.\nWe're not saying it applies to one person and not the other.\nWe're saying that any demonstrator is prohibited from demonstrating within a 15-foot zone and a floating zone that goes without geographic limitation whatsoever.\nNo geographic limitation of this zone.\nIt just floats, and we think that burdens more speech than necessary, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1454.536, 1463.993, 1466.933, 1468.464, 1470.925, 1478.902, 1481.133], "stop_times": [1463.993, 1466.933, 1468.464, 1470.925, 1478.902, 1481.133, 1484.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1454.536}, "reply_to": "20110__0_150", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_152", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Did you ask to have that clarified, because wasn't there a point where the district judge said, gee, that's not what I meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1484.956], "stop_times": [1492.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.956}, "reply_to": "20110__0_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__0_153", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I found that... we found that fascinating, too.\nThe Court said, my gosh, it would be impractical.\nIn fact, it says... it goes further.\nHe said, no one would know how to comply with the floating zone, but then he acknowledges it's floating, and the Second Circuit acknowledges it's floating, so maybe the judge at the district court level forgot what he meant, I don't know, but it burdens more speech than necessary because it does exactly what the judge was concerned about.\nHow does one know when to back off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1492.04, 1494.243, 1496.845, 1498.705, 1512.332], "stop_times": [1494.243, 1496.845, 1498.705, 1512.332, 1514.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.04}, "reply_to": "20110__0_152", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_154", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Sekulow, was it suggested at any point in the proceedings that it was inappropriate or inadvisable for the district court to maintain pendant jurisdiction in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1514.054], "stop_times": [1522.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.054}, "reply_to": "20110__0_153", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__0_155", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes, it was.\nIt was raised below, and it was rejected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1522.6, 1523.201], "stop_times": [1523.201, 1525.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1522.6}, "reply_to": "20110__0_154", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_156", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "You don't raise that point here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1525.132], "stop_times": [1526.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.132}, "reply_to": "20110__0_155", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__0_157", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, I think we're beyond that point.\nI think that at this point... we thought it was a valid issue.\nIt's not part of the cert petition in that sense.\nMr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1526.274, 1528.184, 1532.067, 1534.128], "stop_times": [1528.184, 1532.067, 1534.128, 1536.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1526.274}, "reply_to": "20110__0_156", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__0_158", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Very well, Mr. Sekulow.\nMs. Finley, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1536.479, 1538.051], "stop_times": [1538.051, 1540.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.479}, "reply_to": "20110__0_157", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_000", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think we cannot lose sight of the record and the evidence in this case.\nWe have here an unrelenting campaign by defendants of illegal and tortious harassment, intimidation, obstruction, and trespass at health care facilities.\nWe have to keep that in mind as well.\nThe activity that the district court found occurred repeatedly is antithetical to the need of surgical facilities and hospitals for quiet and calm.\nThe idea of quiet zones and buffer zones around hospitals is a well established traditional principle in law, and all we're trying to do here is make sure such a zone pertains outside these surgical facilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1540.134, 1549.08, 1553.051, 1563.489, 1564.959, 1574.836], "stop_times": [1549.08, 1553.051, 1563.489, 1564.959, 1574.836, 1588.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1540.134}, "reply_to": "20110__0_158", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_001", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "By requiring people to speak from a distance of 15 feet--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1588.354], "stop_times": [1591.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.354}, "reply_to": "20110__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_002", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "All... sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1591.308], "stop_times": [1593.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1591.308}, "reply_to": "20110__1_001", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_003", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--instead of coming up close, does that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1593.74], "stop_times": [1596.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.74}, "reply_to": "20110__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_004", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1596.031], "stop_times": [1596.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1596.031}, "reply_to": "20110__1_003", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_005", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--make the zone quieter or noisier?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1596.542], "stop_times": [1597.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.542}, "reply_to": "20110__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_006", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--The preliminary injunction allows sidewalk counselors to come right up to people, which is far more accommodating of defendants' free speech rights than the buffer zone affirmed by this Court in Madsen and by the buffer zone around polling places affirmed by this Court in Burson v. Freeman.\nThe injunction here gives far more leeway to defendants than buffer zones previously upheld by this Court, despite their record of dangerous, medically risky, intimidating and harassing activity.\nI think we need to focus on... yes, from 15 feet away they can, in fact, communicate.\nAs Justice Breyer pointed out, we are approximately 15 feet away now, and he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1597.891, 1616.343, 1629.621, 1635.986], "stop_times": [1616.343, 1629.621, 1635.986, 1641.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1597.891}, "reply_to": "20110__1_005", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_007", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Without any traffic and without any opposing escort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1641.408], "stop_times": [1645.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.408}, "reply_to": "20110__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_008", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--He refers to the hustle and bustle of streets.\nIn fact, the record shows most of the time when people are trying to get in it's about 7:00 in the morning, and there isn't much traffic on the streets at 7:00 in the morning.\nThe record also shows that the greatest amount of noise being created is by the defendants themselves.\nIf occasionally other people lose their cool and shout back, that's to be expected and understood in this kind of volatile situation.\nThe district court found that it's the persistent face-to-face harangue by the defendants that often triggers other people into starting to yell back.\nIt's the defendants' conduct who initiates all of this noise and cacophony outside of surgical facilities, and that is what the district court found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1645.371, 1647.772, 1655.369, 1662.843, 1669.898, 1679.897], "stop_times": [1647.772, 1655.369, 1662.843, 1669.898, 1679.897, 1688.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.371}, "reply_to": "20110__1_007", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_009", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, Ms. Finley, are you suggesting that there's some special rule for abortion clinics that wouldn't apply in other cases where people are being perhaps harassed or counseled or argued with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1688.659], "stop_times": [1701.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1688.659}, "reply_to": "20110__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_010", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No, not at all, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1701.809], "stop_times": [1703.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.809}, "reply_to": "20110__1_009", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_011", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Certainly Madsen doesn't say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1703.361], "stop_times": [1704.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.361}, "reply_to": "20110__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_012", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1704.932], "stop_times": [1705.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.932}, "reply_to": "20110__1_011", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_013", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Then why do you keep stressing the quiet zone outside the abortion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1705.773], "stop_times": [1708.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.773}, "reply_to": "20110__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_014", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Because Madsen did recognize that the governmental interest ensuring... in ensuring safe conditions for health care is a compelling interest, and I think we must keep in mind that that interest is very present in this case.\nSo I think there are a different calculus of governmental interests that are involved when protest is occurring outside hospitals and surgical facilities, as this Court recognized in the labor cases, NLRB v. Baptist Hospital and Beth Israel Hospital, so sometimes what might be a no more burdensome provision than necessary at a hospital, it may be different from what is no more burdensome than necessary at another sort of facility that doesn't have the same need for people being able to get in without being in stressed-out hysterics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1708.715, 1721.951], "stop_times": [1721.951, 1755.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1708.715}, "reply_to": "20110__1_013", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_015", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Did Madsen suggest that there has to be some underlying violation of statutory or common law to support a preliminary injunction burdening speech?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1755.625], "stop_times": [1766.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.625}, "reply_to": "20110__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_016", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, of course, to get a preliminary injunction anyone has to show a likelihood of success on the merits of some valid cause of action.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1766.19, 1773.907], "stop_times": [1773.907, 1775.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.19}, "reply_to": "20110__1_015", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_017", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Okay, and what is it here that you rely on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1775.386], "stop_times": [1777.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.386}, "reply_to": "20110__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_018", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Our causes of action... well, the district court found that in addition to the Federal civil rights claim that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1777.159], "stop_times": [1782.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1777.159}, "reply_to": "20110__1_017", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_019", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I thought that claim under section 1985(3) was dismissed here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1782.933], "stop_times": [1789.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.933}, "reply_to": "20110__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_020", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Dismissed, and subsequently the complaint was amended and it was reasserted, but the district court also found that the State law causes of action for trespass, which under New York law broadly protects people's use and enjoyment of their property rights, and the causes of action under New York State law for harassing people for exercising their right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1789.688], "stop_times": [1807.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.688}, "reply_to": "20110__1_019", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_021", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Could there be trespass on a public street or sidewalk, or would that just apply to the property of the clinic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1807.628], "stop_times": [1816.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.628}, "reply_to": "20110__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_022", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--In... under New York law, trespass is not simply the physical invasion of a line-demarcated private property.\nIt also includes interference with the fair and unfettered use and quiet enjoyment of your property.\nWe also have State law claims in the case for intentional interference with business relations, infliction of emotional distress.\nOur State law causes of action are virtually identical to the State law causes of action involved in Madsen.\nBut this issue of whether the State law claims in this case still warrant relief has never been raised by the petitioners in the lower court, which I think is the forum that should first be given the chance to look at the remaining causes of action in light of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1816.704, 1823.128, 1828.982, 1836.248, 1842.192], "stop_times": [1823.128, 1828.982, 1836.248, 1842.192, 1857.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.704}, "reply_to": "20110__1_021", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_023", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Did Madsen state that the consent requirement alone invalidated the no-approach provision in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1857.152], "stop_times": [1865.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.152}, "reply_to": "20110__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_024", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That is, I believe, an accurate quotation from Madsen, yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1865.547], "stop_times": [1869.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.547}, "reply_to": "20110__1_023", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_025", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "So are you asking that we ignore that here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1869.05], "stop_times": [1871.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.05}, "reply_to": "20110__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_026", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No.\nWe do not have a no-approach-without-consent provision in this injunction.\nThe cease-and-desist provision is substantially different.\nThe cease-and-desist provision specifically allows all uninvited approaches without consent.\nIt specifically allows the very thing the Madsen no approach zone did not allow.\nThere's a substantial difference under First Amendment law between not letting someone try to go up to somebody versus saying you have to respect that other person's right to refuse you.\nThis Court has repeatedly emphasized that the right to refuse a messenger, and the right to make your own choices about what you do and do not listen to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1871.461, 1871.821, 1875.763, 1878.276, 1884.467, 1890.043, 1900.189], "stop_times": [1871.821, 1875.763, 1878.276, 1884.467, 1890.043, 1900.189, 1909.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.461}, "reply_to": "20110__1_025", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_027", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But the reason... the reason we struck down the uninvited approach provision in Madsen is as follows, quoting from Boos v. Barry: As a general matter, we have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.\nNow, if you apply that same statement to... to what... unwanted speech just as we applied it to uninvited speech, it seems to me you get the same result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1909.805, 1932.299], "stop_times": [1932.299, 1943.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.805}, "reply_to": "20110__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_028", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Nobody under this injunction, Your Honor, is protected from any speech at all.\nThey're just protected from the forced physical proximity of an intimidating person with medical evidence that that forced physical proximity elevates health risks.\nEveryone here is going to have to encounter the message whether they want to or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1943.927, 1947.771, 1957.066], "stop_times": [1947.771, 1957.066, 1961.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.927}, "reply_to": "20110__1_027", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_029", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Medical evidence that the forced physical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1961.549], "stop_times": [1963.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.549}, "reply_to": "20110__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_030", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1963.702], "stop_times": [1964.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.702}, "reply_to": "20110__1_029", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_031", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--proximity... where is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1964.651], "stop_times": [1965.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.651}, "reply_to": "20110__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_032", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Dr. Hoagland's testimony, which is extensively recounted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1965.953], "stop_times": [1969.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1965.953}, "reply_to": "20110__1_031", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_033", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "He did studies on forced physical proximity, and it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1969.695], "stop_times": [1972.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.695}, "reply_to": "20110__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_034", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Dr. Hoagland was certified as an expert in both behavioral medicine and social impact theory, and social impact theory is, in fact, the study of how invasions of personal space create physical stress reactions, and the adverse effect of such reactions on medical care.\nThat was her precise area of expertise, and she testified about that at great length.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1972.176, 1989.858], "stop_times": [1989.858, 1993.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1972.176}, "reply_to": "20110__1_033", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_035", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--So we have experts like that now in any case where we're talking about this sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1993.511], "stop_times": [1998.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.511}, "reply_to": "20110__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_036", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I... it may be advisable for people to put on medical testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [1998.114], "stop_times": [2002.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.114}, "reply_to": "20110__1_035", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_037", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "What was she a specialist in, social impact theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2002.748], "stop_times": [2006.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.748}, "reply_to": "20110__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_038", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Behav... it's an established area of social science.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2006.081], "stop_times": [2011.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.081}, "reply_to": "20110__1_037", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_039", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Would you name it again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2011.023], "stop_times": [2012.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.023}, "reply_to": "20110__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_040", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "It's called social impact theory, a scholar named Edward Hall developed it in the fifties, and there's been an extensive body of research in the fields of psychology, medicine, and anthropology that have further studied it.\nIt's the idea, the basic idea that there is a zone of personal space, and it varies according to the nature of the encounter.\nFor example, the appropriate zone of personal space here for this sort of encounter is about 15 feet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2012.114, 2027.205, 2035.46], "stop_times": [2027.205, 2035.46, 2041.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.114}, "reply_to": "20110__1_039", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_041", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But I thought we had to... the Court had to find some violation of statutory or common law to justify a preliminary injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2041.143], "stop_times": [2053.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.143}, "reply_to": "20110__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_042", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And it did.\nIt found a likelihood of success on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2053.531, 2054.751], "stop_times": [2054.751, 2057.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.531}, "reply_to": "20110__1_041", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_043", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "So I don't know what this argument does to bolster that.\nI mean, it's not a theory of a violation of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2057.362, 2061.527], "stop_times": [2061.527, 2066.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.362}, "reply_to": "20110__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_044", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No.\nI think the relevance as I was responding to Justice Scalia's question, which I understood to be is there... what is the problem with having somebody force their physical proximity on you, so I was highlighting that particularly when people are going in for medical care, that is a... it escalates the health risks, which is a factor, of course, for injunctive relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2066.128, 2067.679], "stop_times": [2067.679, 2087.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2066.128}, "reply_to": "20110__1_043", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_045", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But you say the preliminary injunction could be based solely on testimony of an expert--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2087.433], "stop_times": [2093.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.433}, "reply_to": "20110__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_046", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Oh... oh, no... oh, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2093.507], "stop_times": [2095.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.507}, "reply_to": "20110__1_045", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_047", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--on this social theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2095.079], "stop_times": [2095.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.079}, "reply_to": "20110__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_048", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor, if you understood me to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2095.92], "stop_times": [2097.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.92}, "reply_to": "20110__1_047", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_049", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2097.902], "stop_times": [2098.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.902}, "reply_to": "20110__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__1_050", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Certainly I misspoke if I did.\nNo, that is not my position.\nMy position is that to get a preliminary injunction you have to show likelihood of success on the merits of a valid cause of action, irreparable injury, no adequate remedy at law, which the district court found that we in fact did, amply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2098.322, 2099.862, 2101.254], "stop_times": [2099.862, 2101.254, 2113.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.322}, "reply_to": "20110__1_049", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_051", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Do I understand, Ms. Finley, that that is still something that's open to inspection by the district judge?\nWe did start out with a 1985(3) claim that the district judge erroneously thought was solid.\nThen he said, but there are these State claims that can be substituted for it, and the Second Circuit refused... did not deal with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2113.581, 2120.785, 2126.149], "stop_times": [2120.785, 2126.149, 2135.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.581}, "reply_to": "20110__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__1_052", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Absolutely yes, Your Honor, it is very much open to the district court.\nThis is a preliminary injunction.\nEverything is open to the district court.\nThe Second Circuit instructed petitioners and the panel 2 years ago that they should take these arguments to the district court where they belong, and they never have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2135.886, 2140.139, 2142.221, 2144.251], "stop_times": [2140.139, 2142.221, 2144.251, 2152.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.886}, "reply_to": "20110__1_051", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_053", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "So the viability of this whole case under State law has yet to be fully tested in the district court, and it hasn't been touched by the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2152.896], "stop_times": [2161.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2152.896}, "reply_to": "20110__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__1_054", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2161.522], "stop_times": [2162.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.522}, "reply_to": "20110__1_053", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_055", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But the district judge did make a preliminary finding that you had under New York law a probability of success on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2162.633], "stop_times": [2170.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.633}, "reply_to": "20110__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__1_056", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2170.548], "stop_times": [2172.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.548}, "reply_to": "20110__1_055", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_057", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But even... regarding... you're not contending that the provisions of the injunction do not have to be designed to prevent a violation of the law, as opposed to prevent the kind of emotional upset that your expert testimony related to.\nYou still acknowledge that the provisions of the injunction must be ordinated to preventing a violation of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2172.711, 2186.719], "stop_times": [2186.719, 2192.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.711}, "reply_to": "20110__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_058", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes, of course.\nThe expert testimony documented elevated physical medical risk, which is substantially greater than mere emotional upset.\nI want to move a moment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2192.593, 2194.042, 2202.1], "stop_times": [2194.042, 2202.1, 2204.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.593}, "reply_to": "20110__1_057", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_059", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I don't understand that.\nDoes that have anything to do with whether State law is being violated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2204.861, 2205.382], "stop_times": [2205.382, 2208.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.861}, "reply_to": "20110__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_060", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No.\nYour Honor.\nNo.\nWell, it may.\nWe've never yet tested in the district court the State law claims for tortious harassment, for example, and whether someone is being put under medically dangerous physical stress may be highly relevant to whether you've made out a claim for harassment.\nThat issue has never yet been tested in the district court.\nAlso, the amount of stress caused, and distress, may be highly relevant to whether we've made out a claim under our State law cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.\nIn this context of antiabortion protest, there are State law-based decisions finding that conduct very similar to what defendants here do constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2208.344, 2209.193, 2210.295, 2210.675, 2211.434, 2224.824, 2228.857, 2239.834], "stop_times": [2209.193, 2210.295, 2210.675, 2211.434, 2224.824, 2228.857, 2239.834, 2252.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.344}, "reply_to": "20110__1_059", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_061", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I would say that persons who walk through a picket line in order to work despite a strike face extreme stress.\nHave we ever in the labor area recognized that stressed individuals is ground for enjoining picketing and labor protest activities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2252.162, 2260.267], "stop_times": [2260.267, 2271.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.162}, "reply_to": "20110__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_062", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "In the labor context, many courts have established buffer zones to keep the picketers out of the face of people, particularly when they're picketing at hospitals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2271.593], "stop_times": [2280.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.593}, "reply_to": "20110__1_061", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_063", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But this is an order to prevent violence, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2280.65], "stop_times": [2285.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.65}, "reply_to": "20110__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_064", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Violence and intimidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2285.125], "stop_times": [2287.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.125}, "reply_to": "20110__1_063", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_065", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Those cases do not talk about stress to the individual.\nThat's somewhat antithetical to very, very essential First Amendment values.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2287.705, 2289.506], "stop_times": [2289.506, 2295.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.705}, "reply_to": "20110__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_066", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, I think that when people are going in for surgery, and there's medical evidence that to safely perform the surgery the stress needs to be reduced, not elevated, that is a governmental interest that is present in this context that is only present in labor contexts when people are picketing at hospitals or nursing homes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2295.55], "stop_times": [2318.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.55}, "reply_to": "20110__1_065", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_067", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And I submit to you that anybody who walks through a picket line at any facility in order to take a job during the pendency of a strike is subjected to great emotional stress, and our cases have never recognized that as a ground for injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2318.514], "stop_times": [2332.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.514}, "reply_to": "20110__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_068", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Well, Madsen recognized that the elevated medical risks are a governmental interest that needs to be weighed in assessing whether the restrictions on speech are no more burdensome than necessary to protect that governmental interest in ensuring safe conditions for health care.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2332.135], "stop_times": [2349.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.135}, "reply_to": "20110__1_067", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_069", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But only in the context of keeping the noise down outside the hospital which could be heard inside.\nWe studiously avoided using that as a basis for validating any of the restrictions imposed outside the facility which could not... with respect to speech that could not be heard inside.\nIsn't that what we did in Madsen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2349.826, 2356.819, 2371.158], "stop_times": [2356.819, 2371.158, 2373.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.826}, "reply_to": "20110__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_070", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, I'm sure Your Honors know better what you did in Madsen than I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2373.231], "stop_times": [2377.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.231}, "reply_to": "20110__1_069", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_071", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Oh, I doubt it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2377.834, 2378.465], "stop_times": [2378.465, 2379.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.834}, "reply_to": "20110__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_072", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That discussion was... yes, Your Honor, that discussion was linked to the noise provision, but the same interest pertains when people are having others screaming in their face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2379.526], "stop_times": [2390.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.526}, "reply_to": "20110__1_071", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_073", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, what about a situation such as Justice Kennedy posits, where you walk through a picket line to go to work, and you've got a very important assignment that day, and you feel you're subjected to a great deal of stress, you're not going to be able to do that work.\nNow, is that kind of a separate governmental interest that has to be taken into consideration, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2390.863, 2405.182], "stop_times": [2405.182, 2409.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.863}, "reply_to": "20110__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_074", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Whether the protest conduct disrupts the safe and normal functioning of the place is a basic governmental interest that this Court has recognized many times in Grayned v. Rockford on, so I think yes, whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2409.824], "stop_times": [2424.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.824}, "reply_to": "20110__1_073", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_075", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Ms. Finley, why do you lay such stress on this point, when I thought the major reason for the injunction and for its provisions was that there was a history of grabbing, pushing, shoving, and the district judge thought that it was reasonable to have a keep-your-distance rule to make sure that the pushing, grabbing, and shoving didn't go on again?\nI did not regard whatever you call that expert as central to your case, and perhaps you ought to clarify whether it is an extra, or whether it's pivotal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2424.504, 2449.42], "stop_times": [2449.42, 2460.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.504}, "reply_to": "20110__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__1_076", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No, I would agree, Your Honor, with your point that the defendant's persistent, proven conduct of crowding, grabbing, punching, sometimes knocking people down is what necessitates some kind of a clear zone in this case.\nI also want to emphasize this idea of floating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2460.248, 2475.196], "stop_times": [2475.196, 2477.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.248}, "reply_to": "20110__1_075", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_077", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "It's not enough that the zone be reasonable, though.\nYou use the language, necessitates.\nIt isn't enough that it be reasonable to establish--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2477.299, 2479.47, 2481.781], "stop_times": [2479.47, 2481.781, 2484.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.299}, "reply_to": "20110__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_078", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No.\nIn Madsen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2484.923, 2485.374], "stop_times": [2485.374, 2485.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.923}, "reply_to": "20110__1_077", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_079", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--such a zone.\nThe zone must be no more than is necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2485.905, 2486.445], "stop_times": [2486.445, 2488.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.905}, "reply_to": "20110__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__1_080", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--That's right, and here the 15-feet, the length of a car, is necessary to ensure that a car can safely drive down the road.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2488.446], "stop_times": [2496.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.446}, "reply_to": "20110__1_079", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_081", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, it's 15 feet on all sides.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2496.75], "stop_times": [2498.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.75}, "reply_to": "20110__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_082", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "All sides of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2498.292], "stop_times": [2500.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.292}, "reply_to": "20110__1_081", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_083", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Of the person, I take it, or the vehicle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2500.544], "stop_times": [2501.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.544}, "reply_to": "20110__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_084", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes.\nIt would be like a circle around, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2501.996, 2502.754], "stop_times": [2502.754, 2504.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.996}, "reply_to": "20110__1_083", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_085", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "All right, and so if you have two people, that amounts to a 60-foot exclusion zone, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2504.735], "stop_times": [2508.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.735}, "reply_to": "20110__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_086", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No.\nTwo people are walking side by side--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2508.168, 2509.2], "stop_times": [2509.2, 2511.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.168}, "reply_to": "20110__1_085", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_087", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No.\nI have two people walking 15 feet away from each other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2511.671, 2512.061], "stop_times": [2512.061, 2514.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.671}, "reply_to": "20110__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_088", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--But at all points sidewalk counselors can always come right up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2514.192], "stop_times": [2517.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.192}, "reply_to": "20110__1_087", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_089", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I'm talking about the extent of the zone.\nIt can be 60 feet if two people are walking 15 feet away from each other, each being protected by the bubble.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2517.624, 2519.996], "stop_times": [2519.996, 2524.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2517.624}, "reply_to": "20110__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_090", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I think I would say it could be 30 feet but not 60, 15 in this direction and 15... that's 30.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2524.9], "stop_times": [2533.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.9}, "reply_to": "20110__1_089", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_091", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "At the outer extremities it would be 60.\nThere's a 60-foot slot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2533.626, 2535.166], "stop_times": [2535.166, 2538.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.626}, "reply_to": "20110__1_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_092", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "It could possibly be, although--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2538.028], "stop_times": [2540.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.028}, "reply_to": "20110__1_091", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_093", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Fifteen... well, it's not... it's mathematical.\nIt's 15 feet to the left, 15 feet to the right, 15 feet each between, that's 60, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2540.141, 2542.07], "stop_times": [2542.07, 2546.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.141}, "reply_to": "20110__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_094", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--The reason I said possibly is there's no evidence in the record of that problem ever happening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2546.453], "stop_times": [2550.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.453}, "reply_to": "20110__1_093", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_095", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Do we need evidence to add 15 X 4?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2550.326, 2553.037], "stop_times": [2553.037, 2555.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.326}, "reply_to": "20110__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__1_096", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No, Your Honor, we don't need a mathematical expert.\nBut this... the point you're raising--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2555.11, 2557.492], "stop_times": [2557.492, 2559.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.11}, "reply_to": "20110__1_095", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_097", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Of course, we don't have to limit it to two.\nThey could have four each, 15 feet apart.\n[Laughter]\nIt would take care of a four-lane highway.\nI don't know why Justice Kennedy limits it to two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2559.603, 2560.814, 2562.515, 2562.736, 2563.717], "stop_times": [2560.814, 2562.515, 2562.736, 2563.717, 2566.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.603}, "reply_to": "20110__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__1_098", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I think you're alluding to the notion of the floating bubble, and I want to remind this Court that judges under a Federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1507, have what amounts to a floating bubble around any building or residence you use or occupy.\nPeople can't go near--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2566.278, 2582.951], "stop_times": [2582.951, 2584.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.278}, "reply_to": "20110__1_097", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_099", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes, but the building doesn't float.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2584.71, 2586.19], "stop_times": [2586.19, 2587.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.71}, "reply_to": "20110__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__1_100", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--But judges move from building to building, and it says building or residence used or occupied by judges, so you are protected from people demonstrating near your courthouse, your home, an office you may use off-premises--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2587.091], "stop_times": [2604.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2587.091}, "reply_to": "20110__1_099", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_101", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes, but I have to get... On the hypothesis you're raising, I have to get to the courthouse or to the house, or whatnot, before the zone appears.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2604.773], "stop_times": [2613.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.773}, "reply_to": "20110__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__1_102", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes, and it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2613.359], "stop_times": [2614.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.359}, "reply_to": "20110__1_101", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_103", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "It doesn't come out to meet me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2614.901], "stop_times": [2616.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.901}, "reply_to": "20110__1_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__1_104", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No, and if there were a record that protestors started impeding your paths as you tried to go to work or to home, I submit someone could easily get an injunction to keep a clear zone--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2616.641], "stop_times": [2627.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.641}, "reply_to": "20110__1_103", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_105", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But wouldn't the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2627.667], "stop_times": [2628.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.667}, "reply_to": "20110__1_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__1_106", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--around you so you could get to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2628.358], "stop_times": [2629.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2628.358}, "reply_to": "20110__1_105", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_107", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--But wouldn't there be a difference, and isn't this the difficulty in this case, that if there were simply a 15-foot zone around one person, that's fairly easy to administer and to police, but when you've got multiple, intersecting 15-foot zones around a lot of people who may even be subject to argument as even covered by the zone, you've got something which is far more difficult to administer.\nAnd I was suggesting a moment ago that... when Mr. Sekulow was arguing that there was a kind of a practicality consideration in having a zone at all, but there's another practicality argument, and that is when the zones are moving and intersecting like this, it may be difficult to enforce with reliable evidence, with reliable proof.\nAnd isn't that a good argument for saying, don't have floating zones, have fixed zones.\nRealize that things are going to be unpleasant outside the fixed zones, they're going to be less unpleasant inside, but everybody will know where the line is, and the First Amendment isn't going to suffer from the uncertainty.\nIsn't that a fair argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2629.57, 2658.169, 2684.095, 2691.311, 2703.098], "stop_times": [2658.169, 2684.095, 2691.311, 2703.098, 2704.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.57}, "reply_to": "20110__1_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__1_108", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I think it is, Your Honor, and just if I may conclude the point... I see the red light is on... that a lot of the problems you're alluding to are precisely because the district judge here gave the defendants more leeway than the fixed zone in Madsen.\nHe allowed them on the same side of the sidewalk, which creates the need to have a clear zone around people.\nIf you push them across the street, as you affirmed in Madsen, a lot of these problems would not arise, and this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2704.18, 2717.097, 2723.291], "stop_times": [2717.097, 2723.291, 2730.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2704.18}, "reply_to": "20110__1_107", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_109", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Finley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2730.056], "stop_times": [2730.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.056}, "reply_to": "20110__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__1_110", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2730.777], "stop_times": [2731.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.777}, "reply_to": "20110__1_109", "speaker": "lucinda_m_finley"}
{"id": "20110__1_111", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "General Dellinger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2731.246], "stop_times": [2733.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.246}, "reply_to": "20110__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__2_000", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn light of the questions about the practicality of how this injunction works, it might be useful to look at this case from the vantage point of the trial judge in February of 1992.\nAt that point, he had had several days of hearings on the preliminary injunction and weeks of testimony on the contempt proceedings against Paul and Robert Schenck and others who violated the temporary restraining order.\nOne of his findings, and they're set out at pages 79 to 149 of the Joint Appendix, one of his findings was that these named defendants had deliberately engaged in a technique of physically crowding in an intimidating and obstructing manner.\nWhat's a trial judge supposed to do in the face of that kind of finding?\nIf he were to issue an injunction precisely in those terms ordering the defendants to cease crowding in an intimidating and obstructing manner, what problems would that cause for a police officer who is at the scene, trying to understand how to enforce that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2733.779, 2741.995, 2756.613, 2770.432, 2792.847, 2798.602], "stop_times": [2741.995, 2756.613, 2770.432, 2792.847, 2798.602, 2815.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2733.779}, "reply_to": "20110__1_111", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_001", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, one of the things he's supposed to do is read the First Amendment, I take it, and what he's doing here is, he's prohibiting certain conduct based on speech, and that means that the injunction must be precisely tailored.\nIt's not just to eliminate harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2815.412, 2831.242], "stop_times": [2831.242, 2833.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.412}, "reply_to": "20110__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__2_002", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2833.664], "stop_times": [2834.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2833.664}, "reply_to": "20110__2_001", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_003", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "This injunction goes much further than that, and if you want to defend it as saying that everything here is necessary to avoid the touching, grabbing aspect, that's one thing, but the harassment rationale as I see it goes much further.\nIt protects people against repeated, very annoying, very stressful expression of views by those who differ with them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2834.973, 2851.115], "stop_times": [2851.115, 2860.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.973}, "reply_to": "20110__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__2_004", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2860.492], "stop_times": [2862.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2860.492}, "reply_to": "20110__2_003", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_005", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--and that's a very difficult First Amendment case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2862.252], "stop_times": [2864.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.252}, "reply_to": "20110__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20110__2_006", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I believe that it is not difficult because the trial judge did tailor this to burden no more speech than necessary by making it clear that this message, or messages could continue to be conveyed.\nThere's no speech that is silenced by this injunction.\nI think the judge understood that the message that someone is about to commit a deeply immoral act is disturbing and upsetting, but that's the price of the First Amendment.\nOne of our citizens has a constitutional right to convey that message to another, but in this case to avoid a different kind of problem, not the message, but two aspects of the crowding that are not related to the message are at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2864.363, 2883.426, 2888.218, 2900.307], "stop_times": [2883.426, 2888.218, 2900.307, 2916.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2864.363}, "reply_to": "20110__2_005", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_007", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2916.817], "stop_times": [2918.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.817}, "reply_to": "20110__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__2_008", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Justice Breyer, if you wish... well, in further response to Justice Kennedy, one of those issues is the sheer effect of the crowding itself, that is, the use of what were called constructive blockades by having 4, 6, 10 people literally crowd around a patient as she attempted to approach the clinic, and to use that in an intimidating way.\nThe second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2918.639, 2942.365], "stop_times": [2942.365, 2943.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2918.639}, "reply_to": "20110__2_007", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_009", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I don't under... why is that a constructive blockade?\nI... a blockade means preventing somebody from entering.\nWere these people preventing anyone from entering?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2943.804, 2946.316, 2950.609], "stop_times": [2946.316, 2950.609, 2953.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.804}, "reply_to": "20110__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_010", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--It was a construct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2953.18], "stop_times": [2954.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2953.18}, "reply_to": "20110__2_009", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_011", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "They were just annoying the person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2954.462], "stop_times": [2956.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.462}, "reply_to": "20110__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_012", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2956.003], "stop_times": [2956.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2956.003}, "reply_to": "20110__2_011", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_013", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--and that's why it was a constructive blockade.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2956.383], "stop_times": [2958.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.383}, "reply_to": "20110__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_014", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, they were not physically barring the people from entering, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2958.163], "stop_times": [2962.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2958.163}, "reply_to": "20110__2_013", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_015", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well then, it's not a blockade--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2962.837], "stop_times": [2963.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.837}, "reply_to": "20110__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_016", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Then it's not a blockade.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2963.668], "stop_times": [2964.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2963.668}, "reply_to": "20110__2_015", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_017", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--constructive or otherwise, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2964.819], "stop_times": [2966.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.819}, "reply_to": "20110__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_018", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "The term, constructive blockade I think came from those who were engaged in them, Justice Scalia, because the use of 4, 6, or 10 people to crowd around an individual and to use that effect... we had testimony, or the plaintiffs had testimony in this case of one of the women who said she felt like she was in the middle of a lynch mob.\nThat is intended to dissuade people from continuing to go, not by appealing to her conscience or her shame or her medical self-interest, but to dissuade her because of running this gauntlet, and if that prevents people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [2966.07, 2988.423], "stop_times": [2988.423, 3000.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2966.07}, "reply_to": "20110__2_017", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_019", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I see.\nAre you going to apply that to labor picketing, too?\nAnd Claiborne Hardware case, where the Court... this Court struck down a speech-restrictive injunction because the violence that accompanied it was episodic and isolated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3000.942, 3002.523, 3005.447], "stop_times": [3002.523, 3005.447, 3020.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.942}, "reply_to": "20110__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_020", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Here, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3020.106], "stop_times": [3021.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3020.106}, "reply_to": "20110__2_019", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_021", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "How do you distinguish that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3021.045], "stop_times": [3023.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.045}, "reply_to": "20110__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__2_022", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Here I think it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3023.056], "stop_times": [3025.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3023.056}, "reply_to": "20110__2_021", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_023", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And it effectively prevented people from entering a restaurant, or what have you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3025.59], "stop_times": [3030.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.59}, "reply_to": "20110__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__2_024", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I think the difference is that in this case the... first of all, there was a record... the contempt proceedings are probably the most accessible place... that this was constant and ongoing, and this was an attempt that this was a medical facility, its--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3030.561], "stop_times": [3047.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3030.561}, "reply_to": "20110__2_023", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_025", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But I thought there were something like five episodes over 18 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3047.833], "stop_times": [3053.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.833}, "reply_to": "20110__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20110__2_026", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Those were the ones, I think, that were raised in the contempt proceedings.\nThe actual controversy itself, the actual proceedings were continuous and, of course, they were under, as several justices noted, under a TRO, so that, you know, ideally they're... they... there shouldn't have been any.\nWhat the judge did in this case, faced with this situation and trying to give some kind of guidance that would be useful to the parties, to the police, is to set what Justice Ginsburg called a keep-your-distance rule.\nBasically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3053.837, 3057.47, 3071.017, 3085.177], "stop_times": [3057.47, 3071.017, 3085.177, 3086.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3053.837}, "reply_to": "20110__2_025", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_027", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "In answer to Justice Kennedy and Justice O'Connor, and I wonder, I'm just asking this, is it relevant to consider this is not labor picketing or civil rights picketing because the people by and large are pregnant women who are undergoing a serious medical procedure.\nYou haven't brought that up, and I wonder the extent to which that is constitutionally relevant.\nI would think it might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3086.108, 3106.021, 3110.775], "stop_times": [3106.021, 3110.775, 3113.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.108}, "reply_to": "20110__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__2_028", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--I do think it is relevant in precisely this way.\nThe Court's decisions, like Grayned v. City of Rockford, about a public school, NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, cases like that, note that the Government interest is sometimes dependent upon the nature of the activities that are to occur.\nYou don't need social science... you don't need social science evidence to reach the conclusion that having to go through this kind of obstructive and intimidating crowding is not good for people who are on their way to see the doctor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3113.415, 3117.557, 3131.828], "stop_times": [3117.557, 3131.828, 3143.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3113.415}, "reply_to": "20110__2_027", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_029", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Is there... well, that's it, on their way to see the doctor.\nSurely it's not the case that every woman who's going in there is going in to have an abortion.\nI assume they must visit the clinic at least once beforehand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3143.737, 3146.469, 3150.259], "stop_times": [3146.469, 3150.259, 3153.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.737}, "reply_to": "20110__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_030", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "There are different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3153.862], "stop_times": [3156.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3153.862}, "reply_to": "20110__2_029", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_031", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And maybe once afterwards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3156.263], "stop_times": [3157.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3156.263}, "reply_to": "20110__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_032", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3157.264], "stop_times": [3157.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3157.264}, "reply_to": "20110__2_031", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_033", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "So probably less than half of the women who are going in, just to speak of the women who are going in... does this injunction apply only to women going in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3157.755], "stop_times": [3166.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3157.755}, "reply_to": "20110__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_034", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No.\nIt applies to all of those, including staff members, who--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3166.06, 3166.39], "stop_times": [3166.39, 3168.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3166.06}, "reply_to": "20110__2_033", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_035", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Who go in, so even if you take just the women, probably less than half of them are going in to have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3168.422], "stop_times": [3173.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.422}, "reply_to": "20110__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_036", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3173.864], "stop_times": [3174.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3173.864}, "reply_to": "20110__2_035", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_037", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--a medical procedure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3174.595], "stop_times": [3175.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.595}, "reply_to": "20110__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_038", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3175.457], "stop_times": [3176.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3175.457}, "reply_to": "20110__2_037", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_039", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3176.178], "stop_times": [3177.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.178}, "reply_to": "20110__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_040", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes.\nAt least there are probably less than half of them are going in.\nSome may be being treated for cervical cancer, or for a number of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3177.347, 3177.707, 3181.261], "stop_times": [3177.707, 3181.261, 3185.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3177.347}, "reply_to": "20110__2_039", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_041", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "So would the same reasoning apply simply to a group of, a building where doctors had offices but no surgical procedures were performed?\nWould the same stress analysis apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3185.592, 3194.02], "stop_times": [3194.02, 3196.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3185.592}, "reply_to": "20110__2_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__2_042", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--It would apply, Chief Justice Rehnquist, but with, I think, significantly less force than it does in those facilities where stress applies.\nBasically these... what the judge came up with, here, while protecting the ability to convey this message, was a simple set of rules.\nIf you read... if you read the preliminary injunction at pages 183 and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3196.941, 3204.355, 3213.651], "stop_times": [3204.355, 3213.651, 3218.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3196.941}, "reply_to": "20110__2_041", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_043", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Dellinger, may I interrupt you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3218.564], "stop_times": [3220.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.564}, "reply_to": "20110__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__2_044", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3220.457], "stop_times": [3220.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3220.457}, "reply_to": "20110__2_043", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_045", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--because I think you're going on to another point, and I just want to raise another point along Justice Breyer's lines.\nIs your argument that when the State is... or when the court is enforcing, let's say, a trespassing law, in determining what would be an appropriate injunction to enforce that star to preclude threatened violations, it may take into consideration the activities of the victims, and if the activity of the victim may be to obtain medical treatment, then high blood pressure can be taken into account.\nIs that basically your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3220.938, 3225.95, 3260.542], "stop_times": [3225.95, 3260.542, 3262.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.938}, "reply_to": "20110__2_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20110__2_046", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Yes, that is certainly part of a calculation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3262.443], "stop_times": [3267.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3262.443}, "reply_to": "20110__2_045", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_047", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "So labor picketing in the context of air traffic controllers would be a different case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3267.738], "stop_times": [3273.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.738}, "reply_to": "20110__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_048", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3273.661], "stop_times": [3275.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3273.661}, "reply_to": "20110__2_047", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_049", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Because you don't want to upset air traffic controllers.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3275.041, 3277.652], "stop_times": [3277.652, 3279.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.041}, "reply_to": "20110__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__2_050", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--It is... it is not at all clear that there would be any prohibition in the First Amendment or elsewhere on the use of close physical proximity and an intimidating and obstructing manner whether you're dealing with judges coming to work or air traffic controllers.\nI mean, I think what you want to look at the cases and be careful about, as this judge was, is that you do not want to predicate an injunction on the fact that the message would be upsetting to the air traffic controllers or the judge.\nThe message is something we have to tolerate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3279.785, 3298.346, 3309.714], "stop_times": [3298.346, 3309.714, 3311.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3279.785}, "reply_to": "20110__2_049", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_051", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "General Dellinger, what is careful about 15 feet of any personal vehicle seeking access to or leaving?\nOne point that was made is, there's no definition of when access begins or when leaving ends, so this could go on and on and on.\nThere's no stopping point and there's no starting point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3311.506, 3318.95, 3329.458], "stop_times": [3318.95, 3329.458, 3331.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.506}, "reply_to": "20110__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__2_052", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Justice O'Connor, at page 29 of the Joint Appendix the judge... I'm sorry.\nI'm sorry, Justice Ginsburg... at page 8... 29 of the Joint Appendix the judge notes precisely that this is limited to activities that are at the sites, not anywhere you may go in doing it, and it is limited as well by the fact that it simply says, stop crowding these patients and let them walk away.\nIt doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3331.899, 3336.712, 3363.007], "stop_times": [3336.712, 3363.007, 3363.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3331.899}, "reply_to": "20110__2_051", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_053", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3363.698], "stop_times": [3364.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.698}, "reply_to": "20110__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__2_054", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3364.88], "stop_times": [3366.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3364.88}, "reply_to": "20110__2_053", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20110__2_055", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Sekulow, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3366.06], "stop_times": [3367.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.06}, "reply_to": "20110__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20110__3_000", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nActually, what General Dellinger was referring to on page 29 says that the scope of the injunction and these injunction floating zones do float without geographic limitation.\nIt says that they are structured to protect the rights of all party and directed to the activities at the site chosen for demonstration.\nAnyplace these individuals are demonstrating is the site chosen for demonstration.\nAs I understand the Government's argument and the respondents', there is now a medical exception to the First Amendment.\nThis Court in Madsen dealt with evidence that came to the same conclusions regarding increased stress.\nDespite that increased stress, the no-approach zone was still deemed to burden more speech than necessary.\nIf the owner of Claiborne Hardware had a heart condition, would he now say, get these protesters away from the front of my store because I've got a heart condition that's going to be aggravated when I go in there, and I think the answer has to be no to that, that... the owner of a fur store is aggravated because there's animal rights protesters out there picketing.\nI think these are the types of things which is part of our free debate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3367.542, 3368.902, 3378.739, 3385.574, 3390.006, 3396.731, 3402.153, 3408.779, 3428.561], "stop_times": [3368.902, 3378.739, 3385.574, 3390.006, 3396.731, 3402.153, 3408.779, 3428.561, 3432.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3367.542}, "reply_to": "20110__2_055", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__3_001", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words can never hurt me.\nThat's the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3432.575, 3435.858], "stop_times": [3435.858, 3436.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3432.575}, "reply_to": "20110__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20110__3_002", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "That's certainly our position of it, and that is exactly correct, and those verbs might be aggressive advocacy, and I think it's also important--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3436.755], "stop_times": [3443.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3436.755}, "reply_to": "20110__3_001", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__3_003", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And your point is they've never used sticks or stones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3443.982], "stop_times": [3446.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.982}, "reply_to": "20110__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__3_004", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Not these clients.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3446.262], "stop_times": [3447.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3446.262}, "reply_to": "20110__3_003", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__3_005", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3447.494], "stop_times": [3448.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.494}, "reply_to": "20110__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20110__3_006", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But they do use words, but it's interesting, those words under this injunction, if they were directed at, say, a Xerox salesman who was doing business with the abortion facility and a demonstrator were to try to approach him and say, please don't do business with this facility because they're engaged in a practice that we personally find abhorrent.\nThat Xerox salesman... not just the woman seeking abortion... that Xerox salesman has the advantage of this injunction.\nOn page 183, it says it applies to any person seeking access.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3448.255, 3467.137, 3474.463], "stop_times": [3467.137, 3474.463, 3478.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3448.255}, "reply_to": "20110__3_005", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__3_007", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "But if in fact, coming right next to a person, right in their face, screaming at them and so forth, does physically hurt them, then it's like a stick or stone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3478.924], "stop_times": [3487.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3478.924}, "reply_to": "20110__3_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__3_008", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Well, I think that's actually prohibited by the injunction that we're not challenging, screaming in someone's face to the point where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3487.83], "stop_times": [3493.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3487.83}, "reply_to": "20110__3_007", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__3_009", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "And if pressing around them and so forth hurts them as they're going into a medical procedure, then it's like a stick or stone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3493.554], "stop_times": [3499.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3493.554}, "reply_to": "20110__3_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20110__3_010", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--And I think that's why section 1(c), Justice Breyer, prohibits crowding, and we're not challenging that.\nBut this injunction on the cease-and-desist provision on paragraph 1(c) says that it can be imposed by any person or any group of persons, so a group of persons are entering the abortion facility, the woman seeking the abortion wants to get the information, wants to talk to the sidewalk counselor, but the companion says no.\nUnder this injunction, under section (c), 1(c), the cease-and-desist provision is implicated.\nThat's the way it's drafted.\nThat burdens more speech than necessary.\nThe citation, and it's consistent in the briefs, we think it just misses the mark, and that is the Beth Israel Hospital v. NRLB did not say you can't distribute literature inside a hospital.\nIt said that... which by the way, of course, as this Court knows, NLRB was not a First Amendment case, but it overturned a prohibition on leafleting and solicitation in the cafeteria and in the lunchroom in a private hospital where patients did gather on occasion, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3499.127, 3503.671, 3521.723, 3527.397, 3528.196, 3531.247, 3541.856], "stop_times": [3503.671, 3521.723, 3527.397, 3528.196, 3531.247, 3541.856, 3555.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3499.127}, "reply_to": "20110__3_009", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__3_011", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Mr. Sekulow, was there any followup to the colloquy with the district judge, who seemed to recognize that there was some ambiguity in this 15... what has been referred to here as the bubble zone within 15 feet of persons or vehicles seeking access to, or leaving the facilities... you've called our attention to that colloquy where the judge said, gosh, I didn't mean that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3555.475], "stop_times": [3579.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3555.475}, "reply_to": "20110__3_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20110__3_012", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "--Your Honor, I was referring to the reply brief, the attachment at appendix A-3.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3579.961], "stop_times": [3585.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3579.961}, "reply_to": "20110__3_011", "speaker": "jay_alan_sekulow"}
{"id": "20110__3_013", "conversation_id": "20110", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sekulow.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1065", "start_times": [3585.605, 3586.355], "stop_times": [3586.355, 3587.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3585.605}, "reply_to": "20110__3_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__0_000", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1872, William Strate v. A-1 Contractors and Lyle Stockert.\nSpectators are admonished, do not talk until you get outside the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nMs. McCoy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [0.0, 12.068, 16.412, 16.562], "stop_times": [12.068, 16.412, 16.562, 16.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__0_001", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is about whether an Indian tribe has jurisdiction over a tort action between two non-Indians.\nA-1 Contractors was working on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation for the tribe's company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [16.802, 19.805, 27.018], "stop_times": [19.805, 27.018, 33.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 16.802}, "reply_to": "20212__0_000", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_002", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Where is the reservation, Ms. McCoy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [33.592], "stop_times": [36.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 33.592}, "reply_to": "20212__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_003", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "The reservation is within the State of North Dakota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [36.424], "stop_times": [39.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 36.424}, "reply_to": "20212__0_002", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_004", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And the accident occurred on a State highway on the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [39.366], "stop_times": [47.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 39.366}, "reply_to": "20212__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_005", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [47.872], "stop_times": [49.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 47.872}, "reply_to": "20212__0_004", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_006", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And what entity sets the speed limits and the regulations for driving on that State highway?\nIs it the State of North Dakota?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [49.524, 59.742], "stop_times": [59.742, 62.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 49.524}, "reply_to": "20212__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_007", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, it is the State that sets the speed limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [62.082], "stop_times": [65.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 62.082}, "reply_to": "20212__0_006", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_008", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And the other rules applicable to driving on that State highway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [65.705], "stop_times": [69.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.705}, "reply_to": "20212__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_009", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Those are set by both the tribe and the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [69.579], "stop_times": [73.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 69.579}, "reply_to": "20212__0_008", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_010", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "They have different regulations.\nThe State could say, no left turn without a stop, and the tribe could say something the opposite?\nNo right turn.\nNo right turn, or whatever it is.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [73.539, 74.761, 80.484, 81.706, 83.576], "stop_times": [74.761, 80.484, 81.706, 83.576, 84.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 73.539}, "reply_to": "20212__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_011", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "At this time, Your Honor, there's never been a case that's answered any kind of conflict between the regulatory jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [84.708], "stop_times": [91.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 84.708}, "reply_to": "20212__0_010", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_012", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But the State purports to adopt rules and regulations and standards for driving on that State highway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [91.701], "stop_times": [98.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.701}, "reply_to": "20212__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_013", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct, as does the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [98.496], "stop_times": [100.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 98.496}, "reply_to": "20212__0_012", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_014", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And could a State police officer be there and issue citations for a violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [100.139], "stop_times": [106.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.139}, "reply_to": "20212__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_015", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [106.161], "stop_times": [107.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 106.161}, "reply_to": "20212__0_014", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_016", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Of the State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [107.692], "stop_times": [108.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 107.692}, "reply_to": "20212__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_017", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "As can the... that's correct, as can the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and the tribal police.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [108.263], "stop_times": [114.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.263}, "reply_to": "20212__0_016", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_018", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And in fact, who does police that stretch of road?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [114.798], "stop_times": [119.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.798}, "reply_to": "20212__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_019", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Primarily the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the tribe.\nThere are also... this particular stretch of road is a very small spur of a State highway.\nIt's not a major thoroughfare.\nOn all of the roads--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [119.44, 121.763, 127.267, 129.588], "stop_times": [121.763, 127.267, 129.588, 130.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.44}, "reply_to": "20212__0_018", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_020", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Right.\nWell, if a criminal traffic citation were issued by a BIA staff person or a tribal policeman, would the subsequent prosecution be conducted in tribal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [130.93, 131.13], "stop_times": [131.13, 145.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.93}, "reply_to": "20212__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_021", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Not if the person is a non-Indian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [145.139], "stop_times": [146.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 145.139}, "reply_to": "20212__0_020", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_022", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Right.\nThat would go to State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [146.588, 147.028], "stop_times": [147.028, 149.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 146.588}, "reply_to": "20212__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_023", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [149.349], "stop_times": [149.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.349}, "reply_to": "20212__0_022", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_024", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Because it's a criminal procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [149.99], "stop_times": [151.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.99}, "reply_to": "20212__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_025", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.\nHowever, non-Indians do answer to civil traffic offenses to the tribe, even when they're cited by non-tribal or non-Federal law enforcement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [151.342, 152.013], "stop_times": [152.013, 167.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.342}, "reply_to": "20212__0_024", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_026", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "What's a civil traffic offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [167.412], "stop_times": [168.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.412}, "reply_to": "20212__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_027", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Speeding, open container--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [168.714], "stop_times": [170.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.714}, "reply_to": "20212__0_026", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_028", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Those aren't punishable by fine or imprisonment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [170.023], "stop_times": [174.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.023}, "reply_to": "20212__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_029", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Those are punishable by fine.\nThey are civil offenses, civil traffic offenses, that's correct.\nThat's correct, and I think that... the accident in this case occurred on the State highway, but the State highway is a very recent easement, a 1970 easement by the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [174.017, 175.847, 179.029], "stop_times": [175.847, 179.029, 193.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.017}, "reply_to": "20212__0_028", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_030", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "One other preliminary question.\nIs the highway marked so that it says you are now entering or now leaving the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [193.568, 195.371], "stop_times": [195.371, 199.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.568}, "reply_to": "20212__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__0_031", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, it is, Your Honor.\nThere are... there's a sign at the very entry to the reservation.\nIt only runs into the reservation for about 7 miles, but there's a sign, both the State speed limit sign and the sign that you are entering the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [199.805, 202.237, 206.03], "stop_times": [202.237, 206.03, 214.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.805}, "reply_to": "20212__0_030", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_032", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But the suit filed here is not a traffic enforcement suit of any kind.\nIt's a suit between two nontribal members.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [214.916, 220.201], "stop_times": [220.201, 224.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.916}, "reply_to": "20212__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_033", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [224.054], "stop_times": [225.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.054}, "reply_to": "20212__0_032", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_034", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And could the suit have been brought in State court, do you suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [225.446], "stop_times": [229.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.446}, "reply_to": "20212__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_035", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "There's not a definitive answer from this Court as to that question, but we would concede that yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [229.206], "stop_times": [233.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.206}, "reply_to": "20212__0_034", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_036", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "You would concede that it could have been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [233.49], "stop_times": [235.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.49}, "reply_to": "20212__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_037", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct, concurrent.\nWhat we're asking is the Court also recognize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [235.821, 236.462], "stop_times": [236.462, 238.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.821}, "reply_to": "20212__0_036", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_038", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Has this Court ever recognized concurrent jurisdiction in a civil context over a suit that occurs on a State highway?\nHave we ever dealt with that, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [238.823, 248.731], "stop_times": [248.731, 251.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.823}, "reply_to": "20212__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_039", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--No, the Court has not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [251.062], "stop_times": [252.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.062}, "reply_to": "20212__0_038", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_040", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Have we ever dealt with concurrent jurisdiction with tribal courts at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [252.464], "stop_times": [256.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.464}, "reply_to": "20212__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_041", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [256.136], "stop_times": [256.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.136}, "reply_to": "20212__0_040", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_042", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "In the State tribal context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [256.956], "stop_times": [259.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.956}, "reply_to": "20212__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_043", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat's the Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold decision of 1986, where the civil cause of action arose on the reservation, this very reservation, in fact, and this Court held that the tribe could bring the claim against, in that case, a non-Indian in the State courts on the theory of concurrent jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [259.829, 260.1], "stop_times": [260.1, 278.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.829}, "reply_to": "20212__0_042", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_044", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But the plaintiff there was the tribe itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [278.573], "stop_times": [281.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.573}, "reply_to": "20212__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_045", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct, and here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [281.146], "stop_times": [283.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.146}, "reply_to": "20212__0_044", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_046", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Not a private nonmember?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [283.337], "stop_times": [284.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.337}, "reply_to": "20212__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_047", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.\nHere... here the plaintiff in tribal court is an elderly woman who was married to a tribal member, and she was going towards the home on the trust allotment there that this highway runs over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [284.587, 285.288, 286.811], "stop_times": [285.288, 286.811, 297.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 284.587}, "reply_to": "20212__0_046", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_048", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "How could that make a difference?\nShe either is a tribal member or she's not, and she's not.\nYou concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [297.87, 298.3, 300.773], "stop_times": [298.3, 300.773, 301.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.87}, "reply_to": "20212__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_049", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.\nI think, though, there's two answers to your question.\nIt doesn't make a difference under our primary theory, which is that Indian tribes have jurisdiction over the conduct of non-Indians, including Mrs. Fredericks and A-1 Contractors, when the case arises on Indian land, and on our alternative theory it's not relevant either, because our alternative theory is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [301.905, 302.796, 305.968], "stop_times": [302.796, 305.968, 328.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.905}, "reply_to": "20212__0_048", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_050", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Is the State highway easement considered Indian land?\nThe underlying fee surely is trust land probably held for the Indian tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [328.013, 332.357], "stop_times": [332.357, 338.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.013}, "reply_to": "20212__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_051", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct.\nIt is our position that this highway constitutes Indian land sufficient--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [338.541, 339.222], "stop_times": [339.222, 342.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.541}, "reply_to": "20212__0_050", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_052", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But, indeed, the easement itself is held by the State and could be considered, I guess, State land for that purpose... the easement, State property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [342.504], "stop_times": [353.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.504}, "reply_to": "20212__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__0_053", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--It's a State easement, a much lesser interest than a fee simple.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [353.082], "stop_times": [357.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.082}, "reply_to": "20212__0_052", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_054", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It's division of a bundle of rights, basically, the easement giving the right to use and the underlying fee being the rest, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [357.314], "stop_times": [363.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.314}, "reply_to": "20212__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__0_055", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct, and it's clear that this highway crosses exclusively Indian trust land for all of 6-1/2 miles on the reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [363.608], "stop_times": [373.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.608}, "reply_to": "20212__0_054", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_056", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, did... where does the highway end up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [373.545], "stop_times": [376.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.545}, "reply_to": "20212__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__0_057", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "At the lake.\nThere's a lake, Sakakawea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [376.297, 377.448], "stop_times": [377.448, 381.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.297}, "reply_to": "20212__0_056", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_058", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Is it a... because... is the lake a resort?\nI mean, why does the highway go to the lake, or don't you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [381.39, 385.544], "stop_times": [385.544, 388.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.39}, "reply_to": "20212__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__0_059", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, I do, Your Honor.\nOn the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, this road was originally... this is not in the record, but it was originally a Bureau of Indian Affairs gravel service road that ran to the original capital, or headquarters of this tribe's reservation.\nThat road has been there since at least, according to Corps of Engineer maps, since the 1940's.\nBelow the boundaries of the reservation it was... it has been a State highway.\nIn the 1940's, when the Garrison Dam was built and the lake was flooded onto the reservation, the tribe's capital was flooded, and that was subsequently moved.\nBut as to this road, it remained a gravel BIA service road, only it stopped at the lake because the lake came to meet the road.\nIn 1970, the tribe wanted this road paved to serve the tribal community of Twin Buttes on the reservation, because the lake had so isolated Twin Buttes.\nThe only things in Twin Buttes, population 300, are a K through 8 tribal school, a satellite clinic for the Indian Health Service, the tribal community center that A-1 Contractors helped to build, and a now-shut-down-due-to-downsizing Bureau of Indian Affairs substation.\nThis is not a major marina for this lake.\nThose are on other parts of the reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [388.805, 389.978, 405.276, 411.2, 415.954, 426.2, 434.186, 446.585, 467.519, 470.551], "stop_times": [389.978, 405.276, 411.2, 415.954, 426.2, 434.186, 446.585, 467.519, 470.551, 472.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.805}, "reply_to": "20212__0_058", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_060", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Is there a marina of some sorts at Twin Buttes, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [472.844], "stop_times": [476.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.844}, "reply_to": "20212__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__0_061", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It's my understanding there are two dock sites, one at Red Buttes and one at... they're... Twin Buttes itself is about 3 miles below the lake on the highway, and the two docks, they're not really full-blown marinas, are to the left and right of that... you know, the east and west of that on the lake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [476.556], "stop_times": [494.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.556}, "reply_to": "20212__0_060", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_062", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--But... and one gets access to those docks, as you refer to them, by the highway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [494.757], "stop_times": [499.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.757}, "reply_to": "20212__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__0_063", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct, but the highway is also used, you know... that's seasonal use.\nThe tribe in fact regulates seasonal vehicle use on that stretch of the highway, but there are many other roads on the Fort Berthold Reservation that provide the major access for recreation and use of this lake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [499.302, 505.305], "stop_times": [505.305, 517.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.302}, "reply_to": "20212__0_062", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_064", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Why was it important for the plaintiff to go to the tribal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [517.244], "stop_times": [521.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 517.244}, "reply_to": "20212__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__0_065", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That was her choice of forum that she exercised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [521.496], "stop_times": [525.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.496}, "reply_to": "20212__0_064", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_066", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Why is it important for her?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [525.279], "stop_times": [526.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.279}, "reply_to": "20212__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__0_067", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It's important for her because she's very much a member of this reservation community.\nShe lives on the reservation.\nHer children are enrolled there.\nShe lived on her deceased tribal member's husband allotment.\nThat's the stretch of the highway that crossed where the accident occurred in this case.\nShe's lived on this reservation since... for most of her adult life, and that is where her choice of forum was.\nPlus, she put this Court's cases together... Williams v. Lee, 1959 case, that says if you are a non-Indian suing an Indian you have to go to tribal court, and this Court's case in 1987, 10 years ago, Iowa Mutual, that says if you're an Indian you can sue a non-Indian in tribal court.\nShe put those two together because she's a non-Indian suing a non-Indian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [526.779, 530.893, 533.174, 535.324, 538.808, 542.762, 552.398, 571.571], "stop_times": [530.893, 533.174, 535.324, 538.808, 542.762, 552.398, 571.571, 575.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.779}, "reply_to": "20212__0_066", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_068", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Isn't there, Ms. McCoy, some dispute about the second case that you mention, whether it meant anything more than you have to exhaust the tribal court process?\nIt didn't make an ultimate determination that there was tribal court jurisdiction.\nIsn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [575.275, 586.522, 592.345], "stop_times": [586.522, 592.345, 592.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.275}, "reply_to": "20212__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__0_069", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "No, I don't think there's any dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [592.816], "stop_times": [596.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.816}, "reply_to": "20212__0_068", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_070", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Is it not so that subsequent cases of this Court have said that about Iowa Mutual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [596.168], "stop_times": [602.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.168}, "reply_to": "20212__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__0_071", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I believe that the reference there was in the plurality opinion in the Brendale case, a 1989 case.\nBut that arose dealing with the issue in Brendale of the tribe's authority to regulate the private property of non-Indians.\nThat's not this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [602.472, 610.517, 621.135], "stop_times": [610.517, 621.135, 622.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.472}, "reply_to": "20212__0_070", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_072", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But whatever Brendale involved, it did distinguish Iowa Mutual on the basis that it was merely an exhaustion, that there was no determination that the tribe as opposed to the State had jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [622.555], "stop_times": [638.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.555}, "reply_to": "20212__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__0_073", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And that, to the extent... I understand, Your Honor.\nTo the extent the plurality in Brendale did hold that, that was not necessary to the Brendale ruling and I think also the proper way to read Iowa Mutual is that... I realize it set the exhaustion rule.\nIt also set the rule by which exhaustion would be conducted, or else exhaustion itself would be a meaningless exercise, because as this Court said in National Farmers Union, where it expressly rejected the argument that respondents make here now for a rule of general and implicit divestiture of tribal court jurisdiction over reservation-based civil actions, that was unanimously rejected in National Farmers Union.\nAnd 2 years later in Iowa Mutual, when it again dealt with the issue of how to exhaust, Iowa Mutual set a clear rule that tribal courts presumptively have jurisdiction over reservation-based civil actions against non-Indians, and the lower courts have relied on that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [638.807, 641.968, 655.789, 682.399], "stop_times": [641.968, 655.789, 682.399, 700.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.807}, "reply_to": "20212__0_072", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_074", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That was dicta, though, was it not?\nYou didn't have to say that in order to decide the question that the Court took the case to decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [700.769, 702.631], "stop_times": [702.631, 709.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.769}, "reply_to": "20212__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__0_075", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I think that I... with all due respect, Your Honor, I... Mr. Chief Justice, I think that it was the rule of that case by which exhaustion was to be conducted, because it gives guidance to the tribal courts and the Federal courts on that very issue, and we don't have Congress divesting this tribe's jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [709.094], "stop_times": [733.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.094}, "reply_to": "20212__0_074", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_076", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "There's a civil tort suit on fee lands.\nI mean, you know, a tribe has some lands, it sells some lands to people who are not Indian member, tribe members, and there's a slip-and-fall accident.\nDoes that mean those court cases have to go to the tribal court?\nI mean, the State court couldn't handle an ordinary slip-and-fall accident on a fee land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [733.17, 736.643, 745.268, 749.372], "stop_times": [736.643, 745.268, 749.372, 755.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.17}, "reply_to": "20212__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__0_077", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, I think, Your Honor, we should distinguish between the existence of the tribe's jurisdiction, which is the issue here, and the scope of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [755.647], "stop_times": [762.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.647}, "reply_to": "20212__0_076", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_078", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, that's what I wondered.\nI mean, I understand much better since your explanation why the tribe really thinks of this, the highway, as really its highway, and I can understand why they think that, but I guess we have to decide this as if it were Interstate 93, or... isn't that right +/?\nand the two people involved had nothing to do with the tribe whatsoever, going down the biggest State 10-lane highway in imagination, which had... just happened to cross the... an Indian tribe's land, and under an easement... I mean, we'd have to decide it on that basis, wouldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [762.82, 763.4, 777.381], "stop_times": [763.4, 777.381, 793.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.82}, "reply_to": "20212__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__0_079", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Not necessarily.\nWe've offered the Court three alternative theories for dealing with this.\nThe first one is, if you find the site of this accident is Indian land, then this case is very easy to decide because the tribes can regulate non-Indians, a fortiori, tort cases, no problem in the courts.\nThe second theory, though, I think addresses more of what you are saying, and that's if you don't want to get into the status of the land issue, fee land here, quasi fee land, trust land, then we offer the Court the opportunity to apply the rule for Indian tribes that governments can adjudicate tort cases arising within their territory, because it is undisputed in this case that this case arose within the reservation boundaries.\nThere's no issue of off-reservation contacts.\nIf the status of the land is not necessary to a determination of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [793.323, 794.204, 798.678, 811.596, 837.906, 839.999], "stop_times": [794.204, 798.678, 811.596, 837.906, 839.999, 845.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 793.323}, "reply_to": "20212__0_078", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_080", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's why my question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [845.252], "stop_times": [846.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.252}, "reply_to": "20212__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__0_081", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--adjudicatory jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [846.554], "stop_times": [847.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.554}, "reply_to": "20212__0_080", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_082", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Is that clear, in an ordinary slip-and-fall tort accident in the middle of a reservation, but on fee land involving non-Indians, that those cases go as a matter of course to tribal courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [847.353], "stop_times": [862.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.353}, "reply_to": "20212__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__0_083", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--It's not.\nNo case of this Court has reached the issue of tribal adjudicatory jurisdiction on fee lands.\nHowever, Iowa Mutual and National Farmers Union both arose either on non-Indian-owned fee land or on a Federal highway crossing Indian reservations, and the Court did not rule against tribal jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [862.933, 863.774, 868.757], "stop_times": [863.774, 868.757, 882.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.933}, "reply_to": "20212__0_082", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_084", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Now, is your assertion that the tribe... you keep referring to adjudicatory jurisdiction.\nAs I recall, you say it is possible for the tribal court to adjudicate the case but not to apply tribal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [882.628, 887.6], "stop_times": [887.6, 894.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.628}, "reply_to": "20212__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__0_085", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [894.385], "stop_times": [895.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.385}, "reply_to": "20212__0_084", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_086", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And you don't ask us to decide right here whether they should apply tribal law or not, or do you think they shouldn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [895.587], "stop_times": [900.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.587}, "reply_to": "20212__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__0_087", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's two questions.\nI think that the Court need not reach that issue in this case if it chooses not to, because we're not at that point yet.\nWe're at the threshold point.\nHowever, we would also argue that if the Court wants to set the rule that it could be on a case-by-case... it should be on a case-by-case basis because it might involve fee land, it might involve quasi fee land, it might involve trust--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [900.579, 902.941, 907.776, 909.098], "stop_times": [902.941, 907.776, 909.098, 922.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.579}, "reply_to": "20212__0_086", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_088", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I don't understand your answer to that question, because it seems to me the two are tied together.\nIf you're basing the jurisdiction on, it happened on our land, whether the underlying... it happened on our land, then the most basic choice of law rule is the place of injury.\nThe law comes from the place of injury, and when you have a coincidence between the forum and the place of injury, what other law would apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [922.535, 927.21, 939.037], "stop_times": [927.21, 939.037, 947.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.535}, "reply_to": "20212__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__0_089", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--It's quite common, Your Honor, that in cases, nonresident tort, motor vehicle tort cases that the test is higher.\nIt's significant context, and often they apply the forum... not the forum jurisdiction law, but the law of the other... the residents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [947.873, 956.037], "stop_times": [956.037, 962.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.873}, "reply_to": "20212__0_088", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_090", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "The whole idea of the nonresident motor vehicle statute is that the... committing the act in the territory, having the accident there, there's no counting of other contexts.\nIt's, the accident happened there.\nThat's a basis for both jurisdiction and well-accepted that you apply the local law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [962.593, 973.77, 975.002], "stop_times": [973.77, 975.002, 982.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 962.593}, "reply_to": "20212__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__0_091", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I think that's been the traditional rule, but more and more the State courts are moving towards a more... a significant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [982.837], "stop_times": [988.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 982.837}, "reply_to": "20212__0_090", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_092", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Do you have any case where an accident happened inside a forum and the forum didn't... applied some other law to the... to determine the regulating rules for that, for the conduct of the driver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [988.53], "stop_times": [1002.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.53}, "reply_to": "20212__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__0_093", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--The closest cases that we cite in our briefs are the Allstate v. Shutts and The Hague for... they're not particularly analogous, because they were not motor vehicle tort cases.\nThey were other kinds of civil tort--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1002.16, 1010.928], "stop_times": [1010.928, 1012.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.16}, "reply_to": "20212__0_092", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_094", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "May I ask... I have two questions I want to get in before you lose your time.\nIs there a body of Indian law on issues such as contributory negligence and comparative negligence, and what is... you know, all the... is there a common law that's been developed in the tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1012.518, 1016.421], "stop_times": [1016.421, 1027.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.518}, "reply_to": "20212__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__0_095", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--In this tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1027.248], "stop_times": [1028.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.248}, "reply_to": "20212__0_094", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_096", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1028.29], "stop_times": [1028.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.29}, "reply_to": "20212__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__0_097", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "They follow State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1028.619], "stop_times": [1031.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.619}, "reply_to": "20212__0_096", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_098", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "They follow State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1031.131], "stop_times": [1031.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.131}, "reply_to": "20212__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__0_099", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.\nThey do not have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1031.852, 1032.223], "stop_times": [1032.223, 1033.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.852}, "reply_to": "20212__0_098", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_100", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And my second question is, how does the... how would the plaintiff get the judgment enforced if the plaintiff got a judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1033.214], "stop_times": [1038.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.214}, "reply_to": "20212__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__0_101", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--In this case North Dakota has both a supreme court case and a supreme court rule of the State court that deal with enforcement of tribal court judgments when it needs to be enforced by a court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1038.318], "stop_times": [1049.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.318}, "reply_to": "20212__0_100", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_102", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "The plaintiff would have to bring an independent proceeding in State court to get it enforced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1049.177], "stop_times": [1052.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.177}, "reply_to": "20212__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__0_103", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I believe that's correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1052.679], "stop_times": [1054.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.679}, "reply_to": "20212__0_102", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_104", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1054.162], "stop_times": [1054.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.162}, "reply_to": "20212__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__0_105", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1054.402], "stop_times": [1054.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.402}, "reply_to": "20212__0_104", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_106", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "If the action were brought in State court in the first place, is there any question in your mind that the State would apply State law as opposed to tribal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1054.933], "stop_times": [1062.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.933}, "reply_to": "20212__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__0_107", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "As a theoretical matter I think there's again the argument that it's the sovereign forum's choice whether to apply its own law.\nI don't know the answer, but I know the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1062.66, 1071.015], "stop_times": [1071.015, 1072.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.66}, "reply_to": "20212__0_106", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_108", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "As a practical matter, though, we do know the answer.\nThey'd apply State law, wouldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1072.628, 1074.988], "stop_times": [1074.988, 1076.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.628}, "reply_to": "20212__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__0_109", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "This tribe has no substantive body of law, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1076.41], "stop_times": [1077.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.41}, "reply_to": "20212__0_108", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_110", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And yet if the tribal court has jurisdiction, that is a real question, isn't it, as to which body of law would be applied, for the very reason that Justice Ginsburg raised.\nThey might say, well, we're going to apply tribal law.\nAt the present time, tribal law follows State law, but we could develop tribal law, and our general rule will be that we're going to apply tribal law.\nThat would be possible, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1077.949, 1087.546, 1090.438, 1098.005], "stop_times": [1087.546, 1090.438, 1098.005, 1099.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.949}, "reply_to": "20212__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__0_111", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1099.147], "stop_times": [1100.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.147}, "reply_to": "20212__0_110", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_112", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "All right.\nIsn't it a consideration that we ought to bear in mind in deciding this case that people who drive on a State highway within State territorial jurisdiction ought to have a uniform body of law that they can depend upon having administered if there is a tort so that at least within a given State they don't have to worry about suddenly being subjected to a new legal regime if they happen to cross the border into reservation territory?\nWouldn't that be a good consideration for us to bear in mind in deciding this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1100.148, 1100.399, 1131.129], "stop_times": [1100.399, 1131.129, 1136.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.148}, "reply_to": "20212__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__0_113", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I think that's right, and it's also buttressed by the fact that in this case both of the parties happen to be citizens of North Dakota.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1136.393, 1142.017], "stop_times": [1142.017, 1145.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.393}, "reply_to": "20212__0_112", "speaker": "melody_l_mccoy"}
{"id": "20212__0_114", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Thank you, Ms. McCoy.\nMr. Nuechterlein.\nMr. Nuechterlein, let me ask you a question that relates to the discussion we were just having.\nIs there... if tribal court jurisdiction is proper here between the two non-Indians, and if the tribal court were in the subsequent trial to apply some tribal law and make a choice of law that it was going to look to tribal law, assuming it had one, is there any way later that that could be challenged by the losing party in any Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1145.199, 1146.401, 1148.124, 1159.731], "stop_times": [1146.401, 1148.124, 1159.731, 1186.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.199}, "reply_to": "20212__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__1_000", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It is true, Justice O'Connor, that in Iowa Mutual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1186.839], "stop_times": [1189.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1186.839}, "reply_to": "20212__0_114", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_001", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1189.41], "stop_times": [1190.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.41}, "reply_to": "20212__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_002", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I believe the answer is probably yes, although this Court has not specifically addressed that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1190.462], "stop_times": [1195.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1190.462}, "reply_to": "20212__1_001", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_003", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I thought it was quite unclear whether any subsequent challenge could be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1195.455], "stop_times": [1200.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.455}, "reply_to": "20212__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_004", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I think if a challenge goes directly to the scope of the tribe's jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1200.44], "stop_times": [1204.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1200.44}, "reply_to": "20212__1_003", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_005", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "No.\nThe challenge goes to the choice of law rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1204.681, 1205.032], "stop_times": [1205.032, 1208.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.681}, "reply_to": "20212__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_006", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, choosing its own law in the course of adjudication is a form of exercising jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1208.675], "stop_times": [1212.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1208.675}, "reply_to": "20212__1_005", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_007", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, suppose the jurisdiction question were decided in favor of the petitioner.\nThe tribal court has jurisdiction.\nThen suppose the tribal court tries the case and were to choose to apply tribal law.\nThat's not this case because the petitioner's counsel says we don't have tribal law, so we wouldn't do that.\nBut let's suppose it's a tribe that does.\nThey choose tribal law.\nCan that ever be tested in any subsequent proceeding in a Federal or State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1212.919, 1218.451, 1220.064, 1226.057, 1231.052, 1233.196, 1234.194], "stop_times": [1218.451, 1220.064, 1226.057, 1231.052, 1233.196, 1234.194, 1240.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.919}, "reply_to": "20212__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_008", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I think the answer to that question is yes, and the reason the answer to that question is yes is because as a matter of comity among sovereigns it is important for there to be a Federal review of a tribal exercise of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1240.71], "stop_times": [1252.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1240.71}, "reply_to": "20212__1_007", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_009", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, but there's no case, is there, holding that yes, sure, you can have subsequent review in another jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1252.048], "stop_times": [1258.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.048}, "reply_to": "20212__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_010", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct, Justice O'Connor, but that case has not yet arisen before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1258.603], "stop_times": [1261.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1258.603}, "reply_to": "20212__1_009", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_011", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But it certainly could... would be unthinkable in a sister State context, that a second State could second-guess the first State's choice of law in a collateral attack.\nIsn't that... isn't there a definite no, a sister State can't do that to each other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1261.574, 1271.671], "stop_times": [1271.671, 1276.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.574}, "reply_to": "20212__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__1_012", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That is true.\nI think the difference between the two cases is that Congress has specifically given the losing party in the State court system a right to appeal to this Court to allege under the Due Process and Full Faith and Credit Clauses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1276.413, 1276.954], "stop_times": [1276.954, 1288.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1276.413}, "reply_to": "20212__1_011", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_013", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But Congress hasn't done that for tribal court judgments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1288.102], "stop_times": [1291.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.102}, "reply_to": "20212__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_014", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That is correct, Justice O'Connor, Congress has not passed a statute giving this Court appellate jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1291.024], "stop_times": [1295.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1291.024}, "reply_to": "20212__1_013", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_015", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And a choice of law question isn't necessarily due process.\nIt can be in extreme cases, but if there's a valid basis or an arguable base for choosing either law you can't get into Federal court under a due process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1295.166, 1297.719], "stop_times": [1297.719, 1307.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.166}, "reply_to": "20212__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__1_016", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That is correct, Justice Kennedy, but there are in fact important Federal constraints on a forum's choice of its own law.\nAs this Court held in cases like Shutts and Allstate the scope of a forum jurisdiction's ability to choose its own law as the rule of conduct is narrow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1307.695, 1312.397], "stop_times": [1312.397, 1322.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1307.695}, "reply_to": "20212__1_015", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_017", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--As you said it held in Allstate, but Allstate, some might have regarded the homing instinct of that State court as exorbitant, and yet this Court held that it didn't violate due process for the State to prefer itself, so it seems to me that Allstate proves that at the very least this Court has been extraordinarily indulgent to choice of law decisions made by a forum.\nIsn't that what one would take away from Allstate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1322.705, 1349.473], "stop_times": [1349.473, 1351.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.705}, "reply_to": "20212__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__1_018", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, in the subsequent case, Justice Ginsburg, of Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts this Court did in fact invalidate the choice of Kansas law as the rule of decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1351.753], "stop_times": [1361.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1351.753}, "reply_to": "20212__1_017", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_019", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Certainly not as to an accident that happened within a reservation.\nI mean, wasn't the Shutts concern people who were outside Kansas whose entire connection to this venture was outside Kansas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1361.09, 1365.792], "stop_times": [1365.792, 1376.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.09}, "reply_to": "20212__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__1_020", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I think that's correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nHowever, I think there's an important difference.\nThis Court in cases like Montana, Brendale and Bourland has pointed out that the scope of a tribe's ability to regulate non-Indians, at least on certain kinds of lands within a reservation, is subject to stricter limitations than a State's ability to regulate outsiders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1376.982, 1378.932, 1380.584], "stop_times": [1378.932, 1380.584, 1398.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1376.982}, "reply_to": "20212__1_019", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_021", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein, if this is a problem, I suppose it's a problem that only takes a Federal statute to solve, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1398.757], "stop_times": [1404.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.757}, "reply_to": "20212__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__1_022", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That is correct, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1404.1], "stop_times": [1405.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1404.1}, "reply_to": "20212__1_021", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_023", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I mean, if the question is, has... do the current Federal statutes leave it to the tribal court to decide the case, and perhaps leave it to the tribal court without any review in Federal courts to decide what substantive law to apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1405.081], "stop_times": [1417.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.081}, "reply_to": "20212__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__1_024", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I think Congress has spoken to that consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1417.958], "stop_times": [1420.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1417.958}, "reply_to": "20212__1_023", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_025", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's their issue, and if you're wrong about getting out of tribal court, Congress can solve that problem by passing a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1420.111], "stop_times": [1425.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.111}, "reply_to": "20212__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__1_026", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct, and I think it's also significant in that regard that in 1993 Congress based the Indian Tribal Justice Act, which commits essential Federal resources to the development of tribal courts on the premise embraced by this Court in Iowa Mutual that tribal jurisdiction over events arising on a reservation presumptively does lie in tribal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1425.434], "stop_times": [1444.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1425.434}, "reply_to": "20212__1_025", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_027", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, but what sense does it... I mean, suppose there is room in the cases to go either way.\nI could understand a rule that says, people who build houses in fee... you know, I'm thinking that this highway is a like a fee land.\nI realize that's a big issue in dispute, but assume it is for the sake of argument.\nTwo people who are not Indians living on the land in fee, they have a house like... you know, they have no... I can understand a rule that say, they have to go to the tribal court, and tribal law applies.\nThat would be one rule.\nThat's a possible rule.\nThat's how you treat California, probably.\nOr I could understand a rule which said, well, it's not like California.\nIt's a rule that South Dakota law applies.\nThen have them go to South Dakota court.\nI mean, what good does this mixing up of everything do except to leave... the lawyers will get very mixed up and the judge will get mixed up, and it will mean a lot of extra cost and very hard to sort out who goes where.\nI mean, what's to be said against simplifying this?\nIf it's South Dakota law on the fee thing, go to the South Dakota court.\nIf it's the tribal law, go to the tribal court, if there's room to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1444.116, 1447.919, 1455.894, 1461.378, 1474.357, 1475.617, 1476.598, 1478.579, 1482.502, 1485.735, 1487.506, 1500.294, 1502.704, 1506.487], "stop_times": [1447.919, 1455.894, 1461.378, 1474.357, 1475.617, 1476.598, 1478.579, 1482.502, 1485.735, 1487.506, 1500.294, 1502.704, 1506.487, 1509.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.116}, "reply_to": "20212__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__1_028", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "As an initial matter, Justice Breyer, we believe that both the State and the tribe have concurrent jurisdiction over this sort of suit in the same way that adjoining States often have jurisdiction over accidents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1509.449], "stop_times": [1520.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1509.449}, "reply_to": "20212__1_027", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_029", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I'm not talking about jurisdiction.\nI'm saying if we had room to do it, why wouldn't the sensible thing be to simplify?\nIf it's the State law that governs it, have them go to a State court.\nIf it's the tribal law that governs it, have them go to a tribal court.\nThat way we'd save legal fees, time, and effort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1520.518, 1521.219, 1526.434, 1530.344, 1533.418], "stop_times": [1521.219, 1526.434, 1530.344, 1533.418, 1536.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.518}, "reply_to": "20212__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__1_030", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I think actually the approach that best saves resources is the one adopted by this Court in Iowa Mutual for the following reason.\nIt is undisputed that a tribe has adjudicatory jurisdiction even over nonconsenting non-Indians in cases where the tribe can point to a particularized interest in the outcome of the dispute sufficient to justify the application of tribal regulatory authority under the Montana tribal interest test.\nThat test looks to see whether or not the activities of non-Indians have a direct effect on tribal welfare or whether or not they've entered into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1536.318, 1542.272, 1560.585], "stop_times": [1542.272, 1560.585, 1568.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1536.318}, "reply_to": "20212__1_029", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_031", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "How is that present here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1568.081], "stop_times": [1569.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.081}, "reply_to": "20212__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_032", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--The... no one... no court has yet addressed whether that's present here, and it's my point that it should be the tribal court in the first instance that determines whether or not that fact-specific inquiry is, indeed, satisfied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1569.833], "stop_times": [1581.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1569.833}, "reply_to": "20212__1_031", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_033", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, how about if it goes to trial in the tribal court and the tribe chooses to use as the jury all the friends and relatives of the victim, and they say, yeah, she's really been injured, and we're going to give a heck of a verdict here, and they do, and suppose other errors that might amount to a due process violation in a Federal or State court obtain.\nThere is no way to challenge that as a due process violation later in any State or Federal court, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1581.681, 1606.666], "stop_times": [1606.666, 1613.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.681}, "reply_to": "20212__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_034", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I think that's not quite accurate, Justice O'Connor.\nIn this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1613.772, 1615.415], "stop_times": [1615.415, 1615.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1613.772}, "reply_to": "20212__1_033", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_035", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "What would be the mechanism--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1615.825], "stop_times": [1617.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.825}, "reply_to": "20212__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_036", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, in this case, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1617.075], "stop_times": [1618.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1617.075}, "reply_to": "20212__1_035", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_037", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--for a subsequent challenge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1618.316], "stop_times": [1618.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.316}, "reply_to": "20212__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_038", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--In this case, it's my understanding that A-1 has no assets on the reservation, so to enforce the tribal judgment the prevailing litigant would have to go to State court and persuade that court that the underlying tribal proceedings comported with the rules of comity that are applicable to the enforcement of the foreign judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1618.707], "stop_times": [1633.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1618.707}, "reply_to": "20212__1_037", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_039", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And would those questions be open--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1633.618], "stop_times": [1635.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.618}, "reply_to": "20212__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_040", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, they would, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1635.44], "stop_times": [1636.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1635.44}, "reply_to": "20212__1_039", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_041", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--on enforcement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1636.121], "stop_times": [1636.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.121}, "reply_to": "20212__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_042", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Yes, they would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1636.552], "stop_times": [1637.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1636.552}, "reply_to": "20212__1_041", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_043", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--in North Dakota?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1637.273], "stop_times": [1637.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.273}, "reply_to": "20212__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__1_044", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, they would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1637.734], "stop_times": [1638.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1637.734}, "reply_to": "20212__1_043", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_045", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Why is it leaving open the possibility of such a difficult and elaborate proceeding?\nWe know perfectly well that if the jurisdiction is exclusively in the State courts, in practical terms State law will be applied.\nThere won't be the potentiality for these due process issues.\nWhy not have a simple highway rule?\nWhat's wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1638.953, 1644.927, 1653.756, 1657.806, 1660.628], "stop_times": [1644.927, 1653.756, 1657.806, 1660.628, 1661.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.953}, "reply_to": "20212__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__1_046", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I think this Court's... Justice Souter, I think this Court's precedents recognize that the tribe would always have jurisdiction not just to regulate conduct but also to adjudicate disputes in cases where the tribe has a particularized interest.\nThat aspect of the tribe's sovereignty has remained intact.\nIt's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1661.95, 1673.848, 1676.742], "stop_times": [1673.848, 1676.742, 1677.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1661.95}, "reply_to": "20212__1_045", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_047", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Do we really want to slice the onion this many ways so far as practical effects are concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1677.543], "stop_times": [1684.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.543}, "reply_to": "20212__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__1_048", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I think that whenever we recognize that there are a variety of sovereigns within our Nation, whether they're States or Indian tribes, jurisdictional issues will arise.\nI think the best rule to apply here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1684.268, 1693.425], "stop_times": [1693.425, 1695.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1684.268}, "reply_to": "20212__1_047", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_049", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It seems to me the least desirable, is what you propose.\nThe Indian tribal court should first decide whether there's an Indian interest and then presumably 4 or 5 years later that might be reviewed here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1695.217, 1697.909], "stop_times": [1697.909, 1706.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.217}, "reply_to": "20212__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__1_050", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I think that the best rule is, in fact, that one, and this is the reason why.\nThis Court has constantly recognized that Indian tribes retain the core sovereign authority to regulate conduct that poses a threat... may I finish my sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1706.704, 1711.295], "stop_times": [1711.295, 1719.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1706.704}, "reply_to": "20212__1_049", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_051", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1719.213], "stop_times": [1719.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.213}, "reply_to": "20212__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__1_052", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That poses a threat to the integrity of the tribe.\nIt should be the tribal court in the first instance that makes that determination.\nThat's the implicit premise of National Farmers Union.\nIt would be inefficient not to let the tribe complete the adjudication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1719.693, 1721.726, 1725.54, 1727.523], "stop_times": [1721.726, 1725.54, 1727.523, 1731.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1719.693}, "reply_to": "20212__1_051", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20212__1_053", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Nuechterlein.\nMr. Ward, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1731.136, 1733.427], "stop_times": [1733.427, 1734.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.136}, "reply_to": "20212__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_000", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis Court has, on several occasions, indicated reasons why the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Stockert and A-1 in this case.\nTribal courts exist primarily to apply tribal customs between tribal members.\nIn this instance, the tribe has given up its power to exclude nonmembers from the State highway.\nIn using the State highway on this occasion, Mr. Stockert did not give up his rights to due process, equal protection or trial by a jury of his peers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1734.749, 1738.672, 1749.051, 1754.664, 1760.797], "stop_times": [1738.672, 1749.051, 1754.664, 1760.797, 1769.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.749}, "reply_to": "20212__1_053", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_001", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "So the result would be different if the accident had occurred inside the reservation, on a reservation road, not a road on which the State had a perpetual easement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1769.553], "stop_times": [1780.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.553}, "reply_to": "20212__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__2_002", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Not necessarily, Your Honor, not in an incidence involving two nonmembers of the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1780.251], "stop_times": [1784.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.251}, "reply_to": "20212__2_001", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_003", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "So then you're not relying on, as Justice Souter spoke, this case could be... could be described as a State highway case, and that would be the end of it, but I think you're telling us now that... that even if it occurred on a reservation road, there would not be tribal jurisdiction.\nIs that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1784.645, 1804.028], "stop_times": [1804.028, 1804.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.645}, "reply_to": "20212__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__2_004", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Your Honor, yes.\nIn this... the precedents of this Court's would indicate that the State's authority over nonmembers of the tribe, over its citizens, reaches into the reservation.\nAnd so it doesn't necessarily require that the road has been alienated by the tribe.\nBut in this case, that gives the Respondents an even stronger position, because this is a State highway and it is regulated by the State and it is controlled by the State.\nAnd as Justice Breyer indicated, there are interstate highways that run through reservations as well.\nAnd citizens of this country have no idea when they enter an interstate highway to travel to Yellowstone Park or something out in the West that they're subjecting themselves to the tort jurisdiction of a tribal court that could deprive them of their property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1804.649, 1805.31, 1814.897, 1820.411, 1829.099, 1834.444], "stop_times": [1805.31, 1814.897, 1820.411, 1829.099, 1834.444, 1848.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.649}, "reply_to": "20212__2_003", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_005", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But they're... they're... when they cross the line from, say, North Dakota into Montana, they're going from one jurisdiction into another.\nHow much of an impression do you think that makes on them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1848.603, 1856.25], "stop_times": [1856.25, 1859.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.603}, "reply_to": "20212__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_006", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Your Honor, I think it makes a great impression.\nI think that citizens of the United States recognize the sovereignty of different States and are comfortable with that.\nBut when they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1859.683, 1861.536, 1868.342], "stop_times": [1861.536, 1868.342, 1870.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.683}, "reply_to": "20212__2_005", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_007", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Maybe they should recognize tribal sovereignty as well.\nI mean, you're just defending the ignorant, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1870.395, 1873.456], "stop_times": [1873.456, 1876.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.395}, "reply_to": "20212__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_008", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, no, Your Honor; I believe that there are limits on tribal sovereignty.\nAnd this Court has indicated that in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1876.688, 1879.751], "stop_times": [1879.751, 1882.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.688}, "reply_to": "20212__2_007", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_009", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Why is it--\n--But they shouldn't be based on whether the typical motorist has respect for a tribal court or not, I don't think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1882.035, 1882.893], "stop_times": [1882.893, 1889.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1882.035}, "reply_to": "20212__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_010", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThey should be based on the historical record.\nThey should be based on the decisions of this Court and on the constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1889.889, 1890.41, 1892.463], "stop_times": [1890.41, 1892.463, 1896.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.889}, "reply_to": "20212__2_009", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_011", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, how is it different, when you go to Maine from Massachusetts, you know, very few people know, but you have to go through New Hampshire?\n[Laughter]\nAnd you could be subject to the courts--\n--I know someone who knows that.\nI know someone who knows that.\nIsn't... isn't there kind of a dual concern implicit in what you're saying here?\nIt's perfectly true that when you go from North Dakota to South Dakota you realize you're going into a different jurisdiction.\nBut the general assumption that's made is highway laws, liability rules and so on are generally, more or less, the same.\nSo that the substantive legal regime probably is not changing very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1896.093, 1910.294, 1903.209, 1906.113, 1907.754, 1912.478, 1919.901, 1926.356, 1934.55], "stop_times": [1910.294, 1903.209, 1906.113, 1907.754, 1912.478, 1919.901, 1926.356, 1934.55, 1939.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.093}, "reply_to": "20212__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_012", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1939.605], "stop_times": [1940.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.605}, "reply_to": "20212__2_011", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_013", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Here, however, I think, underlying some of your argument are two suggestions.\nOne is we really don't have a sense of what the legal regime is going to be if we are subject to tribal jurisdiction with the probability of tribal substantive law.\nAnd, number two... and one of the amicus briefs was pretty explicit about this... there is a real concern about fairness of treatment in the tribal courts by virtue of the fact that the tribal judges can be removed by the tribal political authorities, in effect, if they don't like the results.\nAre those two reasons... the fact that we have real question about what the substantive legal regime will be in a tribal court and, number two, we have a real question about due process because of the appointment scheme... are those two reasons, reasons that you rely significantly on and feel that we should rely significantly on in deciding this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [1940.556, 1947.54, 1960.6, 1981.593], "stop_times": [1947.54, 1960.6, 1981.593, 2003.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.556}, "reply_to": "20212__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_014", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Justice Souter, those are two significant reasons, I agree with that.\nWe rely on those reasons and, in addition, we rely on all of the other reasons we have stated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2003.967, 2007.011], "stop_times": [2007.011, 2012.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.967}, "reply_to": "20212__2_013", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_015", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, all those reasons are very interesting, as are our prior cases.\nIs there any text that we can look to for the answer to this question that... anybody talk about any statutory provision, treaty provision... what... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2012.104, 2016.095], "stop_times": [2016.095, 2024.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.104}, "reply_to": "20212__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_016", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "There are treaties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2024.141], "stop_times": [2024.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2024.141}, "reply_to": "20212__2_015", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_017", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--What is the text that we're talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2024.75], "stop_times": [2026.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.75}, "reply_to": "20212__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_018", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Your Honor, there... there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2026.393], "stop_times": [2027.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.393}, "reply_to": "20212__2_017", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_019", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--to decide this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2027.254], "stop_times": [2027.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.254}, "reply_to": "20212__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_020", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--There is no specific text, in the sense of a statute, that addresses this question.\nThere are treaties with the tribe.\nAnd in those treaties, the tribe has historically recognized the right of safe passage for people passing through the reservation.\nIf... if one looks at those treaties, those treaties... never... if you look at the common notions of the day at the time that those treaties were entered into, these tribes, from the time almost 20 years after Lewis and Clark to this day, realized that there would be rights of way, there would be people passing through, and they would not interfere with the rights of those people passing through.\nAnd if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2027.835, 2033.511, 2036.072, 2042.697, 2062.998], "stop_times": [2033.511, 2036.072, 2042.697, 2062.998, 2063.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.835}, "reply_to": "20212__2_019", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_021", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--some of the same questions that Justice Scalia is raising.\nCould Congress authorize this jurisdiction?\nIs that question before us?\nOr are we... or are we asking whether or not this is inherent in tribal sovereignty absent some extra directive from the Congress?\nWhat is the source of the law that controls this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2063.6, 2067.463, 2072.286, 2074.129, 2082.196], "stop_times": [2067.463, 2072.286, 2074.129, 2082.196, 2086.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2063.6}, "reply_to": "20212__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_022", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--The... the... in answer to your first question, yes, Justice Kennedy, the Congress could create this jurisdiction if it chose to do so.\nBut it hasn't.\nWith respect to the second part of your question, this... this case below has been decided on the issue of the inherent sovereignty.\nAnd that question is addressed by the decisions of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2086.158, 2093.172, 2094.384, 2102.118], "stop_times": [2093.172, 2094.384, 2102.118, 2105.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.158}, "reply_to": "20212__2_021", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_023", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, with reference... the answer to your first question... then there would be no constitutional impediment to the exercise of tribal jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2105.501], "stop_times": [2112.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.501}, "reply_to": "20212__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_024", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "The constitutional impediment would be that this... the Constitution recognizes two sovereigns, the United States and the States.\nAnd unless that sovereign... the United States gives this authority... somehow delegates this authority to the tribes, the tribes do not have it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2112.977, 2121.325], "stop_times": [2121.325, 2131.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.977}, "reply_to": "20212__2_023", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_025", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, let's put it this way, there would be no due process violation in subjecting the... your client to the jurisdiction of the tribal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2131.079], "stop_times": [2140.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.079}, "reply_to": "20212__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_026", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2140.646], "stop_times": [2142.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.646}, "reply_to": "20212__2_025", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_027", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, then, why did you say that Congress could authorize it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2142.108], "stop_times": [2144.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.108}, "reply_to": "20212__2_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_028", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I... I think that Congress certainly he is... my client is a citizen of the United States.\nAnd Congress can certainly create a court that he would have to respond to, unless that action itself was unconstitutional.\nAnd we have not addressed that question here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2144.148, 2149.204, 2158.29], "stop_times": [2149.204, 2158.29, 2159.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.148}, "reply_to": "20212__2_027", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_029", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, you're not challenging the concept of Indian tribal sovereignty, surely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2159.953], "stop_times": [2164.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.953}, "reply_to": "20212__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_030", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "No, I'm not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2164.334], "stop_times": [2165.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.334}, "reply_to": "20212__2_029", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_031", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I mean, this Court, in many decisions, has recognized that.\nThe Federal Government has recognized it.\nIt's a fact of... of existence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2165.155, 2168.267, 2170.307], "stop_times": [2168.267, 2170.307, 2172.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.155}, "reply_to": "20212__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_032", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "No, we are not questioning the concept of tribal sovereignty--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2172.711], "stop_times": [2176.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.711}, "reply_to": "20212__2_031", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_033", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, then, are you asking us just to make a general choice of law rule as to what's wise?\nI mean, what is... what's the controlling doctrine that... that guides this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2176.001, 2180.806], "stop_times": [2180.806, 2184.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.001}, "reply_to": "20212__2_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_034", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--The controlling doctrine is the Montana case that was decided by this case, which provides the limitations, or at least addresses the limitations, on tribal sovereignty and the exceptions to those limitations where nonmembers are involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2184.95], "stop_times": [2198.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.95}, "reply_to": "20212__2_033", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_035", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But that was regulatory sovereignty and then that was legislative sovereignty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2198.02], "stop_times": [2200.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.02}, "reply_to": "20212__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_036", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It was... it was legislative, but the sovereignty of a tribe, whether it's legislative or adjudicative, comes from the same place.\nIt comes from whatever retained inherent sovereignty remained after the tribes were incorporated into the United States.\nAnd as this Court has recognized in Oliphant and Wheeler, for purposes of criminal jurisdiction, there is no tribal sovereignty, and the tribe could not, as in some of the earlier examples, exercise any criminal jurisdiction over either of the parties here because they were both nonmembers of the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2200.972, 2207.256, 2213.18], "stop_times": [2207.256, 2213.18, 2227.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.972}, "reply_to": "20212__2_035", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_037", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But may I go back to a... to an answer... to a question from Justice Kennedy?\nYou said, well, even if Congress provided by statute that there would be jurisdiction in the tribal court in... in this case, that there would... there would or could... I'm not sure which you said... still be a due process problem.\nDid you mean by that simply that you might still raise a due process challenge to the particular manner in which the... the court offices were appointed or the jurors selected or whatnot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2227.699, 2232.712, 2246.103], "stop_times": [2232.712, 2246.103, 2263.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.699}, "reply_to": "20212__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_038", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2263.282], "stop_times": [2264.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.282}, "reply_to": "20212__2_037", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_039", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2264.063], "stop_times": [2264.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.063}, "reply_to": "20212__2_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_040", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And also potentially to the manner in which those courts are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2264.594], "stop_times": [2266.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.594}, "reply_to": "20212__2_039", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_041", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "How could you raise that?\nBy... by what mechanism do you think you could get into another court to... to raise some due process challenge to what actually occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2266.947, 2267.158], "stop_times": [2267.158, 2274.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.947}, "reply_to": "20212__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_042", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, that would be a difficult problem, because the Court's Santa Clara Pueblo decision seemed to indicate that the... the issues of the Indian Civil Rights Act with respect to due process will not be reviewed except in habeas corpus proceedings.\nSo unless there was some revision of that decision with respect to review for nonmembers, the Santa Clara Pueblo case did involve a member, and she was questioning tribal... the issue of tribal membership rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2274.501, 2292.752], "stop_times": [2292.752, 2304.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.501}, "reply_to": "20212__2_041", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_043", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But why wouldn't it operate... Ms. McCoy, I think, told us that, as a practical matter, to enforce a judgment of this nature rendered by the tribe, you'd have to go into State court, bring a fresh proceeding, to enforce that judgment.\nAnd couldn't the defendant in that enforcement proceeding say that I recognize Indian tribal sovereignty; it's like the sovereignty of France or Italy.\nWhen we're dealing with a sovereign to whom the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply, then we have certain checks.\nAnd one of them is due process.\nSo we would look to the particular proceeding and see if essentially fair procedure was accorded in the tribal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2304.741, 2319.553, 2328.658, 2337.222, 2339.596], "stop_times": [2319.553, 2328.658, 2337.222, 2339.596, 2346.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.741}, "reply_to": "20212__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__2_044", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "There would be, in this instance, a comity provision, pursuant to the North Dakota rule with respect to enforcement of this tribal judgment.\nSo there would be some limited review.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2346.159, 2354.555, 2357.049], "stop_times": [2354.555, 2357.049, 2357.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.159}, "reply_to": "20212__2_043", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_045", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But you say that's fortuitous, just because there happens to be no property on the reservation that could be seized?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2357.547], "stop_times": [2362.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.547}, "reply_to": "20212__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_046", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2362.071], "stop_times": [2362.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.071}, "reply_to": "20212__2_045", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_047", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But, you know, the same situation exists if it's a suit between two Indians or, I assume, a suit between one Indian and a person off the reservation.\nWhy do we... why is it so terrible that... that two non-Indians can't get review of a tribal court judgment by a Federal or State court, but not terrible that... that two Indians can't get a review of a similarly outrageous tribal court?\nI mean, do we care more about non-Indians than Indians for some reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2362.602, 2372.349, 2387.867], "stop_times": [2372.349, 2387.867, 2390.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.602}, "reply_to": "20212__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_048", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "No, I don't think we do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2390.14], "stop_times": [2391.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.14}, "reply_to": "20212__2_047", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_049", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "If we're content with that rule for Indians, why... why can't we be content with it for non-Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2391.61], "stop_times": [2395.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.61}, "reply_to": "20212__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_050", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Your Honor, because Indians are members of the tribe.\nThey choose to be members of the tribe.\nThey choose to reside on the reservation.\nThey benefit from that membership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2395.644, 2399.397, 2400.829, 2402.511], "stop_times": [2399.397, 2400.829, 2402.511, 2403.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2395.644}, "reply_to": "20212__2_049", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_051", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And I'm a Virginian, but Virginia can... can deny me due process just as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2403.831], "stop_times": [2408.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.831}, "reply_to": "20212__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_052", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I would argue that it can't, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2408.055], "stop_times": [2410.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.055}, "reply_to": "20212__2_051", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_053", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I... I just don't think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2410.696], "stop_times": [2411.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.696}, "reply_to": "20212__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_054", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I mean, you could challenge it if Virginia did.\nYou certainly... a non-Indian does not have a right to participate in tribal governance.\nHe doesn't have the right to vote.\nHe doesn't have the right to be involved in any of the decisionmaking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2411.327, 2413.648, 2419.172, 2420.784], "stop_times": [2413.648, 2419.172, 2420.784, 2426.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2411.327}, "reply_to": "20212__2_053", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_055", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--happy family, and never deprive one another of due process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2426.006], "stop_times": [2429.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.006}, "reply_to": "20212__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_056", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Your Honor, I would hope that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2429.008], "stop_times": [2430.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2429.008}, "reply_to": "20212__2_055", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_057", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--right, and think it's some... I don't know... bucolic, pre-nature regime there?\nI don't think so.\nIt seems to me that the injustice could exist just as well between... in a suit between two Indians.\nAnd if we're resigned to not having that reviewed for them, I don't know why we can't be resigned to not having that reviewed for a suit between two non-Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2430.678, 2436.943, 2437.984, 2443.959], "stop_times": [2436.943, 2437.984, 2443.959, 2451.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.678}, "reply_to": "20212__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_058", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, that question, I guess, has not been answered by this Court, with respect to non-Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2451.233], "stop_times": [2455.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.233}, "reply_to": "20212__2_057", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_059", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, let me ask a related question.\nAlthough there's been a speculation about due process horribles, are there... do you have any documented examples that anything is going wrong in these courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2455.347, 2456.769], "stop_times": [2456.769, 2465.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.347}, "reply_to": "20212__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_060", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nI mean, it's not part of this record, but certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2465.735, 2466.927], "stop_times": [2466.927, 2470.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.735}, "reply_to": "20212__2_059", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_061", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Where... where would I... where would I... where could I properly look to find these accounts?\nIs the case... a similar case being considered now in the 9th Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2470.11, 2474.103], "stop_times": [2474.103, 2478.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.11}, "reply_to": "20212__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_062", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Yes, there is, Your Honor.\nThere's a case involving the Burlington Northern Railroad, which filed one of the amicus briefs here, in which the tribal jury was composed of relatives and friends of the complainants.\nThere was a parade of horribles in that case and an extremely unfair verdict.\nAnd that is pending review in the 9th Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2478.276, 2478.807, 2490.146, 2494.808], "stop_times": [2478.807, 2490.146, 2494.808, 2497.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2478.276}, "reply_to": "20212__2_061", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_063", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, that's... I don't mean to belittle that case, but that is one case.\nDo we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2497.809, 2500.762], "stop_times": [2500.762, 2501.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.809}, "reply_to": "20212__2_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_064", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Yes, there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2501.443], "stop_times": [2501.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.443}, "reply_to": "20212__2_063", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_065", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Do we have any... any documentation of a generalized problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2501.773], "stop_times": [2505.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.773}, "reply_to": "20212__2_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_066", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, as far as documentation, other than... there are other cases that I'm aware of, where due process violations are occurring in tribal courts with respect to nonmembers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2505.664], "stop_times": [2516.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.664}, "reply_to": "20212__2_065", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_067", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, can I... is there a law report or something that I can read to find these examples?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2516.242], "stop_times": [2520.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.242}, "reply_to": "20212__2_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_068", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--There... there are some law review articles on the subject, Your Honor.\nThe best, I think, would be the amicus brief of the Burlington Northern Railroad in this case, and the American Automobile Association--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2520.915, 2523.996], "stop_times": [2523.996, 2530.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.915}, "reply_to": "20212__2_067", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_069", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Mr. Ward, do you agree that if we take what Justice Souter suggested might be a rule of the road here... that is, if it's an interstate highway, it's a State highway, then the State... this case belongs in State court and State law will apply.\nBut we don't get into any of these other questions that might arise if this accident occurred on a road within the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2530.151, 2547.774], "stop_times": [2547.774, 2556.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.151}, "reply_to": "20212__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__2_070", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2556.659], "stop_times": [2557.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.659}, "reply_to": "20212__2_069", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_071", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Just stay on the good roads; you've got nothing to worry about.\nStay on the State highways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2557.34, 2559.363], "stop_times": [2559.363, 2560.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.34}, "reply_to": "20212__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_072", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's... that's true.\nYou could do that.\nAnd in this case... and that would be consistent, I think, in this case, with the alienation of the land in the Bourland case, which involved the dam for Lake Oahe, just below the dam for Lake Sakakawea, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2560.641, 2562.244, 2563.065], "stop_times": [2562.244, 2563.065, 2573.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.641}, "reply_to": "20212__2_071", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_073", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "How does it normally work with... I mean, this notion of splitting adjudicatory jurisdiction for... from legislative or regulatory jurisdiction is rather interesting.\nI just wonder, as a practical matter, in the Dakotas or Montana or places where there are quite a few reservations and alienated quite a lot of land, so that there are many fee... inhabitants who own their land in fee, what's the expectation now, how does it work when there's a simple accident, a tort, a slip-and-fall, a contract dispute, not with any of the tribes, but... I mean, do those people now think they're supposed to go to a tribal court to get their matter adjudicated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2573.823, 2583.29], "stop_times": [2583.29, 2614.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.823}, "reply_to": "20212__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_074", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--No, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2614.841], "stop_times": [2615.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.841}, "reply_to": "20212__2_073", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_075", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "They go to the State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2615.842], "stop_times": [2616.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.842}, "reply_to": "20212__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_076", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2616.58], "stop_times": [2616.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.58}, "reply_to": "20212__2_075", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_077", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And are you aware of any instances in which tribal courts took jurisdiction over these simple slip-and-fall, normal contract disputes on the houses or farms of the people who hold their land in fee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2616.991], "stop_times": [2629.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.991}, "reply_to": "20212__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_078", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Involving nonmembers?\nNo, not to my knowledge, Your Honor.\nThose people are treated as citizens of the State of North Dakota.\nThey have access to the courts in the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2629.759, 2631.101, 2632.573, 2636.444], "stop_times": [2631.101, 2632.573, 2636.444, 2638.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.759}, "reply_to": "20212__2_077", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_079", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But, Mr. Ward, here's a question of concurrent jurisdiction.\nAnd isn't this... this kind of case can only come up if the plaintiff... even if a nonmember would have a real close affiliation with the tribe.\nIn the cases Justice Breyer was suggesting, it's the plaintiff's choice of forum.\nMost non-Indians probably wouldn't go to the tribal court in this kind of accident.\nBut this non-Indian had a very close relationship with the tribe.\nAnd so that's why she did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2638.618, 2641.268, 2649.764, 2654.326, 2660.109, 2664.483], "stop_times": [2641.268, 2649.764, 2654.326, 2660.109, 2664.483, 2665.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.618}, "reply_to": "20212__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__2_080", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2665.783], "stop_times": [2666.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2665.783}, "reply_to": "20212__2_079", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_081", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, why is that?\nWhy is that?\nI don't... I mean, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2666.634, 2666.964, 2667.475], "stop_times": [2666.964, 2667.475, 2668.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.634}, "reply_to": "20212__2_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_082", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Why did she choose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2668.336], "stop_times": [2669.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.336}, "reply_to": "20212__2_081", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_083", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Why, if in fact there is adjudicatory authority in... over, say, this... if this is equivalent to fee and there is adjudicatory authority of the tribal court over people who hold their title in fee, then why couldn't the tribe, if it wished to, say that you have to go to the tribal court whether you're related to somebody who's a member of the tribe, whether you're not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2669.726], "stop_times": [2693.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.726}, "reply_to": "20212__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_084", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Your Honor, the tribe could, assuming that the other party was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2693.303], "stop_times": [2697.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.303}, "reply_to": "20212__2_083", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_085", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "So, in fact, then I think the issue in this case... there are two issues.\nOne is whether they're going to have adjudicatory jurisdiction over all accidents, contracts on fee land, or the second issue could be this isn't fee land; this is not fee land.\nThis is an easement... shouldn't be treated as fee land.\nSo I'd appreciate your addressing that second contention briefly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2697.567, 2700.418, 2714.98, 2717.464], "stop_times": [2700.418, 2714.98, 2717.464, 2721.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.567}, "reply_to": "20212__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_086", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, this is not fee land, because this land was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2721.678], "stop_times": [2725.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.678}, "reply_to": "20212__2_085", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_087", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "If you say \"not\", then they win, I think.\nI think you're... you're talking about fee land in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2725.341, 2727.582], "stop_times": [2727.582, 2729.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.341}, "reply_to": "20212__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20212__2_088", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I... I'm sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2729.843], "stop_times": [2730.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.843}, "reply_to": "20212__2_087", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_089", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Montana talked about fee land in the sense of other people owning it, not the tribe owning it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2730.524], "stop_times": [2735.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.524}, "reply_to": "20212__2_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_090", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, you confused me.\nI was confused by the question, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2735.335, 2736.247], "stop_times": [2736.247, 2737.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2735.335}, "reply_to": "20212__2_089", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_091", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "No, it's my fault.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2737.99], "stop_times": [2738.18], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.99}, "reply_to": "20212__2_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20212__2_092", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And what... what I mean is this is... this... this easement for this highway is certainly the equivalent of fee land.\nIt is an alienation of the land by the tribe.\nIt is a giving up of the power to control.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2738.18, 2743.846, 2745.568], "stop_times": [2743.846, 2745.568, 2748.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.18}, "reply_to": "20212__2_091", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_093", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Oh, it's just an easement, like any other highway easement or like any other utility easements.\nIt is a permission for the State to have a highway there, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2748.1, 2752.745], "stop_times": [2752.745, 2756.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.1}, "reply_to": "20212__2_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_094", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2756.569], "stop_times": [2756.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.569}, "reply_to": "20212__2_093", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_095", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's what we have.\nIt's part of the total bundle of property rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2756.989, 2757.54], "stop_times": [2757.54, 2760.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.989}, "reply_to": "20212__2_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_096", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, but it's... it's more than that in the sense that it's giving up the power to exclude.\nIt's giving up the power to regulate the highway.\nThe State regulates the highway.\nThe State sets the standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2760.014, 2763.895, 2765.767, 2767.109], "stop_times": [2763.895, 2765.767, 2767.109, 2768.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.014}, "reply_to": "20212__2_095", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_097", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, now, we heard that the tribe also regulates the rules of the road, so to speak, on this highway; is that the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2768.35], "stop_times": [2775.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.35}, "reply_to": "20212__2_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_098", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "The tribe... the tribe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2775.733], "stop_times": [2776.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.733}, "reply_to": "20212__2_097", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_099", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Do they have regulations governing the use of this highway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2776.074], "stop_times": [2778.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.074}, "reply_to": "20212__2_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_100", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--The tribe regulates its members with respect to the highway, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2778.746], "stop_times": [2781.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2778.746}, "reply_to": "20212__2_099", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_101", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Not nonmembers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2781.097], "stop_times": [2782.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.097}, "reply_to": "20212__2_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_102", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Not to my knowledge, Your Honor.\nGenerally speaking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2782.539, 2783.948], "stop_times": [2783.948, 2784.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.539}, "reply_to": "20212__2_101", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_103", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "We heard to the contrary from the Petitioners' counselor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2784.94], "stop_times": [2787.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.94}, "reply_to": "20212__2_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_104", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, my understanding is that the practical application by the... by the tribe and the highway patrol is that if a non-Indian is involved, the tribe will call in the deputy sheriff from the county or they would call in the highway patrol.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2787.512], "stop_times": [2798.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.512}, "reply_to": "20212__2_103", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_105", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "So your understanding is different from Petitioners' counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2798.21], "stop_times": [2801.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.21}, "reply_to": "20212__2_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_106", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2801.603], "stop_times": [2801.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2801.603}, "reply_to": "20212__2_105", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_107", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--in this regard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2801.643], "stop_times": [2802.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.643}, "reply_to": "20212__2_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_108", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2802.124], "stop_times": [2802.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.124}, "reply_to": "20212__2_107", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_109", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "If the tribe had not given up the easement to the State for the highway, could non-tribal members be totally excluded?\nI mean, can the tribe just say, you know, we don't want to give the State any highway land, and since there are no State highways, no outsiders, just tribal members.\nCan the tribe do that?\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2802.572, 2809.828, 2818.052, 2818.783], "stop_times": [2809.828, 2818.052, 2818.783, 2818.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2802.572}, "reply_to": "20212__2_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_110", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "The tribe, in this instance, certainly did give up the easement.\nWhether the tribe could decide not to, I believe the tribe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2818.973, 2823.646], "stop_times": [2823.646, 2827.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.973}, "reply_to": "20212__2_109", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_111", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, sure it could.\nWell, haven't we had cases involving that; that on tribal land, the tribe has the right to exclude others?\nWe've had cases decided on that very basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2827.799, 2828.19, 2833.773], "stop_times": [2828.19, 2833.773, 2836.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.799}, "reply_to": "20212__2_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_112", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Yes... yes, you have, Your Honor.\nAnd those cases involved reservations, where the tribe retained its power to exclude, as opposed to where it had given that up and agreed to give free passage, and agreed to allow rights-of-way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2836.717, 2837.927], "stop_times": [2837.927, 2847.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.717}, "reply_to": "20212__2_111", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_113", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And did it go along with this easement that the tribe promised not to exclude anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2847.714], "stop_times": [2851.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.714}, "reply_to": "20212__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_114", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe only rights reserved to the tribe in the easement were the right to create crossings for purposes of approaches to farms and things like that.\nOtherwise, the easement gave the State the rights to the surface of the road.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2851.438, 2852.937, 2860.613], "stop_times": [2852.937, 2860.613, 2864.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.438}, "reply_to": "20212__2_113", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_115", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Do you know of any case where a tribe claims exclusive jurisdiction, which I believe is what Justice Breyer was suggesting... claim exclusive jurisdiction as distinguished from concurrent jurisdiction with the State over a tort that happens on a highway or on fee land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2864.236], "stop_times": [2885.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.236}, "reply_to": "20212__2_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__2_116", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I'm not aware of any case from this Court, Your Honor, where the tribe has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2885.951], "stop_times": [2889.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.951}, "reply_to": "20212__2_115", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_117", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But do you know of any tribe that has asserted exclusive jurisdiction as distinguished from concurrent jurisdiction, where the plaintiff chooses the forum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2889.584], "stop_times": [2900.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2889.584}, "reply_to": "20212__2_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20212__2_118", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--I believe that the tribes, maybe.\nAnd I believe that the effect of what happens, pursuant to the Petitioners' argument in cases... as a result of Iowa Mutual... is that State courts and Federal courts are reluctant to proceed because the action has been started in a tribal court.\nAnd so, from that standpoint, whether the tribe asserts exclusive jurisdiction, in effect, it is by the way that the procedure is followed once that jurisdiction is invoked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2900.36, 2901.913, 2918.323], "stop_times": [2901.913, 2918.323, 2928.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.36}, "reply_to": "20212__2_117", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_119", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I must say, I am confused by the easement discussion.\nI'm... you know, a sovereign can cede land, even the whole fee much less an easement, without conceding any sovereignty over that land.\nIf I purchased land from the United States, the United States doesn't give up jurisdiction over that land.\nIt's still subject to United States law.\nI don't know that the fact that the tribe gives an easement to a State necessarily means that the tribe thereby cedes all of its jurisdictional responsibility over the... over the land as to which the easement was given.\nWhy do you assume that's the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2928.821, 2931.332, 2941.809, 2945.262, 2946.935, 2961.253], "stop_times": [2931.332, 2941.809, 2945.262, 2946.935, 2961.253, 2963.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2928.821}, "reply_to": "20212__2_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_120", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2963.204], "stop_times": [2963.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2963.204}, "reply_to": "20212__2_119", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_121", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Is it clear that the tribe could not regulate Indians on that... on that easement, for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2963.474], "stop_times": [2968.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.474}, "reply_to": "20212__2_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_122", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, the... the reason I assume that's the case is for reasons similar to the Bourland decision of this Court, that, in that case, the tribe gave up the authority over the taken area for the building of the dam and for the recreational enjoyment of hunting and fishing in that area.\nAnd the tribe, similar to this case, asserted that it maintained regulatory control even over non-Indians in that area.\nAnd this Court decided no, it did not; that it did not retain that regulatory control.\nAnd it further decided that that kind of control was not part of the tribe's inherent sovereignty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [2968.778, 2984.628, 2991.063, 2996.486], "stop_times": [2984.628, 2991.063, 2996.486, 3001.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.778}, "reply_to": "20212__2_121", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_123", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Only over non-Indians, you would say, though.\nSo, I mean, your highway principle that Justice Souter was discussing with you would only apply to regulation of non-Indians on the highway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3001.451, 3003.752], "stop_times": [3003.752, 3012.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.451}, "reply_to": "20212__2_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_124", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, Your Honor, this... this Court has never decided whether an easement or an alienation of land would give up the authority over the tribal members.\nI don't think it goes that far.\nI think the tribe... the essence of the tribe's sovereignty is the tribe's right to regulate the affairs of its members.\nSo, in that sense, there may be concurrent jurisdiction of the tribe over its members with respect to the highway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3012.117, 3020.084, 3021.994, 3028.759], "stop_times": [3020.084, 3021.994, 3028.759, 3034.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3012.117}, "reply_to": "20212__2_123", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_125", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But to members within the boundaries of the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3034.482], "stop_times": [3036.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.482}, "reply_to": "20212__2_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_126", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Exactly, yes.\nUntil the... once the State highway goes beyond the borders of the reservation, the tribe loses its authority even over its members.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3036.823, 3038.135], "stop_times": [3038.135, 3045.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.823}, "reply_to": "20212__2_125", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_127", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I take it the terms of the easement in this case do not address these questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3045.669], "stop_times": [3049.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.669}, "reply_to": "20212__2_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20212__2_128", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Not specifically; no, Your Honor.\nWhat this Court stated in the Montana decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3049.472, 3051.355], "stop_times": [3051.355, 3055.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3049.472}, "reply_to": "20212__2_127", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_129", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, is that really completely true?\nSome have argued that one of the sources of tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians is the power to exclude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3055.617, 3057.059], "stop_times": [3057.059, 3063.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.617}, "reply_to": "20212__2_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__2_130", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3063.543], "stop_times": [3064.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3063.543}, "reply_to": "20212__2_129", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_131", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "And the tribe has given up the power to exclude non-Indians from this road.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3064.122], "stop_times": [3067.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.122}, "reply_to": "20212__2_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__2_132", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, they have, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3067.414], "stop_times": [3068.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.414}, "reply_to": "20212__2_131", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_133", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "So, arguably, they might have given up jurisdiction to regulate non-Indians on this road?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3068.375], "stop_times": [3072.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.375}, "reply_to": "20212__2_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__2_134", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I would submit that that's true, Your Honor.\nAnd I think that this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3072.457, 3073.879], "stop_times": [3073.879, 3076.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3072.457}, "reply_to": "20212__2_133", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_135", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, except it's given up the power not only to exclude them from the road, but the power to exclude them from the reservation.\nSo, I mean, if you follow that logic, they would not have... they would not have power to regulate their activities on the rest of the reservation either?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3076.42, 3080.603], "stop_times": [3080.603, 3087.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.42}, "reply_to": "20212__2_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_136", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That may be true, Your Honor.\nBecause with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3087.857, 3089.269], "stop_times": [3089.269, 3090.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.857}, "reply_to": "20212__2_135", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_137", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Have they given up the power to exclude generally from the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3090.288], "stop_times": [3092.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.288}, "reply_to": "20212__2_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20212__2_138", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, with respect to these particular tribes, there are no closed areas like there were in the Brendale decision.\nThis is an open reservation.\nThere are approximately 40 percent fee land.\nClose to 50 percent of the people living on the reservation are nonmembers.\nSo there's a significant interaction.\nAnd from an economic standpoint, a decision that would close the reservation or make people fearful of entering the reservation for fear of losing their property as a result of an adverse judgment there would not be good for the tribes and it would not encourage intercourse with the tribes, which is something that Congress has always indicated is part of its essential purpose in dealing with the tribes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3092.922, 3098.959, 3100.791, 3103.663, 3107.875, 3110.699], "stop_times": [3098.959, 3100.791, 3103.663, 3107.875, 3110.699, 3133.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.922}, "reply_to": "20212__2_137", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_139", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Could you explain something to help focus on the precise law that we look to, to resolve this case?\nIf a State court exercises personal jurisdiction over someone erroneously... there's no personal jurisdiction... that person doesn't run into Federal court and get an injunction.\nWhat was the theory on which you went into Federal court here originally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3133.143, 3138.445, 3148.243], "stop_times": [3138.445, 3148.243, 3153.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.143}, "reply_to": "20212__2_138", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_140", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--The theory that we originally went into Federal court was that we had exhausted our tribal court remedies with respect to jurisdiction and that the tribe did not have jurisdiction to involuntarily force Mr. Stockert and A-1 Contractors into one of its courts for purposes of a civil case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3153.366], "stop_times": [3169.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3153.366}, "reply_to": "20212__2_139", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_141", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But... but is that... was it a violation of a Federal standard or a Federal law for the tribe to proceed that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3169.417], "stop_times": [3175.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3169.417}, "reply_to": "20212__2_140", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_142", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It was a violation of the decisions of this Court in the Montana case and a misapplication of the exceptions of that case in order to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3175.859], "stop_times": [3183.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3175.859}, "reply_to": "20212__2_141", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_143", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "It sounds to me like you're saying that there is no authority to proceed, but I'm not sure why that's... presents a Federal question, until they... until they try to levy on your assets or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3183.916], "stop_times": [3194.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.916}, "reply_to": "20212__2_142", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_144", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I believe the Federal question is presented by the fact that there is a deprivation of Mr. Stockert's rights.\nThere is a deprivation of his right to have this case heard in a court to which he is a member, to which he can vote--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3194.763, 3201.658], "stop_times": [3201.658, 3208.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3194.763}, "reply_to": "20212__2_143", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_145", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, how is that any different from my hypothetical of going into a State court... a State court exercising jurisdiction over me, and I say, well, you have no jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3208.821], "stop_times": [3215.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3208.821}, "reply_to": "20212__2_144", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_146", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3215.737], "stop_times": [3216.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3215.737}, "reply_to": "20212__2_145", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_147", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "I don't rush into Federal court and get an injunction.\nI don't see that there's a Federal question here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3216.037, 3218.378], "stop_times": [3218.378, 3220.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.037}, "reply_to": "20212__2_146", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_148", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, it's different in the sense that there's different sovereigns involved, Your Honor.\nThe States... the sovereignty of the States is different from the States and the tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3220.081, 3223.56], "stop_times": [3223.56, 3227.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3220.081}, "reply_to": "20212__2_147", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_149", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, is there a Federal question of jurisdiction over... any question of Indian law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3227.002], "stop_times": [3230.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.002}, "reply_to": "20212__2_148", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20212__2_150", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes, there is, Your Honor, because the... because of the plenary power of Congress in dealing with the Indians that's referenced in the Constitution.\nThis Court has indicated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3230.435, 3237.622], "stop_times": [3237.622, 3239.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3230.435}, "reply_to": "20212__2_149", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_151", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Well, certainly... certainly our cases like Iowa Mutual certainly suggest that you can... not only suggest, but I think they hold you can come into Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3239.221], "stop_times": [3246.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.221}, "reply_to": "20212__2_150", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_152", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3246.537], "stop_times": [3247.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3246.537}, "reply_to": "20212__2_151", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_153", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--if there has been exhaustion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3247.596], "stop_times": [3248.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.596}, "reply_to": "20212__2_152", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_154", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "That's exactly what the Farmers Union case said, Your Honor.\nThe Farmers Union case said that Federal courts are the final arbiters of questions of Indian jurisdiction.\nSo, to the extent that authority is needed for that proposition, it's in the Farmers Union case.\nAnd it was again in Iowa Mutual.\nAnd basically, what Iowa Mutual was, was an extension of that exhauction requirement.\nBut, again... and it dealt with Section 1332 jurisdiction for diversity cases.\nBut it extended that exhaustion requirement that was announced in Farmers Union and recognized that yes, it is a Federal question... the question of Indian jurisdiction is a Federal question, because of the unique nature of Indian tribes in their dealings with the Congress and with the American people.\nThere has been no congressional delegation of adjudicatory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3248.467, 3251.048, 3257.483, 3263.507, 3265.909, 3271.111, 3276.708, 3292.398], "stop_times": [3251.048, 3257.483, 3263.507, 3265.909, 3271.111, 3276.708, 3292.398, 3295.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3248.467}, "reply_to": "20212__2_153", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_155", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Can I ask one other question?\nWhat if the plaintiff in this case had been a tribal member, would your case be stronger or weaker?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3295.671, 3296.442], "stop_times": [3296.442, 3301.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.671}, "reply_to": "20212__2_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20212__2_156", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe, in this case, under these facts, my case would not be any weaker.\nThe... the... if the plaintiff were a tribal member, you would still have the same issues of the divestment of the highway.\nYou would still have the divestment of the power to exclude.\nYou would still have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3301.625, 3307.178, 3317.366, 3320.909], "stop_times": [3307.178, 3317.366, 3320.909, 3321.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.625}, "reply_to": "20212__2_155", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_157", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Aren't there in fact children of the named plaintiff... adult children... who are tribal members who have claims in this very case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3321.878], "stop_times": [3329.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3321.878}, "reply_to": "20212__2_156", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_158", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--There are adult children who have consortial claims that they have asserted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3329.942], "stop_times": [3333.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3329.942}, "reply_to": "20212__2_157", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_159", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Yes.\nAnd they are tribal members?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3333.705, 3333.886], "stop_times": [3333.886, 3334.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.705}, "reply_to": "20212__2_158", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_160", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "They are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3334.617], "stop_times": [3335.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3334.617}, "reply_to": "20212__2_159", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_161", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "But their claims are not before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3335.278], "stop_times": [3336.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3335.278}, "reply_to": "20212__2_160", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20212__2_162", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, their claims are not before us.\nThose are claims that are derivative and they are essentially pending claims.\nAnd they can adequately be pursued in the State courts, as well, pursuant to the second Montana exception.\nTo the extent there is a tribal interest that could be asserted here, however marginal, that... that interest could be adequately protected in the State court.\nAnd not only is there... is Petitioner conceding that there is concurrent jurisdiction, but there is actually an action pending in the State court.\nAnd with respect to the community argument that has been made by the Petitioners, the local courthouse, the closest local courthouse... and the State court is actually closer to the area where this accident happened then the reservation courthouse, which is across the lake and around the highway.\nSince the lake was constructed, you actually would have to go around the lake almost... you would have to go far west and then cross a bridge to get to the tribe courthouse and you'd just go a few miles south to get to the county courthouse.\nSo it's not like there's any disadvantage to Mrs. Frederick's being required to use a State court of which she's a citizen and of which she has power to vote.\nIf there are no further questions, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3336.968, 3339.439, 3344.293, 3352.018, 3360.235, 3366.967, 3383.831, 3393.148, 3404.176], "stop_times": [3339.439, 3344.293, 3352.018, 3360.235, 3366.967, 3383.831, 3393.148, 3404.176, 3406.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3336.968}, "reply_to": "20212__2_161", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_163", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Is Lake Sakakawea, is that a corruption of Sakajawea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3406.448], "stop_times": [3411.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3406.448}, "reply_to": "20212__2_162", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_164", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "--Well, the Native American people in our part of the country would argue, Your Honor, that it's not a corruption but the actual pronunciation of the name is Sakakawea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3411.069], "stop_times": [3418.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3411.069}, "reply_to": "20212__2_163", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20212__2_165", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3418.314], "stop_times": [3419.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3418.314}, "reply_to": "20212__2_164", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20212__2_166", "conversation_id": "20212", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1872", "start_times": [3419.005], "stop_times": [3419.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3419.005}, "reply_to": "20212__2_165", "speaker": "patrick_j_ward"}
{"id": "20318__0_000", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-243, Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.\nMr. Radford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [0.0, 9.497], "stop_times": [9.497, 11.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__0_001", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is about an ordinary property owner who's been denied all beneficial use of her land and then, in addition, has been denied access to the courts to seek relief for that categorical taking of her property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [11.63, 14.243], "stop_times": [14.243, 28.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.63}, "reply_to": "20318__0_000", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_002", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, at the outset, I... and maybe you can answer this question very easily.\nI don't know why you didn't bring an inverse suit here, number 1, as a matter of choice.\nI don't know why you're not required to do so under Williamson as a matter of law, unless it's peculiar to TRPA.\nThere's no inverse action available to you against the bi-State agency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [28.182, 32.363, 37.228, 44.722], "stop_times": [32.363, 37.228, 44.722, 50.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 28.182}, "reply_to": "20318__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__0_003", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, of course, is a bi-State body operating under an act of Congress, and the type of proceeding that was initiated here in district court would appear to be specifically authorized under the TRPA compact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [50.067], "stop_times": [68.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.067}, "reply_to": "20318__0_002", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_004", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Can you bring an inverse suit against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [68.749], "stop_times": [72.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 68.749}, "reply_to": "20318__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__0_005", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, I'm afraid that I can't answer that question, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [72.341], "stop_times": [75.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.341}, "reply_to": "20318__0_004", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_006", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But don't you have to answer it under Williamson?\nWilliamson says that that's what you must do.\nMaybe... is it because the agency has no treasury, I guess, to pay the judgment, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [75.814, 77.354, 80.004], "stop_times": [77.354, 80.004, 85.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 75.814}, "reply_to": "20318__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__0_007", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Does your... is the thrust of your question going to the second prong of Williamson County regarding the need to pursue State remedies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [85.089], "stop_times": [92.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 85.089}, "reply_to": "20318__0_006", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_008", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Yes, and these aren't State remedies because it's a bi-State agency, but it still seems to me that to put the case into focus you should go to inverse condemnation first and then 1983 if there's no inverse available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [92.994], "stop_times": [107.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.994}, "reply_to": "20318__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__0_009", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, the position of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is that they do not have the power of eminent domain, they do not have provisions for paying just compensation, and this entered into the decision that was made at the initial level of this litigation to proceed by way of Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [107.754], "stop_times": [125.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.754}, "reply_to": "20318__0_008", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_010", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Thank you.\nAnd so we might say that generally we do not know that there are routinely inverse suits filed against the agency and defendant against the agency as they would be against, say, the State of California or the State of Nevada?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [125.505, 125.946], "stop_times": [125.946, 138.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.505}, "reply_to": "20318__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__0_011", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--I'm not aware of such a practice, certainly not routinely, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [138.784], "stop_times": [142.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.784}, "reply_to": "20318__0_010", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_012", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Thank you.\nDoes the charter of the agency give them eminent domain power?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [142.797, 143.057], "stop_times": [143.057, 146.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.797}, "reply_to": "20318__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_013", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "No, it does not, Justice Scalia.\nI'd like to make two points here this morning, if I could.\nFirst, the opportunity to sell development credits for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is not a remaining use of Mrs. Suitum's land that could constitute a ripeness bar to her regulatory takings claim.\nSecond, the monetary value of those credits, which was the sole issue in dispute in the proceedings below, has no relevance to the ripeness of her claim, and in any case is eminently fit for adjudication using ordinary appraisal methods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [146.44, 147.932, 151.125, 164.936], "stop_times": [147.932, 151.125, 164.936, 180.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.44}, "reply_to": "20318__0_012", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_014", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But it might have relevance as to whether there's a taking, conceivably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [180.683], "stop_times": [184.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.683}, "reply_to": "20318__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_015", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I don't believe that would be true, Justice O'Connor.\nThe monetary value--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [184.176, 189.061], "stop_times": [189.061, 191.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.176}, "reply_to": "20318__0_014", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_016", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, but it was true in Penn Central, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [191.202], "stop_times": [195.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.202}, "reply_to": "20318__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_017", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I think that the Solicitor General made a... an extremely important distinction in the brief that was filed with this Court.\nI believe on page 17 the distinction was between value and rights that were retained in Mrs. Suitum's property following the application of these regulations and value or rights that were obtained from the agency after the complete deprivation of her ownership rights.\nThe value of the TDR's... and we're going to use shorthand here.\nWhen we talk about TDR's, transferable development rights, we're talking about these credits that the agency has created.\nTheir value, if any, is something that has been injected from the outside after all of Mrs. Suitum's development rights have been destroyed.\nThose are values that she has obtained from the agency, not values that were retained by her property and, of course, when you look at it that way, and the reason that distinction I think is valuable is it illustrates that what TRPA is really doing here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [195.213, 202.92, 222.441, 226.605, 232.319, 241.505], "stop_times": [202.92, 222.441, 226.605, 232.319, 241.505, 256.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 195.213}, "reply_to": "20318__0_016", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_018", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, how were the TDR's obtained in Penn Central?\nI mean, we at least dealt in that case with transferable development rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [256.334, 259.175], "stop_times": [259.175, 264.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.334}, "reply_to": "20318__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_019", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--The TDR's at issue in Penn Central, Justice O'Connor, of course were not considered relevant to the ripeness issue.\nThe Court went directly to the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [264.409, 270.994], "stop_times": [270.994, 274.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.409}, "reply_to": "20318__0_018", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_020", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But apparently they were considered of relevance in deciding whether there was a taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [274.006], "stop_times": [278.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 274.006}, "reply_to": "20318__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_021", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "That... that would appear to be correct.\nThe direct answer to your prior question is, the TDR's that were at issue in Penn Central were preexisting.\nThey were not created by the landmarks law that was being challenged in Penn Central.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [278.838, 281.85, 290.095], "stop_times": [281.85, 290.095, 295.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 278.838}, "reply_to": "20318__0_020", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_022", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "They existed when the owner bought the property in question and later sued on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [295.37], "stop_times": [300.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.37}, "reply_to": "20318__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_023", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I could not tell you exactly when Penn Central purchased the property involved and when the New York City zoning ordinance went into effect, but the TDR's were part of the general zoning ordinance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [300.273], "stop_times": [311.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 300.273}, "reply_to": "20318__0_022", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_024", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But in any event, when Mrs. Suitum bought her property the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was not yet in existence and hadn't developed the TDR?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [311.91], "stop_times": [322.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.91}, "reply_to": "20318__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_025", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "The agency was in existence at the time Mrs. Suitum acquired this property in 1972.\nHowever, the credits that are at issue here were only created under the 1987 plan that came along, of course, considerably after Mrs. Suitum and her husband had acquired this lot with the expectation of being able to build a home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [322.657, 329.032], "stop_times": [329.032, 343.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.657}, "reply_to": "20318__0_024", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_026", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Now, there is some residual value to the extent the property might want to be acquired by a neighbor or someone else to have a larger yard or additional property, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [343.199], "stop_times": [355.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.199}, "reply_to": "20318__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_027", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [355.168], "stop_times": [356.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.168}, "reply_to": "20318__0_026", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_028", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "There is some value, apparently, remaining for that purpose.\nWe don't know how much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [356.119, 359.762], "stop_times": [359.762, 361.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.119}, "reply_to": "20318__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_029", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--I would disagree with that, respectfully, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [361.582], "stop_times": [362.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.582}, "reply_to": "20318__0_028", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_030", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Volleyball and things like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [362.904], "stop_times": [364.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.904}, "reply_to": "20318__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__0_031", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, I know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [364.765], "stop_times": [366.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.765}, "reply_to": "20318__0_030", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_032", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "A picnic table?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [366.497], "stop_times": [367.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.497}, "reply_to": "20318__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_033", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--The situation that we have here is an ordinary street with ordinary homes and one vacant lot in the middle of it.\nIt might be a suburb of Milwaukee or Sacramento.\nIt happens to be Incline Village.\nNow, you have two houses, obviously, on each side of that vacant lot, and the Ninth Circuit actually says this.\nThat consists... that comprises a market for her property, because either of those two neighbors might want to buy that as an extension of their own land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [367.186, 375.921, 378.322, 379.834, 386.92], "stop_times": [375.921, 378.322, 379.834, 386.92, 395.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.186}, "reply_to": "20318__0_032", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_034", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But there was an affidavit backing that up, wasn't there, the Johnson affidavit that said this property has some residual value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [395.515], "stop_times": [403.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.515}, "reply_to": "20318__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20318__0_035", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "That's true, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [403.17], "stop_times": [405.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.17}, "reply_to": "20318__0_034", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_036", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "So the Ninth Circuit had something to go on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [405.092], "stop_times": [407.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.092}, "reply_to": "20318__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20318__0_037", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well... however, if you look at the evidentiary basis for that affidavit, there were no comparable sales.\nThere has never been a sale of SEZ property... that is, property that the agency has designated a stream environment zone... to an adjacent landowner.\nMr. Johnson's affidavit cited to six sales which were an attachment to that affidavit, every one of which was a sale by the State of Nevada.\nThere has never been an arm's length private transaction between the owner of SEZ property and an adjacent property owner, and there's no reason to believe there ever would be one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [407.352, 413.326, 424.375, 433.95], "stop_times": [413.326, 424.375, 433.95, 444.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.352}, "reply_to": "20318__0_036", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_038", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, suppose we think in fact there is some residual value in what's left for sale for some purpose, obviously less than it would be if a house could be built upon it.\nIf there is such a value, does it go to the determination of whether there's a taking in the first instance, and then possibly later, if there is a taking, to the amount of money that should be paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [444.558, 457.025], "stop_times": [457.025, 469.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.558}, "reply_to": "20318__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_039", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "It would presumably go to the issue of viability for a taking, Justice O'Connor.\nIt certainly would not go to the ripeness question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [469.023, 473.648], "stop_times": [473.648, 475.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.023}, "reply_to": "20318__0_038", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_040", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "The Ninth Circuit didn't reach any takings question, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [475.859], "stop_times": [479.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 475.859}, "reply_to": "20318__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__0_041", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [479.382], "stop_times": [480.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.382}, "reply_to": "20318__0_040", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_042", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "They said that under Hamilton County this was simply... you had to pursue further remedies before they would even confront the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [480.269], "stop_times": [487.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.269}, "reply_to": "20318__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__0_043", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [487.194], "stop_times": [488.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.194}, "reply_to": "20318__0_042", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_044", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I thought it was your position that it doesn't go to the taking either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [488.766], "stop_times": [491.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.766}, "reply_to": "20318__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_045", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [491.88], "stop_times": [492.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.88}, "reply_to": "20318__0_044", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_046", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "That the criterion is not residual value, but whether there is any economically beneficial use of the land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [492.357], "stop_times": [501.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.357}, "reply_to": "20318__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_047", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--That, indeed, is our position, Justice Scalia.\nIn response to Justice O'Connor's hypothetical, what I was saying is, if this Court decides that there's residual value in the property and decides that that has some relevance to the takings question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [501.193, 504.005], "stop_times": [504.005, 515.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 501.193}, "reply_to": "20318__0_046", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_048", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Or decides that there may be.\nWe don't need to make the factual determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [515.245, 516.975], "stop_times": [516.975, 519.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.245}, "reply_to": "20318__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__0_049", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--That's correct.\nI'm sorry if I misrepresented your question, Justice O'Connor, but the thrust of my answer was, if the Court winds up in the position of saying this is not a complete wipe-out, this isn't a Lucas-type deprivation of all beneficial use but in fact is a Penn Central type analysis where we look at the economic impact and balance various factors, then that would become relevant.\nI think this is a Lucas case.\nI think if we were to get to the merits... and, of course, all the Ninth Circuit actually arrived at was the ripeness issue... if we were to get to the merits, I think this is a Lucas case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [519.606, 520.967, 543.031, 544.644], "stop_times": [520.967, 543.031, 544.644, 554.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.606}, "reply_to": "20318__0_048", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_050", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Do we have to say whether it's a Lucas case or a Penn Central case in order for you to prevail on the ripeness claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [554.068], "stop_times": [560.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.068}, "reply_to": "20318__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__0_051", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "No.\nThat's not necessary, Justice Kennedy.\nWhat we need to prevail in this case to reverse the decision of the Ninth Circuit is simply a ruling that Mrs. Suitum has, in fact, received a final decision within the meaning of Williamson County, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [560.794, 561.134, 563.287], "stop_times": [561.134, 563.287, 574.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.794}, "reply_to": "20318__0_050", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_052", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Is the TRPA subject to the Administrative Procedure Act?\nHas any court ever decided that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [574.911, 578.574], "stop_times": [578.574, 580.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.911}, "reply_to": "20318__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__0_053", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--I know of no ruling to that effect, Your... Mr. Chief Justice, and my assumption would be they are not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act which, of course, applied in the Abbott Laboratories case that TRPA now seems to rest its ripeness claims on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [580.397], "stop_times": [597.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 580.397}, "reply_to": "20318__0_052", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_054", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Do I understand the reasoning of the courts below that the lack of ripeness depended not only on the fact that there had not been a final ruling from the county in this... with respect to one of these rights that... the lottery issue, I guess... but that in fact with respect to all of the TDR's collectively there was simply too little known about their actual functioning to assign a market value, and because a market value could not be supplied, that was one of the reasons for saying that the claim was not ripe.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [597.147, 632.491], "stop_times": [632.491, 633.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.147}, "reply_to": "20318__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__0_055", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Justice Souter, that is the interpretation that TRPA places on the decisions below.\nI don't read that myself.\nIn the proceedings below we had, of course, a request... or, actually an order from the district court for a supplementary briefing on how the TDR process worked.\nThe supplemental briefs and affidavits were submitted, and among the material that was submitted in that process were affidavits valuing these very credits that are at issue.\nMrs. Suitum presented valuation evidence.\nThe TRPA presented valuation evidence.\nThis was a factual issue that was presented to the trial court to determine in response to its order for supplemental briefing, and yet presented with this evidence that both sides were prepared to testify and present experts as to the valuation of the credits, the court simultaneously held that the credits have value, but there's no way of knowing what that value is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [633.482, 639.356, 641.527, 651.782, 663.639, 666.511, 669.183], "stop_times": [639.356, 641.527, 651.782, 663.639, 666.511, 669.183, 691.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 633.482}, "reply_to": "20318__0_054", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_056", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I take it it's your position that even if the value of the credits cannot be determined, you are prepared to proceed in this suit and take whatever consequences that fact might produce for you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [691.208], "stop_times": [704.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.208}, "reply_to": "20318__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__0_057", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Justice Souter, the answer to that would be yes.\nMrs. Suitum wants to build her house.\nShe believes that she's entitled to realize her reasonable expectations to proceed with the development of her subdivision lot just as everyone else in the subdivision has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [704.278, 705.768, 708.469], "stop_times": [705.768, 708.469, 718.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.278}, "reply_to": "20318__0_056", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_058", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "And I take it you would say... or maybe you don't say.\nI take it you would say that if these credits have no market value, or have no value that can be established, that that in a sense aggravates the taking that has occurred in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [718.187, 721.449], "stop_times": [721.449, 735.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.187}, "reply_to": "20318__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__0_059", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "That would be correct, Justice Kennedy.\nNow, there seems to be a strange dilemma that's presented by the rulings below, and that is clearly either there is a market for the TDR's as the agency has contended and many of its amici contend in their briefs to this Court... either there is a market for the TDR's in which they are commonly bought and sold, in which case the court could easily determine the value by appraisal, or there is not a market for them, as the agency has contended in other cases, and nobody knows what they're worth.\nIt's a total mystery.\nIn which case, it would obviously be completely unfair to force Mrs. Suitum to go out and try to test a market that doesn't exist.\nSignificantly, I think, if we look at footnote 18 in the respondent's brief, the bottom line to all of this is, regardless of whether Mrs. Suitum goes out and goes through this process, tests the market, gets an offer, comes back to the agency and applies for a sale of these credits, it's the agency's position that the court should still make up its own determination of what the credits are worth.\nSo there's clear... more than an implication.\nThe TRPA has clearly expressed its position that the courts can determine the valuation issue completely independently of anything Mrs. Suitum is required to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [735.097, 737.398, 765.978, 767.006, 773.892, 797.729, 802.253], "stop_times": [737.398, 765.978, 767.006, 773.892, 797.729, 802.253, 811.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.097}, "reply_to": "20318__0_058", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_060", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "If you're right, you have a very strong argument that's final and definite.\nSo then we'd say it's ripe, go decide the merits.\nBut when they get to the merits, what is the situation?\nThat is, my impression is that they've been through the merits in the court, that there's one affidavit in there that says that these things are worth something... I don't know if it's $30,000... several thousand dollars, and then there's another affidavit that says no, they're not worth anything.\nThat was struck out of the case, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.\nSo if we send it back, what is there left to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [811.266, 816.88, 820.332, 822.964, 837.154, 840.385], "stop_times": [816.88, 820.332, 822.964, 837.154, 840.385, 843.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.266}, "reply_to": "20318__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__0_061", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Our basic position, Justice Breyer, is that although the value of the credits can easily be determined by the trial court, that in fact is irrelevant to the taking issue, because what these regulations have done--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [843.557], "stop_times": [857.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.557}, "reply_to": "20318__0_060", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_062", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "So in other words you're going to send it back and make a legal argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [857.537], "stop_times": [859.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.537}, "reply_to": "20318__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__0_063", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [859.368], "stop_times": [859.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.368}, "reply_to": "20318__0_062", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_064", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "And the legal argument will be on the basis of the record this constitutes a taking, and the other side will say on the basis of the record it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [859.929], "stop_times": [865.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.929}, "reply_to": "20318__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__0_065", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--That's correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [865.762], "stop_times": [866.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.762}, "reply_to": "20318__0_064", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_066", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [866.704], "stop_times": [867.102], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 866.704}, "reply_to": "20318__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20318__0_067", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [867.102], "stop_times": [867.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.102}, "reply_to": "20318__0_066", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_068", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But so far as this particular proceeding this morning is concerned, I take it your position is, even if you lose on the question whether the TDR's are relevant to the taking, you are ready to litigate them for whatever they are worth, and you just want to proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [867.683], "stop_times": [882.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.683}, "reply_to": "20318__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__0_069", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "That's correct, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [882.103], "stop_times": [883.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.103}, "reply_to": "20318__0_068", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_070", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [883.244], "stop_times": [883.535], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 883.244}, "reply_to": "20318__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20318__0_071", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Now, I would have to add that this is an extremely unusual case in that the substantive issue of whether there has been a Lucas-type taking seems almost to be contained within the procedural issue of whether the case is ripe for adjudication.\nThis came up on ripeness.\nThe question presented was ripeness, and by the normal procedures of this Court, a ruling would be limited to ripeness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [883.535, 901.206, 902.686], "stop_times": [901.206, 902.686, 910.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.535}, "reply_to": "20318__0_070", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_072", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, the one is included in the other only if the way that you resolve the first is by resolving that these things have no value.\nIf you resolve it that way, then indeed the Lucas question is answered, but if you resolve it the other way, that they have some value, then it's not the same question, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [910.322, 915.686], "stop_times": [915.686, 926.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.322}, "reply_to": "20318__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_073", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, there's another way of looking at it, Justice Scalia, and that is, the Ninth Circuit held the case was not ripe because the opportunity to sell these TDR's was a use of Mrs. Suitum's property.\nIf we're going to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision, then the conclusion could only be that the opportunity to sell the TDR's is not a use of her property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [926.982, 938.739], "stop_times": [938.739, 948.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.982}, "reply_to": "20318__0_072", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_074", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Why?\nIt is what it is.\nI mean, that is to say, they have said this is the situation.\nYou have these three things, the 180 feet, the allocation, the 5-4 residential rights... that's it.\nYou got it.\nOkay.\nNow we go back and decide whether taking a person's property is at issue, or it is a taking under those circumstances or it isn't.\nWhat is there any need for us to go beyond that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [948.346, 948.817, 950.217, 953.77, 960.716, 961.066, 961.527, 970.783], "stop_times": [948.817, 950.217, 953.77, 960.716, 961.066, 961.527, 970.783, 973.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.346}, "reply_to": "20318__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__0_075", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--There--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [973.003], "stop_times": [973.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.003}, "reply_to": "20318__0_074", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_076", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "That is, why should we overrule a holding, what looks like a holding in the Penn Central case in order to decide a ripeness issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [973.323], "stop_times": [980.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.323}, "reply_to": "20318__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__0_077", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Oh, no, Justice Breyer.\nI want to make it perfectly clear that we are not suggesting this Court should overrule Penn Central or, indeed, should overrule any previous precedent.\nOur position is the existing precedents of this Court in Williamson County and the MacDonald case are clearly consistent with a ruling that this case is ripe.\nThere's been a final adjudication not just regarding the ability to utilize her land which was involved in Williamson County and MacDonald, there's also been a final determination, as you just said, regarding what credits are available... indeed, what credits she is required to go out and market.\nSo there's been a final decision, the case is ripe, that's as far as this case needs to go... the Court needs to go.\nHowever, the Court could, without in any way overruling Penn Central or any other case, take the additional step of saying, since the ability to sell these credits is not a use of her property, she has no beneficial use of her property.\nThe regulations have deprived her of all beneficial use.\nBecause everyone agrees... the parties, and the courts below... everyone agrees that she has no remaining use of her property except the ability to sell the TDR's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [980.998, 982.781, 989.913, 999.39, 1015.97, 1022.204, 1035.795, 1039.686], "stop_times": [982.781, 989.913, 999.39, 1015.97, 1022.204, 1035.795, 1039.686, 1049.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.998}, "reply_to": "20318__0_076", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_078", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Suppose an agency said that you can't use this lot, but we will give you your choice of one of four other residential lots which appraisers would testify are comparable.\nWould that be a taking in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1049.733, 1058.329], "stop_times": [1058.329, 1060.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.733}, "reply_to": "20318__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__0_079", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I think that would be a taking, Justice Kennedy, under the basic standard that all land is unique, and to say we're going to take away the land that you own in which your expectations are wrapped up and give you another piece of land would in fact be a taking with an offer of compensation.\nNow, the property owner might accept that offer, but they might also claim no, that doesn't comply with the just compensation requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1060.48, 1076.051], "stop_times": [1076.051, 1082.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.48}, "reply_to": "20318__0_078", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_080", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Mr. Radford, do I understand you correctly that you recognize that the only thing before us is that threshold ripeness?\nI think at least the United States has said you have a final order, you have a final decision, and the only question is this prudential ripeness coming out of Abbott Laboratories.\nThat was the United States' position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1082.634, 1091.871, 1102.717], "stop_times": [1091.871, 1102.717, 1105.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.634}, "reply_to": "20318__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20318__0_081", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, I would agree, Justice Ginsburg, that actually in my opinion both the Solicitor General and the agency in their briefs to this Court have conceded that there's been a final decision within the meaning of Williamson County.\nNow, the fallback to Abbott Laboratories I think is completely inappropriate and something this Court should avoid.\nAbbott Laboratories was not a land use case.\nIt wasn't a takings case.\nIt wasn't even a constitutional law issue.\nHowever, if we were to look at the Abbott Laboratories standards we'd see that the basic issue in Abbott Laboratories, determining the ripeness of a preenforcement challenge to Federal regulations, is whether there had been a final agency action that imposed a distinct injury upon the plaintiff.\nThere clearly has been in this case.\nIn fact, that would seem to be virtually the same as the final decision requirement in the specific land use context of Williamson County.\nWhat the agency is trying to do with Abbott Laboratories is shoe-horn its argument in through the second subsidiary issue of hardship on the parties and yet, of course, the hardship inquiry in Abbott Laboratories was not a balancing test, where we looked at the hardship on the plaintiffs of having adjudication delayed versus the hardship on the Government, whatever that would mean, of having a prompt determination of the legality of its regulations.\nThe hardship inquiry applied only to the petitioners.\nWhat the Court looked at is, will there be an injury, a further injury to the petitioner of having adjudication delayed, and clearly that also holds in this case.\nMrs. Suitum stands to suffer not only the additional losses of time and expense of continually litigating her basic constitutional rights, but her constitutional claims could, in fact, be mooted out if she complies with the procedural requirements that the Ninth Circuit has set forth.\nSo frankly we think that this Court should simply reject TRPA's proposal to proceed with an Abbott Labs type analysis, look at Williamson County, look at MacDonald... those are land use cases involving regulatory takings challenges.\nThe point of the Takings Clause is fairness.\nThe point of requiring just compensation when there has been a complete wipe-out of all beneficial use of land is fairness.\nThe point of the ripeness doctrine is certainty.\nWe want to know that we have a certain claim.\nWe want to know that the regulations have been applied with certainty so that we can proceed with the adjudication.\nWe have certainty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1105.119, 1117.017, 1124.012, 1126.823, 1128.413, 1131.646, 1149.689, 1151.762, 1159.275, 1186.733, 1190.334, 1199.76, 1219.853, 1235.345, 1238.417, 1247.072, 1249.633, 1253.025, 1258.648], "stop_times": [1117.017, 1124.012, 1126.823, 1128.413, 1131.646, 1149.689, 1151.762, 1159.275, 1186.733, 1190.334, 1199.76, 1219.853, 1235.345, 1238.417, 1247.072, 1249.633, 1253.025, 1258.648, 1259.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.119}, "reply_to": "20318__0_080", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_082", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Mr. Radford, could I take you back to the line of questioning that Justice O'Connor began with?\nYou said that none of these TDR's preexisted the asserted taking here.\nThat is, the denial of the building authorization.\nIs that so?\nI thought that... is it not the case that any lot owner in this area could, if he or she wished, sell that lot-owner's right to build to somebody else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1259.93, 1264.192, 1272.908, 1276.982, 1278.173], "stop_times": [1264.192, 1272.908, 1276.982, 1278.173, 1291.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.93}, "reply_to": "20318__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_083", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Within the many restrictions that are placed on the transactions that's correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1291.42], "stop_times": [1296.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1291.42}, "reply_to": "20318__0_082", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_084", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Right.\nWell, so then some of these TDR's did preexist the asserted taking here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1296.413, 1296.713], "stop_times": [1296.713, 1301.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.413}, "reply_to": "20318__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_085", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Perhaps my answer to Justice O'Connor was misspoken.\nMy point was that the TDR's were created at the same time as this regulatory scheme that TRPA has placed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1301.588, 1305.462], "stop_times": [1305.462, 1313.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.588}, "reply_to": "20318__0_084", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_086", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, the regulatory scheme is not the taking.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1313.186, 1315.397], "stop_times": [1315.397, 1316.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.186}, "reply_to": "20318__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_087", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1316.018], "stop_times": [1316.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.018}, "reply_to": "20318__0_086", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_088", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--I thought your point was that if something is given to you at the same time as the taking, it can be regarded as compensation, but it in no way reduces the amount of the taking, and their response is, yes, but you had more than just your ability to use the land at the time of the taking.\nYou also had your ability to trade off your land rights to somebody else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1316.689, 1334.03], "stop_times": [1334.03, 1337.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.689}, "reply_to": "20318__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_089", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, we have, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1337.472], "stop_times": [1338.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.472}, "reply_to": "20318__0_088", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_090", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "And for some of them that's true.\nI'm not sure all of them.\nI think some of them you only acquire after you've been designated a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1338.892, 1339.994, 1340.832], "stop_times": [1339.994, 1340.832, 1345.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.892}, "reply_to": "20318__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__0_091", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--That's... that's true.\nOf course, you have to go through the lottery to obtain the allocation.\nYou get the bonus residential development rights but only if you sell your initial right and greenbelt your property and so forth.\nBut the sole point I was making was that the TDR's at issue in Penn Central existed prior to the whole regulatory scheme of the landmarks regulation.\nIt was part of the comprehensive zoning plan of the entire City of New York.\nHere, by contrast, the TDR's were created at the same time as the regulatory plan under which it was finally applied to Mrs. Suitum, giving rise to this taking.\nThe point being, the TDR's at issue here were created specifically for situations where these regulations will deprive an owner of all beneficial use of their land and then go through an ersatz compensation procedure of saying, in effect, here, you have some paper.\nWe've taken away all of your property rights but you have some paper.\nWe haven't taken that away, so you not only have no taking, but your claim isn't even ripe.\nI'd like to reserve the rest of my time, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1345.126, 1346.327, 1349.44, 1357.054, 1365.499, 1369.803, 1379.478, 1396.481, 1399.942, 1404.675], "stop_times": [1346.327, 1349.44, 1357.054, 1365.499, 1369.803, 1379.478, 1396.481, 1399.942, 1404.675, 1407.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1345.126}, "reply_to": "20318__0_090", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__0_092", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Radford.\nMr. Lazarus, we'll hear from you.\nI hope sometime during your argument you will comment on the observation I am about to make, that the Ninth Circuit seemed to rely very heavily on the Williamson v. Hamilton County.\nYour brief here kind of shifts and goes to Abbott Laboratories.\nIs that really a shift in your position, or a chance in emphasis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1407.387, 1408.576, 1411.18, 1422.247, 1426.798], "stop_times": [1408.576, 1411.18, 1422.247, 1426.798, 1430.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.387}, "reply_to": "20318__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__1_000", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "It's exactly that, Your Honor.\nIt is a change in emphasis.\nIt's not a change in the bottom line reasoning or the ultimate result.\nWe... as this case has progressed our thinking has evolved somewhat on that issue, and we don't think that the best way to view the ripeness issue, which is a prudential ripeness issue here, the best way to view it is in strict terms of finality in Williamson County but instead in terms of more of a flexible approach a prudential ripeness as reflected in this Court's decision in Abbott Labs.\nWilliamson County--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1430.281, 1431.653, 1433.844, 1438.028, 1459.212], "stop_times": [1431.653, 1433.844, 1438.028, 1459.212, 1460.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1430.281}, "reply_to": "20318__0_092", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_001", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Do you think the Administrative Procedure Act applies to the TRPA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1460.223], "stop_times": [1464.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.223}, "reply_to": "20318__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__1_002", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--No.\nThe Administrative Procedure Act does not apply, and our basic position is that the Abbott Labs principles, the prudential ripeness principles announced in Abbott Labs, which, of course, was a case involving the Administrative Procedure Act, should apply more broadly than just cases, and there's no reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1464.365, 1464.896], "stop_times": [1464.896, 1478.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1464.365}, "reply_to": "20318__1_001", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_003", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "So you would apply, say, Abbott Laboratories to an entirely uni-State proceeding if this were just California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1478.914], "stop_times": [1486.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.914}, "reply_to": "20318__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__1_004", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI mean, basically our position is that prudential ripeness is described in very flexible terms in Abbott Labs, and at those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1486.11, 1487.78], "stop_times": [1487.78, 1494.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1486.11}, "reply_to": "20318__1_003", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_005", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "What if the State of California were to take a different position in its administrative procedure rulings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1494.615], "stop_times": [1499.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.615}, "reply_to": "20318__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__1_006", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, we're just claiming in terms of Federal jurisdiction, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1499.817], "stop_times": [1504.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.817}, "reply_to": "20318__1_005", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_007", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "So you say the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is governed by Federal law in this respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1504.302], "stop_times": [1509.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.302}, "reply_to": "20318__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__1_008", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--No.\nIt's just a question of, it's a jurisdictional issue to the extent a case is brought in Federal court, and cases to be brought against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency under the compact either in State court or in Federal court.\nTo the extent that they're brought in Federal court, though, standing requirements would apply, both prudential and constitutional, and ripeness considerations would apply, both prudential and constitutional.\nPetitioner's position in this litigation is decidedly at odds in our view with the interests of property owners concerned about governmental regulation.\nThey are challenging a ripeness ruling that will likely help them, and they attack a TDR program that furthers rather than undermines private property rights.\nPetitioner offers two reasons why the lower courts were wrong in concluding that her takings claim lacks ripeness, a very narrow reason and a broad reason.\nI would like to begin my argument by addressing first petitioner's narrow argument, because I believe at least that argument presents a close question.\nPetitioner's narrow argument is that her takings claim is ripe because the value of her TDR's can be determined by a court based on appraisals without any effort necessary by her to market them or to seek any possible approval of the transfer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1509.264, 1509.465, 1519.801, 1530.019, 1539.445, 1549.24, 1559.867, 1566.931], "stop_times": [1509.465, 1519.801, 1530.019, 1539.445, 1549.24, 1559.867, 1566.931, 1582.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1509.264}, "reply_to": "20318__1_007", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_009", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, and that sounds eminently reasonable in light of the evidence that we do have in front of us.\nExperts have given their opinion of the value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1582.391, 1587.845], "stop_times": [1587.845, 1591.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.391}, "reply_to": "20318__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__1_010", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "And we do agree, Your Honor, that the appraisals that are in evidence are very good evidence and they're weighty evidence, but the value of an actual marketing effort for a TDR remains great, and let me explain why.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1591.16], "stop_times": [1603.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1591.16}, "reply_to": "20318__1_009", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_011", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, but I don't see why that's a requirement for ripeness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1603.667], "stop_times": [1606.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.667}, "reply_to": "20318__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__1_012", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1606.018], "stop_times": [1606.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1606.018}, "reply_to": "20318__1_011", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_013", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Maybe the best value of a property is if it's sold, but we have many claims for takings where the property isn't sold, and no court requires it to be sold in order to determine the value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1606.378], "stop_times": [1618.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.378}, "reply_to": "20318__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__1_014", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1618.606], "stop_times": [1619.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1618.606}, "reply_to": "20318__1_013", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_015", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "So it's a strange argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1619.007], "stop_times": [1620.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.007}, "reply_to": "20318__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__1_016", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, Your Honor, this is a unique case, because TDR's... most real property, the value can be readily determined based on appraisals.\nTDR's are fairly unique in this regard, which is what makes the value for the fitness of the issue so important to actually have a marketing effort.\nLet me try to explain just for a moment.\nThe single most dispositive factor in valuing real property, as we all know, is location.\nWell, TDR's arise in the first instance out of ownership at one location, but their efficiency and their effectiveness is that they can ultimately be applied to many locations.\nUntil one starts to begin to identify where the market exists for the TDR, it's very hard to know its value.\nA TDR, for instance in Placer County if ultimately applied there is worth far less than in Washoe County.\nBut the irony here is if you look back to the old TDR cases in the 1960's, the early litigation in Penn Central, it was the property owners who made this complaint about TDR's, that until you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1620.957, 1629.423, 1635.197, 1636.789, 1642.662, 1651.998, 1658.881, 1665.566], "stop_times": [1629.423, 1635.197, 1636.789, 1642.662, 1651.998, 1658.881, 1665.566, 1675.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.957}, "reply_to": "20318__1_015", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_017", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, but the TDR's in Penn Central were different in that they went to property already owned by the claimant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1675.985], "stop_times": [1682.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.985}, "reply_to": "20318__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__1_018", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--They didn't have to.\nThese could go to properties that were owned by Mrs. Suitum if she owned them.\nThese TDR's are actually far more flexible than the TDR's in Penn Central because they can go to adjacent property, property she owns, or they can go to lots of people in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1682.109, 1683.178, 1686.911], "stop_times": [1683.178, 1686.911, 1694.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1682.109}, "reply_to": "20318__1_017", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_019", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, you say they're more flexible, but they also strike me as less usable, since at least the person who owned the property that the TDR applied to could make the judgment do I want to use it, rather than just having to sell it to somebody.\nIt seems to me your argument is... if the TRPA says you can't use your lot but here's some scrip, you go over to Harrah's and you can play roulette with it.\n[Laughter]\nThen you say no, we don't value the scrip.\nWe have... we require the owner to stand outside the door of Harrah's and see what she can get for it, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1694.495, 1708.075, 1717.843, 1718.143, 1720.993], "stop_times": [1708.075, 1717.843, 1718.143, 1720.993, 1725.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.495}, "reply_to": "20318__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__1_020", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--The fact that the Court considers the TDR's in the Penn Central case relevant both to the economic impact and considered to be use of the property did not turn on the happenstance that they actually owned some other property nearby.\nIf Mrs. Suitum owned some other property nearby, the TDR's could be applied there.\nThe TDR's here, though, are far more flexible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1725.607, 1737.604, 1741.915], "stop_times": [1737.604, 1741.915, 1744.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1725.607}, "reply_to": "20318__1_019", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_021", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "What... there's a 60-day claims period against TRPA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1744.519], "stop_times": [1747.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.519}, "reply_to": "20318__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__1_022", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "The 60-day claims period would not apply in this case.\nThis is a section 1983 case, and under section 1983 the general limitations period applicable in Nevada for personal injuries pursuant to this Court's decisions in Wilson--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1747.559, 1750.601], "stop_times": [1750.601, 1760.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.559}, "reply_to": "20318__1_021", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_023", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "How does Mrs. Suitum know when the... even under 1983 the statute runs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1760.088], "stop_times": [1764.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.088}, "reply_to": "20318__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__1_024", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--The statute would run in our view, the way we approach the case, that if she identified an interested and eligible buyer, and they had obtained TRPA approval of the transfer, at that point limitations would run.\nIf, instead, she found out that it was futile... it was... with a good faith effort there was no market, and we don't think that's going to happen, then it would begin running at the date of the reasonable discovery of the cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1764.913, 1777.582], "stop_times": [1777.582, 1789.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.913}, "reply_to": "20318__1_023", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_025", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Your rules adopted by the association say that you have to bring suit within 60 days, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1789.109], "stop_times": [1794.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.109}, "reply_to": "20318__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_026", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Yes, but those rules... and this has actually been litigated and settled, at least in the Ninth Circuit, that for a 1983 action it's quite consistent, and mandated by this Court's decision in Wilson v. Garcia, that there is a uniform limitations period for all 1983 actions, and you look to the applicable State law, and in this case it would be Nevada.\nIt would be 2 years.\nSo it's not as though some 1983 actions are governed by the 60-day in Article VI and others are governed by Nevada law.\nInstead, 1983 actions would all be governed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1794.963, 1813.266, 1814.297, 1820.652], "stop_times": [1813.266, 1814.297, 1820.652, 1824.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.963}, "reply_to": "20318__1_025", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_027", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But I didn't see anywhere in these... I haven't read yet everything, but I didn't see in most of these things any ground that the authority would have to deny approval, assuming that she transferred the rights to a person who was qualified, which any other... so what's left to do?\nI mean, why isn't it ripe under any theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1824.355, 1841.766], "stop_times": [1841.766, 1844.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.355}, "reply_to": "20318__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_028", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1844.598], "stop_times": [1844.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.598}, "reply_to": "20318__1_027", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_029", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "That she's been told at a certain date at that moment you cannot build on this property, and instead, here are some pieces of paper, and they have definite rights in them, and there's nothing more for the agency to do.\nThere's nothing for the agency to do.\nThe legal issue's clear.\nWhat remains under Abbott Laboratories to happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1844.938, 1859.878, 1862.58, 1864.683], "stop_times": [1859.878, 1862.58, 1864.683, 1871.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.938}, "reply_to": "20318__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_030", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, one of the factors that would apply in a case like this is the Penn Central factor and the economic impact of the regulation, and until the court has the record fleshed out to make the proper determination of the economic impact, which includes the value of the TDR's, the court... it's just a matter of prudential ripeness considering on the one hand the relative fitness of the issue, and the issue simply is not fit.\nAs counsel themselves said, they viewed this whole thing as a mystery, how much these things were worth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1871.028, 1891.498], "stop_times": [1891.498, 1896.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.028}, "reply_to": "20318__1_029", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_031", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Mr. Lazarus, suppose there's a regular inverse condemnation case, and the plaintiff is saying, you took my land, and I want just compensation.\nDo you think that the State that took the land, or the State agency, would be able to come in and say, you know, this land is way off in the mountains.\nThere hasn't been a sale in that area in 50 years.\nFiguring out the value of that land for just compensation purposes is very difficult.\nThis suit is not ripe.\nThe owner of the land has to go out and find a potential buyer at some cost.\nWhy is that any different from... you know the answer to that is, of course, the suit is ripe.\nWhy is that any different from the present case?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1896.633, 1905.208, 1912.094, 1915.347, 1920.229, 1923.3, 1927.552, 1931.095, 1933.316], "stop_times": [1905.208, 1912.094, 1915.347, 1920.229, 1923.3, 1927.552, 1931.095, 1933.316, 1933.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.633}, "reply_to": "20318__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_032", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "It's different from the present case because of the uniqueness of TDR's.\nIn a case like that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1933.556, 1938.1], "stop_times": [1938.1, 1939.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.556}, "reply_to": "20318__1_031", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_033", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "No, but you are creating the uniqueness.\nI mean, you are supplying the ingredient which Justice Scalia referred to as being up in the mountains without any comparable sales, and the only thing that is unique is that, in creating the TDR scheme, you have created the problem.\nWhy should the landowner have to wait because you created something which is difficult to value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1939.152, 1940.421, 1954.18], "stop_times": [1940.421, 1954.18, 1959.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.152}, "reply_to": "20318__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_034", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, the landowner shouldn't have to wait if there would be any undue hardship, but what you have here is a question for the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1959.584], "stop_times": [1965.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.584}, "reply_to": "20318__1_033", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_035", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "We don't inquire into hardship in that case.\nI've never heard of a court inquiring into hardship.\nThe court might say to the plaintiff, look, if you can't prove the value, you're the one who's going to be the loser, but if you want to go ahead, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1965.717, 1967.239, 1968.718], "stop_times": [1967.239, 1968.718, 1977.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.717}, "reply_to": "20318__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_036", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1977.644], "stop_times": [1978.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.644}, "reply_to": "20318__1_035", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_037", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "They don't look into hardship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1978.075], "stop_times": [1978.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.075}, "reply_to": "20318__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_038", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--There are other things at stake here.\nOne of the most important things of prudential ripeness is the fitness of the issue for the court to decide, and the court here simply wanted to decide this very important as-applied takings case based on the better evidence possible.\nThe court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1978.946, 1980.186, 1993.286], "stop_times": [1980.186, 1993.286, 1993.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.946}, "reply_to": "20318__1_037", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_039", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I can't think of any ripeness case I've ever read, and maybe you can cite one, but I can't think of any ripeness case I've ever read in which a factor like this made a difference.\nI mean, because of what Justice Scalia said.\nThe agency isn't likely to change.\nThey're not going to change anything, and of course it would be a little easier if we had better evidence about what these TDR's are worth, but is there any case which said because you can get better valuation evidence later--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [1993.726, 2002.232, 2005.343, 2007.795], "stop_times": [2002.232, 2005.343, 2007.795, 2019.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.726}, "reply_to": "20318__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_040", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2019.863], "stop_times": [2020.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.863}, "reply_to": "20318__1_039", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_041", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--this matter isn't ripe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2020.113], "stop_times": [2023.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.113}, "reply_to": "20318__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_042", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--There are not cases involving valuation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2023.146], "stop_times": [2025.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.146}, "reply_to": "20318__1_041", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_043", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "No, but anything like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2025.607], "stop_times": [2026.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.607}, "reply_to": "20318__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_044", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "There are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2026.779], "stop_times": [2027.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.779}, "reply_to": "20318__1_043", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_045", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Which case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2027.647], "stop_times": [2028.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.647}, "reply_to": "20318__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__1_046", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, there are cases involving the fact the court wants better facts before it to decide, like the Whren v. Geary case, the First Amendment case I believe written by Justice Kennedy involving a First Amendment challenge, and one of the questions... it was a California constitutional provision which made it unlawful for a political party to endorse any candidate for non... a nonpartisan office.\nAnd if one reads the Court's opinion there, one of the things the Court is concerned about there is that until they have an actual application... they can see what the pamphlets are.\nThey can see what the actual hardship would be on the political party in that case... it simply really wasn't ripe for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2028.659, 2050.815, 2058.018], "stop_times": [2050.815, 2058.018, 2064.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.659}, "reply_to": "20318__1_045", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_047", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Mr. Lazarus, on a question of evidence, what these TDR's are worth, it's something that you created.\nThe landowner really wants nothing to do with it, and one of the considerations when we're dealing with evidence is which side is better equipped to present the information.\nNow, as I understand it, Ms. Suitum had somebody testify and that person was rejected as not a proper expert.\nYou had someone who did qualify as an expert, so even if the record needs fleshing out, why should it be Suitum rather than the agency that does the fleshing out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2064.572, 2072.157, 2082.844, 2091.76], "stop_times": [2072.157, 2082.844, 2091.76, 2102.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.572}, "reply_to": "20318__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20318__1_048", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, because she is the plaintiff in this case, and she in effect created the factual uncertainty about these TDR's which prompted the lower court to decide that it needed a better record to decide the case than it had before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2102.137], "stop_times": [2113.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.137}, "reply_to": "20318__1_047", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_049", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Why should we characterize her as creating the uncertainty when it was your agency that created the rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2113.855], "stop_times": [2120.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.855}, "reply_to": "20318__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_050", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, we created the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2120.46], "stop_times": [2121.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.46}, "reply_to": "20318__1_049", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_051", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Why blame her rather than your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2121.651], "stop_times": [2124.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.651}, "reply_to": "20318__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_052", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, the rights that we created, though, were rights which were very consistent with fairness and justice, and that is in this case we were striving--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2124.242], "stop_times": [2131.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.242}, "reply_to": "20318__1_051", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_053", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, that's kind of the issue here, isn't it?\n[Laughter]\nMay I... let me make a proposal, and you tell me if I'm wrong, and why.\nIt seems to me that the agency's interest here in raising the ripeness claim and in defending what has happened below is simply this, that if the valuation does proceed right now, without the development of a market and without the... any further action by the petitioner, an appraiser is likely to come in and say, there is so little reason for me to ascribe value to these rights that I'm going to ascribe a very low value to them.\nI'm going to say, perhaps not that they're worth less... worth nothing, but that they are worth very little.\nAnd it seems to me that that's the only interest which the agency has in delaying this.\nThey don't want a low valuation.\nIs there something more involved in that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2131.946, 2134.638, 2134.878, 2141.674, 2177.297, 2183.222, 2189.706, 2192.648], "stop_times": [2134.638, 2134.878, 2141.674, 2177.297, 2183.222, 2189.706, 2192.648, 2194.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.946}, "reply_to": "20318__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_054", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, certainly the agency has an interest in a ruling which promotes the creation of this market, but the real, more concrete interest of the agency in this case... because, of course, the only record evidence in this case, the only appraisals are all on our side.\nOur interest is a far broader interest, and that is to have these applied takings challenges based on the best record possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2194.829, 2211.921], "stop_times": [2211.921, 2221.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2194.829}, "reply_to": "20318__1_053", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_055", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But it seems to me quite manipulative for you to say we want to use the courts to create our market.\nYou want the ruling to create a market?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2221.478, 2225.75], "stop_times": [2225.75, 2229.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.478}, "reply_to": "20318__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_056", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "It would have... it could have that incidental effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2229.172], "stop_times": [2231.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2229.172}, "reply_to": "20318__1_055", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_057", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "If your position is that these are worth something, then that ought to be a market that you've created when you gave her the coupons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2231.534], "stop_times": [2239.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.534}, "reply_to": "20318__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_058", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, Your Honor, that is an incidental, I think positive effect of our position, but I think the main impetus of our position remains the fact that it is in the Government's interest always to have the constitutionality determined based on a fully fleshed-out record.\nNow, in this case, perhaps the trial court, contrary to our recommendation, should have, relying on our appraisals, ruled against the petitioner on the merits.\nThe irony is what she is challenging is a ruling that is far more generous than that which is in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2239.779, 2257.64, 2268.209], "stop_times": [2257.64, 2268.209, 2275.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.779}, "reply_to": "20318__1_057", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_059", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But then she could have been able to appeal here on the merits question, which your opposing counsel is urging us to reach but acknowledges we need not reach, and this 6 years of litigation would have been ended that much sooner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2275.152], "stop_times": [2287.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2275.152}, "reply_to": "20318__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_060", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2287.78], "stop_times": [2288.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2287.78}, "reply_to": "20318__1_059", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_061", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "This just adds another layer of litigation.\nHow elderly is this plaintiff, if we're talking about hardship?\nDo we know how old the lady is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2288.311, 2291.063, 2294.175], "stop_times": [2291.063, 2294.175, 2295.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.311}, "reply_to": "20318__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_062", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--I believe she's 82 years old.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2295.685], "stop_times": [2297.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.685}, "reply_to": "20318__1_061", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_063", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "And she's been litigating this for 6 years already.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2297.217], "stop_times": [2299.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.217}, "reply_to": "20318__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_064", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2299.648], "stop_times": [2300.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.648}, "reply_to": "20318__1_063", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_065", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Do you want to talk about hardship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2300.419], "stop_times": [2301.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.419}, "reply_to": "20318__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_066", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well--\n[Laughter]\nTo the extent, Your Honor, that there's been hardship here, under our view she could have very easily made this case ripe consistent with the district court's opinion in a very short time.\nThe delay that has resulted over the years is a result of the litigation.\nNow, she is of course well within her rights to appeal, but having chosen to appeal, you can't claim hardship on the valuation based on the time that it took for the appeal when the case could have been very easily made ripe for other times.\nI can't speculate as to why, given the age of the petitioner, one chose one technique rather than another technique, but in terms of hardship, I don't think one could put the litigation, particularly the lengthy appeal, as evidence of the hardship--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2301.889, 2302.269, 2302.67, 2314.388, 2317.831, 2332.76], "stop_times": [2302.269, 2302.67, 2314.388, 2317.831, 2332.76, 2345.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2301.889}, "reply_to": "20318__1_065", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_067", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "How could she... does she have to wait till she wins the lottery?\nWhat if she doesn't win the lottery?\nHow is that one to be evaluated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2345.437, 2348.682, 2350.111], "stop_times": [2348.682, 2350.111, 2351.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.437}, "reply_to": "20318__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_068", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Under our view, she basically would have to make a good faith effort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2351.612], "stop_times": [2356.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.612}, "reply_to": "20318__1_067", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_069", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "To win the lottery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2356.176], "stop_times": [2357.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.176}, "reply_to": "20318__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_070", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, it's a lottery that we'd all like to apply to, Your Honor.\nBased on the record evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2357.355, 2361.329], "stop_times": [2361.329, 2363.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.355}, "reply_to": "20318__1_069", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_071", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "She can only sell that particular right if she wins the lottery, so I guess she would have to keep applying until she wins, and then try to sell it and see how much it's worth, and then maybe you discount it by the chances of winning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2363.542], "stop_times": [2376.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.542}, "reply_to": "20318__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_072", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2376.278], "stop_times": [2376.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.278}, "reply_to": "20318__1_071", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_073", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2376.519], "stop_times": [2377.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.519}, "reply_to": "20318__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_074", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Yes, well, the record evidence is in 1993 there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2377.47], "stop_times": [2380.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2377.47}, "reply_to": "20318__1_073", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_075", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "The point is, it's certainly not an easy thing for her to come up with the kind of evaluation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2380.722], "stop_times": [2384.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.722}, "reply_to": "20318__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_076", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2384.594], "stop_times": [2385.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.594}, "reply_to": "20318__1_075", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_077", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--that you're talking about, and she had no reason to believe you were going to be generous in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2385.745], "stop_times": [2388.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.745}, "reply_to": "20318__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_078", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2388.636], "stop_times": [2390.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.636}, "reply_to": "20318__1_077", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_079", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--saying never mind the lottery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2390.038], "stop_times": [2390.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.038}, "reply_to": "20318__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__1_080", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Because everything is outside the record, there were fewer applicants than allocations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2390.878], "stop_times": [2394.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.878}, "reply_to": "20318__1_079", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_081", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Yes, but it's the case that everybody wins this lottery after 4 or 5 years.\nI got that impression from reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2394.62, 2398.512], "stop_times": [2398.512, 2399.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.62}, "reply_to": "20318__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__1_082", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, at this point there were few... in Washoe County there were fewer applicants than there are allocations, so at this point it's really not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2399.834], "stop_times": [2406.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.834}, "reply_to": "20318__1_081", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_083", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--There's 100 percent chance of winning the lottery?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2406.939], "stop_times": [2409.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.939}, "reply_to": "20318__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__1_084", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Yes, and even if there wasn't, Your Honor, because obviously this could vary depending on the county, all we're asking... all we're basically urging the Court to adopt here is a prudential approach which would be looking at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2409.17], "stop_times": [2420.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.17}, "reply_to": "20318__1_083", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_085", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Mr. Lazarus, I understand the Ninth Circuit didn't, and the Abbott Laboratories is a new creation, and you're talking about balance of hardships.\nThat's... the Ninth Circuit thought it was dealing with a Williamson-type case.\nIt was just like, could I get a variance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2420.877, 2428.542, 2432.675], "stop_times": [2428.542, 2432.675, 2435.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.877}, "reply_to": "20318__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20318__1_086", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--We think the better way to view the case is in more flexible terms.\nWilliamson County and Yolo County are, after all, really just case-specific applications of the broader principles of Abbott Labs, basically concerns with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2435.217, 2439.381], "stop_times": [2439.381, 2449.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.217}, "reply_to": "20318__1_085", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_087", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But there's also one... I'm sorry.\nI think there's one difference between the Williamson situation and this, and that is, if I understand it correctly, in the Williamson situation the rights which the property owner wanted to exercise were rights which came to the property owner with the purchase of the property, but they were simply subject to a Government limitation.\nYou can't do this unless you get a variance.\nThe rights that we're concerned with here, however, are at least in part new rights.\nShe, for example, did not when she purchased her lot get a right to have somebody else build so many square feet on somebody else's lot.\nThat's a brand new creation, and so that, it seems to me, is why the... even if we were to say well, this is a Williamson case, you might still be in trouble under Williamson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2449.716, 2451.188, 2470.47, 2472.851, 2477.605, 2486.491], "stop_times": [2451.188, 2470.47, 2472.851, 2477.605, 2486.491, 2496.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.716}, "reply_to": "20318__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__1_088", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, and that's maybe one reason why we think the better way to view the case is in more flexible terms.\nIf I've got a little time, I'd like to spend just a moment, though, on petitioner's broader ripeness argument, which is simultaneously less persuasive and far more troublesome, and that's petitioner's argument that the value of her TDR's is irrelevant as a matter of law as to the question whether this property has been taken.\nWe really think that that argument is directly contrary to this Court's holding in the Penn Central case, where the Court directly faced... the only case in which this Court has directly faced the question of the relevance of TDR's to the question whether the property has been taken, and the Court squarely held that the value of TDR's is relevant to the economic impact.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2496.816, 2501.881, 2516.771, 2536.093], "stop_times": [2501.881, 2516.771, 2536.093, 2536.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.816}, "reply_to": "20318__1_087", "speaker": "richard_j_lazarus"}
{"id": "20318__1_089", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lazarus.\nMr. Wallace, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2536.764, 2537.953], "stop_times": [2537.953, 2540.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.764}, "reply_to": "20318__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__2_000", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt's important to bear in mind that the TDR's under this plan become part of the owner's bandle of rights that are connected with the property.\nThe market--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2540.006, 2554.246, 2571.695], "stop_times": [2554.246, 2571.695, 2572.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2540.006}, "reply_to": "20318__1_089", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_001", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But they're new sticks in the bundle, at least some of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2572.977], "stop_times": [2575.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.977}, "reply_to": "20318__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__2_002", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--They're new sticks in the bundle which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2575.63], "stop_times": [2577.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2575.63}, "reply_to": "20318__2_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_003", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Is an easement part of the bundle of rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2577.82], "stop_times": [2580.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.82}, "reply_to": "20318__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__2_004", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--It could be if it were transferable.\nThe point I'm trying to make is that if she were to sell her lot to a new purchaser and had not used the TDR's, the purchaser would get the right to use the TDR's and market them, and therefore the market value of the lot that she owns reflects the value of the TDR's.\nThis is not some separate compensation that's been given to her personally.\nIt's a part of the bundle of rights that goes with ownership of this parcel.\nThis was an effort made--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2580.491, 2584.205, 2604.428, 2610.622, 2615.094], "stop_times": [2584.205, 2604.428, 2610.622, 2615.094, 2619.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2580.491}, "reply_to": "20318__2_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_005", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "If you had two parcels, one with this restriction and one without, which person has the bigger bundle of rights?\nIt seems to me very strange to call this part of the bundle of rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2619.358, 2625.8], "stop_times": [2625.8, 2629.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.358}, "reply_to": "20318__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20318__2_006", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, it is part... in takings analysis, in regulatory takings cases we look to see what economic value has been retained and what economic value has been taken, as well as the purpose of the regulation, interference with reasonable investment-back expectations and the rest of it.\nWhat she retains under this plan, which was designed to mitigate, in accordance with this Court's analysis in Penn Central, the economic burden that would be placed on these environmentally, sensitive properties where no further development on the property itself, no further impermeable surfacing could be permitted, what she has been given is something that this record says is of value and is marketable along with the land if she wants to sell the lot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2629.393, 2653.318], "stop_times": [2653.318, 2693.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2629.393}, "reply_to": "20318__2_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_007", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, Mr. Wallace, what if the Government had imposed this same restriction on her, and instead of giving her TDR's had said, we have another piece of property over here that we think is equal to the value we're taking away from you, so here it is.\nNow, that may or may not be ripe, but surely there's not a ripeness problem there, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2693.954, 2709.035], "stop_times": [2709.035, 2713.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.954}, "reply_to": "20318__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__2_008", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, ripeness is not what I was speaking of at the moment.\nThere would not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2713.389, 2717.801], "stop_times": [2717.801, 2718.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2713.389}, "reply_to": "20318__2_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_009", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, I thought that's what this case involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2718.602], "stop_times": [2719.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.602}, "reply_to": "20318__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__2_010", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Of course it does, and I wanted to get to that, but first we are quite concerned with the per se takings theory under which they are arguing that it's ripe, because it seems to us contrary to this Court's jurisprudence, not only directly contrary to the holding in Penn Central that TDR's count in the takings calculus and are not just to be considered part of compensation, but there's a reason for that holding that has to do with the fact that the TDR's are part of the bundle of rights that an owner of this parcel would get.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2719.734], "stop_times": [2756.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2719.734}, "reply_to": "20318__2_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_011", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But the Court didn't treat Penn Central as a ripeness case at all.\nIt treated it as a takings case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2756.276, 2760.419], "stop_times": [2760.419, 2761.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.276}, "reply_to": "20318__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__2_012", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2761.839], "stop_times": [2762.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2761.839}, "reply_to": "20318__2_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_013", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--and said there was no taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2762.07], "stop_times": [2763.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.07}, "reply_to": "20318__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__2_014", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Of course, and that is my point, that the Court held there was no taking, and part of the calculus was that the value of the TDR's was retained by the owner, and was something that contributed to market value remaining in that parcel of property.\nNow, in approaching the ripeness question itself, we have no enthusiasm generally for the proposition that a plaintiff in a takings case who fails to prove her case should get a second bite of the apple and be able to bring a case later making essentially the same claim if better evidence can be produced, so it was with some hesitancy that we supported the ripeness argument here on the respondent's side, and I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2763.051, 2782.953], "stop_times": [2782.953, 2828.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2763.051}, "reply_to": "20318__2_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_015", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Mr. Wallace, let me understand what you're just saying.\nI don't know that any judge in this case said that she didn't have a claim on the merits.\nI thought it was ripeness at both stages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2828.063, 2831.626, 2836.979], "stop_times": [2831.626, 2836.979, 2839.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.063}, "reply_to": "20318__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20318__2_016", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--That is true.\nThe courts below did not reach the merits, but the only evidence of value that she offered was excluded, and so it seems to us that the likely outcome if this case is held to be ripe is that the respondent has introduced sufficient evidence of value that it can't be said that she has shown that there's a taking.\nThe model--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2839.33, 2840.682, 2867.888], "stop_times": [2840.682, 2867.888, 2868.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2839.33}, "reply_to": "20318__2_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_017", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Goodness, no court decided that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2868.849], "stop_times": [2871.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.849}, "reply_to": "20318__2_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__2_018", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2871.531], "stop_times": [2871.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2871.531}, "reply_to": "20318__2_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_019", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Even taking the evidence introduced by the respondent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2871.811], "stop_times": [2875.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.811}, "reply_to": "20318__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__2_020", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--No court has decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2875.575], "stop_times": [2877.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2875.575}, "reply_to": "20318__2_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_021", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--her land was worth more than $100,000 many years ago as a location to build a house, and the evidence introduced by respondent shows that the rights given by the TDR's and the other rights attaching to the property at most would amount to what, $30,000 or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2877.295], "stop_times": [2896.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.295}, "reply_to": "20318__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__2_022", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--$35,000, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2896.408], "stop_times": [2897.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2896.408}, "reply_to": "20318__2_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_023", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "So we're not going to decide here that that couldn't be a taking.\nMy goodness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2897.898, 2901.401], "stop_times": [2901.401, 2902.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.898}, "reply_to": "20318__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__2_024", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2902.192], "stop_times": [2902.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2902.192}, "reply_to": "20318__2_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_025", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I mean, why not give this poor, elderly woman the right to go to court and have her takings claim heard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2902.452], "stop_times": [2909.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.452}, "reply_to": "20318__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20318__2_026", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--That could be done.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2909.636, 2914.75], "stop_times": [2914.75, 2915.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2909.636}, "reply_to": "20318__2_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_027", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "You rely on Abbott Labs.\n[Laughter]\nAbbott Labs is your answer, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2915.32, 2917.132, 2917.383], "stop_times": [2917.132, 2917.383, 2918.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.32}, "reply_to": "20318__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__2_028", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--Well, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2918.692], "stop_times": [2919.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2918.692}, "reply_to": "20318__2_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_029", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Abbott Labs is an APA case.\nIt's also, being an APA case it's a case... and a case seeking an injunction.\nIt's a case bringing one of the prerogative writs so that the court is sitting with all sorts of equitable powers, and can, indeed, decide to weigh the equities and so forth.\nThis is not an equitable case here, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2919.052, 2921.295, 2927.678, 2938.075], "stop_times": [2921.295, 2927.678, 2938.075, 2940.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2919.052}, "reply_to": "20318__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__2_030", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--She is seeking very similar relief in some of her claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2940.587], "stop_times": [2943.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2940.587}, "reply_to": "20318__2_029", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_031", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "198--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2943.849], "stop_times": [2944.4], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.849}, "reply_to": "20318__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20318__2_032", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "She's seeking a permit to build on this lot.\nShe is seeking equitable relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2944.4, 2946.801], "stop_times": [2946.801, 2949.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2944.4}, "reply_to": "20318__2_031", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_033", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "--But you... could you answer Justice O'Connor's question, because I have a distinct feeling perhaps the answer is neither the Government nor the respondent mind if this Court were to say, it's ripe.\nWe're not expressing any view on the merits... none... and all she is arguing is that in fact under these circumstances she gets definite rights of TDR's and her property can't be built on.\nShe says that constitutes a taking.\nThe other side says it doesn't.\nNow, suppose the opinion said just that, would the Government object?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2949.182, 2958.629, 2970.347, 2972.468, 2974.408], "stop_times": [2958.629, 2970.347, 2972.468, 2974.408, 2977.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.182}, "reply_to": "20318__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20318__2_034", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "This would not be harmful to our interests in any way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2977.68], "stop_times": [2981.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2977.68}, "reply_to": "20318__2_033", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_035", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Maybe this case is moot.\nI don't know why all these people have come up here, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2981.694, 2984.025], "stop_times": [2984.025, 2986.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.694}, "reply_to": "20318__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__2_036", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "What I--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2986.168, 2986.889], "stop_times": [2986.889, 2987.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2986.168}, "reply_to": "20318__2_035", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_037", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "I thought that's what the whole dispute was about, Mr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2987.188], "stop_times": [2990.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.188}, "reply_to": "20318__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20318__2_038", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, we have said that we think there has been a final decision in this case within the meaning of Williamson, and perhaps the role that we see for Abbott Laboratories can best be hypothesized if at the outset of this plan, when the TDR's were brand new and no one had marketed any of them, every owner of one of these properties went directly to court and there would be nothing in the way of comparable sales, nothing but speculation about what the value of the TDR's would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [2990.73], "stop_times": [3030.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2990.73}, "reply_to": "20318__2_037", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_039", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "But that's because of the nature of the right the agency itself created.\nYou're saying that agencies can diminish ownership rights and diminish value and then claim as a defense the fact that this can't be appraised in court.\nThis is a very strange doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [3030.517, 3033.79, 3046.085], "stop_times": [3033.79, 3046.085, 3047.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.517}, "reply_to": "20318__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20318__2_040", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Well, this was an effort to transform part of the bundle of rights in a way that would retain a substantial measure of value in it.\nThose responsible for governing at three levels here, the States that entered into the compact, Congress, and the planning agency, recognized that because of the basin's peculiar ecological fragilities, further development on these parcels located in these sensitive areas could not be permitted, that this would threaten the interrelated environmental and economic well-being of the entire basin.\nAnd so they tried to create a program that would retain a substantial measure of value for the owners of these parcels, and mitigate any loss that they would suffer as a result of what was not an extraneous restriction being placed on them but something very much related to the danger that their development would pose within Dolan v. Tigard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [3047.928, 3060.096, 3092.007], "stop_times": [3060.096, 3092.007, 3123.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3047.928}, "reply_to": "20318__2_039", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20318__2_041", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. Radford, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [3123.056, 3123.326], "stop_times": [3123.326, 3125.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.056}, "reply_to": "20318__2_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20318__3_000", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, unless there are further questions from the Court I have nothing to add.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [3125.789], "stop_times": [3133.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3125.789}, "reply_to": "20318__2_041", "speaker": "r_s_radford"}
{"id": "20318__3_001", "conversation_id": "20318", "text": "Very well.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-243", "start_times": [3133.975, 3135.226], "stop_times": [3135.226, 3136.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.975}, "reply_to": "20318__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_000", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1608, Michele Timmons v. The Twin Cities Area New Party.\nMr. Slowes, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [0.0, 9.427], "stop_times": [9.427, 19.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_001", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is here on a writ of certiorari from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\nThe issue is whether the laws of Minnesota and those of some 40 other States that limit each candidate to one party designation on the election ballot should be overridden by the desire of a party to place on that ballot as its candidate someone who is already on the ballot as a candidate of another party.\nIn this case, Minnesota's law preventing multiple party nominations prevented the respondent New Party from placing on the Minnesota election ballot as its candidate Representative Andy Dawkins, a Democratic-Farmer-Labor legislator who was already on the ballot as the DFL candidate.\nThe case involves a narrow aspect of political party activity.\nIt is not about the ability of a party to generally select its candidates.\nIt is not about the ability of a party to generally get its candidates on the ballot.\nIt is about the narrower issue of a political party that wishes to put on the ballot somebody else's candidate who is already there.\nMinnesota's law that precludes that activity does not freeze the status quo.\nIn fact, in Minnesota in the 1994 election a third party qualified as a major party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [19.675, 27.318, 31.422, 54.687, 75.83, 81.374, 87.218, 93.482, 103.778, 109.862], "stop_times": [27.318, 31.422, 54.687, 75.83, 81.374, 87.218, 93.482, 103.778, 109.862, 116.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 19.675}, "reply_to": "19788__0_000", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_002", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Somebody else's candidate that is already there.\nWho gets the first peck?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [116.747, 120.1, 123.844], "stop_times": [120.1, 123.844, 125.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 116.747}, "reply_to": "19788__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_003", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "In this instance what happens is, and what really controls here, Justice Scalia, is that the candidate must file an affidavit of candidacy, and on the affidavit of candidacy he must indicate his political party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [125.102], "stop_times": [138.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.102}, "reply_to": "19788__0_002", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_004", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [138.733], "stop_times": [139.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.733}, "reply_to": "19788__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_005", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "In this instance, Representative Dawkins had filed an affidavit of candidacy for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor primary.\nThat affidavit of candidacy was already on file when the New Party attempted to file another affidavit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [139.352, 146.957], "stop_times": [146.957, 153.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.352}, "reply_to": "19788__0_004", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_006", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "What if the New Party had filed... well, the same thing would happen if the New Party had... what if the New Party had put up Dawkins first?\nDoes that mean the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party wouldn't have been able to run Dawkins?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [153.901, 160.396], "stop_times": [160.396, 166.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.901}, "reply_to": "19788__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_007", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "If Representative Dawkins had said yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [166.489], "stop_times": [169.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.489}, "reply_to": "19788__0_006", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_008", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "To the New Party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [169.602], "stop_times": [171.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 169.602}, "reply_to": "19788__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_009", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I'll file this affidavit of candidacy listing the New Party as my party, filed it with the county officials--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [171.155], "stop_times": [177.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 171.155}, "reply_to": "19788__0_008", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_010", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "I presume he would not have done that if he wanted to be elected.\n[Laughter]\nI mean that if he was going to get the DFL nomination, he would... he could only get one.\nHe would have settled for the DFL.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [177.317, 181.32, 182.311, 185.833], "stop_times": [181.32, 182.311, 185.833, 187.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.317}, "reply_to": "19788__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_011", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I would presume that's so, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIn fact, in his affidavit which he submitted in this case he indicated he is a lifelong DFL member, that he believes in the DFL party, and if elected to the legis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [187.484, 190.265], "stop_times": [190.265, 199.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.484}, "reply_to": "19788__0_010", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_012", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "What if he sent both in at the same time?\nWhat would you do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [199.602, 201.502], "stop_times": [201.502, 202.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.602}, "reply_to": "19788__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_013", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Your Honor, that would not be permitted by the law.\nFirst of all, the law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [202.333, 205.465], "stop_times": [205.465, 208.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.333}, "reply_to": "19788__0_012", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_014", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "What is the State interest in preventing that from happening?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [208.268], "stop_times": [210.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.268}, "reply_to": "19788__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_015", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--The State interests are multiple, Justice Stevens, and what they have to do with, a number of issues that this Court has recognized as compelling State interests, although we don't believe that the Court has to conclude that they're compelling in this instance.\nOne of them is the concern that multiple party candidacies can lead to voter confusion about how to effectively cast your ballot.\nWhen the name appears on the ballot numerous times... in fact, this recently happened in Connecticut in one of their elections where fusion was used.\nSome of the voters thought that they had to fill in every line where the name appeared for the vote to count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [210.769, 222.937, 230.44, 237.486], "stop_times": [222.937, 230.44, 237.486, 243.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.769}, "reply_to": "19788__0_014", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_016", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "I guess you could have instructions on the ballot telling people what to do in that event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [243.05], "stop_times": [248.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.05}, "reply_to": "19788__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_017", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Justice O'Connor, in fact that's kind of the narrow tailoring that the Eighth Circuit suggested for that.\nWe think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [248.763, 252.737], "stop_times": [252.737, 253.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.763}, "reply_to": "19788__0_016", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_018", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But that would be possible, I guess, to have instructions along with a ballot that did permit parties to name the same person as their candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [253.528], "stop_times": [264.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.528}, "reply_to": "19788__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_019", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, it would be possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [264.425], "stop_times": [265.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.425}, "reply_to": "19788__0_018", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_020", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Or, indeed, I suppose you could count the vote whether you voted on one line, two lines, or either, or both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [265.673], "stop_times": [272.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.673}, "reply_to": "19788__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_021", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Your Honor, that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [272.459], "stop_times": [273.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 272.459}, "reply_to": "19788__0_020", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_022", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "I... it seems to me you have to be pretty dense to be confused on this one.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [273.5, 277.821], "stop_times": [277.821, 278.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 273.5}, "reply_to": "19788__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_023", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, apparently some voters in Connecticut were, Your Honor, and one of the issues in the recount was how do you deal with the ballots where there are multiple markings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [278.762], "stop_times": [286.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 278.762}, "reply_to": "19788__0_022", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_024", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Yes, but are we supposed to erase from our mind that there is at least one State that has had a lot of experience with fusion candidates, and there's no large confusion.\nIt's not a major problem.\nSo whatever one might speculate about the lack of intelligence of the voters, we do have the State of New York, where this has gone on without huge confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [286.229, 297.857, 299.477], "stop_times": [297.857, 299.477, 310.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.229}, "reply_to": "19788__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19788__0_025", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "That's indeed the case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [310.193], "stop_times": [312.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.193}, "reply_to": "19788__0_024", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_026", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "New Yorkers are smarter, I think.\nThat's probably the answer.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [312.135, 313.364, 314.476], "stop_times": [313.364, 314.476, 314.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.135}, "reply_to": "19788__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_027", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "I think that I have to be careful, if I'm going back to Minnesota, about making that argument, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]\nBut I think a State can make a judgment.\nIndeed, there is that record in New York.\nBut it's a singular record.\nThere is no indication from other States on what will happen.\nThere's not a broad range of empirical experience with this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [314.796, 320.581, 321.292, 324.935, 326.464, 327.965, 330.766], "stop_times": [320.581, 321.292, 324.935, 326.464, 327.965, 330.766, 333.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.796}, "reply_to": "19788__0_026", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_028", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "How many States have these antifusion laws like your State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [333.7], "stop_times": [338.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.7}, "reply_to": "19788__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_029", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "There are approximately 40, Your Honor.\nIt's difficult to get a precise count, because some of the statutes are ambiguous, and there aren't rulings about them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [338.033, 339.762], "stop_times": [339.762, 345.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.033}, "reply_to": "19788__0_028", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_030", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And most of them have been in effect how many years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [345.388], "stop_times": [348.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.388}, "reply_to": "19788__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_031", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Roughly since the turn of the century, Your Honor, so there's not a broad range of empirical evidence, but there's also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [348.477], "stop_times": [354.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 348.477}, "reply_to": "19788__0_030", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_032", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "What's your answer to the suggestion that someone made here that, assuming somebody gets confused and votes twice, all the State has to do is count it once?\nWhy isn't that the answer, the simple answer to the voter confusion point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [354.791, 363.137], "stop_times": [363.137, 367.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 354.791}, "reply_to": "19788__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19788__0_033", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Because we can't be certain that the ballot is going to be easily understandable in terms of what they really intended to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [367.902], "stop_times": [375.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.902}, "reply_to": "19788__0_032", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_034", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, if they marked... if Joe Doaks is running on two lines and they mark Joe Doaks on each line, isn't it a fair inference that they want Doaks?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [375.126, 383.382], "stop_times": [383.382, 385.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.126}, "reply_to": "19788__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19788__0_035", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Don't you have to know what party they voted for Doaks on in order to determine who gets on the ballot without having to go through a petition process the next time around, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [385.243], "stop_times": [397.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.243}, "reply_to": "19788__0_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_036", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [397.962], "stop_times": [398.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.962}, "reply_to": "19788__0_035", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_037", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Is there any minimum party size?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [398.65], "stop_times": [400.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.65}, "reply_to": "19788__0_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_038", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--In the circumstances of this case, which was a legislative election for a legislative seat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [400.733], "stop_times": [406.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.733}, "reply_to": "19788__0_037", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_039", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [406.117], "stop_times": [406.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.117}, "reply_to": "19788__0_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_040", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--the vote count has no effect on the future party status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [406.858], "stop_times": [409.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 406.858}, "reply_to": "19788__0_039", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_041", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [409.94], "stop_times": [410.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.94}, "reply_to": "19788__0_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_042", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Those... only Statewide elections count in Minnesota for major party status, so that's really not an issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [410.48], "stop_times": [417.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.48}, "reply_to": "19788__0_041", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_043", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, but I take it the argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [417.333], "stop_times": [419.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 417.333}, "reply_to": "19788__0_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__0_044", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--But that argument would be a valid argument in other elections, although not in this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [419.265], "stop_times": [423.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.265}, "reply_to": "19788__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_045", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "If it were a Statewide election there would be that issue, and then the State would have the question of how are we going to appropriately deal with this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [423.118], "stop_times": [431.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.118}, "reply_to": "19788__0_044", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_046", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But I take it the respondent's argument would address a Statewide election if the respondent prevails, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [431.692], "stop_times": [436.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.692}, "reply_to": "19788__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__0_047", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "It... they claim that it does not, Your Honor, because there are three statutes that are... affect fusion in Minnesota.\nOne of them specifically addresses that issue, but in terms of a Statewide election, the statutes that are at issue here would apply to Statewide elections as well, so if they are struck down then it would strike down fusion for Statewide elections and you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [436.927, 444.652], "stop_times": [444.652, 461.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.927}, "reply_to": "19788__0_046", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_048", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And then there would be a problem with determining the amount of votes garnered for each party, or a potential problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [461.412], "stop_times": [467.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.412}, "reply_to": "19788__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__0_049", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--The State would have to retune its system, figure out how it is going to deal with the issue of how you count the votes for a major party, along with the issues such as are we going to have an aggregated or a disaggregated ballot.\nThat is, does the candidate get a separate line for each party that nominates him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [467.847, 479.334], "stop_times": [479.334, 484.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.847}, "reply_to": "19788__0_048", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_050", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But why are these such difficult issues for the State to deal with?\nWhy, for example, can't the State simply decide that in the case in which there is a question of party qualification based on the vote, that one... that the major party will be deemed to have preeminence, and the vote will count for that purpose, that a minor party will not be allowed in an ambiguous case to count the vote.\nWhy can't the State come up with some kind of a tie-breaker rule which would be easier or less restrictive on voter choice than the antifusion rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [484.248, 487.619, 513.347], "stop_times": [487.619, 513.347, 523.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.248}, "reply_to": "19788__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19788__0_051", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not suggesting that the State's ability or inability to figure out how it wants to count these votes toward major party status is the preeminent interest that justifies the fusion ban, but I think it illustrates a slightly different point, and that is, what goes into creating a fair and orderly and efficient electoral process involves a lot of judgments, essentially a lot of political engineering about how the pieces of the system will work together.\nThis is just one of those pieces, and what we are suggesting is that where the States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [523.212, 552.901], "stop_times": [552.901, 558.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.212}, "reply_to": "19788__0_050", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_052", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "If that's not the preeminent interest, what is the preeminent interest?\nIf voter confusion isn't your justification, what are your stronger justifications?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [558.014, 559.906], "stop_times": [559.906, 564.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.014}, "reply_to": "19788__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_053", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--The justifications... I think voter confusion is an interest, Your Honor, and that's a side point of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [564.098], "stop_times": [571.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.098}, "reply_to": "19788__0_052", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_054", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "May I ask with respect to voter confusion if that is not offset by voter information?\nThat is, it's one thing to have a candidate only on the line of major party.\nIt's quite another thing to have that same candidate on the line of minor party that has certain goals and objectives.\nSo when the public sees someone not only in the line of major party but also of minor party, whether it's to the left or right of the political spectrum, that is telling the voters more about that candidate, so isn't... is that irrelevant, that informing function of being, say, on the liberal party line or on the conservative party line in the State of New York, to take that as an example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [571.064, 579.089, 584.993, 595.109], "stop_times": [579.089, 584.993, 595.109, 624.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.064}, "reply_to": "19788__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19788__0_055", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, our position is not that it's irrelevant.\nOur position is that that kind of communicative use of the ballot is not constitutionally compelled.\nIn fact, we don't elect parties at the elections, we elect candidates.\nWe use the ballot to decide which of these candidates is going to hold the official office that the election is for.\nIn fact, if Mr. Dawkins were elected on the DFL ballot, or as a DFLer, there's nothing that prevents him from the next day turning around and becoming a Republican.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [624.419, 626.981, 632.673, 638.818, 645.753], "stop_times": [626.981, 632.673, 638.818, 645.753, 656.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.419}, "reply_to": "19788__0_054", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_056", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "I'm interested in Justice Stevens' question.\nWhere we are so far is, it was suggested first by Justice Scalia that it might be important for the State to determine which party garners the most votes, and then you were asked a question, well, couldn't we presume that the preemininent party gets the votes.\nI very much doubt that minor parties would agree with such a presumption.\nAnd then you said, well, that's not really our interest.\nThat's a side thing.\nWe're talking about, really, the whole election dynamic.\nAnd then Justice Stevens said, well, what is your particular interest, and I never did get the answer to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [656.86, 661.332, 679.413, 682.737, 685.848, 687.08, 691.673], "stop_times": [661.332, 679.413, 682.737, 685.848, 687.08, 691.673, 695.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.86}, "reply_to": "19788__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__0_057", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "I'm sorry, Justice Kennedy, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [695.756], "stop_times": [697.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.756}, "reply_to": "19788__0_056", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_058", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, you've had a number of questions, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [697.356], "stop_times": [699.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.356}, "reply_to": "19788__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__0_059", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--And I... let me try to address that.\nOther interests that are involved: one of the concerns, and this relates to the confusion as well, is that confusion sets up a situation that is ripe for ballot manipulation.\nIt creates a situation where candidates can, in a sense, create bogus minor parties so that they can get their name on the ballot more than one time to give them an advantage, or perhaps taking it even a step further--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [699.569, 701.34, 710.666], "stop_times": [701.34, 710.666, 723.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.569}, "reply_to": "19788__0_058", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_060", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--But that bogus minor party would have to meet all the State statutory requirements for becoming a party eligible to get on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [723.733], "stop_times": [729.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.733}, "reply_to": "19788__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_061", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Stevens, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [729.847], "stop_times": [731.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.847}, "reply_to": "19788__0_060", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_062", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And so they would be splintering their own strength by going out of the way to create another party, wouldn't they, and has this ever happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [731.57], "stop_times": [736.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.57}, "reply_to": "19788__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_063", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Let me go back to the first question, Your Honor.\nIn Minnesota we make it very easy for minor parties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [736.922, 739.585], "stop_times": [739.585, 741.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.922}, "reply_to": "19788__0_062", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_064", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [741.655], "stop_times": [741.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.655}, "reply_to": "19788__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_065", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--to get on the ballot.\nIn this district it would take 500 signatures on a nominating petition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [741.925, 742.516], "stop_times": [742.516, 747.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.925}, "reply_to": "19788__0_064", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_066", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [747.179], "stop_times": [747.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.179}, "reply_to": "19788__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_067", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--to get someone on the ballot.\nThat's all there is to it.\nIt doesn't require party organization.\nIt doesn't require a lot of things that other States require, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [747.479, 748.551, 749.94, 751.713], "stop_times": [748.551, 749.94, 751.713, 754.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 747.479}, "reply_to": "19788__0_066", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_068", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And you're saying a major party would do that why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [754.543], "stop_times": [758.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.543}, "reply_to": "19788__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_069", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Because major party candidates might very well, if they're, for example... this wasn't the case with Mr. Dawkins, but if they're in a case, an election where they do have a tough contest with an opposing major party, they might decide that it's to their advantage either to have their name on the ballot more than one time, or they might even prefer to have their name on the ballot not only as a Democratic candidate, but also as the no-new-taxes candidate, and the tough-on-crime candidate, and the fusion system, especially in a State like Minnesota that is friendly to minor parties getting on the ballot and makes it easy to do it, opens the door for that kind of ballot manipulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [758.106], "stop_times": [797.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 758.106}, "reply_to": "19788__0_068", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_070", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Would you explain how the Minnesota system works?\nWhen you say get on the ballot, are you referring to get on the ballot for the primary election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [797.991, 800.583], "stop_times": [800.583, 806.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.991}, "reply_to": "19788__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_071", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "There are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [806.978], "stop_times": [808.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.978}, "reply_to": "19788__0_070", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_072", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Or getting on the general election ballot?\nI thought there was some special provision in your State for minor parties to put a candidate on the general election ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [808.229, 811.542], "stop_times": [811.542, 819.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.229}, "reply_to": "19788__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_073", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, there are two ways to get on the ballot in Minnesota.\nFor major parties, which we now have three of, those candidates have to go through a primary election, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [819.226, 822.469], "stop_times": [822.469, 831.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 819.226}, "reply_to": "19788__0_072", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_074", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But this... this party, the Twin Cities Area New Party, did not have to go on the primary election ballot, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [831.174], "stop_times": [841.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.174}, "reply_to": "19788__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_075", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nThey're in the second category.\nWe only have two categories.\nEither you are a major party, or you're just everything else--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [841.73, 842.441, 843.723, 845.212], "stop_times": [842.441, 843.723, 845.212, 848.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.73}, "reply_to": "19788__0_074", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_076", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And if you're everything else, how do you get past the primary and on the general election ballot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [848.044], "stop_times": [853.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.044}, "reply_to": "19788__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_077", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--To get on the ballot you're required to file a nominating petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [853.938], "stop_times": [856.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.938}, "reply_to": "19788__0_076", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_078", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "You mean on the general election ballot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [856.8], "stop_times": [858.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.8}, "reply_to": "19788__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_079", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "On the general election ballot.\nAll you have to do is file a nominating petition that has the requisite number of signatures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [858.943, 859.815], "stop_times": [859.815, 864.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 858.943}, "reply_to": "19788__0_078", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_080", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But the major parties can't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [864.015], "stop_times": [865.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 864.015}, "reply_to": "19788__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_081", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Major--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [865.686], "stop_times": [866.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.686}, "reply_to": "19788__0_080", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_082", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "They go through a primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [866.087], "stop_times": [867.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.087}, "reply_to": "19788__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_083", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nMajor party candidates have to go through a primary.\nEverybody else can get on by filing a nominating petition with... the number of signatures differs per... for office, but for this office it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [867.088, 868.04, 870.0], "stop_times": [868.04, 870.0, 877.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.088}, "reply_to": "19788__0_082", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_084", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "So all we're talking about here is access to the general election ballot, in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [877.773], "stop_times": [883.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.773}, "reply_to": "19788__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_085", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [883.397], "stop_times": [884.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.397}, "reply_to": "19788__0_084", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_086", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And whether the minor party can nominate the same candidate as some other party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [884.809], "stop_times": [893.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.809}, "reply_to": "19788__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_087", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [893.715], "stop_times": [894.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.715}, "reply_to": "19788__0_086", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_088", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--who's gotten there by primary election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [894.806], "stop_times": [896.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.806}, "reply_to": "19788__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_089", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That's all we're talking about, Your Honor, that's correct.\nAnd as I was saying, because it is so easy to get on that general election ballot for nonmajor party candidates, it opens the door for this kind of ballot manipulation.\nThe Eighth Circuit and the respondent suggest that we can take care of that by simply raising our signature threshold, make it tougher to get on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [896.519, 899.21, 910.708], "stop_times": [899.21, 910.708, 918.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.519}, "reply_to": "19788__0_088", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_090", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "May I put another question to you that... what concerns me in the background?\nI remember when General Eisenhower ran for President there was a real possibility both major parties might have nominated him, and it would seem to me that each of those parties would have had a strong associational interest in picking the nominee of its choice.\nNow, why is it that they shouldn't be allowed to both nominate General Eisenhower if they wanted to?\nWhat is the powerful interest that would prevent each party from picking its own nominee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [918.121, 923.925, 937.255, 942.838], "stop_times": [923.925, 937.255, 942.838, 947.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.121}, "reply_to": "19788__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_091", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Your Honor, their interests again are as I've started... tried to be telling you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [947.441], "stop_times": [953.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.441}, "reply_to": "19788__0_090", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_092", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Excuse me.\nI thought they could pick their own nominee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [953.515, 953.836], "stop_times": [953.836, 955.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.515}, "reply_to": "19788__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_093", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "They--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [955.448], "stop_times": [955.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.448}, "reply_to": "19788__0_092", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_094", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Not in Minnesota--\n--No, they can.\nThey just can't have it shown on the ballot as a nominee of that party.\nIsn't that the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [955.806, 957.058, 957.709, 960.58], "stop_times": [957.058, 957.709, 960.58, 961.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.806}, "reply_to": "19788__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_095", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--It all depends on the nomenclature you're using.\nIf you're talking about nominating a candidate as meaning, we're going to name this candidate and he will be on the ballot as our candidate, then that's what's prevented by fusion.\nWhat is not prevented is endorsement of a candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [961.761, 963.842, 972.368], "stop_times": [963.842, 972.368, 975.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.761}, "reply_to": "19788__0_094", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_096", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [975.13], "stop_times": [975.68], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 975.13}, "reply_to": "19788__0_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19788__0_097", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Supporting the candidate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [975.68], "stop_times": [976.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.68}, "reply_to": "19788__0_096", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_098", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "California for many years had cross-filing.\nThat was how Earl Warren got elected in the primaries without ever even going through a general election.\nCould a State ban that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [976.469, 979.931, 984.606], "stop_times": [979.931, 984.606, 987.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.469}, "reply_to": "19788__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_099", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Yes.\nIn fact, California has.\nCalifornia was unhappy with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [987.889, 989.749, 991.78], "stop_times": [989.749, 991.78, 993.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.889}, "reply_to": "19788__0_098", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_100", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Yes.\nThey didn't like it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [993.673, 993.923], "stop_times": [993.923, 995.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.673}, "reply_to": "19788__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_101", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "There was a criticism about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [995.033], "stop_times": [996.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.033}, "reply_to": "19788__0_100", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_102", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And changed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [996.084], "stop_times": [996.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.084}, "reply_to": "19788__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_103", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--what happened.\nIt reduced party responsibility, or reduced responsibility for governing, and there's... actually there's criticism of the New York system, that it does the same thing by allowing major parties to cross-nominate, it can prevent problems.\nEverybody doesn't see this as a universal panacea.\nAnd Justice Stevens, the answer to your question is, again, what this Court has looked at in the past in evaluating election statutes is, is the State setting up formidable barriers to participation, and when it's looked at the rights of parties to nominate the candidates, it really hasn't gone so far as to say that a party has a right to select a particular candidate.\nIt has to have the door open to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [996.425, 996.875, 1007.942, 1010.673, 1033.287], "stop_times": [996.875, 1007.942, 1010.673, 1033.287, 1036.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.425}, "reply_to": "19788__0_102", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_104", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "It just can't select the one it wants and also get it on the ballot.\nI understand.\nOf course, you can say you can nominate anybody but you can't have your nominee's name appear on the ballot.\nThat's all.\nI understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1036.212, 1039.571, 1040.093, 1045.606, 1046.337], "stop_times": [1039.571, 1040.093, 1045.606, 1046.337, 1048.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.212}, "reply_to": "19788__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_105", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, that's correct, Your Honor, and the members of the... and the members of that party have the kinds of associational rights that this Court has found are most important.\nThat is, they retain the right to work collectively to advance a candidate that they support, and they can vote for that candidate.\nThe Minnesota... the law of Minnesota keeps nobody off the ballot.\nIt's unlike all of the statutes that this Court has struck down in this area.\nIt doesn't keep anybody--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1048.008, 1056.444, 1064.058, 1067.441, 1071.204], "stop_times": [1056.444, 1064.058, 1067.441, 1071.204, 1072.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1048.008}, "reply_to": "19788__0_104", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_106", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "What case of ours is closest to supporting your view, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1072.113], "stop_times": [1076.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.113}, "reply_to": "19788__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_107", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Your Honor, we think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1076.707], "stop_times": [1077.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.707}, "reply_to": "19788__0_106", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_108", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Is it Storer, or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1077.647], "stop_times": [1078.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.647}, "reply_to": "19788__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__0_109", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nWe think that Storer is... supports us.\nIn Storer, the Court upheld California disaffiliation statutes that prevented two independent... two former Democratic Party members from running for Congress as independent candidates.\nThe suit was brought not just by those potential candidates, but by some of their supporters.\nThe disaffiliation statute upheld in Storer was far more restrictive of supporters' rights, of parties' rights, because it eliminated a much huger pool of candidates than does a fusion ban, and yet the Court upheld it.\nAnd in fact, Your Honor, in Anderson--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1078.788, 1079.529, 1082.321, 1096.099, 1100.392, 1117.864], "stop_times": [1079.529, 1082.321, 1096.099, 1100.392, 1117.864, 1119.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1078.788}, "reply_to": "19788__0_108", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_110", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But for a limited amount of time.\nI remember you had to... when you change, disaffiliate from one, it's a waiting period.\nIt's a time period, the disqualification.\nYou can become qualified again.\nThis is a rule that operates forever, no more than one party per candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1119.694, 1121.855, 1127.759, 1129.972, 1132.193], "stop_times": [1121.855, 1127.759, 1129.972, 1132.193, 1139.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.694}, "reply_to": "19788__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19788__0_111", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--The disaffiliation requirement in California was 12 months before the primary, so somebody had to disaffiliate, I believe it was, something like 17 months before the general election.\nIt was quite a long time.\nBut there's another difference that makes the Storer case even more of a restriction than this, in that it not only had a much broader range of candidates who were excluded, but they were totally excluded from the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1139.128, 1148.943, 1149.824], "stop_times": [1148.943, 1149.824, 1163.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1139.128}, "reply_to": "19788__0_110", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_112", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But it had a quite different justification, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1163.583], "stop_times": [1166.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.583}, "reply_to": "19788__0_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_113", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "It had a justification of preserving the stability of the party system and the electoral system, and that's some of the justification for this statute.\nI kind of haven't been able to get through them, but that's certainly one of the interests that Minnesota is interested in, and that is avoiding the excessive factionalism that the Court found was problematic in a case like Storer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1166.034, 1175.44], "stop_times": [1175.44, 1186.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.034}, "reply_to": "19788__0_112", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_114", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Why isn't the answer to that, or at least part of the way to an answer, that the major party consents to this, so you don't have the factionalism that you have when... in the... what has been called the sore loser statute that was involved in Storer.\nHere, if the major party says no go, then there's nothing... nothing the minor party can do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1186.878, 1211.375], "stop_times": [1211.375, 1219.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.878}, "reply_to": "19788__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19788__0_115", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, in Storer, where the same answer could have been that if we just do a consent requirement then that will avoid splintering, the Court, facing a statute that was much more restrictive than Minnesota's, didn't require narrow tailoring.\nThe dissent by Justice Brennan suggested that there were things that could have been done to the California statute to tailor it more narrowly.\nShorten the disaffiliation period.\nApply it only to sore losers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1219.328, 1233.979, 1241.645, 1243.805], "stop_times": [1233.979, 1241.645, 1243.805, 1245.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.328}, "reply_to": "19788__0_114", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_116", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "The Minnesota statute doesn't presently require the consent of the DFL party for this.\nIt just requires the consent of the candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1245.726, 1252.361], "stop_times": [1252.361, 1254.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.726}, "reply_to": "19788__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_117", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, the Minnesota statute doesn't permit it, Your Honor, even with the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1254.502], "stop_times": [1259.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.502}, "reply_to": "19788__0_116", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_118", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "That's right, yes.\nYes, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1259.806, 1261.556], "stop_times": [1261.556, 1262.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.806}, "reply_to": "19788__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_119", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--While the disaffiliation statute in Storer also didn't permit a candidate to run, there was obviously candidate consent because the candidate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1262.478], "stop_times": [1270.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.478}, "reply_to": "19788__0_118", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_120", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Did the respondent in this case obtain the permission of the DFL party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1270.873], "stop_times": [1276.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.873}, "reply_to": "19788__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_121", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--No, Your Honor, and there's nothing in the record to suggest that they attempted to obtain that permission.\nThey did obtain the permission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1276.467, 1281.99], "stop_times": [1281.99, 1283.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.467}, "reply_to": "19788__0_120", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_122", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Of the candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1283.412], "stop_times": [1284.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.412}, "reply_to": "19788__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__0_123", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--of Candidate Dawkins, and that is in the record.\nThere's nothing in the record about any attempts to get DFL permission, or whether the DFL gave permission and, indeed, there has been much made about the fact that the DFL did not object, but, of course, the law prohibited this, so there was no reason for the DFL to object.\nAgain, getting back to the interests of the State, what we have here is we have issues of confusion, and while the Eighth Circuit... and Justice O'Connor, you suggest that they can use instructions, but we think that part of the reality of voting is that first of all not all voters are as comfortable as everybody might be with a lengthy written ballot with detailed instructions.\nThat's just the reality of it.\nI don't want to get into Justice Scalia's debate about whether New Yorkers are smarter than Minnesotans--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1284.261, 1285.694, 1300.012, 1328.851, 1330.464], "stop_times": [1285.694, 1300.012, 1328.851, 1330.464, 1335.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1284.261}, "reply_to": "19788__0_122", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_124", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "For the record, I was being facetious.\n[Laughter]\n--running for election anywhere, but even so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1335.486, 1337.288, 1339.019], "stop_times": [1337.288, 1339.019, 1341.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.486}, "reply_to": "19788__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_125", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--But that is the reality.\nThe other thing about it is that voters, a lot of voters don't have a lot of time to spend in the voting booth.\nThey may be voting on their way to work, trying to get to work on time.\nThey may be voting on the way home, trying to pick up the kids at day care, and they can't be standing there with a long ballot reading the instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1341.409, 1344.18, 1349.955, 1352.816], "stop_times": [1344.18, 1349.955, 1352.816, 1360.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.409}, "reply_to": "19788__0_124", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_126", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Mr. Slowes, may I ask you a general question, I think that goes to the weight that we should give, or at least the weight that I should give to all of the justifications that the State is raising here?\nIf we were deciding this case, I guess without the benefit of history, I could listen to your arguments and I would say, there's something plausible about them, and the people who write election laws probably know a lot more about voter behavior than I do, and I may not think these are overwhelming justifications, perhaps.\nI mean, they don't just hit me that hard, but I probably ought to defer to people who know more about this subject than I do.\nThe trouble that I have in giving any kind of deference that way, however, is the history, and if I understand the history correctly, the reason we've got these antifusion laws in so many States was basically a very widespread effort sometime ago simply to maintain the relative hegemony of the two parties, the Republicans and the Democrats.\nThey weren't worried about voter confusion.\nThey didn't want other parties, and is it unfair... do you think it's wrong for me in assessing the weight that I should give to your justifications to bear that history in mind, and perhaps to be skeptical that the reasons that you very ably give are really the reasons that the legislatures in these many States either gave in the first place or maintain to this day for keeping their laws on the books?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1360.743, 1371.44, 1395.135, 1401.709, 1429.476, 1431.649], "stop_times": [1371.44, 1395.135, 1401.709, 1429.476, 1431.649, 1461.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.743}, "reply_to": "19788__0_125", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19788__0_127", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Justice Souter, there are a number of responses to that question.\nFirst of all, with respect, yes, I think it is unfair for you to look back that many years, particularly because this Court has said in United States v. O'Brien and other cases that a legitimate constitutional State statute will not be struck down merely because there's some allegation of improper motive.\nAnd here, to compound that, the allegation of improper motive is a) indirect... there's nothing in the record to suggest what the Minnesota legislature was thinking or said about this statute.\nThere's nothing in the record that reflects what the Minnesota legislature--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1461.07, 1465.089, 1481.422, 1494.649], "stop_times": [1465.089, 1481.422, 1494.649, 1499.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1461.07}, "reply_to": "19788__0_126", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_128", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, you wouldn't concede the major point, would you, that there is something wrong about the State establishing its electoral machinery in such fashion as to facilitate and encourage a two-party system as opposed to the kind of systems... proportional voting, for example.\nThat alone favors a two-party system.\nIs there anything wrong with that, so long as you don't ban third parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1499.084, 1516.795, 1519.977], "stop_times": [1516.795, 1519.977, 1525.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.084}, "reply_to": "19788__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_129", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--There is a balancing that has to be done, Justice Scalia.\nWe believe, and this Court has recognized in some cases that, indeed, and that's part of what was animating Storer in some sense, that the State does have an interest, a generalized interest in preserving, in a sense, political stability, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1525.75, 1530.273], "stop_times": [1530.273, 1544.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1525.75}, "reply_to": "19788__0_128", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_130", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, are you... maybe I misunderstood your argument.\nI didn't understand you to be putting any weight on the, in effect the preservation of a major two-party system as such, so I just didn't think... I mean, Justice Scalia has raised a good point, but I didn't think it was the point that you were making.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1544.792, 1546.782], "stop_times": [1546.782, 1563.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.792}, "reply_to": "19788__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19788__0_131", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Your Honor, I didn't make that point, and in honesty I don't make that point strongly.\nI think that is... I think that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1563.235, 1567.418], "stop_times": [1567.418, 1569.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1563.235}, "reply_to": "19788__0_130", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_132", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "I was just saying if that were the value, it would not necessarily be unconstitutional, as I thought you were conceding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1569.389], "stop_times": [1575.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.389}, "reply_to": "19788__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_133", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, I'm sorry, Your Honor, I would agree.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1575.153, 1577.444], "stop_times": [1577.444, 1578.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1575.153}, "reply_to": "19788__0_132", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_134", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "What am I supposed to do legally if I think that's the whole point?\nThat is, if I think, which I'll... if I think that the whole point to justify these things is a two-party system and the democratic advantages that that entails, weighed against a multiparty system and the democratic advantages and disadvantages that that entails, all right.\nSuppose I think that this represents a judgment of the legislature to go in the two-party direction as opposed to proportional representation.\nBut as you say, you're not putting any weight on that, so should I simply say forget it and move on to the arguments... what am I supposed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1578.054, 1580.436, 1599.689, 1605.971], "stop_times": [1580.436, 1599.689, 1605.971, 1614.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.054}, "reply_to": "19788__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__0_135", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I would say, Your Honor, that States do have a permissible choice to be made there, as long as they don't go so far as to close the door to minor party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1614.219], "stop_times": [1626.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1614.219}, "reply_to": "19788__0_134", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_136", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "How do I measure so far?\nI take it the single member district is constitutional.\nI take it.\nMaybe.\nI don't know.\nIs... what about the first past the post?\nWhat about the reforms Italy wants to make in order to move in the two-party direction?\nOr just winner take all.\nWhat is the test?\nI mean, winner take all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1626.176, 1628.026, 1631.339, 1632.23, 1632.498, 1633.129, 1635.021, 1639.474, 1640.295, 1640.586], "stop_times": [1628.026, 1631.339, 1632.23, 1632.498, 1633.129, 1635.021, 1639.474, 1640.295, 1640.586, 1640.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.176}, "reply_to": "19788__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__0_137", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Our position is that the disproportionate burden argument that the respondents are making would really take you into all of those areas, because they suggest that if there is an aspect of the system that would be more beneficial to minor parties... they say fusion is more beneficial to minor parties.\nTherefore, by not permitting it you are impermissibly burdening minor parties, and the same could certainly be said for an absence of multimember districts or proportional representation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1640.956, 1658.378], "stop_times": [1658.378, 1668.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1640.956}, "reply_to": "19788__0_136", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_138", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1668.185], "stop_times": [1668.545], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.185}, "reply_to": "19788__0_137", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19788__0_139", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--which would certainly help minor parties.\nThe same might be said about nonpartisan ballots, which are had in many States.\nMinor parties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1668.545, 1670.215, 1675.157], "stop_times": [1670.215, 1675.157, 1675.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1668.545}, "reply_to": "19788__0_138", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_140", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "So why don't you just say, so what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1675.908], "stop_times": [1677.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.908}, "reply_to": "19788__0_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__0_141", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--What it comes down to, Your Honors, is that these are issues of political engineering.\nThe Court has not established a bright line test, Justice Breyer, to say that we can tell where is so far.\nWhat it has is the balancing test from Anderson.\nBut if you look at the landscape of the cases, where it has found that States have gone too far, they have gone far beyond anything that the Minnesota statute does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1677.01, 1683.843, 1689.887, 1692.741], "stop_times": [1683.843, 1689.887, 1692.741, 1702.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1677.01}, "reply_to": "19788__0_140", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_142", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But then why isn't the argument, well, New York is not Italy, nor is it Fourth Republic France, and this goes... is not really a problem, and therefore there really isn't a justification.\nHere it goes too far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1702.445, 1713.653], "stop_times": [1713.653, 1714.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.445}, "reply_to": "19788__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__0_143", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Because, Your Honor, it gets back to the argument you just made a few minutes ago.\nNew York can make that judgment, that we think in our State this kind of system can work, and we can have a workable, stable political system.\nThat should not dictate to the other States that they adopt that same system as long as the systems that they adopt do not establish formidable barriers to minor party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1714.965, 1718.698, 1728.292], "stop_times": [1718.698, 1728.292, 1739.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1714.965}, "reply_to": "19788__0_142", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_144", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Yes, but if the justification's strong enough, I don't know why they couldn't exclude third parties altogether.\nIt seems to me that's the logical position to take, but the Court has said you can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1739.512, 1744.133], "stop_times": [1744.133, 1749.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.512}, "reply_to": "19788__0_143", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_145", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--The Court has said you can't, and there may be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1749.376], "stop_times": [1751.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1749.376}, "reply_to": "19788__0_144", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_146", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Yes.\nMaybe that line of cases is just wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1751.697, 1752.018], "stop_times": [1752.018, 1753.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.697}, "reply_to": "19788__0_145", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19788__0_147", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--There is a line that this Court... again, it's not a bright line, but there is a line beyond which the States cannot go in terms of preserving the stability of the system.\nWilliams v. Rhodes, and Anderson v. Celebrezze.\nWhen... thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1753.44, 1762.957, 1766.509], "stop_times": [1762.957, 1766.509, 1768.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1753.44}, "reply_to": "19788__0_146", "speaker": "richard_s_slowes"}
{"id": "19788__0_148", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Slowes.\nMr. Tribe, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1768.991, 1770.291], "stop_times": [1770.291, 1772.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.991}, "reply_to": "19788__0_147", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_000", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI don't think this case is about political engineering.\nI suppose if we really had a case in which it was demonstrated that we would become Italy or Fourth Republic France unless we compromise the First Amendment we would have a very much more apocalyptic picture, but I think what's interesting is that in the argument that you heard this morning you didn't hear very much about what the State's brief says are the real reasons.\nI think in answer to Justice Stevens' question, if confusion isn't that big a problem... and it doesn't seem New Yorkers are all that confused and, with respect, I guess they're not that much smarter than Minnesotans... if confusion isn't the problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1772.133, 1782.018, 1786.581, 1813.59], "stop_times": [1782.018, 1786.581, 1813.59, 1825.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.133}, "reply_to": "19788__0_148", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_001", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Maybe New Yorkers like confusion.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1825.307, 1827.418], "stop_times": [1827.418, 1827.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.307}, "reply_to": "19788__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_002", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, that may be.\nThat may be.\nEither--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1827.818, 1828.547, 1828.918], "stop_times": [1828.547, 1828.918, 1832.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.818}, "reply_to": "19788__1_001", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_003", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Just because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1832.21], "stop_times": [1833.733], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.21}, "reply_to": "19788__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19788__1_004", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Just because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1833.733], "stop_times": [1833.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.733}, "reply_to": "19788__1_003", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_005", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--New Yorkers like it, it doesn't mean Minnesotans have to like it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1833.943], "stop_times": [1835.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.943}, "reply_to": "19788__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_006", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That's right.\nMinnesotans might like things to be more orderly.\nWhat their brief does is talk about all kinds of somewhat fuzzier values, values, values, they say, that are really more important than the literal rights of association and speech in the First Amendment.\nThey're basically saying... and they say it in their brief at pages 9, 12, 14, 16 to 18, 24, 44.\nThe repeated theme is that even if the ban on consensual fusion literally abridges the right of people to get together in a party and pick their standard bearer and get him on the ballot even if he's already on the ballot, and even if that's one of the rights that you would normally have under the First Amendment, we have to ask whether protecting those rights here would, in their language, serve First Amendment values, and they say it wouldn't, because... here again I quote from their brief... it really wouldn't enrich political discussion with different ideas unless new parties, and I quote, presented candidates overlooked by the major parties.\nIn other words, new faces.\nThat's what third parties are good for, the subtext being that the major parties really have covered the ideological waterfront between them, and unless you're ready to come up with a new face... if it's just Dwight Eisenhower, or Earl Warren, or here... not to put him in the same company... Andy Dawkins all over again, then what else is new?\nWe really think that we should orchestrate the consensual alliances of citizens in political association in such a way as to move things away from... and again, their brief complains about single issue campaigns.\nThey say there would be a tendency, and again I guess I heard this again in the argument this morning, a tendency to end up with various groups that would, heaven forbid, say they were in favor of lower taxes, or some other single issue.\nWell, you can have a view one way or the other on whether that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1835.934, 1836.264, 1837.884, 1853.334, 1860.49, 1900.745, 1901.837, 1922.401, 1936.669, 1952.26], "stop_times": [1836.264, 1837.884, 1853.334, 1860.49, 1900.745, 1901.837, 1922.401, 1936.669, 1952.26, 1956.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1835.934}, "reply_to": "19788__1_005", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_007", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "There's some sense to that, isn't there, Mr. Tribe?\nIf a candidate is both DFL and then gets behind small, third party, lower taxes party, tough on crime, it makes the ballot into a form of really communication, which in Burdick we said the State didn't have to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1956.132, 1959.044], "stop_times": [1959.044, 1976.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.132}, "reply_to": "19788__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_008", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I think that as a theoretical proposition, if there were a demonstrable danger that the ballot would become a laundry list of slogans, and if you could prove that that was at all likely to happen, that it was more than some kind of theoretical possibility, that that would be different.\nBut in Williams v. Rhodes the Court said that theoretically imaginable dangers of multitudinous fragmentary groups getting on the ballot aren't enough, and that you can deal with that by making it less easy to get on the ballot.\nTo deal with it in a slanted way, not by neutrally raising the requirement but by saying you can get on the ballot, it doesn't matter whether you do or do not pass the threshold numerical limit, but what we don't want you to do is be on the ballot if the person you favor is the same one someone else has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [1976.175, 1993.807, 2009.169], "stop_times": [1993.807, 2009.169, 2031.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.175}, "reply_to": "19788__1_007", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_009", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "We've always--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2031.441], "stop_times": [2031.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.441}, "reply_to": "19788__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19788__1_010", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--How about California's prohibition against cross-filing?\nIf we rule for you here, does that strike that down, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2031.762, 2035.315], "stop_times": [2035.315, 2038.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.762}, "reply_to": "19788__1_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_011", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Cross-filing by major parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2038.945], "stop_times": [2040.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.945}, "reply_to": "19788__1_010", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_012", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, cross-filing by candidates.\nA candidate filing in both the Republican, or seeking the nomination of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2040.758, 2042.278], "stop_times": [2042.278, 2048.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.758}, "reply_to": "19788__1_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_013", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, it would depend, Mr. Chief Justice, on whether you had a sore loser situation.\nThat is, I do think that the Court's decisions make it quite clear that a State has the power, as in Storer, to protect the integrity of both political parties and of various routes to the ballot, and to do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2048.612, 2053.864], "stop_times": [2053.864, 2069.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.612}, "reply_to": "19788__1_012", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_014", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But there's no sore loser at the beginning of the primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2069.295], "stop_times": [2071.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.295}, "reply_to": "19788__1_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__1_015", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Yes.\nThere's no sore loser... the primary begins, he's on both ballots, and he wins both ballots.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2071.186, 2071.417], "stop_times": [2071.417, 2077.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2071.186}, "reply_to": "19788__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_016", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, I think it would be a different case, certainly, because the Court has said among other things that you can limit individuals to a single nominating act.\nIt's a little like an extrapolation from the one-person-one-vote rule.\nIt's not clear that people should be able to get lots of bites at the same sort of preliminary apple.\nThat is, it may well be that as one of the rules of the road a State could say that at the primary stage if you're running for office through that particular avenue you have to pick one primary or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2077.672, 2087.739, 2091.262, 2097.754], "stop_times": [2087.739, 2091.262, 2097.754, 2113.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.672}, "reply_to": "19788__1_015", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_017", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Why would that be justified and Minnesota's rule here not be justified?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2113.274], "stop_times": [2117.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.274}, "reply_to": "19788__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_018", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, to be honest, Mr. Chief Justice, I'm not sure that even that would be justified, but if that would be, it would not be justified unless you gave a veto power.\nThat is, if you said that when both parties are perfectly happy to have this happen, when neither of them vetoes the simultaneous entry of a candidate into both primaries, then the idea that the State would simply be protecting parties from fragmentation wouldn't justify it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2117.168, 2126.335], "stop_times": [2126.335, 2145.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.168}, "reply_to": "19788__1_017", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_019", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "In an open primary system a party can't veto a candidate.\nI mean, in most States if I want to run for the nomination of the Socialist Party and they have an open primary ballot the Socialist Party can't get together and say, well, we don't want him.\nI have a right to run, and if a majority favor me, I get nominated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2145.635, 2150.31, 2161.657], "stop_times": [2150.31, 2161.657, 2164.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.635}, "reply_to": "19788__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_020", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, I think, Mr. Chief Justice, that the State does not have an interest that would suffice to prevent that.\nWhere it's possible... I mean, if one said that what this does is pose the problem that Storer involved, that is, a problem in which a political party with its primary loses integrity and finality because those who don't win can pick up their marbles and go elsewhere, that problem can be solved.\nBut unless there's a general system whereby the State can say only certain people are eligible to run in our primary, and it might well be permissible for the State to allow a party to have those rules, to have a rule of this kind is not at all a neutral, politically neutral regulation.\nThat is, it's one thing to have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2164.669, 2172.393, 2194.579, 2214.532], "stop_times": [2172.393, 2194.579, 2214.532, 2216.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.669}, "reply_to": "19788__1_019", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_021", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "It's not possible to draw a politically neutral electoral system, it seems to me.\nYou're always making judgments that are either going to favor larger parties, are going to disfavor larger parties, favor smaller, disfavor smaller... I mean, the mere decision whether to have party affiliation shown on the ballot, for example, that's going to make a big difference.\nHow can you... why is it necessary for the State to draw up a balloting system that does not disfavor small parties?\nI think they can do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2216.321, 2221.617, 2237.015, 2244.591], "stop_times": [2221.617, 2237.015, 2244.591, 2245.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2216.321}, "reply_to": "19788__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_022", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, they certainly don't have... Justice Scalia, I think they certainly don't have to go out of their way affirmatively to handicap things to benefit small parties, but what Minnesota has done is to say that on the ballot not only may you but you must put your party affiliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2245.231], "stop_times": [2260.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.231}, "reply_to": "19788__1_021", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_023", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, Minnesota and probably 39 other States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2260.53], "stop_times": [2264.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.53}, "reply_to": "19788__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_024", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "A great many say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2264.303], "stop_times": [2266.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.303}, "reply_to": "19788__1_023", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_025", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Yes, so we're talking about a major effect here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2266.314], "stop_times": [2268.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.314}, "reply_to": "19788__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_026", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2268.815], "stop_times": [2269.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.815}, "reply_to": "19788__1_025", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_027", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "A ruling in your favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2269.937], "stop_times": [2271.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.937}, "reply_to": "19788__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_028", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That's right.\nThere's no question, Justice O'Connor, that there are a great many States that, at the turn of the century, made this move, the political historians seem to agree, in order to marginalize the growing power of the minor parties, and in order to do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2271.038, 2271.339], "stop_times": [2271.339, 2288.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.038}, "reply_to": "19788__1_027", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_029", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, or some say to keep the Republicans in office historically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2288.831], "stop_times": [2293.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.831}, "reply_to": "19788__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_030", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, that would hardly be a better justification constitutionally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2293.252], "stop_times": [2297.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2293.252}, "reply_to": "19788__1_029", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_031", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2297.196], "stop_times": [2298.087], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.196}, "reply_to": "19788__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19788__1_032", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--whatever one's politics.\nBut the main point is, no one has said, studying the situation, that the reason was one of these plain vanilla reasons like, some people like confusion and others don't, and they should have a right not to be confused, or they can't figure out how to use these ballots.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2298.087, 2299.135], "stop_times": [2299.135, 2313.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.087}, "reply_to": "19788__1_031", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_033", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I think it's pretty plain vanilla to say, I like a two-party system, and this fosters the two-party system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2313.765], "stop_times": [2319.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.765}, "reply_to": "19788__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_034", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, I think the Court has said that you can't deliberately disadvantage some minor parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2319.569], "stop_times": [2325.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.569}, "reply_to": "19788__1_033", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_035", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "That's exactly the point that's bothering me, and I'm putting this a little more strongly than I think, but I want to get your response to this.\nThere are a lot of rules deliberately disadvantaging third and fourth and fifth parties... first past the post, single member districts.\nThere are good arguments for and against such things.\nProportional representation in many parties allows parties to grow more quickly and is a better representation of people's views.\nOn the other hand, two parties, which is a much worse representation, and interferes with people's ability to choose what they want, has the advantage that we know whom to hold responsible for good or bad government.\nNow, you, like I, have read both those positions argued at depth, so where the Constitution is at stake, how can we say that a State doesn't have the right to choose between those two different views of democratic representation?\nAnd I know it's a matter of degree, but what I keep coming back to is thinking this was a fairly marginal method of giving the Republicans, if you like, or Republicans and Democrats, an advantage as to the swing voters who were somewhat indifferent, who would go and look at the columns on the ballot and they'd see DFL here, or they'd see New Party here, and if they saw New Party with a popular candidate, they'd vote New Party all the way down the line.\nYou see, that would help that party, and it might better reflect views, but it would undermine the kind of responsibility that the classic argument for a two-party system democratically holds is important, so how am I to judge that?\nHow can I say that the State has no right in these kinds of things to decide either of those two models that it believes is the more... better democracy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2325.853, 2334.039, 2342.205, 2344.997, 2352.501, 2364.559, 2382.11, 2410.49, 2424.558], "stop_times": [2334.039, 2342.205, 2344.997, 2352.501, 2364.559, 2382.11, 2410.49, 2424.558, 2436.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.853}, "reply_to": "19788__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__1_036", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, Justice Breyer, I think that I would urge a distinction between the basic architecture of the system, that is, the decision to have single member rather than multimember districts, and having decided that, therefore ruling out proportional representation within the single member districts.\nThe decision of the basic design, when you said that that was intended to have an effect on minor parties, I think the evidence is that it was, as with most of these things, multifarious in its intentions.\nThere are some people who think that the choice of a single rather then multimember districts has a number of positive effects on avoiding the submergence of certain minority groups.\nWhen all of those incommensurables are balanced at the threshold designing the system in general, deciding, for example, whether primaries or petitions are to be used as a way of getting on the ballot, deciding where co draw district lines, at that point, as I think Justice O'Connor said in Vandemer, it would be very hard to have justiciable standards for assessing what the State is doing.\nOnce the building has been designed, once the basic architecture is set, once you have the time, place, and manner regulations, the fundamental architecture, then, if you take aim at the content of political alliances, when you tell two parties within this system you can get together about other things, you can have a mutual nonaggression pact, neither of you will run against the other, you could pool your resources... in 1944--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2436.567, 2454.069, 2471.83, 2484.309, 2509.584], "stop_times": [2454.069, 2471.83, 2484.309, 2509.584, 2544.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.567}, "reply_to": "19788__1_035", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_037", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Why does that make any difference?\nIt's sort of like saying you can paint the whole building green but you can't paint the window frets green.\nIt's okay in the most fundamental design of the system, in those aspects that have the most impact, to act out of two-party system motivation, but it's... in the details of it, oh, no, you cannot act out of a two-party system moti... that makes no sense at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2544.015, 2545.086, 2550.31], "stop_times": [2545.086, 2550.31, 2566.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.015}, "reply_to": "19788__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_038", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I think, Justice Scalia, with all respect it's less a matter of, you could paint the big picture, we won't touch you, but you can't paint the little dots.\nIt's more a matter of, you can design the overall framework, and we're not going to second-guess the kind of republican form of government you create.\nBut then, when you have essentially content-based rules, when you tell people you can nominate anybody unless the person is popular enough that he might appeal to another party, when you do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2566.302, 2572.906, 2580.691], "stop_times": [2572.906, 2580.691, 2593.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.302}, "reply_to": "19788__1_037", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_039", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "They haven't said that.\nThey have not said that.\nThey can nominate whomever they want.\nThey have just said, look, if we are running the electoral system, we decide whether parties will be shown or not.\nYou're using our advertising in the system.\nYou may nominate anybody you like and you may advertise it in the paper.\nThe New Party backs so-and-so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2593.159, 2594.148, 2595.21, 2596.769, 2602.874, 2605.996, 2609.999], "stop_times": [2594.148, 2595.21, 2596.769, 2602.874, 2605.996, 2609.999, 2612.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.159}, "reply_to": "19788__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_040", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2612.461], "stop_times": [2612.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.461}, "reply_to": "19788__1_039", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_041", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But on the ballot, he will not be shown under your party.\nYou can still support--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2612.872, 2617.046], "stop_times": [2617.046, 2618.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.872}, "reply_to": "19788__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_042", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--But look, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2618.258], "stop_times": [2618.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2618.258}, "reply_to": "19788__1_041", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_043", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--whoever you want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2618.568], "stop_times": [2619.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.568}, "reply_to": "19788__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_044", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Justice Scalia, look what that does.\nIt tells the voters, the members of the New Party, that when they go into the voting booth... let's suppose the New Party decides Mr. Dawkins is the one they want to endorse.\nThey spend money on him, and under the laws of the State they can... within 100 feet of the polls they can put up signs saying, we believe in Andy Dawkins.\nBut they don't want to give up the right to have someone on the ballot, so they nominate John Smith, and John Smith is on the ballot, and the voters of the New Party have essentially the choice that members of minor parties have been relegated to in 40 States since the 19... the early 1900's.\nThey go into the ballot box, and they can either waive their right to vote altogether and give it up, or they can vote for John Smith, whom they and their party doesn't really believe in, or they can vote for Dawkins, and they're told that that would be a good thing to do, but then... then the other party gets credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2619.167, 2621.06, 2631.485, 2640.04, 2659.604], "stop_times": [2621.06, 2631.485, 2640.04, 2659.604, 2681.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.167}, "reply_to": "19788__1_043", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_045", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And it has very successfully preserved the two-party system in those States that have it, whereas in States like New York it has become a three-party system.\nNow, must a State decide that it wants the one rather than the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2681.056, 2691.265], "stop_times": [2691.265, 2695.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.056}, "reply_to": "19788__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_046", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, I think that it's clear a State cannot simply forced herd everybody onto the left or right side of the road in terms of political association, and Minnesota doesn't.\nIt says, you can join together in this party, but at the price of either wasting your vote, waiving--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2695.128, 2707.784], "stop_times": [2707.784, 2714.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.128}, "reply_to": "19788__1_045", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_047", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, at bottom the key First Amendment interest is being able to vote for who you want to on a general election ballot.\nThere is a right in Minnesota very easily to get someone on the general ballot if you're a minor party.\nThat's not difficult, and at the general election ballot at least all the members of this party can vote for the candidate they truly support.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2714.228, 2722.604, 2729.94], "stop_times": [2722.604, 2729.94, 2740.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.228}, "reply_to": "19788__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_048", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Only at this price, Justice O'Connor.\nIf they vote for Dawkins, and assume for the moment as in many of the cases it's a Statewide candidacy, when they vote for Dawkins they strengthen a party they strongly, or perhaps somewhat disagree with.\nThey also entitle it to public funds because those votes are counted on the DFL line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2740.426, 2742.118, 2755.275], "stop_times": [2742.118, 2755.275, 2761.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.426}, "reply_to": "19788__1_047", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_049", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2761.429], "stop_times": [2762.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.429}, "reply_to": "19788__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_050", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And it seems to me that given what this Court said in Burdick, precisely that voting is not simply an exercise in blowing off steam, to be told that the power--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2762.521], "stop_times": [2771.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2762.521}, "reply_to": "19788__1_049", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_051", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, but we've also said there is no right to express something--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2771.547], "stop_times": [2775.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.547}, "reply_to": "19788__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_052", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2775.439], "stop_times": [2775.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.439}, "reply_to": "19788__1_051", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_053", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--in the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2775.739], "stop_times": [2776.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.739}, "reply_to": "19788__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_054", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--And I'm not urging that right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2776.25], "stop_times": [2777.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.25}, "reply_to": "19788__1_053", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_055", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And there's no right of expression there, and this verges closely on that.\nWe want to show we have nominated this same person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2777.281, 2781.222], "stop_times": [2781.222, 2785.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.281}, "reply_to": "19788__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_056", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Look, Justice O'Connor, first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2785.777], "stop_times": [2787.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.777}, "reply_to": "19788__1_055", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_057", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2787.109], "stop_times": [2787.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.109}, "reply_to": "19788__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_058", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--it is only... it would only be a holding as broad as that of the Eighth Circuit, which we do urge but which we would not require for an affirmance of the judgment, that would lead to that conclusion, because that would be a holding that says, not only do you have a right to consensual fusion, but a right to a separate ballot line or column for the party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2787.627], "stop_times": [2806.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.627}, "reply_to": "19788__1_057", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_059", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, but unless you have that, a large part of your argument vanishes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2806.379], "stop_times": [2811.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.379}, "reply_to": "19788__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__1_060", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, part.\nI don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2811.423, 2812.154], "stop_times": [2812.154, 2812.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.423}, "reply_to": "19788__1_059", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_061", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Because that's the whole point of allowing each party to have a specific issue.\nThat's completely lost if you aggregate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2812.855, 2818.578], "stop_times": [2818.578, 2820.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.855}, "reply_to": "19788__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__1_062", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, no.\nJustice Kennedy, what isn't lost is the point you made in dissent in Burdick, I think, but it is really a point that the whole Court, I suspect, agreed with in that context, and that is, you're not at least required... even if you don't have disaggregation you're not required in casting a vote to help exercise power, not just expression, in a direction that's opposed to your views.\nThat is, the votes that members of the New Party are permitted to cast for someone on the DFL party line are votes that increase the money, the public money that goes to the DFL later and that helps earn and retain major party status for it.\nThere's a write-in provision, and this is quite intriguing, I think.\nThere is a write-in provision in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2820.259, 2820.609, 2845.095, 2863.158, 2865.648], "stop_times": [2820.609, 2845.095, 2863.158, 2865.648, 2868.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.259}, "reply_to": "19788__1_061", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_063", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Doesn't that just boil down... what you just said, does that not merely boil down to the fact that the New Party can... is entitled to have a candidate but is not entitled to have any particular candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2868.281], "stop_times": [2880.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.281}, "reply_to": "19788__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_064", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, if the candidate were somehow unqualified, which is not argued here, were it not objectively eligible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2880.548], "stop_times": [2888.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2880.548}, "reply_to": "19788__1_063", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_065", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "This is one of the qualifications, that you not be the candidate of another party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2888.803], "stop_times": [2892.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.803}, "reply_to": "19788__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_066", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--But that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2892.466], "stop_times": [2892.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2892.466}, "reply_to": "19788__1_065", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_067", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Pick a party.\nYou can be a candidate of any party.\nIf you're a candidate of some other party, the New Party can pick all the rest of the candidates in the world, but not you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2892.917, 2893.625, 2894.817], "stop_times": [2893.625, 2894.817, 2900.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.917}, "reply_to": "19788__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_068", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, I suppose when you're dealing with someone who from this Court's perspective might be rather anonymous, Dawkins, it might not seem like such a terrible thing.\nI don't know Mr. Dawkins.\nBut if it were Earl Warren, or Dwight Eisenhower, or Colin Powell, to tell someone, oh, you can pick anyone, just not that one, why, because the other party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2900.11, 2908.105, 2909.958], "stop_times": [2908.105, 2909.958, 2917.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.11}, "reply_to": "19788__1_067", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_069", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "They can vote for him.\nBut they all can vote for him.\nWe know why they want Mr. Dawkins.\nI suppose the reason the smaller party wants him is he'll attract support.\nHe'll attract money.\nHe'll attract a lot of things that help the party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2917.431, 2918.172, 2919.584, 2921.517, 2925.538, 2927.101], "stop_times": [2918.172, 2919.584, 2921.517, 2925.538, 2927.101, 2930.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.431}, "reply_to": "19788__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__1_070", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--And he shares many of their values.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2930.072], "stop_times": [2930.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.072}, "reply_to": "19788__1_069", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_071", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Of course.\nOh, yes... oh, that's certainly true.\nSo of course to stop that is to interfere with the ability of these people to build their party.\nAnd then what bothers me is the other side saying, of course.\nYou're right.\nThat's the reason we want this law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2930.933, 2931.792, 2932.974, 2939.239, 2942.83, 2944.341], "stop_times": [2931.792, 2932.974, 2939.239, 2942.83, 2944.341, 2946.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2930.933}, "reply_to": "19788__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__1_072", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Of course, they haven't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2946.812], "stop_times": [2947.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.812}, "reply_to": "19788__1_071", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_073", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "And now, of course, they can't go--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2947.643], "stop_times": [2949.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.643}, "reply_to": "19788__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__1_074", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--They haven't said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2949.155], "stop_times": [2950.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2949.155}, "reply_to": "19788__1_073", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_075", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, all right.\nThat's a separate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2950.145, 2950.365], "stop_times": [2950.365, 2951.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.145}, "reply_to": "19788__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__1_076", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, it does matter, doesn't it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2951.297], "stop_times": [2953.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.297}, "reply_to": "19788__1_075", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_077", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That's what I imagine that... and of course this isn't going so far, anywhere near as far as to ban a third party.\nIt doesn't go nearly as far as the single member district.\nIt doesn't go nearly as far as first past the post.\nThere are many greater inhibitions than this one.\nSo what I'm looking for is, what's the touchstone to decide here whether this interference goes too far in light of the objective?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2953.017, 2958.682, 2961.783, 2964.346, 2966.948], "stop_times": [2958.682, 2961.783, 2964.346, 2966.948, 2976.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.017}, "reply_to": "19788__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19788__1_078", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I think the touchstone, Justice Breyer, is that this tells people what the substance of their consensual political alliance may be.\nThe substance.\nIt may be that it doesn't matter a great deal that somebody that the substance focuses on one person, but it says, you can't organize your associational interests across party lines around an individual.\nIt would be very much like saying you can't have... you can have a party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [2976.771, 2985.858, 2987.22, 3002.391], "stop_times": [2985.858, 2987.22, 3002.391, 3006.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.771}, "reply_to": "19788__1_077", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_079", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "You can do that.\nYou just can't get on a separate ballot line.\nYou can organize your interests all you want to until you get to the voting booth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3006.261, 3007.213, 3010.635], "stop_times": [3007.213, 3010.635, 3014.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.261}, "reply_to": "19788__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_080", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, just... Mr. Chief Justice, I think your question and Justice Scalia's suggest to me a considerable difference between a State that says, all we care about is who gets elected.\nWe're not going to have a party identification.\nIn that case, the difference between the ability to endorse and the ability to nominate vanishes.\nYou're all on the same playing field arguing about who you want.\nBut that is not this case, and it's very important to draw a distinction.\nIn this case, the State says in its ballot laws that next to each candidate's name must be either the word independent, or a party name or principle of three words or less, and that people can write in for someone but they cannot write in the name of someone who's already there.\nSo that there is a specific rule that says even though we've designed our ballot in such a way that you can indicate who you want even if that person hasn't been nominated, you can't indicate who you want if it happens to be the nominee of another party.\nIt is a targeted way, not of saying the purpose of our ballots is not to serve as billboards.\nIt's to exercise power.\nThat the Court said in Burdick is fine.\nIt's a way of saying, we are designing the system, we're engineering it in such a way as to preclude agreement among people of a certain kind expressed not through some use of the ballot that the State hasn't already legitimated, but through the standard use of the ballot so that it in effect is a targeted way of shaping the kinds of consensual alliances people can have.\nIf someone said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3014.706, 3025.594, 3028.647, 3034.831, 3038.853, 3043.086, 3062.968, 3078.419, 3085.065, 3087.716, 3089.926, 3116.884], "stop_times": [3025.594, 3028.647, 3034.831, 3038.853, 3043.086, 3062.968, 3078.419, 3085.065, 3087.716, 3089.926, 3116.884, 3118.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3014.706}, "reply_to": "19788__1_079", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_081", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "I presume that your argument would also extend to the write-in prohibition, that if we found for you in this case we would also say that the State could not prevent you from writing in the Democratic candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3118.046], "stop_times": [3132.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.046}, "reply_to": "19788__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_082", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3132.665], "stop_times": [3133.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3132.665}, "reply_to": "19788__1_081", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_083", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "You want this guy to win, but you don't want anybody to think that you're voting Democratic--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3133.394], "stop_times": [3137.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.394}, "reply_to": "19788__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_084", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3137.157], "stop_times": [3138.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3137.157}, "reply_to": "19788__1_083", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_085", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--and so you write in his name separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3138.188], "stop_times": [3139.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.188}, "reply_to": "19788__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_086", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I think that after Burdick I would certainly argue that you could eliminate all write-ins, but if you allow write-ins, you can't tell people that the name you write must be a name not otherwise on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3139.799], "stop_times": [3152.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3139.799}, "reply_to": "19788__1_085", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_087", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "So... but that isn't involved here, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3152.037], "stop_times": [3154.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.037}, "reply_to": "19788__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_088", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "No, it... it is the Minnesota law, but that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3154.588], "stop_times": [3156.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3154.588}, "reply_to": "19788__1_087", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_089", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3156.87], "stop_times": [3157.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3156.87}, "reply_to": "19788__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_090", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--That just shows how the law operates, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3157.331], "stop_times": [3158.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.331}, "reply_to": "19788__1_089", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_091", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--But your principle would involve that.\nIf we were to rule for you, it would result in quite sweeping changes, and in a lot of States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3158.753, 3160.643], "stop_times": [3160.643, 3165.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.753}, "reply_to": "19788__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_092", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, most people actually suggest that it would be far more marginal than the plaintiffs in this case anticipated, mostly because the benefits of a third party nomination are often going to be somewhat dubious, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3165.746], "stop_times": [3179.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.746}, "reply_to": "19788__1_091", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_093", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Mr. Tribe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3179.796], "stop_times": [3180.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.796}, "reply_to": "19788__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19788__1_094", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--But this goes to write-ins, too, which isn't a third party.\nIn other words, if you have to allow people to write in someone who's already on the ballot, you're creating a great deal of additional problems in counting the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3180.455, 3184.137], "stop_times": [3184.137, 3193.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3180.455}, "reply_to": "19788__1_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_095", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I don't think someone... if Mr. Dawkins, after a favorable decision, if there were one in a case like this, if he were on the ballot already in a way that would allow a voter to indicate upon choosing him whether the voter is voting for him as a member of the DFL or as a member of the New Party, that there would also be an additional right to say, oh, I don't want to vote for him as a member of the New Party.\nUp top, I want to write that in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3193.665, 3223.495], "stop_times": [3223.495, 3225.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3193.665}, "reply_to": "19788__1_094", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_096", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "But if we're breaking down all these nuances, certainly that would be absolutely permissible.\nMaybe there wouldn't be many of them, but you couldn't say no, I don't think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3225.935, 3230.488], "stop_times": [3230.488, 3233.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.935}, "reply_to": "19788__1_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_097", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "No, I don't think, Mr. Chief Justice, that it would follow from the right we're talking about that you would have a right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3233.329], "stop_times": [3239.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3233.329}, "reply_to": "19788__1_096", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_098", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Why isn't the right not to be counted for a party just as important as the right to be counted for a party, which is what you're arguing for here?\nI think the right not to be counted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3239.584, 3246.82], "stop_times": [3246.82, 3248.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.584}, "reply_to": "19788__1_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_099", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3248.189], "stop_times": [3248.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3248.189}, "reply_to": "19788__1_098", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_100", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--as a member of that party is just as important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3248.83], "stop_times": [3250.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.83}, "reply_to": "19788__1_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19788__1_101", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--You know, I think... I don't want to just do a 90-degree turn, but I think you're right, Justice Scalia.\nI think the fact is that if... if there is a write-in mechanism the State has... they don't have to have one, but if they have one, I don't think they can tell you that you better write a name that isn't already there, and I don't think that would go away even if we prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3250.022, 3254.763], "stop_times": [3254.763, 3268.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3250.022}, "reply_to": "19788__1_100", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_102", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Mr. Tribe, in California, some ballots have over 200 items to mark.\nIf you had a State like Minnesota, or a system like Minnesota where only 500 people are required to petition for a party, I think there is a very, very real danger of confusion which just could bog the process down completely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3268.953, 3275.007], "stop_times": [3275.007, 3291.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.953}, "reply_to": "19788__1_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__1_103", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, in California, Justice Kennedy, they disallow fusion and they still have these terribly long ballots.\nI don't know that there's any reason at all, given the history, to believe that confusion would be enhanced by fusion.\nAnd in particular, when Justice Souter asked about the history, I think that should tell us a good bit.\nNot just why were these things enacted, but where is the evidence that in all the years prior to about 1905, that hundreds of fusion candidacies existed, and the evidence in New York up to the present that either the stability of the political system has been seriously injured, or that people have been obvious... you know, utterly confused about what to do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3291.269, 3297.232, 3304.147, 3308.94], "stop_times": [3297.232, 3304.147, 3308.94, 3334.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3291.269}, "reply_to": "19788__1_102", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_104", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Mr. Tribe, what about judges--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3334.406], "stop_times": [3335.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.406}, "reply_to": "19788__1_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19788__1_105", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I'll check the history, but it does seem to me that in those times they did not have initiative, they did not have referendum, they did not have the ability of many citizens to make arguments directly to the public via television and radio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3335.898], "stop_times": [3346.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3335.898}, "reply_to": "19788__1_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19788__1_106", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--Well, I think, Justice Kennedy, that dealing with a problem of unduly long ballots by techniques that are not at least facially neutral, that don't say, well, let's up it from 500 to 1,500, dealing with it by saying we will allow some kinds of political coalitions and not others, we will allow people to have planks in common in their party platforms, words in common in their party names, but we won't allow them to coalesce around a mutually acceptable candidate, it seems to me not a constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3346.554], "stop_times": [3382.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3346.554}, "reply_to": "19788__1_105", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_107", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Is it done... with respect to judges, is the States that generally have no fusion, it's not uncommon to have the same good judge the choice of two, maybe three parties.\nDo you know how that works in States that have general no fusion laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3382.889, 3392.773], "stop_times": [3392.773, 3397.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.889}, "reply_to": "19788__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19788__1_108", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--With non... in the election for nonpartisan offices it is often the case that several parties nominate or endorse, but it's often, and typically the case with judges, that no party label is attached to the judge's name in those States, and that is a possible solution.\nThat is, if one agreed with the position that I think Justice Scalia was in part suggesting, that the point of the ballot isn't necessarily to get information about which party, then there is a solution that's neutral.\nIt perhaps isn't the less restrictive alternative, but it's certainly less targeted against minor parties, and that's to say, no party label on the ballot.\nAnybody can endorse anyone they want.\nIn Tashjian, both the majority and the dissent assumed that that was a paradigmatic exercise of First Amendment rights.\nHere, we move from endorsement to nomination, but the only difference is that nomination in a State that does put the party name on the ballot counts for a great many things, and to insist that it not count in precisely those cases when otherwise disparate groups that are not so far from the main stream that they are satisfied to nominate protest candidates coalesce around a nominee, to suggest that that's the one case where it's not permissible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3397.257, 3413.947, 3430.27, 3437.784, 3441.416, 3448.64], "stop_times": [3413.947, 3430.27, 3437.784, 3441.416, 3448.64, 3478.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3397.257}, "reply_to": "19788__1_107", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_109", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Well, that's a real problem in cases where two candidates have virtually the same name.\nTalk about voter confusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3478.429, 3484.414], "stop_times": [3484.414, 3487.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3478.429}, "reply_to": "19788__1_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_110", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I suppose that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3487.078], "stop_times": [3487.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3487.078}, "reply_to": "19788__1_109", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_111", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--and we've seen that recently in Northern Virginia.\nIt would be pretty disastrous to have two people with the same name and no party designation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3487.826, 3490.177], "stop_times": [3490.177, 3496.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3487.826}, "reply_to": "19788__1_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19788__1_112", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "--I suppose you might have to solve it in some other way.\nIn Texas there were two Morales running recently.\nI think it is... it suggests that the problem of confusion, if it is one, is a problem that is not plausibly correlated to the idea of fusion candidacies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3496.13, 3499.483, 3502.956], "stop_times": [3499.483, 3502.956, 3513.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3496.13}, "reply_to": "19788__1_111", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_113", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3513.154], "stop_times": [3514.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3513.154}, "reply_to": "19788__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19788__1_114", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3514.487], "stop_times": [3515.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3514.487}, "reply_to": "19788__1_113", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "19788__1_115", "conversation_id": "19788", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1608", "start_times": [3515.204], "stop_times": [3533.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3515.204}, "reply_to": "19788__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__0_000", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-992, the Turner Broadcasting System v. The Federal Communications Commission.\nMr. Farr.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [0.0, 9.948], "stop_times": [9.948, 10.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__0_001", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAt the outset, if I may, I would like to explain briefly why we think that neither of the interests now asserted by the Government to support the must-carry law justifies the burdens that it imposes on speech.\nThe first argument, that the law merely regulates anticompetitive conduct, fails for two reasons.\nFirst, just as the Government can't ban all fund-raising on the ground that some of it might be fraudulent, here the Government can't forbid the sort of protected activity at issue, choosing what speech to offer, unless it shows at a minimum that those decisions are generally anticompetitive acts and thus fall outside the scope of the First Amendment, otherwise, the law is reaching too far into protected activity in an effort to get at unprotected activity.\nThe record, however, shows that cable operators voluntarily carry the vast majority of broadcast stations, those accounting for some 98 percent of actual viewing, and it is wholly implausible to presume that, were it not for some sort of anticompetitive bias, the cable systems would carry every broadcast station regardless of how minimal the viewership, in preference to the 150 or so other programmers that are also seeking access.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [10.869, 15.932, 29.753, 36.705, 67.427], "stop_times": [15.932, 29.753, 36.705, 67.427, 95.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.869}, "reply_to": "20179__0_000", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_002", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, at some point during the argument... maybe now if it's convenient... would you just explain this to me, Mr. Farr.\nI've always had this difficulty with the case.\nThe cable operators say, this is so terribly burdensome.\nWe have to cancel out programmers whom we'd rather have.\nAnd then on the other hand it says in its brief, well, we're not really cancelling the broadcasters.\nAll this is unnecessary.\nIt seems to me you can't have it both ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [95.046, 101.598, 104.57, 108.134, 111.625, 116.119, 117.248], "stop_times": [101.598, 104.57, 108.134, 111.625, 116.119, 117.248, 118.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.046}, "reply_to": "20179__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20179__0_003", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, I think there are two different questions that are involved.\nFirst of all, there can be a burden on rights that is substantial, even though as a mathematical matter the burden on speech itself is not particularly substantial, but I don't even think that is the case here.\nI mean, there are across the country not only stations that in the past have been dropped and were restored by must-carry, but many stations that are locked in, and as the record shows now in the case, two out of every three subscribers is served by a system that is channel-blocked, that is, it has no available channels at all for programming, and the other third of subscribers are served by systems that will be channel-blocked at some point.\nThe Government's expert concedes that no cable system actually builds in excess capacity for permanent use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [118.821, 121.883, 135.581, 163.56], "stop_times": [121.883, 135.581, 163.56, 170.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.821}, "reply_to": "20179__0_002", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_004", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, can we conclude from your argument that if you prevail on this case a large number of broadcasters will be dropped?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [170.093], "stop_times": [179.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.093}, "reply_to": "20179__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20179__0_005", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, I guess it depends on what the term large number of broadcasters means.\nWhat the record shows, and I think this is consistent with essentially the Government's interpretation of it as well, is that the cable operators in the past, without must-carry, voluntarily carried virtually all network affiliates, they carried virtually all VHF independent stations, they carried a considerable majority of UHF stations, about 80 percent of educational stations, and even one out of three of every station that did not command even a measurable viewership.\nNow, if one looks at that pattern, what that shows... and then groups that with stations community by community.\nWhat that effectively shows is that in communities with relatively small numbers of stations, four, five, six, which tends to be more the norm, the cable system tends to carry... not always, but tends to carry all of the stations, or most of the stations.\nThen as you get into markets where there are more and more stations, 10, 12, 14, those tend to be the stations that cable systems do not regularly carry.\nThe question then depends on whether those stations, even though they have very low viewership, tend to add something to the overall package that a cable operator is trying to provide to its subscribers, and many of those stations do.\nThat's why they're carried.\nBut the fact is, cable operators will not carry all of the very lightly viewed stations if they believe there is other programming that will provide a better fit in the package that it's offering to subscribers.\nI don't think there's any way to put an exact number on that, but we know from the history that the number was not... in terms of must-carry ads was only 6,000 in the past, and I assume some of those would still be carried, and then of the 30,000, some number of those would not be carried even though they were before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [179.379, 184.993, 220.046, 228.133, 243.16, 253.127, 266.927, 267.468, 280.698], "stop_times": [184.993, 220.046, 228.133, 243.16, 253.127, 266.927, 267.468, 280.698, 300.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 179.379}, "reply_to": "20179__0_004", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_006", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "How do you think we ought to assess the significance of the fact... I take it's a fact... that the brunt of the decisions not to carry tends to fall on the new stations?\nI think the figures were that in the absence of must-carry about 50 percent of the new public broadcasting channels did not get carried, and something I think in the neighborhood of a third of the new nonpublic channels did not get carried, so the brunt of the decisions not to carry by the cable operators tends to fall on the new stations.\nHow do we assess the significance of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [300.629, 311.206, 338.834], "stop_times": [311.206, 338.834, 340.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.629}, "reply_to": "20179__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__0_007", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, I think first of all it very much would depend on what the programming of the new stations would be.\nDuring the period without must-carry, Justice Souter, as the Court I think is aware from the record, there was a great increase in the overall number of broadcast stations, both commercial and noncommercial.\nDuring the period from '85 to '92, there were 270 new stations, and from the period of 1980 to 1992, every market of the 209 ADI's in the country had either the same number of stations or a greater number, and most had a greater number.\nSo when there are proliferations of stations like that, the question of whether their programming is going to be of interest to the particular community, or the particular subscribers to a cable system, I think will depend very much on what kind of programming it is.\nAs your question indicates, obviously cable programmers do carry a substantial number of even those brand new stations, obviously because they find something in the programming that they feel will appeal generally to their subscribers, but I think there can't be any absolute question as to whether each one will be carried or each one will not be carried.\nI think it depends on the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [340.637, 346.859, 359.759, 378.902, 394.652, 417.117], "stop_times": [346.859, 359.759, 378.902, 394.652, 417.117, 418.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 340.637}, "reply_to": "20179__0_006", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_008", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Do we know how many of those... in the period before the present must-carry rules, do we know how many of those 50 percent and 33-1/3 percent, or whatever it was, failed to survive when they were not picked up by the cable channels?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [418.787], "stop_times": [434.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.787}, "reply_to": "20179__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__0_009", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, the numbers on stations that do not survive suggest that the number is very low.\nI don't know that the number is broken out by whether they were brand new stations or whether they were stations that had previously existed.\nOf course, the bringing on, even if you had no cable whatsoever, the fact that you are increasing the number of stations within particular television markets will put pressure on the other broadcasting stations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [434.268, 439.521, 447.956], "stop_times": [439.521, 447.956, 460.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.268}, "reply_to": "20179__0_008", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_010", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Right.\nWe'd have to know the differential to make a... yeah, to make a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [460.895, 461.055], "stop_times": [461.055, 462.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.895}, "reply_to": "20179__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__0_011", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "That's right.\nSo I mean, that's simply a factor of numbers in competition, even without respect to cable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [462.385, 462.656], "stop_times": [462.656, 467.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.385}, "reply_to": "20179__0_010", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_012", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Following up Justice Kennedy's question, from the cable operator's side, is this a diminishing problem to the extent that there is a problem with must-carry as cable, as the channel capacity expands, this becomes less and less of a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [467.878], "stop_times": [491.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.878}, "reply_to": "20179__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20179__0_013", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, unfortunately, it has not become less and less of a problem to date.\nI think anyone who is familiar with the cable industry at the moment knows that channel space is greatly at a premium within the industry as a whole.\nOne of the reasons for that, of course, is that there are many new cable programmers as well as additional broadcast stations that are seeking access to these cable systems.\nNow, it is true that in general the capacity of cable systems is expanding, but it is not expanding at a pace that is outstripping the expansion of programmers who are trying to reach the audiences that cable operators serve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [491.273, 495.627, 504.032, 514.9], "stop_times": [495.627, 504.032, 514.9, 531.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.273}, "reply_to": "20179__0_012", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_014", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Mr. Farr, when you use the term, programmer... I want to be sure I understand... are you referring to a company that presents a full line, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, or however much they're on the air, or do you also include within that term companies that might produce individual programs they try to sell, like the Civil War documentary or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [531.351], "stop_times": [549.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.351}, "reply_to": "20179__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__0_015", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I'm using it I think as it's been in use throughout this case to mean the first of those two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [549.093], "stop_times": [553.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.093}, "reply_to": "20179__0_014", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_016", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Just the first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [553.725], "stop_times": [553.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.725}, "reply_to": "20179__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__0_017", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Essentially a network of some sort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [553.935], "stop_times": [556.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.935}, "reply_to": "20179__0_016", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_018", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "We're not here concerned with the impact on people who try to sell individual programs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [556.927], "stop_times": [562.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.927}, "reply_to": "20179__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__0_019", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, I don't think they're specifically plaintiffs in this particular case.\nObviously, to the extent, for example, that those... there's a market for those programs, particularly for whatever reason within cable programmers, to the extent those cable programmers can't get onto the stations because the broadcasters are required to be carried, it may... it would have a derivative effect on them, but that's not the specific claim that's at issue here.\nThe claim here is that the programming network itself, which wants to be carried within an area--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [562.841, 568.187, 588.399], "stop_times": [568.187, 588.399, 594.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.841}, "reply_to": "20179__0_018", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_020", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "And that's the... that's what you're referring to on that 150 figure you used, is that full-line programmers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [594.243], "stop_times": [599.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.243}, "reply_to": "20179__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__0_021", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--That's correct.\nThose are essentially--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [599.105, 599.636], "stop_times": [599.636, 601.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.105}, "reply_to": "20179__0_020", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_022", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "And how many of those are affiliated and how many are unaffiliated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [601.877], "stop_times": [604.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.877}, "reply_to": "20179__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__0_023", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--If you're talking about affiliated with cable operators--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [604.669], "stop_times": [608.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 604.669}, "reply_to": "20179__0_022", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_024", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [608.942], "stop_times": [609.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.942}, "reply_to": "20179__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__0_025", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--I don't have a particular number.\nI can perhaps work backwards a little bit from the other side.\nIf you look at the cable operators themselves, TCI, which is the largest cable operator, has an interest in something like 20 cable programmers.\nTime Warner, after its merger with Turner, is somewhere around a dozen.\nThe others are all... there may be four or five that have interests in about four or five programmers, and the rest the cable operators typically have no interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [609.213, 611.684, 615.146, 628.213, 631.697], "stop_times": [611.684, 615.146, 628.213, 631.697, 639.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.213}, "reply_to": "20179__0_024", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_026", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Mr. Farr, may I go back to the subject of Justice Ginsburg's question?\nMy recollection is that the figure in the record was that when must-carry came in, about, I think it was 6 percent of cable operators had to drop at least one program in order to comply with must-carry.\nThe suggestion was that that figure perhaps is not wholly representative of the significance of must-carry because there was evidence that the cable operators were sort of on their good behavior before that, but in any case we got a figure of about 6 percent.\nIs that figure still, so far as the record shows, the best measure that we have of the, at least the quantified significance of must-carry on the operators?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [639.781, 643.294, 659.693, 676.056], "stop_times": [643.294, 659.693, 676.056, 691.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.781}, "reply_to": "20179__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__0_027", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, to begin with I don't think it is for two reasons.\nFirst of all, having to add a channel as a result of must-carry doesn't reflect the limitation on cable operators who may at the time have been carrying a broadcast station but now in a different world of programming might choose not to carry that particular station.\nAs I said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [691.456, 695.016, 712.979], "stop_times": [695.016, 712.979, 714.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.456}, "reply_to": "20179__0_026", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_028", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "It's true, but do we have anything but a speculative basis to assess that latter significance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [714.401], "stop_times": [720.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.401}, "reply_to": "20179__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__0_029", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--In terms--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [720.394], "stop_times": [721.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.394}, "reply_to": "20179__0_028", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_030", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I mean, we'll assume it exists, but I don't know how we... I don't know that we have any measurement of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [721.695], "stop_times": [725.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.695}, "reply_to": "20179__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__0_031", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Well, I don't think there is any particular way to measure it, because obviously must-carry has been in place since 1992, or since it was implemented, so there isn't a way to test particularly what cable operators will do given the program selections right now.\nI would point out, though, that I... the Government, it seems to me, in its argument tries to essentially... excuse me... make a balancing argument here saying, well, this will help broadcast stations to have carriage, and we think that the impact on cable operators and cable programmers won't really be all that significant, and therefore I think their argument is that we really needn't be concerned about what impact there is.\nI do think, I should say, I think that's a false equation.\nI don't think that the First Amendment is essentially a quantitative balancing test in which the Government can say, we will try to benefit these speakers at the expense of these other speakers as long as we balance out the harms in a way that we think is in the public interest.\nI think the First Amendment is a qualitative standard that in fact puts a barrier to what Government can do unless it is pursuing substantial interests, and it has properly tailored what the law is to those interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [725.247, 742.349, 770.959, 773.83, 790.039], "stop_times": [742.349, 770.959, 773.83, 790.039, 802.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.247}, "reply_to": "20179__0_030", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_032", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well then, why do... your implication is that there is not a substantial interest here because the beneficial impact under the three headings that Turner I spoke of is insufficiently significant.\nIs that a fair statement of what's implicit in your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [802.638, 816.826], "stop_times": [816.826, 821.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.638}, "reply_to": "20179__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__0_033", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "It is implicit in this sense, I think, Justice Souter, if I understand the question.\nAt the beginning of my argument I indicated that I... the reasons that I thought that the anticompetitive rationale for this law would not stand up, that the law is simply way to broad for any demonstrated anticompetitive behavior, and in addition, although I didn't get a chance to say it, there is the tailoring problem specifically addressed by Judge Williams, that the law in fact imposes discrimination.\nIt just doesn't relieve the burdens of any bias that the Government presumes to be there.\nSo I think if one takes that interest out, as I think properly the Court should, then the question is, can the Government use the means of forcing access onto the private media in order to serve their goal of promoting broadcasting for over-the-air viewers?\nI think that's a straight, fundamental question about the power of Government, and I don't think the answer to that question depends primarily on some balancing between--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [821.791, 825.932, 851.529, 857.923, 878.106], "stop_times": [825.932, 851.529, 857.923, 878.106, 889.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.791}, "reply_to": "20179__0_032", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_034", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [889.135], "stop_times": [890.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.135}, "reply_to": "20179__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__0_035", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--the amount of benefit to the broadcasters and harm to the programmers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [890.245], "stop_times": [892.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.245}, "reply_to": "20179__0_034", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_036", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Mr. Farr, you say that the First Amendment doesn't require... it doesn't usually import any balancing, but when you're talking about, is there a substantial Government interest here under the O'Brien test, that itself is a form of balancing, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [892.178], "stop_times": [904.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.178}, "reply_to": "20179__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__0_037", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, that's correct, Mr. Chief Justice, there certainly has to be a weighing, if that is a proper term, of the governmental interest, but I don't think that can be divorced from the question of the means by which the Government is pursuing it.\nCertainly, the Government can pursue the interest of benefiting individual broadcast stations, for example, by granting them subsidies, or by providing other forms of benefit to encourage their development.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [904.195, 918.314], "stop_times": [918.314, 931.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.195}, "reply_to": "20179__0_036", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_038", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Do you say it can't, then, simply promote broadcast television in general because it's free to the listener?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [931.491], "stop_times": [938.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.491}, "reply_to": "20179__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__0_039", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I'm not saying that they can't promote it in general.\nIn fact, I agree that they can promote it in general.\nWhat I'm saying is, though, that when they come to the question of means, how they are doing it, when they say the means by which we are going to promote it are to limit the speech rights of others, then they're running up against a barrier that the First Amendment imposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [938.807, 941.328, 943.64], "stop_times": [941.328, 943.64, 958.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.807}, "reply_to": "20179__0_038", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_040", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Mr. Farr, suppose... this is not a hypothetical.\nIt comes from Justice O'Connor's opinion last time around... the Government simply said, to the extent that you have unused channels, just to that extent, you must carry, so you can't leave any channels idle, but if you fill them up with cable programmers, whatever, that's okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [958.389, 964.533], "stop_times": [964.533, 985.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.389}, "reply_to": "20179__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20179__0_041", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Obviously, that would be a less restrictive alternative, there's no question about that.\nI think in fairness I should make two points, though.\nFirst of all, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't have any impact, because the relationship between cable operators and their subscribers is essentially the coin of the realm for cable operators, and for them to put programming on and take it off does introduce some irritation.\nThe second point is that I'm not sure it really serves the Government interest to have a broadcast station on for a month or two and then take it off, but if the Government felt that that... and could demonstrate that that did substantially advance its interest, that would be a less restrictive alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [985.066, 989.631, 992.252, 1007.163], "stop_times": [989.631, 992.252, 1007.163, 1021.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.066}, "reply_to": "20179__0_040", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_042", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Less restrictive; why?\nBecause... I mean, the First Amendment is certainly violated when you are compelled to say something, whether or not you had intended to say something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1021.891, 1025.464], "stop_times": [1025.464, 1034.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.891}, "reply_to": "20179__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__0_043", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "It's less restrictive because it only has one of the two constitutional flaws of the must-carry statute, because in that particular case it is not excluding a programmer at that moment that the operator has decided it would otherwise carry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1034.71], "stop_times": [1050.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1034.71}, "reply_to": "20179__0_042", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_044", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Which is to say that the one both compels you to say what you don't want to and prevents you from saying what you were about to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1050.691], "stop_times": [1057.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.691}, "reply_to": "20179__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__0_045", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "The must-carry law has both of those effects, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1057.476], "stop_times": [1060.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.476}, "reply_to": "20179__0_044", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_046", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "May I ask you if you think that section 4 and section 5 are equally bad, or equally good, whichever way we go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1060.727], "stop_times": [1067.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.727}, "reply_to": "20179__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__0_047", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I do believe that they are equally bad, Justice Stevens.\nThe fact is that... for the same reason that I mentioned a moment ago, that I do think the First Amendment puts a limitation on the means Government can use to advance speech.\nI don't think that particularly changes with the content of the speech and, indeed, if the Court were to rely on the content of the speech to make that determination, I think it would call into some question the use of the intermediate standard.\nI should point out that with respect to the interest in preventing anticompetitive behavior, the argument with respect to the public TV stations really is an even weaker argument than it is with respect to the commercial TV stations.\nThey are obviously not competitors in the advertising market along with the cable systems, and therefore at least one of the linchpins--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1067.853, 1072.114, 1084.232, 1097.302, 1114.703], "stop_times": [1072.114, 1084.232, 1097.302, 1114.703, 1122.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.853}, "reply_to": "20179__0_046", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_048", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "They get some donations, don't they?\nI mean, you see, you know, this is sponsored by Mobil in connection with public television.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1122.958, 1125.351], "stop_times": [1125.351, 1130.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.958}, "reply_to": "20179__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__0_049", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--I don't think, though, typically, that someone who is choosing to donate to a public television station is choosing between that and running a local ad on the cable system.\nThere may be some instances of that, but I think generally the advertising market that one is talking about is the actual commercial advertising market.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1130.373, 1139.209], "stop_times": [1139.209, 1146.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.373}, "reply_to": "20179__0_048", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_050", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, but they... but they do choose to make the endorsement or not based on a projection of the size of the audience, surely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1146.382], "stop_times": [1154.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.382}, "reply_to": "20179__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20179__0_051", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Oh, I think that is true.\nI'm not saying... what I'm saying is that that would not, I don't think, be a reason that a cable system would not run a public broadcast station, in the hopes that it would draw off what would otherwise be donated to the broadcast station and to add it to its own advertising revenues.\nWhether it had an effect on the public TV station is a separate question.\nI would like to return to a point that came up a few minutes ago, though, about the ownership relationship between owners and programmers.\nAs I said, it is limited to a certain number of operators, and even those, most of them have a relatively small number of interests in programmers, but I should say something which I think has not really received enough attention in this case in the lower courts as well, that I think vertical integration is essentially a red herring here, and I think that for a couple of reasons.\nI think Judge Williams is perfectly correct that if you look at vertical integration the statute is not at all tailored to it.\nIt applies to operators who aren't vertically integrated.\nIt applies to decisions between nonintegrated programmers and broadcast stations.\nBut more importantly than that, there is a specific provision in the Communications Act that deals with vertical integration.\nIn fact, there are several of them, and the... one of the provisions authorizes the commission to set limits on the number of integrated programmers that an operator can carry, which has been set basically at 40 percent, but another one of them has a specific nondiscrimination provision barring cable operators from discriminating on the basis of affiliation, so the idea that the must-carry law itself, that part of the act was intended to remedy a problem of vertical integration it seems to me is belied by the other purposes... excuse me, by the other provisions of the act itself.\nNow, I'd just like to make one point about the anticompetitive argument, because I think it's critical in thinking about what the Government calls structural regulation, but keep in mind two things about structural regulation.\nFirst of all, just calling something structural regulation doesn't seem to me to indicate much about where... how it should be analyzed under the First Amendment.\nFirst of all, the question is what does it regulate, and what the structural regulation here is regulating is who can speak on a cable system.\nThe second thing is that structural regulation is by its nature prophylactic, and prophylactic regulation is, as this Court has often said, disfavored under the First Amendment.\nSo I would submit that just because the Government characterizes something as economic regulation or structural regulation, even under O'Brien, the Court has to look carefully at the assumptions that the Government makes to justify a broad prophylactic law and, furthermore, has to look at the remedy that's imposed to see if the remedy is consistent with the types of remedies that are imposed in other industries not involving speech, because if it's not, if the remedy that is used, as it is here, is broader than what would be used in another comparable situation, then the Government it seems to me has a strong burden of answering why the other remedy is not a suitable, less restrictive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1154.13, 1156.791, 1173.641, 1177.444, 1188.681, 1212.877, 1220.341, 1222.642, 1226.496, 1235.612, 1277.569, 1297.912, 1307.579, 1314.672, 1328.133], "stop_times": [1156.791, 1173.641, 1177.444, 1188.681, 1212.877, 1220.341, 1222.642, 1226.496, 1235.612, 1277.569, 1297.912, 1307.579, 1314.672, 1328.133, 1371.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1154.13}, "reply_to": "20179__0_050", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_052", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Is the term structural borrowed from some body of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1371.56], "stop_times": [1372.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.56}, "reply_to": "20179__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__0_053", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Not that I know of.\nIt... I believe it's just a... something which is being used to describe in a loose fashion regulation that does aim at a particular industry but is not specifically aimed at the content of speech.\nYour Honor, if I may, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1372.641, 1375.143, 1388.921], "stop_times": [1375.143, 1388.921, 1392.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.641}, "reply_to": "20179__0_052", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__0_054", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Very well, Mr. Farr.\nGeneral Dellinger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1392.083, 1393.954], "stop_times": [1393.954, 1396.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.083}, "reply_to": "20179__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__1_000", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nMany of the discussions that you've had so far this morning with Mr. Farr related to his discussion of what the Government interest may be, and efforts that they've made in oral argument earlier and in their brief to cabinet and denigrate that interest.\nI want to be clear that the Government interest in this case is important, substantial, content-neutral, unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and solidly grounded in reasonable inferences that are based upon substantial evidence.\nIn spite of the talk about the anticompetitive market foreclosure effects, there is, as Justice Kennedy's opinion recognized in Turner I, a very clear principal goal of the must-carry law, and that is to preserve a healthy multiplicity of broadcast sources for the 40 percent of American homes that do not have cable, homes that rely upon free, over-the-air broadcasting as the entire source of their television programming.\nWhen cable systems deny carriage to local broadcast stations, and thereby foreclose those stations from reaching the 60-percent of households, often more affluent, that rely upon cable, those local broadcast stations lose revenue and suffer financially.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1396.127, 1402.7, 1418.901, 1434.052, 1465.581], "stop_times": [1402.7, 1418.901, 1434.052, 1465.581, 1482.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1396.127}, "reply_to": "20179__0_054", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_001", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Mr. Dellinger, I... General Dellinger, I'm sorry... I suppose it can be said that whenever you save a single station that would otherwise go out of business you're preserving the diversity, in a sense, but I thought that what our earlier opinion meant was that, did you not save this broadcaster, or the ones that are saved by this legislation, there would not be any diversity, period.\nIn other words, it was a matter of the system as a whole not having multiple voices, not merely whether you would lose a few voices.\nOf course you would.\nI think everybody concedes that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1482.602, 1514.645, 1523.939, 1524.63], "stop_times": [1514.645, 1523.939, 1524.63, 1526.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.602}, "reply_to": "20179__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_002", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Justice Scalia, I think to the extent it is conceded that\n\"a few voices would be lost. \"\nit is conceded that the Government should prevail in this case, that it's a perfectly consti--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1526.891, 1533.766, 1535.736], "stop_times": [1533.766, 1535.736, 1541.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1526.891}, "reply_to": "20179__1_001", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_003", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Is that conceded?\nYou think that the other side thinks--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1541.941, 1542.902], "stop_times": [1542.902, 1544.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.941}, "reply_to": "20179__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_004", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1544.515], "stop_times": [1546.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1544.515}, "reply_to": "20179__1_003", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_005", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--is asserting that no voices would be lost if this legislation were not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1546.425], "stop_times": [1550.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.425}, "reply_to": "20179__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_006", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--They spend a considerable amount of time in their brief suggesting that the Government needed to prove that the entire national broadcast industry, or the local broadcasting industry would collapse in the absence of must-carry, but I want to explain why I think the loss of some over-the-air broadcast stations is a matter of critical importance to the Government.\nI think the record on remand amply shows that exclusion from cable will harm local broadcasters so excluded, and they will be unable to provide the kind of sort of robust array of quality programming that they could if they had the revenues from cable access.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1550.378, 1571.013], "stop_times": [1571.013, 1586.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1550.378}, "reply_to": "20179__1_005", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_007", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--But--\n--Can you quantify that, Mr.... General Dellinger?\nYou say it shows that over-the-air broadcasters will suffer.\nYou know, how many and to what extent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1586.681, 1587.001, 1589.362, 1595.386], "stop_times": [1587.001, 1589.362, 1595.386, 1597.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.681}, "reply_to": "20179__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_008", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I think Congress had an ample basis for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1597.697], "stop_times": [1601.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1597.697}, "reply_to": "20179__1_007", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_009", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I mean, on the basis of the... assuming that Congress made the appropriate finding, I think the prevailing opinion last time said something more was required to show the rationality of Congress' choice.\nNow, what is shown in the subsequent proceedings after the opinion 3 years ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1601.811, 1613.848], "stop_times": [1613.848, 1620.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.811}, "reply_to": "20179__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__1_010", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--I think what is shown by the evidence on remand, Mr. Chief Justice, is that the problem is even worse than Congress initially supposed.\nWe... there was much debate about whether, as a predictive matter from economic theory, stations would be dropped in the absence of must-carry, broadcast stations would be dropped.\nIn fact, we now know that it happened.\nIt happened nearly 8,000 times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1620.213, 1630.191, 1638.864, 1641.826], "stop_times": [1630.191, 1638.864, 1641.826, 1644.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.213}, "reply_to": "20179__1_009", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_011", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Eight thousand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1644.169], "stop_times": [1644.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.169}, "reply_to": "20179__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__1_012", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Eight thousand times, broadcast stations were dropped from one or more cable systems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1644.938], "stop_times": [1652.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1644.938}, "reply_to": "20179__1_011", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_013", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Out of how large a universe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1652.935], "stop_times": [1654.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.935}, "reply_to": "20179__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__1_014", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "How large a universe?\nThere are about 1,500 broadcast stations in this country.\nThere are 12,000 cable systems.\nThere are... those 12,000 cable systems have about 500,000 total channels available.\nThe dropping of 7,945 stations for more than a year, between '85 and '92 as the... page 621 of the Joint Appendix will show was... showed that in the years before must-carry the typical cable system denied carriage to somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of the broadcast stations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1654.925, 1656.708, 1661.199, 1663.841, 1671.147], "stop_times": [1656.708, 1661.199, 1663.841, 1671.147, 1698.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1654.925}, "reply_to": "20179__1_013", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_015", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "General Dellinger, was there any offset?\nWere broadcast stations added?\nYou recited the number that were dropped.\nHow many were added?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1698.884, 1701.015, 1703.188, 1705.769], "stop_times": [1701.015, 1703.188, 1705.769, 1707.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.884}, "reply_to": "20179__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20179__1_016", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "There would be during that period broadcast stations added.\nI don't have the exact figure, Justice Ginsburg.\nIt would have been far fewer than the number that were dropped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1707.339, 1711.703, 1713.844], "stop_times": [1711.703, 1713.844, 1717.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1707.339}, "reply_to": "20179__1_015", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_017", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Where they were dropped, how many were left?\nThat's what goes to my question.\nHow many communities were deprived of diversity in over-the-air broadcasting because... you know, to drop one over-the-air station from New York City, is no big deal, and I would not be very sympathetic to the Government's claim that this is necessary to \"preserve diversity\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1717.997, 1719.858, 1722.259], "stop_times": [1719.858, 1722.259, 1739.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.997}, "reply_to": "20179__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_018", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, the total number of broadcast stations that were carried were 35,000 Nationwide, so there's a lot.\nBut let me address the question you've raised twice now... let me come back to it... of whether the dropping of a few stations is something about which Congress can legitimately be concerned, that would support must-carry.\nI think that's a critical part of Mr. Farr's argument as well.\nIf you take a community that has six or seven stations, and seven local over-the-air broadcast stations is about the national average, if you take a community and between one-quarter and one-third of those stations are denied carriage on cable, you're weakening, substantially weakening two out of six, two out of six local broadcast stations.\nPerhaps it's three out of nine in other communities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1739.61, 1748.476, 1760.594, 1765.339, 1793.215], "stop_times": [1748.476, 1760.594, 1765.339, 1793.215, 1799.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1739.61}, "reply_to": "20179__1_017", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_019", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Most communities have only one newspaper.\nNow, could the Government, in order to foster diversity, require the newspaper to carry competitors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1799.269, 1801.132], "stop_times": [1801.132, 1811.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.269}, "reply_to": "20179__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_020", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, it is clear that Congress has, I think, since the Radio Act in 1927 and the Communications Act, treated communications differently.\nThey could not do that with newspapers, but then newspapers do not have the critical throat-hold that cable operators have over access to those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1811.057, 1820.764], "stop_times": [1820.764, 1830.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.057}, "reply_to": "20179__1_019", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_021", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "The radio spectrum, is that what the cable operators have that newspapers don't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1830.441], "stop_times": [1835.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.441}, "reply_to": "20179__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_022", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--No.\nWhat cable operators have is a gate-keeping function over the wire that goes into the homes of 60 percent of those in the community.\nIf you don't get a... there is no one that has the authority... no newspaper has the authority to exclude others from reaching the potential audience in the way that the cable system does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1835.443, 1835.653, 1843.07], "stop_times": [1835.653, 1843.07, 1853.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1835.443}, "reply_to": "20179__1_021", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_023", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "What you're saying is that cable is a natural monopoly because nobody else is going to put in a piece of copper.\nIt's the same with newspapers.\nIt has been shown economically that in any market it will tend to come down to one newspaper, because advertising only pays for the newspaper that... I really don't see the difference, but the point I'm driving at here is, why is it so horrible to have only four over-the-air television stations when our country resigns itself to the fact that most communities have only one local newspaper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1853.296, 1857.78, 1859.44], "stop_times": [1857.78, 1859.44, 1881.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.296}, "reply_to": "20179__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_024", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "The answer to that question I think is that... is that local over-the-air broadcasting is probably the... now the cheapest and most accessible form of sources of information in this country.\nI... you can buy... some years back I bought a black and white television set from a repair shop for $15.\nIt lasted for more than a decade.\nEven if the price is $50 or $100 for the bottom line television set at a discount house, the longevity of those sets means that you're talking a few dollars a year.\nFor a few dollars a year, those who don't have cable... it's 90 million Americans... can rely upon that simple fact.\nThe whole community benefits from having a source of information, and one wants to have on that source of information as many stations as the economy of the local community and its market area will support, what this Court has called a broad array of diverse and antagonistic sources of information, is quite good.\nWhen you drop a station, one or two stations, you may be dropping the station that is most critical to a language minority, it may be the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1881.803, 1897.304, 1906.77, 1908.61, 1921.46, 1929.304, 1949.617], "stop_times": [1897.304, 1906.77, 1908.61, 1921.46, 1929.304, 1949.617, 1957.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.803}, "reply_to": "20179__1_023", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_025", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "But the over-the-air... the question that I have... I'm only thinking of the section 4.\nI think maybe the section 5 is different, but you say there were 35,000 stations, 8,000 were dropped, but am I right in thinking that of the 8,000 that were dropped, all but 31 remained on the air broadcasting to the over-the-air people, and... so that's the problem that's bothering me.\nIf 7,700 of the 8,000 are still there broadcasting to the people you said were trying to help, namely those who don't have cable, then how were those people hurt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1957.343, 1962.767, 1982.259], "stop_times": [1962.767, 1982.259, 1994.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.343}, "reply_to": "20179__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20179__1_026", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I think that there is ample evidence that even in the absence of loss of survival... I mean, Justice Souter asked the same question.\nSurvival is not the only issue.\nThere is... both... our common sense tells us that when you lose revenues, you lose the ability to put on quality programming.\nTo have the same number of stations and have them show the test pattern, or, to use a more realistic example, to have the same number of stations but have them sufficiently depleted of resources by not being on cable, if you put some fellow up there with costume jewelry and a telephone to take home shopping inquiries is not going to be... is not going to provide that source of... if you look at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [1994.487, 2004.925, 2006.465, 2014.581], "stop_times": [2004.925, 2006.465, 2014.581, 2036.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.487}, "reply_to": "20179__1_025", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_027", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "So it's the prosperity of programmers that the Government is now concerned about, not just their continued existence.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2036.675, 2041.497], "stop_times": [2041.497, 2041.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.675}, "reply_to": "20179__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_028", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2041.988], "stop_times": [2042.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.988}, "reply_to": "20179__1_027", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_029", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--This is the overwhelming interest, that they must prosper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2042.358], "stop_times": [2045.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.358}, "reply_to": "20179__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_030", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "It is very important that the prosperity of programmers is only an intermediate step, not the final goal, as Mr. Farr has suggested or as your question would posit.\nIt is only an intermediate step towards the actual goal of assuming that there is some vibrancy and health to those small, local broadcast--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2045.702, 2056.697], "stop_times": [2056.697, 2065.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2045.702}, "reply_to": "20179__1_029", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_031", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "But is there evidence in the record on that, for the reason that, of course, I sought evidence in the record of economists who said, if you have less money, you will put on less expensive programming, while at the same time the station, while having less money, will then direct its attention to the minority, namely those who don't have cable.\nSo the programs will be less expensive, but they may be aimed more directly at the audience, and therefore I didn't know... I looked for evidence, and is there any evidence in the record that tells us that that minority that doesn't have cable actually has programming that it finds less desirable?\nI saw a theory, but I didn't see evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2065.002, 2089.701, 2110.253], "stop_times": [2089.701, 2110.253, 2113.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.002}, "reply_to": "20179__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20179__1_032", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Yes.\nI mean, you save me the effort of going through the 25 hundred volumes it cited.\nI mean, we did have David Schutz, Roger Knowles, other experts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2113.535, 2113.736, 2117.458], "stop_times": [2113.736, 2117.458, 2120.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2113.535}, "reply_to": "20179__1_031", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_033", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Roger Knowles said that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2120.969], "stop_times": [2122.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.969}, "reply_to": "20179__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20179__1_034", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--He said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2122.602], "stop_times": [2123.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.602}, "reply_to": "20179__1_033", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_035", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--you have less money, you will spend less on programming.\nI didn't see anything in his statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2123.323, 2126.793], "stop_times": [2126.793, 2129.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.323}, "reply_to": "20179__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20179__1_036", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Well, he said it's an important factor in determining the quality of a station's programs.\nNow, there certainly is, let me say admittedly, anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence that supports our common sense viewpoint.\nFor example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2129.527, 2134.089, 2140.514], "stop_times": [2134.089, 2140.514, 2141.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2129.527}, "reply_to": "20179__1_035", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_037", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Is the common sense viewpoint that the quality will be better, is that what you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2141.174], "stop_times": [2144.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.174}, "reply_to": "20179__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__1_038", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2144.916, 2145.096, 2145.427], "stop_times": [2145.096, 2145.427, 2145.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.916}, "reply_to": "20179__1_037", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_039", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, when you start talking about quality, you're walking your way in, aren't you, into a content-based justification?\nYou're saying, we will compare the programming, and it will be better programming, I presume, by some governmental judgment.\nYou're turning this into a content-based justification, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2145.477, 2152.522, 2160.908], "stop_times": [2152.522, 2160.908, 2164.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.477}, "reply_to": "20179__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__1_040", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--One of the virtues of the must-carry system as compared to what the cable industry suggests as an alternative, that is, of Government subsidies, is the Government doesn't have to make those content-based decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2164.762], "stop_times": [2177.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.762}, "reply_to": "20179__1_039", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_041", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, it doesn't make them on a specific case-by-case basis, but I think the tendency of your answer to Justice Breyer is, when you talk about vibrancy and quality, you are talking about some kind of a content-based standard, and I think what you're... I think what you're saying is that overall, not on a program-by-program basis, but overall, the content is going to be better.\nIsn't that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2177.65, 2202.235], "stop_times": [2202.235, 2203.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.65}, "reply_to": "20179__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__1_042", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "It seems to me that one can say that providing this kind... that these over-the-air broadcast channels are not starved financially in the hopes that they're available to the community for the quality programming that is chosen by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2203.647], "stop_times": [2218.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.647}, "reply_to": "20179__1_041", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_043", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "The quality program, yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2218.466], "stop_times": [2219.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.466}, "reply_to": "20179__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__1_044", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--those local programmers and not by the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2219.556], "stop_times": [2220.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.556}, "reply_to": "20179__1_043", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_045", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--But you say, Mr. Dellinger, you want quality programming, and yet you also say that the 60 percent of the people who don't have cable, or 40 percent, whatever, are perhaps people in lower income brackets and that sort of thing.\nMaybe the people in the lower income brackets don't necessarily want the history channel or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2220.467, 2233.266], "stop_times": [2233.266, 2240.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.467}, "reply_to": "20179__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__1_046", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, it's... these are stations that often appeal to communities.\nTake an example.\nKCEC was a Spanish language station, over-the-air broadcast station.\nOnce it got on the cable, it had the resources to institute its first local news program in the Spanish language that served the Hispanic population.\nA lot of these... there's a new fourth network made up of channels that used to be located in the nether regions of broadcasting.\nGetting them on cable leads to more sources.\nI do not think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2240.921, 2245.585, 2246.554, 2251.759, 2260.374, 2267.448, 2270.219], "stop_times": [2245.585, 2246.554, 2251.759, 2260.374, 2267.448, 2270.219, 2271.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.921}, "reply_to": "20179__1_045", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_047", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "But to argue that it's better for people to have more news programs certainly reinforces the notion that it is a content-based interest here that's being urged, and I wonder, General Dellinger, the broadcast stations and the stations that aren't on cable are still out there on the air for a viewer to receive if they switch off of cable, aren't they?\nI mean, there are switches.\nI can plug in a TV set and pull in these other stations, can't I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2271.121, 2297.207, 2299.498], "stop_times": [2297.207, 2299.498, 2304.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.121}, "reply_to": "20179__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20179__1_048", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Let me respond to your first question first, which is that I do think it's important that having a legitimate congressional concern that local broadcasters are not depleted of revenue so that those local broadcasters can make their own decisions and have the resources--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2304.743], "stop_times": [2325.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.743}, "reply_to": "20179__1_047", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_049", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well then, why not give them subsidies?\nThat's very narrowly tailored.\nYou don't have to commandeer all the channels.\nIf the Government is concerned about prosperity of the station, give them a subsidy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2325.458, 2327.508, 2330.258, 2333.371], "stop_times": [2327.508, 2330.258, 2333.371, 2338.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.458}, "reply_to": "20179__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20179__1_050", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--I think both the subsidy and the A/B switch are unsatisfactory and not less restrictive alternatives, but it is important to me that we understand that one is not touching a third rail of content skewing by the Government for the Government to think that local broadcasters ought not be starved of resources so they can choose, but on these two alternatives, the problem of Government subsidies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2338.894], "stop_times": [2364.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.894}, "reply_to": "20179__1_049", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_051", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "You at least... the Government at least thinks that expensive programming is better programming.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2364.821], "stop_times": [2368.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.821}, "reply_to": "20179__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_052", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--The Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2368.194], "stop_times": [2368.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.194}, "reply_to": "20179__1_051", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_053", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "And there may be those that think that, you know, talking heads are better than blowing up buildings or things like that, but the Government has made that decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2368.804], "stop_times": [2376.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.804}, "reply_to": "20179__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_054", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2376.538], "stop_times": [2376.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.538}, "reply_to": "20179__1_053", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_055", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--at any rate.\nExpensive programming is better programming, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2376.748, 2377.349], "stop_times": [2377.349, 2379.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.748}, "reply_to": "20179__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__1_056", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Congress believes that there are... that the harm suffered to local broadcasters when they're not carried by local systems includes reduction in a whole range of services, of content, that they could offer.\nThat's... Government is not choosing content, but wants there to be some robustness in local program, or the ability of them to choose that.\nNow, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2379.37, 2392.5, 2399.566], "stop_times": [2392.5, 2399.566, 2400.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.37}, "reply_to": "20179__1_055", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_057", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "General Dellinger, may I ask you on that point, at least with respect to the public stations, am I... and I'm talking about section 5.\nI thought that the record showed that no station went dark in the mustcarry period, that the number of stations, the number of stations in fact increased, and that even membership revenue increased, so was there even... the case that you're making, even for what was available, was even that made out with respect to the public television?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2400.223, 2410.501], "stop_times": [2410.501, 2434.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.223}, "reply_to": "20179__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20179__1_058", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, during the period in the mid-eighties to 1992, it was of course a period of great economic growth, so statistics generally are good, but in the joint record before Congress there are many instances of public stations where the... particularly the secondary... second or third public broadcast stations, ones that might be serving a community college, is being repositioned, losing its channel place in the middle of a community college course, and there's also the additional interest that Congress has always had in promoting educational television and making sure the cable homes have access to educational programs.\nI mean, it's important as we debate these issues to remember that the question is not whether on these factual disputes Mr. Farr is right or I'm right, or even whether Congress was right.\nThe question you put in Turner I was whether the obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights were implicated, you said, there is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2434.158, 2466.188, 2475.374], "stop_times": [2466.188, 2475.374, 2488.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.158}, "reply_to": "20179__1_057", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_059", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "No, but we indicated, General Dellinger, that we wanted evidence that there was a significant... a significant effect, beneficial effect that must-carry had, and you at the very first said well, even if just a few stations are dropped, that's significant.\nI'm not sure that that's the correct interpretation of the opinion, and this goes back to the very first question the Chief Justice asked, and the whole colloquy we've been having since.\nIs there evidence in this record that shows that there is a significant effect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2488.992, 2508.487, 2517.503], "stop_times": [2508.487, 2517.503, 2524.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.992}, "reply_to": "20179__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20179__1_060", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2524.424], "stop_times": [2525.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.424}, "reply_to": "20179__1_059", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_061", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--that must-carry produces insofar as the number of stations dropped or not dropped are concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2525.446], "stop_times": [2530.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.446}, "reply_to": "20179__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20179__1_062", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "The evidence was more than substantial, and the averments were more than reasonable that the loss of 8,000 local broadcast stations being kept off of cable systems during that period, coupled with, just in the printed appendix, 2,511 pages of substantial evidence to support Congress' judgment that they were going to suffer financially, have less resources to provide programming, and those 90 million homes that depend upon local broadcast television would have a less diverse, broad, and healthy source of broadcast information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2530.929], "stop_times": [2569.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2530.929}, "reply_to": "20179__1_061", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20179__1_063", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.\nMr. Ennis, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2569.334, 2570.586], "stop_times": [2570.586, 2572.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.334}, "reply_to": "20179__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__2_000", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI would like to make two interrelated points.\nThe first is, is that Congress reasonably predicted that in the absence of must-carry there would be significant injury to broadcast stations which would threaten the Government interest in preserving a multiplicity of broadcast sources, and the second point is that the presence of must-carry has actually caused very modest and decreasing injury to cable operators and cable programs.\nFirst, on the injury to broadcast stations, Congress did not predict that the entire broadcast system would disappear without must-carry, but it did specifically predict in its findings that without must-carry, quote, additional local broadcast signals will be deleted, repositioned, or not carried, and that would threaten the multiplicity of broadcast sources which was the Government interest.\nThat prediction turned out to be absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2572.336, 2588.278, 2593.592, 2621.718, 2644.685], "stop_times": [2588.278, 2593.592, 2621.718, 2644.685, 2648.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.336}, "reply_to": "20179__1_063", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_001", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Excuse me, the Government's interest is in unending multiplicity, no matter how many?\nIf you have 97, the Government has an interest, a significant interest in 100?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2648.237, 2652.269], "stop_times": [2652.269, 2656.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.237}, "reply_to": "20179__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__2_002", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2656.432], "stop_times": [2657.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.432}, "reply_to": "20179__2_001", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_003", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I think that's what you just said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2657.292], "stop_times": [2658.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.292}, "reply_to": "20179__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__2_004", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--No, that's not what I just said, Justice Scalia.\nThe Government's interest, described in the House report, the conference report, and the text of the act, is, serving the goals of section 307(b), which is a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of broadcast resources.\nThat has always meant the system of allocation, which means that each local community should have at least one broadcast outlet, and that each local community should be able to receive as many diverse broadcast sources as the economic conditions and size of that community dictate.\nThat's not unlimited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2658.433, 2660.364, 2673.774, 2689.535], "stop_times": [2660.364, 2673.774, 2689.535, 2690.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.433}, "reply_to": "20179__2_003", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_005", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I read that as saying, at least one, is what the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2690.333], "stop_times": [2693.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.333}, "reply_to": "20179__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__2_006", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2693.615], "stop_times": [2694.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.615}, "reply_to": "20179__2_005", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_007", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--considers an irreducible minimum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2694.827], "stop_times": [2695.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.827}, "reply_to": "20179__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__2_008", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--If I could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2695.487], "stop_times": [2695.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.487}, "reply_to": "20179__2_007", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_009", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "And the rest is whatever the market will give it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2695.967], "stop_times": [2697.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.967}, "reply_to": "20179__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__2_010", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Let me just respectfully refer you, Justice Scalia, to the House report and the conference report, which make clear what the Government interest is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2697.72], "stop_times": [2703.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.72}, "reply_to": "20179__2_009", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_011", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Look, Mr. Ennis, there's no question... I guess there's no question in anybody's mind about there being a significant repositioning as a result of must-carry, but isn't the ultimate measure of the value of that repositioning, or its absence, the 31-station measure?\nIn other words, as I understand the evidence, out of over 40,00 broadcast stations and, indeed, out of 8,000 that were directly affected by must-carry, only 31 went under as a result of the repositioning in the absence of must-carry.\nIsn't that the relevant figure that we ought to look at to determine the substantiality of the interest and of the threat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2703.934, 2723.667, 2741.368], "stop_times": [2723.667, 2741.368, 2748.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.934}, "reply_to": "20179__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__2_012", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Justice Souter, let me respond first by saying that Congress was not making a snapshot about a frozen historical past.\nIt quite explicitly said, we are attempting to make a predictive judgment about ongoing trends and what will happen in the future to broadcast if we do not enact must-carry.\nHere's what Congress knew in the non-must-carry period, the trends.\nThey knew that the growth rate in broadcast stations had greatly declined from 5 percent to less than 2 percent.\nThey knew that the number of vacant channels had greatly increased.\nIn fact, the number of vacant channels had increased as much as the number of new stations, because many broadcast stations had given up, and were simply turning in their construction permits.\nThey knew that broadcast advertising revenues, the lifeblood of broadcasting, had declined in real dollars 11 percent during the non-must-carry period, and that by 1991, broadcast revenues were lower than they were in 1984.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2748.392, 2755.176, 2765.284, 2769.265, 2776.199, 2779.513, 2788.559], "stop_times": [2755.176, 2765.284, 2769.265, 2776.199, 2779.513, 2788.559, 2803.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2748.392}, "reply_to": "20179__2_011", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_013", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "How does that refute what seems to be the message of the... there were only 31 stations, that none of that had much effect on the great, great majority of broadcast stations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2803.829], "stop_times": [2817.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.829}, "reply_to": "20179__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__2_014", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it did have effect on the great majority of broadcast stations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2817.817], "stop_times": [2822.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2817.817}, "reply_to": "20179__2_013", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_015", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "How do you answer the fact that only 31 broadcasting stations actually departed this world, so to speak?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2822.011], "stop_times": [2827.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.011}, "reply_to": "20179__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__2_016", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Because, Your Honor, Congress made the predictive judgment that there was incremental weakening of the broadcast system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2827.745], "stop_times": [2835.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2827.745}, "reply_to": "20179__2_015", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_017", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "But in the first opinion in this case we said that because there's intermediate scrutiny we didn't accept as final Congress' judgment on that score.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2835.85], "stop_times": [2843.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.85}, "reply_to": "20179__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__2_018", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and I'm not suggesting you should accept it as final without evidence, but there is evidence.\nThe evidence in this record overwhelmingly showed, and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2843.524, 2849.511], "stop_times": [2849.511, 2853.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.524}, "reply_to": "20179__2_017", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_019", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "How do you respond to the apparently conceded fact that only 31 stations out of the great, great number actually went under?\nWhat's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2853.011, 2861.269], "stop_times": [2861.269, 2862.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.011}, "reply_to": "20179__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__2_020", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--The response is, there was hundreds of pages of testimony before Congress and in the additional evidence showing the actual impact on broadcast stations of being denied carriage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2862.658], "stop_times": [2873.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.658}, "reply_to": "20179__2_019", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_021", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, what was the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2873.133], "stop_times": [2873.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2873.133}, "reply_to": "20179__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__2_022", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "It meant they had to cut back on their programming.\nMany of them had to convert to home shopping formats, which they did not want to use, because they didn't have enough money to continue their other news operations.\nThere was serious injury to broadcast stations.\nAppellants--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2873.974, 2875.266, 2884.412, 2887.275], "stop_times": [2875.266, 2884.412, 2887.275, 2888.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2873.974}, "reply_to": "20179__2_021", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_023", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Are we now, then, back into content?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2888.063], "stop_times": [2890.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.063}, "reply_to": "20179__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__2_024", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--No.\nNo, we're not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2890.267, 2891.586], "stop_times": [2891.586, 2892.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.267}, "reply_to": "20179__2_023", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_025", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2892.287], "stop_times": [2893.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.287}, "reply_to": "20179__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__2_026", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Because Congress expressly found in the act, another one of the policy objectives, that they wanted to rely on market forces to the maximum extent possible to decide which broadcast stations would survive and which would not.\nCongress was not saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2893.008, 2907.137], "stop_times": [2907.137, 2908.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.008}, "reply_to": "20179__2_025", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_027", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "But the justification, as I understand your argument, or your argument on behalf of Congress, the justification for that is that in fact there will be a higher quality of programming if there is this greater choice as a result of greater advertising revenue, and so on, and doesn't that, then, bring us to a content-based congressional choice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2908.639], "stop_times": [2928.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.639}, "reply_to": "20179__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20179__2_028", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't think it's a judgment about a higher quality of programming.\nI think it is a judgment that the programming, if the market could operate, would be more responsive programming to the local needs of a local community.\nCongress found that there was a structural impediment to fair competition, the cable bottleneck monopoly.\nIt wanted to remove that structural impediment and then let the market determine, based on market needs, which stations would survive and which would not.\nCongress didn't dictate we want this station to survive and that not, which is why a subsidy would be inconsistent with that specific policy objective, and would also risk entangling the Government in very specific content-based judgments.\nThe Government would have to decide, if this station is not doing well in the market because it has poor programming, we have to tell the station to start putting on news, or getting involved in really content-based judgments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2928.722, 2931.072, 2940.93, 2946.834, 2954.067, 2965.845], "stop_times": [2931.072, 2940.93, 2946.834, 2954.067, 2965.845, 2975.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.722}, "reply_to": "20179__2_027", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_029", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, you're just assuming that all the money the station gets will be spent on better programming.\nThat seems to me a very unreasonable assumption, unless you're talking about exclusively nonprofit stations.\nBut I would think the normal assumption is, you know, any additional money will go right into the owner's pockets, except to the extent that spending it on better programming will produce yet more money, and I don't know that that's ever been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2975.121, 2982.067, 2988.3], "stop_times": [2982.067, 2988.3, 2998.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.121}, "reply_to": "20179__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__2_030", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Your Honor, Justice Scalia, in terms of the owner's pockets, Congress knew that in 1990 and 1991, 50 percent of all independent stations, and that's approximately 500, 800 stations, lost money, and 25 percent of them lost over $1.26 million in those 2 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [2998.997], "stop_times": [3018.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.997}, "reply_to": "20179__2_029", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_031", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Even less likely that it will be spent on programming.\nIt will be spent to cover the loss.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3018.229, 3021.08, 3022.513], "stop_times": [3021.08, 3022.513, 3022.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.229}, "reply_to": "20179__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__2_032", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "We're not talking about money to put in the owner's pockets, Your Honor.\nWe're talking about a broadcast system that was in precarious financial condition.\nThey needed must-carry simply to survive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3022.693, 3026.056, 3030.316], "stop_times": [3026.056, 3030.316, 3032.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.693}, "reply_to": "20179__2_031", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_033", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "It might be that if I no longer broadcast to the 8,000 people who have cable, and I can only broadcast to the 2,000 people who don't, my programming will be aimed more at what those 2,000 want, not less.\nThese are empirical questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3032.707, 3045.116], "stop_times": [3045.116, 3047.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.707}, "reply_to": "20179__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20179__2_034", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3047.598], "stop_times": [3047.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3047.598}, "reply_to": "20179__2_033", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_035", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "And so I just don't... I look for evidence, and I can't find empirical evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3047.978], "stop_times": [3051.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.978}, "reply_to": "20179__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20179__2_036", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Let me give you some evidence, Justice Breyer.\nFirst of all, the cable industry itself did not dispute before Congress that lack of carriage would cripple the broadcast industry and, in fact, in this case we produced in discovery their own documents in which they studied this very problem that you're asking, and they concluded that carriage is critical to broadcast stations.\nIf you look at the Joint Appendix at pages 2147 and 2158, those are cable documents which are sealed, because the cable industry insisted that they remain sealed, but those documents themselves conclude that carriage is critical to the survival of a broadcast station.\nIt may be that the broadcast station would be forced to pay more attention to the local market, but its advertising revenues would shrink by at least 60 percent, and without the advertising revenues lost to the cable audience it wouldn't have the revenue to produce the programming that would be responsive to the over-the-air audience.\nThat's what Congress reasonably concluded.\nLet me simply say that, with respect to the injury to cable, that's modest indeed.\nOnly 1 percent of the channel capacity in this Nation is occupied by new, must-carry stations cable operators were forced to add.\nThis Court also asked how much channel capacity, previously unused channel capacity could be devoted to the carriage of must-carry stations, and the answer, as the evidence shows, is that 87 percent of the time when a cable operator was forced to add a must-carry station, it did so with previously unused channel capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3051.971, 3054.584, 3073.077, 3087.486, 3104.889, 3106.209, 3112.273, 3120.057], "stop_times": [3054.584, 3073.077, 3087.486, 3104.889, 3106.209, 3112.273, 3120.057, 3138.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.971}, "reply_to": "20179__2_035", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_037", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ennis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3138.089], "stop_times": [3139.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.089}, "reply_to": "20179__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__2_038", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3139.131], "stop_times": [3140.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3139.131}, "reply_to": "20179__2_037", "speaker": "bruce_j_ennis_jr"}
{"id": "20179__2_039", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Mr. Farr, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3140.102], "stop_times": [3142.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3140.102}, "reply_to": "20179__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20179__3_000", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nOne of the difficulties, I think, in addressing the Government's interest here is that it is still difficult to pin down.\nThe specific finding by Congress made in the act is that as a result of the economic incentive that cable systems have to delete its set of local broadcast systems, coupled with the absence of must-carry, the economic viability of free local broadcast television and its ability to originate quality local programming will be seriously jeopardized.\nThat is the finding by Congress itself, not arguments made by the executive branch.\nThen, however, it seems that the argument had turned at some point to survival of broadcasters, that in fact the existence of cable itself would harm individual broadcasters, which in our view at least is itself a less significant interest than some broad... broader interest indicating that a multiplicity of voices in a significant number of communities would be lost.\nIn fact, this Court has recognized, and Congress has said before, that it is typically not concerned with the fate of individual broadcast stations, but rather with the system as a whole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3142.283, 3145.155, 3153.571, 3175.475, 3180.729, 3207.094], "stop_times": [3145.155, 3153.571, 3175.475, 3180.729, 3207.094, 3217.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3142.283}, "reply_to": "20179__2_039", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_001", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Mr. Farr, can I ask you kind of a basic question that the colloquy has developed?\nAssume that the Government's objective was to get better program through diversity, quality, public, and so forth and so on, but not to support any particular viewpoint, but it is therefore fairly characterized as a content-based justification... that's... would you say that was impermissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3217.461, 3222.235], "stop_times": [3222.235, 3240.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.461}, "reply_to": "20179__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__3_002", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Yes.\nI would say so for several reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3240.447, 3240.856], "stop_times": [3240.856, 3243.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3240.447}, "reply_to": "20179__3_001", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_003", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "So therefore section 5 is unconstitutional on its face.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3243.239], "stop_times": [3245.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.239}, "reply_to": "20179__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__3_004", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I'm... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3245.65], "stop_times": [3249.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3245.65}, "reply_to": "20179__3_003", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_005", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "And I suppose a comparable provision of the 1934 act is unconstitutional, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3249.363], "stop_times": [3253.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3249.363}, "reply_to": "20179__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__3_006", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Well, again, it depends what the justifications are.\nWhat we have said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3253.454, 3255.726], "stop_times": [3255.726, 3256.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3253.454}, "reply_to": "20179__3_005", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_007", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "The justification is, diversity and better programming.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3256.547], "stop_times": [3259.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3256.547}, "reply_to": "20179__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__3_008", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--If that is the sole justification that is offered, and the means by which that is being obtained is to say to cable operators that you have to carry this program--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3259.459], "stop_times": [3269.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3259.459}, "reply_to": "20179__3_007", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_009", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "No, forget the means.\nI'm just asking you, assume the means, and well-tailored and all the rest, but that's the sole justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3269.556, 3270.245], "stop_times": [3270.245, 3274.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.556}, "reply_to": "20179__3_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__3_010", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Well, it's very hard to answer the question, to be honest, Justice Stevens, without thinking about means.\nIf you're saying, can Government subsidize that, of course it can.\nOf course it can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3274.84, 3279.204, 3281.876], "stop_times": [3279.204, 3281.876, 3282.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3274.84}, "reply_to": "20179__3_009", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_011", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Even though it's content-based, the justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3282.687], "stop_times": [3285.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.687}, "reply_to": "20179__3_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__3_012", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Government provides funding for all sorts of things where content is an issue.\nIt funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3285.348, 3288.47], "stop_times": [3288.47, 3290.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3285.348}, "reply_to": "20179__3_011", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_013", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, then can we say that this colloquy about whether the justification is content-based or not really shouldn't affect our analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3290.922], "stop_times": [3297.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3290.922}, "reply_to": "20179__3_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__3_014", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, in my view the law should go down whether it's content-based or not, of course.\nThat's the position that we are fully prepared to argue, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3297.375, 3302.348], "stop_times": [3302.348, 3305.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3297.375}, "reply_to": "20179__3_013", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_015", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "I thought it was also your position that it goes down a lot easier if it is content-based--\n[Laughter]\n--and affects First Amendment rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3305.4, 3312.076, 3312.276], "stop_times": [3312.076, 3312.276, 3314.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.4}, "reply_to": "20179__3_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__3_016", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3314.477], "stop_times": [3314.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3314.477}, "reply_to": "20179__3_015", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_017", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "If it's content-based but doesn't affect First Amendment rights, no problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3314.847], "stop_times": [3318.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.847}, "reply_to": "20179__3_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20179__3_018", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3318.209], "stop_times": [3318.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3318.209}, "reply_to": "20179__3_017", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_019", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "How can it be content-based and not affect First Amendment rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3318.65], "stop_times": [3321.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.65}, "reply_to": "20179__3_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20179__3_020", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Because the Government can say, we are going to subsidize something with a particular content, and if it does... if those are the means by which it's choosing to do it, that is one thing.\nWhen it says, we are going to subsidize essentially by means of using you, by using your channels and shutting out other programmers, that's our way of subsidizing it, that falls on the other side of the First Amendment line, and that seems to me, when you're talking about the quality of programming, that is where the interest has now shifted.\nSurvival is not particularly an issue.\nI mean, a very small number of stations, as the Court has noted, even went dark, and many of them returned to the air.\nI mean, these figures, as was pointed out in the briefs, include a station that was... whose transmitter was hit by a tornado, so what we're talking about, when we... but when you move from there on to talk about the question of the programming being maintained or enhanced at a certain level, that seems to me to open up a whole area of First Amendment objections that this Court has really never entered into before, I mean, that's in a sense the Pruneyard case unleashed, that says, when we want to encourage diversity, and we want to stimulate more of a particular kind of voice, of particular speakers, whether it's done by viewpoint or not, we can essentially take a business of speech, a private business, and use that as the means of doing it.\nThat is a line that I don't believe the Court has ever crossed, and I don't think should cross now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3321.713, 3331.27, 3346.539, 3348.8, 3354.774, 3397.203], "stop_times": [3331.27, 3346.539, 3348.8, 3354.774, 3397.203, 3401.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3321.713}, "reply_to": "20179__3_019", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_021", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "So the FCC's efforts to, in the fifties, sixties, seventies, to get the broadcasters to have news and public service, et cetera, also in your view are unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3401.396], "stop_times": [3412.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.396}, "reply_to": "20179__3_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20179__3_022", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Well, if you're talking... I'm sorry, if... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3412.063], "stop_times": [3414.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3412.063}, "reply_to": "20179__3_021", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_023", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "The NBC, ABC, you know, all the networks in the forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies, the FCC encouraged them in very strong ways to carry news and public service broadcasting.\nIn your view, was that also unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3414.274, 3423.99], "stop_times": [3423.99, 3426.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.274}, "reply_to": "20179__3_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20179__3_024", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "--When I said it crossed a First Amendment line that had not been crossed, it has been crossed partially in the broadcasting context, and the Court has looked at one or two specific examples of it, for example in Red Lion, and said it was tolerable.\nIn League of Women Voters, it said that was beyond the commission's power to interfere in content, so I'm not sure where the precise answer would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3426.882, 3441.211], "stop_times": [3441.211, 3447.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3426.882}, "reply_to": "20179__3_023", "speaker": "h_bartow_farr_iii"}
{"id": "20179__3_025", "conversation_id": "20179", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Farr.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-992", "start_times": [3447.258, 3448.169], "stop_times": [3448.169, 3449.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.258}, "reply_to": "20179__3_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__0_000", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1225, United States v. Marian Brockamp.\nMr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [0.0, 9.326], "stop_times": [9.326, 19.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__0_001", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn these companion cases a divided panel of the court of appeals held that equitable tolling may be applied to enlarge or suspend the statutory periods that limit the time for filings and the amount of recovery that may be had on tax refund claims.\nAs we recount in our brief, recent decisions of the First, Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held to the contrary.\nOur submission is that those four circuits reach a result that is required by the text of the interrelated statutory provisions that govern here, and I would like to turn to the statutory text now, which is set out at pages 2 to 4 of the Government's brief.\nAnd we start with the last of the provisions that set out section 7422(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, which the term before last in United States v. Williams this Court referred to as a provision that requires administrative exhaustion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [19.215, 25.428, 54.187, 65.884, 92.701], "stop_times": [25.428, 54.187, 65.884, 92.701, 120.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 19.215}, "reply_to": "20214__0_000", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_002", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "This is found on page 4?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [120.57], "stop_times": [122.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.57}, "reply_to": "20214__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__0_003", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "On page 4 of the Government's brief, in the gray covers, and it says that no suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any courts, skipping down, until... for a refund, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary according to the provisions of law in that regard.\nAnd the controlling provisions in our view are those set forth on the preceding two pages, the various provisions of section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code, and... and that section starts off in subsection (a) with a statement of a period of limitation on filing a refund claim with the Internal Revenue Service.\nFor present purposes, since a tax return is required for an income tax, the claim must be filed within 3 years from the time the return was filed, or 2 years from the time the tax was paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [122.232, 146.008, 176.897], "stop_times": [146.008, 176.897, 196.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.232}, "reply_to": "20214__0_002", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_004", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "May I ask what might be an irrelevant question on that point, but would help with my understanding of the statute?\nApparently, in their brief on page 18 it did say as first enacted it said it's within 3 years from the time the return was required to be filed, and when you read the statute... the same thing came up I think last year, you know, in a different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [196.01, 202.125], "stop_times": [202.125, 217.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 196.01}, "reply_to": "20214__0_003", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__0_005", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [217.135], "stop_times": [217.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.135}, "reply_to": "20214__0_004", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_006", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And I've never been able to understand the statute for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [217.525], "stop_times": [219.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.525}, "reply_to": "20214__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__0_007", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "In the Mundy case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [219.848], "stop_times": [221.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.848}, "reply_to": "20214__0_006", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_008", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And it left those words, was required, out, and then it seems as if you could file a return like, 82 years later, and 82 years later, now, it's not too late, and they start the statute running, but the grab-back only goes back 2 or 3 years.\nNow, what was--\n--Why don't you get these things amended for us, Mr. Wallace, so they can make some sense?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [221.158, 235.269, 236.148, 239.059], "stop_times": [235.269, 236.148, 239.059, 239.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.158}, "reply_to": "20214__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__0_009", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, that's not part of the duties that I have--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [239.289, 246.405], "stop_times": [246.405, 246.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.289}, "reply_to": "20214__0_008", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_010", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--but the Government is looking into the possibility of statutory amendment.\nThe question is, the tolls--\n--Well, didn't... wasn't there a provision offered for amending this very section?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [246.646, 250.748, 252.2], "stop_times": [250.748, 252.2, 256.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.646}, "reply_to": "20214__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20214__0_011", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "There hasn't actually been a provision offered.\nThere was an announcement that a provision was being prepared--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [256.951, 259.052], "stop_times": [259.052, 263.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.951}, "reply_to": "20214__0_010", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_012", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [263.457], "stop_times": [263.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 263.457}, "reply_to": "20214__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20214__0_013", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--for offering, but it still has not been offered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [263.727], "stop_times": [266.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.727}, "reply_to": "20214__0_012", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_014", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Is it still being prepared, though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [266.048], "stop_times": [268.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.048}, "reply_to": "20214__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20214__0_015", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, there are... it's under study.\nI'm not privy to the discussions.\nThere are inherent difficulties in addressing this question because of the massive number of returns that are filed every year, difficulties that we've referred to in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [268.148, 271.892, 274.894], "stop_times": [271.892, 274.894, 287.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.148}, "reply_to": "20214__0_014", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_016", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Was it just an accident they left out the words, were required, or was required, or is some purpose going on that I can't understand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [287.221], "stop_times": [293.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.221}, "reply_to": "20214__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__0_017", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Well, we don't really have an answer to that.\nThere was, so far as I am aware, no explanation of why this change occurred in the text.\nThis is a question that in the Mundy case last term the Court found no occasion to reach, and it seldom makes a difference, because it can make a difference only if the... in a 1-year period, because either you can... you can go back 3 years from when the return was filed to see... to ask for refunds of taxes paid during those 3 years, or else 2 years after the tax was paid, and usually with a really late-filed return no taxes were paid within the 3 years or the 2 years, and it makes no difference, as it makes no difference in either of the cases before us.\nIn any event, let me proceed now to the next provision, and for our purposes the more important provision, subsection (b), which appears on page 3 of the Government's brief, and it starts off with a subsection (1), which states quite unequivocally the consequences if the claim is not filed within the prescribed period.\nNo credit or refund shall be allowed.\nNow, that... it's hard to see that that provision has much purpose other than to emphasize the strictness of the filing requirements and, as we point out on page 20 of our brief, this point is reemphasized in another provision of the code, section 6514(a)(1), which states that any credit or refund which the Service actually gives on a claim that is filed after the expiration of the statutory periods of limitation is \"erroneous\" and \"considered void\".\nAnd it's interesting that in the implementing regulation for that provision, section 6514, the Service, after tracking the language of the statute, then has a cross-reference to the provisions authorized in suit by the Government to recover erroneous refunds.\nBut the next subsection seems to us to be what I might refer to as the clincher, the most dispositive obstacle to the respondents and the Ninth Circuit's position in this case, and that is subsection (2) of subsection (b), which is captioned, Limit on the amount of credit or refund that can be given, and I cannot emphasize too strongly that these caps on the disbursement that can be made from the Federal Treasury have their own express limitation.\nWhile there is a cross-reference to the claims limitation period for purpose of separating categories of claims, there is no cross-reference to the claims limitation for purpose of defining the cap itself.\nIt says in subsection (A), for example, the amount of credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid within a period defined right in this provision equal to 3 years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return, and in subsection (B) it's the same thing, that the amount of credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid during the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.\nThese are substantive limitations on disbursements from the Treasury that are authorized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [293.797, 298.569, 307.595, 351.203, 387.457, 390.89, 433.476, 456.733, 506.944, 525.627, 561.872], "stop_times": [298.569, 307.595, 351.203, 387.457, 390.89, 433.476, 456.733, 506.944, 525.627, 561.872, 570.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.797}, "reply_to": "20214__0_016", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_018", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Mr. Wallace, can I ask you a general... assume we agree with every... all of your arguments, and that it's too late to file a claim and the taxpayer, or this person, he's not really a taxpayer, I guess, has no right to get the money back, is there anything in the code that would allow the Internal Revenue Service when presented with facts as extreme as they are in this case to say, we're not entitled to this $7,000, we want to give it back?\nIs there anything that allows the Government to give back money they know they're not entitled to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [570.767, 594.953], "stop_times": [594.953, 599.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.767}, "reply_to": "20214__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__0_019", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "There is not, Justice Stevens.\nThe Government can decide not to oppose a private bill in Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [599.205, 604.457], "stop_times": [604.457, 612.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.205}, "reply_to": "20214__0_018", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_020", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I understand, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [612.464], "stop_times": [613.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.464}, "reply_to": "20214__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__0_021", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--if the facts warrant it, which might more--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [613.524], "stop_times": [618.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.524}, "reply_to": "20214__0_020", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_022", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Which they probably would in this case, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [618.639], "stop_times": [619.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.639}, "reply_to": "20214__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__0_023", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Well, it depends on which case you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [619.29], "stop_times": [622.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.29}, "reply_to": "20214__0_022", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_024", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "In one of these cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [622.252], "stop_times": [622.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.252}, "reply_to": "20214__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__0_025", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "We have two cases here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [622.923], "stop_times": [623.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 622.923}, "reply_to": "20214__0_024", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_026", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [623.985], "stop_times": [624.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 623.985}, "reply_to": "20214__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__0_027", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And I'll get into the facts a little bit more.\nPerhaps the Webb case, which is being held on petition from the Fourth Circuit, is one where there is more clearly been a finding in the State courts in related litigation about precisely what happened, so that there is less room for questioning the factual accuracy of a look back at the date, that about what someone's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [624.345, 626.816], "stop_times": [626.816, 653.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.345}, "reply_to": "20214__0_026", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_028", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "No, I'm just assuming a case where you really didn't dispute the facts, but you still would have no authority to give the money back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [653.954], "stop_times": [660.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.954}, "reply_to": "20214__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__0_029", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Well, looking right now at the provision which seems to preclude authority in the IRS--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [660.086], "stop_times": [666.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.086}, "reply_to": "20214__0_028", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_030", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "It only speaks in terms of claims.\nIt speaks in terms of claims.\nI'm assuming a fact situation in which there's no \"claim\" within the meaning of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [666.431, 666.922, 668.354], "stop_times": [666.922, 668.354, 672.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.431}, "reply_to": "20214__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__0_031", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [672.535], "stop_times": [672.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.535}, "reply_to": "20214__0_030", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_032", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Just a discovery that we've got $7,000 that obviously doesn't belong to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [672.596], "stop_times": [676.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.596}, "reply_to": "20214__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__0_033", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--That, if we turn to the top of page 4, that is subsection (C) of the same provision, limited no claim filed, and that says that you still have to meet the time limits of subsections (A) and (B).\nIt's very hard to see how the Service would feel authorized to make a disbursement of Treasury funds--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [676.449, 692.75], "stop_times": [692.75, 701.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.449}, "reply_to": "20214__0_032", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_034", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Mr. Wallace--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [701.245], "stop_times": [701.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.245}, "reply_to": "20214__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__0_035", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [701.565], "stop_times": [703.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.565}, "reply_to": "20214__0_034", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_036", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--may I ask, if this was not a problem that was noticed by the administration, at least there was a press release at the very time that your cert petition was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [703.276], "stop_times": [713.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.276}, "reply_to": "20214__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__0_037", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [713.294], "stop_times": [714.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.294}, "reply_to": "20214__0_036", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_038", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "In which I believe the President announced that the law must be followed, but this is a very hard situation for people to be in, that they overpaid and they can't get it back, so wasn't it proposed that there be a study of what legislative solution there might be to help people out in this bind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [714.743], "stop_times": [742.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.743}, "reply_to": "20214__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__0_039", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And that is under study--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [742.572], "stop_times": [744.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.572}, "reply_to": "20214__0_038", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_040", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [744.613], "stop_times": [745.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.613}, "reply_to": "20214__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__0_041", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--just in the Treasury Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [745.364], "stop_times": [747.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.364}, "reply_to": "20214__0_040", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_042", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, would you recommend... assuming the facts are as the petitioner states, or as the respondent states them in Brockamp, the case of the elderly man, would you recommend that a private bill be passed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [747.574], "stop_times": [758.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.574}, "reply_to": "20214__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__0_043", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, I can't... would I personally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [758.662], "stop_times": [763.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 758.662}, "reply_to": "20214__0_042", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_044", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Would the Justice Department?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [763.847], "stop_times": [764.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.847}, "reply_to": "20214__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__0_045", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Well, I can't say that we've faced up to that.\nWhat... all we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [764.776, 768.429], "stop_times": [768.429, 769.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 764.776}, "reply_to": "20214__0_044", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_046", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Because I've noticed you've had two of these bills in 34 years--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [769.941], "stop_times": [773.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 769.941}, "reply_to": "20214__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__0_047", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--There have been rather few.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [773.33], "stop_times": [775.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.33}, "reply_to": "20214__0_046", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_048", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--so apparently you're pretty tough on these.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [775.243], "stop_times": [776.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 775.243}, "reply_to": "20214__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__0_049", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "There have been rather few, but these are not instigated by us, after all.\nThey're instigated by the taxpayers if they can get a congressional sponsor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [776.513, 779.816], "stop_times": [779.816, 785.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.513}, "reply_to": "20214__0_048", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_050", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, I just wonder what--\n--Well, surely the Justice Department would recommend a private bill in this case, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [785.57, 786.551], "stop_times": [786.551, 790.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.57}, "reply_to": "20214__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__0_051", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [790.695], "stop_times": [790.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.695}, "reply_to": "20214__0_050", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_052", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, can you speak for the Department?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [790.902], "stop_times": [792.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.902}, "reply_to": "20214__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__0_053", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--We don't know the facts.\nWe only know what the administrator's affidavit, the daughter's affidavit said 4 years after... more than 4-1/2 years after--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [792.294, 793.546], "stop_times": [793.546, 804.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.294}, "reply_to": "20214__0_052", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_054", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, assume everything's correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [804.873], "stop_times": [805.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.873}, "reply_to": "20214__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__0_055", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--after the events occurred here.\nIt's... there wasn't any contemporaneous finding about whether this man had the capacity or not.\nThe receipt by the IRS was not an unusual one.\nOftentimes elderly taxpayers have capital gains or other sudden increases in income, and there was no explanation for it.\nThe check merely accompanied an extension of time request.\nObviously, the family was in a better position to be monitoring his financial affairs than the Internal Revenue Service was, and could have looked into his bank accounts if they thought at the time that there was lack of capacity.\nThey're now saying, 4-1/2 years later, that there was lack of capacity at a time when it's difficult to prove it, and this kind of claim can be made in many cases.\nI might, as a matter of fact, since we're into the facts, talk a little bit about the facts in the Scott case, where there was actually a bench trial, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [805.643, 807.585, 816.401, 822.227, 833.464, 838.897, 857.099, 872.64], "stop_times": [807.585, 816.401, 822.227, 833.464, 838.897, 857.099, 872.64, 885.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.643}, "reply_to": "20214__0_054", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_056", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Mr. Wallace, may I ask before you do if you can just clarify for me what would be within the universe of possible responses beside a private bill?\nI suppose what the administration was looking for was not a private bill, but something maybe akin to the mitigation rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [885.166, 897.765], "stop_times": [897.765, 906.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.166}, "reply_to": "20214__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__0_057", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--There could be something of that sort.\nIt could be temporally limited.\nThey could expand the time perious upon a showing of certain kinds of incapacity, but they could expand them for only a limited time, because each year you expand it you're adding another 200 million tax returns that possibly could be reopened at a time when there's talk about downsizing the Internal Revenue Service, and at a time when there are budget constraints.\nAnd in order for legislation of this kind to be adopted, Congress needs help in preparing a revenue impact assessment of it, rather hard to do, since we don't know easily how to estimate how many additional out of time refund claims might be stimulated once there were a provision that allowed consideration of the individual circumstances of taxpayers.\nThe Service has estimated that it now turns down about 250,000 refund claims a year in whole, without examining whether the refund was warranted or not because they're out of time, but most tax counsel who wouldn't file an out-of-time refund claim today on behalf of a client, might... that figure might increase a great deal.\nSo another possible legislative response to this would be simply to increase the limitations periods in the hope that more situations such as the alleged situation of Mr. McGill would be caught without having to examine the individual circumstances of individual taxpayers, just to give their guardians or relatives more time in which to ferret out examples of this kind, which would be much less administratively burden... there are all kinds of possibilities, but to date nothing has been proposed by the administration to the Congress, nor am I... we'll of course inform the Court if any action is taken either on the Hill or by the administration.\nIn the meantime, it must be recognized that the press release that was issued was issued on the premise that the existing law bars such claims, as we think these caps on the refund do, and there's no point in saying that the claim can be allowed for a longer period if you can't get any payment as a result of filing the claim.\nSo read as a whole, the provision is inconsistent with equitable tolling, as the Court concluded the applicable provisions in the Lampf case were, and I do want to emphasize that with respect to an express cap on disbursements from the Treasury there is no more fitting example of where the traditional rules about waivers of sovereign immunity should be applied.\nWhen Congress has explicitly capped the disbursement that is authorized to be made, that cannot be enlarged beyond what the language requires.\nAs the Court has said about waivers of sovereign immunity, a court is not in a position to enlarge it on equitable grounds.\nIt's quite different from just a statute of limitations on the filing of the claim itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [906.791, 910.075, 912.525, 945.407, 978.269, 1007.056, 1062.202, 1088.308, 1120.572, 1135.67, 1145.717], "stop_times": [910.075, 912.525, 945.407, 978.269, 1007.056, 1062.202, 1088.308, 1120.572, 1135.67, 1145.717, 1153.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.791}, "reply_to": "20214__0_056", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_058", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "As far as the equity is concerned, do you need to go... say anything more than the Court did in its decision in the Dalm case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1153.024], "stop_times": [1165.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.024}, "reply_to": "20214__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__0_059", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, the Dalm case really addresses everything that's at issue here.\nWhat was asked for in Dalm, an expansion of the doctrine of equitable recoupment, was an equitable claim very similar to a tolling claim, and some would refer to it as a tolling claim.\nIt's a form of claim for avoidance of the limitations period that isn't as precisely defined a deferral of the limitations period as the ordinary tolling claim, but it's very similar, and we think the Dalm decision does have a controlling analysis here, and in particular its holding that these provisions concerning tax refund suits must be read in conformity with one another and with all the cross-referencing that's involved here.\nLet me just talk very briefly about the facts of the Scott case to show what kind of thing we're concerned with here, and in Scott we proceeded all the way to a bench trial with findings, and some of those findings which are set forth on pages 44a and 45a of the appendix to our petition are rather telling here.\nFor one thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1165.273, 1171.507, 1188.359, 1225.572, 1248.838], "stop_times": [1171.507, 1188.359, 1225.572, 1248.838, 1249.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.273}, "reply_to": "20214__0_058", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_060", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But the only case we have before us is the Brockamp case, Mr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1249.599], "stop_times": [1254.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.599}, "reply_to": "20214__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__0_061", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--No, what... we have both of them together, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThey were decided as companion cases and we petitioned in the two cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1254.02, 1257.513], "stop_times": [1257.513, 1261.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.02}, "reply_to": "20214__0_060", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_062", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1261.436], "stop_times": [1262.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.436}, "reply_to": "20214__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__0_063", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "The court of appeals decided to put the Brockamp case forward--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1262.127], "stop_times": [1267.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.127}, "reply_to": "20214__0_062", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_064", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Go ahead.\nGo ahead, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1267.631, 1268.9], "stop_times": [1268.9, 1269.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.631}, "reply_to": "20214__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__0_065", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--as one where perhaps the Service's problems were not quite as apparent as they would be in the Scott case from our standpoint.\nThe companion case in Scott involved his 1984 tax liability.\nWhat the Service knew was that he himself, even though the claim now is incapacity because of alcoholism, he himself had filed in January of 1985 his estimated tax return and payment.\nHis father had done that with his prior installments of estimated tax for 1984.\nAnd then through the bench trial proceedings we were able to find out some facts which we... which the district court has listed on page 44a and 45a, that in 1984 Scott executed a partnership agreement to operate a retail wine shop.\nIn 1985, he entered into an agreement dissolving the partnership so that he could operate the shop on his own.\nDuring the time he operated, he filed his State sales tax, and he obtained an attorney to represent him on driving under the influence charges in '87 and '88.\nHe opened and closed his retail business every day and paid his utilities and rent.\nSo even on the basis of what we were able to learn through a trial there was considerable doubt.\nThe district court itself said without the expert testimony in this case, and I'm reading from finding 21, the court might otherwise find the United States' argument somewhat persuasive.\nOf course, expert testimony is something that doesn't occur until the trial itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1269.491, 1278.667, 1288.923, 1306.046, 1313.47, 1332.513, 1339.746, 1352.395, 1358.169, 1365.135, 1377.571], "stop_times": [1278.667, 1288.923, 1306.046, 1313.47, 1332.513, 1339.746, 1352.395, 1358.169, 1365.135, 1377.571, 1382.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1269.491}, "reply_to": "20214__0_064", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_066", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "What was the expert testimony about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1382.164], "stop_times": [1383.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.164}, "reply_to": "20214__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__0_067", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "It was about how alcoholism can be incapacitating, but... and there were two doctors, one for the Government and one for the defense, but obviously the Service would have to be very wary, the more a claim of incapacity seems specific only to the capacity to comply with the Internal Revenue laws and leaves the person able to comply with many other laws.\nThe administrative finding of... in such a case would not be one where the Service could easily decide that it was an appropriate occasion for tolling.\nThese are very difficult matters to handle.\nThey're not the kind of green eyeshade investigations of a tax return that Service personnel are ordinarily engaged in, nor are the facts easily assembled.\nWe're dealing here with a very difficult administrative question, and one that both the administration and Congress may give appropriate consideration to, but they obviously have to tread with caution, considering the magnitude of the task that is assigned to the Service.\nIf I may, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1383.816, 1414.027, 1427.385, 1430.386, 1443.466, 1468.731], "stop_times": [1414.027, 1427.385, 1430.386, 1443.466, 1468.731, 1471.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1383.816}, "reply_to": "20214__0_066", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__0_068", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Very well, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. Klueger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1471.423, 1472.785], "stop_times": [1472.785, 1474.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.423}, "reply_to": "20214__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_000", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Government would have us believe that where a disabled taxpayer erroneously overpays his taxes and later, through some miracle, determines that he has overpaid and then seeks his redress, the Government would have us believe that Congress intended that that disabled taxpayer should have no redress, even in a case such as this, the Brockamp case, where the erroneous overpayment was a direct result of the taxpayer's disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1474.327, 1483.544], "stop_times": [1483.544, 1517.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1474.327}, "reply_to": "20214__0_068", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_001", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, he has redress for 3 years.\nI mean, there's just a time limit on it, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1517.324, 1519.057], "stop_times": [1519.057, 1521.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.324}, "reply_to": "20214__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_002", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "He has no redress because he was disabled throughout the statutory period.\nThat is the facts of this case.\nHe would certainly have the direct... a redress if he were like the rest of us, a competent taxpayer.\nBut throughout the statutory period in 6511, he was disabled.\nOnly through some miracle his daughter discovered the overpayment following the taxpayer's death, and the Government would have us believe that in this circumstance not only is there an unfairness, but that I think the unfairness is perhaps beside the point.\nThe point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1521.228, 1526.47, 1528.843, 1536.398, 1540.401, 1560.874], "stop_times": [1526.47, 1528.843, 1536.398, 1540.401, 1560.874, 1561.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1521.228}, "reply_to": "20214__1_001", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_003", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Why should we be tugged by the equities here, and undoubtedly these are hard cases, tugged more by these equities than the Court was in the Dalm case, which was also a very sympathetic situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1561.525], "stop_times": [1574.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.525}, "reply_to": "20214__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_004", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--I am not ask... specifically, Your Honor, I am not asking the Court to be tugged by the equities.\nI am specifically saying, the point being that Congress did not intend, could not intend that this be the result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1574.842, 1581.999], "stop_times": [1581.999, 1592.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1574.842}, "reply_to": "20214__1_003", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_005", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, we have a rather elaborate Internal Revenue Code where presumably Congress has revealed its intent in the sections that are dealt with in the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1592.624], "stop_times": [1601.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.624}, "reply_to": "20214__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_006", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes, that is true.\nI believe that Congress' intent is revealed, albeit darkly, in section 6511 itself, in the structure of section 6511.\nIt is best, I think, to turn to the operation of this statute.\nThis is a statute of limitations which is not unique but rare, in that the clock that starts the statute of limitations may only begin to run but for some predicate act that is performed by the taxpayer, whether it is the filing of the return or, in the case of Mr. McGill, cutting a check.\nUntil one of those acts eventuates, the clock never starts to run.\nNow, it doesn't seem to be that much of an intellectual stretch to assume that if this is a statute of limitations that can only begin to run but for the taxpayer's act, that the taxpayer's act not be the result of his fantasies or his delusions, but be the act of a rational, competent taxpayer, and if I might, to illustrate this point, a... because the counsel for the Government has discussed the possibility of holding hundreds of millions of tax returns open perhaps indefinitely if equitable tolling applies.\nThis section 6511(a), I submit, contemplates that.\nIf we have someone who does not perform any of these two predicate acts, let us assume he didn't in 1962, and let 30 years go by without paying his tax and without filing his return, and then one day he walks in and files his return and pays the tax, and then a year later figures that he overpaid and files a refund claim, that is a perfectly timely refund claim under anyone's interpretation of 6511.\nEven though the Government will have had to wait 31 years for the return and the check, even though the litigation to follow, all the facts and circumstances that underlay the tax, occurred 31 years ago, that is the way section 6511 operates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1601.279, 1604.091, 1619.152, 1625.056, 1648.593, 1653.936, 1696.863, 1700.897, 1734.078], "stop_times": [1604.091, 1619.152, 1625.056, 1648.593, 1653.936, 1696.863, 1700.897, 1734.078, 1755.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1601.279}, "reply_to": "20214__1_005", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_007", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Would you explain how your interpretation of 6511 apply to the particular facts of your case so as to allow your client to prevail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1755.433], "stop_times": [1763.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.433}, "reply_to": "20214__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_008", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "My client--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1763.447], "stop_times": [1767.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.447}, "reply_to": "20214__1_007", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_009", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes.\nYou say 6511 you say is the key.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1767.859, 1768.62], "stop_times": [1768.62, 1772.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.859}, "reply_to": "20214__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_010", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Well, the point I'm making is that the question that I was addressing in answer to Justice Ginsburg's question is what is there in this statute that leads me to believe that equitable tolling, that this is the type of statute in which equitable tolling might apply, and my answer is that the way that 6511 operates, the statute of limitations, which is what 6511 (a) is, it is a statute of limitations, it can only begin to run after the taxpayer acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1772.063], "stop_times": [1804.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.063}, "reply_to": "20214__1_009", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_011", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "So would you apply this to the facts of your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1804.203], "stop_times": [1808.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.203}, "reply_to": "20214__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_012", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "In our specific case, the statute of limitations on the underlying tax never began to run against Stanley McGill throughout his entire life.\nThe Government would have us believe that the statute of limitations on refund claims per 6511 ran out, even though the underlying period of limitations against the Commissioner to assess a tax never began.\nWe submit that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1808.037, 1822.686, 1839.208], "stop_times": [1822.686, 1839.208, 1841.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1808.037}, "reply_to": "20214__1_011", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_013", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, I guess the Government takes the position that the money that was paid was payment of the tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1841.679], "stop_times": [1847.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.679}, "reply_to": "20214__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20214__1_014", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--The Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1847.192], "stop_times": [1848.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.192}, "reply_to": "20214__1_013", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_015", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Isn't that the position the Government takes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1848.334], "stop_times": [1850.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.334}, "reply_to": "20214__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20214__1_016", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--If the Government had been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1850.775], "stop_times": [1852.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.775}, "reply_to": "20214__1_015", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_017", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "A payment was made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1852.586], "stop_times": [1854.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.586}, "reply_to": "20214__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20214__1_018", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Yes.\nYes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1854.158, 1854.406], "stop_times": [1854.406, 1854.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.158}, "reply_to": "20214__1_017", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_019", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "By the taxpayer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1854.726], "stop_times": [1855.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.726}, "reply_to": "20214__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20214__1_020", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--If the Government was consistent in that position, the Government would have assessed the tax.\nIn direct answer to your question, Your Honor, I don't believe that that is the position the Government takes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1855.317, 1860.621], "stop_times": [1860.621, 1867.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.317}, "reply_to": "20214__1_019", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_021", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, didn't they put the check in an overpayment fund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1867.084], "stop_times": [1869.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.084}, "reply_to": "20214__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_022", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "That's correct.\nThey in fact did not assess... I don't think that fact is necessarily relevant to the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1869.255, 1869.745], "stop_times": [1869.745, 1875.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.255}, "reply_to": "20214__1_021", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_023", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But you still have a statute that says no matter what it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1875.64], "stop_times": [1877.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.64}, "reply_to": "20214__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_024", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1877.923], "stop_times": [1878.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1877.923}, "reply_to": "20214__1_023", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_025", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--No matter what it was, the payment was, the statute addresses refund, and what you want is a refund, so whatever the character of the payment was, the Treasury has it, and you want it back, and so you are suing for a refund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1878.672], "stop_times": [1897.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.672}, "reply_to": "20214__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_026", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1897.595], "stop_times": [1897.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.595}, "reply_to": "20214__1_025", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_027", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And this is a rather dense statute, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1897.885], "stop_times": [1902.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.885}, "reply_to": "20214__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_028", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "This is a... Your Honor, if I might answer that question at perhaps a little bit of length, this is an extremely dense, dark statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1902.978], "stop_times": [1911.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.978}, "reply_to": "20214__1_027", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_029", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But it's part of a dense code that does have... does have some provisions for equitable litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1911.693], "stop_times": [1920.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.693}, "reply_to": "20214__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_030", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1920.31], "stop_times": [1921.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.31}, "reply_to": "20214__1_029", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_031", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And those provisions themselves are remarkably dense, so why would one, given the density of the code, given the density of the mitigation provisions, say, but the court, because in other areas there's equitable tolling, ought to apply it here as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1921.561], "stop_times": [1940.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.561}, "reply_to": "20214__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_032", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Your Honor, this is a dense, integrated regime of refund claims, that is true.\nI feel, however, it is no less dense and integrated than title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which was the grounds for applying equitable tolling in the Irwin decision.\nIn the Irwin decision, we had a procedure for recouping... procedure for suing on a title VII case that is really very similar to what we have where... in the statutory regime for refund claims.\nWe had a situation where an individual goes to his particular agency under the Civil Rights Act.\nIf that claim is denied, he goes to the EEOC, at which point there is a 30-day letter that is sent to the individual.\nIf that is denied, he has the opportunity to sue in Federal court, a very similar statutory regime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [1940.622, 1948.209, 1964.658, 1978.717, 1986.573, 1994.238], "stop_times": [1948.209, 1964.658, 1978.717, 1986.573, 1994.238, 2002.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.622}, "reply_to": "20214__1_031", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_033", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "It didn't have a substantive limitation, as this does, and how do you handle the substantive limitation here?\nIt's not a matter of just getting around it or ignoring it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2002.703, 2009.167], "stop_times": [2009.167, 2012.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.703}, "reply_to": "20214__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_034", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2012.028], "stop_times": [2012.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.028}, "reply_to": "20214__1_033", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_035", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "You have to rewrite it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2012.359], "stop_times": [2013.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.359}, "reply_to": "20214__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_036", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--No, I don't believe so, Your Honor.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2013.29, 2015.301], "stop_times": [2015.301, 2015.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.29}, "reply_to": "20214__1_035", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_037", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Tell me how your case comes in under (b)(2).\nHow do you qualify under (b)(2)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2015.672, 2019.295], "stop_times": [2019.295, 2021.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.672}, "reply_to": "20214__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_038", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--The direct answer, Your Honor, the way we read (b)(2) is that it is not a substantive limitation.\nTo the extent that amounts are limited in (b)(2), it is as a function of the limitation in time.\nThere are plenty of substantive limitations that exist in the Internal Revenue Code.\nThis isn't one of them.\nFor example, the Internal Revenue Code says... provides a limitation on the credit you can get against the State taxes.\nThe code says, it's limited, $192,800.\nThat is a substantive limitation that is contained in the tax court... in the tax code, and no court can change it to $193,000.\nThat's not what we have here.\nTo the extent that it affects the limitation, it is a limitation that is a function of time, and that time in (b)(2) refers back to the time limitations in 6511(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2021.285, 2029.42, 2039.508, 2045.752, 2046.633, 2054.839, 2059.101, 2065.717, 2066.985], "stop_times": [2029.42, 2039.508, 2045.752, 2046.633, 2054.839, 2059.101, 2065.717, 2066.985, 2080.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2021.285}, "reply_to": "20214__1_037", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_039", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Fine, but how do you apply (b)(2)?\nIf it was filed by the taxpayer during the 3-year period prescribed in subsection (A), and it wasn't, right, so you're not in (b)(2)(A), right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2080.556, 2082.016], "stop_times": [2082.016, 2091.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2080.556}, "reply_to": "20214__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_040", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "We are not in (b)(2)(A).\nThere was no return filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2091.213, 2093.494], "stop_times": [2093.494, 2094.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.213}, "reply_to": "20214__1_039", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_041", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Okay.\nSo you must be in (b)(2)(B), limit where claim not filed within 3-year period.\nIf the claim was not filed within such 3-year period, the amount of the credit shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid during the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.\nNow, when was your claim filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2094.395, 2094.815, 2100.599, 2111.926], "stop_times": [2094.815, 2100.599, 2111.926, 2112.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.395}, "reply_to": "20214__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_042", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2112.907], "stop_times": [2113.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.907}, "reply_to": "20214__1_041", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_043", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "When was your claim filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2113.578], "stop_times": [2114.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.578}, "reply_to": "20214__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_044", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "The claim was filed... I can give you the exact date, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2114.75], "stop_times": [2120.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.75}, "reply_to": "20214__1_043", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_045", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "It doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2120.894], "stop_times": [2123.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.894}, "reply_to": "20214__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_046", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "The claim was filed in 1991.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2123.405], "stop_times": [2127.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.405}, "reply_to": "20214__1_045", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_047", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--There were no taxes paid during the 2 years immediately preceding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2127.449], "stop_times": [2131.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.449}, "reply_to": "20214__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_048", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Oh, of course not.\nOf course not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2131.13, 2131.53], "stop_times": [2131.53, 2132.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2131.13}, "reply_to": "20214__1_047", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_049", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--So I don't understand what you do with (B), then.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2132.101, 2135.332], "stop_times": [2135.332, 2135.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.101}, "reply_to": "20214__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_050", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2135.793], "stop_times": [2136.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.793}, "reply_to": "20214__1_049", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_051", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--(b)(2)(B) says you get no money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2136.663], "stop_times": [2138.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.663}, "reply_to": "20214__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_052", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--But the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2138.846], "stop_times": [2139.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.846}, "reply_to": "20214__1_051", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_053", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And yet you say you ignore it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2139.677], "stop_times": [2140.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.677}, "reply_to": "20214__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_054", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--I don't wish to ignore it.\nI suggest that it is amenable to equitable tolling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2140.365, 2142.756], "stop_times": [2142.756, 2146.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.365}, "reply_to": "20214__1_053", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_055", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "You mean, you just read right into the very specific provisions of (b)(2)(B) some kind of equity principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2146.019], "stop_times": [2152.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.019}, "reply_to": "20214__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_056", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Oh, absolutely.\nIn the same way, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2152.874, 2154.206], "stop_times": [2154.206, 2156.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.874}, "reply_to": "20214__1_055", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_057", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Dalm, I mean, Dalm refused to do that in a similar situation.\nDalm was decided just about the same time as Irwin was, which suggests that perhaps you don't go into equitable tolling when you're dealing with something as complicated as the Internal Revenue Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2156.597, 2160.671], "stop_times": [2160.671, 2170.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.597}, "reply_to": "20214__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_058", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Well, I believe that Dalm is distinguishable in that the issue of a taxpayer's disability did not arise, number 1, and Dalm limited the application of an equitable principle.\nIt didn't eliminate the amenability of the tax code to an equitable principle.\nIt limited it.\nQuite frankly, in the Dalm case the litigant had the ability to litigate the second tax in the tax court and slept on her rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2170.298, 2188.359, 2194.343, 2195.002], "stop_times": [2188.359, 2194.343, 2195.002, 2208.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.298}, "reply_to": "20214__1_057", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_059", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But wasn't there some... some not entirely honorable conduct on the Government side in that case in tripping or trapping her?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2208.162], "stop_times": [2217.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.162}, "reply_to": "20214__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_060", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I don't believe so.\nI... as I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2217.629, 2218.05], "stop_times": [2218.05, 2219.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.629}, "reply_to": "20214__1_059", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_061", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Wasn't there some line in an opinion about how badly the Government had behaved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2219.809], "stop_times": [2224.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.809}, "reply_to": "20214__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_062", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--In the Dalm case I don't recall that at all, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2224.363], "stop_times": [2228.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.363}, "reply_to": "20214__1_061", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_063", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But Mr. Klueger, that was in any event not the basis on which we decided the case.\nWe didn't decide there is no equity here.\nWe decided there is no equitable tolling here, equity or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2228.304, 2231.546, 2234.558], "stop_times": [2231.546, 2234.558, 2238.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2228.304}, "reply_to": "20214__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_064", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe Dalm case was decided not on equitable tolling but on equitable recoupment, a different doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2238.172, 2238.512], "stop_times": [2238.512, 2246.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.172}, "reply_to": "20214__1_063", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_065", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "The... okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2246.107], "stop_times": [2247.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.107}, "reply_to": "20214__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_066", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Equitable tolling did not come into that case at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2247.198], "stop_times": [2248.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.198}, "reply_to": "20214__1_065", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_067", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "No equitable alteration of the terms of the code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2248.798], "stop_times": [2253.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2248.798}, "reply_to": "20214__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_068", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2253.493], "stop_times": [2254.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.493}, "reply_to": "20214__1_067", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_069", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Not that there was no equity in the case.\nI mean, that wasn't the basis for the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2254.912, 2257.113], "stop_times": [2257.113, 2259.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.912}, "reply_to": "20214__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_070", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Your Honor, after the Dalm decision, as I read it, I read that the Dalm decision limited this Court's prior decision in Bull but did not overrule it.\nAs I read the Dalm decision, we still have a doctrine of equitable recoupment, and the doctrine of equitable recoupment does allow the taxpayer to go and have a setoff against taxes where the period of limitations against that tax did run out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2259.607, 2271.645], "stop_times": [2271.645, 2288.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.607}, "reply_to": "20214__1_069", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_071", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But why?\nWhy?\nThat is... if I can get... I mean, I'll help you, I think.\nMaybe I won't.\nYou might not need my help.\nBut the language and complexity doesn't bother me.\nIt says, the claim for refund shall be filed 2 years from the time the tax was paid.\nTwo years, you say, means 2 years minus time when he's disabled.\nThat's what you're saying, right?\nTwo years not counting time when he was disabled.\nIsn't that your argument?\nIf you don't want to take that argument, you don't have to, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2288.405, 2289.036, 2289.396, 2292.626, 2293.297, 2294.428, 2297.33, 2305.195, 2311.3, 2312.932, 2315.894, 2316.982], "stop_times": [2289.036, 2289.396, 2292.626, 2293.297, 2294.428, 2297.33, 2305.195, 2311.3, 2312.932, 2315.894, 2316.982, 2319.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.405}, "reply_to": "20214__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__1_072", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I'm not so sure I understand your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2319.704], "stop_times": [2321.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.704}, "reply_to": "20214__1_071", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_073", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--I thought the tolling principle, you have a statute of limitation that says file within 3 years.\nTolling means file within 3 years not counting disability time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2321.216, 2326.92], "stop_times": [2326.92, 2332.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2321.216}, "reply_to": "20214__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__1_074", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2332.092], "stop_times": [2333.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.092}, "reply_to": "20214__1_073", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_075", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "All right, and you want to read those words in (A) the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2333.973], "stop_times": [2336.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.973}, "reply_to": "20214__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__1_076", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2336.985], "stop_times": [2337.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.985}, "reply_to": "20214__1_075", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_077", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And you want to read the words 2 years in (B) shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid during the 2 years immediately preceding to read, 2 years not counting disability time.\nIsn't that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2337.817, 2348.703], "stop_times": [2348.703, 2350.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.817}, "reply_to": "20214__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__1_078", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2350.286], "stop_times": [2350.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.286}, "reply_to": "20214__1_077", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_079", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "All right, but you started out saying the language is okay, and you started out saying the complexity doesn't matter.\nIt just happens that Congress said the same thing twice and not once, so I'm with you so far.\nYou said the Government wants us to read that language not to have tolling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2350.796, 2357.699, 2362.593], "stop_times": [2357.699, 2362.593, 2368.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.796}, "reply_to": "20214__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__1_080", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2368.547], "stop_times": [2368.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.547}, "reply_to": "20214__1_079", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_081", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And you're right, but their reason is that they think it would create a total nightmare, and therefore Congress couldn't have intended this and, indeed, it's the Internal Revenue Code, not noted for its charity perhaps, but not... and you know, it's the Government.\nIt's not two private people, and they don't have these green eyeshades when they try to investigate whether a person was drunk or not drunk, or disabled or not disabled, so it couldn't be that Congress intended that.\nI thought you were going to address that argument when you started, and therefore I wanted to give you a chance to address it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2368.838, 2384.98, 2398.276], "stop_times": [2384.98, 2398.276, 2404.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.838}, "reply_to": "20214__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20214__1_082", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "We are certainly not saying, Your Honor, that a disabled taxpayer is exempt from the statutory provisions that are contained in 6511.\nWe only say that those statutory provisions be deferred until such time as the taxpayer, by whatever means, regains his competency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2404.06, 2416.179], "stop_times": [2416.179, 2428.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2404.06}, "reply_to": "20214__1_081", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_083", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes, but what if he died.\nIn this case didn't he die without regaining the competency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2428.707, 2429.998], "stop_times": [2429.998, 2432.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.707}, "reply_to": "20214__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_084", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2432.791], "stop_times": [2433.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.791}, "reply_to": "20214__1_083", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_085", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And how much... how many years... how long after his death was the claim filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2433.111], "stop_times": [2438.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.111}, "reply_to": "20214__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_086", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I... the claim was... he died in 1989, and I believe it was filed in 1991.\nIt was... the claim was timely filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2438.414, 2453.214], "stop_times": [2453.214, 2455.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.414}, "reply_to": "20214__1_085", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_087", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Within 2 years from his death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2455.065], "stop_times": [2456.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.065}, "reply_to": "20214__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_088", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Your Honor, I apologize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2456.977], "stop_times": [2461.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.977}, "reply_to": "20214__1_087", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_089", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, that's crucial, because you could not answer Justice Breyer's question yes, as you did, making a reading... reading (b)(2)(B) to say 2 years, you know, not including disability time.\nYou'd have to say not including disability time and also not including any time after death.\nYou'd have to say, right, at least his heirs have to do it within 2 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2461.359, 2475.367, 2480.122], "stop_times": [2475.367, 2480.122, 2484.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.359}, "reply_to": "20214__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_090", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Oh, absolutely, Your Honor.\nThat is absolutely true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2484.754, 2485.605], "stop_times": [2485.605, 2487.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.754}, "reply_to": "20214__1_089", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_091", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, you said he did it within 2 years here.\nI thought you said you didn't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2487.037, 2488.818], "stop_times": [2488.818, 2490.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.037}, "reply_to": "20214__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_092", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "His... I am confident that his competent heirs did file a timely claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2490.07], "stop_times": [2498.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.07}, "reply_to": "20214__1_091", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_093", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Within 2 years after his death?\nWell, by what standard do you conclude it was timely?\nI'm not sure I'm following you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2498.904, 2501.526, 2508.149], "stop_times": [2501.526, 2508.149, 2509.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.904}, "reply_to": "20214__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20214__1_094", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "My memory fails me as to the exact date, Your Honor, but I do recall, and I can represent to the Court that that was the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2509.231], "stop_times": [2522.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.231}, "reply_to": "20214__1_093", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_095", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But see, it could be within 2 years of the time that the heirs discovered that the money had been mistakenly paid.\nWould that be enough?\nI suppose that... I don't know why the death is the critical point.\nIt seems to me in most of these doctrines it's when the claimant discovers the cause of action, that if you say, he's... you know, there's an excusable failure to get the facts sooner, so I don't know why the death is critical.\nIt seems to me the--\n--It's only critical because of the way Justice Breyer put the question.\nYou would have to say no, Justice Breyer, not just disability, but disability--\n--or other excusable reason.\nOr anything--\n--Yes, anything else that justifies the failure to file.\nWhich makes it a little harder.\nWhich is lack of discovery.\nIt's getting to be a pretty long provision that we're writing here.\n[Laughter]\nWell, that's right, but that's you're... I think that's your... I'm not sure, is your theory one of just disability, or is it inability to discover?\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2522.24, 2528.044, 2528.882, 2532.945, 2546.436, 2547.796, 2549.817, 2554.581, 2557.112, 2557.333, 2559.654, 2560.275, 2562.115, 2564.978, 2565.208, 2572.262], "stop_times": [2528.044, 2528.882, 2532.945, 2546.436, 2547.796, 2549.817, 2554.581, 2557.112, 2557.333, 2559.654, 2560.275, 2562.115, 2564.978, 2565.208, 2572.262, 2572.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.24}, "reply_to": "20214__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__1_096", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "No.\nWe believe that, consistent with a self-assessment type of tax regime, that the disability with respect to tolling should be that disability on the part of the taxpayer that inhibits the taxpayer from filing a return.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2572.723, 2572.873], "stop_times": [2572.873, 2594.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.723}, "reply_to": "20214__1_095", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_097", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Yes, but why isn't the... if the heir, I mean, the administrator of the estate, or whoever it is, doesn't find the records for 2 or 3 years, the administrator was equally disabled.\nIt's not because of a mental disability.\nIt's just because she didn't have the facts.\nI mean, I just am not sure that you've got a principle here unless you extend it beyond the period you're relying on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2594.478, 2605.665, 2607.908, 2610.351], "stop_times": [2605.665, 2607.908, 2610.351, 2618.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.478}, "reply_to": "20214__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__1_098", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "In fairness to the Government, I think that equitable tolling, the grounds on which the Court should apply equitable tolling, the disabilities that should qualify is a narrow one, because the Government does have a legitimate need to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2618.026], "stop_times": [2637.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2618.026}, "reply_to": "20214__1_097", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_099", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But not so narrow that it wouldn't include at least alcoholics and people who are senile, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2637.487], "stop_times": [2644.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.487}, "reply_to": "20214__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_100", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Your Honor, if it's an alcoholic, if it is someone who's senile, it should be, the standard should be, what was... was there a disability throughout the statutory period that inhibited the taxpayer from having--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2644.603], "stop_times": [2660.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.603}, "reply_to": "20214__1_099", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_101", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And then you'd have a trial in each case because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2660.895], "stop_times": [2662.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2660.895}, "reply_to": "20214__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_102", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2662.785], "stop_times": [2663.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2662.785}, "reply_to": "20214__1_101", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_103", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--as we see in the case of an alcoholic, some of them can carry on a business and function all right, others can't function so well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2663.026], "stop_times": [2672.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.026}, "reply_to": "20214__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_104", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "That is absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2672.521], "stop_times": [2673.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.521}, "reply_to": "20214__1_103", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_105", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And somebody who's betwixt and between, say in the first stages of a debilitating disease, there'll be a great variety of... much room for trials, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2673.331], "stop_times": [2684.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.331}, "reply_to": "20214__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_106", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor, for this reason.\nMr. Wallace has raised the specter, and they certainly do on their brief, of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of tax returns that might remain open if this doctrine were permitted in this area.\nWe think that's an exaggeration, to say the least, for this reason.\nWe feel that since 1990, when this Court decided the Irwin case, that in fact the floodgates were opened, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2684.808, 2687.552, 2703.652, 2708.015], "stop_times": [2687.552, 2703.652, 2708.015, 2718.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.808}, "reply_to": "20214__1_105", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_107", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But did--\n--Yes, but the numbers--\n--get down so quickly?\nI mean, they were very close in time, weren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2718.821, 2719.532, 2720.271, 2721.984], "stop_times": [2719.532, 2720.271, 2721.984, 2724.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.821}, "reply_to": "20214__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_108", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2724.105], "stop_times": [2725.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.105}, "reply_to": "20214__1_107", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_109", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "The Dalm case and the Irwin case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2725.447], "stop_times": [2727.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.447}, "reply_to": "20214__1_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_110", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2727.618], "stop_times": [2727.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2727.618}, "reply_to": "20214__1_109", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_111", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--were within a year of each other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2727.998], "stop_times": [2729.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.998}, "reply_to": "20214__1_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_112", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2729.848], "stop_times": [2730.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.848}, "reply_to": "20214__1_111", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_113", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "And so you think that there was such rethinking a light dawned in Irwin that led to a... to the Court in Dalm having seen the error of its ways, so if it... that case had come up and the opportunity for equitable tolling had presented itself, they would have been inconsistent with what they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2730.448], "stop_times": [2758.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.448}, "reply_to": "20214__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_114", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I don't think that Dalm and Irwin are inconsistent with each other.\nI think they don't have anything to do with each other.\nThey deal with different doctrines.\nThe Irwin decision dealt with equitable tolling.\nThe Dalm decision dealt with equitable recoupment, and did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2758.237, 2764.222, 2766.834, 2768.733, 2773.128], "stop_times": [2764.222, 2766.834, 2768.733, 2773.128, 2777.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.237}, "reply_to": "20214__1_113", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_115", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Wasn't the--\n--No, but there's another distinction that you can make.\nYou can take the position that Justice Scalia did and say, let's bring everything under the umbrella of equitable adjustment.\nAnd then there are still distinctions between the cases, and the one is, title VII case was dealing with a situation in which the Government is often in the position of a private individual who normally gets the benefit of equitable tolling, whereas in the revenue situation, the Government is in a position peculiar unto itself, so those would be good reasons to say that there's no reason to think that the... that there would be a spillover of equitable considerations from a title VII case to a revenue case, and that seems to me to make more sense of the fact that these two cases came down in the same term, in which it would be very odd to think that one was being undercut by the other so soon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2777.35, 2778.652, 2780.064, 2786.279], "stop_times": [2778.652, 2780.064, 2786.279, 2833.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.35}, "reply_to": "20214__1_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20214__1_116", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Well, I don't think that one undercut another.\nThe Irwin decision did not mention the Dalm case, nor do I expect that it would, but any Irwin decision, from what I have read, the briefs in that case and the argument in that case did not mention Dalm.\nI have to presume that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2833.87, 2837.383, 2852.97], "stop_times": [2837.383, 2852.97, 2854.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.87}, "reply_to": "20214__1_115", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_117", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Dalm was decided after Irwin, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2854.362], "stop_times": [2856.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.362}, "reply_to": "20214__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_118", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--No, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2856.594], "stop_times": [2857.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.594}, "reply_to": "20214__1_117", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_119", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Irwin after, few months after, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2857.605], "stop_times": [2860.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.605}, "reply_to": "20214__1_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_120", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Correct.\nI think the... I assume that the reason the Irwin decision does not mention Dalm or that the briefs in that decision don't mention Dalm, or that it... that Dalm was not argued in Irwin, was that the two cases just don't have anything to do with each other.\nThey're on different principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2860.317, 2860.898, 2877.988], "stop_times": [2860.898, 2877.988, 2879.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2860.317}, "reply_to": "20214__1_119", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_121", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "The different principles being equitable tolling versus equitable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2879.739], "stop_times": [2883.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.739}, "reply_to": "20214__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20214__1_122", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Equitable recoupment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2883.952], "stop_times": [2884.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.952}, "reply_to": "20214__1_121", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_123", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2884.703], "stop_times": [2885.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.703}, "reply_to": "20214__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20214__1_124", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2885.031], "stop_times": [2885.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.031}, "reply_to": "20214__1_123", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_125", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But if we don't accept that distinction, doesn't the remaining distinction... in other words, if we generalize equity, then aren't you faced with the fact that the title VII considerations would not normally be applicable to a revenue case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2885.512], "stop_times": [2900.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.512}, "reply_to": "20214__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20214__1_126", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Correct.\nYour Honor, if this Court decides that Dalm applies in equitable tolling to the same extent it applies to equitable recoupment, I have a problem.\nThat certainly is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2900.912, 2901.253, 2911.131], "stop_times": [2901.253, 2911.131, 2912.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.912}, "reply_to": "20214__1_125", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_127", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "In fact, isn't it true that in the Dalm case that was... at least some of us thought that the Government was guilty of inequitable conduct, and here you don't have any claim of inequitable conduct against the Government, do you, so in a sense the Government's case is perhaps stronger here than it was in Dalm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2912.273], "stop_times": [2927.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.273}, "reply_to": "20214__1_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__1_128", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "I don't... I will admit, Your Honor, I did not read the Dalm decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2927.683], "stop_times": [2934.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.683}, "reply_to": "20214__1_127", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_129", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "You probably didn't read the dissent, then, I guess.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2934.738, 2936.669], "stop_times": [2936.669, 2936.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.738}, "reply_to": "20214__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__1_130", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Indeed I did, Your Honor, and I noted that the dissenter in that case indicated that this was a case that would have very narrow applicability.\nI'm surprised that... I was surprised that the Government would seek to pump up Dalm into something that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2936.869, 2953.489], "stop_times": [2953.489, 2960.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2936.869}, "reply_to": "20214__1_129", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_131", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Well, do you think the Government is bound by the dissent's view of the opinion in Dalm?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2960.085, 2964.436], "stop_times": [2964.436, 2964.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.085}, "reply_to": "20214__1_130", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_132", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--No, of course not.\nOf course not.\nMy point is that Dalm should not apply, because it applies to a different doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2964.626, 2965.057, 2966.389], "stop_times": [2965.057, 2966.389, 2971.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.626}, "reply_to": "20214__1_131", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_133", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But I am correct, am I not, that you are not accusing the Government of inequitable conduct in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2971.941], "stop_times": [2978.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.941}, "reply_to": "20214__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20214__1_134", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Oh, absolutely not, no.\nIn the brief time remaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2978.266, 2979.636], "stop_times": [2979.636, 2984.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2978.266}, "reply_to": "20214__1_133", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_135", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2984.141], "stop_times": [2987.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.141}, "reply_to": "20214__1_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_136", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2987.193], "stop_times": [2987.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.193}, "reply_to": "20214__1_135", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_137", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--I think that the... in the mitigation rules there is some element of the Government having taken an inconsistent position and it seems to be that you have to have that much.\nAm I not right that the way the Government describes it in its brief the mitigation provisions apply to problems that exist when the party that asserts the statute of limitations, and the only one who would assert it would be the Government, had prior to the running of the statute taken a position inconsistent with its current position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [2987.713, 2997.781], "stop_times": [2997.781, 3018.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.713}, "reply_to": "20214__1_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_138", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "That is correct.\nThe Government has an inference from the existence of the mitigation provisions that these provisions should be exclusive, the only... that the mitigation provisions, which are statutory, are the only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3018.455, 3019.564], "stop_times": [3019.564, 3034.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3018.455}, "reply_to": "20214__1_137", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_139", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes, but maybe what they're saying is that the Government... that Congress was so strict in allowing any mitigation at all, when the... so the notion that they meant it when they didn't say it is a little hard to accept.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3034.705], "stop_times": [3049.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.705}, "reply_to": "20214__1_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_140", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--I'm afraid I don't understand the thrust of your question.\nThe mitigation provisions are... is a statutory provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3049.734, 3052.997], "stop_times": [3052.997, 3056.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3049.734}, "reply_to": "20214__1_139", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_141", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3056.75], "stop_times": [3057.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.75}, "reply_to": "20214__1_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_142", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "It was from my reading enacted because equitable recoupment, the cases were going all over the place, and so Congress felt that they should bring some order to this doctrine of equitable recoupment, and so they enacted the mitigation provisions.\nThey are very, very narrow provisions.\nThey arise in only the rarest circumstances.\nBut I think the existence of the mitigation provisions, the statutory mitigation provisions, proves one point, which is that if you have a statutory mitigation provision in the tax code it doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot have an equitable overlay, because we still do have an equitable overlay, and that equitable overlay is the doctrine of equitable recoupment, which exists side by side with the mitigation provisions of the tax code.\nThose provisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3057.02, 3072.04, 3074.902, 3082.917, 3115.268], "stop_times": [3072.04, 3074.902, 3082.917, 3115.268, 3117.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.02}, "reply_to": "20214__1_141", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_143", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "If... wouldn't it totally eclipse what's in the code if you could just say, I don't want to deal with that dense stuff, it's so narrow and so technical.\nGive me equitable tolling writ large.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3117.349, 3125.943], "stop_times": [3125.943, 3129.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.349}, "reply_to": "20214__1_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_144", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nEquitable recoupment applies in a very, very narrow area.\nIt certainly is not limited to incompetent taxpayers.\nYou don't have your choice.\nIt's not like a cafeteria.\nYou don't get equitable recoupment or equitable tolling.\nEquitable recoupment only can arise when two... when the taxpayer is called upon to pay two... to pay the same tax twice under different theories.\nThat's equitable recoupment.\nEquitable tolling is a completely different doctrine.\nIt reminds me of what Mark Twain said about fires and fire flies.\nThey may sound alike, but just because they sound alike--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3129.697, 3131.159, 3138.532, 3142.866, 3144.156, 3145.679, 3148.019, 3159.627, 3160.969, 3164.161, 3168.746], "stop_times": [3131.159, 3138.532, 3142.866, 3144.156, 3145.679, 3148.019, 3159.627, 3160.969, 3164.161, 3168.746, 3171.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.697}, "reply_to": "20214__1_143", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_145", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Why should we be more responsive to getting back a tax paid once than a tax paid twice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3171.387], "stop_times": [3176.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.387}, "reply_to": "20214__1_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_146", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Again, Your Honor, two different doctrines here.\nWe are responsible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3176.45, 3183.084], "stop_times": [3183.084, 3185.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3176.45}, "reply_to": "20214__1_145", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_147", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "But you are making equity your plea, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3185.935], "stop_times": [3189.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3185.935}, "reply_to": "20214__1_146", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_148", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3189.649], "stop_times": [3190.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3189.649}, "reply_to": "20214__1_147", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_149", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3190.548], "stop_times": [3190.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3190.548}, "reply_to": "20214__1_148", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_150", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's certainly correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3190.928], "stop_times": [3192.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3190.928}, "reply_to": "20214__1_149", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_151", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--So I'm thinking of different situations where one might be drawn by the equities of the situation, because even in administering a system of equity you have to have a rational basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3192.31], "stop_times": [3202.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.31}, "reply_to": "20214__1_150", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20214__1_152", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe equities I submit are stronger in this case than they were, for example, in Dalm.\nIn Dalm, the... may I complete?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3202.426, 3202.787, 3210.073], "stop_times": [3202.787, 3210.073, 3213.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3202.426}, "reply_to": "20214__1_151", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_153", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Yes.\nFinish your answer to Justice Ginsburg's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3213.365, 3213.675], "stop_times": [3213.675, 3215.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.365}, "reply_to": "20214__1_152", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__1_154", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "In Dalm, the taxpayer had the ability to litigate the case.\nIn our case, we never had the ability.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3215.506, 3219.95, 3222.561], "stop_times": [3219.95, 3222.561, 3223.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3215.506}, "reply_to": "20214__1_153", "speaker": "robert_f_klueger"}
{"id": "20214__1_155", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Klueger.\nMr. Wallace, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3223.429, 3224.411], "stop_times": [3224.411, 3226.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.429}, "reply_to": "20214__1_154", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__2_000", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIn Irwin, the Court recognized that waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed, and then said that once Congress had made such a waiver we think the rule of equitable tolling should be applicable to suits against the Government in the same way as to suits against private defendants, and that amounts to little, if any, broadening of the congressional waiver.\nThose... that rationale applies to tolling of the limitations for filing suit, or for filing claims.\nIt really is not addressed to the obstacle here, which is a substantive limitation, a cap that Congress has imposed on the amount of the refund that's authorized to be disbursed from the Federal Treasury and, as I pointed out earlier, therefore it would require a broadening of a waiver of sovereign immunity beyond the express terms of the waiver to rule that a court may override this cap in the very sensitive area of disbursements from the Treasury, the area that is most related to the constitutional underpinnings of the doctrine of sovereign immunity itself, including the provision we have pointed to in the Constitution, in Article I, section 9, Clause 7, that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.\nNow, it is the fact that in Webb the Fourth Circuit suggested some ways of reading the rebuttable presumption in Irwin more narrowly, and we have done the same thing in a pending petition and reply brief in a case called United States v. Fagin involving the Quiet Title Act, which we have suggested that the Court hold for the decision in this case.\nBut... and I think that these suggestions are well worthy of consideration, and the Court in Webb at the conclusion of its opinion pointed out some other areas involving other Federal statutes where various courts have held that the rebuttable presumption has been overcome even if the presumption of Irwin does apply, but in this particular case we're really beyond the area where it's just a limitation on the filing of the claim that's at issue.\nIf the Court has no further--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3226.742, 3230.555, 3260.504, 3270.713, 3344.171, 3376.161, 3417.217], "stop_times": [3230.555, 3260.504, 3270.713, 3344.171, 3376.161, 3417.217, 3419.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3226.742}, "reply_to": "20214__1_155", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__2_001", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Is a claim filed under this statute when the taxpayer just gives the notice to the Internal Revenue Service, or is a claim filed when there's a refund suit filed?\nI think it's the former, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3419.037, 3427.085], "stop_times": [3427.085, 3428.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.037}, "reply_to": "20214__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__2_002", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3428.574], "stop_times": [3429.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3428.574}, "reply_to": "20214__2_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__2_003", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "How do you file a claim for refund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3429.405], "stop_times": [3430.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.405}, "reply_to": "20214__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20214__2_004", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "--It's the claim to the Service.\nThere's a separate provision involving limitations on filing the suit, and that has to be within 2 years after the disallowance of the claim.\nThat is section 6532(a)(1) of title 26.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3430.845, 3431.577, 3440.813], "stop_times": [3431.577, 3440.813, 3445.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3430.845}, "reply_to": "20214__2_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20214__2_005", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3445.455], "stop_times": [3445.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3445.455}, "reply_to": "20214__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__2_006", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3445.836, 3446.777], "stop_times": [3446.777, 3447.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3445.836}, "reply_to": "20214__2_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20214__2_007", "conversation_id": "20214", "text": "The Honorable Court is now adjurned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1225", "start_times": [3447.387], "stop_times": [3453.705], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.387}, "reply_to": "20214__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20138__0_000", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1605, United States v. Miguel Gonzalez.\nMr. Estrada.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [0.0, 9.076], "stop_times": [9.076, 14.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__0_001", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nSection 924(c)(1) of title 18 provides for mandatory jail sentences for persons who use or carry a firearm during the commission of certain offenses.\nThe Tenth Circuit in this case held that a sentence imposed under section 924(c) by a Federal district court may be made to run concurrently with a State sentence that the defendant is already serving.\nIn our view, that is wrong for three reasons.\nFirst and foremost, the language of the statute expressly forbids the imposition of a concurrent sentence.\nSecond, we think the court of appeals was wrong to imply a presumption that that prohibition refers solely to previously imposed Federal sentences, and finally, we think the Tenth Circuit was wrong to rely on a passage from the 1984 Senate committee report that accompanied the 1984 amendments to section 924(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [14.262, 18.483, 30.681, 42.97, 45.931, 52.697], "stop_times": [18.483, 30.681, 42.97, 45.931, 52.697, 74.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.262}, "reply_to": "20138__0_000", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_002", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Estrada, do you take the position that section 924(c) requires the separate sentence given for that violation to run before any other sentence, or could it be required after any other sentence?\nJust, what the statute refers to is running sentences concurrently, so is it okay to order its service after the expiration of a State court penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [74.289, 92.842], "stop_times": [92.842, 107.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 74.289}, "reply_to": "20138__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_003", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, but let me back up.\nUnder the sentencing statutes that we have, how the sentence is administered is usually up to the Bureau of Prisons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [107.49, 111.704], "stop_times": [111.704, 120.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.49}, "reply_to": "20138__0_002", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_004", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "And you don't take the position that it has to always be first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [120.32], "stop_times": [123.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.32}, "reply_to": "20138__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_005", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "No, and in many circumstances it will not be able to be first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [123.853], "stop_times": [129.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.853}, "reply_to": "20138__0_004", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_006", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Right.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [129.797, 130.205], "stop_times": [130.205, 130.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.797}, "reply_to": "20138__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20138__0_007", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "In this case, for example, in order to give effect to both the statutory authority to make the drug sentences concurrent with the State terms and to the statutory mandate that the 924 sentence be consecutive, the Bureau of Prisons would have to run the Federal drug sentence first, concurrent with the State sentence, and to run the 924(c) sentence last, consecutive to both State and Federal sentences.\nThere was an assumption in the court of appeals view that that would not be so because it gave what we think was inordinate weight to its view of the Senate committee report, but that is, in fact, an error.\nAs a matter of the administration of the sentence, under section 3584(c), I believe, the Bureau of Prisons would treat the entire term imposed by the Federal court as a single administrative term that has several parts, and the part that would correspond to the Federal drug sentences in this case would be ordered... would be served concurrently with the existing State sentences.\nThe part that corresponds to section 924(c), as required by the plain language of the statute, would be made consecutive both to Federal sentences and to the State sentences that are already being served.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [130.765, 158.855, 173.425, 196.77], "stop_times": [158.855, 173.425, 196.77, 208.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 130.765}, "reply_to": "20138__0_006", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_008", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Do the States have to go along with that?\nI suppose this can get very complicated as to which is first.\nIn the... Number 1, can the Bureau of Prisons tell the States when their sentence is going to run in relation to the Federal sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [208.578, 210.258, 213.741], "stop_times": [210.258, 213.741, 221.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.578}, "reply_to": "20138__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20138__0_009", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [221.746], "stop_times": [222.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 221.746}, "reply_to": "20138__0_008", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_010", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Or is there some control on that discretion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [222.597], "stop_times": [224.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 222.597}, "reply_to": "20138__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20138__0_011", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "The State sentence is independent.\nSection 924(c), like all Federal sentencing statutes, in our view speaks solely to a Federal question, how a Federal court imposing a Federal sentence for a Federal crime, may order the calculation of the Federal sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [224.927, 227.528], "stop_times": [227.528, 240.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.927}, "reply_to": "20138__0_010", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_012", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "My question was, does the Bureau of Prisons have discretion to say in a particular case to the State, we're going to allow all the Federal sentences to run first, and then you can do whatever you want, or, we're going to require that part of our sentence be served, then part of your sentence served, then the remaining part of ours, or can... is there... does... is there some supremacy principle where the Federal Government can direct this if the States object?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [240.728], "stop_times": [261.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.728}, "reply_to": "20138__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20138__0_013", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Not in those terms, Justice Kennedy.\nThere is a case from this Court, Punsey v. Fessendon, which is at 258 U.S. 254, which encompasses a principle of primary jurisdiction, which is that each of the two sovereigns, State and Federal, may lend someone to the other Government so he may be tried, yet choose not to relinquish him for the service of the other sovereign sentence until they choose to, but under the statutes that we have, we would not take the view that we can break up a term of imprisonment and to tell the States how to do anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [261.291, 265.075], "stop_times": [265.075, 299.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.291}, "reply_to": "20138__0_012", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_014", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Estrada, I can agree with your... with the Government's position that the statute as written does not compel the States to make their sentences nonconcurrent, but why is it not the case that, after you've had the Federal sentence imposed and then a State sentence is imposed and the State says, well, we're not bound by this Federal statute, we will have this run concurrently with the Federal sentence, why does not the Federal sentence at that point become in violation of the statute, because it is now a sentence that is being served concurrently with another sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [299.788], "stop_times": [336.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.788}, "reply_to": "20138__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_015", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That view might have some weight, Justice Scalia, if all there were to this statute would be the single clause, nor shall any sentence be made.\nIn context, it seems clear to us that the statute speaks to the duty of the Federal sentencing court at the time it imposed the sentences to impose a sentence based on the facts then existing, as is true with Federal sentencing statutes generally.\nTherefore, given that the Federal court complied with that duty at the time it imposed sentence, any subsequent court that is not bound by that duty would be in no breach and, as a result, it would not be any violation of the statute.\nQuite simply, if you take the language of the statute that says, notwithstanding any other provision of law the court shall not suspend the sentence or do any of these other things that a sentencing court would do, or, nor shall the sentence be made concurrent, in that context the natural reading is that the statute speaks to the duties of the Federal sentencing court as sentencing statutes usually do at the time sentence is imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [336.75, 346.327, 359.757, 375.305], "stop_times": [346.327, 359.757, 375.305, 404.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.75}, "reply_to": "20138__0_014", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_016", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Then everything's going to turn on whose sentence is first.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [404.126, 405.215], "stop_times": [405.215, 405.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.126}, "reply_to": "20138__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20138__0_017", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Excuse me, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [405.616], "stop_times": [406.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.616}, "reply_to": "20138__0_016", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_018", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Then everything... then the result is simply going to turn on whose sentence is first.\nIf they do a State sentence first, then, in effect, you get the policy carried out when the Federal sentencing follows it.\nIf the Feds sentence first, in effect the State can negate the policy by saying everything we impose is going to run concurrent, including the premium, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [406.187, 409.62, 417.113], "stop_times": [409.62, 417.113, 428.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.187}, "reply_to": "20138__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20138__0_019", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--There are two answers to that question, Justice Souter.\nThe first one is that the policy of the statute is that the sentence that is imposed under section 924(c) be made consecutive to any other sentence that the defendant might be serving.\nIt is always the case, where a sentence is made consecutive to another sentence, that any number of circumstances, for example, might change the first sentence.\nAll that Congress can do is to say this is what the Federal court may make the sentence at the time of sentencing, and until and unless Congress chooses to go forward and to say that this is a national policy, not of instruction to the Federal courts about how to do their business, but of instruction also to the State courts about how to do theirs, the statute simply doesn't speak to the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [428.219, 430.913, 442.789, 453.668], "stop_times": [430.913, 442.789, 453.668, 478.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.219}, "reply_to": "20138__0_018", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_020", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "So I guess you would say that the State could... let's... it imposes its sentence first.\nThe Federal sentence comes up second, and the sentencing judge says, well, this cannot run concurrent, so it will be consecutive, and then he goes back to the State court and says, in light of, you know, what the Feds have done, please make my State sentence run concurrent with the Federal sentence, and the State says, that's fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [478.154, 482.436], "stop_times": [482.436, 499.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.154}, "reply_to": "20138__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_021", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "If that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [499.737], "stop_times": [500.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.737}, "reply_to": "20138__0_020", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_022", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "So the State could in effect frustrate this by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [500.138], "stop_times": [501.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.138}, "reply_to": "20138__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_023", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--If that is a course that is allowed by State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [501.76], "stop_times": [504.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 501.76}, "reply_to": "20138__0_022", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_024", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--By State law it would be all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [504.821], "stop_times": [505.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.821}, "reply_to": "20138__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_025", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--that is absolutely true, Justice Scalia, and the same would be true if he went back to the Governor of the State and told them, I have received an unduly long sentence, would you please exercise your discretion under State law to make my State sentence go away, and to thereby remove the predicate for the consecutive sentence in the Federal court.\nI'm not saying that that would effectuate the Federal policy to the fullest possible extent that one might take such a policy, but under the terms of this statute as written, it would, because the policy, as we have explained, is one that speaks to the actions of the Federal sentencing court when imposing sentence, and it is that court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [505.852, 526.575], "stop_times": [526.575, 546.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.852}, "reply_to": "20138__0_024", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_026", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Estrada, that's certainly a reasonable interpretation, but it's not what the statute says.\nDo you think... you say that's a literal reading, or are you just making a very sensible construction of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [546.377, 551.061], "stop_times": [551.061, 557.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.377}, "reply_to": "20138__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_027", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Oh, I think both, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [557.056], "stop_times": [558.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 557.056}, "reply_to": "20138__0_026", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_028", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Because it says... it's a flat prohibition, as Justice Scalia pointed out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [558.745], "stop_times": [560.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.745}, "reply_to": "20138__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_029", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, as I indicated to Justice Scalia, Justice Stevens, it is our view, and we think it's right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [560.698], "stop_times": [570.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.698}, "reply_to": "20138__0_028", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_030", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That it should be read that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [570.893], "stop_times": [571.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.893}, "reply_to": "20138__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_031", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--No.\nIt is our view that, as the Court has always stated, the clarity of the language turns on context, and if all we had to go to... through were a Federal statute that says, anyone who has been sentenced for a firearms charge shall never have a concurrent sentence, and there was nothing else to the statute, that might give rise to the issue of whether that binds the State courts as well.\nIn the context of a statute that first defines a crime and then makes a direction to the court not to suspend the sentence or to impose a concurrent sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [571.735, 572.396, 597.991], "stop_times": [572.396, 597.991, 607.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.735}, "reply_to": "20138__0_030", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_032", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "It doesn't say that.\nIf it said, nor shall a concurrent sentence be imposed... it uses... almost goes out of its way to use different language.\nIt says, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment, and so as soon as the State decides later to have a concurrent State sentence, this term, the term imposed under this section, will begin to run concurrently with the State sentence.\nI mean, literally, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [607.979, 608.868, 615.443, 633.394], "stop_times": [608.868, 615.443, 633.394, 634.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.979}, "reply_to": "20138__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_033", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--I have two answers to your question, Justice Scalia.\nThe first one is that I agree with your reading in isolation.\nAs I pointed out, that reading would ignore what comes earlier in the statute, which gives context to what the subject for who may not impose may be.\nThe second answer is that, as we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [634.446, 637.138, 642.02, 651.708], "stop_times": [637.138, 642.02, 651.708, 653.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.446}, "reply_to": "20138__0_032", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_034", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Before you go to the second, and I want you to get there, what is it earlier in the statute that's inconsistent with that sentence?\nThat's what I didn't quite follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [653.637, 659.332], "stop_times": [659.332, 660.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.637}, "reply_to": "20138__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_035", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Well, there are two things, Justice Stevens.\nIn the first place, it is a definition of a Federal offense, which is something that normally gives rise to Federal sentencings, and second is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [660.694, 662.544], "stop_times": [662.544, 672.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.694}, "reply_to": "20138__0_034", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_036", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes, but that doesn't cut any ice, because this last sentence clearly contemplates, not concurrent with State or Federal sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [672.1], "stop_times": [677.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.1}, "reply_to": "20138__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_037", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Well, that's right as an instructions to the Federal court as to what they may order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [677.704], "stop_times": [683.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.704}, "reply_to": "20138__0_036", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_038", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [683.668], "stop_times": [684.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.668}, "reply_to": "20138__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_039", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "It doesn't really speak to the State courts as to what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [684.298], "stop_times": [686.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.298}, "reply_to": "20138__0_038", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_040", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, and then the first part of the sentence it says, we're just talking about a sentence for Federal crimes.\nThat doesn't undermine the literal reading of the last sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [686.61, 689.963], "stop_times": [689.963, 693.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 686.61}, "reply_to": "20138__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_041", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--No, but the... let me make two further points.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [693.585], "stop_times": [696.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.585}, "reply_to": "20138__0_040", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_042", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "You have another point, I know, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [696.946], "stop_times": [698.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.946}, "reply_to": "20138__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_043", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, there was a second part to my first point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [698.588], "stop_times": [701.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.588}, "reply_to": "20138__0_042", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_044", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "He keeps thinking of more as we--\n[Laughter]\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [701.74, 702.809, 703.37], "stop_times": [702.809, 703.37, 704.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.74}, "reply_to": "20138__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_045", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Excuse me, Justice Scalia, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [704.271], "stop_times": [705.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.271}, "reply_to": "20138__0_044", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_046", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, you--\n--I say, you keep thinking of more points as--\n--No, he had a second point based on the language of the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [705.112, 705.631, 706.953], "stop_times": [705.631, 706.953, 710.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.112}, "reply_to": "20138__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_047", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [710.186], "stop_times": [710.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.186}, "reply_to": "20138__0_046", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_048", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--that preceded it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [710.486], "stop_times": [711.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.486}, "reply_to": "20138__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_049", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "And I was getting to that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [711.107], "stop_times": [711.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.107}, "reply_to": "20138__0_048", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_050", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [711.996], "stop_times": [712.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.996}, "reply_to": "20138__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_051", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--which is that the language that Justice Scalia read in isolation, which we concede would bear that reading, doesn't really have a subject, and it is part of a sentence that starts with, the court shall not, and in our view in that context it is most reasonable to read the court as the Federal court, as the subject that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [712.277], "stop_times": [734.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 712.277}, "reply_to": "20138__0_050", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_052", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I mean, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [734.632], "stop_times": [734.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.632}, "reply_to": "20138__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_053", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--is implicit in the clause that uses the passive voice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [734.982], "stop_times": [737.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.982}, "reply_to": "20138__0_052", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_054", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--I mean, anyway, most sentencing statutes are phrased in the passive voice or refer to the defendant.\nThey don't say, the judge shall do this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [737.214, 741.755], "stop_times": [741.755, 743.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.214}, "reply_to": "20138__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_055", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, that's right, and most sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [743.976], "stop_times": [746.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.976}, "reply_to": "20138__0_054", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_056", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "And so I take it your point is, like all other sentencing statutes this is meant to talk about the obligation of the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [746.6], "stop_times": [751.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.6}, "reply_to": "20138__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_057", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Of the general court, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [751.732], "stop_times": [752.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.732}, "reply_to": "20138__0_056", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_058", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But this one is phrased that way.\nBut that cuts the other way because the first part of the sentence talks about what the court may do--\n--In the active voice.\n--and then the second part is broader.\nJust one at a time.\nYes... right.\nGive him a chance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [752.741, 754.443, 757.245, 758.056, 758.996, 759.827, 761.089], "stop_times": [754.443, 757.245, 758.056, 758.996, 759.827, 761.089, 761.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.741}, "reply_to": "20138__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_059", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\n[Laughter]\nI think I've made my first point, which is in essence that you have to infer a subject for the clause in the passive voice and that, given that the very same sentence starts with a clause in the active voice the more reasonable reading, even if it would bear another, is that the subject is that of the Federal court.\nI would like to have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [761.988, 763.851, 765.17, 783.102], "stop_times": [763.851, 765.17, 783.102, 785.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.988}, "reply_to": "20138__0_058", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_060", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "What principle says that you must infer a subject for a sentence in the passive voice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [785.334], "stop_times": [790.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.334}, "reply_to": "20138__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_061", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [790.678], "stop_times": [792.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.678}, "reply_to": "20138__0_060", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_062", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Is that a principle of grammar, or something?\nIf it's in the passive voice it simply means the term of imprisonment imposed shall not run concurrently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [792.299, 794.098], "stop_times": [794.098, 799.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 792.299}, "reply_to": "20138__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_063", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [799.784], "stop_times": [800.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.784}, "reply_to": "20138__0_062", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_064", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "You don't need a subject for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [800.192], "stop_times": [801.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.192}, "reply_to": "20138__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_065", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--This case... excuse me.\nThis Court has had cases in which similar grammatical difficulties have been present, Justice Scalia.\nIn the Wilson case, I think, which is cited in our brief and which also deals with how Federal sentences are administered, the Court had before it a statute that also was written in the passive voice and the question then was, does this give a right or a duty to the sentencing court or to the BOP, and the Court went into the context of the statute and to some extent into the history to conclude that it did not give any rights or duties to the sentencing courts, but it confided the duties to be carried out under the statute to the Bureau of Prisons alone, and I think that that's not an unusual act of statutory interpretation.\nI don't want to let go of the second point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [801.063, 802.826, 809.65, 849.916], "stop_times": [802.826, 809.65, 849.916, 852.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.063}, "reply_to": "20138__0_064", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_066", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "You still have the second point.\nThe first point, you're assuming that the words, the term of imprisonment, are not the subject, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [852.789, 853.878], "stop_times": [853.878, 857.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.789}, "reply_to": "20138__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_067", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Yes.\nWell, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [857.942, 858.763], "stop_times": [858.763, 859.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.942}, "reply_to": "20138__0_066", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_068", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [859.492], "stop_times": [860.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.492}, "reply_to": "20138__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_069", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I mean, you can put it that way, but I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [860.063], "stop_times": [862.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.063}, "reply_to": "20138__0_068", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_070", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Some grammarians might disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [862.804], "stop_times": [864.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.804}, "reply_to": "20138__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__0_071", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Well, and I think... and I really will concede, Justice Stevens, that if all I had were an independent freestanding sentence that began with the term of imprisonment, this might raise a different question.\nTo just touch upon our... or, our second point is that to the extent the language would bear another reading, and to the extent that you might read the language in isolation as speaking to the duties of State courts imposing sentences under State law, there is a section that is also part of the Gun Control Act, section 927, which is quoted in our brief, in our reply brief in one of the footnotes, which indicates that it was not... in footnote 7 at page 10... which indicates that it was not, in fact, Congress' intention to occupy the field of sentencing for these offenses, and that they did not intend to divest the State courts of the authority that they would ordinarily have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [864.186, 876.802], "stop_times": [876.802, 927.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.186}, "reply_to": "20138__0_070", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_072", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "It seems to me that your argument here is really being generous to the defendant.\nEven if you conceded the point that Justice Stevens and I have been pressing, you would not have to concede the point that therefore the statute does... therefore the statute does not take into account State sentences.\nAll you would have to concede is that the Federal... or that the statute controls State courts.\nAll you would have to concede is that the statute continues to control only Federal sentencing, but when the Federal sentencing has been made by a State courts action to run concurrently with the State sentence, the Federal sentence must be altered to be... you know, to run sequentially, or, in other words, the sentence that's imposed has to be conditional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [927.005, 930.799, 942.757, 948.47], "stop_times": [930.799, 942.757, 948.47, 967.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.005}, "reply_to": "20138__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_073", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I agree that it is not a necessary component of our case that we show the premise of the question to be wrong, Justice Scalia.\nI think in a spirit of candor we can tell you that we have never read the statute in that way, and we have no intention of applying it that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [967.934, 977.208], "stop_times": [977.208, 986.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.934}, "reply_to": "20138__0_072", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_074", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Estrada, do you know of any Federal criminal sentencing statute that controls State courts without saying so?\nTo affect the State's criminal process one would expect Congress at least to speak with a clear voice that it is attempting to control what the State does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [986.177, 995.16], "stop_times": [995.16, 1009.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.177}, "reply_to": "20138__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20138__0_075", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I think that you are right, Justice Ginsburg, in that to the extent Congress ever tries to control the processes of State courts applying State law and tell them what to do, that fairly interesting and maybe difficult federalism issues would come up that may call that as one of the principles.\nOne of the interesting facets of this case is that there is a general statute that governs whether Federal courts may impose sentences that are concurrent or consecutive, section 3584, which is quoted both in our opening brief and in our reply brief.\nIn our reply brief I believe the pertinent part is quoted at page 4, footnote 2.\nThat is the general residual Federal statute that deals with the question whether a Federal court may impose a concurrent sentence or a consecutive sentence, and the statute that respondents urge should be applied to them here.\nNow, the interesting thing about that statute is that even though it authorizes a concurrent term of imprisonment, it doesn't speak to State terms of imprisonment at all, so that if one were to take the rule of construction being urged for here, the logical consequence would be that there is no statutory authority for the imposition of a concurrent term of imprisonment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1009.24, 1030.393, 1046.042, 1051.286, 1064.326], "stop_times": [1030.393, 1046.042, 1051.286, 1064.326, 1084.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.24}, "reply_to": "20138__0_074", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_076", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Estrada, can I clarify one thing about this case?\nWhat was the State prosecution for?\nIt wasn't brought under 18 U.S. Code 924 (c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1084.338, 1087.07, 1089.651], "stop_times": [1087.07, 1089.651, 1094.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.338}, "reply_to": "20138__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_077", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "No, it was not.\nIt was a State offense, I believe, of assault.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1094.566, 1095.347], "stop_times": [1095.347, 1098.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.566}, "reply_to": "20138__0_076", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_078", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "And the State had already imposed a sentence for that crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1098.678], "stop_times": [1102.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.678}, "reply_to": "20138__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_079", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes, they had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1102.22], "stop_times": [1103.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.22}, "reply_to": "20138__0_078", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_080", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Before the Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1103.472], "stop_times": [1104.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.472}, "reply_to": "20138__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_081", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1104.722], "stop_times": [1106.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.722}, "reply_to": "20138__0_080", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_082", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--tried the defendant for this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1106.044], "stop_times": [1107.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.044}, "reply_to": "20138__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_083", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1107.163], "stop_times": [1107.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.163}, "reply_to": "20138__0_082", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_084", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "It had already occurred--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1107.794], "stop_times": [1108.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.794}, "reply_to": "20138__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_085", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "By the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1108.645], "stop_times": [1109.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1108.645}, "reply_to": "20138__0_084", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_086", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--and in fact all the Federal Court of Appeals decisions dealing with this situation as I understand it have involved sentences by State courts that had already been imposed before the succeeding Federal prosecution under 924(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1109.627], "stop_times": [1125.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.627}, "reply_to": "20138__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_087", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--I think that is right, and that would be the usual area in which our reading of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1125.455], "stop_times": [1129.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.455}, "reply_to": "20138__0_086", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_088", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes, and so you're saying, in that circumstance, which was also the circumstance here, that the Federal court is governed in its sentencing and must make it run at least consecutively--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1129.879], "stop_times": [1140.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.879}, "reply_to": "20138__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_089", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--That is right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1140.285], "stop_times": [1141.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.285}, "reply_to": "20138__0_088", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_090", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--to the State sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1141.256], "stop_times": [1142.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.256}, "reply_to": "20138__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_091", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Our view is that the statute tells a Federal district court imposing sentence for a Federal offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1142.626], "stop_times": [1147.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1142.626}, "reply_to": "20138__0_090", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_092", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1147.1], "stop_times": [1147.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1147.1}, "reply_to": "20138__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_093", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--that it should make this sentence consecutive to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1147.571], "stop_times": [1149.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1147.571}, "reply_to": "20138__0_092", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_094", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1149.562], "stop_times": [1149.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.562}, "reply_to": "20138__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_095", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--whatever else there is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1149.933], "stop_times": [1150.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.933}, "reply_to": "20138__0_094", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_096", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes.\nI guess on that the hardest point is that the State sentence involved an additional year actually served as a mandatory additional year under State law for the very possession of the firearm that is also the subject of the extra 5 years under Federal law, and I suppose that, if you apply the extra 5 years under Federal law into Federal cases, that will never arise.\nIt would never happen that the extra 5 years would be imposed consecutively to an additional sentence that had as its base solely the possession of that very gun--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1150.714, 1151.014, 1180.113], "stop_times": [1151.014, 1180.113, 1192.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.714}, "reply_to": "20138__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__0_097", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "It would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1192.181], "stop_times": [1193.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.181}, "reply_to": "20138__0_096", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_098", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--but it could happen in this case under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1193.57], "stop_times": [1196.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1193.57}, "reply_to": "20138__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_099", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--It would not happen under the guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1196.282], "stop_times": [1198.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.282}, "reply_to": "20138__0_098", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_100", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Oh, I know... under a statute, how could it happen, because the only provision that poses an extra 5 years mandatory for possession of a gun during a crime of violence is this very statute, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1198.683], "stop_times": [1211.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.683}, "reply_to": "20138__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_101", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, no.\nLet me give you an example.\nFor example, the armed bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. 2113, 2113(a), if I recall, defines the crime of bank robbery.\n2513(d) imposes an additional authorized sentence of 5 years under the bank robbery statute for a bank robbery that is carried out with a weapon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1211.231, 1212.223, 1213.582, 1223.59], "stop_times": [1212.223, 1213.582, 1223.59, 1236.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.231}, "reply_to": "20138__0_100", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_102", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "So you think that this statute means when a person is accused of that crime through violence... let's say it's an armed bank robbery with a gun... he gets 10 extra years for the gun?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1236.34], "stop_times": [1248.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.34}, "reply_to": "20138__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_103", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Justice Breyer, the issue that you just posed was one of the questions that the Court had before it in the Busic case.\nThe Court in that case took the view that I gather you would instinctively take of how that case should turn out.\nIn 1984 Congress turned around and said no, we didn't mean that, and overruled in effect for future cases the outcome in Busic and as a result of that change the statute now reads that the mandatory 5-year sentence may apply to any offense, including one that has an enhancement for a firearm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1248.267, 1255.09, 1263.046], "stop_times": [1255.09, 1263.046, 1283.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1248.267}, "reply_to": "20138__0_102", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_104", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Including the firearm.\nNot may, but must, you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1283.249, 1285.57], "stop_times": [1285.57, 1286.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.249}, "reply_to": "20138__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_105", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mm-hmm.\nThat is right, and it's very plain from the legislative history that accompanied the 1984 amendments that Congress was unhappy with the outcome in Busic and changed the statute just to make that possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1286.902, 1287.16], "stop_times": [1287.16, 1307.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1286.902}, "reply_to": "20138__0_104", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_106", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1307.185], "stop_times": [1307.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.185}, "reply_to": "20138__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_107", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "And the relevant language that does that is at the top of page 2 in our brief, where Congress added a parenthetical that reads, including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crimes which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1307.925], "stop_times": [1327.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.925}, "reply_to": "20138__0_106", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_108", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I didn't understand that that included the extra gun enhancement part, but it does.\nI see what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1327.698, 1333.392], "stop_times": [1333.392, 1334.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.698}, "reply_to": "20138__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__0_109", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "It does, and that was one of the issues that the Court had before it in the Busic and Simpson cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1334.431], "stop_times": [1341.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1334.431}, "reply_to": "20138__0_108", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_110", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Estrada, you answered some of the questions from Justice Scalia or Justice Stevens about the scope of the nor shall clause by saying it occurs in a sentence which is addressed to Federal sentences, and that provides the context.\nWhy should we confine our contextual reference to sentences?\nWhy don't we approach this case with a... sort of a section-based contextualism, and the principle address of the section, I suppose, is to Federal sentencing and the relationships of Federal sentences, so if we're going to look at context, why don't we look at it more broadly than you would and find that a reason not to apply the any sentence reference to State sentences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1341.997, 1357.038, 1365.713], "stop_times": [1357.038, 1365.713, 1394.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.997}, "reply_to": "20138__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20138__0_111", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "You see, I think, Justice Souter, that I do not disagree with your statement up to the very last clause, which is that it is true that this is a statute that applies only to Federal sentencings, but one of the things it does is to instruct a Federal court as to how the sentence should be imposed and, by extension, the Federal Bureau of Prisons as to how the sentence should be administered, and it is to them that the instruction goes, this sentence shall not start before that other sentence has been concluded.\nIt doesn't act on a State court, and it doesn't act on a State sentence.\nIt merely takes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1394.091, 1427.623, 1430.866], "stop_times": [1427.623, 1430.866, 1431.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1394.091}, "reply_to": "20138__0_110", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_112", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "No, but your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1431.935], "stop_times": [1433.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.935}, "reply_to": "20138__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20138__0_113", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--takes that as a point of reference for Federal officials discharging their duties under Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1433.738], "stop_times": [1439.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1433.738}, "reply_to": "20138__0_112", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_114", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Oh, I grant you that, but I thought your answer to the question about the nor shall clause was not that it could not be addressed or effectively be enforced against a State court.\nThat's a separate issue.\nWe'll leave that aside.\nYour answer was in the context we can infer that it's not being addressed, and don't we have sort of no more or less ambiguity when we get to the reference to any sentence being served?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1439.141, 1449.508, 1450.537, 1451.539], "stop_times": [1449.508, 1450.537, 1451.539, 1466.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.141}, "reply_to": "20138__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20138__0_115", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Oh, I see.\nNo, for two reasons.\nThe first one is that the first sentence of this very statute uses the expansive language, any crime, and goes on expressly to qualify it by reference to only crimes that are Federal crimes and when the same expansive language, any crime or offense or sentence is used in the first sentence of the statute and does not so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1466.779, 1467.298, 1469.892], "stop_times": [1467.298, 1469.892, 1490.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1466.779}, "reply_to": "20138__0_114", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_116", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes, that gives that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1490.873], "stop_times": [1491.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.873}, "reply_to": "20138__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20138__0_117", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--restrict it, there is a fair inference that Congress did not mean the qualifications then.\nThe second answer to that is the answer that I started to give to Justice Ginsburg concerning section 3584, which is a residual statute that governs concurrency and consecutivity, and it does not itself make reference to State sentences either.\nAs a historical matter, before the statute was passed in section 19... in 1984, the rule in the Federal courts was that a Federal sentence could not be concurrent with a State sentence, and the legislative history of section 3584 makes clear that one of the things that section... that the residual statute meant to do with unqualified reference to terms of imprisonment that don't mention State law was to allow Federal courts, when otherwise appropriate, to impose a sentence that would be concurrent to a State term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1491.704, 1497.178, 1512.398], "stop_times": [1497.178, 1512.398, 1541.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.704}, "reply_to": "20138__0_116", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_118", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Well, I think your answer is a fair answer, but I guess I have one follow-up question to it, and that is, if there is any question about whether your answer is sort of dispositive, isn't it fair to look to the point that was brought out earlier, and that is that on your theory there's sort of a game of chance going on, because if the... in this case, for example, if the State sentence had not been imposed first, the result would be different here, and rather than allow this statute to be administered in a way that is going to turn it into a game of chance, which sentence... depending on which sentencer gets there first, why isn't it more reasonable to interpret it the way the respondents claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1541.357], "stop_times": [1591.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.357}, "reply_to": "20138__0_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20138__0_119", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Because I think as an empirical matter it will be the case in most of the cases that Congress may have contemplated that the sentences imposed later will correspond to later-occurring crimes, and it's not necessary to think that they crafted the entire sentencing structure of the Federal courts to fit the facts of a dual successive prosecution.\nBut even apart from that, I think that the implicit assumption in the premise is that a statute that requires a consecutive sentence purports to speak to what may happen in the future, and I think that is not empirically founded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1591.001, 1612.132], "stop_times": [1612.132, 1630.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1591.001}, "reply_to": "20138__0_118", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_120", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Estrada, is... before you... is consecutivity a word?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1630.575], "stop_times": [1634.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.575}, "reply_to": "20138__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__0_121", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I have seen it... I don't know, Justice Scalia, and as a nonnative speaker of the language, I feel hesitant--\n[Laughter]\n--to give the Court advice on these sorts of matters.\nI can tell you that I have seen it in the reported cases dealing with the issue, and I will leave it at that, and if I could save the remainder of my time for rebuttal, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1634.859, 1642.193, 1642.573, 1644.444], "stop_times": [1642.193, 1642.573, 1644.444, 1652.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1634.859}, "reply_to": "20138__0_120", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__0_122", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Very well, Mr. Estrada.\nMr. Bustamante.\nAm I pronouncing your last name correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1652.83, 1654.441, 1655.713], "stop_times": [1654.441, 1655.713, 1657.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.83}, "reply_to": "20138__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_000", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Bustamante.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1657.493], "stop_times": [1659.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1657.493}, "reply_to": "20138__0_122", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_001", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Bustamante.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1659.293, 1659.884], "stop_times": [1659.884, 1660.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.293}, "reply_to": "20138__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_002", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis Court should affirm the Tenth Circuit, because the Government ignores proper methods of statutory construction in this case, and they base their entire argument in this case on the false premise that the any used in 924(c)(1) is capable of only one meaning.\nThat term actually has multiple definitional possibilities, and where there are multiple definitional possibilities, this Court... any practitioner should examine the entire text of the statute and place the word in context with this entire statutory scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1660.255, 1667.06, 1682.571], "stop_times": [1667.06, 1682.571, 1697.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.255}, "reply_to": "20138__1_001", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_003", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Bustamante, the Tenth Circuit in its opinion relied on the case of the Church of Holy Trinity v. The United States, which to me has always meant we're going to legislate a little.\nIt means that you can't really get the meaning you want out of the statute.\nDo you think the court of appeals went that far here, or do you think its interpretation is absolutely defensible just as the statute is written?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1697.671, 1709.909, 1715.523], "stop_times": [1709.909, 1715.523, 1723.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.671}, "reply_to": "20138__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_004", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Your Honor, I believe... Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that if the Court examines 924(c)(1) and the language of 924(c)(1) and then looks at the history of 924(c)(1).\nI think it becomes clear that 924(c)(1) only applies to Federal sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1723.279, 1735.144], "stop_times": [1735.144, 1740.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.279}, "reply_to": "20138__1_003", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_005", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Mr. Bustamante, what is your response to Mr. Estrada's point about 3584(a)?\nI mean, I understand that your only concern is your client, but if we agree with you in this case with regard to defendants in general we would be doing them more harm than good, because if this provision doesn't apply to State sentences, I don't see how you can distinguish 3584(a), which also would not apply to State sentences, which would mean that a Federal court could not make a Federal sentence concurrent with a State sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1740.95, 1748.274], "stop_times": [1748.274, 1775.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.95}, "reply_to": "20138__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_006", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Justice Scalia, I believe the difference, and I think it's a consistent interpretation, is that if the Court looks at the legislative history of 3584--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1775.222], "stop_times": [1784.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.222}, "reply_to": "20138__1_005", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_007", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Oh, you just lost me.\nDo you have anything about the text that would distinguish the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1784.749, 1786.238], "stop_times": [1786.238, 1789.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.749}, "reply_to": "20138__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_008", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Not about the text.\nYour Honor, but I believe that if the Court... I think it's clear from 3584 that a court has discretion under that statute to run sentences concurrently or consecutively, and I think the difference between 3584, other than the legislative history, Your Honor, is that 924(c)(1) does something very different, which is, it takes absolute discretion away from a court, which is a major change, Your Honor, in the history of sentencing.\nThroughout history, Federal courts, State courts have been given great discretion in running... deciding whether sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1789.782, 1792.373, 1817.688], "stop_times": [1792.373, 1817.688, 1827.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.782}, "reply_to": "20138__1_007", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_009", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But the Government would not take that discretion away from State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1827.015], "stop_times": [1829.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.015}, "reply_to": "20138__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_010", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That's true, Your Honor, but it did take it away from a Federal court, which is a significant matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1829.706], "stop_times": [1836.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.706}, "reply_to": "20138__1_009", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_011", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "What's the odd result?\nThe court of appeals said that if you took concurrently to mean concurrently, it would produce an odd result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1845.889, 1836.993], "stop_times": [1836.993, 1847.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.889}, "reply_to": "20138__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_012", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Justice Breyer, I believe the odd result in this specific case, and again this case does have unusual facts, because it was a consecutive prosecution, is that because the State sentence occurred first and the Federal sentence occurred second, what in fact occurred in this case is that the... what the Government seeks is a doubling of the sentence based on the same conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1847.619], "stop_times": [1870.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.619}, "reply_to": "20138__1_011", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_013", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "It's true of the Federal, too.\nIf... I mean, you could split the Federal trial, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1870.184, 1871.545], "stop_times": [1871.545, 1874.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.184}, "reply_to": "20138__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_014", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Your Honor, I believe it's true--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1874.957], "stop_times": [1877.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.957}, "reply_to": "20138__1_013", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_015", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I mean, I thought the odd result was what I said before, and he explained no, that's not an odd result, the same thing's true federally, and so I'm sort of stuck now.\nSo I asked you, what's the odd result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1877.508, 1885.185], "stop_times": [1885.185, 1888.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.508}, "reply_to": "20138__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_016", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe... it's not that it's an odd result, Your Honor.\nIt's that the Government is saying that it's a compelled result, and what the problem is, Your Honor, is that the Government is encouraging practitioners to basically play table tennis between Federal court and State courts.\nThey give... and I don't believe the Government can have it both ways, Your Honor.\nThey state in their opening briefs... brief fairly boastfully that this does not run concurrently to any sentence.\nIn their reply brief, they state--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1888.377, 1891.65, 1903.287, 1907.868, 1915.095], "stop_times": [1891.65, 1903.287, 1907.868, 1915.095, 1916.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.377}, "reply_to": "20138__1_015", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_017", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Excuse me, that this does not... I didn't under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1916.514], "stop_times": [1919.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.514}, "reply_to": "20138__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_018", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--They state in their opening briefs, Your Honor, that this shall not run concurrent to any sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1919.376], "stop_times": [1923.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.376}, "reply_to": "20138__1_017", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_019", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Shall not run concurrent to any sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1923.86], "stop_times": [1926.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.86}, "reply_to": "20138__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_020", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That's correct, and they do not specify whether it's Federal or State.\nIn their reply brief they make a concession that it was... it would be okay for a State court to run their sentence concurrent to the Federal sentence, so I think they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1926.192, 1927.981], "stop_times": [1927.981, 1940.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.192}, "reply_to": "20138__1_019", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_021", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But that really is quite consistent with the Government's oral presentation here, that the section speaks to Federal sentencing judges and Federal proceedings.\nIt doesn't purport to speak to State court judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1940.14, 1948.595], "stop_times": [1948.595, 1951.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.14}, "reply_to": "20138__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_022", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nI believe the Government concedes this applies to Federal courts, concedes it applies to Federal sentences, concedes it applies to Federal offenses, but they're very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1951.136, 1952.558], "stop_times": [1952.558, 1962.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.136}, "reply_to": "20138__1_021", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_023", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That doesn't... isn't odd particularly, because all kinds of things can depend on that, whether... if you're... you know, if the State court convicts somebody first, then they have a conviction on the record.\nWhen they have a conviction on the record their sentence is bumped up because of the guidelines, and if that trial hasn't take place yet, it isn't.\nI mean, lots of things turn on timing.\nNow, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1962.175, 1971.71, 1978.905, 1981.656], "stop_times": [1971.71, 1978.905, 1981.656, 1982.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.175}, "reply_to": "20138__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_024", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--That's true, Your Honor, a lot of things do turn on time, but with the Government's concessions, and if you place their example in reality, Your Honor, is that what could occur is you have the State prosecution first, then a Federal prosecution, then it's fairly easy for the lawyer in the State's court then to go back, after the Federal prosecution to then ask for a reduced sentence or a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [1982.976], "stop_times": [2006.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.976}, "reply_to": "20138__1_023", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_025", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2006.813], "stop_times": [2007.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.813}, "reply_to": "20138__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_026", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--sentence concurrent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2007.153], "stop_times": [2007.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2007.153}, "reply_to": "20138__1_025", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_027", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Fine.\nSo what's wrong?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2007.834, 2008.926, 2009.684], "stop_times": [2008.926, 2009.684, 2010.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.834}, "reply_to": "20138__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_028", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I don't believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2010.325], "stop_times": [2011.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.325}, "reply_to": "20138__1_027", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_029", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Isn't that what you could do here?\nIsn't that your remedy, then?\nAs you say, Mr. Estrada has said this is a rule of sentencing for Federal judges only, and he recognized that if the order had come up with the State court second the State court could do what it will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2011.947, 2014.319, 2015.387], "stop_times": [2014.319, 2015.387, 2029.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.947}, "reply_to": "20138__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20138__1_030", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Your Honor, that is a possible remedy.\nHowever, I don't think that criminal culpability or sentencing statutes were set out to allow a game of chance, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2029.929, 2032.621], "stop_times": [2032.621, 2040.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.929}, "reply_to": "20138__1_029", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_031", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, another way to eliminate all the chance, and the Government generously has not asserted this, but it would be quite possible to interpret this to speak only of the Federal courts, but to allow the Federal... to require the Federal sentences to be made consecutive whenever a State court says that the State sentence shall run concurrently.\nAnd I guess you could have games being played back and forth, and the State court revises its sentence and the Federal court revises its sentence, but you could eliminate all of that inconsistency by simply saying if a State court after the Federal sentence imposes a concurrent State sentence, the Federal sentence, pursuant to the precise language of this, the term of imprisonment imposed shall not run concurrently with that State sentence, so it thereupon becomes consecutive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2040.616, 2063.88], "stop_times": [2063.88, 2088.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.616}, "reply_to": "20138__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_032", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2088.126], "stop_times": [2089.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.126}, "reply_to": "20138__1_031", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_033", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "You wouldn't want that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2089.536], "stop_times": [2090.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.536}, "reply_to": "20138__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_034", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--I wouldn't want that.\nBut Justice Scalia, I think the problem is, is that if the court were to read that into the legislation, then I think in effect it would be allowing this statute, which is not very clear, just have no clear statement to preempt state law.\nIn the case of a Federal prosecution that occurred first and a State prosecution occurring second, clearly the State sovereign should have the authority if it seems proper to run their sentence concurrent to the Federal sentencing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2090.628, 2092.11, 2107.368], "stop_times": [2092.11, 2107.368, 2122.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.628}, "reply_to": "20138__1_033", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_035", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But it doesn't preempt State law, because you just, I think, recognized that you could go back to State court and say, based on something that happened after, and based on the way the Government, U.S. Government reads this statute, the ball ends up in your court, State, and your law isn't being preempted.\nYou favor concurrency, so reduce the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2122.848, 2139.388], "stop_times": [2139.388, 2143.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.848}, "reply_to": "20138__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20138__1_036", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--I believe Justice Scalia's premise was that if the statute was read at the Federal court, that no sentence would run concurrent to the Federal sentence if it occurred first, and I think that would be a preemption, because the State court would not be allowed to run their sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2143.462], "stop_times": [2159.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.462}, "reply_to": "20138__1_035", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_037", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But that's not the position that Mr. Estrada says that the Government... that's not how the Government is reading this Federal statute, so maybe you're... you've come to the wrong court for the remedy you're seeking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2159.704], "stop_times": [2170.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.704}, "reply_to": "20138__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20138__1_038", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Your Honor, we've come to this Court for the remedy we're seeking because it's the Government's goal in this case to ensure that... one of several things.\nTo ensure that the 924(c) gun count runs consecutive to the State sentence, but also I believe, Your Honor, they seek to also violate 3584(a), Your Honor, which states that a sentence, when someone goes in and starts serving a Federal sentence, that sentence shall be considered one aggregate sentence.\nYour Honor, what could occur in this case and in cases in the future is that... in this case, Your Honor, the sentencing judge did run the underlying offense concurrent to the State sentence.\nWhat could occur in this case and other cases, Your Honor, is that you would in fact have the Federal sentence beginning, then the sentence would stop while the State sentence would continue, and then at some point, indeterminate point in the future the Federal 924(c)(1) gun count would begin, and I think that's one of the major problems with the Government's interpretation of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2170.57, 2181.667, 2199.629, 2212.398], "stop_times": [2181.667, 2199.629, 2212.398, 2238.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.57}, "reply_to": "20138__1_037", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_039", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Where do we find 3584(a), which you... that's the one you just referred to, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2238.114], "stop_times": [2244.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.114}, "reply_to": "20138__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_040", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2244.659], "stop_times": [2245.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.659}, "reply_to": "20138__1_039", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_041", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Where is that set out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2245.59], "stop_times": [2246.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.59}, "reply_to": "20138__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_042", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Excuse me... Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2246.76], "stop_times": [2247.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.76}, "reply_to": "20138__1_041", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_043", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Where is that set out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2247.501], "stop_times": [2248.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.501}, "reply_to": "20138__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_044", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "And I believe that is in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2248.921], "stop_times": [2250.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.921}, "reply_to": "20138__1_043", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_045", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Page 4 of the Government's reply brief, footnote 2.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2250.793, 2256.366], "stop_times": [2256.366, 2259.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.793}, "reply_to": "20138__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_046", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--I believe the last sentence to that statute states that when a prisoner begins to serve a Federal sentence it shall be considered one aggregate sentence, and what could result in this case and future cases is that there would be a gap, a Federal gap in sentences, and I do not believe that is what Congress intended in 3584 or 924(c)(1), especially when you consider the committee report of 924(c)(1), which states, members of the Court, that in their opinion they are... it is their intent that the 924(c)(1) gun count begin first, and I think if the Court looks at that, that's the only practical way to apply 924(c)(1).\n924(c)(1) clearly was enacted to take all discretion away from a court.\nA court... a person convicted of a 924(c)(1) sentence must do prison time.\nThat does not affect the court's discretion at all as to the underlying offense, so it's really impractical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2259.229, 2310.692, 2316.684, 2322.679], "stop_times": [2310.692, 2316.684, 2322.679, 2330.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.229}, "reply_to": "20138__1_045", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_047", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "38... 3584(a), which you're... says a sentence may be made to run either concurrently or consecutively, and then 924(c) says that in certain circumstances it shall not be made to run concurrently, so you can construe those sections consistently, can you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2330.064], "stop_times": [2349.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.064}, "reply_to": "20138__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_048", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--You can consider them consistently, Your Honor, if a Federal sentencing judge is given discretion to run a... this sentence concurrent to a State sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2349.546], "stop_times": [2363.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2349.546}, "reply_to": "20138__1_047", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_049", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But one rule says... and I take it 3854, whatever the 30 one is, is a general principle of sentencing.\nIt can run either concurrently or consecutively.\nThen you have a far more specific one in section 924.\nIt says, shall not run concurrently.\nI don't see how there's necessarily any inconsistency between those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2363.757, 2372.611, 2375.034, 2378.485, 2380.418], "stop_times": [2372.611, 2375.034, 2378.485, 2380.418, 2385.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.757}, "reply_to": "20138__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__1_050", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "There's no inconsistency if it is only applied to Federal sentences.\nClearly, if someone is in Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2385.269, 2390.375], "stop_times": [2390.375, 2392.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.269}, "reply_to": "20138__1_049", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_051", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "May I just be sure I understand one of your points?\nDo you think 3584(a) applies only to Federal sentences also?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2392.825, 2394.697], "stop_times": [2394.697, 2398.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.825}, "reply_to": "20138__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20138__1_052", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI believe 3584, from its legislative history and from the text of the statute, allows a Federal judge to run his sentence either concurrently or consecutively to a State sentence.\nBut I would premise that, Your Honor, by stating that in order for the judge to do that he must first apply a guideline analysis, and if the guidelines state that this sentence shall run concurrent, then the court may consider doing that, and either do an upward or downward departure, depending on what he feels appropriate.\nIf the guideline states that it shall be consecutive, then again the court can do an upward or downward departure depending on what he feels is appropriate.\nIn this case, Your Honor, the problem is, is that there was no guideline analysis that could be done as to this particular sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2398.67, 2399.589, 2412.768, 2429.528, 2438.154], "stop_times": [2399.589, 2412.768, 2429.528, 2438.154, 2445.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.67}, "reply_to": "20138__1_051", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_053", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "How does that differ from 3146(b)(2), in... the bail-jumping statute says shall be consecutive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2445.51], "stop_times": [2455.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.51}, "reply_to": "20138__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20138__1_054", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Your Honor, I believe in that instance the person... I believe probably the guideline would be consistent with that, and the guideline would say that if you commit an offense while... a pending offense while you are awaiting sentencing occurs, then it shall be consecutive, so I think the guideline analysis and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2455.465], "stop_times": [2476.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.465}, "reply_to": "20138__1_053", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_055", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But if the guideline didn't take that position it wouldn't matter, because the statute says shall be consecutive.\nThe guideline couldn't take a position inconsistent with the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2476.148, 2481.424], "stop_times": [2481.424, 2487.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.148}, "reply_to": "20138__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20138__1_056", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--The two could not be inconsistent, Your Honor.\nHowever, it would be up to the court to always and first try to harmonize the guideline with the statute, and I think in that instance the guideline and the statute would probably be synonymous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2487.147, 2489.728], "stop_times": [2489.728, 2502.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.147}, "reply_to": "20138__1_055", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_057", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Could you go back, please, to the Chief Justice's question, because I didn't understand either what the inconsistency is supposed to be if we assume that both statutes apply to the State.\nI mean, assume that 9... that... I thought the question was, if 3584(a) applies both to State and Federal sentences, which I agree with you, I think it does, and then if the section before us also applies to both State and Federal, as the Government but not you argues, I thought you were saying that that would produce an inconsistency, but I didn't understand the inconsistency so I thought I'd ask you so you could explain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2502.018, 2515.064], "stop_times": [2515.064, 2541.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.018}, "reply_to": "20138__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_058", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I believe what I'm saying, what... I hope what I'm saying is that 3584 clearly from its legislative history can allow the court under a guideline analysis to run a sentence either consecutive or concurrent to a State sentence.\n924(c)(1) is a much more specific statute, and that analysis, if there's a guideline analysis at all, only requires a Federal sentencing judge to run that sentence consecutive to a Federal sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2541.542, 2553.49], "stop_times": [2553.49, 2570.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2541.542}, "reply_to": "20138__1_057", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_059", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, the fact that it's much more specific is what is hurting you here, because I think you may be right that there is an incompatibility between 3584(a) and the section at issue here.\n3584(a) says that the terms may run concurrently or consecutively, and 924(c) says that they may not run concurrently, that they must run consecutively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2570.51, 2583.5], "stop_times": [2583.5, 2596.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.51}, "reply_to": "20138__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_060", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2596.269], "stop_times": [2596.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2596.269}, "reply_to": "20138__1_059", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_061", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "So there is an inconsistency but, as you say, the more specific statute is 924(c)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2596.839], "stop_times": [2601.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.839}, "reply_to": "20138__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_062", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2601.382], "stop_times": [2602.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2601.382}, "reply_to": "20138__1_061", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_063", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--and the rule is you apply the more specific one, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2602.042], "stop_times": [2604.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.042}, "reply_to": "20138__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_064", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I believe that the way the two statutes are distinguished is that 924(c)(1), when it says shall not run concurrent, I believe is only applied to the Federal sentence, the underlying Federal sentence for which the gun enhancement is imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2604.594], "stop_times": [2624.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2604.594}, "reply_to": "20138__1_063", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_065", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "No, I understand that, but it doesn't seem to me that you can argue that this must apply only to Federal sentences and not to State sentences somehow on the basis that there would otherwise be inconsistency between those two.\nThere's... and in fact, there's going to be inconsistency whether you apply it Federal or State, isn't there?\nI mean, that's a xx--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2624.697, 2637.014, 2643.68], "stop_times": [2637.014, 2643.68, 2644.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.697}, "reply_to": "20138__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_066", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes, I believe, Justice Scalia, 19... 924(c)(1) and 1994... 84 was amended.\nI think it was amended in direct response.\nYour Honor, to The United States v. Busic and United States v. Simpson, and in truth, Your Honor, there was a time when I feared the language of 924(c)(1).\nI don't any more, because if you look at the legislative history and if you look at the Congress' direct response to the Busic and Simpson cases, I think it's clear that statute was amended only to correct what they felt were improper decisions by the Court in Busic and in Simpson.\nYour Honor, section 1 of 924(c)(1) deals with what kind of cases shall be prosecuted under this section.\nSection 2 deals... states they be crimes that are prosecuted in Federal court.\nSection 3 states how the crime is committed.\nSection 4 states that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may not prorate the sentence, which really states that you have no discretion to suspend this enhanced sentence, and section 5, Your Honor, I think is the section that nails the coffin into Busic and Simpson and says that nor shall this run concurrent with any other sentence, and I think what they're referring to is that they do not want the court to run the gun enhancement concurrent to the underlying offense at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2644.869, 2652.836, 2655.986, 2664.514, 2682.543, 2692.721, 2698.134, 2700.305], "stop_times": [2652.836, 2655.986, 2664.514, 2682.543, 2692.721, 2698.134, 2700.305, 2729.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.869}, "reply_to": "20138__1_065", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_067", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Section 5... I... what's the section 5 you're referring to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2729.385], "stop_times": [2732.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.385}, "reply_to": "20138__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_068", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I'm referring, Your Honor, to the last part of 924(c)(1).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2732.778], "stop_times": [2736.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2732.778}, "reply_to": "20138__1_067", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_069", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Okay, Sentence 5.\nI thought you said section 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2736.569, 2737.941], "stop_times": [2737.941, 2739.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.569}, "reply_to": "20138__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_070", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Yes.\nIt's... sentence 5, which states, nor shall--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2739.311, 2739.651], "stop_times": [2739.651, 2742.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.311}, "reply_to": "20138__1_069", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_071", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Gotcha.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2742.924], "stop_times": [2743.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.924}, "reply_to": "20138__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20138__1_072", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--this run concurrent with any other sentence, Your Honor.\nI think what they're saying in nailing the coffin in Busic and Simpson is that a Federal judge may not run that sentence concurrent even though he has to impose a prison sentence, nor shall he impose that concurrent to the underlying Federal offense.\nI think that, Your Honor, clearly lays out why this only applies to Federal sentences.\nYour Honor, I think other sections of the Comprehensive Control... Comprehensive Crime Control Act confirm that 924(c)(1) only applies to Federal sentences.\nThe Congress also referred to State and Federal laws in 3564(b) and 3624(e).\nIn both those sections, Your Honor, they were contemplating that Federal probation and Federal supervised release could run concurrent to a State sentence, so they are contemplating that State and Federal sentences shall run concurrently, and they are contemplating that these sections are possible they run concurrently, Your Honor.\nI think that is highly significant, because it goes to Congress' overall sentencing scheme.\nYour Honor, I believe that the problem with the Government's argument is that they attach a layman's definition to the term, any.\nThey ask for an expansive interpretation of the term, any other.\nIn fact, they have argued the exact opposite in the past.\nIn the Government's reply brief they refer to United States v. Alvarez... the United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, and in that case the defendant-respondent was seeking a more expansive term of the term, any.\nThe Government... the court, at the Government's urging, asked the court to apply proper methods of statutory construction and to not allow the term, any to have an all-expansive interpretation, and the court in fact did imply... apply proper methods of construction and stated that the term, any in 18 U.S.C. 3501 only applied to Federal law authorities.\nYour Honor, I think there's other compelling reasons for the Court to reject the Government's argument in this case as erroneous, and the States, Your Honor, in enforcing criminal conduct clearly have primary authority.\nI think they should also have primary responsibility in prosecuting persons in their State in enforcing local criminal conduct.\nI think the Government's interpretation in this case directly affects the delicate balance between Federal and States, and absent a clear statement from the Congress, I've asked the Court to reject the Government's argument and not allow the 924(c)(1) or Federal authorities to interfere with the State's authority to enforce local criminal conduct.\nI think there's two ways, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2743.295, 2746.627, 2759.504, 2766.739, 2779.618, 2789.684, 2809.726, 2815.481, 2835.645, 2840.908, 2844.15, 2859.869, 2891.161, 2907.59, 2914.595, 2936.99], "stop_times": [2746.627, 2759.504, 2766.739, 2779.618, 2789.684, 2809.726, 2815.481, 2835.645, 2840.908, 2844.15, 2859.869, 2891.161, 2907.59, 2914.595, 2936.99, 2939.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.295}, "reply_to": "20138__1_071", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_073", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, I don't really see how it does affect State law under the Government's argument.\nIndeed, I suppose there are many situations where there's a Federal offense, not 924 involved, but some Federal offense, and some State court... some State law will mandate that any State sentence for a State offense based on similar conduct has to run consecutively, or not concurrently.\nI mean, you could have it in reverse, and I don't see that these schemes prohibit that, these Federal laws.\nWe face that often, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2939.183, 2945.487, 2970.842, 2977.989], "stop_times": [2945.487, 2970.842, 2977.989, 2980.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2939.183}, "reply_to": "20138__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_074", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2980.149], "stop_times": [2981.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.149}, "reply_to": "20138__1_073", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_075", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "So that a State itself might be in the position of, look, your Federal requirements are what they are, but we're going to make our sentence anyway not serve concurrently with the Federal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2981.749], "stop_times": [2994.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.749}, "reply_to": "20138__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_076", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe State would have the authority, if they so chose, to run their sentence consecutive to the Federal prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [2994.177, 2996.478], "stop_times": [2996.478, 3003.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.177}, "reply_to": "20138__1_075", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_077", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "And the Federal Government says, and vice versa, the Federal Government, the Congress can pass a law making some particular sentence for a particular Federal crime not serve concurrently, and their argument is that Congress has done here, so it seems to me just the opposite side of the same coin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3003.604], "stop_times": [3023.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.604}, "reply_to": "20138__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_078", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Your Honor, I believe Congress clearly has the authority and power to tell a State your sentence shall not run concurrent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3023.908], "stop_times": [3031.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3023.908}, "reply_to": "20138__1_077", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_079", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "No, no.\nMaybe you misunderstood my question.\nI wasn't proposing that the Federal Government was here telling the State what to do.\nThey're not, and that's not the Government's position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3031.791, 3033.143, 3036.205, 3043.299], "stop_times": [3033.143, 3036.205, 3043.299, 3045.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.791}, "reply_to": "20138__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_080", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe that was their position in their opening brief.\nThey have changed that position in their reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3045.88, 3050.084], "stop_times": [3050.084, 3052.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.88}, "reply_to": "20138__1_079", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_081", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, it certainly isn't their position as I've heard it explained today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3052.305], "stop_times": [3056.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.305}, "reply_to": "20138__1_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_082", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nHowever, I believe that clearly the State has the authority to run their sentence consecutive, but they should also have the authority to run their sentence concurrent, whatever the order--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3056.518, 3057.45], "stop_times": [3057.45, 3068.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.518}, "reply_to": "20138__1_081", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_083", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I heard Mr. Estrada say the State could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3068.557], "stop_times": [3072.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.557}, "reply_to": "20138__1_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_084", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Your Honor, he has stated that, Your Honor, but I think that does point to the ambiguousness of the statute, and I think it points out to the problems in the application of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3072.34], "stop_times": [3083.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3072.34}, "reply_to": "20138__1_083", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_085", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "It's not ambiguous if you say it only applies... 924(c) applies to sentences imposed by Federal courts.\nThat's not ambiguous, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3083.236, 3089.48], "stop_times": [3089.48, 3092.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3083.236}, "reply_to": "20138__1_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_086", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I think it's ambiguous, Your Honor, first in how you apply first 924(c)(1), in which order it should go in, Your Honor, and how it affects the State sentence.\nYour Honor, there is a guideline in this case that does possibly affect the State sentence and possibly affect the Federal sentence, Your Honor, and that is 5G1.3.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3092.112, 3106.211], "stop_times": [3106.211, 3118.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.112}, "reply_to": "20138__1_085", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_087", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "The Government isn't here saying that these statutes affect the State sentence.\nIt's saying it affects the Federal court sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3118.559, 3123.141], "stop_times": [3123.141, 3125.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.559}, "reply_to": "20138__1_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_088", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThey are stating that the Federal Government does not affect the State sentence in any way.\nHowever, I think, Your Honor, that in the application of the Federal sentence it must by necessity affect the State sentence, Your Honor, and I state that because if you go with the committee report that the 924(c)(1) must be applied first, Your Honor, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3125.575, 3129.175, 3135.9], "stop_times": [3129.175, 3135.9, 3152.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3125.575}, "reply_to": "20138__1_087", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_089", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "You mean that one sentence in some committee report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3152.611], "stop_times": [3155.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.611}, "reply_to": "20138__1_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_090", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, it's not only the one sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3155.632], "stop_times": [3157.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3155.632}, "reply_to": "20138__1_089", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_091", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I... this Court has never felt that it was bound by that kind of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3157.414], "stop_times": [3161.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3157.414}, "reply_to": "20138__1_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_092", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3161.075], "stop_times": [3162.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3161.075}, "reply_to": "20138__1_091", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_093", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--little snippet from a legislative committee report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3162.267], "stop_times": [3164.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3162.267}, "reply_to": "20138__1_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_094", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Your Honor, I believe it's not just that one snippet.\nI think there are... the Eleventh and Sixth Circuit have followed that order, and I think that's the only practical way to apply 924(c)(1), and the problem, Your Honor, is that if 924(c)(1) is applied to run consecutively to a State sentence, then, Your Honor, then the underlying offense must also run consecutive, and you're back to the point where you've doubled this person's custodial time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3164.969, 3167.129], "stop_times": [3167.129, 3192.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3164.969}, "reply_to": "20138__1_093", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_095", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Why?\nI didn't think 924(c) applied to anything but the offense described in 924.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3192.338, 3193.139], "stop_times": [3193.139, 3201.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.338}, "reply_to": "20138__1_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20138__1_096", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Your Honor, it applies... if a person has committed an underlying offense and then has a 924(c)(1) sentence, those sentences must both be mandated to that defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3201.013], "stop_times": [3217.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3201.013}, "reply_to": "20138__1_095", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_097", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "So in this circumstance we'd simply have to say, look, that committee report doesn't govern this circumstance, that the judge is perfectly free to let the rest of the sentence run concurrently with the State, but he isn't free to let this part run with the State because this part says it's supposed to run consecutively with any preceding sentence.\nWould that work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3217.513, 3235.334], "stop_times": [3235.334, 3237.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.513}, "reply_to": "20138__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_098", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "That's true, Your Honor, if the court... but if 924(c)(1) is to be applied practically, then I think that what would happen, you'd have to have a prison time for 924(c)(1), and then for the remaining underlying offense the court still would have discretion to grant a downward departure to probation.\nIt would be impossible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3237.167, 3258.141], "stop_times": [3258.141, 3259.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3237.167}, "reply_to": "20138__1_097", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_099", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Well, just run it... if he doesn't want to, say run the 920... run the substantive Federal crime other than the 924(c) consecutively with the State crime.\nDo that, and then when they're finished that, run this 5 years.\nThat would seem... I mean, I'm looking for a flaw in that.\nThat would seem to solve the problem that you raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3259.571, 3268.607, 3273.9, 3278.634], "stop_times": [3268.607, 3273.9, 3278.634, 3281.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.571}, "reply_to": "20138__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_100", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--Your Honor, I think the flaw is, Your Honor, is that clearly 924(c)(1) does require a prison sentence.\nAny other underlying offense may or may not require a prison sentence.\nIt would be impossible, or at least impractical for a court to grant someone supervised release and they serve that sentence and then 4 years later they begin a 924(c)(1) sentence.\nThe court would not do that.\nWhat the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3281.305, 3286.849, 3290.511, 3302.08, 3303.57], "stop_times": [3286.849, 3290.511, 3302.08, 3303.57, 3304.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.305}, "reply_to": "20138__1_099", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_101", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "The supervised release would have to take... they'd have to split the supervised release from the first part, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3304.451], "stop_times": [3309.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.451}, "reply_to": "20138__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_102", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3309.062, 3309.333], "stop_times": [3309.333, 3309.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3309.062}, "reply_to": "20138__1_101", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_103", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But I guess you could do that.\nWhy couldn't you... would that require a departure?\nI'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3309.803, 3310.454, 3312.025], "stop_times": [3310.454, 3312.025, 3313.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3309.803}, "reply_to": "20138__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_104", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I think it would require some kind of downward departure for the underlying offense, Your Honor, but I can't imagine a court giving someone supervised release, they serve a supervised release for 4 years--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3313.827], "stop_times": [3324.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3313.827}, "reply_to": "20138__1_103", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_105", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "No, no, I agree with that, absolutely.\nWhat you'd have to do is the other stuff comes first, consecutively, then the 5 years, then supervised release insofar as it's appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3324.102, 3325.484], "stop_times": [3325.484, 3332.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.102}, "reply_to": "20138__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_106", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3332.059], "stop_times": [3332.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3332.059}, "reply_to": "20138__1_105", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_107", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "But I think that would work.\nI can't think of anything that stands in the way of that, off-hand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3332.637, 3333.599], "stop_times": [3333.599, 3339.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.637}, "reply_to": "20138__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20138__1_108", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "I guess, Your Honor, I guess the concern is... my time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3339.684], "stop_times": [3345.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3339.684}, "reply_to": "20138__1_107", "speaker": "edward_o_bustamante"}
{"id": "20138__1_109", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Bustamante.\nMr. Estrada, you have a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3345.367, 3346.488], "stop_times": [3346.488, 3348.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.367}, "reply_to": "20138__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20138__2_000", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nUnless the Court has questions, we have nothing further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3348.64, 3351.922], "stop_times": [3351.922, 3354.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3348.64}, "reply_to": "20138__1_109", "speaker": "miguel_a_estrada"}
{"id": "20138__2_001", "conversation_id": "20138", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1605", "start_times": [3354.438], "stop_times": [3357.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3354.438}, "reply_to": "20138__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__0_000", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-667, United States v. Hyde.\nIn this case, Justice Kennedy is unable to participate in the oral argument.\nHe will, however, hear the tapes of oral argument and participate in the disposition of the case.\nMr. Feldman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [0.0, 8.808, 82.674, 87.959], "stop_times": [8.808, 82.674, 87.959, 89.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__0_001", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case arises from respondent's attempt to withdraw from his guilty plea.\nPursuant to a plea agreement in which the Government agreed to drop certain charges against him, respondent plead guilty... pleaded guilty to mail fraud and the receipt of stolen property in four counts.\nWhen... at the Rule 11 plea proceeding, the district court ascertained that respondent knew the nature of the charges that were brought against him, that he knew of the rights that he would be waiving by pleading guilty, that he knew the maximum sentence that he could face, that the court also ascertained that his guilty plea was entirely voluntary and uncoerced, and the court ascertained the facts of the crime as narrated both by respondent and as narrated by the prosecutor, and then he found out... he ascertained that the respondent agreed with the prosecutor's account.\nThe court stated at that point, after having gone through that proceeding, that it would... that it accepted the guilty plea and that it would defer the decision about whether to accept or reject the plea agreement.\nOne month later, respondent attempted to withdraw from his guilty plea.\nThe court, the district court refused, finding that respondent had advanced no fair and just reason for doing so.\nThe court of appeals reversed that decision, holding that the respondent could withdraw from his guilty plea at will for any reason or for no reason, as the court stated, and reversed the district court.\nNow, our position is that respondent could withdraw from his guilty plea only if he had a fair and just reason for doing so under Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.\nBecause he had no fair and just reason in this case, the district court properly declined to permit him to withdraw.\nPermitting the withdrawal of an accepted guilty plea at the free option of the defendant is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.\nRule 32(e) provides that before sentence a district court may permit a defendant to withdraw from a guilty plea if he shows a fair and just reason.\nNow, the courts... courts that in... the courts that have to determine whether to accept a plea agreement ordinarily will do just what the district court did here, which is postpone a decision on the plea agreement until at or near the time of sentencing, when they've had a chance to review the presentence report.\nUnder the... and accept the guilty plea at the time of the Rule 11 hearing.\nUnder the Ninth Circuit's rule in this case, the Rule 32(e) standard, the fair and just reason standard, would have virtually no application at all.\nIt would apply only for the minutes or hours or maybe days from the time that the district court has reviewed the presentence report and can make a decision about whether to accept or reject the plea agreement and the time of sentencing, which is really no time at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [89.539, 92.311, 96.865, 107.521, 139.482, 151.62, 156.652, 163.658, 176.427, 187.093, 193.427, 203.295, 212.371, 231.221, 235.816, 245.01], "stop_times": [92.311, 96.865, 107.521, 139.482, 151.62, 156.652, 163.658, 176.427, 187.093, 193.427, 203.295, 212.371, 231.221, 235.816, 245.01, 259.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 89.539}, "reply_to": "20953__0_000", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_002", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr. Feldman, there seems to be a certain amount of interchangeability of these terms in appellate opinions, acceptance of a plea, or acceptance of a plea agreement.\nIn fact, until this case came along I don't think I had ever focused on the fact that there might be a difference in the two.\nWe tend to think of a plea as a plea agreement, and vice versa.\nHow often is it that these two are separated, the entry of a plea and a subsequent plea agreement, if you will?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [259.672, 274.61, 281.445, 285.989], "stop_times": [274.61, 281.445, 285.989, 294.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 259.672}, "reply_to": "20953__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__0_003", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I think... Your Honor, I haven't been able to get... let me put it this way.\nThey are always separate in cases... virtually always separate in cases where a district court has to make a decision on a plea agreement, which is not in all guilty plea cases but is in a great many of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [294.675, 298.909], "stop_times": [298.909, 310.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.675}, "reply_to": "20953__0_002", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_004", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, and how often is it that the district court has to separate the decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [310.056], "stop_times": [316.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.056}, "reply_to": "20953__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__0_005", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "As I said, I think it's in every case in which the Government agrees to drop certain charges in response for the defendant's... in exchange for the defendant's guilty plea, and when you have that kind of a plea agreement, under the Sentencing Guideline... under the Federal Rules of Procedure the district court is permitted to defer a decision on whether to accept that plea agreement, and under the guidelines it says that the district court is required to do so.\nIn virtually all of those cases, and I'll tell you in a minute why I say virtually... in virtually all of those cases the district court will do just what the district court did here, which is accept the guilty plea in accordance with the rules for accepting a guilty plea in Rule 11, and defer a decision on a plea agreement.\nThe only reason I say virtually all and not all is, there are two circumstances under which that won't happen in those charge-bargaining types of cases.\nOne circumstance is where the district court defers decision on whether to accept the plea itself.\nThis is a very rare occurrence, but we cited a couple of cases in our brief where it happened.\nThe district court sees the... listens to the guilty plea, thinks there may be something wrong... I'm not sure... it doesn't really explain why the district court chose to do that, but there's nothing in the Federal Rules of Procedure that requires a district court to accept a guilty plea at the time it's tendered, and so if the guilty... if the court defers decision on whether to accept it, then everything may happen at once, usually at around the time of sentencing, both the acceptance of the plea and of the plea agreement.\nThe other category of cases, which is also rare but not quite as rare as those, is cases where for some reason there was a preplea presentence report prepared.\nIn those case the district court already has the presentence report at the time the plea is... the plea colloquy occurs under Rule 11 and therefore once again the district court can take care of everything at once, and there's no period of time during... between the time of accepting the plea and a decision on whether to accept or reject the plea agreement.\nBut aside from those cases, this procedure that happened here I think is exactly by the book.\nIt's exactly what's envisioned by the Rules of Procedure, and it will happen in the majority of guilty plea cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [316.019, 339.274, 354.835, 364.171, 371.217, 375.992, 400.228, 410.156, 429.747, 435.003], "stop_times": [339.274, 354.835, 364.171, 371.217, 375.992, 400.228, 410.156, 429.747, 435.003, 439.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.019}, "reply_to": "20953__0_004", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_006", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "And if at the end of the day the judge decides not to accept the plea agreement by virtue of what the judge reads in the presentence report, the rules permit the defendant to withdraw from the plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [439.334], "stop_times": [454.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.334}, "reply_to": "20953__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__0_007", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's right.\nThe judge must at that point, under Rule... I think 11(e)(4), I believe.\nThe rule... once the judge rejects the plea agreement, at that point what... the goal is to put the parties in the same position they would have been in if nothing had happened, if none of this had happened, because the agreement can't be carried out.\nA condition subsequent to the agreement is... has now failed.\nAnd so what you would do is the same thing as you would do in ordinary contract cases when that kind of situation occurs.\nYou give the defendant the option of withdrawing his guilty plea, and the Government, of course, at that point is no longer bound to carry out any commitments it has under the plea agreement, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [454.475, 454.845, 459.267, 469.835, 473.818, 479.94], "stop_times": [454.845, 459.267, 469.835, 473.818, 479.94, 489.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 454.475}, "reply_to": "20953__0_006", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_008", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Do we take this case on the assumption that there was no fair and just reason for the withdrawal within the meaning of the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [489.407], "stop_times": [499.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.407}, "reply_to": "20953__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__0_009", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--That's right.\nThat's... that was what... the court of appeals specifically held that the defendant was permitted to withdraw for any reason or for no reason.\nThe district court held that the reasons that were advanced by the respondent were not fair and just reasons, and that hasn't been challenged in this Court, so I think that we definitely... the case definitely comes before the Court in that posture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [499.755, 500.156, 510.421], "stop_times": [500.156, 510.421, 522.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.755}, "reply_to": "20953__0_008", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_010", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr. Feldman, there's one difference.\nYour opponent argues... I don't know how significant it is... that in the scenario you give, the difference is the judge will have seen the presentence report before the trial, which normally is not desirable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [522.549, 525.32], "stop_times": [525.32, 535.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.549}, "reply_to": "20953__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20953__0_011", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Right.\nI mean, that actually will happen also in any case in which he rejects the plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [535.758, 536.928], "stop_times": [536.928, 542.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.758}, "reply_to": "20953__0_010", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_012", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [542.103], "stop_times": [542.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.103}, "reply_to": "20953__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20953__0_013", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I mean, that's contemplated by the rules that that's going to happen.\nIf it looks as if there's likely to be some prejudice that might result from that, the judge could... can recuse himself if the case ends up going to trial.\nIn fact, it is rare that judges reject the agreements.\nUsually those are the agreements of the parties.\nThey're subject to a number of constraints and just don't ordinarily reject them, but that is something that could happen, and that would have to be taken care of that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [542.921, 545.233, 552.799, 557.261, 558.843], "stop_times": [545.233, 552.799, 557.261, 558.843, 568.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.921}, "reply_to": "20953__0_012", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_014", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "How does it work with the Government?\nThat is... I understand... let's... in the case of a (B) agreement this is irrelevant really.\nI see that.\nLet's imagine it's a (C), which is pretty rare, but it's clearer conceptually.\nAll right, you say judge, the defendant and I have agreed that it's going to be 5 years.\nThe defendant says I like that.\nI plead guilty.\nI'm the judge.\nI say, I'm going to get the presentence report.\nSo I go read it, and I then, having read it, I say it's okay with me.\nEverybody's bound.\nOr I might say, no, I want to give him 10 years, in which case the defendant can go and withdraw and go... I understand that.\nBetween those two times of him having pled, I'm guilty, and me, the judge, having read the report, suppose the Government says, we don't want to go through with this deal.\nNobody's told us in the briefs that obvious question, and you would think what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.\nWhat you're saying is that during those periods of time the defendant, if he wants to get out of this deal before I can say I accept it, the defendant has to show some cause.\nWell, I assume absolutely the same is true of the Government, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [568.53, 570.881, 577.035, 578.487, 583.521, 590.926, 593.657, 595.137, 596.549, 598.61, 602.513, 603.963, 611.79, 624.436, 631.993, 645.289], "stop_times": [570.881, 577.035, 578.487, 583.521, 590.926, 593.657, 595.137, 596.549, 598.61, 602.513, 603.963, 611.79, 624.436, 631.993, 645.289, 648.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.53}, "reply_to": "20953__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_015", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I would agree, and actually I think respondent in his brief agrees that the Government would be free to withdraw during that period of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [648.873], "stop_times": [655.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 648.873}, "reply_to": "20953__0_014", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_016", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Oh, wait... the opposite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [655.608], "stop_times": [657.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.608}, "reply_to": "20953__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_017", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [657.128], "stop_times": [657.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 657.128}, "reply_to": "20953__0_016", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_018", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Oh, I... yes, but your position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [657.899], "stop_times": [659.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.899}, "reply_to": "20953__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_019", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "And we also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [659.512], "stop_times": [659.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.512}, "reply_to": "20953__0_018", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_020", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--is the Government is not free to withdraw during that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [659.719], "stop_times": [662.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.719}, "reply_to": "20953__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_021", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Our position is that neither party is free to withdraw--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [662.811], "stop_times": [665.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.811}, "reply_to": "20953__0_020", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_022", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Okay.\nI just want to be sure... I just want to be sure it works both ways.\nWhat is it in the rules that prevents the Government from withdrawing during that period of time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [665.704, 666.245, 669.367], "stop_times": [666.245, 669.367, 674.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.704}, "reply_to": "20953__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_023", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--I don't think there's any thing in the rules... there certainly is nothing in the rules that addresses the Government's attempt to with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [674.198], "stop_times": [679.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.198}, "reply_to": "20953__0_022", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_024", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "So why shouldn't the Government be free to withdraw if there's nothing in the rules that addresses it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [679.684], "stop_times": [684.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.684}, "reply_to": "20953__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__0_025", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--I think it's really just based on the contract analogy of plea-bargaining that the Court has referred to a number of times and the rule in Santabello that the Government does have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [684.976], "stop_times": [692.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.976}, "reply_to": "20953__0_024", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_026", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Santabello wasn't a Federal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [692.57], "stop_times": [695.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.57}, "reply_to": "20953__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__0_027", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--That's correct, but generally the Government does have to fulfill the undertakings that it assumes in connection with a plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [695.333], "stop_times": [703.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.333}, "reply_to": "20953__0_026", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_028", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Why is it a contract analogy?\nWhy isn't it just a contract?\nThere's consideration on both sides, it seems to me.\nThe Government's made a promise.\nThe defendant's made a promise.\nAnd if you're right about the fact that this guilty plea is not withdrawable, it's detriment that can't be undone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [703.109, 704.179, 705.421, 707.321, 708.363, 710.213], "stop_times": [704.179, 705.421, 707.321, 708.363, 710.213, 715.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.109}, "reply_to": "20953__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20953__0_029", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I think... yes, and I think in fact even aside from whether there's detriment or not there's been an exchange of promises on both sides, and I think it's just as binding on both sides but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [715.896], "stop_times": [724.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.896}, "reply_to": "20953__0_028", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_030", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It seems to me you're overlooking one thing.\nThe defendant can withdraw with fair and just reason to do so.\nWhy couldn't the Government come in and say, we have a fair and just reason.\nWe found out this guy's much worse than we thought he was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [724.513, 726.104, 730.378, 733.797], "stop_times": [726.104, 730.378, 733.797, 736.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.513}, "reply_to": "20953__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20953__0_031", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--I think generally the Government's... I tell you, things work out... I think things work out a little bit differently.\nThat's a possible position, and of course that's not raised by this case and the Government rarely does attempt to withdraw from plea agreements, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [736.06, 741.904], "stop_times": [741.904, 748.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.06}, "reply_to": "20953__0_030", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_032", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But all I'm suggesting is if it's an equal balance, both rights are the same, the Government does have some right to withdraw, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [748.479], "stop_times": [754.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.479}, "reply_to": "20953__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20953__0_033", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--The Government may be able to withdraw under those circumstances.\nI think a better way to look at that kind of a case, though, is where there's been a charge-bargain plea agreement the district court, at the time when it's called upon to accept the agreement or not, is supposed to look and see whether the charges that remain are commensurate with what the defendant did, whether this agreement is in the public interest.\nSo a better way to look at I think what happens in those kinds of cases would be that the district court would reject the plea agreement and, indeed, the Government might point out to the district court reasons why it should reject the plea agreement, but if the district court doesn't... and it's really up to the district court.\nIf the district court disagrees and says, you know, this seems like a perfectly... there's nothing that contravenes public policy, or the interests of the public, or the application of the guidelines in this plea agreement, then the district court will hold both parties to it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [754.67, 756.843, 773.734, 787.563], "stop_times": [756.843, 773.734, 787.563, 800.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.67}, "reply_to": "20953__0_032", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_034", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I'm a little puzzled as to your position.\nAre you saying that at the time when the judge makes his ruling on whether to accept it or not the Government is... open to the Government to argue you should reject this agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [800.712, 803.003], "stop_times": [803.003, 810.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.712}, "reply_to": "20953__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20953__0_035", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--No.\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [810.987, 811.608], "stop_times": [811.608, 812.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.987}, "reply_to": "20953__0_034", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_036", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Because I thought you suggested--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [812.369], "stop_times": [814.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.369}, "reply_to": "20953__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20953__0_037", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I think what the Government is... I think the Government has always an obligation to the court to be frank, and to bring to the court any facts that may have come to its attention that maybe it didn't even know before.\nNow, plea agreements come in many different shapes, and some of them do limit the kinds of things... the Government makes commitments about the kinds of things it will say to the district court.\nIt won't oppose a certain sentence, or it won't comment on this or that, and whether the Government's comments at that point might be a breach of the agreement is really another question.\nIt depends on what the agreement says.\nThere may be an agreement where it's not at all, where the Government says, we will bring to the court, and we're not committing ourselves to telling the court anything in particular.\nBut in any event, whatever the Government agreed to I think it always has an obligation to the court to inform it of the relevant facts that the court should know in order to pass its judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [814.61, 826.048, 833.364, 843.178, 844.219, 853.546], "stop_times": [826.048, 833.364, 843.178, 844.219, 853.546, 863.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.61}, "reply_to": "20953__0_036", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_038", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Can you go back for a second to Justice O'Connor's question, because this is another point I'm not certain about from the briefs, and from having read this.\nImagine we're in an (A) type bargain.\nThat's a charge bargain.\nInitially there weren't supposed to be very many of those, because it wasn't supposed to make a difference to the sentence, but I guess for it to make a difference to the sentence you have to be in a drug case, what, where there's a mandatory minimum, or where you're going to a telephone count from a possession, so there are some where it makes a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [863.682, 870.818, 873.469, 874.971], "stop_times": [870.818, 873.469, 874.971, 892.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.682}, "reply_to": "20953__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_039", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [892.362], "stop_times": [893.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.362}, "reply_to": "20953__0_038", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_040", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Okay.\nSo we're in one of those circumstances.\nNow, you, the Government, say the defendant is pleading to a telephone count.\nDo you do that, defendant?\nYes.\nNow time passes, and I'm the judge, and I've read the presentence report.\nI say, I don't accept it.\nWhat does that mean?\nWhat does that mean, I don't accept it.\nHe's pleaded guilty.\nDoes it mean you're free to reinstate the indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [893.053, 893.592, 895.725, 901.318, 903.148, 903.789, 908.382, 912.735, 914.056, 917.598, 918.88], "stop_times": [893.592, 895.725, 901.318, 903.148, 903.789, 908.382, 912.735, 914.056, 917.598, 918.88, 921.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.053}, "reply_to": "20953__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_041", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I think it contemplates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [921.65], "stop_times": [922.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.65}, "reply_to": "20953__0_040", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_042", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Now, if you decide we're not going to reinstate the indictment, that's your decision.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [922.78, 926.904], "stop_times": [926.904, 927.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.78}, "reply_to": "20953__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_043", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--The... actually, the one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [927.735], "stop_times": [928.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.735}, "reply_to": "20953__0_042", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_044", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "So you can make me take the telephone count by changing the indictment and going... can't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [928.804], "stop_times": [934.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.804}, "reply_to": "20953__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_045", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--I guess ordinarily the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [934.07], "stop_times": [935.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.07}, "reply_to": "20953__0_044", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_046", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [935.619], "stop_times": [936.08], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 935.619}, "reply_to": "20953__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20953__0_047", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--dismissal of the indict... of the charges doesn't occur until after sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [936.08], "stop_times": [939.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.08}, "reply_to": "20953__0_046", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_048", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [939.373], "stop_times": [939.813], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 939.373}, "reply_to": "20953__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20953__0_049", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "So ordinarily the charges are still there at the time the judge may reject the plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [939.813], "stop_times": [944.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.813}, "reply_to": "20953__0_048", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_050", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Right.\nSo Cordova's wrong.\nThat Ninth Circuit case is wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [944.005, 944.306, 945.237], "stop_times": [944.306, 945.237, 946.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.005}, "reply_to": "20953__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_051", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "No.\nCordova is... I don't think Cordova is wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [946.777, 947.257], "stop_times": [947.257, 949.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.777}, "reply_to": "20953__0_050", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_052", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [949.478], "stop_times": [949.869], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 949.478}, "reply_to": "20953__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20953__0_053", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Cordova's reasoning, I think, is wrong, but the result--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [949.869], "stop_times": [952.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.869}, "reply_to": "20953__0_052", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_054", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "The reasoning is wrong because it said they could force the defendant to change.\nThey can't force the defendant to change.\nThe correct thing to say is, defendant, if you want to plead guilty to the telephone count, fine.\nThat's your business.\nBut the Government's free to go ahead and indict you to the possession with intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [952.33, 956.054, 957.606, 962.931, 963.601], "stop_times": [956.054, 957.606, 962.931, 963.601, 967.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.33}, "reply_to": "20953__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_055", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--That's exactly our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [967.904], "stop_times": [969.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.904}, "reply_to": "20953__0_054", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_056", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's the position.\nOkay.\nThank you... thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [969.414, 969.915, 970.435], "stop_times": [969.915, 970.435, 971.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.414}, "reply_to": "20953__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20953__0_057", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Not to indict, but to continue to trial on the charges that were already--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [971.857], "stop_times": [973.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.857}, "reply_to": "20953__0_056", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_058", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [973.637], "stop_times": [974.348], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 973.637}, "reply_to": "20953__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20953__0_059", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Under which you're already indicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [974.348], "stop_times": [976.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 974.348}, "reply_to": "20953__0_058", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_060", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Well, what happens, Mr. Feldman, if the Government decides under a type (A) move for dismissal of other charges that it no longer wants to go through with that?\nThe defendant has pleaded guilty but the trial court hasn't accepted the plea, and so it simply either refuses to dismiss or recharges.\nWhat can the court do about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [976.95, 986.837, 997.382], "stop_times": [986.837, 997.382, 999.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.95}, "reply_to": "20953__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__0_061", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Our position is the Government under... the court under appropriate circumstances I think could order specific performance of that promise.\nIt would really depend--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [999.575, 1006.29], "stop_times": [1006.29, 1007.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.575}, "reply_to": "20953__0_060", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_062", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "And what... do you have any judicial authority for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1007.291], "stop_times": [1009.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.291}, "reply_to": "20953__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__0_063", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Well, the authority I would have is just the cases where some problem has arisen after a plea bargain where the Government has breached a plea agreement, and where the Government does that, generally... in fact, I think this was true in Santabello itself, but it's also been true in the way the courts of appeals have dealt with Federal cases, that the case goes back for a determination of what the appropriate remedy might be.\nIt might be permitting the defendant to withdraw from his end of the bargain, and withdraw the plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1009.753, 1033.367], "stop_times": [1033.367, 1038.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.753}, "reply_to": "20953__0_062", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_064", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes.\nThat would presumably be a just reason under the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1038.56, 1039.04], "stop_times": [1039.04, 1040.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.56}, "reply_to": "20953__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__0_065", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Right, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1040.972], "stop_times": [1041.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.972}, "reply_to": "20953__0_064", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_066", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But you're arguing for so much here that the rules simply don't address.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1041.763], "stop_times": [1045.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.763}, "reply_to": "20953__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__0_067", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--It's true the rules don't address it, and I think you fill in the background of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1045.496], "stop_times": [1049.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1045.496}, "reply_to": "20953__0_066", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_068", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Will they, Mr. Feldman?\nThe Rules Advisory Committee in October instructed the Reporter to propose amendments to Rule 11 in response to this very case and another one.\nHas there been any proposal, proposed revision of Rule 11?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1049.758, 1050.389, 1063.999], "stop_times": [1050.389, 1063.999, 1068.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.758}, "reply_to": "20953__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__0_069", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Not yet, and I really don't know... actually that was going to happen this month.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1068.601], "stop_times": [1073.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1068.601}, "reply_to": "20953__0_068", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_070", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It was supposed to happen in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1073.383], "stop_times": [1074.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.383}, "reply_to": "20953__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__0_071", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "He was supposed to report back this month.\nI don't know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1074.234, 1075.296], "stop_times": [1075.296, 1075.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.234}, "reply_to": "20953__0_070", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_072", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--I think it was earlier in this... I think it was around April 8 the Reporter was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1075.916], "stop_times": [1081.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.916}, "reply_to": "20953__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__0_073", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--I honestly am not aware of what's actually become of that.\nIt's possible that after this Court granted cert that... whether he continued to work on that or not, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1081.54, 1085.181], "stop_times": [1085.181, 1092.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.54}, "reply_to": "20953__0_072", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_074", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--So you don't know whether any of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1092.107], "stop_times": [1094.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.107}, "reply_to": "20953__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__0_075", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But it's our position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1094.307], "stop_times": [1094.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.307}, "reply_to": "20953__0_074", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_076", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--questions that the Chief has raised have been addressed in the proposed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1094.698], "stop_times": [1097.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.698}, "reply_to": "20953__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__0_077", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--I don't know, but I'd like to say I may be mentioning a number of things that aren't in the rules, because you do use contract, the law of contract to kind of fill in the gaps in plea bargaining.\nBut the basic result in this case, I think, is determined by the rules, because if I said under the Ninth Circuit's rule... first of all under Rule 32(e) the fair and just reason business would have been really entirely illusory.\nIt would apply for a matter of a few minutes.\nAnd it's obvious if you look at that rule itself and the purposes behind it and what the advisory committee said when it added that in 1983, that was a rule... that was an important step.\nIt was intended to bolster the respect and the dignity of plea proceedings.\nPlea proceedings are governed by Rule 11, which has in (A), (B), (C), and (D) of that rule has extensive provisions about exactly how a plea has to be taken, all the steps the judge has to take, which, in fact, the judge took here, and that once the defendant has gone through all of that, nobody should have the illusion that they're just free to walk away from it with no consequences at all, especially if they don't have a fair and just reason to do so.\nIt's also our position that Rule 11 itself dictates this result in the circumstances of this case.\nRule 11 in (A), (B), (C), and (D), talks about the plea and about accepting the plea.\nIt doesn't, I don't think, mention the plea agreement, or if it does it talks about plea agreements.\nIt's quite clear it's talking about pleas.\nIt gets to (E), which is entitled Plea Agreement Procedure, and (E) was the provision that was added to deal with plea agreements, and the rule makes perfect sense and is perfectly consistent in its very precise differentiation between those provisions that have to do with acceptance of a guilty plea, which has to do with the defendant's confession in open court as to what he did, and those provisions that have to do with the plea agreement, which is an entirely different question, which has to do with the nature of the bargain and is treated in the (E) provision.\nAnd indeed, in Rule 11(e)(4), the provision that we... that was mentioned earlier, where it says that the court... that if the court rejects the plea agreement the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea, the whole notion there that the defendant can withdraw the plea I think has as its underlying assumption that there's been a valid, binding plea entered at that point, and there has been.\nSo I think the result that we're urging here is dictated by the Federal rules.\nI also think the result we're urging here is dictated by the law of contracts.\nI think this is a fairly straightforward situation of a contract involving an exchange of a performance by the defendant for a promise by the Government to do something later, subject to a later condition, and everybody's bound to that unless the condition... once the plea is accepted... once the plea is accepted by the district court, unless the later condition doesn't occur.\nI think that if there... under the Ninth Circuit's rule there would be a great deal of instability ejected into the plea-bargaining process.\nA defendant at any time during the several months that it takes to prepare the presentence report can just say, I changed my mind.\nI don't want to go ahead and do this.\nAt that point, everything stops.\nWell, that is a process that's at the unilateral whim of the defendant that's open to manipulation.\nIt's open to a defendant who wants to obtain severance from codefendants to plead guilty and then just change his mind later.\nIt's open to the possibility that a defendant who's just trying to delay an inevitable imprisonment could do that.\nIt's even open to a defendant who sees that the Government... in this case, for example, the guilty plea was taken at the morning of trial, which is not at all uncommon.\nOnce... you see that the Government has assembled all of its witnesses once.\nA couple of months later there may be some witnesses who are unavailable.\nThere may be witnesses who are no longer in the jurisdiction, or even, in a sufficiently extreme case, a defendant might take steps to see to it that those things happen.\nAll of those things can happen if you give the defendant this free window of several months after the plea to just change his mind, and I think if the advisory committee had proposed that kind of a rule, I think it clearly would have been rejected because of the instability it lends to the process.\nAnother consequence it can have is that the preparation of the presentence report itself ordinarily requires the cooperation of both the defendant and the Government.\nNow, presumably if both parties are free to just withdraw at whim during this period between the guilty plea proceedings and the... basically and sentencing, it would be... it's very hard for the parties to lend the kind of cooperation to the probation officer that they would have to do, since neither is sure that the information that they're providing wouldn't ultimately be... they're now revealing it to a party who could easily, at that party's own whim, become the opposing party at a trial, and I think it would make preparation of those reports very difficult.\nAnd again, in this case, in fact, the preparation of the presentence report was delayed while all of this... proceedings were going on in the district court, because respondent wasn't cooperating with the probation officer during that period.\nFinally, I think that it's inconsistent with the dignity and respect that judicial proceedings should have that a formal Rule 11 proceeding in open court should have... should basically be able to be rendered a nullity by the defendant's unilateral action.\nA defendant... if you read... I think it's worth looking at the plea proceeding here, which is in the joint appendix, and it was all gone through very carefully with the defendant.\nHe knew what he was doing.\nHe knew the nature of the charges and the possible sentence, and all... he shouldn't be able to walk out of the courtroom and then say, well, I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to plead guilty.\nIt's true I just, under oath, told the court about the facts of the case.\nI confessed, I went through all this, but I may change my mind and I'll make up my mind in a couple of months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1097.66, 1107.386, 1119.855, 1122.316, 1131.092, 1136.356, 1160.962, 1166.866, 1173.271, 1177.542, 1180.424, 1208.994, 1233.088, 1236.901, 1240.073, 1262.088, 1269.793, 1277.757, 1279.84, 1282.271, 1289.295, 1295.369, 1301.764, 1311.6, 1315.323, 1318.614, 1328.551, 1345.161, 1355.078, 1387.058, 1399.507, 1416.959, 1425.443, 1426.665, 1437.231, 1440.634], "stop_times": [1107.386, 1119.855, 1122.316, 1131.092, 1136.356, 1160.962, 1166.866, 1173.271, 1177.542, 1180.424, 1208.994, 1233.088, 1236.901, 1240.073, 1262.088, 1269.793, 1277.757, 1279.84, 1282.271, 1289.295, 1295.369, 1301.764, 1311.6, 1315.323, 1318.614, 1328.551, 1345.161, 1355.078, 1387.058, 1399.507, 1416.959, 1425.443, 1426.665, 1437.231, 1440.634, 1445.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.66}, "reply_to": "20953__0_076", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_078", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Mr. Feldman, do you happen to know off the top of your head what percentage of convictions in the Federal system are on guilty pleas and how many after trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1445.416], "stop_times": [1453.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.416}, "reply_to": "20953__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20953__0_079", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It's in the 90-percent range.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1453.874], "stop_times": [1455.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.874}, "reply_to": "20953__0_078", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_080", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It's over 90 percent still, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1455.424], "stop_times": [1457.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.424}, "reply_to": "20953__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20953__0_081", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It's in that range.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1457.124], "stop_times": [1458.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1457.124}, "reply_to": "20953__0_080", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_082", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1458.085], "stop_times": [1458.576], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.085}, "reply_to": "20953__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20953__0_083", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "If there are no further questions, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1458.576], "stop_times": [1463.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1458.576}, "reply_to": "20953__0_082", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__0_084", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Very well, Mr. Feldman.\nMr. Soglin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1463.188, 1464.56], "stop_times": [1464.56, 1465.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1463.188}, "reply_to": "20953__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__1_000", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe determinative question in this case is whether the district court can accept a guilty plea before it approves the plea agreement upon which it depends.\nIn this case and in its earlier suit in Cordova-Perez, the court of appeals correctly recognized that a plea and a plea agreement are so inextricably bound up together that deferral of acceptance of one carries with it the deferral of acceptance of the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1465.872, 1481.483, 1490.668], "stop_times": [1481.483, 1490.668, 1505.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1465.872}, "reply_to": "20953__0_084", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_001", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, do you have to go against the text of Rule 11(e) to do that, to take your position, and the reason I ask the question is this.\nI'm reading... I'm actually reading from the rule as it's set out on 4a of the back of the Government's brief.\nWhereabouts, Justice Souter?\nThe first paragraph, right at... it's the carryover paragraph at the beginning.\nIf the agreement is of the charge-bargaining or the definite sentence type, the court may accept or reject the agreement, or may defer its decision until there's been an opportunity to accept the presentence report.\nIt's clear from that that the court does accept the agreement, may, and effectively may under the rule, without waiting.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1505.889, 1514.285, 1522.019, 1524.081, 1529.073, 1547.977, 1559.774], "stop_times": [1514.285, 1522.019, 1524.081, 1529.073, 1547.977, 1559.774, 1561.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.889}, "reply_to": "20953__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_002", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1561.246], "stop_times": [1561.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1561.246}, "reply_to": "20953__1_001", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_003", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Okay, and under the... in the following sentence, if the agreement is of the type specified in subdivision (B), the court may advise... shall advise the defendant that if the court does not accept the recommendation... i.e., that which is part of the agreement... the defendant nevertheless has no right to withdraw.\nSo in each of those instances, the (A), the (B), and the (C) instance, the rule provides explicitly, as I read it, for acceptance of the plea without regard to what may ultimately happen to the terms of the agreement.\nThere are, of course, further provisions in the (A) and (B) type, and there's a further provision, just cause, for the... (A) and (C) type and just cause provision for the (B) type, but the text seems to me very clear that the court may operatively accept the agreement right then and there, and isn't that inconsistent with your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1561.696, 1582.639, 1597.888], "stop_times": [1582.639, 1597.888, 1620.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.696}, "reply_to": "20953__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_004", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I don't think so.\nI think the rule permits the judge to accept the agreement at the time of the plea hearing, Rule 11 hearing, or may defer its decision until later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1620.683, 1622.896], "stop_times": [1622.896, 1633.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.683}, "reply_to": "20953__1_003", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_005", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1633.662], "stop_times": [1634.173], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.662}, "reply_to": "20953__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20953__1_006", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Whether it's going to do that is going to depend on the information available at that time, and the petitioner has argued that deferral is required in these cases, type (A) charge-bargain, or type (C) sentence stipulation agreements, such that where there's deferral in all of these cases, that in none of those cases can the judge accept the agreement earlier and thus Rule 32(e)'s fair and just standard disappears for that period of time.\nThat's not necessarily required.\nThe rules, particularly Rule 32, permits the judge in fact to sentence a defendant without a presentence report, and there's certainly authority the judge can accept the plea agreement.\nThe rules permit it without the presentence report, and at that time, if the presentence report is not needed the judge can say, I accept your plea agreement, and at that time the defendant is bound.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1634.173, 1663.963, 1665.633, 1676.632], "stop_times": [1663.963, 1665.633, 1676.632, 1689.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1634.173}, "reply_to": "20953__1_005", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_007", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, is it your point that the court has got to use the magic word, accept?\nIs that what you think the case turns on, as distinct from the rule that the Ninth Circuit employed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1689.138, 1696.214], "stop_times": [1696.214, 1703.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.138}, "reply_to": "20953__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_008", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I think what it turns on is when the judge can accept the plea, as opposed to the plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1703.227], "stop_times": [1710.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1703.227}, "reply_to": "20953__1_007", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_009", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, let me ask a different question.\nDo you defend the rule that the Ninth Circuit applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1710.973, 1712.614], "stop_times": [1712.614, 1715.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.973}, "reply_to": "20953__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_010", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1715.435], "stop_times": [1716.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1715.435}, "reply_to": "20953__1_009", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_011", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, the rule, as I understand it, applied by the Ninth Circuit was that until the final determination is made as to whether or not the terms of the plea agreement will be honored, there is, in fact, nothing binding upon the defendant, and the defendant can simply either withdraw or say, oh, well, it doesn't mean anything.\nAre you defending that position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1716.506, 1740.192], "stop_times": [1740.192, 1742.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.506}, "reply_to": "20953__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_012", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1742.073], "stop_times": [1742.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.073}, "reply_to": "20953__1_011", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_013", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "How is that position consistent with the text that we just went over from (e), which seems to me to say quite clearly that the plea can be accepted by the court even though the terms of the plea agreement may or may not be honored, and there being various consequences that follow if they are not, but the text of the rule seems very clear that the court may accept the plea, even though we don't yet know what's going to happen to the terms of the plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1742.754], "stop_times": [1778.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.754}, "reply_to": "20953__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_014", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Justice Souter, I think I would disagree that the rule says that the court could accept the plea in that section.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1778.898], "stop_times": [1786.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.898}, "reply_to": "20953__1_013", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_015", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It says, may accept or reject, in the one sentence and in the other it says, the court shall advise the defendant that if the court does not accept the recommendation or request of the defendant, the defendant nevertheless has no right to withdraw the plea.\nAren't those pretty clear indications that the court may accept the plea regardless of what happens later to the terms of the plea agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1786.532, 1803.164], "stop_times": [1803.164, 1811.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.532}, "reply_to": "20953__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_016", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Only with the type (B) agreements.\nIn the first sentence that you referred to it refers to, the court may accept or reject the agreement.\nWith type (A) and type (C) agreements... those are the charge-bargain agreements and sentencing stipulation agreements... those are the types the court may defer acceptance to the agreement.\nWith the type (B) agreements that are referred to in the second sentence, there is no moment for the judge to approve of the agreement.\nApproval of the plea carries with it approval of the agreement in a case of the type (B) sentencing recommendation agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1811.749, 1814.461, 1820.686, 1830.671, 1839.817], "stop_times": [1814.461, 1820.686, 1830.671, 1839.817, 1846.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.749}, "reply_to": "20953__1_015", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_017", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "So you would say in the (A) and (C) cases, even if the judge says in open court I accept the plea, but I will determine later on whether I will accept the agreement, and I will wait until after the sentence report, the judge's statement in that case simply is not effective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1846.943], "stop_times": [1865.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.943}, "reply_to": "20953__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_018", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It's not effective to the extent the judge purports to bind the defendant to that plea.\nIt may be effective to the extent the judge has made findings that the plea has been entered knowingly and voluntarily.\nThe judge has gone through the litany of determining whether it's knowing and voluntary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1865.446, 1871.499, 1879.985], "stop_times": [1871.499, 1879.985, 1885.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.446}, "reply_to": "20953__1_017", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_019", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr. Soglin, I thought Rule 32 had some bearing on the case, that says if a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit the plea to be withdrawn if the defendant shows any fair and just reason.\nWhy doesn't that govern what happens here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1885.027, 1903.22], "stop_times": [1903.22, 1907.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.027}, "reply_to": "20953__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__1_020", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "For a couple of reasons.\nFirst of all, the petitioner has agreed... and this is referred to in their reply brief on page 9... that that rule, that standard in Rule 32(e) only applies, or applies where there is a tendered and accepted plea.\nWe've argued that there has been no accepted plea, although the judge purported to do so.\nHer label--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1907.691, 1908.993, 1924.555, 1930.037], "stop_times": [1908.993, 1924.555, 1930.037, 1930.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.691}, "reply_to": "20953__1_019", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_021", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, the judge said he'd accepted the plea but he hasn't made a decision on the plea agreement, and the Government says there's a difference between the two.\nYou say there's no difference between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1930.708, 1941.525], "stop_times": [1941.525, 1943.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.708}, "reply_to": "20953__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__1_022", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--There's certainly a difference between a plea and an agreement.\nYou can have plea without an agreement, but my argument is that you can't accept one without the other, and this is based on the structure of Rule 11.\nThat rule was amended in 1974.\nFor the first time that rule provided that the court could do what we've just described, which is defer approval of the agreement pending review of the presentence report.\nTo make that review possible, Rule 32 was also amended to permit review of the presentence report prior to a conviction.\nRule 32 had already allowed the review of the presentence report submitted to the judge, reviewed by the judge, where there had been a finding of guilt, whether by a guilty plea or a conviction before a trial, jury trial.\nIf the judge could accept the plea but not the agreement, there would have been no need to amend Rule 32 to permit that early review of the presentence report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [1943.805, 1946.569, 1957.966, 1962.949, 1973.046, 1984.263, 2001.715], "stop_times": [1946.569, 1957.966, 1962.949, 1973.046, 1984.263, 2001.715, 2013.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.805}, "reply_to": "20953__1_021", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_023", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I mean, but you can square it a little bit with the language, but my goodness, I've never seen anything like this before, where the... I've never seen this, what the Ninth Circuit has done before.\nI thought that the basic idea of this whole procedure is that the defendant pleads guilty, the judge then calls for the presentence report, everybody gets a chance to look at it, you know, and then of course the defendant's bound if the judge accepts it.\nImagine the contrary.\nThe contrary would be the defendant would sit there, he'd say, I plead guilty, but it wouldn't mean anything.\nNow I'm going to get a really good chance to see the evidence against me.\nI'm going to, moreover, get a perfect chance to know what every witness has said.\nThis is a fabulous discovery, and I know what the prosecution will have said, and I know what my... I know everything.\nMaybe that's as it should be, but this is still something of a change, wouldn't it be, to have the total presentence report available to everybody prior to the defendant actually being bound?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2013.652, 2024.95, 2043.642, 2045.633, 2051.536, 2055.26, 2058.94, 2064.833], "stop_times": [2024.95, 2043.642, 2045.633, 2051.536, 2055.26, 2058.94, 2064.833, 2078.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.652}, "reply_to": "20953__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_024", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2078.083], "stop_times": [2079.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.083}, "reply_to": "20953__1_023", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_025", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Maybe that's a good idea.\nI don't know.\nOr maybe it's not.\nBut it would represent a considerable change, wouldn't it, in most places?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2079.286, 2080.087, 2080.697, 2082.04], "stop_times": [2080.087, 2080.697, 2082.04, 2087.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.286}, "reply_to": "20953__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_026", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--If that were the response, if the response to the decision were to produce a presentence report prior to the Rule 11 hearing, prior to the defendant being bound, that would be a change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2087.253], "stop_times": [2099.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.253}, "reply_to": "20953__1_025", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_027", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "And then why isn't that your... why doesn't your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2099.151], "stop_times": [2101.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.151}, "reply_to": "20953__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_028", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's not necessarily the response.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2101.08], "stop_times": [2101.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.08}, "reply_to": "20953__1_027", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_029", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Why isn't that the interpretation?\nWhy isn't that what would happen if we accepted your view of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2101.811, 2103.862], "stop_times": [2103.862, 2107.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.811}, "reply_to": "20953__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_030", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's one possibility.\nAnother possibility is that the district court could make its decision on whether to accept the plea without a presentence report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2107.345, 2108.828], "stop_times": [2108.828, 2115.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2107.345}, "reply_to": "20953__1_029", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_031", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Oh, well, the guidelines are very much against that, aren't they?\nI mean, it's very hard to ask a judge to do that without knowing the underlying circumstances, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2115.931, 2118.803], "stop_times": [2118.803, 2123.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.931}, "reply_to": "20953__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_032", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's correct.\nI think at the time the Rule 11 hearing is held, though, a great deal of information is known.\nPresumably the Government has investigated their case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2123.866, 2124.728, 2130.04], "stop_times": [2124.728, 2130.04, 2132.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.866}, "reply_to": "20953__1_031", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_033", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2132.073], "stop_times": [2133.443], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.073}, "reply_to": "20953__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20953__1_034", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--and produced discovery, and there's a great deal known about the seriousness of the offense.\nIn this case, Mr. Hyde is charged with eight counts of fraud.\nHe pled guilty to four counts of fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2133.443, 2136.796, 2141.749], "stop_times": [2136.796, 2141.749, 2145.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.443}, "reply_to": "20953__1_033", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_035", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "How do you feel about the opposite, because I guess if the defendant is free to withdraw, so could the Government, and now what the Government's going to do is get a really nice look not only at its own evidence but get quite a nice look at what the defendant's going to go and present to the probation officer, you know, by way of excuse, mitigation, and everything.\nThen the Government reads all that and says, oh, by the way, we changed our mind.\nI take it that would not be something you'd particularly like, but again, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.\nYou'd have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2145.411, 2167.997, 2172.429, 2178.974], "stop_times": [2167.997, 2172.429, 2178.974, 2179.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.411}, "reply_to": "20953__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_036", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I would not like it.\nI'm not sure that that's the required result.\nIf you look at it purely as two equally bargaining parties, that would be the logical result of the argument, but it's not necessarily really what you have.\nDefendants are not your true, equally or fully capably negotiating parties.\nThey're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2179.725, 2182.337, 2185.876, 2196.134, 2203.799], "stop_times": [2182.337, 2185.876, 2196.134, 2203.799, 2204.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.725}, "reply_to": "20953__1_035", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_037", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Well, how would you reason through the result you want, that if the defendant is not bound by the plea, as you say, that the Government nonetheless is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2204.419], "stop_times": [2214.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.419}, "reply_to": "20953__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__1_038", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--There are... first of all, there is no parallel provision to Rule 32(e)... or, I'm sorry, to... yes, to Rule 32(e), which allows defendant to withdraw without a fair and just reason.\nThere's no parallel provision for that for the Government.\nThere's a recognition in that that there's a little more freedom available to a defendant withdrawing than there is for the Government.\nThe Government's going to need to show some sort of breach or fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2214.748, 2227.955, 2230.907, 2237.872], "stop_times": [2227.955, 2230.907, 2237.872, 2240.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.748}, "reply_to": "20953__1_037", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_039", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, unless you say that since it says... the rule says nothing about the Government being bound, that perhaps the Government should be able to withdraw regardless of a just reason.\nThe rules simply don't address that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2240.324, 2251.791], "stop_times": [2251.791, 2254.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.324}, "reply_to": "20953__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__1_040", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Rule 32 doesn't address that squarely.\nI think there are some lower court decisions that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2254.494, 2257.055], "stop_times": [2257.055, 2259.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2254.494}, "reply_to": "20953__1_039", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_041", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, but those aren't rules, are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2259.166], "stop_times": [2261.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.166}, "reply_to": "20953__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__1_042", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--That's correct.\nWhen a defendant is offered the plea, there's been some sort of partial performance whether that's accepted by the court or not.\nThe defendant has come into court and said, I'm willing to waive some very important constitutional rights.\nAnd on top of that, defendant admits the conduct that's alleged.\nTo that extent, defendant has to some degree relied on the agreement.\nThere may not be the same sort of reliance by the Government at that stage.\nThe Government very often does not have to perform what it's promised until sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2261.317, 2261.668, 2270.764, 2275.487, 2280.031, 2285.744, 2291.237], "stop_times": [2261.668, 2270.764, 2275.487, 2280.031, 2285.744, 2291.237, 2295.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.317}, "reply_to": "20953__1_041", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_043", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, how has he relied, on your view?\nIt seems to me his reliance is absolutely free on your view, because he can withdraw, and I presume you're not conceding that anything he had said in the plea colloquy can be used against him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2295.851, 2297.792], "stop_times": [2297.792, 2309.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.851}, "reply_to": "20953__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_044", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It could be used in limited circumstances in a trial under perjury, but that's not the primary concern.\nThe petitioner has recognized--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2309.63, 2315.955], "stop_times": [2315.955, 2318.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.63}, "reply_to": "20953__1_043", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_045", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well then, he hasn't given up much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2318.476], "stop_times": [2321.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.476}, "reply_to": "20953__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_046", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Well, petitioner recognizes... this is in the reply brief in footnote 8... that such information could be used in other ways.\nEven if it can't be used at a trial, it could be used to have... let the Government think about other investigations, open the door to other avenues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2321.47, 2328.263], "stop_times": [2328.263, 2340.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.47}, "reply_to": "20953__1_045", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_047", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Deny him Government employment, perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2340.801], "stop_times": [2342.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.801}, "reply_to": "20953__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__1_048", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Perhaps.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2342.952, 2343.783], "stop_times": [2343.783, 2345.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.952}, "reply_to": "20953__1_047", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_049", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr.--\n--So your... is it your argument that what the defendant has partially performed is sort of the equivalent of what the Government would be disclosing in the presentence report, so that therefore it's perfectly fair for the defendant to be able to wait until the presentence report is in to decide whether or not he wants to withdraw his plea?\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2345.484, 2347.126, 2370.031], "stop_times": [2347.126, 2370.031, 2371.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.484}, "reply_to": "20953__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_050", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, the reason the defendant's free to withdraw is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2371.611], "stop_times": [2374.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.611}, "reply_to": "20953__1_049", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_051", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "No, but is that your argument?\nI just want to know if I'm understanding your point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2374.485, 2375.674], "stop_times": [2375.674, 2378.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.485}, "reply_to": "20953__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_052", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--That's right.\nIf you could rephrase it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2378.087, 2378.746], "stop_times": [2378.746, 2380.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.087}, "reply_to": "20953__1_051", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_053", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, the question that Justice Breyer raised was, if the defendant may withdraw at will under a rule like the Ninth Circuit rule, then the defendant can sit back and wait for a presentence report, which is in fact going to be there before the judge sentences in almost every case, and if the deal is not final by the time he reads the report, he could simply withdraw his plea.\nAnd I thought that you... and the implication being that would be a very strange system for the rules to provide, because that would give the defendant a terrific advantage in discovery, and I thought your argument was, well, the defendant is partially performing simply by standing up and going through the plea colloquy.\nThe defendant is giving the Government something which it might use as a lead to further investigation and so on, and so therefore it's perfectly fair for the defendant to get the benefit of the plea agreement if the Government gets the benefit of this partial performance, and I thought that was the ultimate point that you were making.\nIs... do I understand you correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2380.529, 2405.374, 2425.857, 2445.921], "stop_times": [2405.374, 2425.857, 2445.921, 2448.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.529}, "reply_to": "20953__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_054", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--That was the point I was making.\nI don't think that's the most fair situation.\nTruly, that is not what is presented by the facts of this case.\nThis is not something that the Court necessarily has to reach in deciding this case, whether the Government would be free to withdraw if there's been some sort of reliance by the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2448.082, 2449.644, 2454.087, 2458.328], "stop_times": [2449.644, 2454.087, 2458.328, 2468.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2448.082}, "reply_to": "20953__1_053", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_055", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr. Soglin, can I take you back to Rule 32(e)?\nWas it your assertion that the Government concedes that that only applies when... after the plea has been accepted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2468.215, 2475.592], "stop_times": [2475.592, 2489.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.215}, "reply_to": "20953__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20953__1_056", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's correct.\nThe Government is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2489.089, 2490.291], "stop_times": [2490.291, 2493.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.089}, "reply_to": "20953__1_055", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_057", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "As opposed to the plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2493.914], "stop_times": [2495.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.914}, "reply_to": "20953__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__1_058", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2495.093], "stop_times": [2495.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.093}, "reply_to": "20953__1_057", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_059", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "We're talking... now we're dealing with two separate things, a plea of guilty, and a separate plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2495.804], "stop_times": [2502.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.804}, "reply_to": "20953__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__1_060", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Yes.\nI think there are actually three things that could be meant by the term, plea of guilty.\nIt could be a defendant tendering a plea... as petitioner has stated there are circumstances that are rare where a defendant tenders a plea and the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2502.669, 2502.887, 2508.601], "stop_times": [2502.887, 2508.601, 2516.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.669}, "reply_to": "20953__1_059", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_061", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, when you say tenders a plea, does it talk about tendering a plea here?\nI mean, you plead guilty.\nYou either plead guilty or you don't plead guilty.\nI don't know whether you tender it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2516.167, 2519.659, 2520.488, 2522.371], "stop_times": [2519.659, 2520.488, 2522.371, 2524.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.167}, "reply_to": "20953__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20953__1_062", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--Where a defendant says I plead guilty is what I've been referring to as a tendered plea.\nAn accepted plea, which is what petitioner has stated is required before Rule 32(e) applies, is where the judge says I accept the plea.\nOur argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2524.011, 2527.414, 2535.849], "stop_times": [2527.414, 2535.849, 2537.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.011}, "reply_to": "20953__1_061", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_063", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "And the judge said that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2537.03], "stop_times": [2538.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.03}, "reply_to": "20953__1_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__1_064", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--The judge said that here.\nOur argument is simply that the judge did not have legal authority to do that.\nLooking at the structure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2538.531, 2540.033, 2547.116], "stop_times": [2540.033, 2547.116, 2549.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.531}, "reply_to": "20953__1_063", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_065", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But you say somehow the rules don't permit a separation of a plea of guilty and a plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2549.51], "stop_times": [2556.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.51}, "reply_to": "20953__1_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__1_066", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2556.313], "stop_times": [2558.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.313}, "reply_to": "20953__1_065", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_067", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But textually it clearly does in the one instance.\nI mean, there's an express provision that says the judge will tell him that if I don't ultimately follow the recommendation... i.e., in a (B) situation... you still can't withdraw the plea, so clearly there is an irrefutable textual basis for saying that he can accept the plea leaving the plea agreement in limbo in that circumstance, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2558.713, 2562.367], "stop_times": [2562.367, 2587.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.713}, "reply_to": "20953__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_068", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Precisely.\nI think that's not the case here.\nThis case involved charge dismissal concessions by the Government as determining the plea, such that there was a requirement the judge accept the agreement.\nWith a type (B) agreement, there's no reason for the judge to accept the agreement.\nThe judge has ultimately no... there's no limitation on the judge's sentencing discretion under a purely type (B) agreement, where the prosecution only has to make a recommendation as to the ultimate sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2587.054, 2588.075, 2590.997, 2600.424, 2604.287], "stop_times": [2588.075, 2590.997, 2600.424, 2604.287, 2617.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2587.054}, "reply_to": "20953__1_067", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_069", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But in an (A) and (C) situation the defendant has an absolute right to withdraw his plea if, in fact, the charge part of the agreement or the absolute sentence part of the agreement is not kept, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2617.596], "stop_times": [2632.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.596}, "reply_to": "20953__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_070", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "If the promise is not kept.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2632.356], "stop_times": [2634.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.356}, "reply_to": "20953__1_069", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_071", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2634.567], "stop_times": [2635.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.567}, "reply_to": "20953__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_072", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Defendant can withdraw it, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2635.777], "stop_times": [2636.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.777}, "reply_to": "20953__1_071", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_073", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "And so doesn't that imply that in those situations, too, the plea can operatively be accepted?\nOtherwise there would be no need for those provisions, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2636.458, 2645.975], "stop_times": [2645.975, 2650.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.458}, "reply_to": "20953__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_074", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "The provision for acceptance of the agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2650.266], "stop_times": [2653.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2650.266}, "reply_to": "20953__1_073", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_075", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "The provisions for withdrawal of the pleas if, in fact, the agreements are not accepted and kept.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2653.657], "stop_times": [2662.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.657}, "reply_to": "20953__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_076", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, the provision for withdrawal of the plea in Rule 32(e) doesn't describe whether it's talking about a tendered plea, an accepted plea, a plea where both the plea and the agreement have been accepted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2662.173], "stop_times": [2678.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2662.173}, "reply_to": "20953__1_075", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_077", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "And the answer to that may be, just as Justice Scalia said, a plea is a plea, and once it's there, it's operative unless, in fact, it is subject to one of these withdrawal or reexamination provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2678.265], "stop_times": [2691.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.265}, "reply_to": "20953__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20953__1_078", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Well, again, the petitioner has conceded that that's not the case, and I think the answer may be in the Mabry case of this Court, where the Court held that the agreement is not binding until accepted by the court, and in that case it was a situation where the Government had made an offer which defendant accepted.\nThe Government then attempted to withdraw.\nThe defendants sought enforcement of that offer, the withdrawn offer, and the Court said no, you hadn't... that offer had not been approved by the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2691.994, 2716.881, 2718.271], "stop_times": [2716.881, 2718.271, 2726.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.994}, "reply_to": "20953__1_077", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_079", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr. Soglin, if you look at the... or... you've witnessed Rule 11 pleas, and it was with all due solemnity, and the district judge is telling the defendant all of his rights, and the defendant pleads guilty.\nNow, one wouldn't perceive of that procedure in court as something that's tentative, so there's something that doesn't quite fit, and the rules are meticulous in instructing the judge about advising the defendant of his rights, and anyone who comes into a courtroom and sees that that's how we do justice in the United States, and... but then you say that this is just an ephemeral thing, that it's not real, that when the judge says now, knowing all that, do you plead guilty, and the defendant says yes, and the judge says I accept it, that all that is kind of make-believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2726.786, 2745.468], "stop_times": [2745.468, 2790.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.786}, "reply_to": "20953__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__1_080", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "It's not ephemeral if the judge accepts the plea agreement, which the judge has discretion to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2790.569], "stop_times": [2796.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.569}, "reply_to": "20953__1_079", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_081", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But there is no agreement at that point that the judge... the judge hasn't been presented with the agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2796.633], "stop_times": [2802.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.633}, "reply_to": "20953__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__1_082", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "No, the rules do require that the parties, when they come into the Rule 11 proceeding to advise the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2802.637], "stop_times": [2808.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.637}, "reply_to": "20953__1_081", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_083", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But he hasn't accepted it, because he's waiting for the presentence report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2808.01], "stop_times": [2810.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.01}, "reply_to": "20953__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__1_084", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--The rules permit the judge to accept it earlier.\nWith some types of agreements that's very possible.\nIn this case, the judge's sentencing authority was... could hardly be said to have been limited by the agreement.\nThere was agreement to plead to four counts of an eight-count indictment on a fraud case.\nThe maximum sentence under the charged offenses was 50 years.\nThe maximum sentence under the plea agreement was 30 years.\nUnder the rules, the guidelines which this Court recognized in Watt as recently as this year, the Court can consider nonconvicted conduct, relevant conduct, so all of that conduct that was part of this... these counts can be considered at sentencing.\nThe judge's sentencing authority was not limited in any respect by the plea agreement, so the judge could accept that agreement without at all limiting his or her sentencing authority without waiting for the presentence report, and that may be the case in many, many cases.\nIf there are cases where there is reason to think that his sentencing discretion is going to be limited in some way, where there is a mandatory minimum sentence that might be eliminated, or where there's a very low maximum sentence in the charged or the pleaded-to agreement or count, that there would be significant limits on the judge's sentencing authority.\nIn those cases the judge would want to see... may want to see the presentence report.\nIt's possible to have that presentence report prepared earlier.\nThe rules specifically provide for that.\nAnd as Judge Stafford, the chief judge of the Northern District of Florida stated in an article, most of the information needed is available at that time, at the time of the plea hearing, even without a presentence report, so there are many instances when that could be accepted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2810.742, 2813.474, 2816.665, 2822.088, 2828.353, 2834.257, 2838.831, 2856.72, 2876.585, 2900.999, 2905.102, 2907.604, 2909.965], "stop_times": [2813.474, 2816.665, 2822.088, 2828.353, 2834.257, 2838.831, 2856.72, 2876.585, 2900.999, 2905.102, 2907.604, 2909.965, 2930.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.742}, "reply_to": "20953__1_083", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_085", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "But the guidelines say that the judge really should wait, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2930.592], "stop_times": [2934.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2930.592}, "reply_to": "20953__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20953__1_086", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2934.092], "stop_times": [2935.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2934.092}, "reply_to": "20953__1_085", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_087", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "He should get the presentence report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2935.054], "stop_times": [2936.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.054}, "reply_to": "20953__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20953__1_088", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "The guidelines do.\nThe guidelines use mandatory language.\nThe rules use permissive language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2936.622, 2938.605, 2941.367], "stop_times": [2938.605, 2941.367, 2944.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2936.622}, "reply_to": "20953__1_087", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_089", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2944.088], "stop_times": [2944.559], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.088}, "reply_to": "20953__1_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20953__1_090", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I think that this is something... Rule 32, which talks about use of the presentence report for sentencing as opposed to acceptance of the plea agreement, recognizes you don't always need the presentence report.\nThe judge can rely on the record if the judge states on the record that they find sufficient information on the record to sentence.\nThe same thing would apply with a plea agreement the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2944.559, 2957.337, 2966.233], "stop_times": [2957.337, 2966.233, 2972.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.559}, "reply_to": "20953__1_089", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_091", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Mr. Soglin, you mentioned a law review commentary about what is being done, and whether you need a presentence report.\nDo you know... I'm asking you the question I asked Mr. Feldman... since the Rules Advisory Committee were alerted to the problem by the very case that we're reviewing, and were going to take a look at Rule 11 to see if they should make some proposed alterations, do you know what kinds of alterations, or do you know anything more than Mr. Feldman did about where that sits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [2972.367, 2981.052], "stop_times": [2981.052, 3010.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.367}, "reply_to": "20953__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20953__1_092", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--I do not know whether they're taking any action.\nI attempted to find out a couple of weeks ago.\nI learned that the next meeting had not been held yet.\nThat will be coming up, I believe it was April 8.\nIf I'm able to obtain that there is something that the Rules Committee is taking up with that, I will certainly, with the Court's permission, lodge that with the Court after the hearing, but that does raise the question that, can this be dealt with in some other way.\nIf the rule has not addressed the situation, if the guidelines have in some way increased the frequency with which judges defer approval of the agreement by using mandatory language, perhaps the way to resolve the conflict is to have the Sentencing Commission take another look at this, the Sentencing Commission or the Rules Committee through the rules amendment proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3010.572, 3013.216, 3017.427, 3019.627, 3023.34, 3045.296], "stop_times": [3013.216, 3017.427, 3019.627, 3023.34, 3045.296, 3072.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3010.572}, "reply_to": "20953__1_091", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_093", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Oh, but that's not a possible disposition.\nI mean we can affirm or we will reverse.\nWe can't say the Sentencing Commission should take another look.\nWe have to decide this one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3072.261, 3075.353, 3077.346, 3080.539], "stop_times": [3075.353, 3077.346, 3080.539, 3083.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.261}, "reply_to": "20953__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__1_094", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Or... well, I mean, the other option would be a dismissal, a finding that certiorari had been improvidently granted on the ground that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3083.461], "stop_times": [3092.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3083.461}, "reply_to": "20953__1_093", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_095", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Or a reversal because we don't agree with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3092.747], "stop_times": [3095.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.747}, "reply_to": "20953__1_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20953__1_096", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--That's their losses.\n[Laughter]\nI just want to address for a moment some of the floodgates arguments that the Government has made.\nAs I stated, this is not... does not apply to all agreements.\nThere are agreements that don't even fall under the types addressed by the rules.\nThere are cooperation agreements that are not described in the rules.\nThose do not require a deferral of acceptance of agreements, so there are many agreements where the judge can accept the agreement at the plea hearing.\nThere are also many disincentives for a defendant to back out of an agreement the way the Government has suggested will happen frequently, or to use it for delay.\nDefendants want speedy trials.\nThere are... of course, of course the Speedy Trial Act reflects that there are... is an interest for defendants to have quick resolution of these cases.\nIf a defendant does seek to withdraw, and the Government thinks this is for delay or it obstructs justice in some way, that defendant upon going to trial will get... will lose acceptance of responsibility reduction, which is a three-level reduction in sentence, a two or three-level reduction in sentence, sentencing levels.\nThey could also face an enhancement for obstruction of justice under the guidelines, or a separate prosecution for obstruction of justice if they are using this somehow to manipulate or to delay the proceedings so that Government witnesses are lost.\nThe reality is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3095.659, 3098.541, 3099.43, 3107.764, 3112.368, 3117.962, 3120.613, 3127.289, 3139.107, 3141.698, 3150.443, 3173.328, 3188.748], "stop_times": [3098.541, 3099.43, 3107.764, 3112.368, 3117.962, 3120.613, 3127.289, 3139.107, 3141.698, 3150.443, 3173.328, 3188.748, 3190.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.659}, "reply_to": "20953__1_095", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_097", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "The reality is that will never happen.\nThey're... you're not even... even perjury prosecutions for obstruction of justice are pretty rare.\nThis won't happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3190.238, 3192.411, 3199.094], "stop_times": [3192.411, 3199.094, 3200.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3190.238}, "reply_to": "20953__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20953__1_098", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "--They are rare.\nIt is possible, and I would rely more on the loss of acceptance of responsibility, which is... very often could be what motivates the defendant to plead, is that reduction, which can be significant, up to 20 percent, 30 percent reduction in sentence, which they're not going to get if they go to trial.\nThat's a tremendous deterrent in defendants withdrawing from these pleas.\nThe... finally, the... it's been mentioned earlier that the rate of conviction by plea agreements, by guilty pleas is 90 percent, or has been over 90 percent.\nIt has been that high for quite a bit of time, since... at least since the 1960's, and we cited some reference to statistics like that, so there are... there's a great deal of stability in guilty pleas.\nThere is... if something significant has been offered to defendant they're going to plead guilty and they're going to stick with that plea.\nIt's going to be a rare defendant who's going to want to back out of that.\nIt's... a point of emphasis.\nThe question here is, truly, can the court do what it purported to do in this case, which was accept the guilty plea at the time that it did.\nThe rules, the structure of the rules show that they cannot.\nIn that situation, Rule 32(e) does not apply, and the defendant is free to withdraw.\nIf the Court has no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3200.726, 3201.307, 3216.147, 3221.15, 3242.504, 3255.764, 3263.108, 3265.449, 3270.655, 3278.209, 3280.94, 3289.107], "stop_times": [3201.307, 3216.147, 3221.15, 3242.504, 3255.764, 3263.108, 3265.449, 3270.655, 3278.209, 3280.94, 3289.107, 3291.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3200.726}, "reply_to": "20953__1_097", "speaker": "jonathan_d_soglin"}
{"id": "20953__1_099", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Soglin.\nMr. Feldman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3291.808, 3294.139], "stop_times": [3294.139, 3295.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.808}, "reply_to": "20953__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20953__2_000", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I just had one point I wanted to make.\nFor purposes of this case... this is in response to Justice Scalia's question... we have accepted that it's the... that at least at the latest time when the district court accepts the plea the parties are bound.\nNow, whether at some earlier point the parties may be bound or not is really not something that arises here, because it was done so carefully in this case, and that... we've said that in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3295.159, 3298.27, 3310.919], "stop_times": [3298.27, 3310.919, 3320.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3295.159}, "reply_to": "20953__1_099", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__2_001", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "What's the best textual support for your position?\nWhat is the provision of the rules that you think is the one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3320.907, 3325.078], "stop_times": [3325.078, 3329.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.907}, "reply_to": "20953__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20953__2_002", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "I guess... it's hard for me to answer, because I do think there are several of them, but I think 32(e) would be rendered a nullity in a... most cases if the Ninth Circuit's view were right, and I don't think that rendering... I think that that would be the strongest one in my view.\nI also think there are provisions of Rule 11, as I mentioned before, that clearly distinguish between pleas and plea agreements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3329.502, 3348.814], "stop_times": [3348.814, 3355.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3329.502}, "reply_to": "20953__2_001", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20953__2_003", "conversation_id": "20953", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Feldman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-667", "start_times": [3355.139, 3356.911], "stop_times": [3356.911, 3358.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3355.139}, "reply_to": "20953__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__0_000", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1726, United States v. LaBonte.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [8.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__0_001", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves the validity of commentary in the Federal sentencing guidelines that governs sentencing of career offenders.\nCongress directed that the sentencing guidelines specify a sentence at or near the maximum term authorized for the identified categories of career offenders.\nIn Amendment 506 to the guidelines, however, the commission specified that the statutory sentence enhancements for recidivists shall not be used in calculating the maximum term authorized under the career offender guideline.\nThus, where a Federal narcotics law specifies that a first offender shall receive a sentence with a maximum of 20 years and a second offender shall receive a sentence subject to a 30-year maximum, the commission treats the maximum term authorized as 20 years.\nIn our view, the commission's disregard of recidivist enhancements conflicts with the Sentencing Reform Act and is invalid.\nThe starting point for analysis of this question is the text of the Sentencing Reform Act, which is set out in our brief in the appendix at page 21a, and it provides in section 994(h) of title 28 that the commission shall assure that the guidelines specify a sentence to a term of imprisonment at or near the maximum term authorized for categories of defendants, and then it goes on to specify that the defendants must be 18 years of age or older and be convicted of a felony that was a crime of violence or a specified Federal drug offense and have two prior convictions of the same type.\nThe text of this statute in our view is clear.\nThe maximum term authorized refers to the maximum, the uppermost limit of a range, thus, where there is a range consisting of two possible uppermost limits the higher of the two is the maximum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [8.628, 13.19, 21.017, 32.202, 49.105, 68.596, 76.443, 114.157, 117.449], "stop_times": [13.19, 21.017, 32.202, 49.105, 68.596, 76.443, 114.157, 117.449, 131.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.628}, "reply_to": "21099__0_000", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_002", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Your position is that maximum means maximum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [131.158], "stop_times": [133.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.158}, "reply_to": "21099__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__0_003", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "That is absolutely correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [133.569], "stop_times": [135.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.569}, "reply_to": "21099__0_002", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_004", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But authorized by what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [135.792], "stop_times": [137.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 135.792}, "reply_to": "21099__0_003", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_005", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Maximum term authorized by statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [137.442], "stop_times": [141.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.442}, "reply_to": "21099__0_004", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_006", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No, I know, but by what statute?\nI mean, what we have are, we have statutes that authorize a maximum of 15 years or 30 years for a second offense, this intent with... possession with intent to distribute a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [141.626, 143.156], "stop_times": [143.156, 157.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 141.626}, "reply_to": "21099__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_007", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Controlled substance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [157.196], "stop_times": [159.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 157.196}, "reply_to": "21099__0_006", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_008", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--controlled substance, and then we have statutes that say if you do this near a school it's an extra thing, and then if you did it with... another extra thing... I mean, like, there... does it mean the maximum authorized by whatever combination of statutes put together produces the most individually tailored, statutorily tailored sentence for this defendant, or does it mean authorized by the statute that deals with the substantive crime, or some combination in between?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [159.818], "stop_times": [188.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.818}, "reply_to": "21099__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_009", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, I think that it actually means the maximum term authorized by statute for the particular offender.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [188.74], "stop_times": [196.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 188.74}, "reply_to": "21099__0_008", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_010", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "So in other words they have to have a whole proliferating schedule within the guidelines so that you'd have, for a person who, in fact, is a second offender of a cocaine possession with intent to distribute, and in the course of that he injures another person, and he does it near a school, and you know, there you have a footnote with about six other things, and then there are... and there has to be one schedule for that person.\nAnd then you have to have another schedule for somebody who did exactly the same thing but not near a school, and then you have to have another schedule for somebody who did the exact same thing but it didn't involve an injury or death.\nIs that the view--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [196.343, 220.06, 231.829], "stop_times": [220.06, 231.829, 232.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 196.343}, "reply_to": "21099__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_011", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I think this would have been the easiest statute in the commission's repertoire for it to implement.\nAll the commission would have had to say is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [232.969, 239.273], "stop_times": [239.273, 241.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.969}, "reply_to": "21099__0_010", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_012", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Yes, but I mean I understand that we could have taken it that way, but I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [241.244], "stop_times": [245.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.244}, "reply_to": "21099__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_013", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--a sentence at or near the maximum is a sentence within 15 or 20 percent or 25 percent of the maximum, and for any defendant who's covered by section 994(h), when the sentencing court determines what his authorized statutory maximum term is, the range is X percent less than that up to the top.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [245.317], "stop_times": [264.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.317}, "reply_to": "21099__0_012", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_014", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Well, this is pretty much near a two-thirds.\nIt's two-thirds, or 75 percent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [264.99, 266.852], "stop_times": [266.852, 268.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.99}, "reply_to": "21099__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_015", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, it is not... it is not for an offender like LaBonte, and I think that it's important to keep in mind exactly what is going on here.\nLaBonte is exposed to a maximum term... I don't think there's any dispute whatsoever... by statute of 30 years, which is 360 months, and under the career offender guideline as it existed prior to the time of Amendment 506, that would have produced a base offense level of 34, which is 262 months to 327 months, or 21 to 27 years.\nThat is 72 percent to 90 percent of the 30-year maximum.\nUnder the commission's approach, Amendment 506, an offender like LaBonte is treated as if his maximum term is 20 when it's actually 30, and he's assigned a base offense level of 32, which produces a sentencing range of 210 months to 262 months, or 58 percent to 72 percent of the 30-year max, so I think that there's quite a significant drop-off--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [268.995, 275.269, 298.133, 303.698], "stop_times": [275.269, 298.133, 303.698, 326.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.995}, "reply_to": "21099__0_014", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_016", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Yes but... I'm sorry, I didn't get an answer to my original question, which I... because I unfortunately got distracted.\nIs it your view, is it the Government's view that when a person commits a second cocaine offense and a death results, and it occurs within a thousand... leave the death out, a thousand feet of the highway truck stop with a weapon, that the maximum authorized means the maximum authorized by the combination of those sentences, of all those statutes together?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [326.914, 332.178], "stop_times": [332.178, 354.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.914}, "reply_to": "21099__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_017", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [354.211], "stop_times": [355.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.211}, "reply_to": "21099__0_016", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_018", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "So you'd have to go through the... that's the only way... and you think that's clear?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [355.002, 358.275], "stop_times": [358.275, 360.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.002}, "reply_to": "21099__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_019", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I think that the term, maximum statutory term authorized means maximum statutory term authorized--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [360.028], "stop_times": [364.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.028}, "reply_to": "21099__0_018", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_020", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--For this individual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [364.94], "stop_times": [365.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.94}, "reply_to": "21099__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_021", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--for an individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [365.902], "stop_times": [366.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.902}, "reply_to": "21099__0_020", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_022", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--So one would have to go through and individualize all of these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [366.413], "stop_times": [370.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.413}, "reply_to": "21099__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_023", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, that is done, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [370.513], "stop_times": [371.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.513}, "reply_to": "21099__0_022", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_024", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--You have to do that in any sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [371.314], "stop_times": [372.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.314}, "reply_to": "21099__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_025", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Any time a sentencing court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [372.385], "stop_times": [375.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.385}, "reply_to": "21099__0_024", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_026", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No, no, that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [375.117], "stop_times": [376.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.117}, "reply_to": "21099__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_027", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--It will do a presentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [376.119], "stop_times": [377.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.119}, "reply_to": "21099__0_026", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_028", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Under that reading, why do you need the word categories?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [377.531], "stop_times": [380.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.531}, "reply_to": "21099__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21099__0_029", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--I don't think the word categories does add a lot under the statute, Justice Kennedy, and I wouldn't suggest to the Court that under our view of the statute it has huge operative significance, but I think in the context of section 994(h) it has plenty of significance in the following respect:\n994(h) identifies basically two different categories of defendants that Congress singled out from among the welter of other defendants and said, Sentencing Commission, assure that these offenders receive a sentence at or near the maximum: either, you commit a crime of violence, or you commit one of the Federal drug offenses that are identified and listed in the statute, and you have two prior convictions of the same type.\nSo you have the category of violent offenders with two prior convictions, you have the category of drug offenders with two prior convictions, and the structure of section 994(h) supports the view that that is the intended reading of categories, the types of defendants that are covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [380.062, 399.733, 421.178], "stop_times": [399.733, 421.178, 437.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 380.062}, "reply_to": "21099__0_028", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_030", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "May I ask a fact question before you get too deeply into the argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [437.53], "stop_times": [440.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.53}, "reply_to": "21099__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_031", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [440.792], "stop_times": [440.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.792}, "reply_to": "21099__0_030", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_032", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "You say that under the career view of the statute the maximum is 30 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [440.983], "stop_times": [445.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.983}, "reply_to": "21099__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_033", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [445.006], "stop_times": [445.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.006}, "reply_to": "21099__0_032", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_034", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And it's... under the commission's view the maximum is 20 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [445.327], "stop_times": [448.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 445.327}, "reply_to": "21099__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_035", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [448.469], "stop_times": [448.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.469}, "reply_to": "21099__0_034", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_036", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Because you're not taking into the career offender factors there.\nWhat would the guideline sentence have been when you... without a requirement that it be at or near the maximum, under a 20-year maximum?\nDo you understand my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [448.739, 451.931, 460.957], "stop_times": [451.931, 460.957, 461.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.739}, "reply_to": "21099__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_037", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Yes.\nYes, I do.\nI don't recall the exact guideline sentence for the three respondents in this case, but suffice it to say that it would have been substantially lower than the career offender sentence.\nThe career--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [461.928, 462.139, 462.509, 473.084], "stop_times": [462.139, 462.509, 473.084, 473.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.928}, "reply_to": "21099__0_036", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_038", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Would it have been roughly a third, or... a third or a half, something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [473.424], "stop_times": [476.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.424}, "reply_to": "21099__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_039", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--I'd be willing to accept that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [476.356], "stop_times": [477.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.356}, "reply_to": "21099__0_038", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_040", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "If... so in other words, if it was a third it might have been 7 or 8 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [477.557], "stop_times": [481.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.557}, "reply_to": "21099__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_041", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [481.07], "stop_times": [481.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.07}, "reply_to": "21099__0_040", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_042", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Whereas... and if you then say that you should take... and the normal third of the 30 years would have been 10 years, absent the requirement that it be at or near the maximum, but now the... under the commission's view it is at or near the maximum of 20 years because of the guideline provision, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [481.671], "stop_times": [498.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.671}, "reply_to": "21099__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_043", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Right.\nIf the maximum were in fact 20 years we might not have any quarrel with what the commission had done, but the maximum isn't 20 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [498.974, 499.195], "stop_times": [499.195, 507.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.974}, "reply_to": "21099__0_042", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_044", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No, I understand that, but even interpreting the at or near maximum the way the commission does, you do get a substantially higher sentence for a career offender than you would absent the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [507.799], "stop_times": [519.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.799}, "reply_to": "21099__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_045", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Yes, you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [519.368], "stop_times": [519.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.368}, "reply_to": "21099__0_044", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_046", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [519.898], "stop_times": [520.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.898}, "reply_to": "21099__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21099__0_047", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And if the statute had only said substantial sentence, or substantially higher sentence, we would have a different case.\nI was trying to elucidate the meaning of categories, and I think that this will tie in with your question, Justice Stevens.\nSection 994(i) of the statute, which is on page 22a of our appendix, lists another group of offenders that the commission wanted... that the Congress wanted the commission to treat in a special way.\nIn section 994(i), the commission is directed to assure that the following categories of defendants receive a substantial term of imprisonment, and then it goes on to list five categories of defendants that are to receive a substantial term of imprisonment.\nNow, substantial is certainly a qualitative word that admits of a broad range of meanings, and the commission may very well have fulfilled a duty to impose a substantial sentence on the career offenders under the guidelines as it has written it, but Congress has singled out the career offenders identified in section 994(h), the categories of career offenders there, for different treatment.\nThat treatment is perhaps the most specific direction that Congress gave the commission anywhere in the sentencing guidelines.\nIt was to assure a sentence at or near the maximum, and it's our view that that provision means exactly what it says.\nNow, the implausibility of the commission's approach of disregarding recidivists in the enhancements is particularly implausible in light of the various statutes that are identified in the career offender provision as calling for career offender treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [520.227, 525.672, 530.865, 544.792, 560.914, 582.809, 588.884, 596.78], "stop_times": [525.672, 530.865, 544.792, 560.914, 582.809, 588.884, 596.78, 612.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 520.227}, "reply_to": "21099__0_046", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_048", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, the problem we have in this case stems from a new commentary adopted by the commission to section 4B1.1 of the guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [612.549], "stop_times": [625.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.549}, "reply_to": "21099__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21099__0_049", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "That is right, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [625.098], "stop_times": [626.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.098}, "reply_to": "21099__0_048", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_050", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And what precise relief are you asking us to provide if that commentary is wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [626.169], "stop_times": [632.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.169}, "reply_to": "21099__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21099__0_051", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Invalidate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [632.413], "stop_times": [633.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.413}, "reply_to": "21099__0_050", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_052", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "What are you asking us to do, invalidate... invalidate the commentary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [633.434], "stop_times": [636.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.434}, "reply_to": "21099__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21099__0_053", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--That is right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [636.897], "stop_times": [637.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.897}, "reply_to": "21099__0_052", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_054", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And we treat the commentary as a rule or regulation or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [637.278], "stop_times": [641.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.278}, "reply_to": "21099__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21099__0_055", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, not even so exalted a status as rule or regulation.\nI think this Court made clear in Stinson v. United States that commentary plays generally the role of elucidating what the guidelines mean.\nThey're not legislative rules in their own right.\nBut the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [641.74, 645.593, 655.139, 657.402], "stop_times": [645.593, 655.139, 657.402, 659.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.74}, "reply_to": "21099__0_054", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_056", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Have we ever struck down a commentary?\nI mean, it just comes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [659.383, 661.633], "stop_times": [661.633, 663.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.383}, "reply_to": "21099__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21099__0_057", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Well, I think the point of Stinson is that the commentary does carry the force of law in this sense.\nIf it is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution or a Federal statute, it is to be given controlling weight unless it conflicts with the plain text of the guideline or is otherwise arbitrary.\nThat's what this Court held in Stinson, and our submission here is that this commentary doesn't pass the Stinson test, not because it's inconsistent with the sentencing guideline as written.\nIt is inconsistent with the overarching authorizing statute that Congress directed the commission to follow when it promulgated sentencing guidelines, and because of its direct conflict with a Federal statute it is invalid.\nThe Court strikes it down and leaves in place a totally operative and valid sentencing guideline that governs career offenders.\nAt least insofar as this case is concerned, we're not raising any other issue about the career offender guideline and its compliance with Federal law but for this one precise point.\nThe commission has defined maximum to mean something less than the maximum.\nThe commission can't do that.\nNow, I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [663.176, 669.22, 682.15, 693.099, 707.467, 716.854, 726.762, 730.645, 732.305], "stop_times": [669.22, 682.15, 693.099, 707.467, 716.854, 726.762, 730.645, 732.305, 733.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.176}, "reply_to": "21099__0_056", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_058", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--It's... I mean, the ambiguity, if there is one, I think is in the word authorized.\nAuthorized by what?\nI don't know if there is an ambiguity, but that's where it would be, and the problem that I see is if you... it's obviously a close question.\nI'm not sure what I think about it.\nBut the authorized, if you take your interpretation of it you'll suddenly discover a, you know, very bizarre set of sentences, what I would think of.\nFor example, if you distribute cocaine or amphetamines or barbiturates, or one ounce of marijuana near a truck stop, and you do that twice, you're going to get three times the normal sentence.\nThe normal sentence has already been doubled because you did that twice, so you're going to end up with life sentences for things like an ounce of cocaine, or let's say an ounce of marijuana distributed twice in a truck stop.\nAnd moreover, rather than what Congress suggested, that these are maxes, so you could have a lesser sentence, they suddenly become mandatory minimums.\nThey're mandatory minimums because nobody would have any choice, and are we really to attribute that intent to Congress, that they wanted to turn all these things like truck stop distributions and so forth into life sentences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [733.077, 737.81, 739.66, 749.097, 751.338, 760.184, 774.233, 789.272, 798.158], "stop_times": [737.81, 739.66, 749.097, 751.338, 760.184, 774.233, 789.272, 798.158, 810.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.077}, "reply_to": "21099__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_059", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Well, I think, Justice Breyer, that the only thing that you can clearly attribute to Congress is that it identified a category of repeat offenders who are worse than other categories of repeat offenders--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [810.026], "stop_times": [821.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.026}, "reply_to": "21099__0_058", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_060", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [821.885], "stop_times": [821.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.885}, "reply_to": "21099__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_061", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--that came to the legislature's mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [821.933], "stop_times": [823.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.933}, "reply_to": "21099__0_060", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_062", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "All right.\nTell me the argument against the other way.\nThe argument the other way is, what they meant by maximum authorized was maximum authorized by the statute that describes the substantive crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [823.745, 823.936, 825.166], "stop_times": [823.936, 825.166, 835.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.745}, "reply_to": "21099__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_063", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Okay.\nThat is an alternative meaning that one could advance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [835.414, 835.634], "stop_times": [835.634, 838.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.414}, "reply_to": "21099__0_062", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_064", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [838.606], "stop_times": [838.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.606}, "reply_to": "21099__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_065", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "The court of appeals advanced something similar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [838.806], "stop_times": [841.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.806}, "reply_to": "21099__0_064", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_066", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No, they didn't get... yes, all right.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [841.227, 841.978], "stop_times": [841.978, 842.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.227}, "reply_to": "21099__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_067", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "They did it on the basis of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [842.159], "stop_times": [842.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.159}, "reply_to": "21099__0_066", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_068", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Right.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [842.87, 843.22], "stop_times": [843.22, 843.531], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 842.87}, "reply_to": "21099__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21099__0_069", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--the word categories, but their point was there was some ambiguity here because you could either look to the highest sentencing statute or you could just look at the category of offenders who were covered by the basic statutory violation.\nThat doesn't work, I think, on anybody's theory if you look at it closely.\nUnder section 841(a), which is the basic Federal drug law covered in the career offender guideline, there is one violation.\nThe violation is possession of a controlled substance, any controlled substance, with intent to distribute.\nThat is the statutory violation.\nSection 841(b) is the sentencing provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [843.531, 854.279, 858.212, 868.349, 874.396, 876.736], "stop_times": [854.279, 858.212, 868.349, 874.396, 876.736, 880.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.531}, "reply_to": "21099__0_068", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_070", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [880.197], "stop_times": [880.498], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 880.197}, "reply_to": "21099__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21099__0_071", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And if you lump together everybody who violates section 841(a) and say, what is the highest sentence that all of them could receive under section 841(b), you end up with 5, or maybe 10 years under section 841(b)(1)(D), which covers marijuana offenders who... first time offenders get 5 years, second time offenders get 10 years, and it can't possibly be that Congress intended that these most serious offenders in the Federal system would be subject to a maximum that lumps together everybody, no matter what kind of drug they distributed, no matter how many prior offenses they had.\nThe point of our case here is that in section 841(b), as well as section 952(a) and the maritime drug law, which is also referenced in the career offender guideline, Congress has tiered the maximum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [880.498, 916.522], "stop_times": [916.522, 930.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.498}, "reply_to": "21099__0_070", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_072", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Wait, where did you get... my... the code at that time says that in the case of the controlled substance in schedule 1 or 2, that's the cocaine, the max that I have here is not more than 15 years, so at that time in '84 I'd suppose if you read it to apply just to the... you call it the first offense, the crime of substance.\nIt would have mandated a 15-year sentence.\nNow, why is that odd?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [930.841, 951.945, 955.098], "stop_times": [951.945, 955.098, 957.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.841}, "reply_to": "21099__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_073", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Well, actually I don't... I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [957.999], "stop_times": [959.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.999}, "reply_to": "21099__0_072", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_074", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I'm reading... what I have is 841(b)... 841(b)(1)(A), which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [959.692], "stop_times": [965.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.692}, "reply_to": "21099__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_075", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Well, Congress didn't freeze the maximum terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [965.435], "stop_times": [967.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.435}, "reply_to": "21099__0_074", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_076", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [967.158], "stop_times": [967.308], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 967.158}, "reply_to": "21099__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21099__0_077", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And in fact it revised--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [967.308], "stop_times": [969.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.308}, "reply_to": "21099__0_076", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_078", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, then, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [969.148], "stop_times": [969.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.148}, "reply_to": "21099__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_079", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--what the maximum terms were.\nSome of them went up, some of them went down.\nIt recalibrated basically how the maximum terms worked in section 841(b), and it's done that over time, but right now, which is the operative time for assessing what somebody would get if the theory of the statute were accepted that you proposed, section 841(b)(1)(D) says that for less than 50 grams of marijuana zero to 5 years is the range, one prior felony, zero to 10.\nAnd remember, the kind of controlled substance is not an element of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [969.909, 970.721, 972.684, 996.6], "stop_times": [970.721, 972.684, 996.6, 1000.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.909}, "reply_to": "21099__0_078", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_080", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--That's for less than... that's for an ounce of marijuana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1000.323], "stop_times": [1004.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.323}, "reply_to": "21099__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_081", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "That's right.\nAnd since all violators of any Federal... who possess any kind of Federal controlled substance violate section 841(a), and then you have to look for 841(b) for the sentencing factors, I don't think it's possibly reasonable to suppose that Congress intended a category consisting of all 841(a) violators without regard to their recidivist enhancements, or without regard to the kind of controlled substance that they possess.\nCongress very carefully calibrated the statutory maximums that are applicable to a controlled substance offender depending on the type of controlled substance, the harm that resulted, and the prior record.\nNow, what makes it particularly inapposite to adopt the commission's view is that section 840... section 994(h) is designed to target recidivist offenders.\nThe statutes that are referenced in section 994(h), the controlled substance sentences, each provide higher maximum terms for recidivist offenders, and in the context of that specific reference, Congress could not have meant by maximum term authorized to mean the term for first offenders.\nThe legislature would have had every reason to expect that there would be few, if any, first time drug offenders covered by the statute.\nIt was logically possible to have somebody with two prior crimes of violence and then committing a Federal drug offense and be covered by the statute, but most of the offenders who are covered by the career offender guideline and who have violated Federal drug law will have a prior conviction, and their maximum term will be the enhanced maximum.\nThat seems to us to be exactly what Congress had in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1004.586, 1005.247, 1029.633, 1041.761, 1056.223, 1077.405, 1085.332, 1104.233], "stop_times": [1005.247, 1029.633, 1041.761, 1056.223, 1077.405, 1085.332, 1104.233, 1108.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.586}, "reply_to": "21099__0_080", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_082", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I don't... maybe I shouldn't pursue this, but let me try once more.\nMy understanding of the structure of 841 drugs, then and now, is you have a basic crime in (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1108.025, 1110.177], "stop_times": [1110.177, 1116.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.025}, "reply_to": "21099__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_083", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1116.811], "stop_times": [1117.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.811}, "reply_to": "21099__0_082", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_084", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And then (b) has a whole set of categories of punishments, and in each... and they have several subsets, really distinguished one from the other by the seriousness of the drug and the amounts, and as to each subset you have it broken typically into two parts.\nOne is a punishment for a first offender, and the second part is a punishment for a subsequent offender, and so what would be odd in Congress thinking what we mean by this word authorized is the part that is authorized for a first offender of the substantive crime?\nWhat would be the odd result you would be distinguishing if you took that, among all the different categories of drugs, because A, B, C and D do that, and you would have quite different... you'd have quite different maximums authorized for a marijuana person from a cocaine person, from a big guy, from a little guy, all for the first offense, so what would be odd about Congress meaning that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1117.442, 1133.612, 1151.824], "stop_times": [1133.612, 1151.824, 1173.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.442}, "reply_to": "21099__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_085", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "What would be odd about it, Justice Breyer, is that this is a statute that targets all people who are not first offenders.\nAll of these people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1173.359, 1179.984], "stop_times": [1179.984, 1181.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1173.359}, "reply_to": "21099__0_084", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_086", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Oh, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1181.384], "stop_times": [1181.605], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1181.384}, "reply_to": "21099__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21099__0_087", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--who are targeted by the career offender guideline are recidivists.\nThe drug recidivists may have no prior drug crime.\nThey may have two prior crimes of violence, but most of the people who are Federal drug offenders covered by the career offender guideline are going to have prior offenses.\nAnd Congress, at the same time that it enacted section 994(h), also deliberately went back to section 841 and changed the structure of the statute not to include recidivist enhancements for the first time... it had done that... but it changed the exact amounts of those recidivist enhancements.\nSo what you have is Congress, on its mind at the time it passes the Sentencing Reform Act, what are the maximum terms authorized for these categories of drug offenders, let's raise them, and then a separate statute telling the commission here you have repeat offenders of specified Federal drug offenders... and we're going to list them in the statute... sentence these people distinct from all others, add on your maximum terms authorized, and in that context I think that it becomes entirely implausible to suggest that Congress meant the first offender sentence that is applicable to someone who does not have prior crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1181.605, 1184.616, 1187.949, 1197.165, 1215.857], "stop_times": [1184.616, 1187.949, 1197.165, 1215.857, 1249.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.605}, "reply_to": "21099__0_086", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_088", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, you had a point in your brief that intrigued me.\nYou were responding to the double counting argument, and this is on page 27 of your brief, and you said, conceivably the commission could devise an alternative computation mechanism consistent with section 994(h) yet avoid the double counting of prior convictions.\nWhat would the... what could the commission have done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1249.95, 1254.252, 1274.227], "stop_times": [1254.252, 1274.227, 1279.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.95}, "reply_to": "21099__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21099__0_089", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that depends in part on what one thinks the purported double counting objection might be.\nThe Sentencing Commission didn't say.\nThere are two possible variations.\nOne is, the same conviction is used under section 841(b) to enhance the maximum term and to send somebody into the career offender guideline.\nThat form of alleged double counting, if it is double counting, cannot be eliminated by the Sentencing Commission.\nIt must do that, because the law specifies that the same conviction may have the effect of increasing the maximum term and making somebody a career offender.\nBut the other possible double counting objection is that the same prior conviction is used both to enhance an offender's offense level and to increase his criminal history, and that that might have seemed to the commission to be double counting for some reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1279.811, 1287.335, 1289.855, 1291.817, 1301.804, 1308.479, 1318.827], "stop_times": [1287.335, 1289.855, 1291.817, 1301.804, 1308.479, 1318.827, 1335.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1279.811}, "reply_to": "21099__0_088", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_090", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I speculated that what you had in mind... maybe this is the first thing you said... is that the commission could say criminal history... essentially criminal history is not relevant in the guidelines when you have a maximum term under this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1335.827], "stop_times": [1351.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.827}, "reply_to": "21099__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21099__0_091", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I think that's exactly right, Justice Kennedy.\nWhat the commission could do in that situation is simply say, if you're a career offender, go to the statute books, find the maximum term authorized, and sentence within 10 percent or 15 percent of that maximum term, instead using the grid provided in the sentencing table for most offenders.\nThe commission was not required to use the grid for everybody.\nCareer offenders are clearly to be treated differently than almost everybody else sentenced under the guidelines.\nIn fact, there's no other provision that was handed to the Sentencing Commission to implement that is anywhere near as specific as this on how particular identified offenders are to be treated, and the commission could have quite easily said, sentence them all at their maximum.\nThe commission in fact had proposals before it before the guidelines were promulgated that said all career offenders shall be sentenced at their maximum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1351.388, 1353.218, 1369.691, 1372.972, 1379.117, 1392.938], "stop_times": [1353.218, 1369.691, 1372.972, 1379.117, 1392.938, 1400.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1351.388}, "reply_to": "21099__0_090", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_092", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "The other reason against doing that... I'd be curious if you'd comment on it.\nThe... I mean, the choice is really between saying what Congress meant was where it says a first offender gets up to 20 years, up to, what they meant by this is, he gets 20 years, period, or what you're arguing.\nAnd one concern was, if you take what you argue, that really turns the power to decide what the sentence is directly over to the prosecutor, because in most of these cases you can't go beyond 20 years unless the prosecutor files a specific piece of paper, and that decision, which is totally the prosecutor's, is totally contrary to the whole philosophy of the guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1400.673, 1403.735, 1418.915], "stop_times": [1403.735, 1418.915, 1438.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.673}, "reply_to": "21099__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_093", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1438.907], "stop_times": [1439.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.907}, "reply_to": "21099__0_092", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_094", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I'm just putting that to you so you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1439.708], "stop_times": [1440.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.708}, "reply_to": "21099__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__0_095", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--I'm not sure, Justice Breyer, that it is totally contrary to the whole philosophy of the guidelines.\nThe impetus of the guidelines was to eliminate unwarranted disparity by different judges who have different sentencing philosophies.\nThe guidelines do not and cannot eliminate prosecutorial discretion and, given that Congress has vested the prosecutor with the authority, as you say, to raise the maximum by filing a reply or pretrial notice of crimes, Congress has vested discretion in the prosecutor.\nI don't think the commission can say that is an unwarranted disparity.\nThat is a product of prosecutorial discretion which is an endemic and universal feature of Federal criminal law, and the Sentencing Commission was not given the task, which would probably be unconstitutional anyway, of attempting to eliminate prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of Federal criminal law, and so I don't think that there's any argument there that the disparity is unwarranted.\nFor the reason that I expressed earlier, I don't think that there's any ambiguity in the intent of Congress when it said maximum term authorized to mean the recidivist term for career offenders.\nIf the Court has no further questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1440.66, 1444.51, 1450.375, 1465.244, 1468.807, 1488.742, 1501.31], "stop_times": [1444.51, 1450.375, 1465.244, 1468.807, 1488.742, 1501.31, 1505.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1440.66}, "reply_to": "21099__0_094", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__0_096", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Dreeben.\nMr. Yellen, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1505.945, 1507.197], "stop_times": [1507.197, 1508.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.945}, "reply_to": "21099__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__1_000", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Breyer's colloquy with Mr. Dreeben I think fairly clearly points out that there are various ways of reading the language of the maximum term authorized for categories of offenders, and a critical point that did not come out in the Government's argument is that Congress considered and expressly rejected giving a directive to sentencing courts to impose a maximum, ordinary maximum term.\nThat was in the 1982 bill that passed the Senate but the Senate the next time, the next year rejected that and instead gave this more general instruction to the Sentencing Commission, putting this obligation under 994(h) in the context of all of the commission's obligations.\nAnd what the Sentencing Commission did here was looked at all of its obligations, including first and foremost under the statute to provide certainty and fairness and reducing unwarranted sentencing disparity, and the commission decided that the prosecutor having the ability to in effect determine the sentence by this 851 mechanism was something that would contribute to unwarranted disparity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1508.819, 1514.353, 1540.94, 1557.422], "stop_times": [1514.353, 1540.94, 1557.422, 1581.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1508.819}, "reply_to": "21099__0_096", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_001", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, how... why was Congress... why was the commission in a position to second guess Congress on that?\nIf the prosecutorial discretion comes from the very provisions that the commission is supposed to be proposing sentences for, why is that any business of the commission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1581.217, 1587.402], "stop_times": [1587.402, 1598.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.217}, "reply_to": "21099__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__1_002", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the discretion that the prosecutor has under 851 and 841 is to raise the ceiling, to raise the maximum term allowed, and it's then not up to the prosecutor to decide what the actual sentence is.\nThat's the way the 851 mechanism has always worked.\nIt authorizes the judge to apply... to impose a sentence longer than the unenhanced maximum but only if it's a truly bad case that warrants a longer sentence.\nIf Congress wishes to impose a specific sentence enhancement, they know how to do that.\nThey've passed mandatory minimums, and they've passed mandatory sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1598.439, 1612.488, 1615.38, 1625.927, 1630.379], "stop_times": [1612.488, 1615.38, 1625.927, 1630.379, 1634.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1598.439}, "reply_to": "21099__1_001", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_003", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "When they passed 994(h).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1634.493], "stop_times": [1636.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.493}, "reply_to": "21099__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__1_004", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "That's right, and 994(h) directs a sentence at or near the maximum applicable to the categories of defendants, not defined clearly as Mr. Dreeben suggested in this statute, but very broadly.\nI think it's quite plausible to read that language to say that one way to categorize all of the offenders defined in 994(h) is to take everyone who's been convicted of violating the same statute and treat them as one category, and then those defendants against whom the Government has filed 851 information and are therefore eligible for, say a 30-year sentence rather than a 20-year sentence, they will receive that longer sentence if there are aggravating factors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1636.095, 1648.661], "stop_times": [1648.661, 1676.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.095}, "reply_to": "21099__1_003", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_005", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1676.981], "stop_times": [1677.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.981}, "reply_to": "21099__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_006", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--under the guidelines or aggravating factors that warrant a departure above the guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1677.211], "stop_times": [1681.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.211}, "reply_to": "21099__1_005", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_007", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Well, that goes to explain the ambiguity, I guess, but even assuming the ambiguity... I do assume the ambiguity... it's difficult for me to understand why the authorization would be to eliminate the possibility, if not the effect of prosecutorial discretion when Congress has expressly granted prosecutorial discretion.\nCongress in effect says prosecutorial discretion is a good thing.\nWhy, therefore, is it appropriate for the commission to say we should somehow, if not eliminate, at least liminate... limit the effects of this discretion which Congress has expressly conferred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1681.766, 1707.611, 1711.895], "stop_times": [1707.611, 1711.895, 1724.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.766}, "reply_to": "21099__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_008", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, the discretion... the prosecutorial discretion that Congress has said is a good thing is the prosecutor's discretion to seek a higher maximum term, not to seek a higher specific term.\nThe 851 mechanism, the way it always worked before the guidelines came into effect and the way it continues to work today for people who are not career offenders is that the filing of the information allows a sentence of more than 20, to use the facts of these cases, and up to 30 years, but not automatically at the prosecutor's choice.\nThe prosecutor gets to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1724.675, 1736.422, 1755.116], "stop_times": [1736.422, 1755.116, 1756.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.675}, "reply_to": "21099__1_007", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_009", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, that's quite true, but the presumed effect will be, by giving prosecutors that discretion and by giving courts authority based upon the prosecutorial exercise of that discretion, the natural effect in the mind run of cases will be to increase sentences, and why should... why is it an appropriate policy to eliminate an effect which has so explicitly been granted and, I have to assume, intended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1756.367], "stop_times": [1787.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.367}, "reply_to": "21099__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_010", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--But the effect is still there, the effect of raising the ceiling, that all of the defenders in this case could have received sentences... under the commission's Amendment 506 they could have received sentences longer than 20 years, up to and including 30 years, if, as is very commonly the case with career offenders, there was a large quantity of drugs, or there was the use of a gun, or there were any other aggravating factors.\nIf I could answer Justice Stevens' question before on the facts of the case, because I think it illustrates something here, this was not a threefold increase from the original guideline range based on Amendment 506 interpretation of the career offender level, but in respondent Dyer's case it was a 13-fold increase.\nIt took... the regular guideline range for Dyer was 18 to 24 months.\nAfter applying the career offender guideline with Amendment 506 the range would be 210 months to 262 months, a 13-fold increase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1787.937, 1812.633, 1831.234, 1836.299], "stop_times": [1812.633, 1831.234, 1836.299, 1846.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.937}, "reply_to": "21099__1_009", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_011", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, that was because in addition to his violation of 841 he had, what, two prior convictions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1846.854], "stop_times": [1853.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.854}, "reply_to": "21099__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__1_012", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "That's right, Mr. Chief Justice, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1853.64], "stop_times": [1856.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1853.64}, "reply_to": "21099__1_011", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_013", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "What were those for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1856.251], "stop_times": [1857.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.251}, "reply_to": "21099__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__1_014", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--One was another drug offense and one was a commercial burglary that the lower court considered to be a crime of violence.\nBut even including all of his prior criminal record he was a category 6 under the guidelines, but his drug offense on this occasion was so minor that the Sentencing Guideline said even though you're in the highest criminal history category, your guideline range is 18 to 24 months, but because you're a career offender, it now goes all the way up to 210 months to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1857.262, 1864.847], "stop_times": [1864.847, 1886.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1857.262}, "reply_to": "21099__1_013", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_015", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Yellen, why is that unthinkable?\nI mean, there are jurisdictions in the country which are passing things called three-strikes-you're-out laws.\nNow, they may be wise, they may be unwise, and in those cases, I mean, you're out, it means you're in permanently.\nThey may be very unwise, but I don't know that I can say that when that seems to be the fairest reading of the statute as a judge I can say well, since it's unwise I'm not going to adopt the fairest reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1886.481, 1887.692, 1892.278, 1897.68], "stop_times": [1887.692, 1892.278, 1897.68, 1908.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.481}, "reply_to": "21099__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_016", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I'm not saying it's unwise at all.\nIn fact, my... the numbers I gave you, 210 to 262, that's the range that Mr. Dyer will be eligible for on remand if we win here, so if we prevail in this case the commission's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1908.077, 1910.488], "stop_times": [1910.488, 1922.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.077}, "reply_to": "21099__1_015", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_017", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well then, give me the more horrible example that will apply if you will lose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1922.455], "stop_times": [1925.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.455}, "reply_to": "21099__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_018", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--His sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1925.477], "stop_times": [1925.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.477}, "reply_to": "21099__1_017", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_019", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--and I will make the same comment.\nYou know, it may be very unwise, but is that the fairest reading of the statute is the question before us, and if the fairest reading is three strikes you're out and you're in jail permanently, so be it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1925.967, 1927.159], "stop_times": [1927.159, 1936.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.967}, "reply_to": "21099__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_020", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Certainly, I understand that position completely, but the issue here is not what any member of this Court thinks is the appropriate sentence, of course, but did Congress intend precisely to answer this question about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1936.205], "stop_times": [1949.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.205}, "reply_to": "21099__1_019", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_021", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I'm saying I'm not shocked by the notion that they would have been... much of your argument has gone to that Congress couldn't have meant to increase the sentence.\nThey very well may have meant that.\nMany States have done worse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1949.815, 1957.009, 1958.501], "stop_times": [1957.009, 1958.501, 1960.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.815}, "reply_to": "21099__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_022", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--I don't suggest that they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1960.382], "stop_times": [1961.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.382}, "reply_to": "21099__1_021", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_023", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Or better, depending on whether you like it or don't like it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1961.514], "stop_times": [1963.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.514}, "reply_to": "21099__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_024", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Congress has certainly enacted statutes that are more punitive than this.\nI agree completely, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1963.153, 1966.195], "stop_times": [1966.195, 1967.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.153}, "reply_to": "21099__1_023", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_025", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But that's... Justice Scalia I think has put his finger on what's really the difficult underlying question here, because he said the fairest reading of the statute, and I suppose what's really at stake is... and sometimes you'll be on one side of this and sometimes the other side.\nWhat's really at stake is how much authority to give the Sentencing Commission to interpret its authorizing legislation, and you might want to comment on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1967.347, 1980.937], "stop_times": [1980.937, 1992.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.347}, "reply_to": "21099__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__1_026", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Yes.\nI think the question here is not what is the fairest reading of the statute, but has the commission engaged in a permissible reading of the statute, and that's a very different question, and I think in this case the commission clearly has engaged in a permissible reading of this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [1992.994, 1993.255], "stop_times": [1993.255, 2008.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.994}, "reply_to": "21099__1_025", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_027", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Have we said the commission enjoys full-fledged Chevron deference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2008.385], "stop_times": [2010.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.385}, "reply_to": "21099__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21099__1_028", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "The Court has not said that specifically, but the lower courts have generally said that and the statute, 994(h) in particular, instructing the commission to do all of these things, says quite clearly that the commission has very broad authority.\nAnd whether or not Chevron per se applied, in a case like this where Congress has said in so many words that the commission has a great deal of authority to make decisions that used to be made much more independently by individual sentencing judges and individual prosecutors, I think deference to the commission is entirely consistent with Chevron and other... and well-established principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2010.807, 2027.479], "stop_times": [2027.479, 2050.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.807}, "reply_to": "21099__1_027", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_029", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Yellen, before we get to Chevron, Judge Stahl on the First Circuit said that he didn't consider the reading you're proposing a plausible one.\nHe said that he found it inherently implausible because it effectively nullifies criminal history enhancements carefully enacted into statute by 841, and I think you have agreed that it does do that.\nThe Sentencing Commission has effectively taken away the effect of the enhancements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2050.063, 2059.989, 2075.768], "stop_times": [2059.989, 2075.768, 2081.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.063}, "reply_to": "21099__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21099__1_030", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No, Justice Ginsburg, I disagree with that, and maybe I haven't said it clearly.\nI'll try again.\nI disagree with that very strongly.\nWhen the sentence enhancements of 841 with the 851 mechanism were enacted, what it did was, if the prosecutor files under 851 the maximum is higher.\nBefore the guidelines, no defendant was required ever to receive one day longer in prison because the prosecutor bumped up the maximum.\nThat was up to the judge, and that's the way that rule continues to exist today for people who are not career offenders.\nSo under the commission's interpretation of section 4B1.1, it works like this.\nThe defendant committed a crime that would have had a 20-year maximum.\nBecause of his prior record and the Government's filing under 851, he now could receive a 30-year sentence.\nThe guideline is based on the 20-year maximum, but if there are any aggravating factors in the case that make him a worse than normal offender... large amount of drugs, use of a weapon, a leadership role in the offense, or anything else that the guidelines don't consider which warrant a departure... the judge can impose a sentence above the career offender level, above 20 years all the way up to 30 years, so in fact it's the Government's view of the case that would dramatically alter the intended effect of an 851 filing.\nCongress in 851 isn't saying we want prosecutors to have the power to set sentences.\nThey're saying we want prosecutors to have the power to raise the maximum, and it's up to the other actors in the system, judges and now the Sentencing Commission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2081.244, 2084.967, 2085.578, 2087.148, 2098.407, 2106.511, 2113.306, 2119.841, 2123.634, 2130.18, 2161.491, 2166.716], "stop_times": [2084.967, 2085.578, 2087.148, 2098.407, 2106.511, 2113.306, 2119.841, 2123.634, 2130.18, 2161.491, 2166.716, 2175.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2081.244}, "reply_to": "21099__1_029", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_031", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Yellen, I'm not sure I fully grasp your answer, because I thought the very purpose of the Sentencing Commission's exercise here was to treat alike cases where the prosecutor had asked for enhancement and cases where they hadn't where the defendant's conduct was the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2175.412], "stop_times": [2192.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.412}, "reply_to": "21099__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21099__1_032", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--They're only alike as a starting point.\nThe way the career offender guideline works is, you get a level 32.\nBut you only get a level 32 if the regular application of the guidelines isn't higher.\nThe judge also has to go through the regular routine rules of the guidelines... look at the amount of drugs, the use of a weapon, injury, leadership role... and if that comes out to a level 34 or 5 or 6, that's the sentence the judge must impose, not the level 32 that the career offender guideline points to.\nSecondly, if there are other aggravating factors that the guidelines don't take into account, the judge can decide under the standards in Koon that this is a case that warrants an upward departure, so level 32 isn't high enough because this guy is not only a career offender but he's got a criminal record a mile long, and therefore level 32 is not enough.\nI want to go all the way up to 30 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2192.102, 2194.383, 2198.597, 2203.59, 2220.773, 2240.256], "stop_times": [2194.383, 2198.597, 2203.59, 2220.773, 2240.256, 2241.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.102}, "reply_to": "21099__1_031", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_033", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But it's still... it lets the judge then treat alike two defendants who have the same history in every respect, but in one case the prosecutor went for enhancement and the other the prosecutor didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2241.679], "stop_times": [2254.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.679}, "reply_to": "21099__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21099__1_034", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "That's right, and the commission's rationale for that is to do otherwise would be to invite unwarranted disparity.\nWe've provided records from the Sentencing Commission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2254.778, 2260.371], "stop_times": [2260.371, 2262.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2254.778}, "reply_to": "21099__1_033", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_035", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But why is the disparity unwarranted when the authority which is the predicate of the disparity... that is, the prosecutor's discretion... is specifically conferred by law?\nWhy does the commission have the authority to say that that is an unwarranted disparity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2262.825, 2273.58], "stop_times": [2273.58, 2278.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.825}, "reply_to": "21099__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_036", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--In the commission's view it's unwarranted because you have, under the Government's view of the statute, two defendants who have committed the same crime.\nThey have the same criminal record.\nThe only difference is that the defendant in one of the cases is one of the 2.5 percent of eligible people against whom the Government has filed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2278.112, 2286.049, 2288.33], "stop_times": [2286.049, 2288.33, 2297.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.112}, "reply_to": "21099__1_035", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_037", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Oh, I think I understand that.\nThe commission I take it is really saying, look, we have an obligation here within certain limits to equalize sentences for given offenses, and we're taking that obligation seriously.\nBut in taking that obligation seriously, as they do here, they are in effect saying the obligation to equalize sentences for a given offense, forgetting extraneous details which might raise it up or raise it down, is more important than the effect of the specifically conferred prosecutorial discretion in authorizing judges to go higher than they might otherwise do for that offense.\nIs that a legitimate choice for the commission to make?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2297.326, 2299.627, 2313.567, 2342.417], "stop_times": [2299.627, 2313.567, 2342.417, 2345.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.326}, "reply_to": "21099__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_038", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--It is, because Congress has not expressly answered this question before the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2345.89], "stop_times": [2352.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.89}, "reply_to": "21099__1_037", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_039", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, it hasn't expressly answered it, but what it has done is to give a general rule and then a very specific authorization to prosecutors, which will in the natural course have an effect of creating, in fact, two different levels of sentencing for the base offense, and don't we generally say the specific governs the general, and if that's the case here, does the commission really have a legitimate option to say no, we think the general philosophy is more important than the effect of the specific authorization to prosecutors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2352.605], "stop_times": [2387.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.605}, "reply_to": "21099__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_040", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "The specific authorization to prosecutors in 851, as I've tried to suggest, doesn't mandate any sentencing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2387.497], "stop_times": [2394.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2387.497}, "reply_to": "21099__1_039", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_041", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "It doesn't mandate it, but its natural effect is to facilitate it, and it must have been the intention of Congress that in a certain number of cases that judicial option would be exercised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2394.383], "stop_times": [2405.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.383}, "reply_to": "21099__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_042", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--In a certain number of cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2405.338], "stop_times": [2406.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.338}, "reply_to": "21099__1_041", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_043", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2406.099], "stop_times": [2406.32], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.099}, "reply_to": "21099__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21099__1_044", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "In the worst cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2406.32], "stop_times": [2407.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.32}, "reply_to": "21099__1_043", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_045", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And the effect of the commission's interpretation here is to minimize or to nullify the effect of that discretion which the court has as a result of the prosecutorial discretion.\nThat's true, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2407.201, 2421.32], "stop_times": [2421.32, 2421.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.201}, "reply_to": "21099__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_046", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I don't agree with that, Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2421.961], "stop_times": [2425.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.961}, "reply_to": "21099__1_045", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_047", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I think that was the premise of Justice Ginsburg's question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2425.424], "stop_times": [2426.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2425.424}, "reply_to": "21099__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_048", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2426.255], "stop_times": [2426.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2426.255}, "reply_to": "21099__1_047", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_049", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--and I make the same assumption.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2426.425, 2427.597], "stop_times": [2427.597, 2427.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.425}, "reply_to": "21099__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_050", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Yes, and it gets to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2427.975], "stop_times": [2429.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.975}, "reply_to": "21099__1_049", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_051", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, why are we wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2429.748], "stop_times": [2430.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.748}, "reply_to": "21099__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_052", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--It gets to what Congress did here.\nWhen Congress raises--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2430.987, 2432.739], "stop_times": [2432.739, 2434.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.987}, "reply_to": "21099__1_051", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_053", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No, but--\n--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2434.011, 2434.211], "stop_times": [2434.211, 2434.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2434.011}, "reply_to": "21099__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_054", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--the maximum sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2434.431], "stop_times": [2435.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.431}, "reply_to": "21099__1_053", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_055", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No... answer the question.\nI think you're not answering the question.\nI want to hear what you say, but before you get there, Justice Ginsburg and I seem to be making in your view just an incorrect assumption about how the law works in fact, and if we are wrong, we need to know that first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2435.042, 2436.242, 2437.384], "stop_times": [2436.242, 2437.384, 2452.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2435.042}, "reply_to": "21099__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_056", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Yes.\nThe... I... the way the law works is that when a prosecutor seeks an enhanced maximum it does not automatically enhance the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2452.354, 2452.855], "stop_times": [2452.855, 2462.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.354}, "reply_to": "21099__1_055", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_057", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "All right, but in those cases in which the judge says I am going to exercise this authority which the prosecutorial option has provided me with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2462.642], "stop_times": [2472.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.642}, "reply_to": "21099__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_058", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2472.439], "stop_times": [2472.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2472.439}, "reply_to": "21099__1_057", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_059", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--and I'm going to impose a higher sentence than I would otherwise do, in those cases, isn't it true that the commission's interpretation either minimizes or nullifies, I'm not mathematically sure how it works, the effect of the judge's option which he's exercised or she's exercised to go higher?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2472.739], "stop_times": [2491.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.739}, "reply_to": "21099__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_060", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2491.281], "stop_times": [2491.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.281}, "reply_to": "21099__1_059", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_061", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Isn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2491.492], "stop_times": [2492.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.492}, "reply_to": "21099__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_062", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No, it is not, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2492.221], "stop_times": [2493.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.221}, "reply_to": "21099__1_061", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_063", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Okay.\nThen that's what we need to understand.\nThe strongest argument... I think this is the same point, but I thought one of the strongest arguments the SG made was in the very same statute where the sentencing guidelines were enacted into law, there... Congress enacted a provision that said 20 years for a first offender, being cocaine, or... up to 20 years, or up to 40 years for a second, okay.\nNow, why would they have done that if, in fact, this provision that we're talking about is keyed to the first offense, because the provision keyed to the first offense would have given everybody, everybody who is the second offender the 20 years that's the max for the first offender?\nAnd your response to that is, oh, but there are some cases where you would have wanted to go higher, namely a case of a departure, or a case where the underlying substantive offense is in fact like distributing a pound of crack in a prison with a gun, so you get to level 36 or 38 anyway.\nAt which point Justice Souter says, yes, that's true, I'm not saying there are no such cases, but there are so few that how could we really think that Congress meant the interpretation that you're advancing, or wouldn't it have viewed this as a kind of unnecessary provision to stick in?\nAm I... I'm trying to basically rephrase, perhaps not as articulately as the SG phrased... in other words... all right.\nI intended to help.\nI don't know if I have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2493.734, 2493.894, 2495.025, 2517.378, 2536.322, 2553.663, 2573.825, 2581.039, 2582.541], "stop_times": [2493.894, 2495.025, 2517.378, 2536.322, 2553.663, 2573.825, 2581.039, 2582.541, 2583.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.734}, "reply_to": "21099__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_064", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I would disagree that these cases are rare, where we have serious drug offenders and violent offenders.\nThere are many cases in which the judge would want to exercise his discretion to go higher and is able to under the guidelines, but the judge can only do that under the system of guidelines if there is an aggravating factor in the guidelines or a basis for a departure, so the commission's reading... the commission's implementation of 4B1.1 doesn't change that at all.\nAll unwarranted disparity that Congress was after came from the exercise of lawful discretion.\nCongress was concerned about judicial discretion, the impact it had on disparity, but that was lawful, all lawful exercise of discretion.\nSimilarly here, prosecutors can through their exercise of discretion wind up with disparities that the commission is charged with trying to regulate.\nI was mentioning before that in only 2.5 percent of all cases, according to Sentencing Commission data that we submitted to the Court, does the Government seek these enhanced maximums, so you wind up with a case where two defendants who have committed the same violation and have the same criminal record can get vastly different sentences, not because the judge or the Sentencing Commission thinks that any difference is appropriate, but rather simply because the Government has filed the enhancement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2583.152, 2590.989, 2613.165, 2619.649, 2626.485, 2635.892], "stop_times": [2590.989, 2613.165, 2619.649, 2626.485, 2635.892, 2663.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.152}, "reply_to": "21099__1_063", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_065", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "As Congress authorized them to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2663.741], "stop_times": [2665.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.741}, "reply_to": "21099__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__1_066", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But Congress authorized them to increase the maximums, not to increase the sentence.\nCongress has on many occasions given prosecutors the tools to actually increase sentences.\nThe Government can get a mandatory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2665.741, 2670.166, 2675.401], "stop_times": [2670.166, 2675.401, 2678.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2665.741}, "reply_to": "21099__1_065", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_067", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But the fact that the prosecutor makes the filing can result in a more severe sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2678.474], "stop_times": [2683.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.474}, "reply_to": "21099__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__1_068", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Absolutely, under the guideline that we're defending.\nThat's exactly the result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2683.785, 2686.787], "stop_times": [2686.787, 2687.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.785}, "reply_to": "21099__1_067", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_069", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Mr. Yellen, I'm... explain to me why it is that the only thing you excise from the precise offense for which the individual is being sentenced is this element that the prosecutor has the ability to increase or not to increase.\nWhy is it not the case, as Mr. Dreeben was saying, that if you're going to be consistent you would have to excise from the particular characteristics of the defendant's crime other elements as well, so that if you're doing 841, for example, you would not be able to include the particularized factors of how many grams, or what kind of a drug?\nWhy aren't those factors equally particularizing, and if you're going to be consistent as to the meaning of... well, are you using the phrase categories, or whether you're relying on that or not, why doesn't it bring you all the way down to the most minimum offense possible under 841?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2687.899, 2705.801, 2731.019], "stop_times": [2705.801, 2731.019, 2751.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2687.899}, "reply_to": "21099__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_070", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I think that would be a permissible reading, but my view of it doesn't matter.\nWhat matters is the Sentencing Commission, which has been delegated this authority, has said that we think this is the logical, rational--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2751.671, 2755.031], "stop_times": [2755.031, 2761.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.671}, "reply_to": "21099__1_069", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_071", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I don't see how it's logical.\nI mean, I can see how that reading is logical, produces an extraordinary result, and I can see how the Government's reading is logical, but I can't see how something in the middle... we're going to pick and choose among the individuating characteristics of the crime.\nI think you can say none of the individuating characteristics is taken account of.\nIt's only the base crime, and therefore you end up with nothing but a 3-year sentence under 841.\nOr you can say everything's included, which is the way the Government does it.\nBut I don't see how you can possibly say, we're going to pick something in between.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2761.847, 2763.099, 2775.137, 2778.739, 2783.764, 2786.947], "stop_times": [2763.099, 2775.137, 2778.739, 2783.764, 2786.947, 2790.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.847}, "reply_to": "21099__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_072", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Your Honor, I think it's very logical to say, as the commission did, that the most important category is what is the crime you committed, and what is your criminal record?\nThat's the whole structure of the guidelines, so what they did here was really try and integrate the career offender provision into the overall stru ture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2790.8, 2799.488], "stop_times": [2799.488, 2806.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.8}, "reply_to": "21099__1_071", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_073", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But when you say what is the crime you committed, you're willing to include within the crime you committed many factors that are not within the base crime.\nWhat?\nSuch as, the crime under 841 is, knowingly or intentionally manufacture, distribute, to create, distribute, dispense.\nThat's the base crime.\nAnd then you get different sentences under 841(b), depending upon how many grams, what kind of a drug, and so forth.\nThose are all individuating characteristics.\nNow, I can see taking them all into account or taking none of them into account, but to sort of arbitrarily say we're going to take into account some and not others doesn't seem to me a manner of interpreting the statute, but a matter of writing one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2806.472, 2814.838, 2815.148, 2822.985, 2824.086, 2831.042, 2834.037], "stop_times": [2814.838, 2815.148, 2822.985, 2824.086, 2831.042, 2834.037, 2844.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.472}, "reply_to": "21099__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_074", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Well, in fact the commission is there deferring to Congress.\nCongress has said drug amounts matter a lot, and it would have been more presumptuous of the commission to say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2844.145, 2847.107], "stop_times": [2847.107, 2853.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.145}, "reply_to": "21099__1_073", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_075", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But Congress said prosecutors have the discretion to go after the enhancement, and Mr. Yellen, frankly I don't have a clear answer to my question, and I think Justice Souter has the same problem.\nI can understand you saying, yes, that Judge Stahl was right, it effectively nullifies the enhancement, but that is exactly what the commission was trying to get at, because it wanted two people who committed identical conduct, who had the identical history, to be treated alike, and you can't have both.\nYou can't treat two people who are exactly alike in every other respect the same unless you... unless you erase what the prosecutor has done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2853.04, 2865.228, 2887.235], "stop_times": [2865.228, 2887.235, 2897.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.04}, "reply_to": "21099__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21099__1_076", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, it does not nullify the prosecutor's choice.\nIt nullifies the automatic sentence enhancement effect of the prosecutor's choice that the Government asks for, but it does not at all nullify the effect of the prosecutor's choice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2897.352, 2902.234], "stop_times": [2902.234, 2912.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.352}, "reply_to": "21099__1_075", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_077", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Yes, but that is the effect that the statute prescribes.\nI mean, you say... in other words, in the automatic sense, it has been effective; what the statute prescribes is that the sentence will be enhanced automatically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2912.609, 2914.893], "stop_times": [2914.893, 2923.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.609}, "reply_to": "21099__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21099__1_078", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--Well, there's not one statute here, of course.\nYou're talking about the relationships between two statutes, 851, which is the mechanism for the prosecutor to get the enhancement, and then there's 994(h), which directs the Sentencing Commission to devise a guideline at or near the maximum.\n851 does not authorize the Government to obtain a higher sentence.\nIf they have that power under the Government's view it's only because 994(h) mandates it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2923.018, 2924.538, 2937.738, 2943.104], "stop_times": [2924.538, 2937.738, 2943.104, 2948.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.018}, "reply_to": "21099__1_077", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_079", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "All right, let's just change the phraseology.\nIt authorizes the court to impose a higher sentence, and that authorization is effectively eliminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2948.39, 2950.029], "stop_times": [2950.029, 2956.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.39}, "reply_to": "21099__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_080", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "No, Justice Souter.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2956.515, 2958.785], "stop_times": [2958.785, 2959.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.515}, "reply_to": "21099__1_079", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_081", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And you could say... is it right you say no because--\n--Let him answer Justice Souter's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2959.516, 2962.056], "stop_times": [2962.056, 2964.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.516}, "reply_to": "21099__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__1_082", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--The... when the Government files under 851 the authorization is there to impose a 30-year sentence.\nThe court has that power, and the court will do that if it either exercises its discretion to depart, or if there are aggravating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2964.178, 2970.141], "stop_times": [2970.141, 2978.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.178}, "reply_to": "21099__1_081", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_083", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But the effect of that, when the court then switches to the career offender provisions, is effectively nullified, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2978.328], "stop_times": [2987.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.328}, "reply_to": "21099__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_084", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--No, Justice Souter.\nMaybe I didn't explain this well.\nThe career offender guidelines presents an alternative method of computing the guideline sentence.\nFor these defendants under Amendment 506 the career offender level is 32 criminal history category 6, okay, which is 210 months to 262 months, but the judge can... is required to compute the guideline range without regard to the career offender guideline, look at the amount of drugs, the weapon, and all of the other factors.\nAnd the way the guidelines were written, in many cases, particularly for career offenders who have long criminal records and are likely to be involved in very serious drug crimes, unlike the respondents in this case, those offenders will very often have guideline ranges that are above the unenhanced statutory minimum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [2987.445, 2988.236, 2990.477, 2996.502, 3017.946], "stop_times": [2988.236, 2990.477, 2996.502, 3017.946, 3037.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.445}, "reply_to": "21099__1_083", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_085", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "But I think you're saying that there are bases other than the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to file the information upon which the court may nonetheless raise the sentence, and Justice Ginsburg's question and mine is, other things being equal, if we look only at the effect that the prosecutor's discretion to go after the person for the enhanced sentence has, that effect on at least the judge's discretion is minimized or eliminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [3037.19], "stop_times": [3066.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.19}, "reply_to": "21099__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21099__1_086", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "And again I respectfully disagree, Justice Souter.\nIf you're at level 32 and you have no enhancement motion filed under 851 the maximum is 20 years, or 240 months, so you could not even go to the top of the guideline range lawfully, the level 32.\nYou could not go to 262 months.\nYou would be capped, the judge would be capped at 240 months.\nIf the Government has filed under 851, now the judge can go above 240 months all the way up to 360 months, so it retains... the effect of the enhanced maximum remains precisely the way it has always operated, and operates for anyone who is not a career offender.\nThe... I hope I've explained that clearly.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [3066.24, 3068.612, 3083.652, 3085.812, 3089.135, 3107.078, 3110.009], "stop_times": [3068.612, 3083.652, 3085.812, 3089.135, 3107.078, 3110.009, 3110.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3066.24}, "reply_to": "21099__1_085", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_087", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "I don't know if there's really a disagreement in that it seems to me, too, that it cuts the heart out of the jump from 20 to 40 years.\nI agree with you that there remain some circumstances where it was important to raise the cap.\nThe circumstances where it was important are where you depart, or where the crime at issue is greater than the 20 years under the guideline, and where you want to use the career offender and go all the way up to 262 months.\nYou characterize that as a big role for raising the cap to play.\nI think Justice Souter was characterizing it as a role for it to play, but not the whole heart of the matter, and is that a fair... is that fair?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [3110.37, 3119.438, 3125.313, 3136.977, 3142.502], "stop_times": [3119.438, 3125.313, 3136.977, 3142.502, 3152.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.37}, "reply_to": "21099__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21099__1_088", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "--It will... yes.\nLonger sentences will be less common under the commission's amendment, absolutely.\nBut the question here is not whether that's a good idea or a bad idea but whether, rather looking at the sentencing format in its entirety, and all the commission's obligations, it's a decision that it would have the authority to make, and again I point to the fact that Congress specifically decided to frame this as a general instruction to the commission and introduce the concept of categories.\nThe Government's reading of this statute completely eliminates the meaning of the word categories.\nIt reads as if the commission was directed to call for a sentence at or near the maximum for any defendant who is 18 years of age or older, and Congress had to mean something by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [3152.239, 3153.701, 3158.083, 3182.009, 3186.454], "stop_times": [3153.701, 3158.083, 3182.009, 3186.454, 3198.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3152.239}, "reply_to": "21099__1_087", "speaker": "david_n_yellen"}
{"id": "21099__1_089", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Yellen.\nMr. Dreeben, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [3198.184, 3199.895], "stop_times": [3199.895, 3202.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3198.184}, "reply_to": "21099__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__2_000", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "Unless the Court has any questions, the Government waives rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [3202.96], "stop_times": [3206.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3202.96}, "reply_to": "21099__1_089", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21099__2_001", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [3206.62], "stop_times": [3208.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3206.62}, "reply_to": "21099__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21099__2_002", "conversation_id": "21099", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1726", "start_times": [3208.942], "stop_times": [3214.469], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3208.942}, "reply_to": "21099__2_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20626__0_000", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1717, United States v. David Lanier.\nMr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [0.0, 6.915], "stop_times": [6.915, 8.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__0_001", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nBetween 1989 and 1991, the jury found Judge David Lanier sexually assaulted five women in his judicial chambers, one by repeated forcible oral rape, the others by what the jury concluded was\n\"physical abuse of a serious, substantial nature. \"\nAs to each count on which Lanier was convicted, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt first that Lanier's conduct had deprived the victims of a right secured or protected by the Fourth Amendment.\nThat is, the right to be free of unjustified physical abuse, including sexual assault, of a serious, substantial nature under color of law and, second, that he had acted wilfully, which the court defined in accordance with this Court's decision in Screws v. United States.\nA divided en banc Sixth Circuit ordered the indictments dismissed because in the majority's view the due process right to be free of forcible and coerced sexual assault had not been made specifically... sufficiently specific for the defendant to have known that in assaulting his victims he was violating their constitutional rights.\nIn concluding that sexual assault or any serious unjustified assault committed under color of law cannot be prosecuted under section 242, the court below misapprehended Screws and applied a standard no court has ever found necessary or appropriate.\nBecause the jury found that Lanier had sexually assaulted his victims while acting under color of law and with the knowledge and intention of violating their legal rights, and because decisions of the Federal courts had made specific the due process protection of those rights, the defendant was properly and constitutionally convicted in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [8.066, 10.079, 24.982, 29.236, 41.153, 58.104, 78.318, 96.641], "stop_times": [10.079, 24.982, 29.236, 41.153, 58.104, 78.318, 96.641, 118.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.066}, "reply_to": "20626__0_000", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_002", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Why does it have to--\n--Mr. Waxman, two of the concurring judges in the court of appeals I believe felt that the oral rape should be sustained but that the misdemeanors simply, I believe, weren't under color of State law.\nDoes the Government take any position on that here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [118.656, 119.176, 133.196], "stop_times": [119.176, 133.196, 136.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.656}, "reply_to": "20626__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__0_003", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, yes, we do, Mr. Chief Justice.\nFirst of all, I would stand corrected.\nI had thought that what the two dissenting justices said was that the misdemeanors didn't rise to the level of a specifically defined constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [136.598, 139.03, 141.574], "stop_times": [139.03, 141.574, 150.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 136.598}, "reply_to": "20626__0_002", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_004", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, you may be right.\nI'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [150.052, 150.252], "stop_times": [150.252, 150.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.052}, "reply_to": "20626__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__0_005", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But in any event, we do disagree.\nWe certainly recognize that there is a very significant difference in degree as to the conduct with respect to the coerced oral rapes and the conduct with respect to the other five misdemeanor convictions, but the right that has been made specific in this case is the right that this Court in Ingraham v. Wright identified.\nIt made specific the substantive due process\n\"right to be free from unjustified intrusions on personal security. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [150.751, 152.493, 174.017, 176.781], "stop_times": [152.493, 174.017, 176.781, 182.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.751}, "reply_to": "20626__0_004", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_006", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, if that's true, then why does... there has to be a serious touching, or a serious assault, because that was part of your submission at the outset.\nIf indeed it is the fourth Amendment that is controlling, why is not any offensive touching a violation of the act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [182.174, 191.251], "stop_times": [191.251, 200.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.174}, "reply_to": "20626__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_007", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, your... Justice Kennedy, your question raises a lot of issues.\nOne is whether it's the Fourth Amendment that's controlling, and the second, why it is that substantial serious was included in the jury instruction.\nIf I can... I will attempt to answer each of them separately.\nWe don't think... we did not understand that the Fourth Amendment was controlling in this case.\nthis was alleged, the indictment alleged that this was a substantive due process violation, the substantive due process right being the right to freedom from unwarranted intrusions by under color of State law physical integrity.\nWe don't understand the Fourth Amendment cases... and that was our effort to articulate a right that had been made specific by this Court in a series of due process decisions.\nWe did... have not understood this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, particularly in light of James Daniel Goode Real Estate, to include searches or conduct that occurs either outside the law enforcement context or, in any event, as not part of a search for or an effort to protect evidence of wrongdoing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [200.107, 203.53, 211.787, 214.659, 220.012, 234.063, 244.588], "stop_times": [203.53, 211.787, 214.659, 220.012, 234.063, 244.588, 267.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.107}, "reply_to": "20626__0_006", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_008", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "So in your view the Fourth Amendment is not really the controlling element in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [267.403], "stop_times": [274.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.403}, "reply_to": "20626__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_009", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "We think that it's not, although if it were, we would urge the Court to find that in any event there is no prejudice to the defendant because in any event the constitutional right alleged to have been violated would have been the Fourteenth Amendment, since the Fourth Amendment would apply only as incorporated, and the sub--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [274.077], "stop_times": [290.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.077}, "reply_to": "20626__0_008", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_010", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Mr. Waxman, the idea of the Fourth Amendment does go way, way back, even to Boyd v. United States, of any invasion of a person's personal security.\nIs that not so?\nAnd I thought in your very first remarks you mentioned the Fourth Amendment, didn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [290.87, 301.256, 303.165], "stop_times": [301.256, 303.165, 307.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 290.87}, "reply_to": "20626__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20626__0_011", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--No, I... if I did, I certainly meant to say the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [307.78], "stop_times": [311.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.78}, "reply_to": "20626__0_010", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_012", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Oh, that was what misled me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [311.292], "stop_times": [313.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.292}, "reply_to": "20626__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_013", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Okay.\nI apologize to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [313.916, 314.327], "stop_times": [314.327, 315.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.916}, "reply_to": "20626__0_012", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_014", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I perhaps misheard you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [315.966], "stop_times": [316.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.966}, "reply_to": "20626__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_015", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I left off a digit.\n[Laughter]\nIn any event, we don't think, even if it were the Fourth Amendment... I think this is responsive to both of your questions... even the test would be the same, because the question under substantive due process under Ingraham and its progeny, whether... would be whether the physical intrusion was \"unjustified\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [316.157, 317.356, 319.048], "stop_times": [317.356, 319.048, 334.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.157}, "reply_to": "20626__0_014", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_016", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Okay.\nLet's get to the next part, then, which is how--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [334.65, 334.9], "stop_times": [334.9, 336.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.65}, "reply_to": "20626__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_017", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--and then the Fourth Amendment test would be unreasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [336.673], "stop_times": [337.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.673}, "reply_to": "20626__0_016", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_018", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--How serious it has to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [337.153], "stop_times": [339.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.153}, "reply_to": "20626__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_019", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, in Ingraham this Court recognized in the due process context, as this Court recognized in McMillian and the Eighth Amendment context and other courts have recognized, that\n\"there is, of course, a de minimis level of imposition with which the Constitution is not concerned. \"\nNow, the problem in every case, of course, is to determine whether or not that de minimis threshold was surmounted.\nIn the case of the forced oral rape of Vivian Archie, I... we submit there is no possible... there's no conceivable notion that it wasn't surmounted, but if we look to this Court's precedent, in Ingraham itself, after stating that there was a de minimis level of imposition, it held that because in Ingraham itself appreciable physical pain was inflicted the threshold was certainly met.\nNow, that threshold, the threshold of de minimis, is one which decisions of this Court have not made more specific, but lower--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [339.104, 348.951, 355.096, 362.101, 387.339], "stop_times": [348.951, 355.096, 362.101, 387.339, 397.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.104}, "reply_to": "20626__0_018", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_020", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, maybe... maybe... the instructions here certainly called for more, did they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [397.227], "stop_times": [403.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.227}, "reply_to": "20626__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__0_021", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--They certainly did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [403.03], "stop_times": [403.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.03}, "reply_to": "20626__0_020", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_022", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "They called for physical abuse of a serious, substantial nature involving physical force, mental coercion, bodily injury, or emotional damage which is shocking to the conscience, so clearly this instruction envisioned something much more serious than passing some de minimis line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [403.688], "stop_times": [420.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.688}, "reply_to": "20626__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__0_023", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That is absolutely correct, and that is why I would submit to the Court that because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [420.632], "stop_times": [424.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.632}, "reply_to": "20626__0_022", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_024", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, do you think that instruction was wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [424.783], "stop_times": [426.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.783}, "reply_to": "20626__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__0_025", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, we thought that the shocks-the-conscience standard was unnecessary.\nWe didn't submit it.\nThe defendant asked for it.\nIt was clearly cumulative of the other requirements, the serious and substantial nature that the jury had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [426.565, 430.827, 432.79, 434.422], "stop_times": [430.827, 432.79, 434.422, 440.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.565}, "reply_to": "20626__0_024", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_026", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I mean, the problem you'd have is that virtually every arrest where handcuffs are put on, or anything of the sort, would result in a Federal case as well as any ordinary excessive force claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [440.507], "stop_times": [457.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.507}, "reply_to": "20626__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__0_027", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [457.686], "stop_times": [458.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.686}, "reply_to": "20626__0_026", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_028", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "And I think that has to be a concern, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [458.057], "stop_times": [461.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.057}, "reply_to": "20626__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__0_029", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--It very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [461.36], "stop_times": [461.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.36}, "reply_to": "20626__0_028", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_030", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "It may not affect this case because of the instruction here, but I think this issue is terribly important, whether it's just some de minimis threshold that's left out, or is it something more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [461.921], "stop_times": [472.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.921}, "reply_to": "20626__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__0_031", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--We agree that it is a very important question, and if I could, Justice O'Connor, let me address this case and then get to where... how we think these cases should be decided under other circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [472.978], "stop_times": [482.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.978}, "reply_to": "20626__0_030", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_032", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, I prefer that you'd get right down to what the heart of the standard is and then talk about the facts here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [482.335], "stop_times": [487.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.335}, "reply_to": "20626__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__0_033", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Okay.\nWe think that at a minimum the standard is a serious and substantial intrusion, and we think that because the jury was so instructed in this case, that as to those counts that the jury convicted... and the jury was quite discriminating in this case.\nIt acquitted on three counts, and one count was dismissed by the judge on a motion for judgment of acquittal.\nAs to those counts on which the jury convicted, there is more than enough, way more than enough evidence for a rational fact-finder to conclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [487.159, 487.43, 503.191, 508.486], "stop_times": [487.43, 503.191, 508.486, 516.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.159}, "reply_to": "20626__0_032", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_034", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Serious and substantial, as you're putting it, is almost inconsistent to me with the concept of a misdemeanor, which is what some of these convictions were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [516.263], "stop_times": [526.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.263}, "reply_to": "20626__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__0_035", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--It's true that all but the oral rapes were misdemeanor convictions, but none... it may be, Mr. Chief Justice, that the instructions in this case set the bar too high.\nOrdinarily in... I would think in one of these cases a trial judge, if presented with a clearly insignificant or relatively insignificant intrusion, would apply the same Jackson v. Virginia standard that it would apply, for example, in a 1983 suit or a 242 prosecution brought alleging that a... that in the course of an arrest or a seizure unreasonable force was used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [526.07, 535.056], "stop_times": [535.056, 560.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.07}, "reply_to": "20626__0_034", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_036", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "There's a real element of vagueness in all of this, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [560.504], "stop_times": [563.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.504}, "reply_to": "20626__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__0_037", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, there is in this as in, for example, when a jury is asked to decide whether a search and seizure is unreasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [563.246], "stop_times": [570.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.246}, "reply_to": "20626__0_036", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_038", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Mr. Waxman, you just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [570.822], "stop_times": [571.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.822}, "reply_to": "20626__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20626__0_039", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--or whether an obscenity case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [571.463], "stop_times": [571.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.463}, "reply_to": "20626__0_038", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_040", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Mr. Waxman, you just mentioned 1983 in connection with 242, and it would help me very much if you would clarify two things about the relationship.\nIs everything that would be susceptible to a 1983 charge also indictable under 242, and is there any difference in the state of mind requirement in the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [571.734, 581.911], "stop_times": [581.911, 597.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.734}, "reply_to": "20626__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20626__0_041", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Yes, Justice Ginsburg.\nFirst of all, there is a significant difference in the state of mind requirement.\nUnder 242, under Screws, this Court has said that 242 may constitutionally be applied only if the defendant acted wilfully.\nThat is... and I'm quoting Screws... when persons act wilfully in the sense in which we use the word, they act in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite, and in deciding Monroe v. Pape, for example, this Court emphasized a much higher intent requirement that is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [597.281, 599.572, 603.035, 612.783], "stop_times": [599.572, 603.035, 612.783, 632.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.281}, "reply_to": "20626__0_040", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_042", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I understand the abstract concept, but frankly I don't understand when one intentionally beats another human, to take an example, what is wilful any more than intentional in that context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [632.654], "stop_times": [643.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.654}, "reply_to": "20626__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20626__0_043", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Intentional in conventional common... in conventional criminal law terms, and it's reflected in all of the pattern jury instructions, an intent to do a crime, a specific intent to do a crime means that you intend to do the act which you do.\nBut as this Court said in Screws, the common definition of wilfulness implies something much more.\nThat is, a bad purpose, or a specific intent to do something that the law forbids, knowing that the law forbids it, and intending that it be forbade, and that in fact is precisely what we have in this case.\nIn this case we really have quite an extraordinary set of circumstances.\nIn the motion for judgment of acquittal the... Judge Lanier's counsel said, and I am quoting at page 110 of the Joint Appendix, I am satisfied that a deprivation of freedom and liberty from sexual assault is adequate.\nAnd when Judge Lanier testified, and I'm quoting now from volume 9 at page 1569, he was asked, question: Well, you understand, for example, judge, that everybody in this country has a right to be free from sexual assault and abuse.\nYou understand that, don't you?\nYes, sir, I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [643.544, 657.054, 663.969, 676.959, 680.902, 698.423, 713.174, 714.446], "stop_times": [657.054, 663.969, 676.959, 680.902, 698.423, 713.174, 714.446, 716.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.544}, "reply_to": "20626__0_042", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_044", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, Mr. Waxman, that's--\n--That's not clear at all whether... he could have been answering in response to State law, Federal law... a vague question like that doesn't prove much.\nAnd it's not true anyway, is it?\nEverybody doesn't have a Federal... we're talking here about a Federal constitutional right.\nThe statute requires deprivation of any right secured or protected by the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [716.677, 717.778, 725.072, 726.224, 730.308], "stop_times": [717.778, 725.072, 726.224, 730.308, 734.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.677}, "reply_to": "20626__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__0_045", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "And laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [734.481], "stop_times": [735.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.481}, "reply_to": "20626__0_044", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_046", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Or laws.\nNow, the Constitution, or the laws here... you're talking about Federal law that was the basis for this charge, anyway.\nThe Constitution does not protect you against derivation of your physical integrity.\nIf a private individual comes up and beats you up, that's not a violation of the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [735.222, 736.013, 742.478, 746.952], "stop_times": [736.013, 742.478, 746.952, 750.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.222}, "reply_to": "20626__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_047", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That's absolutely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [750.184], "stop_times": [751.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.184}, "reply_to": "20626__0_046", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_048", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [751.285], "stop_times": [751.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.285}, "reply_to": "20626__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_049", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "You have to have under color of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [751.576], "stop_times": [752.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.576}, "reply_to": "20626__0_048", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_050", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Exactly, and... well, more than under color of law.\nThere has to be some State participation in some manner or other.\nNow, I had thought that when we were dealing with the Due Process Clause's procedural component, procedural due process, any action of the State would suffice to come within this provision of being the right guaranteed by the Constitution, so that even if the State is acting as employer and terminates your contract without proper procedure it would be a deprivation of procedural due process, but I had not thought that when we're talking about substantive due process every activity of the State brings down upon those State actors the prohibitions of the Federal Constitution.\nFor example, if someone goes into a motor vehicle registration office and the person behind the desk jumps up and punches the person, I would not consider that to be any violation of the Federal Constitution.\nIt's a State actor in the function of his job.\nBut it has always seemed to me that in order to come within substantive due process protection the State must be acting in its... what should I say, in its compulsory fashion.\nIt must be exerting State power, not just acting like an employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [752.757, 755.09, 761.755, 805.465, 819.496, 823.728, 836.918], "stop_times": [755.09, 761.755, 805.465, 819.496, 823.728, 836.918, 840.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.757}, "reply_to": "20626__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_051", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [840.671], "stop_times": [842.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 840.671}, "reply_to": "20626__0_050", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_052", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "A policeman, for example, arresting someone is exerting State power over you, and if in the course of that he beats you up, substantive due process has been violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [842.033], "stop_times": [850.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.033}, "reply_to": "20626__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_053", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I understand your point about State action.\nLet me say first that although I understand your view of the proper construction of the terms, under color, dozens and dozens of lower court decisions have not construed it that way, including many of the assault cases and other cases that this Court has specifically cited approvingly.\nBut let me just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [850.227, 852.861, 870.663], "stop_times": [852.861, 870.663, 871.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.227}, "reply_to": "20626__0_052", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_054", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I wasn't referring to the phrase, under color.\nI was referring to rights secured or protected by the Constitution.\nI was not referring to the phrase, under color.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [871.445, 873.127, 876.62], "stop_times": [873.127, 876.62, 878.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.445}, "reply_to": "20626__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_055", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, the right... this Court has said, Justice Holmes in the Moseley case and this Court many times since has said that this statute and its companion, 241, protect all Federal rights in a bundle.\nThat is, all rights created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [878.623, 890.821], "stop_times": [890.821, 895.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.623}, "reply_to": "20626__0_054", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_056", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But I think we've treated substantive and procedural due process differently.\nUnless you disagree about my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [895.185, 898.047], "stop_times": [898.047, 899.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.185}, "reply_to": "20626__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_057", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I do disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [899.797], "stop_times": [900.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.797}, "reply_to": "20626__0_056", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_058", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--About my example... my example of the motor vehicle employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [900.007], "stop_times": [903.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.007}, "reply_to": "20626__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_059", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I disagree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [903.109], "stop_times": [903.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.109}, "reply_to": "20626__0_058", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_060", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "He jumps up and beats--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [903.94], "stop_times": [904.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.94}, "reply_to": "20626__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_061", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I disagree, and I could cite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [904.651], "stop_times": [905.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.651}, "reply_to": "20626__0_060", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_062", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--So any physical tort committed by a State agent in the course of his employment is a constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [905.603], "stop_times": [913.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.603}, "reply_to": "20626__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_063", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--No.\nA... an assault committed by a State agent in the course of his employment, or something that satisfies the Classic definition of under color of State law, if it violates State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [913.247, 913.598], "stop_times": [913.598, 925.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.247}, "reply_to": "20626__0_062", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_064", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "You see, I just don't agree.\nI cannot imagine that 242 was meant to cover that situation in which a, you know, a State bureaucrat jumps up from the desk and punches somebody out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [925.837, 926.745], "stop_times": [926.745, 936.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.837}, "reply_to": "20626__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_065", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, let me give you an example from Polk v. Dodson, a case that this Court decided, in which case this Court held that a State public defender was not acting under color of law when she was engaging in the representation of her clients because, as this Court subsequently explained in West v. Adkins, she was acting as the adversary of the State.\nIn Polk v. Dodson this Court said we leave undisturbed cases like, for example, the section 242 prosecution in the Seventh Circuit case of United States v. Senacht, where a State public defender was prosecuted and convicted under 242 for extorting money from friends and relatives of people that he was representing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [936.963, 958.318], "stop_times": [958.318, 978.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.963}, "reply_to": "20626__0_064", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_066", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But that was in relation very specifically to his duties.\nSupposing in your case in this courthouse a janitor leaped out of a closet, abducted a woman, and molested her.\nWould that be a 242 violation, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [978.59, 981.092, 988.708], "stop_times": [981.092, 988.708, 990.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.59}, "reply_to": "20626__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_067", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Probably not.\nIt would be very difficult, I think, to... I think it would be impossible to show that the janitor was acting under color of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [990.731, 991.961], "stop_times": [991.961, 1000.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.731}, "reply_to": "20626__0_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_068", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, he's on the premises.\nIt's during the course of his employment.\nIt's obviously... he's not using the employment in any other way than as a physical proximity, to get access to the victim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1000.037, 1000.238, 1000.927], "stop_times": [1000.238, 1000.927, 1010.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.037}, "reply_to": "20626__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_069", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, this... I'm not... I don't know of any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1010.023], "stop_times": [1012.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.023}, "reply_to": "20626__0_068", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_070", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "And incidentally I'm not sure that that isn't true in the case that's before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1012.637], "stop_times": [1016.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.637}, "reply_to": "20626__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_071", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, let me talk about the case that's before us.\nThe... none of the six opinions issued by the court of appeals or members of the court of appeals in this case concluded that the defendant did not act under color of State law, and with good reason.\nState law is a... state action, or color of State law is a jury question, and the jury in this case was instructed in hac verba from this Court's Classic definition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1016.667, 1018.78, 1029.156], "stop_times": [1018.78, 1029.156, 1040.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.667}, "reply_to": "20626__0_070", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_072", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Haec verba.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1040.646], "stop_times": [1040.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.646}, "reply_to": "20626__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_073", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--in United States v. Classic, and the evidence, I submit, certainly exceeds the minimum that is necessary to find--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1040.887], "stop_times": [1048.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.887}, "reply_to": "20626__0_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_074", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, so... is it then your position that anything a government, anything a judge does in the course of his office is necessarily under... during working hours is under color of State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1048.29], "stop_times": [1062.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.29}, "reply_to": "20626__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__0_075", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--No, certainly not, but what you have in this case were, all of these assaults occurred... and I don't intend to get into the details of these assaults, but all of these assaults occurred in his chambers during regular working hours as to women who were either employees hired and supervised by him or people who were there in connection with an official responsibility in which he had asked them to be there, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1062.259], "stop_times": [1087.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.259}, "reply_to": "20626__0_074", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_076", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, Mr. Waxman, assuming... taking that as you say, help me on one thing.\nI thought we could decide this case, and I thought the issue that you had brought to us could be decided without getting into the question of the scope of under color of State law, and I think you just said or implied that the concept of color of law was never an issue in the trial court.\nAm I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1087.657, 1091.78, 1111.402], "stop_times": [1091.78, 1111.402, 1111.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.657}, "reply_to": "20626__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_077", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I believe it was an issue in the trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1111.993], "stop_times": [1114.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.993}, "reply_to": "20626__0_076", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_078", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But was it resolved against the Government, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1114.514], "stop_times": [1116.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.514}, "reply_to": "20626__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_079", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "It was resolved in favor of the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1116.657], "stop_times": [1118.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.657}, "reply_to": "20626__0_078", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_080", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1118.628], "stop_times": [1119.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.628}, "reply_to": "20626__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_081", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That is, the... there was a pretrial motion to... well, I will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1119.218], "stop_times": [1123.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.218}, "reply_to": "20626__0_080", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_082", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, let me change my question.\nThe only issue that you have brought to us, as I understand, is the issue of how definite the right must have been articulated prior to the charge that is brought under this statute, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1123.123, 1125.193], "stop_times": [1125.193, 1137.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.123}, "reply_to": "20626__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_083", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--That is correct, and that was the only basis for the en banc majority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1137.26], "stop_times": [1140.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.26}, "reply_to": "20626__0_082", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_084", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Can that issue be decided, as I assumed it could be, without getting into the concept of color of law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1140.003], "stop_times": [1146.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.003}, "reply_to": "20626__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_085", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, we certainly think it can be.\nOf course, a judgment below can be affirmed, I suppose, on any grounds, but the issue of under color of State law was only raised for the first time in the red brief in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1146.097, 1147.75], "stop_times": [1147.75, 1157.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1146.097}, "reply_to": "20626__0_084", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_086", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "No, that's not true.\nIt was raised in the opposition to the petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1157.905, 1158.386], "stop_times": [1158.386, 1161.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.905}, "reply_to": "20626__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_087", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1161.097], "stop_times": [1161.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.097}, "reply_to": "20626__0_086", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_088", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "At the first opportunity that this defendant could raise it.\nIt wasn't reached by the court of appeals.\nBut moreover, your opponent contends, and I tend to agree, that color of State law is one issue, but that the same kind of considerations arise in the interpretation of the phrase, rights secured or protected by the Constitution, that it is not all rights to physical integrity that are protected by the Constitution, but only those that are taken away by the State in a certain fashion, and his contention is that that fashion has to be when the State is exerting governmental power, is acting as custodian, or in some other fashion, so the same issue comes up in a different guise, not under color of law but under the other provisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1161.467, 1164.649, 1166.692], "stop_times": [1164.649, 1166.692, 1209.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.467}, "reply_to": "20626__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_089", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I would make two points, Justice Scalia.\nFirst of all, there are a raft of lower court decisions applying 242 and 1... and 1983 in contexts in which the State is not acting as custodian of some sort.\nAnd second of all, I would make the point that we tried to make in our brief that the notion that somehow individuals who are in custody, either in a mental institution or prison or in a public school, somehow have more rights to be free of unjustified bodily intrusion than free citizens is exactly the opposite of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1209.98, 1212.6, 1223.477], "stop_times": [1212.6, 1223.477, 1243.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.98}, "reply_to": "20626__0_088", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_090", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Mr. Waxman... Mr. Waxman, wasn't she essentially arrested, confined, if we're talking about Vivian Archer?\nI didn't understand your departing from the Fourth Amendment so swiftly, because it seemed to me what was very clear is that that woman was locked up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1243.552, 1252.088], "stop_times": [1252.088, 1260.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1243.552}, "reply_to": "20626__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20626__0_091", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--As to Vivian Archie I think the facts are overwhelming.\nShe came in for... this judge had granted her a divorce and granted her custody of her child.\nShe came in to file an employment application with him.\nHe told her that her father was asking him to take custody of the child away from her.\nHe then forcibly physically orally raped her and told her not to say anything about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1260.504, 1264.267, 1270.241, 1273.974, 1279.878], "stop_times": [1264.267, 1270.241, 1273.974, 1279.878, 1285.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.504}, "reply_to": "20626__0_090", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_092", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Now, are you saying that this makes the right more specific?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1285.643], "stop_times": [1289.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1285.643}, "reply_to": "20626__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_093", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I'm not saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1289.825], "stop_times": [1290.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.825}, "reply_to": "20626__0_092", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_094", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Because if you are, then I think your answer to Justice Souter might have been that color of law is necessary for us to consider to make the right more specific.\nNow, maybe that's not your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1290.977, 1301.462], "stop_times": [1301.462, 1303.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.977}, "reply_to": "20626__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__0_095", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--That's not my position.\nMy position is that there are four elements to a 242 offense, of which color of law is one, and violation of a constitutional right made specific is another, wilfulness is a third and, of course, the commission of the acts alleged is a fourth.\nAs we understood and as we brought this case to this Court, the issue was the first, the second that I identified, which is, was the right violated here a right that has been made specific, and our point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1303.075, 1304.186, 1319.306], "stop_times": [1304.186, 1319.306, 1330.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.075}, "reply_to": "20626__0_094", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_096", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "And if you win on that you then go back to the court of appeals for further proceedings on color of law, or the... Justice Scalia's articulation of the concept of right guaranteed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1330.174], "stop_times": [1343.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.174}, "reply_to": "20626__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_097", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I don't think that it's... I suppose maybe I haven't thought of this closely enough.\nI don't think it's required for us to go back to the court of appeals for any other determinations.\nThis case was presented to the panel on all issues, and they were all denied.\nThey went to the en banc court on two issues, and the en banc court I think has disposed of this case.\nThere is not the slightest intimation in this case that the en banc court was inclined to find that this didn't exist under color of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1343.953, 1348.087, 1352.421, 1356.916, 1363.191], "stop_times": [1348.087, 1352.421, 1356.916, 1363.191, 1370.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1343.953}, "reply_to": "20626__0_096", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_098", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I thought it disposed of the case against you and found it unnecessary... having found against you on another ground, found it unnecessary to reach the color of law ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1370.146], "stop_times": [1379.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.146}, "reply_to": "20626__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_099", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1379.353], "stop_times": [1379.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1379.353}, "reply_to": "20626__0_098", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_100", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Which seems dirty pool, to never give the defendant a shot at that ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1379.924], "stop_times": [1384.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.924}, "reply_to": "20626__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_101", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1384.778], "stop_times": [1385.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1384.778}, "reply_to": "20626__0_100", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_102", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "The court of appeals never considered it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1385.087], "stop_times": [1385.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.087}, "reply_to": "20626__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_103", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I would never wilfully play dirty pool.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1385.908], "stop_times": [1387.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.908}, "reply_to": "20626__0_102", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_104", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I'm sure you wouldn't.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1387.811, 1388.221], "stop_times": [1388.221, 1388.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1387.811}, "reply_to": "20626__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_105", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "And in fact if that is the proper construction, it should be set down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1388.502], "stop_times": [1391.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1388.502}, "reply_to": "20626__0_104", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_106", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "It's our rule 3.2.\n[Laughter]\nThe dirty pool rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1391.474, 1392.566, 1393.187], "stop_times": [1392.566, 1393.187, 1394.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.474}, "reply_to": "20626__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__0_107", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I honor all of your rules, whether they've been made specific or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1394.837], "stop_times": [1397.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1394.837}, "reply_to": "20626__0_106", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_108", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Mr. Waxman--\n[Laughter]\nMr. Waxman, you said... in comparing 1983 you said there's a stronger intent requirement.\nWhat about qualified immunity?\nThat's a big thing in 1983.\nDoes it figure in 242?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1397.819, 1398.68, 1399.301, 1404.586, 1406.729, 1408.71], "stop_times": [1398.68, 1399.301, 1404.586, 1406.729, 1408.71, 1410.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.819}, "reply_to": "20626__0_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20626__0_109", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, I think it does in this respect.\nYou have to determine how to give content to the words, made specific, and we think that the made specific standard under 242 and clearly established standard under qualified immunity cases are and ought to be considered quite similarly, and that is the test should be the functional test that this Court articulated in Forsyth v. Mitchell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1410.592, 1412.493], "stop_times": [1412.493, 1434.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1410.592}, "reply_to": "20626__0_108", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_110", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Similarly but not identically?\nWhy shouldn't that be identical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1434.177, 1435.88], "stop_times": [1435.88, 1437.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.177}, "reply_to": "20626__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_111", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Or whether... whether one familiar with the law could have had a legitimate question or better.\nAs this Court said in Anderson v. Creighton, in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be made apparent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1437.45, 1441.253], "stop_times": [1441.253, 1447.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.45}, "reply_to": "20626__0_110", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_112", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "And don't you think the standard should be the same for... under each standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1447.338], "stop_times": [1451.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.338}, "reply_to": "20626__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_113", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1451.441], "stop_times": [1451.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.441}, "reply_to": "20626__0_112", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_114", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1451.762], "stop_times": [1451.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.762}, "reply_to": "20626__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__0_115", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I do.\nMr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1451.952, 1452.102], "stop_times": [1452.102, 1454.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.952}, "reply_to": "20626__0_114", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_116", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1454.555], "stop_times": [1455.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.555}, "reply_to": "20626__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__0_117", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1455.365], "stop_times": [1455.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.365}, "reply_to": "20626__0_116", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__0_118", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Mr. Knight, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1455.565], "stop_times": [1456.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.565}, "reply_to": "20626__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__1_000", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt seems to me that the exceptional aspect of this case from a factual standpoint, as a 242 case, is that the respondent was convicted of offenses involving the spontaneous use of physical force, but as a public official he had no legitimate authority to impose force on citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1456.957, 1464.802], "stop_times": [1464.802, 1497.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1456.957}, "reply_to": "20626__0_118", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_001", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Now, that goes to the color of law issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1497.903], "stop_times": [1499.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.903}, "reply_to": "20626__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_002", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Your Honor, I think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1499.956], "stop_times": [1500.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.956}, "reply_to": "20626__1_001", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_003", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Is that before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1500.875], "stop_times": [1501.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.875}, "reply_to": "20626__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_004", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I believe, Your Honor, it goes in a sense to all three possible issues here.\nIt certainly goes to the color of law issue in the sense that within the language of the Screws case he could not have been acting under the pretense of exercising his legitimate authority when he committed the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1501.246, 1506.892], "stop_times": [1506.892, 1521.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1501.246}, "reply_to": "20626__1_003", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_005", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Oh, I understand your point there, but I think my question is this: if we should determine that the court of appeals was wrong in applying a standard which goes beyond what Mr. Waxman suggested, in other words that goes beyond reasonably definite, and instead require the substantially identical circumstances or facts I think is how the court of appeals articulated it, if we say that was an error, isn't it possible to dispose of that issue without ever determining whether in this particular, or in any of these particular instances the office or the judge in this case was acting under color of law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1521.803], "stop_times": [1562.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.803}, "reply_to": "20626__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_006", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I believe you could dispose of that issue, but I believe that in addressing the due process issue there would have to be a finding of State action in connection with this conduct, and State action is in my mind so closely allied with the concept of acting under color of law, I think it would be difficult for this Court to enunciate a due process violation without addressing the question of whether the conduct could be considered State action, which would be very close to determining whether it was action committed under color of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1562.431], "stop_times": [1597.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1562.431}, "reply_to": "20626__1_005", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_007", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, I suppose we would just say we are determining only the question here, how definitely the right must have been articulated prior to the commencement of this prosecution, or prior to the act charged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1597.176], "stop_times": [1607.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.176}, "reply_to": "20626__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_008", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1607.834], "stop_times": [1608.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.834}, "reply_to": "20626__1_007", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_009", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--and questions of State action and color of law are simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1608.983], "stop_times": [1612.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.983}, "reply_to": "20626__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_010", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1612.756], "stop_times": [1613.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1612.756}, "reply_to": "20626__1_009", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_011", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--not covered by our opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1613.517], "stop_times": [1614.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.517}, "reply_to": "20626__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_012", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I would contend, Your Honor, that in determining how specific the due process right must be articulated, or have been previously articulated, the Court would address the question of in what context is the assault conducted?\nIn other words, is assault per se by someone who happens to be a public official a due process violation?\nI would contend that that's too broad, that that's beyond the ambit of what Screws had in mind, and that therefore the governmental context in which the assault was conducted would have to be determined, which to my mind brings you back to the question of the State action and the governmental context in which the assault was committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1614.977, 1632.551, 1641.127], "stop_times": [1632.551, 1641.127, 1662.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1614.977}, "reply_to": "20626__1_011", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_013", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I'm inclined to agree with you on the point of breadth that you raise, but I'm not sure that I can agree with you that we could not decide the case on the grounds of what I will call prior definite statement of the right without getting into color--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1662.05], "stop_times": [1678.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.05}, "reply_to": "20626__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_014", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, I do believe, Your Honor, that as an abstract proposition certainly you could decide the due process issue if you felt that the due process issue could be determined without reference to considering the governmental context in which the assault occurred.\nIf you adopt the Government's view in this case that unjustified interference with physical integrity, which I take it is coextensive with assault, if you decide that that is a definite enough statement of due process violation to pass muster, then I would agree that you would not have to consider State action or the governmental context in which the assault occurred.\nBut my fundamental contention in this case is that that definition that has been proposed by the Government is far broader than any definition certainly this Court has undertaken and, in fact, I think is contrary to several holdings of this Court, or certainly to the spirit and thrust and intent of a number of decisions that have been rendered by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1678.823, 1692.991, 1717.388], "stop_times": [1692.991, 1717.388, 1744.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1678.823}, "reply_to": "20626__1_013", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_015", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--So--\n--Mr. Knight, do you think that there's any violent assault by a public official, any at all, against a free person as opposed to someone who is in custody, that would be a violation of 242?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1744.265, 1744.546], "stop_times": [1744.546, 1764.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.265}, "reply_to": "20626__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20626__1_016", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I cannot, Your Honor.\nIt's quite difficult to conjure that up, and I've tried to do that, and I've been asked those hypothetical questions along the way in these appeals, and I cannot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1764.141, 1765.48], "stop_times": [1765.48, 1777.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.141}, "reply_to": "20626__1_015", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_017", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, what about a policeman trying to keep order at a parade or in a demonstration who just... and has authority to... he doesn't have custody of the onlookers, but he has authority to keep them back from the street, and he wades in with a baton and starts beating them?\nWouldn't that qualify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1777.188, 1791.867], "stop_times": [1791.867, 1793.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.188}, "reply_to": "20626__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_018", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I suppose, Your Honor, you do get situations where there is not custody in the full sense of an arrest and something happening after the arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1793.279], "stop_times": [1802.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.279}, "reply_to": "20626__1_017", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_019", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I don't think the issue is custody.\nI think the issue is the exertion of State power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1802.776, 1804.476], "stop_times": [1804.476, 1807.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.776}, "reply_to": "20626__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_020", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I would agree with that, Your Honor, that that is the broad issue.\nI believe that the case law has so far by this Court been in terms of injuries that occur while in custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1807.688, 1811.592], "stop_times": [1811.592, 1819.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.688}, "reply_to": "20626__1_019", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_021", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But you would... would you distinguish the hypothetical Justice Scalia just gave you and the case we have before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1819.245], "stop_times": [1825.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.245}, "reply_to": "20626__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_022", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I would on the basis that I initially suggested, which is that a judge has no authority conferred by the State to assault or restrain or subdue citizens, and therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1825.74], "stop_times": [1842.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.74}, "reply_to": "20626__1_021", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_023", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "May I interrupt you on that question?\nSuppose the judge is presiding at a trial, and the... this potential victim is a party to the case, and he says, I want to have a pretrial conference, I just want to see you in chambers, and say I'm planning to rule against you unless you submit to my advances, would that be covered in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1842.553, 1844.293], "stop_times": [1844.293, 1861.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.553}, "reply_to": "20626__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20626__1_024", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--He says I would rule against you unless you submit to my advances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1861.233], "stop_times": [1865.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.233}, "reply_to": "20626__1_023", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_025", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1865.787], "stop_times": [1866.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.787}, "reply_to": "20626__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20626__1_026", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Your Honor, that is a use I would think possibly of governmental power.\nIt may get back, and I know we've got a problem with color of law here.\nI don't think that would be under color of law, because I think under color of law within the meaning of Screws is a purported or pretended exercise of actual authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1866.077, 1871.881, 1876.315], "stop_times": [1871.881, 1876.315, 1886.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.077}, "reply_to": "20626__1_025", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_027", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, his... he says, I threaten you with an exercise of my power to rule against you in the case pending before me unless you do what I want you to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1886.423], "stop_times": [1894.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.423}, "reply_to": "20626__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20626__1_028", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1894.23], "stop_times": [1894.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.23}, "reply_to": "20626__1_027", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_029", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "You'd say that isn't colorable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1894.7], "stop_times": [1896.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.7}, "reply_to": "20626__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20626__1_030", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I would make the distinction that there's a difference between an extortive use of power, or an extortive use of position where you say, I'm strong enough to force you to do this on the one hand, and saying as a judge I have the authority to sentence you to be assaulted by me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1896.353], "stop_times": [1914.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.353}, "reply_to": "20626__1_029", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_031", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Oh, but I thought you could answer Justice Stevens that that is a more specific right than the right that's involved in this case, i.e., the right to be free from having the judicial officer use the powers and the authority of his office in order to commit a sexual assault.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1914.014], "stop_times": [1929.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.014}, "reply_to": "20626__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_032", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I would agree with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1929.913], "stop_times": [1930.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1929.913}, "reply_to": "20626__1_031", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_033", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But that isn't too... Justice Stevens' hypothesis isn't too far from what actually happened here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1930.895], "stop_times": [1935.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.895}, "reply_to": "20626__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__1_034", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Oh, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1935.909], "stop_times": [1936.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.909}, "reply_to": "20626__1_033", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_035", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--with the case of the oral rape.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1936.087], "stop_times": [1938.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.087}, "reply_to": "20626__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__1_036", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--If Your Honor please, I think there has been some misconception about what happened during those Archie assaults, which are certainly the most serious assaults in the case.\nWhat happened was, in the first interview, at the outset of the interview the respondent said, your father has indicated an interest in filing a change of custody petition, and I can't discuss that with you.\nThat was just... that was a statement of fact that as far as we know was a true statement of fact, and with the benefit of hindsight it has been said well, that was an implied threat.\nThere was an interview that was subsequently conducted.\nThe assault itself was a pure exercise of physical force that did not involve any such--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1938.04, 1950.586, 1971.69, 1980.676, 1985.211], "stop_times": [1950.586, 1971.69, 1980.676, 1985.211, 1994.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.04}, "reply_to": "20626__1_035", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_037", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, but surely a jury could conclude from that series of events that there was an implied threat to use judicial power if there was no submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [1994.945], "stop_times": [2004.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.945}, "reply_to": "20626__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__1_038", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, I would say first of all that that situation is distinguishable from the case raised in that there was no pending case.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2004.212, 2014.26], "stop_times": [2014.26, 2016.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.212}, "reply_to": "20626__1_037", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_039", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But he did have the authority to determine custody, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2016.02], "stop_times": [2019.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.02}, "reply_to": "20626__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__1_040", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--He would have the... he would be a judge who could have determined custody had the petition been filed.\nIn the... as the facts developed, another judge decided that custody issue, and that was a consensual decree that Vivian Archie agreed to which was brought to and signed by a different judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2019.902, 2026.147], "stop_times": [2026.147, 2041.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.902}, "reply_to": "20626__1_039", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_041", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, wouldn't it be sufficient if the jury found that what he said was the equivalent of this: if a custody case, if your custody case comes before me, I can decide it against you unless you do what I want you to do right now?\nIf a jury could find that, that would be enough, even for your view of color of law, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2041.187, 2056.708], "stop_times": [2056.708, 2062.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.187}, "reply_to": "20626__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_042", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I think an explicit threat to use judicial power in a pending case would come within the requirement of an exercise of State power that resulted in the harm.\nI don't deny that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2062.551, 2078.601], "stop_times": [2078.601, 2079.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2062.551}, "reply_to": "20626__1_041", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_043", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But that has not been the Government's submission here this morning, and it was not the theory on which it tried the case, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2079.652], "stop_times": [2084.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.652}, "reply_to": "20626__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_044", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, not in the least.\nThat was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2084.576, 2087.458], "stop_times": [2087.458, 2088.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.576}, "reply_to": "20626__1_043", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_045", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "On color of law, I thought that there was a question of... the definition of Classic, as I understand it, was a misuse of power possessed by virtue of State law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of the law.\nI take it you accept that as a definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2088.279, 2102.27], "stop_times": [2102.27, 2104.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.279}, "reply_to": "20626__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_046", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I think the... they did say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2104.98], "stop_times": [2108.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.98}, "reply_to": "20626__1_045", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_047", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2108.754], "stop_times": [2109.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.754}, "reply_to": "20626__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_048", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I think what that meant, as I interpret factually what happened in this case, is a little bit deceptive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2109.323], "stop_times": [2116.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.323}, "reply_to": "20626__1_047", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_049", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But I mean, my question really is that you accept that as a proper--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2116.639], "stop_times": [2121.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.639}, "reply_to": "20626__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_050", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "They use that terminology, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2121.073], "stop_times": [2122.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.073}, "reply_to": "20626__1_049", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_051", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Right, and you accept that as proper, so then the only question would be... if you do accept that as a proper definition, the only question would be whether the facts bring it within that definition, which the jury found they did.\nIs... I'm just trying to understand the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2122.133, 2131.59], "stop_times": [2131.59, 2133.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.133}, "reply_to": "20626__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_052", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But I would say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2133.513], "stop_times": [2134.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.513}, "reply_to": "20626__1_051", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_053", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Am I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2134.535], "stop_times": [2135.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.535}, "reply_to": "20626__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_054", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, I would say... I'm sorry, Your Honor, but that phrase was used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2135.443], "stop_times": [2141.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.443}, "reply_to": "20626__1_053", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_055", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2141.257], "stop_times": [2141.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.257}, "reply_to": "20626__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_056", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But I would insist that the proper phrase would be misuse of authority, not misuse of power in the sense in which the Government meant it, which was misuse of his status as a judge, which for the most part, to the extent there was any alleged misuse, simply was a subjective feeling on the part of these women that they would not report these assaults because he was a judge.\nI mean, it had to do mostly with his status as a judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2141.738, 2170.356], "stop_times": [2170.356, 2175.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.738}, "reply_to": "20626__1_055", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_057", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But that... one can distinguish on that basis the misdemeanor types of things from the oral rape, don't you think, that the use of status as a judge is much more apparent in the oral rape case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2175.291], "stop_times": [2191.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.291}, "reply_to": "20626__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__1_058", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, it is more apparent in that there... it is apparent at all, or that they could be some argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2191.71], "stop_times": [2198.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2191.71}, "reply_to": "20626__1_057", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_059", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2198.686], "stop_times": [2199.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.686}, "reply_to": "20626__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_060", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--made, but I will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2199.066], "stop_times": [2200.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.066}, "reply_to": "20626__1_059", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_061", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "And the jury might find it, as you acknowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2200.275], "stop_times": [2202.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2200.275}, "reply_to": "20626__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_062", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2202.827], "stop_times": [2203.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2202.827}, "reply_to": "20626__1_061", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_063", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I think you acknowledge, although they weren't asked to find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2203.077], "stop_times": [2204.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.077}, "reply_to": "20626__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_064", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I didn't mean to acknowledge that the jury could have construed his statement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2204.97], "stop_times": [2207.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.97}, "reply_to": "20626__1_063", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_065", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2207.141], "stop_times": [2207.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.141}, "reply_to": "20626__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_066", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--which is a conversational statement, as a threat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2207.361], "stop_times": [2211.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.361}, "reply_to": "20626__1_065", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_067", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But they weren't asked to, anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2211.084], "stop_times": [2212.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.084}, "reply_to": "20626__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_068", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "They were not asked to anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2212.203], "stop_times": [2213.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.203}, "reply_to": "20626__1_067", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_069", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But on your theory, as I understand it in your response to Justice Breyer and to the Chief Justice, as I understand it you're drawing a distinction something like this.\nYou're saying that the official was acting under color of law if, in effect, he abuses the authority which the State law ostensibly gives him as distinguished from simply using influence which incidentally comes to him because he's a State official.\nIs that the way you draw the line, roughly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2213.816, 2223.661, 2248.207], "stop_times": [2223.661, 2248.207, 2250.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.816}, "reply_to": "20626__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_070", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That's the way I draw the line, Your Honor, and I would say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2250.699], "stop_times": [2253.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.699}, "reply_to": "20626__1_069", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_071", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "You would say any authority the State gives him, even the authority simply to hire or fire employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2253.531], "stop_times": [2258.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.531}, "reply_to": "20626__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_072", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2258.075], "stop_times": [2258.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.075}, "reply_to": "20626__1_071", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_073", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Which is not a distinctively governmental--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2258.425], "stop_times": [2259.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.425}, "reply_to": "20626__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_074", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--In terms of judicial authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2259.896], "stop_times": [2262.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.896}, "reply_to": "20626__1_073", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_075", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2262.317], "stop_times": [2262.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.317}, "reply_to": "20626__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_076", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Which I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2262.647], "stop_times": [2263.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.647}, "reply_to": "20626__1_075", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_077", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I thought the question was broader, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2263.989], "stop_times": [2265.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.989}, "reply_to": "20626__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_078", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--No.\nNo, I don't think it... you see, the authority that they talked about in this case was not surgically confined to he is a judge.\nIt had to do with the fact he is a powerful political figure.\nHe's significant in the community.\nPeople won't listen to me if I report him.\nIt's the sort of reaction that you could have to any prominent citizen, and certainly if that's the test, then any assault by almost any public official or public employee could be subjected to that kind of analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2265.699, 2266.289, 2276.316, 2280.05, 2281.99, 2284.762], "stop_times": [2266.289, 2276.316, 2280.05, 2281.99, 2284.762, 2300.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.699}, "reply_to": "20626__1_077", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_079", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Let's take color of law out of it.\nLet's take Justice Stevens' hypothetical.\nThe judge orders the person into their... into his chambers by herself and commits an aggravated sexual assault.\nIs there a specific right of bodily integrity that the judge has violated in the exercise of his office by an abuse of his authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2300.504, 2302.514, 2304.857, 2312.693], "stop_times": [2302.514, 2304.857, 2312.693, 2324.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.504}, "reply_to": "20626__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_080", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "If he has ordered her into his office, let's say, we need to have a pretrial conference in your case, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2324.06], "stop_times": [2332.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2324.06}, "reply_to": "20626__1_079", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_081", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes, we have all the color of law that we can hypothesize.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2332.075], "stop_times": [2334.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.075}, "reply_to": "20626__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_082", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Oh, I concede that if there is an exercise of State-granted power and physical injury ensues, I don't know what the degree of physical injury need be, but I don't deny--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2334.557], "stop_times": [2351.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.557}, "reply_to": "20626__1_081", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_083", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Then there is a specific right... there's a specific right of bodily integrity outside the context of people in custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2351.359], "stop_times": [2358.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.359}, "reply_to": "20626__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_084", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Theoretically.\nI know of no case law that says that, but theoretically that could happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2358.194, 2361.323], "stop_times": [2361.323, 2365.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2358.194}, "reply_to": "20626__1_083", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_085", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, so then you accept the definition of the Solicitor General.\nI mean, the basic issue, I guess, is whether there is a specific defined... whether there is a Federal right made definite, and is it sufficient in your opinion that the Federal right involved is a right given by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution in defining those matters that the State cannot take from a person irrespective of what procedure it gives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2365.337, 2368.308], "stop_times": [2368.308, 2392.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.337}, "reply_to": "20626__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_086", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "You see, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2392.123], "stop_times": [2392.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.123}, "reply_to": "20626__1_085", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_087", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That's called... what I want to do is give you two or three suggestions and see how you respond.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2392.965], "stop_times": [2396.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.965}, "reply_to": "20626__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_088", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2396.727], "stop_times": [2396.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.727}, "reply_to": "20626__1_087", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_089", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "You'd say, one, this is in the area of substantive due process, i.e., the State cannot remove it from a person irrespective of the procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2396.928], "stop_times": [2406.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.928}, "reply_to": "20626__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_090", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "If it is genuine State action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2406.824], "stop_times": [2409.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.824}, "reply_to": "20626__1_089", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_091", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "All right.\nSecond... second... and that's, say, a right against serious bodily intrusion, serious and substantial bodily intrusions.\nSecond, the State criminal law makes it a crime, and third, the person knows it, so there is no surprise, no possibility that what he thinks he was doing was right, and fourth, there are cases saying in related virtually indistinguishable areas that the Federal Constitution protects it.\nWhere you have those four things, is there any reason why it would not be sufficiently specific under Screws to permit a criminal prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2409.067, 2409.277, 2415.79, 2438.316], "stop_times": [2409.277, 2415.79, 2438.316, 2449.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.067}, "reply_to": "20626__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_092", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Particularly the fourth element of that hypothetical, Your Honor, would have to convince me, but I don't know what the Constitution... I don't know what that Constitution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2449.815], "stop_times": [2459.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.815}, "reply_to": "20626__1_091", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_093", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "If a policeman can't beat up a person, say in the parade, can't hit him over the head, can't put his fist in the person's face at the parade, I suppose it's somewhat similar to have offensive sexual contact with a woman at the least.\nIs there some difference between those two things?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2459.901, 2478.634], "stop_times": [2478.634, 2481.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.901}, "reply_to": "20626__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_094", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I don't think... I think... I think there's... the only difference there would be is that if there is sexual abuse, that would be a sort of a continuum of the exercise of force that began the situation as opposed to a policeman that simply beats up Rodney King and says this whole process was an exercise of legitimate State authority in which I was subduing, trying to arrest him, and trying to defend myself.\nBut if I could, Your Honor has mentioned Screws, and we have not, I don't think really talked about the Screws aspects of this, because my reading of Screws would say that what the Government is doing in this case in defining this due process crime is essentially what the Screws court, seven of the justices including the majority and dissenting justices, feared would happen, were concerned would happen, and did not want to happen.\nAnd that is, taking the concept of liberty interest as it floats through the case law and developing out of that evolving standards of criminal liability which would result in ex post facto judicial creation of crime, in perhaps coopting for Federal prosecution large areas of State criminal prosecution, and of depriving defendants of fair notice of offenses that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2481.395, 2513.476, 2545.637], "stop_times": [2513.476, 2545.637, 2577.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.395}, "reply_to": "20626__1_093", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_095", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Weren't they concerned with the problem of evolution taking place in the course of the prosecution itself, and if that was their concern, then doesn't the Government answer that concern when the Government says, we'll settle for a standard like the Creighton standard on qualified immunity?\nIs it reasonably definite, and if it is reasonably definite by reference to the law prior to this prosecution, doesn't that satisfy the concern that underlay the statements that were made in Screws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2577.798, 2598.722], "stop_times": [2598.722, 2613.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.798}, "reply_to": "20626__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_096", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, it does not underlay those concerns as they were expressed in the Screws opinion.\nI mean, as I read the Screws opinion, the Screws opinion is saying we don't need to be developing ongoing principles of criminal liability based upon all of these circuit courts and the Supreme Court deciding all sorts of different fact-specific situations, and as the court put it, referring the citizen to a library, a law library in order to determine what is or is not criminal action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2613.741, 2622.467], "stop_times": [2622.467, 2658.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.741}, "reply_to": "20626__1_095", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_097", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But that boils down to saying, it seems to me, we don't think the ordinary citizen or, indeed, in this case the ordinary official, should be in the position of having a surprise pulled on him when to that official, even without having done massive research, it would not have seemed reasonably definite in advance that what he was doing was in fact a substantive violation.\nIsn't that what they were getting at?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2658.662, 2689.58], "stop_times": [2689.58, 2690.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.662}, "reply_to": "20626__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_098", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I think that was part of it, but I also think that there was great concern in that opinion for the ex post factor problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2690.941], "stop_times": [2697.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.941}, "reply_to": "20626__1_097", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_099", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But isn't that the ex post facto problem?\nIf it's reasonably definite before the act, then the ex post facto problem, it seems to me, goes away because you've got what is admittedly a formula criminal statute, but you've got a source of content for it which predates the act, and doesn't that respond to the ex post facto concern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2697.757, 2700.029], "stop_times": [2700.029, 2721.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.757}, "reply_to": "20626__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_100", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, I think the Court was looking for a kind of definiteness that was quite fact-specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2721.683], "stop_times": [2730.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.683}, "reply_to": "20626__1_099", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_101", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Why isn't reasonably definite enough, reasonably definite within the sense that is used in Creighton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2730.79], "stop_times": [2737.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.79}, "reply_to": "20626__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_102", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, reasonably definite implies that there can be conflict among decisions to some degree.\nThere can be questions of whether a precedent really and truly does factually apply to a situation, and I think the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2737.165, 2744.619], "stop_times": [2744.619, 2752.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.165}, "reply_to": "20626__1_101", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_103", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, isn't it the same kind of inquiry that you conduct under section 1983 for qualified immunity?\nIsn't that sufficient here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2752.564, 2758.579], "stop_times": [2758.579, 2759.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.564}, "reply_to": "20626__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__1_104", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--It is the same inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2759.52], "stop_times": [2762.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.52}, "reply_to": "20626__1_103", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_105", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, why shouldn't that be sufficient here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2762.642], "stop_times": [2764.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.642}, "reply_to": "20626__1_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__1_106", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say it's the same inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2764.345], "stop_times": [2766.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.345}, "reply_to": "20626__1_105", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_107", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, maybe it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2766.076], "stop_times": [2767.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.076}, "reply_to": "20626__1_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20626__1_108", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I think it's a stricter inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2767.848], "stop_times": [2769.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.848}, "reply_to": "20626__1_107", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_109", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Doesn't it depend on what it is that we're inquiring is reasonably definite or not?\nI mean, if the issue is whether it's reasonably definite that depriving someone of his physical integrity can in some circumstances constitute a violation of the Constitution, you can find that to be reasonably definite relatively easily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2769.911, 2776.093], "stop_times": [2776.093, 2791.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.911}, "reply_to": "20626__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_110", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2791.843], "stop_times": [2792.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.843}, "reply_to": "20626__1_109", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_111", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But if you're going to fold into the inquiry whether it's reasonably definite that a judge who is not immediately in the exercise of his judicial authorities conducts an assault of this sort in his chambers, if that's the question on the other hand, you come up with a different answer, and how do we decide at what level of generality to ask the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2792.114], "stop_times": [2810.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.114}, "reply_to": "20626__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__1_112", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I think you ask it if you look at the Screws case at a level that is quite fact-specific.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2810.176, 2817.493], "stop_times": [2817.493, 2818.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.176}, "reply_to": "20626__1_111", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_113", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Mr. Knight, let me ask you a fact specific, then.\nSuppose this woman were in a holding cell awaiting her trial.\nShe's taken out by a police officer.\nShe's in the corridor.\nThe judge grabs her, takes her into his chambers, and he rapes her.\nWould that qualify for a 242 prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2818.191, 2820.382, 2825.106, 2828.368, 2829.199, 2835.075], "stop_times": [2820.382, 2825.106, 2828.368, 2829.199, 2835.075, 2839.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.191}, "reply_to": "20626__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20626__1_114", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--You know, I will say, Your Honor, in terms of the language of the Screws case itself, it might not.\nThe Screws case itself says the fact that a prisoner is assaulted, even murdered, does not necessarily mean that he has been deprived of a constitutional right under this statute.\nI think the Screws court had in mind something more specific than physical harm rendered even in custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2839.337, 2846.943, 2863.945], "stop_times": [2846.943, 2863.945, 2872.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2839.337}, "reply_to": "20626__1_113", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_115", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, but maybe the Screws court had nothing more in mind than the possibility of the situation of the prisoner being led down the hallway to trial and a judge in a fit of exasperation coming out of his chambers with a revolver and shooting him.\nIn that case, I suppose the judge was not on either your test or Mr. Waxman's test exercising that authority that would bring him under color of law.\nI thought that was the example, though.\nWasn't that sort of the same example?\nI thought that was the example that Justice Ginsburg gave, the same kind of thing, a judge who didn't shoot him but just jumped out of his chamber and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2872.151, 2885.85, 2896.478, 2897.237, 2898.479], "stop_times": [2885.85, 2896.478, 2897.237, 2898.479, 2904.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2872.151}, "reply_to": "20626__1_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_116", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "In the course of being transferred--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2904.654], "stop_times": [2904.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.654}, "reply_to": "20626__1_115", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_117", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2904.974], "stop_times": [2905.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.974}, "reply_to": "20626__1_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_118", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--there is then a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2905.194], "stop_times": [2905.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.194}, "reply_to": "20626__1_117", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_119", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "A rape.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2905.795], "stop_times": [2906.426], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.795}, "reply_to": "20626__1_118", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20626__1_120", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--An assault, yes.\nI think that's close to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2906.426, 2906.857], "stop_times": [2906.857, 2908.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2906.426}, "reply_to": "20626__1_119", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_121", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "About the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2908.128], "stop_times": [2908.539], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.128}, "reply_to": "20626__1_120", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20626__1_122", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But I think what the Screws court had in mind was that a casual beating by a deputy sheriff just for the heck of it and with no specific intent except he liked to beat up prisoners was not a violation of any due process right because you had to have a right to deprive him of his trial by a jury in lieu of trial by ordeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2908.539], "stop_times": [2934.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.539}, "reply_to": "20626__1_121", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_123", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I thought that part of Screws--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2934.465], "stop_times": [2935.917], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.465}, "reply_to": "20626__1_122", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20626__1_124", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I mean, they were dealing in quite specific deprivations in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2935.917], "stop_times": [2938.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2935.917}, "reply_to": "20626__1_123", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_125", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Isn't that part of Screws dealing with the under color of law question?\nYes.\nWhich is just what Justice Souter said?\nOf course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2938.89, 2941.01, 2941.35, 2942.682], "stop_times": [2941.01, 2941.35, 2942.682, 2943.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.89}, "reply_to": "20626__1_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_126", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2943.383], "stop_times": [2943.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.383}, "reply_to": "20626__1_125", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_127", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Wasn't the part of Screws you're talking about dealing with the question under color of law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2943.982], "stop_times": [2949.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.982}, "reply_to": "20626__1_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_128", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2949.137], "stop_times": [2949.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2949.137}, "reply_to": "20626__1_127", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_129", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Of course, a murder doesn't violate the Constitution if one private citizen has murdered another, and I thought that's what they had in mind by that instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2949.608], "stop_times": [2959.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.608}, "reply_to": "20626__1_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__1_130", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--I believe the structure of the opinion, Your Honor, is that there is a section on deprivation of due process followed by a section of under color of law, new paragraph, and the new paragraph deals with the problem of the balance of State-Federal law enforcement so that you're not getting into turning over State criminal law enforcement and assault cases en masse to the Federal Government and they... that's where that sentence appears, and the end of that paragraph refers both to color of law and due process, as I recall, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2959.673], "stop_times": [2993.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.673}, "reply_to": "20626__1_129", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_131", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Is there something fictional about Screws... I've always had a problem with it... when we say that the defendant there was wilfully depriving the person of his Sixth Amendment right, of his Fifth Amendment right?\nThat really wasn't in the mind of these sheriffs at all was it, in Screws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [2993.426, 3006.362], "stop_times": [3006.362, 3010.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.426}, "reply_to": "20626__1_130", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_132", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--That they had certain constitutional provisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3010.716], "stop_times": [3013.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3010.716}, "reply_to": "20626__1_131", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_133", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.\nThey didn't beat him once because of his Fifth Amendment right, another because of his Sixth Amendment--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3013.478, 3013.668, 3018.251], "stop_times": [3013.668, 3018.251, 3018.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.478}, "reply_to": "20626__1_132", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_134", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, I think the... interestingly, the instruction to the jury was quite specific in terms of a deprivation of trial rights.\nI mean, that's where the idea came from that he had a constitutional right not to be deprived of his--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3018.581, 3027.349], "stop_times": [3027.349, 3032.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3018.581}, "reply_to": "20626__1_133", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_135", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But I'm asking, isn't that something of a fiction, even in Screws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3032.823], "stop_times": [3035.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.823}, "reply_to": "20626__1_134", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__1_136", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--Well, I think it's certainly a fiction in terms of thinking that these deputies were... had the Constitution in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3035.915], "stop_times": [3043.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3035.915}, "reply_to": "20626__1_135", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_137", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3043.548], "stop_times": [3043.818], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.548}, "reply_to": "20626__1_136", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20626__1_138", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But I'm not sure it was a fiction in terms of the facts, because there was evidence that the deputy had said, we're going to get this guy, and they arrested him under some pretext and killed him before he could be tried, so I think there were facts from which a jury could conclude that in a factual sense they really were depriv... they really did intend to deprive him of legal process and kill him before he could be found innocent, but I mean, that's... as I read the case, that's what was going on.\nAnd I do think that the concern of all seven of the justices that... well, seven of the nine, was that this statute might be so vague as to be almost subject to due process objection on its face, and I think the intent was to construe it very narrowly to require very specific constitutional violations and intent factually to violate those rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3043.818, 3075.87], "stop_times": [3075.87, 3108.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3043.818}, "reply_to": "20626__1_137", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_139", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Depending on just how far we go with specificity, may I at least come back to consider a distinction raised by Justice Ginsburg's question?\nYour answer was very probably under Screws that that, in fact, would not qualify as a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3108.511, 3118.258], "stop_times": [3118.258, 3126.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.511}, "reply_to": "20626__1_138", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_140", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3126.242], "stop_times": [3126.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.242}, "reply_to": "20626__1_139", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_141", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But as I understood it under Justice Ginsburg's hypothetical the person who was subject to the sexual assault would have been subject to the judge's judicial jurisdiction later on.\nDoesn't that affect the answer, and for that reason shouldn't the answer... shouldn't your answer have been different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3126.483, 3143.597], "stop_times": [3143.597, 3148.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3126.483}, "reply_to": "20626__1_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_142", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, if there were facts from which a jury could find an intent to deprive her of a trial by jury and to punish her by some other means, or to... whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3148.968], "stop_times": [3159.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3148.968}, "reply_to": "20626__1_141", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_143", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Or to threaten her.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3159.174], "stop_times": [3159.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.174}, "reply_to": "20626__1_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20626__1_144", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes.\nThat's conceivably so.\nI know my red light's on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3159.956, 3160.767, 3163.318], "stop_times": [3160.767, 3163.318, 3164.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.956}, "reply_to": "20626__1_143", "speaker": "alfred_h_knight"}
{"id": "20626__1_145", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes, it is on, and your time has expired.\nMr. Waxman, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3164.69, 3167.302], "stop_times": [3167.302, 3170.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3164.69}, "reply_to": "20626__1_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__2_000", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nWith respect to the issue of the level of specificity that a number of members of the Court have raised, I think the issue of how specific the right has to be was, in fact, a question that was dealt with in Anderson v. Creighton where the Court said, well, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3170.905, 3171.723], "stop_times": [3171.723, 3192.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3170.905}, "reply_to": "20626__1_145", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_001", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, Mr. Waxman, though, you're not... qualified immunity is a civil concept, really.\nCertainly you might want a more demanding standard in the area of the criminal law, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3192.656, 3198.27], "stop_times": [3198.27, 3204.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.656}, "reply_to": "20626__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__2_002", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, for sure you would, and the way the standard is made more demanding, Mr. Chief Justice, is by the requirement of a showing that the defendant acted with a bad purpose, with an intent to violate the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3204.125], "stop_times": [3214.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3204.125}, "reply_to": "20626__2_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_003", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Yes, but as Justice Kennedy says there's a certain fiction about all of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3214.683], "stop_times": [3218.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3214.683}, "reply_to": "20626__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__2_004", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that I really understand what the fiction is.\nThe... it is true that in Screws the... under Screws there is an obligation to identify in the indictment the specific right violated and the manner in which it was violated.\nThe Government in Screws chose to allege that the right violated was the deprivation of a right to have a trial and a conviction before punishment.\nIt may be, we don't know why, that that's because Screws was indicted and decided before Rochin and Ingraham and Youngburg and Vitek and Cruzan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3218.323, 3223.198, 3234.555, 3243.504], "stop_times": [3223.198, 3234.555, 3243.504, 3252.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3218.323}, "reply_to": "20626__2_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_005", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, the fiction is is that they probably weren't thinking in constitutional terms, and if you use the term wilfully, then you say well, you intend the consequences of your act, but then you're right back where you started from.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3252.012], "stop_times": [3261.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3252.012}, "reply_to": "20626__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__2_006", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That is exactly right, and what this Court said in Screws, and I quote, it is not necessary that you... to show or prove that the defendant was thinking in constitutional terms at the time of the incident.\nYou may find that the defendant acted with reckless and specific intent even if you find that he had no real familiarity with the Constitution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3261.727, 3273.894], "stop_times": [3273.894, 3282.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3261.727}, "reply_to": "20626__2_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_007", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But that seems to take out the one specific element that you put in at the beginning of the premise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3282.089], "stop_times": [3286.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.089}, "reply_to": "20626__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20626__2_008", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--No.\nWhat the Court said was, if I can just continue, that you had to show... it's not material whether they were thinking in constitutional terms, but you have to show that their aim was not to enforce the law but to\n\"deprive the citizen of a right, and that right was protected by the Constitution. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3286.524, 3286.724, 3300.723], "stop_times": [3286.724, 3300.723, 3307.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3286.524}, "reply_to": "20626__2_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_009", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "So the right, you could... I could know it was a right, because I know that the criminal law makes criminal that which I am doing, thereby giving a right to the victim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3307.538], "stop_times": [3313.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.538}, "reply_to": "20626__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20626__2_010", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That is absolutely right, and that is the way this Court has construed that language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3313.923], "stop_times": [3318.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3313.923}, "reply_to": "20626__2_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_011", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "I took that to mean that they had to intend to make sure this guy never got to trial, whether or not they knew there was a constitutional right for him to get to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3318.524], "stop_times": [3327.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.524}, "reply_to": "20626__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__2_012", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That was in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3327.229], "stop_times": [3328.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3327.229}, "reply_to": "20626__2_011", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_013", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "But they had to intend to prevent him from getting to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3328.421], "stop_times": [3331.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.421}, "reply_to": "20626__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__2_014", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3331.673], "stop_times": [3331.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3331.673}, "reply_to": "20626__2_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_015", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "That's not how it reads?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3331.904], "stop_times": [3333.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.904}, "reply_to": "20626__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__2_016", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "--What it reads is, for example, if you just take the way... just look at the way in which Screws was presaged in Classic and applied in Guest, which was decided afterwards, in both of those cases the constitutional right involved... in Classic it was the right that the Federal Constitution protected voting in a primary election, and in Guest it was the right to travel.\nIn both of those cases, the actual constitutional right was announced by the Supreme Court in that case, and that's why in Screws, referring to Classic, the Supreme Court said it's not necessary that the defendant be thinking in constitutional terms.\nYou must prove that he intended to deprive a citizen of a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3333.143, 3358.521, 3373.431], "stop_times": [3358.521, 3373.431, 3378.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3333.143}, "reply_to": "20626__2_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_017", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Of the right to travel, or of the right to be tried, but certainly not just to beat up the citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3378.437], "stop_times": [3383.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.437}, "reply_to": "20626__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20626__2_018", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Well, it would have to be more than beat up the citizen.\nYou would have to prove either that he acted... by not understanding the Constitution he acted in reckless disregard of a right which has been made so specific that the unlawfulness under that right \"would be apparent\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3383.292, 3385.683], "stop_times": [3385.683, 3399.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3383.292}, "reply_to": "20626__2_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20626__2_019", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Waxman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3399.614, 3401.084], "stop_times": [3401.084, 3402.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3399.614}, "reply_to": "20626__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20626__2_020", "conversation_id": "20626", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1717", "start_times": [3402.6], "stop_times": [3403.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3402.6}, "reply_to": "20626__2_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21006__0_000", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-842, United States v. James Herman O'Hagan.\nMr. Dreeben.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [0.0, 8.748], "stop_times": [8.748, 9.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__0_001", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nInformation is the lifeblood of the securities markets.\nMarkets thrive on legitimate efforts to acquire, analyze, and use information, but the deceptive acquisition and use of information in securities trading serves no legitimate purpose.\nRespondent's securities trading involved just such deception.\nRespondent is a lawyer whose firm was entrusted with the confidential plans of a client that had planned to make a tender offer for the Pillsbury company.\nWhile posing as a loyal partner in his law firm, respondent misappropriated that information in breach of his fiduciary duties to the firm and his client and reaped personal profits in virtually risk-free trading in Pillsbury stock and options.\nBy engaging in that form of deception in connection with his trading, respondent violated three prohibitions of Federal law: section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and the mail fraud statute.\nNow, the misappropriation theory under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act posits that a fiduciary or other person with a similar relationship of trust and confidence commits deception on the legitimate owner of information if that fiduciary or other agent misappropriates the information by using it in securities trading, contrary to the view of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [9.857, 12.77, 17.003, 30.881, 35.195, 46.632, 63.633, 81.625], "stop_times": [12.77, 17.003, 30.881, 35.195, 46.632, 63.633, 81.625, 110.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.857}, "reply_to": "21006__0_000", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_002", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, just by misappropriating?\nI mean, suppose the defendant here had instead come clean, and he told his superiors in the law firm that he was going to use this information.\nThen he would not be posing as a loyal employee any more, and it would have been okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [110.774, 113.474, 127.704], "stop_times": [113.474, 127.704, 132.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.774}, "reply_to": "21006__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_003", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "He would not have deceived his employer.\nHe still would have breached independent fiduciary duties that he owed to that employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [132.809, 135.181], "stop_times": [135.181, 140.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.809}, "reply_to": "21006__0_002", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_004", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And you say he would still have breached the securities laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [140.043], "stop_times": [143.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.043}, "reply_to": "21006__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_005", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "No, I do not think he would have breached the securities laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [143.315], "stop_times": [145.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.315}, "reply_to": "21006__0_004", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_006", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "So that's the line.\nHe didn't tell them that he was going to go out and use it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [145.906, 146.247], "stop_times": [146.247, 148.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.906}, "reply_to": "21006__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_007", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's absolutely correct, and the reason why that is significant is that section 10(b) prohibits deceptive devices and contrivances.\nIt requires deception.\nThe misappropriation theory does involve a breach of fiduciary duty, but the distinctive factor about that breach is that it is a deceptive breach.\nIt involves, just as the facts did in Carpenter v. United States, an agent entrusted with information by a principal under the understanding between the parties that the agent would not use that information for any personal gain without obtaining the principal's agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [148.517, 156.963, 158.635, 168.44], "stop_times": [156.963, 158.635, 168.44, 190.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.517}, "reply_to": "21006__0_006", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_008", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, Mr. Dreeben, then if someone stole the lawyer's briefcase and discovered the information and traded on it, no violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [190.545], "stop_times": [202.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.545}, "reply_to": "21006__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_009", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's correct, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [202.073], "stop_times": [203.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.073}, "reply_to": "21006__0_008", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_010", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And if a partner perhaps in the law firm, the lawyer let his daughter know about the planned merger inadvertently and the daughter relied on the information and bought stock options, violation?\nThe daughter has no obligation to disclose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [203.645, 226.789], "stop_times": [226.789, 229.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.645}, "reply_to": "21006__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_011", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Correct, Justice O'Connor, and the answer to that is probably not, although there has been litigation about whether in particular circumstances a family relationship is sufficiently imbued with a business context that there is a duty that runs to it, but I accept the general thrust of your hypotheticals.\nThere are forms of improper conduct that section 10(b) does not reach, and the reason why section 10(b) does not reach them is it is a statute that is framed to reach fraudulent deceptive activity in connection with securities trading.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [229.992, 250.045, 265.496], "stop_times": [250.045, 265.496, 266.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.992}, "reply_to": "21006__0_010", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_012", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, Mr. Dreeben, where is... the thing that bothers me about the case here is, where is the connection between the deceptive device and the purchase or sale of a security?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [266.675], "stop_times": [280.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.675}, "reply_to": "21006__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__0_013", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--The connection, Chief Justice Rehnquist, lies in the fact that the misappropriation does not occur until the lawyer uses the information as the basis for his trades.\nIt is that very information which drives his participation in the market and allows the profits to be reached... reaped by him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [280.603, 292.173], "stop_times": [292.173, 302.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.603}, "reply_to": "21006__0_012", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_014", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But he didn't deceive anyone who sold him securities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [302.109], "stop_times": [306.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.109}, "reply_to": "21006__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__0_015", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That is true.\nThe misappropriation theory doesn't rely on the notion that he owed a duty of disclosure to the shareholders on the other side of the transaction, but it does satisfy the requisite connection between the fraud and the securities trading, because it is only in the trading that the fraud is consummated.\nThere could be no closer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [306.282, 307.15, 328.736], "stop_times": [307.15, 328.736, 330.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.282}, "reply_to": "21006__0_014", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_016", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But you think of fraud being practiced on a person who is damaged by it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [330.108], "stop_times": [335.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 330.108}, "reply_to": "21006__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__0_017", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I think that under the common law view of fraud, Chief Justice Rehnquist, that is an accurate statement, but the securities laws are not framed to pick up only those violations that are covered by common law fraud.\nCongress did not pass a statute that says, it is unlawful to commit fraud on the purchaser or seller of securities.\nCongress did not pass a law even that said it is unlawful to commit fraud in a securities transaction.\nIt passed a law with a broader phrase, in connection with a securities transaction, because the very aim of this section was to pick up unforeseen, cunning, deceptive devices that people might cleverly use in the securities markets--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [335.103, 348.671, 356.705, 363.25], "stop_times": [348.671, 356.705, 363.25, 379.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.103}, "reply_to": "21006__0_016", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_018", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's rather unusual, for a criminal statute to be that open-ended, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [379.552], "stop_times": [383.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 379.552}, "reply_to": "21006__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__0_019", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I don't think that it's unusual to give the text of this statute its natural reading.\nWhat it requires is proof of fraud, and then it requires proof that there's a connection between the fraud and the trading.\nIn this case, as I've said, there could be no closer connection.\nIt is only by the trading itself that the fraud is consummated, and that is exactly a connection that is picked up by the language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [383.575, 389.369, 396.355, 399.878], "stop_times": [389.369, 396.355, 399.878, 409.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.575}, "reply_to": "21006__0_018", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_020", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "What if Grand Met had its own strategy to purchase shares for some reason to make the price go up temporarily?\nI don't know quite how the hypothetical would play out, but suppose this was in Grand Met's interest, and yet all the facts were the same.\nThe lawyer... it didn't know the lawyer was doing it.\nIt was doing it on it's own, but what the lawyer did was also helping its grand scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [409.762, 418.227, 425.654, 428.085], "stop_times": [418.227, 425.654, 428.085, 431.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.762}, "reply_to": "21006__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__0_021", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [431.628], "stop_times": [432.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.628}, "reply_to": "21006__0_020", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_022", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Would there be a misappropriation there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [432.777], "stop_times": [434.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 432.777}, "reply_to": "21006__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__0_023", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Yes, there would.\nFirst of all that wouldn't have any effect on the violation that respondent committed on his law firm.\nHe owed his law firm a duty of trust and confidence in addition to the duty he owed to the client, but more importantly than that, in this case there was no evidence that Grand Met knew about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [434.77, 435.511, 441.833], "stop_times": [435.511, 441.833, 454.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.77}, "reply_to": "21006__0_022", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_024", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But in the hypothetical you and I are discussing, if he came clean with the law firm and the whole law firm was doing it, then no violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [454.141], "stop_times": [461.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.141}, "reply_to": "21006__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__0_025", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--If he didn't deceive anyone by doing this, he would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [461.358], "stop_times": [465.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.358}, "reply_to": "21006__0_024", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_026", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "What if he didn't tell the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [465.699], "stop_times": [466.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.699}, "reply_to": "21006__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__0_027", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Well, then the client would be deceived.\nWhoever does not know about this and has not authorized it is a victim of the fraud, just as in the Carpenter case, if Weinans had gone to the Wall Street Journal and said, look, you know, you're not paying me very much.\nI'd like to make a little bit more money by buying stock, the stocks that are going to appear in my Heard on the Street column, and the Wall Street Journal said, that's fine, there would have been no deception of the Wall Street Journal.\nThe statute does require deception, but there can be no doubt in a case like this that there is deception.\nThis is the identical kind of fraudulent conduct that the Court had before it in the Carpenter case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [466.42, 469.274, 481.761, 493.428, 500.252], "stop_times": [469.274, 481.761, 493.428, 500.252, 505.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.42}, "reply_to": "21006__0_026", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_028", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, I'm not so sure I agree with you on that point, at least as to the... the Wall Street Journal in Carpenter was said to have a property interest in the confidentiality, or in the use of the notes for the column.\nHere, there doesn't seem to be any property interest involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [505.726, 521.618], "stop_times": [521.618, 524.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.726}, "reply_to": "21006__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__0_029", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, the property interest here is exactly the same as it was in Carpenter.\nIt's the information itself, which Grand Met has a right to determine how it would be used.\nIt has a right to maintain its exclusive right to use the information and not to have the agents, upon whom it must rely if it's going to engage in any kind of business activity, misappropriate that information for personal gain, and I think it's a very well-settled concept of the common law and of the law of fraud that information is a species of property, so that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [524.88, 529.412, 536.296], "stop_times": [529.412, 536.296, 558.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 524.88}, "reply_to": "21006__0_028", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_030", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr.... I'm sorry.\nI didn't mean to interrupt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [558.321, 559.532], "stop_times": [559.532, 560.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.321}, "reply_to": "21006__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_031", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--So the deceptive conduct here is, in essence, indistinguishable from the deceptive conduct that the Court found in the Carpenter case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [560.524], "stop_times": [567.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.524}, "reply_to": "21006__0_030", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_032", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Do you take the position that every relationship of trust also implies the duty to disclose if the trust is to be breached?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [567.979], "stop_times": [576.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 567.979}, "reply_to": "21006__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_033", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I don't, Justice Souter.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [576.074, 579.388], "stop_times": [579.388, 580.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.074}, "reply_to": "21006__0_032", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_034", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "How do we know this is such a case and the others are not, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [580.199], "stop_times": [583.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.199}, "reply_to": "21006__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_035", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Well, this is such a case because it involves a relationship right at the core of what has been defined as the principal agent-fiduciary trustee relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [583.587], "stop_times": [595.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.587}, "reply_to": "21006__0_034", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_036", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, but so does a... I suppose a lawyer in a trust relationship with his client in the handling of funds, and yet if a lawyer... I presume that if a lawyer disclosed to his client that he was going to commingle, or he was going to borrow, as it were, the client's funds for personal reasons, that that would not be a defense either to a professional or a statutory charge against him.\nPerhaps I'm wrong there, but I assumed it would not, so I'm not sure why, then, number 1 there is a disclosure obligation here, whereas a disclosure obligation there would be of no point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [595.047, 621.244], "stop_times": [621.244, 634.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.047}, "reply_to": "21006__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_037", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [634.202], "stop_times": [634.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.202}, "reply_to": "21006__0_036", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_038", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--and the one would be a defense and the other wouldn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [634.853], "stop_times": [636.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.853}, "reply_to": "21006__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_039", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Justice Souter, the reason why it makes a difference is that the disclosure obligation is a prerequisite to obtaining the consent of the principal or the owner of the trust.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [636.482], "stop_times": [647.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.482}, "reply_to": "21006__0_038", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_040", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But I thought... maybe I misunderstood your answer earlier.\nI thought that if there were a disclosure but no consent that would in effect preclude liability.\nYou're saying there must be a disclosure and consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [647.321, 649.902, 659.479], "stop_times": [649.902, 659.479, 662.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 647.321}, "reply_to": "21006__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_041", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "To satisfy the common law rule that a trustee may not use the property that's been entrusted with him, there would have to be consent.\nTo satisfy the requirement of the Securities Act that there be no deception, there would only have to be disclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [662.141, 669.584], "stop_times": [669.584, 675.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.141}, "reply_to": "21006__0_040", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_042", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I thought that was what you answered Justice Scalia when he asked the question.\nYes, that's what I thought, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [675.518, 679.802], "stop_times": [679.802, 680.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.518}, "reply_to": "21006__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__0_043", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [680.393], "stop_times": [680.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.393}, "reply_to": "21006__0_042", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_044", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And... but there would be in that case other sanctions immediately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [680.712], "stop_times": [684.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.712}, "reply_to": "21006__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__0_045", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [684.915], "stop_times": [685.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.915}, "reply_to": "21006__0_044", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_046", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "If you told the law firm, look, I'm going to do this, the law firm isn't going to consent but it's not likely he'll retain his job, and there might be other sanctions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [685.456], "stop_times": [693.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.456}, "reply_to": "21006__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__0_047", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's correct.\nIt would still be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [693.611, 694.011], "stop_times": [694.011, 694.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.611}, "reply_to": "21006__0_046", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_048", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "In that case it's not 10(b)5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [694.863], "stop_times": [696.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 694.863}, "reply_to": "21006__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_049", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--It's not 10(b)5.\nIt would still be a breach of fiduciary duty, but that makes the point that I'm trying to make here.\nNot every breach of fiduciary duty involves deception, but a breach of fiduciary duty when that breach involves the obligation to make disclosure does involve deception.\nThat, in fact, is the foundation of this Court's rulings in Chiarella and Dirks that an insider in a corporation has a duty to his shareholders to make disclosure before trading with them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [696.002, 696.833, 701.267, 712.333], "stop_times": [696.833, 701.267, 712.333, 725.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.002}, "reply_to": "21006__0_048", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_050", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "There's one thing that I'm still not clear on, and that is, what is it that is peculiar about some breaches of trust, or some obligations of trust, that raise the disclosure obligation whereas others do not have a disclosure obligation that would at all be relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [725.551], "stop_times": [741.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.551}, "reply_to": "21006__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_051", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "The answer, Justice Souter, is that there are some things that a trustee cannot do even if he does disclose them.\nThey will still be breaches of fiduciary duty, but there are some breaches of fiduciary duty that inherently require a breach of the duty to make disclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [741.613, 750.078], "stop_times": [750.078, 760.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.613}, "reply_to": "21006__0_050", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_052", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "You rely on disclosure as just a reverse mechanism for defining deception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [760.726], "stop_times": [766.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.726}, "reply_to": "21006__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__0_053", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Correct.\nI think that it's clear under this Court's decisions in Chiarella and Dirks that generally silence is not fraudulent in conducting a transaction, but it becomes fraudulent if there is a duty to make disclosure, and the Court in the Chiarella and Dirks cases looked to well-settled understandings which it then believed were incorporated into 10(b) about when disclosure is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [766.069, 767.379], "stop_times": [767.379, 793.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.069}, "reply_to": "21006__0_052", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_054", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "If you read a horn-book on tort law does it say that the essence of deception is nondisclosure?\nThat's what you're asking us to write, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [793.117, 799.161], "stop_times": [799.161, 801.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.117}, "reply_to": "21006__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__0_055", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I'm not asking the Court to do anything more than to reaffirm the basic principle that it adopted in Carpenter v. United States that an agent who misappropriates his principal's property by posing as a loyal employee when in fact he's reaping personal gain with that property has committed a form of deception, indeed, a form of fraud, and that fraud satisfies both the mail fraud statute and it satisfies section 10(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [801.091], "stop_times": [828.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.091}, "reply_to": "21006__0_054", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_056", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "May I ask you one question, Mr. Dreeben?\nI'm a little puzzled by your statement that... if I understood you correctly, that if the defendant here had disclosed to his partners, that would have avoided liability, and you're suggesting there was therefore no duty to disclose to the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [828.009, 830.373], "stop_times": [830.373, 844.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.009}, "reply_to": "21006__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__0_057", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "No, I think there is a duty to disclose to the client as well.\nI think that there are two victims, direct victims of the deception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [844.341, 848.815], "stop_times": [848.815, 852.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.341}, "reply_to": "21006__0_056", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_058", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But supposing in this case he had disclosed to his partner, and his partner had just kept the information to himself, and then he had gone... the defendant had gone ahead with his trading.\nWould there be a violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [852.886, 861.061], "stop_times": [861.061, 862.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.886}, "reply_to": "21006__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__0_059", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Yes, there would, but we would not have been able to charge it the same way as we charged this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [862.603], "stop_times": [867.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.603}, "reply_to": "21006__0_058", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_060", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I see.\nYou then would have said there was a breach of the firm's duty to the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [867.265, 867.575], "stop_times": [867.575, 869.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.265}, "reply_to": "21006__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__0_061", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's correct.\nIn this case, the jury was instructed that it could rely on a finding of a breach of duty either to the law firm or to the client or to both, and it had to be unanimous about which one it found, but it had to find one or the other, or it could find both, and if there was disclosure, the party that received the disclosure would not be a victim of the fraud on our theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [869.697, 870.508], "stop_times": [870.508, 890.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.697}, "reply_to": "21006__0_060", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_062", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. Dreeben--\n--Now, Mr. Dreeben, we... this Court has always required either a misrepresentation or an omission to find 10(b) liability, I think, and you say there was an omission here by the failure to disclose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [890.31, 891.301], "stop_times": [891.301, 907.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.31}, "reply_to": "21006__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_063", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Yes, and I say that there is an omission by the failure to disclose in exactly the same way as there was in Carpenter.\nI also believe that the Court has never ruled out what seems commonsensical under 10(b), the idea that the conduct itself, even without a statement or an omission, can be deceptive.\nI mean, here you have a lawyer who worked in his firm, came to work every day posing as a loyal partner, engaging his partners in discussions about firm business, under the understanding that he was doing this in the interests of the firm, when in fact, as the jury concluded, he used the information that he acquired to finance... to enable his own securities purchases and to profit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [907.831, 914.937, 928.435], "stop_times": [914.937, 928.435, 953.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.831}, "reply_to": "21006__0_062", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_064", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, any, any fraud is deception, then.\nI assume that, you know, if a lawyer takes the client's money that's supposed to be in a trust account and just removes it posing as an honest lawyer, I mean, you know, everybody who commits any fraud is guilty of deception.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [953.031, 955.034, 970.272], "stop_times": [955.034, 970.272, 970.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.031}, "reply_to": "21006__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_065", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--And the Court... yes, Justice Scalia, and the Court said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [970.843], "stop_times": [973.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.843}, "reply_to": "21006__0_064", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_066", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "What if I appropriate some of my client's money in order to buy stock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [973.494], "stop_times": [978.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.494}, "reply_to": "21006__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_067", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--The fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [978.078], "stop_times": [981.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.078}, "reply_to": "21006__0_066", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_068", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Have I violated the securities laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [981.77], "stop_times": [983.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.77}, "reply_to": "21006__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_069", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I do not think that you have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [983.222], "stop_times": [985.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.222}, "reply_to": "21006__0_068", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_070", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Why not?\nIsn't that in connection with the purchase of security just as much as this one is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [985.693, 986.354], "stop_times": [986.354, 991.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.693}, "reply_to": "21006__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_071", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "It's not just as much as this one is, because in this case it is the use of the information that enables the profits, pure and simple.\nThere would be no opportunity to engage in profit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [991.897, 999.422], "stop_times": [999.422, 1002.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 991.897}, "reply_to": "21006__0_070", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_072", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Same here.\nI didn't have the money.\nThe only way I could buy this stock was to get the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1002.313, 1003.054, 1003.906], "stop_times": [1003.054, 1003.906, 1007.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.313}, "reply_to": "21006__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_073", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--The difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1007.148], "stop_times": [1007.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.148}, "reply_to": "21006__0_072", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_074", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And I got the money posing as an honest lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1007.749], "stop_times": [1011.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.749}, "reply_to": "21006__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__0_075", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--The difference, Justice Scalia, is that once you have the money you can do anything you want with it.\nIn a sense, the fraud is complete at that point, and then you go on and you can use the money to finance any number of other activities, but the connection is far less close than in this case, where the only value of this information for persona profit for respondent was to take it and profit in the securities markets by trading on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1011.439, 1014.961], "stop_times": [1014.961, 1034.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.439}, "reply_to": "21006__0_074", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_076", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Why isn't the client entrusted just as totally when he entrusts money as when he entrusts information?\nI don't under... I guess my problem is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1034.336, 1042.8], "stop_times": [1042.8, 1044.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.336}, "reply_to": "21006__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_077", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "He does, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1044.751], "stop_times": [1045.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1044.751}, "reply_to": "21006__0_076", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_078", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--the same as Justice Scalia's.\nI don't... if we're starting with a breach of trust, I don't see why a breach of trust with respect to a fact which is communicated gives rise to a disclosure obligation when a breach of trust with respect to some other thing of value, e.g., the contents of the trust account, does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1045.472, 1046.002], "stop_times": [1046.002, 1066.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.472}, "reply_to": "21006__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_079", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I perhaps was not clear in answering Justice Scalia, Justice Souter.\nIt is just as much of a breach, and it is just as much fraudulent and deceptive, and that, in fact, is what the Court said in Carpenter.\nEmbezzlement is a form of fraud.\nThe question is whether that fraud is in connection with the purchase or sale of the security, and the question is whether that form of fraud which I submit is complete at the time the money is obtained is in connection with the purchase or sale versus this one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1066.326, 1070.23, 1078.335, 1081.807], "stop_times": [1070.23, 1078.335, 1081.807, 1097.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.326}, "reply_to": "21006__0_078", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_080", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "So that every breach does give rise to a duty to disclose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1097.055], "stop_times": [1100.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.055}, "reply_to": "21006__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_081", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Every breach that involves the misuse of information entrusted to a person or the misuse of property entrusted to a person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1100.477], "stop_times": [1108.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.477}, "reply_to": "21006__0_080", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_082", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1108.852], "stop_times": [1109.223], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.852}, "reply_to": "21006__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21006__0_083", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--for personal gain, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1109.223], "stop_times": [1110.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.223}, "reply_to": "21006__0_082", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_084", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1110.274], "stop_times": [1110.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.274}, "reply_to": "21006__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_085", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's hornbook law, and I don't think that there's any dispute about that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1110.665], "stop_times": [1114.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.665}, "reply_to": "21006__0_084", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_086", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "So what you're saying is, is in this case the misappropriation can only be of relevance, or is of substantial relevance, is with reference to the purchase of securities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1114.498], "stop_times": [1124.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.498}, "reply_to": "21006__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__0_087", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1124.184], "stop_times": [1124.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.184}, "reply_to": "21006__0_086", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_088", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "When you take the money out of the accounts you can go to the racetrack, or whatever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1124.885], "stop_times": [1128.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.885}, "reply_to": "21006__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__0_089", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's exactly right, and because of that difference, three can be no doubt that this kind of misappropriation of property is in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\nOther kinds of misappropriation of property may or may not, but this is a unique form of fraud, unique to the securities markets, in fact, because the only way in which respondent could have profited through this information is by either trading on it or by tipping somebody else to enable their trades.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1128.568, 1141.015], "stop_times": [1141.015, 1159.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.568}, "reply_to": "21006__0_088", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_090", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--With respect to the tip, I wasn't quite sure of your answer to Justice O'Connor when she brought up the child.\nWere you responding to her word inadvertent, because if this parent tipped off the child and told the child to purchase the security, surely there would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1159.175, 1166.722], "stop_times": [1166.722, 1178.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.175}, "reply_to": "21006__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__0_091", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1178.199], "stop_times": [1179.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.199}, "reply_to": "21006__0_090", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_092", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--responsibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1179.879], "stop_times": [1180.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.879}, "reply_to": "21006__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__0_093", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Yes, there would.\nIn a case like that, Justice Ginsburg, a fiduciary cannot do indirectly what he's prohibited from doing directly, and so using the child as the medium for conducting the transaction would be equally forbidden.\nI think Justice O'Connor's question was getting at the point about whether the child would be committing fraud on the parent if the child engaged in this trading after having learned inadvertently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1180.63, 1181.271, 1196.131], "stop_times": [1181.271, 1196.131, 1208.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1180.63}, "reply_to": "21006__0_092", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_094", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Right.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1208.66, 1209.068], "stop_times": [1209.068, 1209.649], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.66}, "reply_to": "21006__0_093", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21006__0_095", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--of the information, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1209.649], "stop_times": [1210.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.649}, "reply_to": "21006__0_094", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_096", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Let me ask you whether you think section 14(e) provides you with an easier argument for liability than 10(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1210.5], "stop_times": [1221.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.5}, "reply_to": "21006__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_097", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Well, I certainly think that 14(e) provides us with a perfectly valid argument for liability.\nThe theory under section 14 is that Congress specifically gave the Commission regulatory authority in the area of tender offers because it recognized that tender offers pose a very significant threat to investors in the target company having the ability to make decisions about whether to buy, sell, or hold when a tender offer is on the horizon.\nCongress also knew that there is a great opportunity for insider profiting because the information about a tender offer is necessarily circulated to many professionals in advance of the tender offer who then have the opportunity to go out and trade on it, and as a result of its recognition about the dangers of fraudulent and deceptive practices and tender offers, Congress was not content to rely simply on section 10(b) but drafted a new and different antifraud provision which is backed up by regulatory authority that gives the SEC the power to define and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, manipulative conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1221.686, 1228.272, 1254.64], "stop_times": [1228.272, 1254.64, 1298.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1221.686}, "reply_to": "21006__0_096", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_098", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "You omitted one little part there from that sentence, Mr. Dreeben... designed to prevent such acts and practices as are fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1298.136], "stop_times": [1307.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.136}, "reply_to": "21006__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__0_099", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's correct, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1307.533], "stop_times": [1308.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.533}, "reply_to": "21006__0_098", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_100", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And it seems to me one could read that as saying that that does not give the SEC authority to define what is fraudulent, what is deceptive or manipulative, but simply to define practices which are in fact fraudulent, and you can't expand on the definition of fraudulent or deceptive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1308.494], "stop_times": [1326.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.494}, "reply_to": "21006__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__0_101", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--There are several reasons, Chief Justice Rehnquist, why I think that you're correct that I omitted the words, acts or practices as are fraudulent, but I think that the statute is accurately paraphrased the way that I read it.\nFirst, the regulatory authority that is found in section 14(e) was modeled on a different section of the securities laws, not section 10(b), but section 15(c), which dealt with regulating broker-dealers, and in that context Congress had specifically given the SEC the authority to define fraudulent practices because it wanted to establish a higher standard of obligations and duties than would otherwise be imposed by the common law.\nIt adopted that language in section 14(e) after the SEC had previously exercised its power to create new obligations that weren't found in the common law, unless it's reasonable to infer that Congress expected that authority to be exercised in that fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1326.757, 1340.585, 1369.634], "stop_times": [1340.585, 1369.634, 1386.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.757}, "reply_to": "21006__0_100", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_102", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, except, now, the Schreiber case indicated that the SEC can't define offensive conduct more broadly than the statute provides.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1386.344], "stop_times": [1399.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.344}, "reply_to": "21006__0_101", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_103", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Actually the Schreiber case, Justice O'Connor, didn't involve any SEC regulation at all.\nIt involved simply the question about whether a fully disclosed act would be deemed manipulative under the first sentence of section 14(e).\nThere were no regulations at issue in the case whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1399.534, 1404.386, 1414.604], "stop_times": [1404.386, 1414.604, 1417.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.534}, "reply_to": "21006__0_102", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_104", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But there certainly is language in that opinion.\nI think footnote 11 indicates that SEC can't go more broadly than the terms of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1417.897, 1420.917], "stop_times": [1420.917, 1429.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.897}, "reply_to": "21006__0_103", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_105", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I think the footnote, read in context, says that the mere promulgation of the regulatory authority for the SEC, the addition of the sentence that gave the SEC regulatory authority, didn't change the meanings of the words in the first sentence, but the Court expressly recognized that Congress had authority... that Congress had given authority to the SEC not only to define acts or practices as are fraudulent but to prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent them, and the Court explicitly said there that the SEC could prohibit nondeceptive conduct as a means reasonably designed to prevent fraud.\nSo the Court in Schreiber I think did acknowledge that the SEC has very vast regulatory power in order to protect against the abuses that Congress had identified in the tender offer context.\nRule 14(e) 3 does that by establishing a flat ban on trading by persons who come into possession of information about an upcoming tender offer when they know that it was received from the bidder or somebody acting on its behalf, and that flat ban serves two valuable purposes.\nThe first is that it protects shareholders who are going to be facing a tender offer, or who actually are facing a tender offer, from not having adequate time and adequate information to make a decision whether to buy, sell, or hold.\nIt also prevents collusion between the bidder and other parties operating in the marketplace that has not disclosed to the marketplace, as the Williams Act requires, from buying up stock from unsuspecting shareholders in the target company.\nA second purpose that is served by 14(e)3 is the prevention of fraudulent activity that involves, as this case did, the deceptive acquisition of information from the bidder or law firm's accountants, investment bankers that represent it, and it thereby serves to prevent that kind of fraud from occurring, which is a very great danger, and which involves a very great danger of not being detected, because this is in essence a crime that involves surreptitious activity that is not often easy to bring to light.\nSo 14(e)3 carves out in the tender offer context very special heightened rules.\nIt carves out and creates in the tender offer context a disclose or abstain from trading obligation, but it does not apply, as section 10(b) does, to the rest of the universe of securities transactions in which the misuse of information can pose very serious threats.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1429.744, 1470.25, 1483.347, 1504.961, 1521.554, 1535.883, 1573.397, 1580.192], "stop_times": [1470.25, 1483.347, 1504.961, 1521.554, 1535.883, 1573.397, 1580.192, 1598.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.744}, "reply_to": "21006__0_104", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_106", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, 10(e) perhaps does not require a breach of fiduciary duty, or does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1598.024], "stop_times": [1604.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.024}, "reply_to": "21006__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_107", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I'm sorry, which section?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1604.456], "stop_times": [1606.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1604.456}, "reply_to": "21006__0_106", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_108", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "10(e), liability under... excuse me,--\n--14.\n14(e).\nDoes that require a breach of fiduciary duty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1606.69, 1609.821, 1610.412, 1610.811], "stop_times": [1609.821, 1610.412, 1610.811, 1614.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.69}, "reply_to": "21006__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_109", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "As the SEC has defined the acts that are prohibited in 14(e)3, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1614.584], "stop_times": [1620.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1614.584}, "reply_to": "21006__0_108", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_110", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1620.548], "stop_times": [1621.259], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.548}, "reply_to": "21006__0_109", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21006__0_111", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And I think that that is justified, Justice O'Connor, on two bases.\nFirst, Rule 14(e)3 in essence creates the duty to make disclosure, drawing on Congress' recognition that tender offers pose particular shareholder harms, and they pose particular dangers that the shareholders will not be able to make an important decision.\nThe SEC drew on the regulatory authority it was given to impose a duty to make disclosure, and second, the SEC's rule prevents violations that are akin to the misappropriation violation that occurs under section 10(b) by ensuring that when someone has material information of this character, they simply may not trade, even when there is no proof of a breach of fiduciary duty and deception in that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1621.259, 1624.602, 1640.914], "stop_times": [1624.602, 1640.914, 1671.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1621.259}, "reply_to": "21006__0_110", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_112", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "So that would extend liability to the thief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1671.384], "stop_times": [1675.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.384}, "reply_to": "21006__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21006__0_113", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "It would extend liability to the thief so long as the thief acquired the information from the bidder or somebody acting on its behalf and knew that.\nNow, what is important about section 10(b)'s application to fraudulent conduct of this kind is that investors in the securities markets rely on the fact that the markets are essentially honest.\nNo investor expects that he may have the skill, expertise, or analytical ability of everybody else in the market, and everyone who enters the market knows that they may be trading with somebody who's smarter than you are or better informed, and you're going to lose.\nBut investors do assume that they are not trading with someone who acquired the informational advantage simply by fraud, simply by stealing information in breach of a fiduciary duty and using it for trading.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1675.586, 1684.231, 1697.991, 1711.249, 1723.488], "stop_times": [1684.231, 1697.991, 1711.249, 1723.488, 1724.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.586}, "reply_to": "21006__0_112", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_114", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, may I... you've come back to 10(b), and I had a question that I wanted to ask you and then I got distracted, and I'd like to pose it now.\nYou made it clear, I think, that if the defendant in this case had simply disclosed his intention to use the information but did not receive authority, that there still would be a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1724.309, 1731.892], "stop_times": [1731.892, 1746.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.309}, "reply_to": "21006__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_115", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--No, I think that my position on that is that if there is disclosure to the client there would be no deception of the client.\nIf there's disclosure to the firm, there would be no deception of the firm.\nThere might be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1746.432, 1754.888, 1758.27], "stop_times": [1754.888, 1758.27, 1759.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1746.432}, "reply_to": "21006__0_114", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_116", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Okay.\nThat's the point at which I guess I got mixed up.\nYou've clarified it now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1759.051, 1759.452, 1760.831], "stop_times": [1759.452, 1760.831, 1762.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.051}, "reply_to": "21006__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__0_117", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Okay.\nThank you.\nI would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1762.153, 1762.952, 1763.472], "stop_times": [1762.952, 1763.472, 1765.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1762.153}, "reply_to": "21006__0_116", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__0_118", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Very well, Mr. Dreeben.\nMr. French, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1765.996, 1766.995], "stop_times": [1766.995, 1769.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.996}, "reply_to": "21006__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__1_000", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe respondent in this case was a regular substantial investor in the stock market.\nHe was convicted of 57 counts arising out of an alleged securities fraud and sentenced to 41 months in prison.\nThe basis of that conviction was a set of legal theories that are not incorporated into the text of any statute, that have sown confusion among the courts, and that provide no guidance to participants in the stock market.\nI ask the Court to consider briefly the application of the Government's theories to what are, for purposes of this appeal, the undisputed facts in this case.\nI am not now contesting facts.\nI am asking the Court to think about the way the Government's theories apply to these facts.\nOn August 12, 1988, the Wall Street Journal reported that a British firm called Grand Metropolitan had put its hotel subsidiary, Intercontinental, up for auction to raise money for an acquisition.\nOn August 18, just 6 days later, a financial columnist named Dan Dorfman, announced on the Cable News Network that people close to Grand Metropolitan... and that is a common synonym in the trade for people inside Grand Metropolitan... are telling people in the street that Grand Metropolitan is interested in acquiring Pillsbury.\nAlso on August 18, a broker called respondent to advise that he'd received a $9 million order to buy 250,000 shares of Pillsbury stock for a customer in London.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1769.118, 1778.344, 1785.549, 1795.806, 1814.148, 1827.576, 1830.036, 1835.59, 1857.155, 1884.233], "stop_times": [1778.344, 1785.549, 1795.806, 1814.148, 1827.576, 1830.036, 1835.59, 1857.155, 1884.233, 1901.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.118}, "reply_to": "21006__0_118", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_001", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. French, I gather you're trying to convince us that the doctrine would apply even if all the relevant information were in the public domain, and I'm assuming that we have a case that the jury found the relevant information was not in the public domain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1901.355], "stop_times": [1916.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.355}, "reply_to": "21006__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__1_002", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "What I'm suggesting is that if a theory can be applied to result in a conviction of Mr. O'Hagan on the basis of facts which very clearly in the record indicated that he placed all of his orders for Pillsbury options before August 26, and the Government only indicts him, as the prosecutor says, for trades made from August 26 on, then the theory is grotesque.\nYou cannot, with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1916.704, 1950.725], "stop_times": [1950.725, 1952.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.704}, "reply_to": "21006__1_001", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_003", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "The reason it's grotesque, as I understand your presentation, is because the relevant information was in the public domain at the time he made his purchases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1952.498], "stop_times": [1959.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.498}, "reply_to": "21006__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__1_004", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--The relevant information was in the public domain and, as Your Honor knows, you may only be convicted, even under the Government's theory, if you trade on the basis of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1959.812], "stop_times": [1973.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.812}, "reply_to": "21006__1_003", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_005", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Right, but I would like to try and address the question of what we do with a case in which the facts are the way the Government presents them and the way presumably the jury thought they were, namely that your client acted entirely on the basis of inside information that was not in the public domain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1973.84], "stop_times": [1989.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.84}, "reply_to": "21006__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__1_006", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1989.801], "stop_times": [1990.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1989.801}, "reply_to": "21006__1_005", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_007", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And in that connection I'd be curious to know your view on whether, if it was... instead of your client, if it had been the partner who was in charge of the matter within the firm who had done this, would you say he would also be... would he be covered or not, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [1990.453], "stop_times": [2004.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.453}, "reply_to": "21006__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__1_008", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--In my view, we are dealing here with a statute that involves, as Mr. Dreeben said, disclosure.\nIf Mr. O'Hagan had made... had had this private, nonpublic information that you're hypothesizing and disclosed to the Dorsey firm that he was going to trade on it, according to the Government's theory he couldn't have been prosecuted.\nTo me, that seems to be preposterous.\nWhat's wrong with the Government's theory is, it doesn't have anything to do with unfair advantage being taken of a participant in the marketplace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2004.41, 2013.978, 2029.906, 2032.41], "stop_times": [2013.978, 2029.906, 2032.41, 2042.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.41}, "reply_to": "21006__1_007", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_009", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, I'm... my question is, what if he had been the partner in charge of the matter within the firm, and had acted entirely on the basis of nonpublic information.\nCould the statute apply in that situation, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2042.736, 2051.272], "stop_times": [2051.272, 2054.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.736}, "reply_to": "21006__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__1_010", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "In my view, according to the Government's theory, the statute would apply.\nNo.\nIn my view, the statute cannot apply.\nThere has been no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2054.393, 2059.417, 2059.837, 2061.82], "stop_times": [2059.417, 2059.837, 2061.82, 2063.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.393}, "reply_to": "21006__1_009", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_011", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Even if this man were the only lawyer working on the matter in the firm for the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2063.29], "stop_times": [2068.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2063.29}, "reply_to": "21006__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__1_012", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2068.522], "stop_times": [2069.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.522}, "reply_to": "21006__1_011", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_013", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And had a clear duty to his client not to disclose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2069.864], "stop_times": [2072.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.864}, "reply_to": "21006__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__1_014", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's correct, Justice Stevens.\nIn my view, it could not apply because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2072.835, 2074.034], "stop_times": [2074.034, 2076.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2072.835}, "reply_to": "21006__1_013", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_015", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But Mr. French, you would give a different answer, would you not, if the lawyer were in the firm that was assisting Pillsbury in this matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2076.068], "stop_times": [2085.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.068}, "reply_to": "21006__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__1_016", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I certainly would, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2085.803], "stop_times": [2087.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.803}, "reply_to": "21006__1_015", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_017", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "You have two lawyers, both with the same information, but one is working for the target company and the other is working for the potential takeover company, and you would distinguish those two cases.\nSo everything that you said in the beginning, if we just made one change, made O'Hagan with the firm that's representing Pillsbury, there would be liability and you wouldn't contest that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2087.235, 2107.379], "stop_times": [2107.379, 2120.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.235}, "reply_to": "21006__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__1_018", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I wouldn't be here today, Your Honor.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2120.007, 2121.726], "stop_times": [2121.726, 2122.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.007}, "reply_to": "21006__1_017", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_019", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2122.608], "stop_times": [2123.138], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.608}, "reply_to": "21006__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21006__1_020", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--The statute encompasses deception, and in the context of a nondisclosure, deception occurs in the presence of a fiduciary duty.\nThe lawyer inside Pillsbury has a fiduciary duty to the Pillsbury shareholders.\nThe lawyer outside Pillsbury does not have a fiduciary duty to the Pillsbury shareholders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2123.138, 2134.226, 2140.49], "stop_times": [2134.226, 2140.49, 2145.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.138}, "reply_to": "21006__1_019", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_021", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Well, are you basing your--\n--Deceive the sellers not just deceive somebody who's working for the... for... right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2145.944, 2146.815], "stop_times": [2146.815, 2151.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.944}, "reply_to": "21006__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_022", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's correct.\nHe has to have deceived the sellers in order--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2151.236, 2152.218], "stop_times": [2152.218, 2154.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.236}, "reply_to": "21006__1_021", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_023", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's the basis for the distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2154.899], "stop_times": [2156.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.899}, "reply_to": "21006__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_024", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--A deception in connection with the purchase or sale of a security is the basis of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2156.829], "stop_times": [2161.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.829}, "reply_to": "21006__1_023", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_025", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But what you're focusing on is not the definition of fraud, not the definition of deception, but in connection with securities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2161.243], "stop_times": [2167.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.243}, "reply_to": "21006__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_026", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I'm focusing on two things, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, I believe that what the Congress tried to adopt here was something to prevent securities fraud.\nI don't believe the Congress is attempting to regulate the relationships between lawyers and their firms, which are regulated by codes of professional responsibility, or husbands and wives, or fathers and sons, which is the context in which these misappropriation cases come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2167.909, 2172.461, 2180.356], "stop_times": [2172.461, 2180.356, 2197.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.909}, "reply_to": "21006__1_025", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_027", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, is it wrong for me to proceed through the statute and the relevant... and 10(b) 5 by asking first, is there fraud?\nSecond, is it in connection with the sale of securities?\nAnd it seems to me that in the case that Justice Stevens put to you, where the principal partner working for Grand Met starts trading on the inside information, that there is fraud in the sense of deception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2197.778, 2204.661, 2208.394], "stop_times": [2204.661, 2208.394, 2220.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.778}, "reply_to": "21006__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_028", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "It is possible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2220.774], "stop_times": [2223.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.774}, "reply_to": "21006__1_027", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_029", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Now... now, maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong under your view, and I'd like to hear why.\nNow, I could understand if you went further and said there's not in connection with the sale of securities, but that's quite a different point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2223.635, 2228.518], "stop_times": [2228.518, 2234.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.635}, "reply_to": "21006__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_030", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--There is not even deception there.\nThere is theft, and contrary to Mr. Dreeben's position, theft of a piece of information is no different from theft of money.\nIt's not fraud.\nYou can be prosecuted for the theft vis-a-vis yourself and the person from whom you stole, or the person from whom you stole may proceed against you to recover the money, but it's not deception.\nOtherwise, every single theft would result in a prosecution for fraud, and that never happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2234.29, 2239.105, 2249.241, 2251.492, 2267.173], "stop_times": [2239.105, 2249.241, 2251.492, 2267.173, 2273.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.29}, "reply_to": "21006__1_029", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_031", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "What about the Carpenter case, Mr. French?\nWhat about the Carpenter case?\nI mean, doesn't that suggest that theft can be brought within the securities statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2273.748, 2276.639, 2280.452], "stop_times": [2276.639, 2280.452, 2287.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.748}, "reply_to": "21006__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__1_032", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "It suggests that theft can be brought within the mail fraud statute, Your Honor.\nAs to the securities fraud statute, the Court was equally divided, and therefore I don't know what the Court thinks with respect to that issue.\nThe Government cannot rely on Carpenter with respect to the mail fraud claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2287.195, 2292.54, 2302.085], "stop_times": [2292.54, 2302.085, 2307.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2287.195}, "reply_to": "21006__1_031", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_033", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Is it possible that some of these difficult cases... you know, what you call the preposterous cases, the mothers, whatever it is... would be fairly dealt with through a requirement that a criminal conviction must be willful?\nI notice that word was in the criminal section, and does wilful mean that in this area, if you don't know the law, that's an excuse, so therefore in any of these borderline cases a defendant who didn't realize that what he was doing was against the securities law would be home free, and this would be reserved for the instances where people know that what they're doing is wrong as a matter of securities law.\nI'd like your reaction to that.\nI'm not certain whether that's correct or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2307.588, 2321.548, 2348.836, 2350.408], "stop_times": [2321.548, 2348.836, 2350.408, 2352.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.588}, "reply_to": "21006__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21006__1_034", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Yes, Justice Breyer.\nI have several problems with it.\nOne is that under the misappropriation theory no one will ever really know, because the misappropriation theory, even in the courts that have adopted it and follow it, is so confusing that the courts themselves... the court in Chestman, for example, says when you get outside the relationship with the shareholder, the... knowing whether or not the relationship applies is unclear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2352.819, 2353.971, 2358.061], "stop_times": [2353.971, 2358.061, 2386.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.819}, "reply_to": "21006__1_033", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_035", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But you see, that's the basis of my question.\nThe defendant would be entitled to an instruction that if he didn't know that what he was doing was unlawful, he hasn't done it willfully.\nI'm thinking of Ratzlaf.\nI'm thinking of the cases that interpret willfully, and I wonder if that saves for the Government... saves them from your argument, because you're arguing this is all very unclear, and that's what I'd like a response to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2386.512, 2388.112, 2396.366, 2397.948], "stop_times": [2388.112, 2396.366, 2397.948, 2410.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.512}, "reply_to": "21006__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21006__1_036", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, it would be very helpful if that turned out to be, as the Government prosecutes these cases, the instruction.\nThere are several instructions in this case, as the record shows, against Mr. O'Hagan, that tell the jury that he doesn't have to know elements of the offense, for instance that he didn't have to know substantial steps were taken.\nBut to me, it doesn't answer the question.\nI believe, as Judge Luttig said in the Bryan case, this mode of analysis pulls apart a unitary concept.\nThe unitary concept is deception or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.\nTo me, that means the buyer or seller of the security deceives the person on the other side of the transaction.\nIt's not as if you deceive someone over here and then later on you benefit from it by dealing with somebody else.\nMr. Dreeben's remark, it seems to me, fits with my theory of this case.\nHe says, there... it has to be in connection with the purchase or sale of a security because the only way Mr. O'Hagan could profit was in the purchase or sale of a security.\nNot so.\nThat assumes Mr. O'Hagan has no imagination.\nMr. O'Hagan could have said, I now have a useful piece of information.\nI have misappropriated it.\nI'm going to profit on it by selling it to the trade press.\nI can get a good fee for this information.\nSo the misappropriation would have occurred, but it had been disconnected from the purchase or sale of the security.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2410.515, 2419.403, 2431.142, 2433.632, 2442.437, 2451.324, 2459.819, 2467.253, 2474.609, 2486.016, 2487.017, 2489.859, 2494.712, 2497.383, 2502.395, 2504.987], "stop_times": [2419.403, 2431.142, 2433.632, 2442.437, 2451.324, 2459.819, 2467.253, 2474.609, 2486.016, 2487.017, 2489.859, 2494.712, 2497.383, 2502.395, 2504.987, 2513.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.515}, "reply_to": "21006__1_035", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_037", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "It's not entirely disconnected.\nThe trade press would only be interested in it because the people who read the trade press would be able to buy securities on the basis of this confidential information.\nI doubt if they would have--\n--They would have just pushed it one step further back, but it still necessarily--\n--They wouldn't have paid this kind of price for it, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2513.963, 2514.594, 2522.828, 2523.83, 2527.102], "stop_times": [2514.594, 2522.828, 2523.83, 2527.102, 2527.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.963}, "reply_to": "21006__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_038", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "All right.\nI'll give you another hypothetical, Your Honor, because I'm firmly convinced that the statute doesn't read the way Mr. Dreeben says it does.\nYou cannot disconnect the misappropriation from the purchase and sale of securities and say it's satisfied.\nMr. O'Hagan's office in Minneapolis is across the street from the Pillsbury Company.\nHe could have said to himself, I have always wanted the business of the Pillsbury Company.\nI will walk across the street, misappropriating this information of my law firm and its client, deliver it to the Pillsbury Company, and suggest to the Pillsbury Company that in the future they might find it very desirable to use me for legal work.\nThat wouldn't have had anything to do with the purchase and sale of the security, and yet it would have profited Mr. O'Hagan if it had worked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2527.763, 2528.364, 2535.149, 2540.973, 2546.086, 2551.409, 2569.1], "stop_times": [2528.364, 2535.149, 2540.973, 2546.086, 2551.409, 2569.1, 2576.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2527.763}, "reply_to": "21006__1_037", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_039", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Yes, but all you're saying is, he could have done a lot of things that were not in connection with the sale of the security, but what he did it seems to me was in connection with the sale of the security.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2576.646], "stop_times": [2586.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.646}, "reply_to": "21006__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_040", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "The cases of this Court have confined the statute to relationships between market participants.\nI admit not merely buyers and sellers.\nThey've included brokers.\nThey've included other investors.\nBut at the time of the alleged fraud, neither Dorsey & Whitney nor Grand Met was a market participant.\nGrand Met had a desire for a takeover.\nIt had no money for the takeover.\nThe transactions presumably ended by August 26.\nGrand Met's own chief financial officer said that by September 18th they still didn't have the money.\nThey wanted to make a takeover.\nThey couldn't make a takeover.\nIt wasn't until October 4th that the takeover was proposed, was announced, so we have, I think for the very first time, a proposal by the Government that a fraud on a nonmarket participant be deemed to be in connection with the purchase and sale of securities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2586.864, 2602.843, 2606.456, 2607.646, 2609.688, 2620.074, 2623.767, 2626.188, 2631.751, 2639.238, 2640.727, 2642.419], "stop_times": [2602.843, 2606.456, 2607.646, 2609.688, 2620.074, 2623.767, 2626.188, 2631.751, 2639.238, 2640.727, 2642.419, 2661.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2586.864}, "reply_to": "21006__1_039", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_041", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, the rule is written that way.\nThe rule... I know you're going to bring me back to the statute, but just so far as the rule is concerned, the rule says it's unlawful to have a deceit or a fraud upon any person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2661.992, 2663.163], "stop_times": [2663.163, 2673.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.992}, "reply_to": "21006__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_042", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2673.708], "stop_times": [2674.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.708}, "reply_to": "21006__1_041", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_043", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\nIt doesn't say upon a purchaser or seller of securities.\nThat's what it would say if your theory were to be adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2674.219, 2676.361, 2679.062], "stop_times": [2676.361, 2679.062, 2684.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.219}, "reply_to": "21006__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_044", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I agree it says any person, but it seems to me that rules are not allowed to stray outside the scope of their statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2684.566], "stop_times": [2691.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.566}, "reply_to": "21006__1_043", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_045", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Then we have to assume that Congress wouldn't intend... on your theory we could take the insiders, the most complete insiders of a corporation, say Grand Met if it were American, and they could go out and buy all the shares they wanted, knowing that those companies are about to be taken over.\nThey can buy the shares of the companies that are about to be taken over, and that would be lawful under the securities law, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2691.31, 2707.162], "stop_times": [2707.162, 2713.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.31}, "reply_to": "21006__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21006__1_046", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "It would up until a point but there's a whole panoply of regulation relating to tender offers.\nOnce you've embarked on a tender offer you have to announce it, and there's restraints on how you can conduct it, and you cannot make misrepresentations in connection with it.\nI do not think this particular reading of this statute is necessary to keep tender offers clean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2713.516, 2719.858, 2731.937], "stop_times": [2719.858, 2731.937, 2739.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.516}, "reply_to": "21006__1_045", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_047", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. French, would you tell me, if your position is the one we adopt, what becomes of the 1988 legislation that provides... provided for a private right of action?\nIt appeared that Congress was operating on the basis of certain understandings about what 10(b) and 14(e) meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2739.613, 2754.342], "stop_times": [2754.342, 2763.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.613}, "reply_to": "21006__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__1_048", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, two things about the 1988 legislation.\nFirst, it was adopted... whatever they mean, it was adopted after my client's acts, and therefore it seems to me he can't have anticipated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2763.499, 2771.073], "stop_times": [2771.073, 2779.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2763.499}, "reply_to": "21006__1_047", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_049", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Oh, I don't mean with respect to your case, but you're asking us to make a ruling that will govern not simply this day and case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2779.999], "stop_times": [2788.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.999}, "reply_to": "21006__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__1_050", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2788.174], "stop_times": [2788.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2788.174}, "reply_to": "21006__1_049", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_051", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--but that will interpret 10(b) and 14(e), and so I would like to know what becomes of that later legislation.\nIs it in shambles?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2788.775, 2796.749], "stop_times": [2796.749, 2799.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.775}, "reply_to": "21006__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__1_052", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I think what I'd like the Court to do is think about all of the legislation and attempted legislation throughout the 1980's in thinking about that issue.\nIn 1984, the SEC went to the Congress and proposed legislation that would have covered this subject matter, would have covered the misappropriation area, and then when Congress got ready to enact it said no, we would prefer vagueness and ambiguity.\nPlease don't enact it.\nThen in 1987, when the SEC went to the Congress with a proposal to enact the misappropriation theory, the Congress rejected it.\nThen in '88 it enacted something having to do with participants in the market that once again did not amend the language of 10(b)5, so it seems to me there is no basis for saying, as some of the amici have said, that the Congress has codified these theories into law.\nIt has not enacted any of this into law.\nSo my answer is the 1984 legislation and the 1988 legislation have to be left to apply to 10b-5 as interpreted ultimately by this Court, and the Congress, if it wants to get the misappropriation theory into law, has to write it into law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2799.262, 2811.93, 2829.791, 2830.953, 2840.66, 2857.88, 2860.461], "stop_times": [2811.93, 2829.791, 2830.953, 2840.66, 2857.88, 2860.461, 2879.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2799.262}, "reply_to": "21006__1_051", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_053", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "So you disagree with what one of the amici briefs said, that... I think it was the one from the NASAA... stated that you virtually conceded that O'Hagan's conduct would have violated the 1988 act if it had post-dated that legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2879.743], "stop_times": [2900.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.743}, "reply_to": "21006__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21006__1_054", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I disagree, Your Honor.\nThe amici briefs... one of the amicus briefs says the Congress codified the misappropriation theory.\nThe Government says the Congress has validated the misappropriation theory.\nA third amicus brief says the Congress has not codified the misappropriation theory, but ratified it.\nI don't know what ratified or validated means in these circumstances.\nI know what enact means.\nCongress has not enacted it.\nSo yes, I disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2900.216, 2901.598, 2907.512, 2911.606, 2918.101, 2923.554, 2925.256, 2926.597], "stop_times": [2901.598, 2907.512, 2911.606, 2918.101, 2923.554, 2925.256, 2926.597, 2927.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.216}, "reply_to": "21006__1_053", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_055", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Why hasn't Congress... what I'm actually thinking, Congress has... think of the case of the insider for the company itself, the company that's going to take over another company.\nEverybody knows that those insiders shouldn't go out and buy up stock in the takeover target secretly, and it deceives everybody in the company for which he works.\nSo the SEC, the expert organization, decides that that's so.\nIt fits within the language of the statute.\nAnd then of course you would be worried about criminal liability for vague theories, but that's where I came back to the word willfully.\nSo I'm really asking this to see if there's anything more you want to say in that area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2927.758, 2939.225, 2951.954, 2956.436, 2959.628, 2967.465], "stop_times": [2939.225, 2951.954, 2956.436, 2959.628, 2967.465, 2972.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.758}, "reply_to": "21006__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21006__1_056", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I'd be happy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2972.077], "stop_times": [2972.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2972.077}, "reply_to": "21006__1_055", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_057", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Should I see it as a delegation problem, an expert agency, literal language complied with, and criminal liability taken... unfair criminal liability taken care of by willfully?\nI'm sketching that out for you so that I can get it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2972.968, 2983.484], "stop_times": [2983.484, 2987.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.968}, "reply_to": "21006__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21006__1_058", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Yes, Justice Breyer.\nWhat we have is a... and I am not in a position to ask this Court to reverse several decades' worth of law, but what we have is a situation that's slipped its moorings.\nInsider trading was supposed to be governed by section 16(b).\nKatie Roberts worked very hard to get insider trading under 10(b) more than 30 years after the statute was passed by saying it depends upon nondisclosure as between participants to a transaction.\nThis Court went along with that in Chiarella, but not further.\nWhat the Congress needs, if it wants to get passed... and I can even conceptually do that.\nI can... in my mind I can say, misrepresentation... deception can encompass nondisclosure when there is a duty to speak.\nI can't get beyond that.\nSo if the Congress wants within the framework of 60 years of law to get beyond misrepresentation or nondisclosure constituting deception when there's a duty to speak, it should pass a statute about it, which it has not.\nPerhaps I should move to 14(e).\nIt seems to me that there are two serious problems with 14(e) which I think the Government cannot deal with.\nOne is the agency has not promulgated rules designed to help prevent frauds from arising.\nIt simply redefined the word fraud.\nThe statute prohibits fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts.\nThe SEC announces that something is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act which doesn't have any element of fraud in it.\nIt just says you can't trade if you have the information.\nAgain, if you look at one of the courts that's gone along with the rule, SEC v. Maio in the Seventh Circuit, says the rule requires a duty to disclose regardless of whether such information was obtained through a breach of fiduciary duty, so it seems to me that the rule has just outstripped the statute it's supposed to be implementing, and that's impermissible.\nThe second thing wrong with the rule is, the rule says you mustn't trade in connection with a tender offer.\nThe SEC has said you may not trade if substantial steps have been taken toward a tender offer.\nThat's not in the law.\nThat is an accretion to the law that's not there.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [2987.087, 2988.338, 2999.665, 3003.427, 3019.978, 3025.561, 3032.645, 3041.952, 3043.794, 3062.046, 3069.781, 3079.996, 3092.185, 3094.986, 3100.849, 3111.538, 3114.75, 3140.476, 3147.8, 3155.667, 3157.677, 3160.359], "stop_times": [2988.338, 2999.665, 3003.427, 3019.978, 3025.561, 3032.645, 3041.952, 3043.794, 3062.046, 3069.781, 3079.996, 3092.185, 3094.986, 3100.849, 3111.538, 3114.75, 3140.476, 3147.8, 3155.667, 3157.677, 3160.359, 3161.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.087}, "reply_to": "21006__1_057", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_059", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--But their rulemaking authority under the law allows them to go beyond the law.\nIt allows them to make rules that will prevent a violation of the law.\nYou concede that that allows them to make unlawful by rule some things that are not made unlawful by the statute, don't you?\nOr don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3161.51, 3166.654, 3170.997, 3178.61], "stop_times": [3166.654, 3170.997, 3178.61, 3179.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.51}, "reply_to": "21006__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_060", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I do, but I don't concede that it authorizes them to change the criminal application of this statute.\nIf the Court when it has an--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3179.362, 3189.147], "stop_times": [3189.147, 3193.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3179.362}, "reply_to": "21006__1_059", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_061", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I don't really understand your response.\nIf it authorizes them to go beyond the law... you mean only for civil purposes?\nIs that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3193.722, 3196.062, 3200.307], "stop_times": [3196.062, 3200.307, 3201.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.722}, "reply_to": "21006__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21006__1_062", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I'm... I'll say two things.\nFirst, it plainly can't do it in the criminal context because it can't transform fraud into nonfraud and say, this is criminal, but beyond that, what I think it can do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3201.516, 3203.959], "stop_times": [3203.959, 3216.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3201.516}, "reply_to": "21006__1_061", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_063", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Before you go beyond that, it's not transforming fraud into nonfraud.\nIt's saying, this is nonfraud.\nIt's not covered by the statute, but we're prohibiting it nonetheless because the statute allows us to do it.\nIt allows us to prohibit things in order to prevent fraud, not just to prohibit fraud but to prohibit other things in order to prevent fraud.\nThat's how the statute reads.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3216.565, 3220.399, 3221.938, 3228.414, 3237.19], "stop_times": [3220.399, 3221.938, 3228.414, 3237.19, 3239.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.565}, "reply_to": "21006__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_064", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThis redefines the word, fraud.\nIt says, it shall be, it shall constitute fraudulent activity if you purchase after substantial steps have been taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3239.28, 3243.033, 3246.506], "stop_times": [3243.033, 3246.506, 3261.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.28}, "reply_to": "21006__1_063", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_065", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "That's a different point you're making.\nYou are making the point that this rule might have been okay if it had read differently, if it had read, thou shalt not do this.\nInstead, however, it reads doing this constitutes fraud under the... under 14(e), and that's simply false, so the rule is false.\nIt's not that it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3261.435, 3263.346, 3272.472, 3284.841], "stop_times": [3263.346, 3272.472, 3284.841, 3285.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.435}, "reply_to": "21006__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_066", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "The rule is false.\nThe rule is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3285.972, 3286.393], "stop_times": [3286.393, 3287.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3285.972}, "reply_to": "21006__1_065", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_067", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--It's not that it does something that the Commission couldn't.\nIt does it in the wrong way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3287.194, 3288.904], "stop_times": [3288.904, 3290.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.194}, "reply_to": "21006__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_068", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--The rule is false.\nMoreover--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3290.186, 3291.206], "stop_times": [3291.206, 3292.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3290.186}, "reply_to": "21006__1_067", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_069", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But could it have done it another way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3292.448], "stop_times": [3294.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.448}, "reply_to": "21006__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__1_070", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I don't think it could do... let me try to do this in conjunction.\nI don't think it could do this in another way because there's no definition of substantial steps, and it is not possible for most participants in securities transactions to know that substantial steps have been taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3294.859, 3301.343], "stop_times": [3301.343, 3318.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.859}, "reply_to": "21006__1_069", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_071", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, but that's essentially a vagueness argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3318.553], "stop_times": [3322.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.553}, "reply_to": "21006__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__1_072", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "It certainly is a vague--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3322.367], "stop_times": [3323.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3322.367}, "reply_to": "21006__1_071", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_073", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I suppose rather than a breach of delegated... or an excess of delegated authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3323.416], "stop_times": [3331.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3323.416}, "reply_to": "21006__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__1_074", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--That's correct.\nMay I take an example in an area in which I practice heavily.\nThe Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits deceptive acts, unfair or deceptive acts or practices.\nIn the context of that statute the agency, in prosecuting for deception, just takes straightforward misrepresentations, lots of different kinds but straightforward misrepresentations.\nIn the concept of unfairness, it treads very carefully, conducts investigations, promulgates trade regulation rules, and then says we have identified a practice here that we deem to be unfair.\nWe haven't amended the law to allow us to prohibit things that are fair.\nWe've identified this act as unfair.\nAnd then it goes forward on a very careful basis with prosecutions that only lead to injunctive results.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3331.953, 3333.424, 3338.356, 3346.332, 3359.63, 3375.141, 3382.485, 3385.617], "stop_times": [3333.424, 3338.356, 3346.332, 3359.63, 3375.141, 3382.485, 3385.617, 3392.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3331.953}, "reply_to": "21006__1_073", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_075", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But that basically is then kind of an administrative process argument, and once again it seems to me you're not saying when you make that argument that they have exceeded their... that the essential problem is that they have exceeded their delegated authority, but the contrast that you are drawing is that they were more careful about predicating their exercise of delegated authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3392.121], "stop_times": [3415.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.121}, "reply_to": "21006__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__1_076", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And they certainly have been more careful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3415.147], "stop_times": [3419.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3415.147}, "reply_to": "21006__1_075", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_077", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "But if that's the nub of what you're arguing, it's not that they've exceeded the authority in our case, if that's the point of your argument, but that they just didn't go about it the right way.\nTheir process was defective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3419.591, 3428.947], "stop_times": [3428.947, 3430.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.591}, "reply_to": "21006__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__1_078", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "No, I really am going beyond that.\nI am--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3430.827, 3433.318], "stop_times": [3433.318, 3433.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3430.827}, "reply_to": "21006__1_077", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_079", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Okay, then I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3433.728], "stop_times": [3434.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3433.728}, "reply_to": "21006__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21006__1_080", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I am saying... I am saying that when the statute says you must not commit fraud in connection with a tender offer, the agency cannot say, you are also subject to prosecution when... even when you don't commit fraud, and even when no tender offer has been launched, but because substantial steps have been taken.\nThat rewrites the law.\nThat is not a rule that implements the law.\nIt rewrites the law, and that's the distinction I'm drawing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3434.59, 3458.957, 3460.577, 3462.838], "stop_times": [3458.957, 3460.577, 3462.838, 3465.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3434.59}, "reply_to": "21006__1_079", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_081", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Mr. French, does the Federal Trade Commission Act say that the Federal Trade Commission shall, by rules and regulations, define and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent unfair or deceptive trade practices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3465.7], "stop_times": [3481.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3465.7}, "reply_to": "21006__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_082", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I don't recall the language producing the implementation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3481.781], "stop_times": [3485.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3481.781}, "reply_to": "21006__1_081", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_083", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I don't think it does.\nThat's the crucial sentence here which allows this agency, as I think the Federal Trade Commission Act does not allow the Federal Trade Commission to go beyond what the statute says and to define other things as unlawful in order to prevent the things that the statute prohibits.\nI think that's the fair meaning of that sentence, now.\nMaybe you say that's an unconstitutional delegation or something, but it seems to me you have to grapple with the reality that Congress has told this agency, you can make unlawful things that the statute does not make unlawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3485.473, 3485.834, 3502.014, 3504.506], "stop_times": [3485.834, 3502.014, 3504.506, 3516.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3485.473}, "reply_to": "21006__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__1_084", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "You can put into a class of prohibited conduct in some way or another things that you define as reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3516.503], "stop_times": [3533.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3516.503}, "reply_to": "21006__1_083", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_085", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And suppose you go on and say, and we will treat these as if they were fraudulent acts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3533.025], "stop_times": [3537.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3533.025}, "reply_to": "21006__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_086", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "I do not believe you can go on and say, you may treat... we will treat these as fraudulent acts.\nThere has to be for people to be not at risk all the times--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3537.707, 3543.461], "stop_times": [3543.461, 3548.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3537.707}, "reply_to": "21006__1_085", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_087", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well but the sanction is the same.\nIt just says that the sanction mechanisms of the statute are employed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3548.693, 3550.774], "stop_times": [3550.774, 3556.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3548.693}, "reply_to": "21006__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_088", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--You may not, Your Honor, I think, put people at risk of prosecution for fraudulent acts committed in connection with a tender offer by announcing that nonfraudulent acts are fraudulent acts and can be prosecuted when there isn't any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3556.708], "stop_times": [3576.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3556.708}, "reply_to": "21006__1_087", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_089", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Well, there has to be the premise that they're necessary to avoid other fraudulent acts.\nOf course, the text says fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.\nIt's kind of a broad term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3576.423, 3581.476, 3585.91], "stop_times": [3581.476, 3585.91, 3587.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3576.423}, "reply_to": "21006__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21006__1_090", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--It certainly is, but I believe the Court in Schreiber has equated deceptive and manipulative under this statute with deceptive and manipulative under 10(b), so it has some content that narrows somewhat the breadth of it.\nI don't know if the Court wishes me to speak on the subject of mail fraud.\nMr. Dreeben did not, and I'm willing to leave it to the briefs.\nI would say with respect to that that all that happened here is that in the Eighth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3587.2, 3604.861, 3610.304, 3614.207], "stop_times": [3604.861, 3610.304, 3614.207, 3620.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3587.2}, "reply_to": "21006__1_089", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_091", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. French, your time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3620.502], "stop_times": [3623.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3620.502}, "reply_to": "21006__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__1_092", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3623.744], "stop_times": [3624.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3623.744}, "reply_to": "21006__1_091", "speaker": "john_d_french"}
{"id": "21006__1_093", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, you have a little over a minute left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3624.903], "stop_times": [3627.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3624.903}, "reply_to": "21006__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__2_000", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIn order to convict respondent on the section 10(b) count, the jury had to find that he acted with the intent to deceive, manipulate, or deprive... these are in the jury instructions at page 199 of the joint appendix... and the statutory requirement for the imposition of imprisonment requires that he be shown to have knowledge of the regulation or rule that he violated.\nHe cannot show that... if he shows that he did not have knowledge of it, he cannot be imprisoned, but the statute does require proof of wilfulness in order to sustain any criminal conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3627.575, 3630.416, 3657.355], "stop_times": [3630.416, 3657.355, 3668.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3627.575}, "reply_to": "21006__1_093", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__2_001", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, I hate to use up any of your short time, but there's a new point which came out in oral argument here which I don't recall in the briefs, and I want to know what your response to it is, and that is, assuming that 14(e), as I think is true, does allow this agency to make unlawful things that the statute itself does not, has it purported to do that in its regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3668.003], "stop_times": [3691.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3668.003}, "reply_to": "21006__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__2_002", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3691.147], "stop_times": [3692.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3691.147}, "reply_to": "21006__2_001", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__2_003", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "And if it has not purported to do that, has not purported by that regulation to prescribe means reasonably designed, but rather in its regulation simply redefines what constitutes fraud or deception, then is that an exercise of the power that's given by that second sentence of 14(e)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3692.459], "stop_times": [3714.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3692.459}, "reply_to": "21006__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21006__2_004", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "--I think that it is, Justice Scalia.\nThe ultimate... may I answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3714.642, 3716.152], "stop_times": [3716.152, 3718.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3714.642}, "reply_to": "21006__2_003", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__2_005", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3718.375], "stop_times": [3718.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3718.375}, "reply_to": "21006__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21006__2_006", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "The ultimate question is whether the SEC's prohibition on trading, which is clearly described in the rule, is within its statutory authority which is a question for the court, and the court may determine that the SEC's prohibition does satisfy the statute based on either the defining prong or the means reasonably designed to prevent, and it's analysis of the reasons that are given.\nWe address this question in our brief in opposition in the Chestman case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3718.976, 3743.932], "stop_times": [3743.932, 3747.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3718.976}, "reply_to": "21006__2_005", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21006__2_007", "conversation_id": "21006", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.\nI think you've answered the question.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-842", "start_times": [3747.675, 3748.606, 3750.258], "stop_times": [3748.606, 3750.258, 3751.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3747.675}, "reply_to": "21006__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__0_000", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 95-1228, United States v. Jerry Wells and Kenneth R. Steele.\nMr. Dreeben, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [0.0, 9.798], "stop_times": [9.798, 23.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__0_001", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is whether section 1014 of title 18 requires the Government to establish the element of materiality in order to obtain a conviction.\nSection 1014 prohibits any person from knowingly making any false statement or report or willfully overvaluing any land, property, or security for the purpose of influencing any one of a number of covered financial institutions in any application, advance, discount, purchase, purchase agreement, or a number of other listed transactions.\nThe text of the statute does not require proof of a materiality element.\nNotwithstanding the absence of that explicit element, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this case concluded that an element of materiality should be implied into the statute in order to prevent it from being applied to what it viewed as trivial misstatements.\nOur contention is that that holding is incorrect, and that section 1014 does not require proof of materiality, for three reasons.\nFirst, the text of the statute does not require proof of materiality.\nSecond, the history of the statute shows it to be a consolidation of a number of provisions, the vast majority of which did not require proof of materiality, and third, the Eighth Circuit's policy concerns are misguided in light of the statutory requirement of proving that the individual knowingly made a false statement and that he did it for the purpose of influencing the institution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [23.317, 27.08, 41.851, 65.655, 72.201, 91.291, 102.0, 106.103], "stop_times": [27.08, 41.851, 65.655, 72.201, 91.291, 102.0, 106.103, 132.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 23.317}, "reply_to": "20538__0_000", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_002", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "With respect to that argument, I was thinking about hypotheticals.\nSupposing a buyer, borrower went into the bank and said, I'm a Yankee fan, because he knew that the loan officer was a Yankee fan.\nThat's the crime.\nThat would be enough, wouldn't it, because he did it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [132.37, 135.292, 142.836, 144.467], "stop_times": [135.292, 142.836, 144.467, 148.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.37}, "reply_to": "20538__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_003", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Assuming that it was a knowing false statement, if he was a Braves fan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [148.83], "stop_times": [152.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.83}, "reply_to": "20538__0_002", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_004", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--And it was knowingly false.\nHe was really a Braves fan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [152.473, 152.964], "stop_times": [152.964, 153.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.473}, "reply_to": "20538__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_005", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Yes.\nThat kind of hypothetical would theoretically be covered by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [153.503, 154.685], "stop_times": [154.685, 159.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.503}, "reply_to": "20538__0_004", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_006", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, not theoretically, would be ccvered by your construction of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [159.126], "stop_times": [162.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.126}, "reply_to": "20538__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_007", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Yes, it would.\nI'm talking about what in fact tends to get prosecuted under section 1014, and in our experience, Federal prosecutors do not bring cases based on such extraneous or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [162.469, 163.21], "stop_times": [163.21, 175.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.469}, "reply_to": "20538__0_006", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_008", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "They're mostly Yankee fans, we know.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [175.337, 177.828], "stop_times": [177.828, 178.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.337}, "reply_to": "20538__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__0_009", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Currently, yes.\nBut our main point is, is not that we need section 1014 not to require proof of materiality because we need to go out and prosecute immaterial false statements.\nOur main point is that first is a implied element of a statute that Congress did not require us to prove, and therefore it should not be read into the statute by courts, and second, it can cause a distraction to juries considering prosecution of false statements when the issue of materiality is in the case, and therefore Congress had particular... had valid reasons for not requiring the Government to prove the materiality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [178.039, 179.949, 193.48], "stop_times": [179.949, 193.48, 224.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.039}, "reply_to": "20538__0_008", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_010", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, I suppose under Gaudin, too, there would be a lot of 2255 proceedings in cases where the court had determined materiality for itself if... by people who had previously been convicted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [224.318], "stop_times": [236.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.318}, "reply_to": "20538__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__0_011", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [236.407], "stop_times": [236.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.407}, "reply_to": "20538__0_010", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_012", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--if we held materiality was a statutory requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [236.898], "stop_times": [239.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.898}, "reply_to": "20538__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__0_013", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--That is exactly right.\nThe law prior to this Court's decision in United States v. Gaudin was fairly tilted against the Government under this statute with respect to implying the element of materiality, but that element was determined by the trial judge, not by the jury, and as a result there would be an arguable constitutional issue for a defendant to raise on a 2255 subject to defenses such as the requirement of overcoming the cause and prejudice hurdle and of other potential issues as well, but our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [239.8, 240.681], "stop_times": [240.681, 273.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.8}, "reply_to": "20538__0_012", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_014", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, most courts of appeals have said materiality is an element, haven't they?\nThat's the majority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [273.292, 281.687], "stop_times": [281.687, 283.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 273.292}, "reply_to": "20538__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_015", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [283.119], "stop_times": [283.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.119}, "reply_to": "20538__0_014", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_016", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "And you say they're wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [283.828], "stop_times": [286.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.828}, "reply_to": "20538__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_017", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes.\nThey are wrong for three basic reasons, as I began at the outset.\nLet me first address the text itself.\nThe text of section 1014, which is set out at pages 2 and 3 of our brief, does not require any explicit proof of the materiality of the false statement.\nIt has three elements.\nIt requires that there be a false statement, which is the actus reus of the offense, and it has two intent requirements.\nIt requires that the defendant know that the statement is false, and it requires that the statement must be made for the purpose of influencing the institution with respect to one of a number of enumerated financial transactions.\nIn contrast to the deliberate exclusion of any materiality element from this statute, Congress has enacted a number of other statutes that deal with the problem of false statements that expressly require proof of materiality, perhaps the most prominent being the perjury statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1621, and 18 U.S.C. 1623, both of which explicitly require proof that the false statement be material to the proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [286.169, 286.53, 291.123, 293.324, 304.972, 306.304, 313.918, 329.108], "stop_times": [286.53, 291.123, 293.324, 304.972, 306.304, 313.918, 329.108, 360.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.169}, "reply_to": "20538__0_016", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_018", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "What was the jury instruction given here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [360.008], "stop_times": [362.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.008}, "reply_to": "20538__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_019", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "The jury instruction given here, which is set forth at pages 42 and 43 of the Joint Appendix, informed the jury not that the court had found the statements to be material, I think it's important to emphasize that.\nWhat the court said was the materiality of the statement or representation alleged to be false or concealed is not a matter with which you are concerned, and should not be considered by you in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.\nThat's on page 43 of the Joint Appendix.\nNow, the court had also earlier enumerated the elements of section 1014 to include materiality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [362.819, 380.921, 395.491, 398.623], "stop_times": [380.921, 395.491, 398.623, 408.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.819}, "reply_to": "20538__0_018", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_020", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "And where is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [408.01], "stop_times": [409.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.01}, "reply_to": "20538__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_021", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That's on the prior page of the Joint Appendix, page 42.\nBut that was a correct statement of circuit law at the time.\nThe Eighth Circuit, like the majority of the courts of appeals, had implied an element of materiality into the statute, and the Government in this case, if it wished to obtain a conviction that it could affirm on appeal, complied with circuit law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [409.352, 412.623, 420.357], "stop_times": [412.623, 420.357, 435.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.352}, "reply_to": "20538__0_020", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_022", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Now, no objection was made to these instructions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [435.108], "stop_times": [439.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.108}, "reply_to": "20538__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_023", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, the defendant... the defendant did object.\nThe defendant argued that materiality should be decided by the jury in the trial court.\nThe defendant was convicted.\nBoth defendants were convicted.\nOn appeal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [439.819, 441.652, 446.525, 448.395, 449.647], "stop_times": [441.652, 446.525, 448.395, 449.647, 450.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 439.819}, "reply_to": "20538__0_022", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_024", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "But the Government was satisfied with the statement that it is... materiality is an element?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [450.658], "stop_times": [457.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.658}, "reply_to": "20538__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_025", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I wouldn't describe the Government's position as satisfied.\nI would describe the Government's position as attempting to obtain a conviction in compliance with Eighth Circuit law.\nIf we had gone to the grand jury and said, charge this violation without finding materiality, and had then gone to the trial judge and said, don't make any finding about materiality, let's just let this case go, the judge would have poured the case out.\nHe would have granted a judgment of acquittal against us, because we had not established what the Eighth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [457.062, 461.223, 467.388, 481.968], "stop_times": [461.223, 467.388, 481.968, 485.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.062}, "reply_to": "20538__0_024", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_026", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, so how's the question preserved here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [485.671], "stop_times": [488.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.671}, "reply_to": "20538__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_027", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--The question is preserved because when the case was decided in the court of appeals the Eighth Circuit received briefs from both parties before United States v. Gaudin was decided and heard oral argument.\nAt that point, respondents didn't argue that materiality should have gone to the jury, as they do now.\nThe Government didn't argue that materiality is not an element of 1014, as we do now.\nBoth parties simply addressed the question of whether these false statements were material.\nThen the United States v. Gaudin was decided, and the Eighth Circuit asked the parties for supplemental briefs on the impact of that decision.\nAt that point, respondents said, there's been a constitutional violation in this case because the jury did not decide materiality.\nThe Government responded, there has not been a constitutional violation in this case because section 1014 does not require proof of materiality.\nThe Eighth Circuit, which could have applied, I suppose, some version or another of procedural default against either or both parties, decided not to apply any version of procedural default to either party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [488.532, 500.009, 507.094, 513.347, 517.39, 524.957, 531.379, 539.974], "stop_times": [500.009, 507.094, 513.347, 517.39, 524.957, 531.379, 539.974, 552.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.532}, "reply_to": "20538__0_026", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_028", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "And decided the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [552.763], "stop_times": [554.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.763}, "reply_to": "20538__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_029", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Exactly, decided on the merits that section 1014 requires proof of materiality in a binding circuitwide decision which we are challenging in this Court.\nWe are challenging the legal ruling that was ultimately rendered by the Eighth Circuit, finding materiality to be an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [554.705, 564.661], "stop_times": [564.661, 570.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.705}, "reply_to": "20538__0_028", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_030", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, I don't seem to have the instructions in front of me, but would you help me on this?\nDid the element of purpose of influencing the action of the agency, was that described in the instructions as a separate element?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [570.087, 573.496], "stop_times": [573.496, 580.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.087}, "reply_to": "20538__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_031", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [580.672], "stop_times": [581.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 580.672}, "reply_to": "20538__0_030", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_032", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "It was, and the jury found that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [581.133], "stop_times": [582.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.133}, "reply_to": "20538__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_033", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes.\nThe jury found that element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [582.843, 583.203], "stop_times": [583.203, 585.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.843}, "reply_to": "20538__0_032", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_034", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Mr. Dreeben--\n--Mr. Dreeben, in asking the... in telling the jury to disregard the materiality question, is there some risk that the judge misled them as to the purpose finding that they were required to make?\nThat is to say, as you yourself argue to some extent the purpose finding hinges upon materiality.\nIt's going to be a rare case where you have a purpose of misleading an institution where what you're talking about is something that's immaterial.\nI mean, the Yankee hypothetical is an unusual one.\nNow, why wasn't this jury misled by telling them, never mind... never mind materiality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [585.076, 585.875, 601.276, 609.631, 620.208, 623.261], "stop_times": [585.875, 601.276, 609.631, 620.208, 623.261, 628.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.076}, "reply_to": "20538__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__0_035", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, we... I certainly agree that the instruction is not correct as we understand section 1014 to be read.\nThe question is then whether the particular error of the judge instructing the jury that it should not be concerned with materiality is sufficiently harmful as to warrant overturning this conviction.\nThis case is actually, I think, a... proof that the purpose-to-influence element can readily be established without inferring that from proof of actual materiality of the statement.\nHere's how the purpose-to-influence element is established in this case.\nThese respondents were engaged in a... the business of leasing copiers, with an integral agreement that they would service the copiers.\nThey had an arrangement with one bank where the bank knew about that integrated agreement and said, you... we will buy these agreements from you, cash them out for you, but we will require you to set up a reserve account to protect the service part of your contract.\nThe respondents needed more money.\nThey went to another bank who also knew about the integrated agreement and it said, we want the same reserve account.\nAt that point, respondents said, that's not going to give us enough money, we don't want the reserve account, so they entered into this conspiracy to break this integral agreement into two separate pieces of paper and presented to the banks that are the victim banks in this case, only the lease, not the service.\nAnd I think that from that sequence of events alone, a jury was virtually compelled to infer that the false statements about this nature of a contract were for the purpose of influencing the banks, but if that wasn't enough and compelling in itself, one of the coconspirators was a cooperator with the Government and testified explicitly that's why we all did it.\nThat's what we agreed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [628.604, 637.26, 647.846, 662.565, 666.528, 676.586, 691.904, 694.278, 700.83, 719.503, 741.528], "stop_times": [637.26, 647.846, 662.565, 666.528, 676.586, 691.904, 694.278, 700.83, 719.503, 741.528, 742.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.604}, "reply_to": "20538__0_034", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_036", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "But Mr. Dreeben, we don't have directed verdicts in criminal cases, and this judge in his instruction number 20, if you were sitting on the jury, wouldn't you think that the judge had made the determination that the representation was material, because the judge first says it must be material, and then he says, you don't worry about that, because that's for me to determine.\nBut if a jury is to come in with a verdict of guilty or not guilty, mustn't the jury assume that a judge has made the finding that this was material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [742.487, 768.735], "stop_times": [768.735, 778.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 742.487}, "reply_to": "20538__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20538__0_037", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think the jury could speculate that way, but the instruction doesn't say that.\nIt simply says, don't concern yourself with it, and if the jury is following the instructions given, it won't concern itself with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [778.671, 783.915], "stop_times": [783.915, 790.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.671}, "reply_to": "20538__0_036", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_038", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, but it says somewhat more than that.\nIt defines what materiality is a few sentence... a few paragraphs before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [790.459, 792.2], "stop_times": [792.2, 795.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.459}, "reply_to": "20538__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20538__0_039", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [795.993], "stop_times": [798.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.993}, "reply_to": "20538__0_038", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_040", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "So a knowledgeable jury, as I think Justice Ginsburg is suggesting, would say, well, materiality is important in this case, and it's been established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [798.363], "stop_times": [806.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.363}, "reply_to": "20538__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20538__0_041", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [806.629], "stop_times": [808.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.629}, "reply_to": "20538__0_040", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_042", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Suppose in this case the judge said, I instruct you as a matter of law that this is material.\nHe didn't say that.\nSuppose he said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [808.612, 811.954, 813.414], "stop_times": [811.954, 813.414, 814.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.612}, "reply_to": "20538__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20538__0_043", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--If materiality were an element of the crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [814.466], "stop_times": [817.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.466}, "reply_to": "20538__0_042", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_044", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "No, no, let's assume... let's assume that you prevail, and the question is whether or not the case has to go back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [817.167], "stop_times": [823.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.167}, "reply_to": "20538__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20538__0_045", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--That's right.\nThen it's a conventional harmless error question which I think is rather factually confined to the record in this case.\nThe question would be, would that erroneous inference from the instruction, or if the instruction were explicit, which it is not, was the explicit instruction that the statements were material have tainted the verdict in this case, I think that, given that our position is materiality is not an element, and that there was ample direct evidence, coconspirator admission and sequence of events evidence that established that the purpose to influence element was shown, that the jury would not have needed to and would not have relied on any inference it drew from the materiality instructions in this case.\nBut again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [823.221, 823.481, 830.567, 866.051], "stop_times": [823.481, 830.567, 866.051, 866.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.221}, "reply_to": "20538__0_044", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_046", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Did the judge ever later tell the jury he had decided it was material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [866.581], "stop_times": [871.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.581}, "reply_to": "20538__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_047", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Not that I'm aware of, Your Honor.\nCertainly not in the jury instructions themselves, and I'm not aware of any supplemental instructions that were given before the time of verdict, so I think that there should not be an inference that the jury chose to speculate beyond what the instructions actually said and conclude that the judge made some finding that he should not, and then use that finding contrary to the instructions to infer the existence of a different element--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [871.704, 873.596], "stop_times": [873.596, 897.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.704}, "reply_to": "20538__0_046", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_048", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "If we were to rule in your favor on the materiality point, Mr. Dreeben, is the instruction point one that could be determined by the Eighth Circuit just as well as we could on remand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [897.75], "stop_times": [907.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.75}, "reply_to": "20538__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__0_049", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Certainly.\nCertainly, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt's not a question that has long run factual significance, or long-run legal significance, except for this case.\nI simply think that the judgment in this case could be affirmed, the convictions could be affirmed based on the instructions that were given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [907.307, 907.437, 909.02, 915.113], "stop_times": [907.437, 909.02, 915.113, 922.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.307}, "reply_to": "20538__0_048", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_050", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Does the instruction become the law of the case somehow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [922.998], "stop_times": [926.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.998}, "reply_to": "20538__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_051", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "There is some lower court authority to that effect, that an instruction can become the law of the case, and I think the issue here would have been for the Eighth Circuit, if it had chosen... it certainly wasn't required to... might have said the Government in this case charged materiality and requested--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [926.592], "stop_times": [943.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.592}, "reply_to": "20538__0_050", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_052", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [943.932], "stop_times": [944.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.932}, "reply_to": "20538__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_053", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--materiality instruction.\nIt should live with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [944.313, 944.944], "stop_times": [944.944, 945.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.313}, "reply_to": "20538__0_052", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_054", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [945.933], "stop_times": [946.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.933}, "reply_to": "20538__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_055", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "But the Eighth Circuit did not do that, and I do not think that the Eighth Circuit was required to do that.\nIn fact, I think the better course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [946.403, 949.866], "stop_times": [949.866, 951.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.403}, "reply_to": "20538__0_054", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_056", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Should we look at that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [951.786], "stop_times": [952.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.786}, "reply_to": "20538__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_057", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--No.\nI do not think that this Court should consider that at all.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [952.767, 953.128, 956.231], "stop_times": [953.128, 956.231, 956.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.767}, "reply_to": "20538__0_056", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_058", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [956.521], "stop_times": [956.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.521}, "reply_to": "20538__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_059", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Because at most it would be a question of discretion for a court of appeals to decide whether it should conclude that the Government's posture in the district court precluded it from making the argument that it made on appeal, and I think that quite properly the Eighth Circuit in this case said before we find a constitutional violation based on the failure to have the jury decide materiality, we should at least be satisfied that the statute requires that to be proved, and it does not... none of the cases that respondent cited in this area of instructions becoming law of the case involved this kind of situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [956.942], "stop_times": [990.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.942}, "reply_to": "20538__0_058", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_060", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "So we could say the circuit below was wrong but leave it open on the remand for that application of doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [990.813], "stop_times": [999.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.813}, "reply_to": "20538__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__0_061", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, I think the Eighth Circuit has crossed that bridge already, and has said that it is going to look at, on the merits, whether section 1014 requires proof of materiality.\nIt opened up to both parties the opportunity to litigate the issue raised by United States v. Gaudin.\nRemember, respondents did not, in their briefs, their opening briefs in the court of appeals, argue that there was Gaudin error by virtue of the fact that the jury did not decide materiality.\nThey raised that issue only... they raised it in the trial court, but they did not preserve it on appeal.\nThey raised it only after United States v. Gaudin came down, and they make that clear in their own letter to the court, which is at page 76 of the Joint Appendix, where they said initially, because of existing law in the circuit, the issue was not briefed.\nNow, the Eighth Circuit I think chose quite properly to address on the merits both parties' contentions, and that should not... that is the law of the case at this point, not the separate question of whether the jury instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [999.908, 1009.185, 1015.058, 1025.723, 1030.279, 1043.556], "stop_times": [1009.185, 1015.058, 1025.723, 1030.279, 1043.556, 1054.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.908}, "reply_to": "20538__0_060", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_062", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "May I ask another question about... I'm a little puzzled about the facts of this case, but the judge, I think, drew a distinction between statements and omissions, and he said an omission would not be false in his instruction unless it were of a material fact.\nNow, if you had a statement which was literally true in all respects, but there was a material omission that made the overall presentation a violation of the statute, would it not then be necessary to show the omission was material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1054.685, 1067.733], "stop_times": [1067.733, 1080.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.685}, "reply_to": "20538__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_063", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--My answer to that is no, Justice Stevens, but I need to explain what I think are the kinds of omissions that are covered by this statute, because this statute in its terms prohibits false statements or false reports.\nIt does not in its terms prohibit concealment or omissions per se.\nThe conventional kind of application of this statute to... in omissions cases where somebody comes into a bank and is asked to list their assets and liabilities, and they list their liabilities and they leave out a few big ones.\nThat is occasionally described by the courts as an omission of material information, or an omission of information.\nI think that under this statute, that's properly construed as a false statement.\nThe application itself will generally say, I have provided complete and accurate information to you in requesting this loan.\nIn fact, the list is incomplete, so therefore it's not accurate.\nThat can be called an omission, but I think it's properly viewed as a false statement.\nA second kind of omission could occur in a case like this one, where a party has one integrated agreement.\nI lease you the copier, I service it, but artificially divides the agreement into two parts, gives the bank the lease agreement, withholds the service agreement.\nThat I think also could be colloquially described as an omission or a concealment, but it really also is a false statement.\nThe contracts in these cases that the respondents drafted said, this is the entire agreement between the parties, the lessee has responsibility for service, in fact the lessee did not have responsibility for service, and it wasn't the complete agreement between the parties, so in those kinds of cases I think we're really talking about false statements.\nNow, a third kind of omissions case, I suppose, could be purely the omission of information that might be of interest to a bank, such as, I go in and I apply for a mortgage, and I don't tell the bank that I've previously been declared bankrupt twice.\nThat's not covered by this statute.\nNow, another kind of statute might want to try to cover that, and there are statutes that expressly cover concealing or covering up material facts, and those statutes would apply perhaps to such a scheme, depending on whether the Government had proven all it needs to prove in a concealment case, but that's not a violation of section 1014.\nNow, in this case I think the parties in the court of appeals used the words concealment when they really meant false statement, and the district court's opinion rejecting the respondent's rule 29 motion in this case, which is contained in the record, although not in the materials that this Court has available to it in the briefs, very clearly said that the contracts the respondents claim are literally true, and the Court said the contracts without the addenda are not, in fact, literally true, they are false statements and affirmative misrepresentations in the lease as submitted to the banks.\nSo this case does not, I believe, contain a true example of what might be described as an omission.\nNow, the trial court did, as Your Honor points out, instruct that it has to be a concealment of a material fact.\nIn our view, the correct understanding of the statute is first doesn't apply to naked omissions, and second, to the extent that it does apply to omissions as I've described, they don't have to be material.\nWhat needs to be shown is that the individual engaged in those particular false statements for the purpose of influencing the bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1080.902, 1096.29, 1101.866, 1114.363, 1120.857, 1125.212, 1131.994, 1135.446, 1139.179, 1146.994, 1154.981, 1161.025, 1177.934, 1191.964, 1195.206, 1216.41, 1251.603, 1260.308, 1266.052, 1276.949], "stop_times": [1096.29, 1101.866, 1114.363, 1120.857, 1125.212, 1131.994, 1135.446, 1139.179, 1146.994, 1154.981, 1161.025, 1177.934, 1191.964, 1195.206, 1216.41, 1251.603, 1260.308, 1266.052, 1276.949, 1285.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.902}, "reply_to": "20538__0_062", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_064", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, if your interpretation of the law is correct, how should instruction number 20, which is on page 42 and 43 of the Joint Appendix, how should that have been trimmed?\nWhat should the judge and what should the judge in the future instruct in these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1285.166, 1296.981], "stop_times": [1296.981, 1304.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1285.166}, "reply_to": "20538__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20538__0_065", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, first, Justice Ginsburg, there should be no reference to materiality at all.\nSecond, the requirement that the statement or representation be false when it is untrue when made, I think at that point if the court amplifies on it at all it should be done to respond to the particular facts of the case, and should explain that the statement must be false or must be misleading because of omitted information.\nAnd then perhaps in a case such as I've described where the list of liabilities is incomplete, the court might explain at that point that's what's meant by the false statement in this case, but there isn't any requirement of materiality.\nWhat the court and the jury needs to focus on is that the statement needs to be shown subjectively by the defendant to be for the purpose of influencing the financial institution.\nThe court of appeals, in rejecting the textual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1304.808, 1308.851, 1329.465, 1341.691, 1351.508], "stop_times": [1308.851, 1329.465, 1341.691, 1351.508, 1355.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1304.808}, "reply_to": "20538__0_064", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_066", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "I would like to make sure I understand you correctly.\nAt a minimum you'd say you would have to delete the two paragraphs of the instruction that deal with material fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1355.091, 1358.594], "stop_times": [1358.594, 1367.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.091}, "reply_to": "20538__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20538__0_067", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Yes, that's correct, since materiality is not an element of the offense.\nThe court of appeals' concern seemed to be that without materiality this statute would become a vehicle for prosecuting trivial false statements, but I think the answer to that argument is contained in the statute, itself, which has the requirement that the Government show a purpose to influence the institution in a financial transaction.\nIt's the defendant's own purpose that serves to ensure that the statute is not going to be applied in a trivial context, it's going to be applied when the defendant subjectively believes that he is indeed knowingly telling a false statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1367.19, 1372.252, 1393.346], "stop_times": [1372.252, 1393.346, 1407.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.19}, "reply_to": "20538__0_066", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_068", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "I suppose if Congress wanted trivial misrepresentations prosecuted the courts would go... have to entertain those cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1407.124], "stop_times": [1414.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.124}, "reply_to": "20538__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__0_069", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, that's certainly true also, Your Honor, and there's no question that Congress has the power, as it did in this case, to draft a broad prophylactic statute that accomplishes two main purposes without a materiality requirement.\nIt's a broad deterrent to anyone who wants to influence banks through knowing false statements--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1414.511, 1427.336], "stop_times": [1427.336, 1431.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.511}, "reply_to": "20538__0_068", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_070", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, do any of the statutes that you've cited to us earlier, which contain an explicit materiality requirement, do any of those also contain a purpose requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1431.901], "stop_times": [1444.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.901}, "reply_to": "20538__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__0_071", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Yes, some of them do.\nThe statutes are not uniform in that construction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1444.928, 1446.19], "stop_times": [1446.19, 1449.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1444.928}, "reply_to": "20538__0_070", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_072", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "So the mere existence of a purpose requirement does not exclude the possibility of materiality being a requirement as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1449.502], "stop_times": [1455.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.502}, "reply_to": "20538__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__0_073", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That's right.\nThe legislature has complete control over how it arranges these particular elements of the offense and the language of the statute is the best guide to what it has selected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1455.827, 1456.716], "stop_times": [1456.716, 1466.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.827}, "reply_to": "20538__0_072", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_074", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "May I ask one other question?\nWe necessarily... perhaps it's not a legal argument... are concerned about the consequences of a case if we don't accept your position maybe we're emptying the jails of a large number of prisoners who'll bring 2255 proceedings.\nI notice in this case the defendant got 2 years' probation.\nDo you know if that's a typical sentence, or typically they're longer sentences that are given?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1466.083, 1467.274, 1478.662, 1482.174], "stop_times": [1467.274, 1478.662, 1482.174, 1487.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.083}, "reply_to": "20538__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_075", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Typically they're longer, Justice Stevens, and the Government has a pending cross-appeal of the sentence in this case.\nThe sentence is so low because the district judge said, I'm going to find... and I quote... somewhat arbitrarily that the loss in this case was only $40,000.\nIn fact, the probation department had found that the loss was over $1 million, and the Government's pending cross-appeal argues that the sentence imposed under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is too low, and that the actual correct sentence would require a term of imprisonment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1487.097, 1492.289, 1500.664], "stop_times": [1492.289, 1500.664, 1513.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1487.097}, "reply_to": "20538__0_074", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_076", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "How long a term, do you remember?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1513.875], "stop_times": [1515.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.875}, "reply_to": "20538__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_077", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "I believe it's between 26 and 31 months, but I'm not sure exactly what the range is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1515.387], "stop_times": [1520.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.387}, "reply_to": "20538__0_076", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_078", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1520.63], "stop_times": [1521.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.63}, "reply_to": "20538__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__0_079", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Thank you.\nI'd like to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1521.561, 1522.072], "stop_times": [1522.072, 1523.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1521.561}, "reply_to": "20538__0_078", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__0_080", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.\nMr. Wyrsch, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1523.232, 1523.943], "stop_times": [1523.943, 1525.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.232}, "reply_to": "20538__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__1_000", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI would like initially to address some of the matters that were brought up during questioning.\nFirst of all, it was very highly contested in the trial court, and we actually briefed it on appeal, as to whether any of these statements that the Government said constituted a violation of a conspiracy to make a false statement to a bank or the substantive violation under Count 2 were in fact material.\nI'd like to simply indicate very briefly that with respect to the statements made to O'Bannon Bank and Bank IV that we had testimony that in fact the lease agreements that did provide that a lessee would have the responsibility for the maintenance was in fact literally true, and was done and presented to the banks in that fashion with their knowledge, at least in part as to a separate agreement, because the banks wanted to be not held responsible for those obligations under the second agreement.\nWith respect to the issue of the signature by the individuals here before the Court or their wives, we had two positions on that, one of which was, it was not required under Federal law, therefore, as a matter of law, not material, and there was a timing issue, timing issue meaning they didn't require that until after there were in fact some purchases by the bank of the income streams from these leases.\nI'd like to also point out that the Government had the opportunity in the lower court to make an issue as to whether or not section 1014 required a... was material.\nIt is true under the Ribaste case under the Eighth Circuit as we tried the case, materiality had been held by that court to be in fact an essential element of the section 1014.\nHowever, as the Government has pointed out, there was the Cleary case in the Second Circuit, and the Government elected not to make an issue of that in the trial court.\nIn fact, materiality... the issue of materiality permeates this case.\nThere are substantial references to the issue of materiality, including a direct statement that the statements that were made to these banks were in fact material, not just omissions.\nIn addition to that, instructions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1525.783, 1528.267, 1534.28, 1550.059, 1582.931, 1605.665, 1615.702, 1626.699, 1635.145, 1640.22, 1651.858], "stop_times": [1528.267, 1534.28, 1550.059, 1582.931, 1605.665, 1615.702, 1626.699, 1635.145, 1640.22, 1651.858, 1653.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1525.783}, "reply_to": "20538__0_080", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_001", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "What is the last, including a direct statement that they were material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1653.989], "stop_times": [1656.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.989}, "reply_to": "20538__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_002", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1656.979], "stop_times": [1657.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1656.979}, "reply_to": "20538__1_001", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_003", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "By whom?\nNot in the instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1657.87, 1658.421], "stop_times": [1658.421, 1660.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.87}, "reply_to": "20538__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_004", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--It is contained in Instruction 13, I believe, Your Honor, and in Instruction 15, in the instructions describing the offense and the indictment, those were set forth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1660.142], "stop_times": [1675.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.142}, "reply_to": "20538__1_003", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_005", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Thirteen and 15?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1675.303], "stop_times": [1677.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.303}, "reply_to": "20538__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_006", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nIt was also set forth at length in the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1677.914, 1678.605], "stop_times": [1678.605, 1684.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.914}, "reply_to": "20538__1_005", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_007", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Where--\n--I just don't--\n--Is that in the Joint Appendix?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1684.789, 1686.71, 1688.51, 1689.252], "stop_times": [1686.71, 1688.51, 1689.252, 1689.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.789}, "reply_to": "20538__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_008", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes, it is, Your Honor.\nAt page 40 of the... and this is Instruction 15... there's a statement that Jerry Wells and Kenneth Steele made and caused to be made false statements of material fact to O'Bannon Bank for the purpose of influencing the bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1689.662, 1691.343], "stop_times": [1691.343, 1707.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.662}, "reply_to": "20538__1_007", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_009", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Where are you reading?\nThat's in the indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1707.192, 1708.264], "stop_times": [1708.264, 1708.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.192}, "reply_to": "20538__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_010", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That's paraphrased in the indictment, yes, Your Honor, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1708.865], "stop_times": [1712.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1708.865}, "reply_to": "20538__1_009", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_011", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "What about the instructions?\nWhere is it in 13 and 15?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1712.486, 1713.477], "stop_times": [1713.477, 1716.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.486}, "reply_to": "20538__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_012", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, on page 40, at paragraph (b), there is a statement to that effect.\nOn the bottom of page 40,\n\"In accordance with the conspiracy agreement made in 1986 James Russell knowingly made and caused to be made a false statement of material fact to Bank IV. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1716.209, 1721.762, 1723.004], "stop_times": [1721.762, 1723.004, 1730.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.209}, "reply_to": "20538__1_011", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_013", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, that's true in the indictment, isn't it?\nNothing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1730.408, 1731.58], "stop_times": [1731.58, 1731.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.408}, "reply_to": "20538__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__1_014", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "It is true Justice... Mr. Justice Rehnquist that when the court submitted the instructions on the elements later on it only referred to material statements in terms of omission when it described the elements, that when it gave a general description, and it had to because much of this... much of these charges from the indictment had been... the court had granted an acquittal on.\nHe had to redact the indictment, and so then when he described it he read this to the jury.\nWhen he went--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1731.921, 1752.015, 1755.776], "stop_times": [1752.015, 1755.776, 1756.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.921}, "reply_to": "20538__1_013", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_015", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--He didn't... no jury would have taken that as a finding by the judge that it was material, which is what I thought you were saying when you said it was in the instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1756.487], "stop_times": [1765.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.487}, "reply_to": "20538__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_016", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--We are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1765.092], "stop_times": [1765.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.092}, "reply_to": "20538__1_015", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_017", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "The instruction begins, the crime of conspiracy as charged in Count I has four essential elements, which are, and then... you know, then he goes through the elements, and then he says that as part of four, who had joined in the agreement knowingly did one or more of the following acts, A, B, C.\nHe's just reciting the indictment.\nI don't know that that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1765.092, 1765.483, 1788.467], "stop_times": [1765.483, 1788.467, 1789.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.092}, "reply_to": "20538__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_018", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Well, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1789.539], "stop_times": [1790.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.539}, "reply_to": "20538__1_017", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_019", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--An instruction to the jury that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1790.22], "stop_times": [1791.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.22}, "reply_to": "20538__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_020", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--The jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1791.111], "stop_times": [1792.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1791.111}, "reply_to": "20538__1_019", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_021", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--materiality was proved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1792.491], "stop_times": [1793.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.491}, "reply_to": "20538__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_022", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Your Honor, the jury would have had to find one or more of these overt acts... this is at section 371... in order to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1793.633], "stop_times": [1802.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.633}, "reply_to": "20538__1_021", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_023", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, do you have anything else besides what you've just read which would convince me that the judge told the jury that materiality was proved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1802.188], "stop_times": [1808.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.188}, "reply_to": "20538__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_024", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Was proven?\nNo.\nThe instruction on whether it was proven or not was... as accurately pointed out by the Government, was in, I believe, Instruction Number 20.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1808.523, 1809.632, 1810.092], "stop_times": [1809.632, 1810.092, 1817.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1808.523}, "reply_to": "20538__1_023", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_025", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "And that's just, don't pay any attention to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1817.936], "stop_times": [1821.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.936}, "reply_to": "20538__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_026", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1821.689], "stop_times": [1821.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1821.689}, "reply_to": "20538__1_025", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_027", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1821.999], "stop_times": [1822.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.999}, "reply_to": "20538__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_028", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That's correct.\nIt is true that, unlike some other cases, the judge in this case, the trial judge, did not say I have found materiality as a matter of law.\nIn fact, he had done that outside the presence of the jury, so all that he did, Your Honor, was to tell them it was not a matter that they should be concerned about, but the problem is is that now, having heard materiality as an issue throughout the trial, having heard the indictment, or sections of it read during the instructions, and then having the judge says, don't you be concerned about it, don't you be worried about it at all, that caused substantial prejudice to us, and we did object in the trial court.\nNow, it is true what the Government says is accurate, although we briefed the issue of the sufficiency of materiality in the court of appeals by letter brief, and this was after all briefing had been done, about a year after oral argument, roughly, the court asked us for a... what our position was with respect to the issue of materiality and the effect of this Court's decision in Gaudin.\nSo we said, we have preserved it in the trial court under existing rules as to, it's still on appeal, we're entitled to have the benefit of that opinion, and we submitted a brief.\nThe Government didn't dispute any of that.\nAll they said... well, the most part what they said was, materiality now is not an element.\nThis is after they asked for instructions in that, after they did not object to any of those instructions in the court below, and they indicted on that theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1822.049, 1822.6, 1829.215, 1857.482, 1877.638, 1885.752, 1887.885, 1893.589], "stop_times": [1822.6, 1829.215, 1857.482, 1877.638, 1885.752, 1887.885, 1893.589, 1900.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.049}, "reply_to": "20538__1_027", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_029", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, but that was the law of the Eighth Circuit at the time, and the Government has a number of these prosecutions.\nI don't think it would be appropriate to frame the indictment in any other way in the Eighth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1900.692, 1906.368], "stop_times": [1906.368, 1912.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.692}, "reply_to": "20538__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20538__1_030", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "The Government subsequent to this case brought an indictment against one of our clients in the Western District of Missouri in which they did not allege that materiality was an element of section 1014.\nAnd then what they did was is that when we filed a motion to dismiss they said it is... the plain language of the statute governs whether an indictment is sufficient, and we'll determine later on whether we want an instruction in that regard, and they have a lower court opinion to that effect, so they had that opportunity.\nThey could have indicted, or asked the grand jury to indict without that element.\nThey could have argued all they had to do was bring an indictment under the language of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1912.709, 1923.649, 1938.319, 1941.909], "stop_times": [1923.649, 1938.319, 1941.909, 1945.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.709}, "reply_to": "20538__1_029", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_031", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Does the later indictment that you just referred to, was that after Gaudin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1945.621], "stop_times": [1950.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.621}, "reply_to": "20538__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20538__1_032", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--It was after Gaudin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1950.046], "stop_times": [1950.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.046}, "reply_to": "20538__1_031", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_033", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes, but it would have been rather nervy for the prosecutor, given the law of the Eighth Circuit and before Gaudin, to go flatly against the law of the circuit in the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1950.877], "stop_times": [1961.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.877}, "reply_to": "20538__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20538__1_034", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "The prosecutors did a prudent thing, but now, having done a prudent thing and not taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and said this is what the Second Circuit is, we don't think we need to prove it, and so on, they should not now be permitted to say we want to retroactively say it is not an element--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1961.056], "stop_times": [1976.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.056}, "reply_to": "20538__1_033", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_035", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1976.993], "stop_times": [1977.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.993}, "reply_to": "20538__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__1_036", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--when, in fact, that's what they indicted on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1977.294], "stop_times": [1978.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.294}, "reply_to": "20538__1_035", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_037", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Well, the Eighth Circuit allowed them to do this.\nPerhaps the Eighth Circuit could have said no, but we've now granted certiorari on this question as to whether materiality is an element of the crime, and I hope sooner or later you'll get to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1978.776, 1981.558], "stop_times": [1981.558, 1993.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.776}, "reply_to": "20538__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__1_038", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.\nWe believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1993.756, 1996.317], "stop_times": [1996.317, 1997.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.756}, "reply_to": "20538__1_037", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_039", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "And I suppose we don't have to even decide the question of prejudice here.\nIf we just decide what the certiorari petition asks, we can just say the court of appeals below was in error and leave to them what remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [1997.578, 2001.511], "stop_times": [2001.511, 2013.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.578}, "reply_to": "20538__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_040", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--This Court would have that opportunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2013.969], "stop_times": [2015.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.969}, "reply_to": "20538__1_039", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_041", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2015.13], "stop_times": [2015.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.13}, "reply_to": "20538__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_042", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "It could send it back to the Eighth Circuit and say, you determine whether these instructions were prejudicial, and if the Court were determined... or, to determine the issue that materiality is in fact not an element, then as the Government has properly said, it has to go back to the Eighth Circuit anyway because the Government wants a substantial sentence imposed in this case.\nGoing back to your point, Mr. Chief Justice, we believe materiality is an element for a number of reasons.\nWe cannot ourselves, as we've looked at it, make any clear determination in our own mind that when this statute was amended, that in fact Congress intended to omit the element of materiality.\nThere were some 13 statutes at the time that the consolidation was designed to bring into one statute.\nThree contained a requirement of materiality.\nI think of the remaining 10, seven had a requirement that there be an intent, or the intent element was for the purpose of influencing, and three did not.\nThe reviser's note simply says that no substantive change was intended here, and if that was the case, then presumably at least on some of the statutes materiality was still an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2015.219, 2032.702, 2037.955, 2052.243, 2060.349, 2064.13, 2073.228], "stop_times": [2032.702, 2037.955, 2052.243, 2060.349, 2064.13, 2073.228, 2086.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.219}, "reply_to": "20538__1_041", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_043", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "But may I ask, had any of the 10 statutes that did not have the materiality element expressly in the statute, had any of them been construed judicially to include such an element?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2086.235], "stop_times": [2096.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.235}, "reply_to": "20538__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20538__1_044", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Not that I know of.\nWe have looked high and low and cannot find, other than... now, there's this Kay case which is before the Court, and the Government argues that the Kay case in fact has language in it to support the idea that Congress must have intended that materiality not be an element.\nWe think that the Kay case really is whether actual damage is an element of the case.\nThere is some language that the Government we think is urging upon the Court, and, with all due respect, may be pushing it a bit too far.\nWe don't think the Court's holding in Kay really was on that issue.\nIt was on a separate issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2096.232, 2097.143, 2112.704, 2117.115, 2125.362, 2127.914], "stop_times": [2097.143, 2112.704, 2117.115, 2125.362, 2127.914, 2128.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.232}, "reply_to": "20538__1_043", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_045", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "But Kay did have the language in it.\nI don't have it exactly, but it was something to the effect that those who lie cannot... it does not... it is not open to those who lie to claim subsequently that the lies were unimportant and/or did not have influence, and I mean that... isn't that fairly read as indicating that materiality just is not part of the concept that the statute was including?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2128.993, 2130.766], "stop_times": [2130.766, 2152.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.993}, "reply_to": "20538__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20538__1_046", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "It could be read in that way.\nIt also could be read as mere dicta in the case.\nIt also did not precisely say that.\nIt said that it is not for a defendant... or, I use the word defendant, but it's not for defendant to complain that the information was not important.\nIt is true that language is there, but it does not determine the question in this case.\nIt actually dealt with a different... a somewhat different statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2152.141, 2154.031, 2155.841, 2158.282, 2164.817, 2168.15], "stop_times": [2154.031, 2155.841, 2158.282, 2164.817, 2168.15, 2171.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.141}, "reply_to": "20538__1_045", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_047", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "But it's about the only indication that we have as to what any of those 10 statutes might mean, and I would suppose Congress could reasonably say, based on that language, dicta though it may be, that the statutes, in the absence of a material... or in the absence of an expressly stated element of materiality would not have one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2171.292], "stop_times": [2194.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.292}, "reply_to": "20538__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20538__1_048", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That is true, Your Honor, but I'd like to point out several things, one of which is that subsequently Congress has amended this statute many times, and has never come forward and said in a report or in any kind of a legislative history that materiality was not an element, despite the fact that some 10 circuits have said it is an element, and we think that's something for the Court to consider with respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2194.057], "stop_times": [2215.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2194.057}, "reply_to": "20538__1_047", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_049", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, but of course the text just doesn't include it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2215.921], "stop_times": [2218.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.921}, "reply_to": "20538__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_050", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--That's correct, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2218.313], "stop_times": [2219.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.313}, "reply_to": "20538__1_049", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_051", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "And Congress may be aware of what it said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2219.725], "stop_times": [2221.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.725}, "reply_to": "20538__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_052", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--It may be aware of it, or it may not be aware of it, and we don't believe that Congress really intended that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2221.916], "stop_times": [2227.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.916}, "reply_to": "20538__1_051", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_053", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "We certainly have to assume, do we not, that our assumption must be that Congress knew what it was saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2227.509], "stop_times": [2234.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.509}, "reply_to": "20538__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_054", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--I don't think we can make that assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2234.435], "stop_times": [2236.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.435}, "reply_to": "20538__1_053", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_055", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--based on the language of the statute itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2236.345], "stop_times": [2239.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.345}, "reply_to": "20538__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_056", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "I don't think it... Justice O'Connor, that that ends the inquiry at all, because I don't think it's clear what Congress meant by it.\nI think if Congress did intend that, they could have expressly said that in some kind of a legislative history or report, and they didn't do that, and the reviser said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2239.069, 2245.201], "stop_times": [2245.201, 2253.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.069}, "reply_to": "20538__1_055", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_057", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, why would you give more credence to a legislative history or a report than the actual language that Congress has used, which was to omit a requirement that had been present in some of the other statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2253.488], "stop_times": [2264.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.488}, "reply_to": "20538__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__1_058", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--I think that that may be precisely the point, Mr. Chief Justice, because I'm not certain in my own mind that this legislative history indicates one way or the other, but the fact that when we look at the statute then without the history contains no element of materiality did not end the inquiry.\nIt did not end the inquiry, for instance, for this Court in Staples, and it's cited in Justice Breyer's article, it's not cited here.\nIn Green v. Bach Laundry this Court said, look, we want to look here to make sure... to find out whether they had any intent or not, and if they didn't have any intent one way or another to cause this result, then at that point we're free to put a reasonableness requirement into this.\nThis Court on many occasions when it's looked at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2264.374, 2283.488, 2290.472, 2303.24], "stop_times": [2283.488, 2290.472, 2303.24, 2306.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.374}, "reply_to": "20538__1_057", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_059", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "In Green v. Bach Laundry we found the provision would have been absurd without implying a statutory requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2306.111], "stop_times": [2313.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.111}, "reply_to": "20538__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_060", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2313.396], "stop_times": [2313.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.396}, "reply_to": "20538__1_059", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_061", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "This one wouldn't be absurd.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2313.626], "stop_times": [2314.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.626}, "reply_to": "20538__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_062", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "It would be absurd.\nIf you... the Government is... to say this statute is saying the intent to influence necessarily involves a requirement of materiality, or involves the same concept, we say regardless of what that position is we're still entitled to reversal.\nBut if I might go back to that, there are others that say that if you look at the literal language of this statute it just says intent to influence, so if one were to apply for a loan for $5,000 secured by a car worth $5,000, and you put on the loan application that all that his income was was $60,000 when in fact his income was $100,000, the Government would win.\nWhy would they win?\nBecause the representation of 60 was in fact a representation that they intended to influence the bank to grant the loan, but it was a false statement.\nIt would be an absurd result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2314.778, 2315.529, 2332.242, 2354.525, 2355.586, 2363.952], "stop_times": [2315.529, 2332.242, 2354.525, 2355.586, 2363.952, 2365.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.778}, "reply_to": "20538__1_061", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_063", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, the falsity has to be for the purpose of influencing, not the statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2365.411], "stop_times": [2369.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.411}, "reply_to": "20538__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_064", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2369.375], "stop_times": [2370.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.375}, "reply_to": "20538__1_063", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_065", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "It has to be the misrepresentation that is for the purpose of influencing to grant the loan, and certainly understating your income is not likely to cause the bank to grant you the loan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2370.898], "stop_times": [2384.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.898}, "reply_to": "20538__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_066", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--If you understate your income and you agree with the Government that an omission is also part of this statute, and the bank concludes that you lied about it for some reason, for instance, you say I didn't lie about it for purposes of getting this loan, I lied about it because I'm in a divorce action, a different purpose, the Government still makes its case under that example.\nNow, it's an absurd example, absolutely, Mr. Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2384.746, 2405.108], "stop_times": [2405.108, 2407.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.746}, "reply_to": "20538__1_065", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_067", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, that's true, it is rather an absurd example.\nI don't know that you would find the Government prosecuting that.\nWhat's unreasonable about Congress saying, look, materiality has to do with whether the statement really would influence the bank.\nPurpose has to do with whether or not the defendant intended to influence the bank.\nWe don't want to let defendants go make the argument, although I intended to influence the bank, it didn't really do it, so we want to take that out of the case, and that's what this statute seems to say, and I don't really understand yet, but I want you to focus directly on it, what's unreasonable about writing a statute in that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2407.462, 2409.222, 2411.713, 2420.419, 2425.294], "stop_times": [2409.222, 2411.713, 2420.419, 2425.294, 2443.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.462}, "reply_to": "20538__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_068", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Because if the concepts are different, and if, in fact, the statement made about, you know, the Yankee example that was given there earlier, if that, in fact... does the Government have the opportunity in that instance to prosecute?\nAbsolutely.\nIf this Court says, well, it'll never bring that, which is the Government's response--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2443.363, 2455.522, 2455.993], "stop_times": [2455.522, 2455.993, 2459.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.363}, "reply_to": "20538__1_067", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_069", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "My actual point is the same as Justice Scalia's on that one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2459.666], "stop_times": [2462.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.666}, "reply_to": "20538__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_070", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Well, I understand that, but I still say that if the concepts are different no one should be subject to harsh penalties, which is what many of the courts of appeals have said.\nNo one should be subject to the penalty for 26, 31 months if he had a bad intent but it was immaterial to the bank's decision, and that's why the courts have said we need to read a materiality element into the statute.\nIt is a harsh result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2462.918, 2470.782, 2482.32], "stop_times": [2470.782, 2482.32, 2483.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2462.918}, "reply_to": "20538__1_069", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_071", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, a bad intent to influence the bank plus a false statement made to the bank, well, that may be a somewhat harsh statute in your view, but it's certainly not ridiculous or absurd.\nMaybe Congress just wanted to clamp down on people who made false statements to banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2483.632, 2496.942], "stop_times": [2496.942, 2502.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.632}, "reply_to": "20538__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__1_072", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "If they had said that, Mr. Justice... Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2502.245], "stop_times": [2505.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.245}, "reply_to": "20538__1_071", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_073", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, perhaps the way they said it was to omit the word materiality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2505.056], "stop_times": [2507.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.056}, "reply_to": "20538__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__1_074", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Perhaps they did, but perhaps they didn't, and we can't tell from this legislative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2507.668], "stop_times": [2510.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.668}, "reply_to": "20538__1_073", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_075", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, what is the difference here and in the Kay case, where the Court said that it doesn't lie with someone who has knowingly made a false statement with intent to mislead, then to argue that the information wasn't important, that Congress was entitled to require the information be given truthfully and without intent to mislead?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2510.87], "stop_times": [2533.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.87}, "reply_to": "20538__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20538__1_076", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--That language can be construed to mean that the Court said that there was no materiality element with respect to that statute, but if you go on and read exactly what the Court held, which was... and this is how subsequent courts of appeals have read that decision... they read that decision as meaning actual damage is not an element in the case.\nActual loss to the bank is not an element.\nAnd if you go on and read the language that follows the language that Your Honor has just read, then that is the holding of that case, and there have been subsequent cases that have said that's what Kay says, but at the same time they have said, and this is the court of appeals, we believe that materiality is an element, and they have not been... they have not believed themselves bound by the Kay decision.\nThe Government also urged... and I might also say that there is precedent in this Court for the proposition that materiality is an element with respect to the immigration statutes.\nThe Government cites the Kungys case, but in the Kungys case there was another reference to, I think, the Fedorenko case, and in that case this Court expressly held with respect to an immigration statute that materiality with respect to misrepresentations was an element, and cited an old Costello case, so that case is in fact before this Court, and the Government has not distinguished it.\nWe distinguished the Kungys case on the basis that there Congress' intent was to reach acts that constituted a bad character for purposes of excluding people from citizenship.\nIn this case, we don't find any such thing.\nI might also note that we have some precedent in the antitrust statutes.\nRepeatedly the Government has successfully urged on this Court and many lower courts that a price-fixing agreement is per se a violation of Section I of the Sherman Act, and yet there is no such language in section I of the Sherman Act that ever says that a price-fixing agreement is, in fact, per se liability, and the Government is successfully in... is successful in prosecutions in price-fixing matters of taking that element away from the jury as to whether it was unreasonable and whether or not the defendants can, in fact, present evidence or instructions with respect to those kinds of agreements being subjected to the rule of reason, and so their position in that regard is inconsistent.\nIt is inconsistent, we believe, with a number of decisions by this Court where the literal language of the statute with respect to the intent element is not... does not have any intent element, but in the Staples case and X-Citement Video, to name two, and in the Liparota case, where it said knowingly, and this Court went on to say well, Liparota means more than simply that you know you're dealing in food stamps.\nYou mean... it almost means you have to have the intent to violate the law.\nThis Court has said, I don't... we are not stopped by looking at a statute that does not have an element.\nWe can imply an element, and this is what 10 courts of appeals have done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2533.284, 2550.644, 2552.596, 2575.821, 2585.459, 2606.202, 2615.068, 2617.488, 2621.752, 2658.147, 2678.29, 2680.69, 2686.504], "stop_times": [2550.644, 2552.596, 2575.821, 2585.459, 2606.202, 2615.068, 2617.488, 2621.752, 2658.147, 2678.29, 2680.69, 2686.504, 2690.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2533.284}, "reply_to": "20538__1_075", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_077", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes, but this statute does contain a mens rea element.\nIt's there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2690.477, 2692.828], "stop_times": [2692.828, 2693.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.477}, "reply_to": "20538__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_078", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "It does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2693.759], "stop_times": [2695.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.759}, "reply_to": "20538__1_077", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_079", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "You just want to add to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2695.16], "stop_times": [2696.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.16}, "reply_to": "20538__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20538__1_080", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--We want to simply indicate that it is subject to a reasonableness requirement, Justice O'Connor, and it is subject to... and that reasonableness requirement in this instance is that it be material, and that the statements be material.\nThere are certainly many different avenues to punish someone, or to deprive them alone, or do something in a civil arena if you make a statement to a bank that is in fact immaterial but yet is false.\nBut what we are saying, that if you're going to subject some people, and then... one of these people is a lawyer of longstanding in Joplin, Missouri... to a harsh criminal penalty, then the statute must be read reasonably, that if, in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2696.562, 2708.159, 2723.368], "stop_times": [2708.159, 2723.368, 2736.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.562}, "reply_to": "20538__1_079", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_081", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Are you suggesting, then, that in order for Congress to make this take out the element of materiality it would have to negate that expressly by saying, and materiality is not an element of this offense, because if it doesn't negate it then the courts will imply it?\nIs that essentially your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2736.827, 2754.269], "stop_times": [2754.269, 2755.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.827}, "reply_to": "20538__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20538__1_082", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--I believe so, and I don't have the citation in the case in our briefs, but there was a case, and I think Justice Scalia offered the opinion as to whether or not a statute, what it required in the way of attorney fees, and I think that there was a '38 case, and there was an amendment in '46, and I think that the decision was, well, they must have meant this is the meaning of that term, because in fact there is a 1938 case and then a report with respect to this statute.\nThey mentioned that case.\nThat would be much different than the case here.\nThis case has no legislative history to indicate that, no legislative history that they're adopting the Kay case, no legislative history that they are in fact eliminating materiality, and in fact what there is are reviser notes saying we don't intend to make any subsequent change.\nNow, the Government's argument is, we win 3 to 10 on that, because there's only three statutes that said materiality, but I'm not sure a numeric argument in that way necessarily is a clear indication that they're in fact intended to eliminate materiality, and beyond that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2755.591, 2780.595, 2781.417, 2783.009, 2796.548], "stop_times": [2780.595, 2781.417, 2783.009, 2796.548, 2816.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.591}, "reply_to": "20538__1_081", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_083", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, I mean, either way, the Government... it doesn't prove the Government's case, but it certainly neutralizes your point.\nI mean, that statement can't be true.\nIt is impossible for the statement, we intend no material change, or no... did they say material change, or no substantive change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2816.191, 2820.753, 2822.395], "stop_times": [2820.753, 2822.395, 2830.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.191}, "reply_to": "20538__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_084", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "They said no substantive change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2830.1], "stop_times": [2831.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.1}, "reply_to": "20538__1_083", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_085", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That can't be correct.\nIt obviously did make a substantive change.\nIt either eliminated the materiality requirement that existed in the three statutes, or it added the materiality requirement that didn't exist in at least four.\nWell, that's not quite correct, because isn't it true that the... it may well have been that the 10 other statutes were construed the way Sir Edward Coke construed the common law crime of perjury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2831.61, 2832.301, 2835.263, 2845.951], "stop_times": [2832.301, 2835.263, 2845.951, 2855.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.61}, "reply_to": "20538__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_086", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2855.087], "stop_times": [2855.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2855.087}, "reply_to": "20538__1_085", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_087", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "We don't know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2855.616], "stop_times": [2857.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.616}, "reply_to": "20538__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_088", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "In the Shabani case, which the Government has urged this Court to follow, there was a statement in that opinion that... to the effect that one of the canons of construction is to look at the common law, and what common law there has been, certainly since these folks were prosecuted, has been that 10 circuits have said that materiality is in fact an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2857.198], "stop_times": [2875.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2857.198}, "reply_to": "20538__1_087", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_089", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Is that common law or is that statutory construction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2875.751], "stop_times": [2879.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.751}, "reply_to": "20538__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__1_090", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "I think it can be construed probably more as statutory construction, but in one of these cases, and I believe it was the Williams case, Mr. Chief Justice, they expressly referred to Coke and Blackstone in the common law, and they said at common law materiality was, in fact, an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2879.622], "stop_times": [2894.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2879.622}, "reply_to": "20538__1_089", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_091", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "But I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2894.241], "stop_times": [2894.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2894.241}, "reply_to": "20538__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20538__1_092", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "So I think it was both, at least under that Williams case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2894.922], "stop_times": [2897.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.922}, "reply_to": "20538__1_091", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_093", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Do I remember correctly that you had earlier said, I think it was in response to a question of Justice Scalia, earlier said that none of the 10 had in fact been construed to require materiality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2897.215], "stop_times": [2911.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.215}, "reply_to": "20538__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20538__1_094", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "I think one of the 10 under the Kay case had been construed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2911.454], "stop_times": [2914.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.454}, "reply_to": "20538__1_093", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_095", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Not to require.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2914.877], "stop_times": [2916.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.877}, "reply_to": "20538__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20538__1_096", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--as not re--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2916.306], "stop_times": [2917.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2916.306}, "reply_to": "20538__1_095", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_097", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Right, and the others--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2917.698], "stop_times": [2918.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.698}, "reply_to": "20538__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20538__1_098", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--That was the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2918.778], "stop_times": [2919.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2918.778}, "reply_to": "20538__1_097", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_099", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--had not been construed on the point of issue at all, had they?\nI thought that... I just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2919.459, 2921.579], "stop_times": [2921.579, 2922.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2919.459}, "reply_to": "20538__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20538__1_100", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Yes, that's correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2922.71], "stop_times": [2923.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.71}, "reply_to": "20538__1_099", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_101", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2923.892], "stop_times": [2924.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.892}, "reply_to": "20538__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20538__1_102", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Justice, to the best of our knowledge.\nWe have looked high and low on that, but I believe that the only statute had been construed was the one on the Kay case, I believe.\nI will tell you we made a very strong effort to find something else and could not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2924.312, 2926.162, 2932.728], "stop_times": [2926.162, 2932.728, 2937.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.312}, "reply_to": "20538__1_101", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_103", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "So you have only one case which comes out the other way, and yet you maintain that all of those statutes have a subterranean materiality requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2937.061], "stop_times": [2950.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2937.061}, "reply_to": "20538__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20538__1_104", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Well, we're not going that far in our case.\nWe're just saying that the survivor statute has that requirement, and I will say that we have the support of at least 10 circuits, and I think the footnote in the D.C. Circuit case recited would also support that.\nI might also add that in the Williams case, which this Court decided when it set out the elements and the Government to some extent relies upon, in fact, made reference in the trial court to instructions that did, in fact, require materiality, and the Court didn't comment on that one way or the other, so I don't think Williams is a good case for the Government.\nI don't really think, to be honest with you, as I look at this history, that they really considered it one way or the other.\nThere's just nothing there to indicate that, and I think that was a reason why we have so many circuits that say that in fact materiality is an element.\nThe one case of Cleary in the Second Circuit is not as strong for the Government as it urges.\nIt's certainly on its face for the Government, and we don't disagree with that, but they at some point say in any event materiality is for the jury... or, not for the jury, it's for the court, so there is some language to indicate that perhaps they don't have that position.\nIn candor, in another statutory section, I believe Section 287, the Second Circuit has found that materiality is not an element when it's not in the statute.\nI might also say that the Government in this case, in terms of the posture in which this case is here, I don't think that it is for them to say at this point, given what they did in the trial court, to actually have preserved this issue.\nIt is not a case... that is, Gaudin and whether or not materiality is an element... that will cause a great deal of difficulty for this Court or any other court in terms of collateral consequences.\nThe law is pretty clear that these matters would have to be preserved in the trial court and, given the status of the law at the time, I don't think that's a serious concern.\nBut beyond that, I think that in terms of whether or not this Court would even attempt to say that these folks that were tried in the lower court in fact were not prejudiced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [2950.008, 2953.21, 2962.627, 2980.579, 2986.192, 2995.168, 2999.692, 3011.54, 3019.585, 3037.627, 3049.885, 3058.85], "stop_times": [2953.21, 2962.627, 2980.579, 2986.192, 2995.168, 2999.692, 3011.54, 3019.585, 3037.627, 3049.885, 3058.85, 3072.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.008}, "reply_to": "20538__1_103", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_105", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "That's what I don't quite understand, if you're going back to that.\nThe instruction, as I read it, defines separately and completely purpose and then, having turned from what it called the second element, namely purpose, it then turned to the third element, namely, falsity.\nIt discussed materiality, and refused to give the issue to the jury.\nThe Government says, well, the judge was right in not giving it to the jury for a different reason.\nIt's not part of the statute, and there was no prejudice because purpose was defined separately and completely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3072.609, 3075.141, 3086.158, 3090.672, 3094.584], "stop_times": [3075.141, 3086.158, 3090.672, 3094.584, 3100.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.609}, "reply_to": "20538__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_106", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "We believe that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3100.576], "stop_times": [3102.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3100.576}, "reply_to": "20538__1_105", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_107", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "What is the prejudice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3102.519], "stop_times": [3102.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.519}, "reply_to": "20538__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_108", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--if the Government's correct, that purpose necessarily involves the issue of materiality or prejudice.\nThe second point we made in our briefs, Mr. Justice, is that on the false statement issue, that materiality is a part of that definition, and when the Court in effect took materiality--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3102.91, 3107.351], "stop_times": [3107.351, 3118.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3102.91}, "reply_to": "20538__1_107", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_109", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "But purpose was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3118.598], "stop_times": [3119.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.598}, "reply_to": "20538__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_110", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Purpose was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3119.299], "stop_times": [3120.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3119.299}, "reply_to": "20538__1_109", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_111", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Purpose was not part, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3120.601], "stop_times": [3121.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.601}, "reply_to": "20538__1_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_112", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--on the false statement part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3121.27], "stop_times": [3122.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3121.27}, "reply_to": "20538__1_111", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_113", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--Yes, all right, but where's the prejudice, if in fact the judge was right in not giving the materiality issue to the jury, but for the wrong reason?\nWhat's the prejudice your client suffered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3122.151, 3129.778], "stop_times": [3129.778, 3131.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.151}, "reply_to": "20538__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_114", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "We urge you not go beyond the purpose requirement, but on the false statement requirement, because the definition of false statement would have required it be material, when the court took that away from the jury, it took away from them the determination as to whether or not these statements were false.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3131.951], "stop_times": [3147.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.951}, "reply_to": "20538__1_113", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_115", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "If you're wrong about whether materiality is an issue of the part of the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3147.52], "stop_times": [3152.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.52}, "reply_to": "20538__1_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_116", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3152.725], "stop_times": [3153.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3152.725}, "reply_to": "20538__1_115", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_117", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "--If you're wrong about that, what prejudice did your client suffer from the judge having mentioned it when he didn't let the jury decide it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3153.055], "stop_times": [3160.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.055}, "reply_to": "20538__1_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20538__1_118", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "First of all, in two ways.\nThe case wasn't tried that way, and we have a jury finding now that necessarily would have included in some way or not these issues of materiality.\nSecondly, with respect both to the intent issue and purpose, and with respect to whether it was false, we were greatly prejudiced by the judge taking it away from the jury, because those two elements necessarily would require the issue of materiality, and in fact, and I know I'm repeating myself, that's exactly what the court defined.\nIn it's, and I think it's Instruction 20, he said that a false statement wouldn't necessarily have to be material, and then he said, but you're not to be concerned with that, so it took away from them a very substantial element with respect to that matter, and therefore we were very substantially prejudiced, and I will also say that the whole... for an example on prejudice and whether materiality is an element--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3160.408, 3161.45, 3166.765, 3184.496], "stop_times": [3161.45, 3166.765, 3184.496, 3207.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3160.408}, "reply_to": "20538__1_117", "speaker": "james_r_wyrsch"}
{"id": "20538__1_119", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wyrsch, your time has expired.\nMr. Dreeben, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3207.041, 3209.773], "stop_times": [3209.773, 3212.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.041}, "reply_to": "20538__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20538__2_000", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "Unless the Court has any questions, the Government waives rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3212.224], "stop_times": [3216.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3212.224}, "reply_to": "20538__1_119", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20538__2_001", "conversation_id": "20538", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1228", "start_times": [3216.597], "stop_times": [3218.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.597}, "reply_to": "20538__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__0_000", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "We'll hear next in No. 95-1858, Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York, versus Timothy E. Quill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [10.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__0_001", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please The Court.\nThe question in this case is whether the state must remain neutral in the face of a decision of one of its citizens to help another kill herself.\nThe Second Circuit below said yes, as a matter of equal protection.\nIt is New York's view, however, that the Constitution does not require this to be the case.\nIndeed, equal protection is not implicated at all in this case.\nPatients who withdraw from life support are not similarly situated to terminally ill people who are seeking physician-assisted suicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [10.449, 17.053, 29.05, 33.883, 40.488, 45.461], "stop_times": [17.053, 29.05, 33.883, 40.488, 45.461, 55.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.449}, "reply_to": "20484__0_000", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_002", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, perhaps a more accurate way of putting your point of view, if I understand, would be that the Equal Protection Clause is not offended by treating those two differently, not that it's not implicated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [55.048], "stop_times": [66.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 55.048}, "reply_to": "20484__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__0_003", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "The Equal Protection Clause is indeed not offended, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIn any event we also believe that these, these two acts are similarly not situated and there are six primary reasons why we believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [66.246, 70.008], "stop_times": [70.008, 78.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 66.246}, "reply_to": "20484__0_002", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_004", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Mr. Vacco, instead of going down the list of six, if we could focus on what was of concern to the Second Circuit so we're not talking about a right to withdraw treatment from age 16 to age 96.\nThe distinction that the Second Circuit fastened on was the terminally ill person who says no more life supports, I want to die, and the person who wants a pill that will achieve the same end.\nSo let's narrow it to what that court was dealing with and tell us why that court was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [78.034, 93.255, 111.478], "stop_times": [93.255, 111.478, 119.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 78.034}, "reply_to": "20484__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__0_005", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, simply put, the people that you describe, or that the Second Circuit described, are not similarly situated.\nIn the first context the individual who is at the, in terminal illness, at the end stages of their life as the Second Circuit defined it, are exercising their right, which in New York state is recognized by not only the common law, but by our New York State Constitution, their right to refuse treatment.\nThat right which has been recognized for centuries as springing from the common law, the right of being free from bodily interference, the right to be free from battery.\nIn the context of saying that they are refusing treatment, individuals, terminally ill or otherwise, are merely asserting that right to be let alone.\nOn the contrary, and in contrast, are those individuals who are not asserting a right, that is, a bodily defensive right, their rights to bodily integrity, but instead attempting to assert, as the Plaintiff Respondents in this case are claiming, that there is some right to have a third party, in this instance physicians, help kill themselves.\nAnd we believe that these two acts are clearly distinguishable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [119.203, 127.268, 146.362, 157.128, 167.296, 190.521], "stop_times": [127.268, 146.362, 157.128, 167.296, 190.521, 193.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.203}, "reply_to": "20484__0_004", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_006", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But, if we had just those two neat categories, this might be an easier case; that is, of pulling the plug, that's the patient's choice, anything affirmative.\nBut we're told in this wealth of briefs that there are things in between that go on, like sedation for pain that can be controlled.\nAnd that is not rationally distinguished from the pill that the physician... increasing, say, the morphine is not rationally distinguishable from giving a person a pill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [193.436, 205.72, 219.381], "stop_times": [205.72, 219.381, 235.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.436}, "reply_to": "20484__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__0_007", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, in all due respect, I disagree.\nThe notion of sedation, and by the way, we happen to believe that the Respondents have misstated it factually and legally in their brief, but the notion of sedation as recognized by the vast majority of the medical professionals, is a notion of sedation in the imminently dying.\nWhen individuals are actually in the last hours of death, sedation is for the purpose of treating four distinct symptoms, nausea, shortness of breath, delirium, and excruciating pain.\nAnd only when these symptoms are intractable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [235.6, 238.142, 259.255, 274.507], "stop_times": [238.142, 259.255, 274.507, 276.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.6}, "reply_to": "20484__0_006", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_008", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Is that really a correct use of the word sedation?\nIt seems to me you're talking about analgesics, painkillers, whereas sedation is just to kind of make you feel better, not mind things so much, isn't it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [276.47, 278.66], "stop_times": [278.66, 287.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.47}, "reply_to": "20484__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__0_009", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, as the medical professionals have written in their briefs and even the articles that are alluded to in the various briefs will indicate, the medication that is provided in these limited circumstances is provided only for the very limited effort to control those four symptoms that I articulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [287.996], "stop_times": [309.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 287.996}, "reply_to": "20484__0_008", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_010", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Yes, my only question is whether it's properly called sedation or not, or perhaps something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [309.31], "stop_times": [313.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.31}, "reply_to": "20484__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__0_011", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I am taking that terminology and that phraseology from the medical professionals.\nThe correct phrase in a medical context is sedation in the imminently dying, not terminal sedation as referred to in the Respondents' brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [313.314, 318.196], "stop_times": [318.196, 328.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.314}, "reply_to": "20484__0_010", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_012", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "General Vacco, may I ask you, then, to train your attention on what has been described as the worst case, it's been called the barbiturate coma or whatever, that is not in the last hour or hours, what you've just been addressing, but you render a person unconscious, you withdraw nutrition, and water, and it goes on for days and days and the person finally shrivels up and dies, and that that, we're told, is permissible and goes on in hospitals in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [328.104], "stop_times": [363.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.104}, "reply_to": "20484__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__0_013", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, again I believe that the description of this by the Plaintiff Respondents is simply incorrect.\nWhat really transpires... again the medication which is designed to deal with four specific symptoms is only administered to the extent that it will deal with those symptoms.\nAnd the suggestion that the death is brought upon by virtue of a coma coupled with the termination of nutrition and hydration is simply wrong.\nMost medical professionals will agree that the death from the underlying illness or, if the drugs are going to suppress respiration so critically, that death will come from those two reasons long before it comes from starvation as a result of the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [363.997, 372.672, 385.44, 396.148], "stop_times": [372.672, 385.44, 396.148, 415.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.997}, "reply_to": "20484__0_012", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_014", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But the question I'm asking you is, you say you've distinguished the drugs at the last hour or hours of life.\nBut we're told that this treatment, whatever you want to call it, that inevitably will lead to death, will do so in a matter of days, not hours.\nAnd that that goes on.\nAnd how is that rationally distinguishable from a pill that will work--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [415.051, 422.398, 434.914, 436.807], "stop_times": [422.398, 434.914, 436.807, 440.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 415.051}, "reply_to": "20484__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__0_015", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, it's rationally distinguishable because it is consistent medical practice.\nIt has never been... the concept of providing drugs specifically and solely for the purpose of killing someone has never been embraced by the medical profession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [440.4, 446.114], "stop_times": [446.114, 455.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.4}, "reply_to": "20484__0_014", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_016", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--But, when you say it's consistent medical practice, I take it you mean, but if I'm wrong, tell me, I take it you mean that, once you accept the right of a patient to withdraw all life support including hydration and feeding, then the only way to prevent excruciating pain as the person nears death is with these extraordinarily high dosages of painkiller that induce coma.\nSo that your justification for the painkiller and the coma is essentially your justification for preventing excruciating pain which is caused by a decision which the individual has a right to make.\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [455.831, 484.191, 499.063], "stop_times": [484.191, 499.063, 500.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.831}, "reply_to": "20484__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__0_017", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Yes, essentially, Justice Souter.\nAnd the concept of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [500.033, 501.375], "stop_times": [501.375, 502.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.033}, "reply_to": "20484__0_016", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_018", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "So it's not merely that the doctors have been doing this.\nThe argument is that it's justifiable essentially on the ground that the right to withdraw life support is recognized and the right to ameliorate pain is recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [502.924, 505.155], "stop_times": [505.155, 518.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.924}, "reply_to": "20484__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__0_019", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd indeed the subsequent administration of the palliative care drugs is consistent with the long-standing notion of the double effect, that the drugs in that instance are not being administered for the purpose of causing the death, they are administered in the context of the post refusal or post withdrawal of treatment palliative care of the patient.\nAnd those... that is indeed distinguishable from the act of purposely and intentionally providing a drug to kill the patient.\nAnd the State... besides the fact that the State believes that these two acts are indeed not similar, the State also believes that there are several legitimate interests that we have in regulating the process of physician-assisted suicide in New York State as we have, which is by virtue of an outright ban.\nNew York has chosen to draw its line in a rational and indeed in the same rational place that virtually every state in the nation has drawn that line.\nThis line that we have drawn in New York State is vigorously supported by professionals, particularly those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [518.716, 519.066, 541.972, 552.61, 571.701, 581.138], "stop_times": [519.066, 541.972, 552.61, 571.701, 581.138, 587.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.716}, "reply_to": "20484__0_018", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_020", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But Mr. Vacco, you don't dispute that a legislature in New York or elsewhere could come to the rational judgment that a legislature in Australia or in Oregon or... I don't know how it came about in the Netherlands, but a rational decision could be made the other way, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [587.082], "stop_times": [605.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.082}, "reply_to": "20484__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__0_021", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Yes, Justice Ginsberg, indeed we do assert that the State of New York's legislature, if it so chose, could indeed make a judgment in the opposite direction.\nWhat we are here today to say is that from New York's position, they should not be constitutionally compelled or constitutionally required to make those judgments or to change the line which is indeed a rational and principled line.\nNew York has made this judgment, and in some fashion that judgment has been based upon the widely quoted New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, which over a nine-year period conducted an exhaustive study on health care in New York State.\nAnd, while this study recognizes that there is needs for advancement in treating pain and recognizing symptoms of depression that lead to suicidal ideation, this task force report, which has been embraced by the New York State Legislature, quite succinctly and specifically says we should not embrace the concept of physician-assisted suicide because of the fear that it leads to euthanasia.\nAnd most of this report deals with the risks of physician-assisted suicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [605.634, 614.891, 627.821, 641.682, 663.855], "stop_times": [614.891, 627.821, 641.682, 663.855, 670.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 605.634}, "reply_to": "20484__0_020", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_022", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "May I ask you, General Vacco, kind of a basic question?\nMany of the arguments are that there are the same risks involved in pulling the plug and physician-assisted suicide, both in terms of making sure what the patient wants and making sure there are no abuses.\nIn your view, could the New York legislature have decided in the cases of terminating life support equipment, to totally forbid it for the same reasons that they totally forbid the assisted suicide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [670.49, 673.412, 684.779], "stop_times": [673.412, 684.779, 697.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.49}, "reply_to": "20484__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20484__0_023", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Justice Stevens, I believe that, if the New York State legislature or for that matter the New York State Court of Appeals had decided differently on the issue of refusal of treatment than they have already, that we would be back here in another context discussing the right of an individual to have the ability to refuse treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [697.188], "stop_times": [720.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.188}, "reply_to": "20484__0_022", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_024", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I'm curious to know what your answer is to the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [720.663], "stop_times": [722.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.663}, "reply_to": "20484__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20484__0_025", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I don't believe that the legislature of the State of New York could constitutionally prohibit the ability of a patient in the end stages of their life to refuse treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [722.245], "stop_times": [736.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.245}, "reply_to": "20484__0_024", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_026", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Just a patient in the end stages of their life.\nCan the state, if someone goes on a hunger strike and wants to die to protest something or other, can the state force-feed that person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [736.734, 738.857], "stop_times": [738.857, 749.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.734}, "reply_to": "20484__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__0_027", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Yes, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [749.816], "stop_times": [750.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.816}, "reply_to": "20484__0_026", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_028", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I see.\nSo you're drawing the same line that was drawn in the last argument, that there's something special about the last hours of death that creates a liberty interest, but before that there's no liberty interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [750.987, 751.188], "stop_times": [751.188, 760.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.987}, "reply_to": "20484__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__0_029", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "No, I'm not drawing the same line, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [760.384], "stop_times": [763.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.384}, "reply_to": "20484__0_028", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_030", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I don't know why you want to limit the discretion of the New York legislature that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [763.897], "stop_times": [768.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.897}, "reply_to": "20484__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__0_031", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "The... indeed the discretion of the New York State legislature would only be limited to the, to an individual's right to refuse... right to refuse treatment.\nI don't believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [768.339, 780.656], "stop_times": [780.656, 781.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.339}, "reply_to": "20484__0_030", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_032", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "That's what I'm talking about, an individual who says I'm on a hunger strike, I do not want to be force-fed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [781.397], "stop_times": [785.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.397}, "reply_to": "20484__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__0_033", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--That's a different circumstance than an individual who is by virtue of medical treatment being force-fed, by virtue of some tubes that are implanted into his person.\nThat person, his bodily integrity has been violated, and that is distinguishable from the individual who is otherwise healthy and merely says that I am not going to eat for the purposes of killing myself.\nIndeed, in New York State, we have said that it would be appropriate for the state to intervene and prevent that person from killing himself.\nAnd indeed in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [785.481, 799.279, 810.218, 817.661], "stop_times": [799.279, 810.218, 817.661, 818.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.481}, "reply_to": "20484__0_032", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_034", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "It seems odd that your bodily integrity is violated by sticking a needle in your arm but not by sticking a spoon in your mouth.\nI mean, how would you force-feed these people in a way not to violate their bodily integrity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [818.392, 826.61], "stop_times": [826.61, 835.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.392}, "reply_to": "20484__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__0_035", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice, indeed this Court said in Cruzan that, in the context of an individual who is otherwise healthy, that the State need not stand by neutrally in the face of somebody who is attempting to commit suicide.\nIn New York State, where we have an individual... an individual, for instance, who is incarcerated in our correctional facility and goes on a hunger strike is otherwise healthy, competent, and goes on a hunger strike asserting his interest in suicide, the state indeed in our estimation has the ability to say we are not going to stand by quietly to allow you to kill yourself.\nAnd that's not inconsistent with the tradition of the law in New York State and indeed the tradition of law in terms of suicide going back to the time of Blackstone.\nWhere we have said in New York State, while we haven't criminalized suicide, and we have long not criminalized attempted suicide, we still have put barriers, social and societal and legal barriers to signal our interest in people not performing suicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [835.383, 851.706, 872.401, 883.388], "stop_times": [851.706, 872.401, 883.388, 899.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.383}, "reply_to": "20484__0_034", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_036", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "General Vacco, if you could be more precise about who is the we that you are talking about.\nYou have asserted that the State of New York could use its authority to force-feed a person who doesn't want to be fed.\nDoes that go for... well, first, is that a legislative decision, did the courts make that decision, did the police make the decision?\nAnd what people are affected by it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [899.419, 902.491, 910.347, 919.243], "stop_times": [902.491, 910.347, 919.243, 922.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.419}, "reply_to": "20484__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__0_037", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "The decision that I speak to in the context of the example that I posed is a decision of the New York State Court of Appeals, but it's not inconsistent, for instance, with legislation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [922.515], "stop_times": [932.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.515}, "reply_to": "20484__0_036", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_038", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "What was that decision and who did it affect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [932.413], "stop_times": [935.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.413}, "reply_to": "20484__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__0_039", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--That decision affected a prisoner in the state correctional facility who was indeed on a hunger strike, announced a hunger strike for the purposes of committing suicide and he wanted to starve himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [935.115], "stop_times": [945.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.115}, "reply_to": "20484__0_038", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_040", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, how about a person with terminal kidney disease and says I'm not going on dialysis.\nI know what the result will be, I'm not doing it.\nNew York can force that treatment; is that right?\nThat's your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [945.803, 951.767, 954.291, 958.105], "stop_times": [951.767, 954.291, 958.105, 959.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.803}, "reply_to": "20484__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20484__0_041", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "No, Justice O'Connor, New York cannot.\nIn the context of refusing treatment, whether it's terminally ill or otherwise, whether it's the 16-year-old who has been told to go home and take two aspirin or the 97-year-old who is plugged into various medical devices, we respect in New York state that person's right to refuse treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [959.126, 961.287], "stop_times": [961.287, 981.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 959.126}, "reply_to": "20484__0_040", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_042", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "We're not talking about what you do, I'm talking about what you may do.\nAre you equating sensible results with what the Constitution requires?\nI agree the line you've drawn is a very sensible one.\nBut you're coming here and saying that is the line that the Constitution imposes.\nThat, had you tried to do the other, you would be reversed because it is unconstitutional.\nIsn't that what you're telling us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [981.111, 985.983, 990.568, 993.64, 997.543, 1003.027], "stop_times": [985.983, 990.568, 993.64, 997.543, 1003.027, 1004.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.111}, "reply_to": "20484__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__0_043", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I am suggesting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1004.369], "stop_times": [1006.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.369}, "reply_to": "20484__0_042", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_044", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "The Consititution is what is sensible and good; is that right?\nAnd New York state may not err and do something that is foolish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1006.159, 1009.652], "stop_times": [1009.652, 1015.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.159}, "reply_to": "20484__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__0_045", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Justice Scalia, in the context of equal protection, the Constitution says that the state may do what is rational.\nAnd we believe that the line that we have drawn here in this case is indeed rational.\nAnd it's based upon some very serious and compelling state interests.\nAnd among those interests is probably primarily the interest in avoiding abuse here.\nWe already know in the context of our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1015.168, 1020.872, 1025.864, 1030.438, 1036.323], "stop_times": [1020.872, 1025.864, 1030.438, 1036.323, 1039.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.168}, "reply_to": "20484__0_044", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_046", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Is that the reason you draw the line ultimately between ending the life support and the affirmative act of giving the pill, is it essentially a line that depends on the argument for risk of abuse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1039.453], "stop_times": [1053.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.453}, "reply_to": "20484__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__0_047", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Justice Souter, in all due respect, I believe that the line was drawn much longer ago than the time that the notion of assisted suicide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1053.444], "stop_times": [1063.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.444}, "reply_to": "20484__0_046", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_048", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I grant you that it was.\nBut we're being asked to justify that line today.\nAnd my question is, is your principal justification for that line the risk of abuse argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1063.921, 1066.252, 1069.635], "stop_times": [1066.252, 1069.635, 1077.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.921}, "reply_to": "20484__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__0_049", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--The principal... yes, the principal justification indeed, one of the most compelling reasons, state interest, is the risk of abuse.\nAnd that abuse is going to manifest itself in a variety--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1077.28, 1086.166], "stop_times": [1086.166, 1089.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.28}, "reply_to": "20484__0_048", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_050", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, why isn't there a risk of abuse that those who might stand to profit or at least themselves risk further discomfort by an early death for a person on life support will try to coerce or persuade that person to end life support when it really isn't a voluntary decision, why isn't that a risk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1089.288], "stop_times": [1115.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.288}, "reply_to": "20484__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__0_051", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Justice Souter, there is no question that in certain instances there is an overlapping of the risk of abuse.\nBut we believe in the context of physician-assisted suicide.\nThe risk of abuse is far greater.\nSimply put, when you terminate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1115.525, 1122.761, 1125.913, 1127.634], "stop_times": [1122.761, 1125.913, 1127.634, 1130.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.525}, "reply_to": "20484__0_050", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_052", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Is it far greater with respect to those who, in fact, are truly terminally ill?\nOr is it far greater because it affects a broader class than the terminally ill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1130.107, 1136.101], "stop_times": [1136.101, 1141.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.107}, "reply_to": "20484__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__0_053", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--It's for both reasons, in our estimation.\nIn the context of the terminally ill, now we move into the area of risk of error which leads to abuse.\nWho is to define terminally ill, how do we define it with such certainty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1141.374, 1144.386, 1152.441], "stop_times": [1144.386, 1152.441, 1157.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.374}, "reply_to": "20484__0_052", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_054", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "What about the risks on the other side, that even the American Medical Association recognizes; that is, this gray area in between makes doctors fearful of putting people out of pain because they don't know whether that's going to constitute physician-assisted suicide or accepted relief of pain?\nIsn't that a real risk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1157.082, 1176.878], "stop_times": [1176.878, 1180.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.082}, "reply_to": "20484__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__0_055", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "It's a minimal risk, Justice Ginsburg, because we can indeed treat virtually all forms of pain.\nThe medical professionalism from the amicus briefs that have been filed point out the fact that pain is indeed manageable.\nAnd as my colleague from the State of Washington indicated, unfortunately we just don't do a good enough job in America of treating the pain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1180.488, 1188.455, 1195.507], "stop_times": [1188.455, 1195.507, 1204.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1180.488}, "reply_to": "20484__0_054", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_056", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "What if what's given is some form of sedation and the person has asked to be relieved of life support systems and so the sure consequence of sedation will be an earlier death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1204.914], "stop_times": [1219.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.914}, "reply_to": "20484__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20484__0_057", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Then, Justice O'Connor, if the purposes of that sedation is to bring about the death as opposed to treating the symptoms of the pain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1219.804], "stop_times": [1231.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.804}, "reply_to": "20484__0_056", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_058", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "It's to alleviate pain but with the certain knowledge that it will hasten the death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1231.032], "stop_times": [1236.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.032}, "reply_to": "20484__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20484__0_059", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--In the context of treating the pain, even though there is a risk of death, pursuant to the principle of double effect, that is not criminal conduct in the State of New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1236.758], "stop_times": [1250.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.758}, "reply_to": "20484__0_058", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_060", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Thank you, General Vacco.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1250.025], "stop_times": [1251.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.025}, "reply_to": "20484__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__0_061", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1251.347], "stop_times": [1252.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.347}, "reply_to": "20484__0_060", "speaker": "dennis_c_vacco"}
{"id": "20484__0_062", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "General Dellinger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1252.185], "stop_times": [1255.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.185}, "reply_to": "20484__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__1_000", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please The Court, the issue that is raised with more saliency in New York is that even if the state may, as a general matter, legitimately prohibit the granting of lethal medication, the fact that these state permit practices that are in the Respondents' view medically, ethically, and morally indistinguishable from lethal medication requires that these states also do that.\nWe do not agree that the states' interest in prohibiting lethal medication is lessened by the fact that the state permits competent terminally ill adults to refuse unwanted medical treatment.\nThere is an important common sense distinction between withdrawing artificial support so that a disease will progress to its inevitable end and providing chemicals to be used to kill someone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1255.047, 1287.609, 1303.96], "stop_times": [1287.609, 1303.96, 1317.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1255.047}, "reply_to": "20484__0_062", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_001", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "So I take it the example or the hypothetical, taken either way, that we're considering, is a person... consider that the asset, is a terminally ill person on a life support system.\nAnd that person makes the choice to have the life support system withdrawn.\nLet's assume that death will take 10 to 20 days and that there will be considerable pain.\nThe State of New York would prevent that person from receiving a lethal injection; is that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1317.198, 1331.267, 1336.622, 1343.475], "stop_times": [1331.267, 1336.622, 1343.475, 1351.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.198}, "reply_to": "20484__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20484__1_002", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1351.152], "stop_times": [1352.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1351.152}, "reply_to": "20484__1_001", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_003", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "And you support that distinction based on these other factors; namely, the long-standing tradition against permitting suicide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1352.371], "stop_times": [1368.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.371}, "reply_to": "20484__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20484__1_004", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Yes, Justice Kennedy.\nFirst of all, the interest in refusing... the strength of the interest in refusing the state's forcible imposition of medical treatment is so historically great.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1368.232, 1369.935], "stop_times": [1369.935, 1384.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1368.232}, "reply_to": "20484__1_003", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_005", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, could we put this in the framework of the position, General Dellinger, that you have taken here, which is that there is some recognizable liberty interest, and how does that affect the analysis under an equal protection approach?\nDoes it mean that rational basis just won't suffice, we have something else that we have to apply here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1384.454, 1401.854], "stop_times": [1401.854, 1411.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.454}, "reply_to": "20484__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20484__1_006", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I think it does, even in an equal protection context, ask for something more than a merely plausible explanation.\nI think here the states have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1411.051, 1423.41], "stop_times": [1423.41, 1424.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1411.051}, "reply_to": "20484__1_005", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_007", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "More than a rational basis, I think that's the term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1424.782], "stop_times": [1427.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.782}, "reply_to": "20484__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20484__1_008", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--More than a rational basis, yes, and by that I meant... yes, more than a rational basis, and by that I meant that sometimes the rational basis test seems to be a little tougher than others.\nI meant merely to exclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1427.544, 1437.571], "stop_times": [1437.571, 1438.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1427.544}, "reply_to": "20484__1_007", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_009", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "So what test is it that you say this Court should apply in the equal protection context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1438.97], "stop_times": [1448.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.97}, "reply_to": "20484__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20484__1_010", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--In the equal protection context, I think at most this Court should apply something on the order of an intermediate scrutiny.\nBut it is not at all clear to me that the state... that would assume, Justice O'Connor, I wanted to answer your question, but that assumes that the state has even drawn a classification here.\nWhen, in fact, what the state has done is to allow to every citizen of New York a number of steps that the state and the medical profession have taken to alleviate pain and suffering in the end.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1448.137, 1458.715, 1469.063], "stop_times": [1458.715, 1469.063, 1481.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1448.137}, "reply_to": "20484__1_009", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_011", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, what about the hypothetical that I put, patient A is going to have 10 to 20-day lingering, painful death; patient B in exactly the same position wants to unhook the life system and have the lethal dose?\nIn light of your position that there is a liberty interest in obtaining medication to prevent pain, how is this distinction between these two people compatible with a heightened scrutiny?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1481.07, 1497.15], "stop_times": [1497.15, 1512.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.07}, "reply_to": "20484__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20484__1_012", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Justice Kennedy, the historic distinction between killing someone and letting them die is so powerful that we believe that it fully suffices here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1512.44], "stop_times": [1527.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1512.44}, "reply_to": "20484__1_011", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_013", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I could agree with that.\nBut I don't think you need heightened scrutiny for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1527.881, 1529.721], "stop_times": [1529.721, 1532.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.881}, "reply_to": "20484__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20484__1_014", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1532.174], "stop_times": [1533.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1532.174}, "reply_to": "20484__1_013", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_015", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But doesn't the strong historical distinction which you mentioned, aren't you suggesting that if you did need heightened scrutiny, that would help the thing pass it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1533.404], "stop_times": [1544.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.404}, "reply_to": "20484__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__1_016", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Yes... yes, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1544.862], "stop_times": [1546.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1544.862}, "reply_to": "20484__1_015", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_017", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Do you agree with your cocounsel in this case that, in fact, it also reflects a difference in risk assessment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1546.354], "stop_times": [1556.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.354}, "reply_to": "20484__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__1_018", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "That is true.\nI think that, and the briefs of the medical professions will indicate that a legislature could reasonably conclude that the risk of those who would seek lethal medication, being depressed or undertreated from pain, are not as competent--\nThey're greater than they are with respect to someone who is declining unwanted medical treatment--\n--Yes, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1556.572, 1557.353, 1574.804, 1578.497], "stop_times": [1557.353, 1574.804, 1578.497, 1579.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1556.572}, "reply_to": "20484__1_017", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_019", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--So then what happens under your analysis?\nI take it your analysis is you find some kind of basic right or liberty interest in the avoidance of the most serious pain and suffering and, moreover, we've been submitted... we've had submitted what I think of as a gigantic Brandeis'ed brief, which presents all kinds of empirically-based judgment by those who know, though they don't always agree, about what the conditions are in which you find justification, few people seriously need undergo terrible pain.\nAnd the risks of killing people who shouldn't be killed are great.\nOn that analysis, what happens if three years passes and it turns out that, instead of more people actually getting the hospice treatment, instead of people being able to go to hospices and have opiates to relieve pain, what happens is instead of 25 percent not getting that treatment, 50 percent don't get it?\nSuppose for doctors being afraid or people changing their mind about the double effect or any of those conditions change so that people really don't get the pain-relieving medication that is possible, then what happens to the law under your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1579.398, 1582.431, 1618.515, 1623.928, 1646.824], "stop_times": [1582.431, 1618.515, 1623.928, 1646.824, 1665.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.398}, "reply_to": "20484__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20484__1_020", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Justice Breyer, I believe that that would strengthen a state's concern about introducing lethal medication into such a medical system, that is, that they... if the need of the medical system is to further the process that the medical associations contend is ongoing of enhancing palliative care, enhancing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1665.125], "stop_times": [1687.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1665.125}, "reply_to": "20484__1_019", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_021", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Suppose they don't, suppose they just don't do it, you have 25 percent now, suppose that number keeps going up, then suppose New York changes its law about the double effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1687.491], "stop_times": [1697.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.491}, "reply_to": "20484__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20484__1_022", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--The state in our view is entitled to think that introducing lethal medication into a system is... puts an even greater risk on those who are... particularly those who are poor and those who are handicapped, an even greater risk if that system is decreasing the amount of palliatives.\nIf a person supposedly is making a voluntary choice to choose lethal medication but they're in a system, in an institution in which their pain is not being controlled, and perhaps the insurance adjuster is saying we're not... this is expensive, this team of professionals is too expensive, but you do have an alternative to your suffering.\nRemember, that to some uncertain extent, if you recognize a Constitutionally based right to have lethal medication in the system, I do not know to what extent physicians would be required to present it as a treatment option, I mean that is the general requirement.\nWe don't know that, we don't know to what extent insurance companies as they have indicated in Oregon would quickly say of course we will pay for this treatment while they are not paying for a hospitalization for palliative treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1697.686, 1723.104, 1743.007, 1762.332], "stop_times": [1723.104, 1743.007, 1762.332, 1774.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1697.686}, "reply_to": "20484__1_021", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_023", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "General Dillinger, if you could deal with the argument that's been made about winks and nods, that all of this is really a great sham because physician-assisted suicide goes on for anybody who is sophisticated enough to want it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1774.181], "stop_times": [1788.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.181}, "reply_to": "20484__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__1_024", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Judge Ginsburg, I simply... we looked and we don't know what the evidentiary basis is for that.\nThat is, that the counsel for the Respondents in New York says that in New York there is this process called terminal... the state permits terminal sedation.\nWe found nothing in New York's statutory law, nothing in the regulations.\nYour question goes also to the practice.\nI think there may be some confusion.\nWe agree that state law may, without crossing this important line, not only allow withdrawal of medical treatment but also allow physicians to prescribe medication in sufficient doses to relieve pain even when the necessary dose will hasten death, so long as the physician's intent is to relieve pain and not cause death.\nWe do not know any basis for the conclusion that pain medication's being deliberately offered in excess of what is necessary to relieve pain in order to cause death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1788.951, 1796.888, 1806.575, 1810.127, 1812.23, 1814.35, 1837.668], "stop_times": [1796.888, 1806.575, 1810.127, 1812.23, 1814.35, 1837.668, 1847.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1788.951}, "reply_to": "20484__1_023", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20484__1_025", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.\nMr. Tribe, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1847.396, 1848.808], "stop_times": [1848.808, 1850.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.396}, "reply_to": "20484__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_000", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please The Court.\nPerhaps I would begin with Justice Ginsburg's question to the Solicitor General about winks and nods.\nI don't think the issue really is whether there are some people who violate existing laws like the law in New York which, as I hope to explain in a minute, really makes it legal to do what is described in a rather powerful article in the bioethics brief in support of Respondents as slow euthanasia.\nI don't think so much the issue is how many people violate the law.\nCharlatans, doctors of death, just by the nature of it they operate in the dark and we don't know.\nThe winks and nods I think affect the capacity of the system to respond humanely and rationally to what is actually going on rather than just to bright line hypotheticals.\nThe winks and nods really relate to things that we all accept, the principle of double effect.\nJust as Justice Souter asked the question, take one of our patient plaintiffs, the Jane Doe.\nShe had a tumor that wrapped itself around her esophagus.\nResult, she couldn't eat.\nSo she had the choice, she could have said no, don't give me a feeding tube.\nShe acceded to having a feeding tube implanted.\nIt had to be surgically implanted because it couldn't be done nasogastrically because Jane Doe really didn't have an esophagus left.\nAs she neared death, and indeed only nine days passed between the filing of her declaration and her demise, as she neared death, she was, as are many patients in the modern world who die not rapidly of an infection but at the end of a long, degenerative process, she was the recipient of all sorts of medical interventions that she could have said no to.\nSome of them really weren't life-saving; they just prevented even greater torment, agony, disintegration, and then she did have a choice, she could have chosen on the theory I suppose that, even though her rabbi said you can't step in the same river twice, she could have turned back the clock, she could have said no to tube, she could now say take out the tube, I don't want it here anymore.\nAnd as the law of New York is now structured, because she is terminally ill, there is no inquiry into her intent.\nEven if it were undisputed that the only reason she wanted the tube out was that that would enable her to die a little bit sooner, that would be irrelevant.\nIt's not irrelevant when you force-feed someone, however, that is in the context of Mark Chapman, the guy who was force-fed in the New York case, the murderer of Beatle John Lennon, it was decisive, that the reason he didn't want food was not that he just didn't like it, he was anorexic or something, it was that that was his way of trying to kill himself.\nAnd so his bodily integrity had to give way.\nThat is, he could be force-fed under New York law.\nBut, being terminally ill, Jane Doe couldn't be force-fed.\nAnd I don't think much should turn on the label of whether you call a tube a treatment or, as the Chief Justice asked, what in the world difference does it make if it's a tube or a spoon, it's an invasion of your bodily integrity which is where this principle supposedly comes from.\nSo to begin with, we have this question: Jane Doe has the right to have the tube removed because she's dying anyway.\nMark Chapman didn't have a right not to be force-fed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [1850.787, 1859.563, 1866.609, 1892.445, 1897.026, 1903.451, 1916.17, 1922.655, 1930.25, 1934.122, 1935.594, 1940.929, 1943.762, 1953.396, 1975.491, 1998.378, 2008.503, 2018.361, 2040.847, 2044.199, 2047.682, 2054.237, 2067.315, 2076.699], "stop_times": [1859.563, 1866.609, 1892.445, 1897.026, 1903.451, 1916.17, 1922.655, 1930.25, 1934.122, 1935.594, 1940.929, 1943.762, 1953.396, 1975.491, 1998.378, 2008.503, 2018.361, 2040.847, 2044.199, 2047.682, 2054.237, 2067.315, 2076.699, 2080.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.787}, "reply_to": "20484__1_025", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_001", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "That wasn't the basis of the Second Circuit's ruling, was it, that Mark Chapman could be force-fed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2080.163], "stop_times": [2087.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2080.163}, "reply_to": "20484__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_002", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, the Second Circuit, Mr. Chief Justice, did base its ruling on the equal protection principle that Mark Chapman, I think helps me illustrate.\nThey didn't talk about John Lennon or Mark Chapman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2087.098, 2095.043], "stop_times": [2095.043, 2097.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.098}, "reply_to": "20484__2_001", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_003", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "They didn't talk about that particular provision, they said you can't distinguish between... as I understand their opinion, you can't distinguish between a removal at the patient's instance of life support mechanisms and asking for a lethal dose?\nBecause I didn't think it had anything to do with Mark Chapman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2097.187, 2117.299], "stop_times": [2117.299, 2120.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.187}, "reply_to": "20484__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_004", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice, it's true it had nothing to do with that particular fellow.\nBut it was the arbitrariness of the following scheme in New York law, which I think you can give you a quick picture of, the scheme that the Second Circuit thought was irrational.\nThe scheme was that, despite your interest in bodily integrity, if you're not terminally ill, the state allows an invasion of the body in those cases where you're trying to kill yourself.\nSo that if the woman in the Fosmire case, which was referred to in the briefs, I think it's page 11 or 12 of our brief, if the woman in the Fosmire case, instead of saying no to blood transfusions after a cesarean section for religious reasons had slashed her wrists and said, I don't want blood transfusions, bodily integrity, no question under New York law, as The Court made clear in footnote 2, that could be overridden.\nBut what now happens when someone is terminally ill and dying, even if it is undisputed that the reason the person says, no blood transfusions, take out the tube, is to commit suicide.\nAt that point the state says, we don't care about your reason, the technology is what makes the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2120.481, 2124.634, 2133.639, 2148.207, 2174.617, 2187.633], "stop_times": [2124.634, 2133.639, 2148.207, 2174.617, 2187.633, 2192.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.481}, "reply_to": "20484__2_003", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_005", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "So you disagree, Mr. Tribe, if I understand it, with counsel for Respondent in the prior case, who asserted that it was not only rational but that there is a Constitutional line between suicide of those who are at the threshold of death and the suicide of the young and healthy but despondent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2192.278], "stop_times": [2214.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.278}, "reply_to": "20484__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_006", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "No, Justice Scalia, I did not say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2214.481], "stop_times": [2216.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.481}, "reply_to": "20484__2_005", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_007", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "That's what I thought you were saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2216.094], "stop_times": [2216.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2216.094}, "reply_to": "20484__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_008", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, can I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2216.765], "stop_times": [2217.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.765}, "reply_to": "20484__2_007", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_009", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--that it's irrational, but it can make an exception between--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2217.193], "stop_times": [2219.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.193}, "reply_to": "20484__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_010", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia, it's not irrational--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2219.015], "stop_times": [2221.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.015}, "reply_to": "20484__2_009", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_011", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Tell me why.\nYou're not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2221.839, 2222.328], "stop_times": [2222.328, 2222.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.839}, "reply_to": "20484__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_012", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Because for purposes of defining a particular liberty, recognizing a greater freedom to decide this amount of agony is enough, it may make a difference whether someone is dying or healthy and just temporarily disabled.\nBut for purposes of drawing a distinction among technologies, saying we don't care when you're young and healthy whether the way you're trying kill yourself is by saying unplug that respirator or give me a lethal medication.\nAnd, however, drawing that very line for the terminally ill, for the terminally ill they say we do care.\nThat is, Jane Doe didn't want the surgical removal of the tube because that would have left her in starving and dehydration... not just discomfort but according to Dr. Grossman agony for a couple of weeks and she didn't want to be turned into a zombie, she wouldn't have accepted terminal sedation.\nBut she had the right, that is, whether she could end her life because she was in that small group that the Solicitor General describes as having really no choice between agony and unconsciousness, even with the best palliative care, whether she could do that, terms under New York law, when she's in this terminal phase, not on her intent but just on the particular technique involved.\nNow if the New York legislature--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2222.859, 2241.261, 2260.264, 2266.737, 2283.27, 2313.59], "stop_times": [2241.261, 2260.264, 2266.737, 2283.27, 2313.59, 2315.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.859}, "reply_to": "20484__2_011", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_013", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Excuse me.\nIs it a technique or is it the distinction between action and inaction?\nThe state allows someone to not provide medical assistance but forbids someone from injecting something that will cause death?\nSurely you don't assert that the distinction between action and inaction is irrational?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2315.57, 2315.901, 2321.357, 2331.936], "stop_times": [2315.901, 2321.357, 2331.936, 2338.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.57}, "reply_to": "20484__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_014", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--No.\nI suggest, Justice Scalia, that even though the action/inaction distinction that you criticized in Cruzan isn't quite irrational, the distinction between these two different kinds of action, the action that is requested of someone, operate on me to take out the tube, and the action, please give me a lethal prescription, that operates irrationally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2338.28, 2338.551], "stop_times": [2338.551, 2361.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.28}, "reply_to": "20484__2_013", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_015", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I see, you just object to the taking out of the tube.\nIf the issue were simply I don't want a tube put in in the first place--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2361.144, 2363.334], "stop_times": [2363.334, 2367.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.144}, "reply_to": "20484__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_016", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2367.317], "stop_times": [2367.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.317}, "reply_to": "20484__2_015", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_017", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--you would have no problem with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2367.527], "stop_times": [2368.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.527}, "reply_to": "20484__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_018", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I think there I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2368.369], "stop_times": [2369.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.369}, "reply_to": "20484__2_017", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_019", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--you would have no problem with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2369.11], "stop_times": [2370.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.11}, "reply_to": "20484__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_020", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--I think that's right.\nI would be an action/inaction advocate, although I do think, if it were demonstrable, as I think it's true in New York, that someone who, for example, slashed her wrists and said, no action has been taken yet, don't put the IV in me, if New York says to her, sorry, we're going do it anyway and overrides her bodily integrity in order to prevent what it calls suicide, but then tells someone else who is in the process of dying and is 10 or 11 days from death, for you we are not going to worry about the intent that you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2370.049, 2370.7], "stop_times": [2370.7, 2412.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.049}, "reply_to": "20484__2_019", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_021", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But, Mr. Tribe, the whole solution now you've given us, I think, in your answer to Justice Scalia, New York could say and be perfectly compatible with equal protection, as you've just described it, person who is terminally ill, you've got to make the choice now before we give you the life support, you have a right to refuse it, but once you've accepted it, you have no right to have it taken out.\nSo understand that, and New York does that, then these... this equal protection problem disappears; is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2412.277, 2438.677], "stop_times": [2438.677, 2448.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.277}, "reply_to": "20484__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__2_022", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--No, I don't think so, Justice Ginsburg.\nA liberty problem of a different sort might become even more severe.\nBut the point is... and again, I'm sorry to go back to a certain kind of reality... you don't suddenly become terminally ill at midnight on a given day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2448.542, 2450.692, 2455.086], "stop_times": [2450.692, 2455.086, 2465.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2448.542}, "reply_to": "20484__2_021", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_023", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "That's one of the problems, isn't it?\nOne of the problems of defining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2465.384, 2467.775], "stop_times": [2467.775, 2469.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.384}, "reply_to": "20484__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__2_024", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "If I can get to it, I'll try to discuss how one might deal with that, but if I might just stick with equal protection for a moment.\nWhat happens to people as they degenerate is that they are given all kinds of treatments and they accept them, and this idea that at the end you're either in this closed class of people who luckily have a plug that can be pulled, or you're in some other group, is a fantasy.\nEvery case, or virtually every case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2469.675, 2477.279, 2498.125], "stop_times": [2477.279, 2498.125, 2500.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2469.675}, "reply_to": "20484__2_023", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_025", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, I suppose it's based on the distinction between allowing events to take their own course and third-person intervention, which the law has recognized in the law of torts and in most of its other substantive areas for centuries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2500.837], "stop_times": [2516.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.837}, "reply_to": "20484__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20484__2_026", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, none of these patients is in a state of nature.\nThey're in a hospital or a hospice.\nAnd they're receiving chemotherapy, radiation, bone marrow transplants--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2516.075, 2519.507, 2521.978], "stop_times": [2519.507, 2521.978, 2526.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2516.075}, "reply_to": "20484__2_025", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_027", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Yes.\nBut when a person on a life support system wants the systems discontinued, she is not committing suicide, which is what you said earlier.\nShe is not doing that, she's allowing nature to take its course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2526.884, 2527.104, 2536.849], "stop_times": [2527.104, 2536.849, 2541.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.884}, "reply_to": "20484__2_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20484__2_028", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--If I could explore nature just for a moment.\nOf course, it's up to the State of New York how to characterize whether she's committing suicide.\nBut as you've said in your Colorado opinion, the government's characterization can't control the constitutional analysis.\nNew York says that if a person... suppose there's a car accident, and my wife and I... no, I won't be personal.\nSuppose it's a car accident and two people are in the car.\nOne of them is so badly injured that the person is bound to die within a few weeks.\nThe other person is not quite that badly injured at all but needs a respirator for a while.\nAnd is in a coma.\nThe respirator is put on, so we don't have Justice Ginsburg's problems of... well, you've signed up, now you're stuck... the person is in a coma, the respirator is put on, wakes up and is delighted to learn that he's going to be fine in a couple of weeks, unless the respirator is taken off, in which case he will asphyxiate.\nSo he has no objection to the respirator.\nHe learns that his spouse, his wife, is dying and she's not going to make it no matter what.\nShe as it happens is not on a respirator, she's on all kinds of stuff but none of them have a detachable plug.\nNew York says to him when... he says, well, now that I know what's happened to my wife, I want to die, take the respirator out.\nI think under footnote 2 of Fosmire, he wouldn't be entitled to that, he would be using--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2541.403, 2544.204, 2549.487, 2556.833, 2566.61, 2569.043, 2576.497, 2582.602, 2585.473, 2604.195, 2606.927, 2616.073, 2621.527, 2631.054], "stop_times": [2544.204, 2549.487, 2556.833, 2566.61, 2569.043, 2576.497, 2582.602, 2585.473, 2604.195, 2606.927, 2616.073, 2621.527, 2631.054, 2636.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2541.403}, "reply_to": "20484__2_027", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_029", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, Mr. Tribe, if we go into this sort of intricate analysis of state law in order... in accepting... we won't be deciding any case except New York's here.\nWe would have to make the same analysis for 49 other states.\nIf we do the sort of intricate analysis that you talk about, where we talk about someone being force-fed in a prison--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2636.268, 2647.455, 2652.8], "stop_times": [2647.455, 2652.8, 2659.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.268}, "reply_to": "20484__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_030", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, The Court did say that in that case that the prison context did not determine the outcome.\nAnd I do suggest that, given the complexity and difficulty of the area, the desire to have an easy answer for the whole country mightn't work, that's not what I would propose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2659.423, 2664.648], "stop_times": [2664.648, 2675.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.423}, "reply_to": "20484__2_029", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_031", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--How then do you react?\nI would be very interested in getting your reaction.\nBecause however you define the liberty interest, there are tremendously difficult procedural questions of what would be the safeguards of voluntariness, a much more difficult question on... when you go into it than what you might think.\nAnd how do you decide terminal condition.\nAnd what about the relationship of laws like double effect and all of that area.\nWhy... what's your response to the proposition that these different groups, interacting with the legislature, are far more suited, that legislature, to come up with an answer than a court writing a Constitutional provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2675.544, 2676.605, 2678.928, 2693.548, 2697.011, 2702.487], "stop_times": [2676.605, 2678.928, 2693.548, 2697.011, 2702.487, 2721.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.544}, "reply_to": "20484__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20484__2_032", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, Justice Breyer, my answer is in part equal protection and in part Judge Calabrese.\nBecause it seems to me that what we have here, setting aside the issue of liberty for the moment, and I don't understand frankly the Solicitor General's position it can be a\n\"now you see it, now you don't. \"\nliberty.\nIt's liberty, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2721.477, 2727.131, 2737.128, 2738.22, 2738.47], "stop_times": [2727.131, 2737.128, 2738.22, 2738.47, 2739.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.477}, "reply_to": "20484__2_031", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_033", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I would be interested in your definition of the liberty interest as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2739.682], "stop_times": [2744.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.682}, "reply_to": "20484__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20484__2_034", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--I'll try.\nBut I think, if I could pursue your question for a moment as to, sort of, how does one deal with this.\nI mean, in a sense there are 50 laboratories out there.\nThe famous state laboratories of Justice Brandeis, although I guess it wasn't in the Brandeis brief, but he talked about them.\nThese laboratories, however, are now operating largely with the lights out.\nThey're operating with the lights out because it's not just New York.\nWhat I've described is as far as I've been able to determine through research of the law of at least 35 or maybe 40 states... and I know maybe I shouldn't admit that because that means that an equal protection ruling would require lots of states to reexamine where the lines should be drawn... but in all of these states what they do, and it's a logic that collapses on itself, is they combine two understandable principles.\nOne principle is you can medicate someone to make them comfortable, to reduce their pain even when you are pretty sure... or even when you know, as long as that's not your real intent, that it will hasten their death.\nThe other principle is that a person has the right to say, no, don't give me that feeding tube.\nOnce I've got it, it may be hard to take it out, and anyway, leave me alone.\nYou combine these two and the logic so remarkably collapses in the case of terminal sedation, which is overwhelmingly documented everywhere in the country, it's not some sneaky practice, although it's called slow euthanasia in this latest article, that what you wonder is where did this all this come from?\nDid a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2744.525, 2745.416, 2750.568, 2753.66, 2761.046, 2765.13, 2769.552, 2792.717, 2807.329, 2813.225, 2817.257, 2833.66], "stop_times": [2745.416, 2750.568, 2753.66, 2761.046, 2765.13, 2769.552, 2792.717, 2807.329, 2813.225, 2817.257, 2833.66, 2834.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.525}, "reply_to": "20484__2_033", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_035", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "What do you mean... do you mean nothing more by terminal sedation than the sedation of those who are terminal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2834.049], "stop_times": [2841.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.049}, "reply_to": "20484__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_036", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Oh, much more, yes, Justice Scalia.\nIt's described in the AMA's brief and the Geriatrics brief.\nWhat I mean is, after having discovered that opioids are not going to work to get rid of the person's agony, physical and... physical pain and deterioration and dyspnea and other symptoms, after you learn that, then you have the option of using barbiturates or benzodiazepines to put the person into a comatose state.\nAnd you can do that hopefully with their consent.\nBut sadly there are almost no safeguards on the existing legal practice to assure that consent is given.\nYou sedate them either before taking them off a respirator because we are told that asphyxiation is one of the most terrifying and excruciating deaths, or you keep them sedated as they starve and dehydrate and their families see them disintegrate.\nBecause that's all that's available to them.\nIt is the Kafkaesque but entirely logical result of the principles that the states haven't really adopted but have fallen into.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2841.093, 2842.955, 2846.788, 2872.757, 2876.457, 2882.362, 2897.291, 2899.054], "stop_times": [2842.955, 2846.788, 2872.757, 2876.457, 2882.362, 2897.291, 2899.054, 2909.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.093}, "reply_to": "20484__2_035", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_037", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, Mr. Tribe, you say they've fallen into it and you referred in answering Justice Breyer a moment ago to the state laboratories operating with the lights out.\nIsn't it fair to say that the issue that we are dealing with is a really serious legislative issue, is fairly recent.\n20 years ago we weren't even reading about this.\nSo that the fact may be and the metaphor may be right, that the lights have been out, but the effort to put the lights on is fairly recent.\nAnd doesn't... doesn't that sort of put some punch behind Justice Breyer's question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2909.673, 2919.3, 2929.474, 2933.307, 2943.704], "stop_times": [2919.3, 2929.474, 2933.307, 2943.704, 2949.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2909.673}, "reply_to": "20484__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__2_038", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, I thought it had a lot of punch to begin with.\nBut I guess the problem is, you know, most of us... these legislatures are operating in the dark and we hope that they will take into account everyone's interests as they work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2949.427, 2953.341], "stop_times": [2953.341, 2962.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2949.427}, "reply_to": "20484__2_037", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_039", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But do they have less light than we do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2962.627], "stop_times": [2966.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.627}, "reply_to": "20484__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20484__2_040", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "No, not at all.\nI think they have... the lights are bright here.\nWhen I say the dark, I mean this: Doctors, like Dr. Quill, who, when he explained what he was doing in the case of someone who thought it would be dehumanizing to be terminally sedated, so he publicly explained in an article called Diane, that he was actually going to leave her with some lethal medications, he was investigated by the grand jury.\nWhen doctors do a lot of what they do in upping the level of the morphine and actually using more benzodiazepine than is needed to make sure the person is comfortable but to make sure the person dies sooner, they're not going to talk to others about it because they might be prosecuted because of the lines that are drawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [2966.009, 2966.97, 2970.51, 2992.996], "stop_times": [2966.97, 2970.51, 2992.996, 3013.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2966.009}, "reply_to": "20484__2_039", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_041", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But the New York report, and perhaps this will get you to the autonomy interest and it bridges what Justice Breyer and Justice Souter suggested, that we're just beginning to get a public awareness and to find out much more about these things.\nThe New York report, it seems to me, is a Brandeis brief for the proposition that the autonomy that you suggest, that you wish to protect, or that you wish to create, is illusory, it's chimerical, that there will be less autonomy, less autonomy, by the unanimous judgment of the members of that task force, if you allow the option that you choose.\nIn fact, you will be introducing fear into medical care facilities.\nYou will diminish, diminish the choices, not increase them.\nThat's what I get from the New York report.\nAnd I would appreciate your comment on that.\nJustice Kennedy, I think as I read the report, the premise of that proposition was that people would be fearful that doctors would be making decisions in the end that would terminate their lives.\nWhat I'm saying is that the... if anyone reads that report as you have, as I have, and thinks about what happens in the hospital wards when terminal sedation is given, when the morphine drip is increased, when the person is asleep and it's said that they wanted the respirator disconnected but there are no required witnesses, that's pretty scary.\nAnd what I suggest is that the New York legislature, which initially outlawed all physician-assisted suicide, not by identifying physicians, but by just saying if A helps B commit suicide, it's a crime, now confronts a rather different regime, a regime that says near the end of life, whether or not the intent of somebody is deliberately to die, if certain techniques are used, combination of morphine and barbiturates, a surgical removal of something implanted, we don't call that suicide and actually we don't regulate it very much.\nBut, on the other side, if the patient is prescribed, at the patient's request, a lethal drug, we make that absolutely forbidden.\nThat combination which has not been chosen by the legislature, when Mr. Vacco held up that report and said, this is the choice of people of New York and I wondered what his answer was to Justice Ginsburg's question, who is the we, New York in its legislature did nothing in response that to that report.\nThat is, they didn't change the law, but that was inaction.\nThe line, it's like Thompson v. Oklahoma.\nWhen Oklahoma passed some laws that had the unfortunate consequence of exposing 15-year-olds to execution and, Justice O'Connor, you concluded that you didn't have to reach the ultimate merits of whether that was unconstitutional, because that was really a question that didn't have to be decided.\nIt was at least Constitutionally dubious as I suggest the rationality of this line is at least Constitutionally dubious.\nThat was a concurring both that in the end sent the thing back to Oklahoma and said if you really need to execute 15-year-olds, tell us that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3013.449, 3028.98, 3055.216, 3062.833, 3066.865, 3068.637, 3071.569, 3084.478, 3108.995, 3146.561, 3156.108, 3175.849, 3178.502, 3181.754, 3201.136, 3208.251], "stop_times": [3028.98, 3055.216, 3062.833, 3066.865, 3068.637, 3071.569, 3084.478, 3108.995, 3146.561, 3156.108, 3175.849, 3178.502, 3181.754, 3201.136, 3208.251, 3217.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.449}, "reply_to": "20484__2_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20484__2_042", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Mr. Tribe, that's a discrete situation.\nThis is the question I'd like to ask you: You have said, or at least many of your amici have said, protocols and criteria are the watchword, because you have to be very careful.\nThis is a dangerous authority that you would be giving to the medical profession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3217.337, 3222.229, 3234.738], "stop_times": [3222.229, 3234.738, 3239.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.337}, "reply_to": "20484__2_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__2_043", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "They already have it unfortunately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3239.252], "stop_times": [3241.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.252}, "reply_to": "20484__2_042", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_044", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But the moment this Court says, liberty interest is broad enough to cover the terminally ill, we don't define what that is, there is no law.\nAnd by your very argument and very excellent brief, one can see a lawyer criticizing any line that the legislature would come up with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3241.042, 3253.451], "stop_times": [3253.451, 3264.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.042}, "reply_to": "20484__2_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__2_045", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "It seems to me, Justice O'Connor... oustice Ginsburg, that the methodology of equal protection... sorry... that the methodology of equal protection does mean that any line would be subject to meaningful scrutiny.\nBut I suggest to you that the defensability of a line of the kind we have here would never reach this Court because no legislature would actually draw a line that says you can sedate somebody to death as long as you meet the criteria of double effect, but you can't do much of what is now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3264.588, 3282.34], "stop_times": [3282.34, 3304.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3264.588}, "reply_to": "20484__2_044", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_046", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "But that is what... how many legislatures have.\nI mean, you're not singling out New York as being different from New Jersey or anyplace else in that regard, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3304.595, 3308.977], "stop_times": [3308.977, 3314.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.595}, "reply_to": "20484__2_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20484__2_047", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--No.\nBut that's the residual of what's happening in these states--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3314.029, 3314.27], "stop_times": [3314.27, 3317.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3314.029}, "reply_to": "20484__2_046", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_048", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Yeah, but they recommended that.\nI mean, the report as I read it, the English report, recommends this as a line various... and one of the things that impressed me about looking at that is they said, in Holland, where they have the different line, there were three centers to deal with palliative care, pain removal.\nAnd in England, where they have the New York law, there were 185.\nDo you see the conclusion that they're drawing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3317.972, 3318.473, 3334.835, 3339.436], "stop_times": [3318.473, 3334.835, 3339.436, 3341.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.972}, "reply_to": "20484__2_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20484__2_049", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, but that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3341.88], "stop_times": [3343.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3341.88}, "reply_to": "20484__2_048", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_050", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "And suppose the legislature comes to us and says, hey, that's what we want and that's the reason we're more interested in people dying without suffering, we've looked at this information, we think this is the way to do it, just the way they recommended in the report.\nWhat are we supposed to say to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3343.062, 3356.98], "stop_times": [3356.98, 3358.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.062}, "reply_to": "20484__2_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20484__2_051", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, I think, if one were a legislator, one might look at that report and say, you know, there is no better line, we're going to stick with it.\nAnd if, after a careful look, the legislature came up with a line that looks very much like the existing one, the issue that would face this Court, either as a matter of liberty or as a matter of equal protection, would be a bit different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3358.522, 3367.107], "stop_times": [3367.107, 3383.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.522}, "reply_to": "20484__2_050", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_052", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, why on earth would it be any different unless you would buy Justice... Judge Calabrese's idea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3383.469], "stop_times": [3388.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3383.469}, "reply_to": "20484__2_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_053", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, by the tone of your question, I guess I'm supposed to say I thought it was a crazy idea, but I didn't.\nI didn't.\nI think it's very much like... what does this Court do when it says something is a suspect classification, as in Croson?\nIt says if there were different findings and if the legislature or other governing body really went through the process with care of doing it it might pass muster.\nNow, being Constitutionally dubious--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3388.562, 3393.387, 3394.195, 3400.801, 3411.586], "stop_times": [3393.387, 3394.195, 3400.801, 3411.586, 3413.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3388.562}, "reply_to": "20484__2_052", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_054", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "That's traditional equal protection jurisprudence though, but this idea of can I send it back for a second look, do you really want to do this?\nI think that's quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3413.939, 3421.253], "stop_times": [3421.253, 3423.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3413.939}, "reply_to": "20484__2_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_055", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, it looks different, I grant you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nBut the meaning really of... I think, of deciding that something is either Constitutionally too dubious to pass muster given the haphazard way in which it came about, or that it's suspect, is that the very same thing might be upheld otherwise.\nIn Egglehoff--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3423.864, 3427.428, 3442.959], "stop_times": [3427.428, 3442.959, 3444.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3423.864}, "reply_to": "20484__2_054", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_056", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Sort of a legislative process requirement in the Constitution, legislative due process?\nI thought we had specifically disclaimed the existence of any such thing.\nI mean, the law is either good or bad.\nYou're telling us if the legislature goes about doing it one way, it's okay; if it goes about doing it another way, it's not okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3444.448, 3450.442, 3454.986, 3456.348], "stop_times": [3450.442, 3454.986, 3456.348, 3461.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.448}, "reply_to": "20484__2_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_057", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--I thought you joined Justice O'Connor's opinion in Croson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3461.574], "stop_times": [3463.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3461.574}, "reply_to": "20484__2_056", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_058", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I didn't mean to do that, that was a mistake.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3463.664, 3465.584], "stop_times": [3465.584, 3468.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3463.664}, "reply_to": "20484__2_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_059", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I think that it does make... I think that, when one concludes... in an area as profoundly difficult as this, when one concludes that something is Constitutionally doubtful, and when it came about by kind of inadvertence, that is, various things being subtracted from an existing piece of legislation, it's a little bit like a law that looks suspect and that doesn't have behind it the kinds of findings by the government that could satisfy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3468.118], "stop_times": [3503.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3468.118}, "reply_to": "20484__2_058", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_060", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Legislative due process, there have to be particular findings before we will sustain... do you know any case where we've held such a thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3503.281], "stop_times": [3510.674], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3503.281}, "reply_to": "20484__2_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20484__2_061", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--I submit that in Croson you held such a thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3510.674], "stop_times": [3513.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3510.674}, "reply_to": "20484__2_060", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_062", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "I don't think we held such a thing in Croson.\nCroson, we held the statute was invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3513.396, 3514.768], "stop_times": [3514.768, 3516.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3513.396}, "reply_to": "20484__2_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_063", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, that's what I'm suggesting here.\nThat it should be in... that it's invalid... in Croson you said it was invalid because it was a suspect classification and the governing body responsible for it hadn't actually provided the kind of defense justification assurance, that they did it thoughtfully and not kind of out of some knee jerk--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3516.569, 3517.54], "stop_times": [3517.54, 3536.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3516.569}, "reply_to": "20484__2_062", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_064", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, it wasn't... the test wasn't thoughtfully, it had to meet certain criteria.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3536.413], "stop_times": [3541.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3536.413}, "reply_to": "20484__2_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_065", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--That's right.\nAnd I think that it may be that in this area one could specify some criteria that would have to be met--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3541.265, 3541.555], "stop_times": [3541.555, 3547.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3541.265}, "reply_to": "20484__2_064", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_066", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Mr. Tribe, before your time expires, would you tell us what you think the liberty interest is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3547.532], "stop_times": [3553.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.532}, "reply_to": "20484__2_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20484__2_067", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, I think the liberty interest in this case is the liberty, when facing imminent and inevitable death, not to be forced by the government to endure a degree of pain and suffering that one can relieve only by being completely unconscious.\nNot to be forced into that choice, that the liberty is the freedom, at this threshold at the end of life, not to be a creature of the state but to have some voice in the question of how much pain one is really going through.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3553.084, 3574.146], "stop_times": [3574.146, 3592.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3553.084}, "reply_to": "20484__2_066", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_068", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Why does the voice just arrive when death is imminent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3592.028], "stop_times": [3596.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3592.028}, "reply_to": "20484__2_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20484__2_069", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "The Court's jurisprudence has identified, I think for good reason, that life, though it feels continuous to many of us, has certain critical thresholds: Birth, marriage, child-bearing.\nI think death is one of those thresholds.\nThat is, it is the last chapter of one's life after all.\nI don't think you have to say, I have a right to make any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3596.142, 3611.823, 3614.664, 3618.866], "stop_times": [3611.823, 3614.664, 3618.866, 3621.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3596.142}, "reply_to": "20484__2_068", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_070", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "All of this is in the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3621.46], "stop_times": [3622.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3621.46}, "reply_to": "20484__2_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_071", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, the substantive due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3622.449], "stop_times": [3625.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3622.449}, "reply_to": "20484__2_070", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_072", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "You see, this is lovely philosophy.\nBut you want us to frame a Constitutional rule on the basis of that?\nLife has various stages, birth, death--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3625.771, 3627.171, 3631.545], "stop_times": [3627.171, 3631.545, 3633.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3625.771}, "reply_to": "20484__2_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20484__2_073", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Well, Casey said as much.\nAnd unless Casey... unless Casey is to be isolated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3633.726, 3634.196], "stop_times": [3634.196, 3639.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3633.726}, "reply_to": "20484__2_072", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_074", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--You're going back... you have several parts to it.\nAnd the parts each have precedental effect, and you're putting the several parts together.\nOne of parts is pain and suffering.\nWhat in the history, what in the history of the decisions shows something... a personal right against enduring pain and suffering, if you go back into the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3639.82, 3645.003, 3650.107, 3652.729], "stop_times": [3645.003, 3650.107, 3652.729, 3662.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3639.82}, "reply_to": "20484__2_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20484__2_075", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--That is prior to Casey, which did emphasize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3662.975], "stop_times": [3665.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3662.975}, "reply_to": "20484__2_074", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_076", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Yeah.\nI mean, but... I'm not saying it would be in certain contexts only.\nBut what is there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3665.807, 3666.017, 3669.97], "stop_times": [3666.017, 3669.97, 3671.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3665.807}, "reply_to": "20484__2_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20484__2_077", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Well, actually, Justice Breyer, it seems to me that it is the confluence of several things.\nI mean, the general interest in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3671.64, 3677.654], "stop_times": [3677.654, 3679.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3671.64}, "reply_to": "20484__2_076", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_078", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "You can answer the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3679.307], "stop_times": [3682.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3679.307}, "reply_to": "20484__2_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20484__2_079", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "--Thanks.\nI'll do it briefly.\nThe general interest in avoiding suffering is a bit too nebulous for me.\nI think when it's combined with shaping your life and with the ultimate avoidance of being subjected to the state's control, then it's a special liberty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3682.258, 3683.14, 3684.441, 3688.315], "stop_times": [3683.14, 3684.441, 3688.315, 3702.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3682.258}, "reply_to": "20484__2_078", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20484__2_080", "conversation_id": "20484", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Tribe.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1858", "start_times": [3702.867, 3704.189], "stop_times": [3704.189, 3723.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3702.867}, "reply_to": "20484__2_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__0_000", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 95-259.\nDarlene Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. the same.\nMr. Gekas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [0.0, 3.913, 10.889], "stop_times": [3.913, 10.889, 12.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__0_001", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves the construction of Section 701(b) of Title VII, which defines the term 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any... any agent of such person.\nWe seek review of the holding of the Seventh Circuit in this case, which was that the words, \"for each working day\", can only be construed to have meaning under a test that counts employees only on the days that they are present at work or on the days that they are on paid leave, except for salaried employees.\nAnd for salaried employees, the Seventh Circuit said it makes no difference where they are, what they're doing or how they're paid.\nWe believe that this is wrong for several reasons.\nFirst of all, because the plain text of the statute focuses on the orgoing employment relationship.\nSecond of all, because the suggestion of the Seventh Circuit and all the other courts which have considered the... the meaning of the phrase, \"for each working day\", they are wrong when they say that only this day-by-day method gives that phrase meaning.\nAnd, thirdly, because if the text is ambiguous... and there is some suggestion, just because of the stark split in the courts on this, that perhaps the statute is ambiguous... that the legislative history and the purpose intent of Congress, the policy underlying Title VII, and the EEOC's own administrative interpretation of the... of the statute and those words favor the payroll method--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [12.629, 15.441, 40.728, 60.351, 67.015, 70.738, 76.113, 90.633], "stop_times": [15.441, 40.728, 60.351, 67.015, 70.738, 76.113, 90.633, 114.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 12.629}, "reply_to": "21272__0_000", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_002", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr. Waxman, what would be an example of the kind of a person... the... the kind of job they held... who was counted under your view but not counted under the Seventy Circuit's view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [114.017], "stop_times": [123.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.017}, "reply_to": "21272__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__0_003", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, under our view, all employees who have an ongoing employment relationship would be counted.\nUnder the Seventh Circuit's test, a part-time employee, for example, who works 4 days out of the week, but not the fifth day... assuming a Monday to Friday workweek... would not be counted on a Friday.\nWith this case, we have assumed ourselves past the problem of defining the term \"workday\" or \"workweek\", and we've basically focused on the question of whether or not there is a necessity to focus on whether or not someone's at work or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [123.504, 128.029, 139.958], "stop_times": [128.029, 139.958, 155.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.504}, "reply_to": "21272__0_002", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_004", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, what if the employee is... shows up for work one day a month to do some accounting work and, therefore, is kept on the employer's so-called overall list of employees to do this stuff one day a month... that's enough--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [155.717], "stop_times": [171.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.717}, "reply_to": "21272__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_005", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, it is, because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [171.439], "stop_times": [173.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 171.439}, "reply_to": "21272__0_004", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_006", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--to count for the whole month?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [173.229], "stop_times": [174.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.229}, "reply_to": "21272__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_007", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--That's right.\nBecause there's an ongoing employment relationship.\nWe submit that it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [174.231, 174.581, 176.451], "stop_times": [174.581, 176.451, 177.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.231}, "reply_to": "21272__0_006", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_008", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, what if the person is listed, hasn't been taken off the computer base, but in fact hasn't done any work for, let's say, 4 months; do we count that person for the 4 months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [177.362], "stop_times": [186.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.362}, "reply_to": "21272__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_009", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think that that focuses on the question of whether or not, during the time that the person is not there, that person is an employee.\nThere is a body of law, both from this Court... Darden and Reid and the recent decision last year, NLRB against Town & Country, that sets forth a set of criteria having to do with control.\nAnd I would submit that, in that circumstance, where there's ambiguity because of some long period of time for which the employee is not present, that the courts would look really at the... at the circumstance of the employee under those tests of employment control... presence at work is one of them... and it doesn't really present, in our view... that hypothetical doesn't really present, in our view, the issue that's presented in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [186.909, 194.272, 205.111], "stop_times": [194.272, 205.111, 228.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.909}, "reply_to": "21272__0_008", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_010", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But there are some questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [228.697], "stop_times": [230.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.697}, "reply_to": "21272__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_011", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, it's questions, but question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [230.176], "stop_times": [232.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 230.176}, "reply_to": "21272__0_010", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_012", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Do you completely endorse the Department of Labor's regulations, adopting the payroll method for the Family Leave Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [232.008], "stop_times": [242.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.008}, "reply_to": "21272__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_013", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Yes, we have, generally.\nDo we completely endorse... endorse it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [242.224, 242.484], "stop_times": [242.484, 243.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.224}, "reply_to": "21272__0_012", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_014", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [243.856], "stop_times": [244.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.856}, "reply_to": "21272__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_015", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, we do.\nWe think that that's a very sensible application for a couple of reasons.\nIt seems to us that it has to do, in part, to the deference issue that's presented by the court... by this case, rather... and it... it... one thing that the Department of Labor regulations do suggest and do show is that this is a reasonable interpretation.\nIt's just not an interpretation that the E... EEOC has come up with.\nIt is one that the Department of Labor, on an independent statute, has come up with.\nIt's one, indeed, that Congress, in subsequent legislation, has come up with.\nIt is, indeed, one that half of the courts considering this issue have come up with.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [244.066, 244.447, 248.04, 263.961, 268.024, 273.408, 276.89, 281.534], "stop_times": [244.447, 248.04, 263.961, 268.024, 273.408, 276.89, 281.534, 281.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.066}, "reply_to": "21272__0_014", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_016", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "What does it... what does it mean when the statute says that the EEOC... it not only does not specifically confer rulemaking authority on the EEOC, but it specifically denies rulemaking authority to the EEOC?\nIsn't... isn't that a reflection in the statute that the EEOC is not to be given the... the authority to give content to the statute that most agencies possess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [281.895, 294.684], "stop_times": [294.684, 306.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 281.895}, "reply_to": "21272__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__0_017", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, clearly, under the case law, as I understand it, that is a distinction about the degree of deference that is given.\nIt seems to me, in looking at this... and Mr. Waxman, of course, can speak more authoritatively... but looking at the question of the Court's last two or three decisions in the EEOC area about deference, Commercial Office Products... and I think it's Gilbert... General Electric against Gilbert in the ARAMCO case... it seems to me that the deference issue for the EEOC is treated somewhat differently between Commercial Office Products on the one hand and ARAMCO and Gilbert on the other.\nAnd as Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [306.96, 312.927, 337.01], "stop_times": [312.927, 337.01, 337.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.96}, "reply_to": "21272__0_016", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_018", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I said that first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [337.781], "stop_times": [338.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.781}, "reply_to": "21272__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__0_019", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Yes, you did, indeed.\n[Laughter]\nI was... I was about to say--\nI was about to... not claim authoriship for that, but to attribute it to Your Honor's con... concurrence in... which case was it?\nAnd the point is I think that, whatever the test... whatever the test is, whether it's the Commercial Office Products test or the Strickland test from the... the 1940's, that the... the issue... the decision of the EEOC fares fairly well here, because... and it doesn't... the decision about deference doesn't have to turn on the question of the formality of rulemaking authority.\nBecause if you go back to the more stringent test that the Court applies, the stringent... the Strickland test--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [338.632, 350.432, 340.192, 343.035, 351.373, 372.576], "stop_times": [350.432, 340.192, 343.035, 351.373, 372.576, 377.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.632}, "reply_to": "21272__0_018", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_020", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Is it Strick... are you saying Strickland or Skidmore?\nSkidmore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [377.761, 379.603], "stop_times": [379.603, 379.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.761}, "reply_to": "21272__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__0_021", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Skidmore, that's right.\nThank you, Your Honors.\nSkidmore, from the forties.\nIn that... that case, the standard about reasonableness and the validity of the reasoning, the power of the persuasive force, it seems to me, is enhanced by the fact that the Department of Labor has reached the same conclusion; Congress, in adopting a different statute, has reached the same conclusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [379.944, 380.565, 381.306, 382.848], "stop_times": [380.565, 381.306, 382.848, 401.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 379.944}, "reply_to": "21272__0_020", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_022", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, is that any different?\nI mean Skidmore... Skidmore is, what, 1944 or something like that... pre-Administrative Procedure Act.\nAnd... and does it refer to... when it talks of deference, does it mean anything other than the deference we would give to, for example, unanimity of opinion among respected academic commentators?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [401.121, 401.262, 406.766], "stop_times": [401.262, 406.766, 417.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.121}, "reply_to": "21272__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__0_023", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [417.886], "stop_times": [419.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.886}, "reply_to": "21272__0_022", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_024", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "You know, Williston and Corbin, and if... if... you give certain deference to their views.\nDoes it mean anything more than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [419.025, 422.938], "stop_times": [422.938, 424.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.025}, "reply_to": "21272__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__0_025", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, that kind of detailed criteria is not contained in the more recent decisions on that.\nI would say that there is... there... there is some force, some rational force, to the EEOC's interpretation, whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [424.741, 430.214], "stop_times": [430.214, 439.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.741}, "reply_to": "21272__0_024", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_026", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [439.07], "stop_times": [439.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.07}, "reply_to": "21272__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__0_027", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [439.711], "stop_times": [440.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 439.711}, "reply_to": "21272__0_026", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_028", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "You're talking about rational force and not authoritative effect, which is what Chevron talks about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [440.662], "stop_times": [445.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.662}, "reply_to": "21272__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__0_029", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, I'm saying... I'm saying that if the... if the test is the Skidmore test, then it's... this regulation satisfies it, because it has rational force, internally coherent, sensibly based on the statutory language.\nAnd there is also some unanimity of opinion... perhaps not entirely unanimous, because of the Seventh Circuit and the other cases that go against it, but there is... two-thirds of the people looking at this... the Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [445.353, 459.915], "stop_times": [459.915, 471.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.353}, "reply_to": "21272__0_028", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_030", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Gekas, may I interrupt just to ask if I understood your answer to Justice O'Connor correctly?\nYou were saying that your interpretation... let's forget about deference... of this statute coincides in... with that of the EEOC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [471.983, 479.38], "stop_times": [479.38, 490.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.983}, "reply_to": "21272__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_031", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [490.906], "stop_times": [491.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.906}, "reply_to": "21272__0_030", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_032", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And then we got back... but what you're saying is that, suppose there were no EEOC, that is the interpretation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [491.207], "stop_times": [496.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.207}, "reply_to": "21272__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_033", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [496.559], "stop_times": [496.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.559}, "reply_to": "21272__0_032", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_034", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--the one that they put forward--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [496.75], "stop_times": [497.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.75}, "reply_to": "21272__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_035", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [497.641], "stop_times": [497.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.641}, "reply_to": "21272__0_034", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_036", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--is also the one that you put forward?\nBut there's one thing that you also said in your response to Justice O'Connor that puzzled me, because I thought both your interpretation and the EEOC's required that somebody be a current employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [497.871, 499.772], "stop_times": [499.772, 512.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.871}, "reply_to": "21272__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_037", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [512.591], "stop_times": [513.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.591}, "reply_to": "21272__0_036", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_038", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "So someone... the computer had to take their name off the payroll.\nI mean, one of the... one of the things you said is you could be working for the company 10 years, you leave on a Friday, you're not counted that week?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [513.042, 515.986], "stop_times": [515.986, 524.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.042}, "reply_to": "21272__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_039", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.\nWell, the question of a former employee in the... in the retaliation section is presented by the next case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [524.041, 525.313], "stop_times": [525.313, 531.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 524.041}, "reply_to": "21272__0_038", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_040", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "No, no, not... not the retaliation.\nWhether... whether you count somebody--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [531.299, 533.0], "stop_times": [533.0, 535.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.299}, "reply_to": "21272__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_041", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [535.363], "stop_times": [535.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.363}, "reply_to": "21272__0_040", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_042", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--as working for that week--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [535.952], "stop_times": [538.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.952}, "reply_to": "21272__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_043", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [538.415], "stop_times": [538.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.415}, "reply_to": "21272__0_042", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_044", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--when that person is discharged or quits on Thursday?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [538.916], "stop_times": [542.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.916}, "reply_to": "21272__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_045", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.\nWell, that's what we call the midweek employment change--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [542.527, 542.908], "stop_times": [542.908, 545.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.527}, "reply_to": "21272__0_044", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_046", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [545.372], "stop_times": [545.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.372}, "reply_to": "21272__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_047", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--if I understand the focus of your question.\nAnd the midweek employment change is the one that we say gives meaning to the term, \"for each working day\", under the test that we advocate.\nThe shorthand of it... our test is called the payroll test.\nReally, what it focuses on is the existence of the employment relationship.\nAnd the words, \"for each working day\", have meaning if you do not count a person who, in the midweek, leaves the employment relationship.\nSo, therefore, if an employee is on the payroll from... and working in an employment relationship... from Monday to Wednesday, and leaves--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [545.582, 547.172, 554.766, 557.768, 561.731, 569.726], "stop_times": [547.172, 554.766, 557.768, 561.731, 569.726, 577.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.582}, "reply_to": "21272__0_046", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_048", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Now... now, I would like to ask what sense it would make to take your person who comes in once a month for one hour and say... count that person, but not count the person who has worked, let's say, 10 hours a day for 4 days, but leaves the job permanently on the fifth day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [577.221], "stop_times": [593.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.221}, "reply_to": "21272__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__0_049", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, with any reasonable test, there are going to be hypotheticals, I think, perhaps more infrequent in practice than not, that suggest that, at the fringes, maybe the rule doesn't have intuitive sense.\nBut there's a whole range of Federal statutes... there's the tax statutes, the labor statute, OSHA statutes... there's a whole range of... of statutes that are designed to protect and include just such a person.\nA person who comes in once a month for 2 hours is... is included under those statutes.\nAnd so, as a matter of Federal scheme, there's nothing untoward in this scheme, which is one designed to protect employees from discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [593.632, 603.92, 614.198, 619.36], "stop_times": [603.92, 614.198, 619.36, 626.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 593.632}, "reply_to": "21272__0_048", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_050", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But, more specifically, you're talking about the portion of the scheme that creates a small business exemption.\nDo you think it makes much sense to call a business a small business if it has 15 full-time employees who come in 5 days a week, but... I'm sorry... 14, who... who come in 5 days a week, call it a small business, and therefore not covered by this; but if it has the same product, the same total amount of work, but, instead, has 28 people, each of whom do part-time work, and... and come in only half a week, then it becomes a large business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [626.696, 632.069], "stop_times": [632.069, 661.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.696}, "reply_to": "21272__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__0_051", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [661.128], "stop_times": [661.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.128}, "reply_to": "21272__0_050", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_052", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That doesn't seem to me to make much sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [661.338], "stop_times": [662.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.338}, "reply_to": "21272__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__0_053", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, the reason for it is because Congress had to draw a line somewhere.\nThe fact of the matter is the legislative history shows very clearly... Senator Dirksen's colloquy with his colleagues shows very clearly what they wanted was a bright-line test, not just to avoid complications in handling these cases in the EEOC and in the judiciary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [662.189, 665.642], "stop_times": [665.642, 678.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.189}, "reply_to": "21272__0_052", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_054", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, it certainly could be a bright-line test to say that the term,\n\"for each working day in each of 20 or more weeks. \"\nmeans just people who were there each working day.\nThat's a bright-line test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [678.722, 681.603, 685.095, 689.83], "stop_times": [681.603, 685.095, 689.83, 691.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.722}, "reply_to": "21272__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_055", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--If there's any experience from this case that we can gain, it is that that test, the working day test, is not a bright-line test.\nIt was an agonizing experience for us to go through the process of trying to figure out who was present at work--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [691.74, 698.005], "stop_times": [698.005, 703.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.74}, "reply_to": "21272__0_054", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_056", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, it may have been difficult to calculate, but the rule was clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [703.4], "stop_times": [708.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.4}, "reply_to": "21272__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_057", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [708.212], "stop_times": [708.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.212}, "reply_to": "21272__0_056", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_058", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "You could determine each person for each working day, could you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [708.663], "stop_times": [713.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.663}, "reply_to": "21272__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_059", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, when I say statement of... of bright-line rule, I don't mean just one that can be easily stated and capsulized in a phrase.\nI mean one that can be easily stated, but also easily applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [713.227, 720.083], "stop_times": [720.083, 723.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.227}, "reply_to": "21272__0_058", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_060", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, that's a different rationale, ease of administration.\nAnd there, you could be right... payroll plan is... is easier.\nBut I think that's a different rationale than a bright-line rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [723.784, 726.826, 730.958], "stop_times": [726.826, 730.958, 734.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.784}, "reply_to": "21272__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_061", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, I suggest... well, I suggest that, to the extent that the Senate debates focussed on ease of administration... and they did to a great extent... that's what I mean when I say \"a bright-line test\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [734.461], "stop_times": [745.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.461}, "reply_to": "21272__0_060", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_062", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Under your proposed rule or interpretation, I take it that an individual could be employed by three or four different employers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [745.15], "stop_times": [754.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.15}, "reply_to": "21272__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21272__0_063", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Absolutely correct.\nAnd the... the case law under the various labor statutes says that someone can be an agent of different masters... can be a servant of different masters.\nSo there's nothing untoward about that.\nTo amplify a little bit on my answer to Your Honor, Justice O'Connor, it seems to me that it's important to realize that these two tests are not exclusive.\nThe test that Mr. Falahee is going to advocate for the respondents includes the test that we say, because you have to be an employee, you have to be in an employment relationship to be counted for the purposes of... for the purpose of his test.\nYou go on to determine whether or not someone is at work or on leave.\nThen you go on, again, to determine whether or not they are on paid leave.\nBut it's an important analytical point to make here... that our test is included in their test.\nWe say essentially that you should stop for a variety of policy reasons and ease of administration, not just in the question of applying... saving lawyers and magistrate judges and judges... district court judges... work--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [754.617, 755.445, 765.614, 767.056, 775.55, 790.591, 794.534, 798.418, 804.031], "stop_times": [755.445, 765.614, 767.056, 775.55, 790.591, 794.534, 798.418, 804.031, 814.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.617}, "reply_to": "21272__0_062", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_064", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, I am troubled, though, by what we do with this language, \"for each working day\".\nI... just reading it, without all of these other arguments, one would tend, I think, rather naturally, to think it means what it says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [814.168, 819.211], "stop_times": [819.211, 827.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.168}, "reply_to": "21272__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__0_065", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, the... I guess our point is that you can't read, \"for each working day\", just in isolation from the rest of the statute.\nThis statute says an employer who has 15 or more employees.\nAnd I think that the Government's brief, by the Solicitor General, in this case, for the EEOC, very clearly points out, with citations to appropriate references, that the word \"has\", in the context of the other words that are put together, necessarily implies the existence of an employment relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [827.608, 834.301, 838.996], "stop_times": [834.301, 838.996, 856.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.608}, "reply_to": "21272__0_064", "speaker": "constantine_john_gekas"}
{"id": "21272__0_066", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gekas.\nMr. Waxman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [856.757, 858.467], "stop_times": [858.467, 860.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.757}, "reply_to": "21272__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__1_000", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt is the Government's position that an employer is covered by Title VII when it has an ongoing employment relationship with 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks.\nWe think that interpretation is correct for several reasons.\nFirst, this interpretation, unlike the Seventh Circuit test, fully comports with the text, which states that an employer is a person, quote, who has 15 or more employees for each working day.\nIt does not say, has 15 or more employees present for each working day, but if they're not present, count them if they are on paid leave, but not if they're on unpaid leave, unless they're salaried rather than hourly, in which case count them anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [860.4, 871.787, 885.466, 888.481, 902.802], "stop_times": [871.787, 885.466, 888.481, 902.802, 918.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.4}, "reply_to": "21272__0_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_001", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "What does... what does the term \"part-time employee\" mean?\nDoesn't it suggest that you're... you're not an employee full-time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [918.472, 921.414], "stop_times": [921.414, 924.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.472}, "reply_to": "21272__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_002", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, I would... I would think that that would be a tautology.\nIt's not defined in the statute, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [924.597, 928.7], "stop_times": [928.7, 930.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.597}, "reply_to": "21272__1_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_003", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But you... you suggested that all employees are full-time employees, even if they're part-time employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [930.834], "stop_times": [935.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.834}, "reply_to": "21272__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_004", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Oh, to... to the contrary, Justice Scalia.\nI would give you the example of... for example, a... a factory that employs 20 employees to work 2 hours a day, 6 days a week, that company is... and Sunday is not a working day... that company is covered by Title VII.\nBut if you take the same company, making the same product, and say, we're going to have the same 20 workers, but we, in order to meet increased production demand, we want them to work four 10-hour days, under the Seventh Circuit reading, that company would no longer be covered, because there would not be 15 or more employees on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [935.455, 937.438, 952.539], "stop_times": [937.438, 952.539, 970.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.455}, "reply_to": "21272__1_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_005", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "You... you... you can produce absurd results under either theory; will... will you concede that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [970.67], "stop_times": [976.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.67}, "reply_to": "21272__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_006", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [976.314], "stop_times": [976.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.314}, "reply_to": "21272__1_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_007", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Either theory will produce some?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [976.755], "stop_times": [978.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.755}, "reply_to": "21272__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_008", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I will concede, because even the devil can quote Scripture.\nYou can produce absurd results under either theory.\nBut my point... and I hope I can make it here... is that one of the central problems with the Seventh Circuit test is that it produces bizarre results even when applied to common employment situations, not just the absurd situations.\nLet me give you another example.\nA business employs 20... retail business... it employs 25 people.\nIt's open 5 days a week, downtown Washington, D.C. Business is good.\nThe owner decides he wants to open on Saturdays.\nBut because it's downtown, what he does is he asks half the employees to come in on Saturday one week, and the other half to come in on the other Saturday.\nUnder the Seventh Circuit test, that business, thereby, ipso facto, removes itself from the coverage after Title VII.\nBecause on the sixth working day, there are not 15 hourly employees present.\nOr consider the example that this very Court considered in the Skidmore case, which was previously mentioned.\nIn Skidmore, there was a factory worker who was required, on some of his days off, to remain on or near the factory, on call, unpaid, in order to be available in the event of a fire emergency.\nHe was not paid unless there was an emergency, but he was required to stay in the factory or within a few minutes of it.\nDoes this man somehow cease to be an employee when he is on call?\nPlainly, his employment relationship continues for that day.\nBut under the Respondent's test, he would, ipso facto, not be counted because he was not at work and he was not paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [978.026, 980.639, 983.591, 997.632, 998.904, 1003.258, 1007.301, 1010.225, 1017.922, 1025.746, 1030.641, 1036.914, 1051.264, 1058.059, 1062.664, 1066.504], "stop_times": [980.639, 983.591, 997.632, 998.904, 1003.258, 1007.301, 1010.225, 1017.922, 1025.746, 1030.641, 1036.914, 1051.264, 1058.059, 1062.664, 1066.504, 1072.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.026}, "reply_to": "21272__1_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_009", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But under your test, a person who is hired to come in one day a month and do some special accounting work is an employee for every day of the month, I gather?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1072.889], "stop_times": [1082.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.889}, "reply_to": "21272__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_010", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, I'm... I'm with you part of the way, Justice O'Connor.\nUnder our... let me respond.\nUnder our test, you have to look at every working day for each calendar week, in 20 weeks, and look at the number of employees that that employer has.\nNow, assuming the person comes in on a Monday and is working, if that person is not an independent contractor, that person counts as one.\nIf the person doesn't come in for the rest of the week, but has an employment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1082.486, 1086.239, 1087.46, 1098.057, 1105.213], "stop_times": [1086.239, 1087.46, 1098.057, 1105.213, 1109.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1082.486}, "reply_to": "21272__1_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_011", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--the rest of the month.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1109.527], "stop_times": [1110.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.527}, "reply_to": "21272__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_012", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Or the rest of the month... but has a employment relationship such that his job responsibilities, as an employee... he's not an independent contractor, he's an employee who works 1 day a month... the answer is yes, he is an employee for the rest of those periods of time if, applying the traditional standards that this Court applied in NLRB v. Town & Country, and Nationwide Insurance v. Darden, an employment relationship exists.\nAnd I think, actually, your example points out not an anomaly in our reading, but a reason why our reading of the statute is really quite compelled.\nIf I can just pick up on your example and expand it, that type of a situation would probably relate most often, for example, in a... a catering business, where the caterer caters small jobs and large banquets.\nSome days the caterer needs only three people to help.\nSome days the caterer needs a hundred people to help.\nAnd the caterer has a group of 80 people who ordinary... who understand that when there's work, they will work for the caterer.\nThere may not be work every day.\nAnd, even when there's work, the caterer can decide who gets called.\nIf it turns out that there is a 20-year black employee of that company who comes in and makes a complaint, saying, look, I have worked at this company longer than anybody else.\nI have more seniority and experience than anybody else.\nBut on all the... the only times I ever get called is when there is nobody else available.\nShouldn't that person, under... could Title VII possibly mean that that person would not have a bona fide employment discrimination claim?\nWhat Congress was intent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1110.426, 1134.352, 1142.819, 1155.789, 1157.912, 1160.282, 1168.627, 1169.699, 1172.922, 1184.021, 1187.444, 1192.499, 1200.343], "stop_times": [1134.352, 1142.819, 1155.789, 1157.912, 1160.282, 1168.627, 1169.699, 1172.922, 1184.021, 1187.444, 1192.499, 1200.343, 1202.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.426}, "reply_to": "21272__1_011", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_013", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But someone could be an employee... a part-time employee is an employee for purposes of bringing a Title VII complaint.\nThat doesn't mean that that person is an employee for the 15-person count.\nYou yourself have said strongly, in your brief, that the word \"employee\" can mean different things in different contexts.\nAnd so, of course, the answer is yes to your, Is this person an employee for purposes of filing a discrimination charge?\nBut the question is: Would such person be an employee for the purpose of the 15--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1202.514, 1210.26, 1214.792, 1222.599, 1230.433], "stop_times": [1210.26, 1214.792, 1222.599, 1230.433, 1236.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.514}, "reply_to": "21272__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__1_014", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Of the counting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1236.337], "stop_times": [1236.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.337}, "reply_to": "21272__1_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_015", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--And on that question, I would like to ask you, on your reading, what purpose Congress could have had... you say, Well, we do give meaning to this phrase, \"for each working day\".\nOur meaning is, if you work 10 years, but you leave employment on a Thursday, you're not counted that week.\nOr if you start on a Tuesday instead of a Monday, you're not counted.\nWhy would Congress want to exclude those people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1236.597, 1247.796, 1253.061, 1256.744], "stop_times": [1247.796, 1253.061, 1256.744, 1260.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.597}, "reply_to": "21272__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__1_016", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I hope I can answer all these questions.\nFirst, let me say it is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1260.156, 1261.418], "stop_times": [1261.418, 1262.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.156}, "reply_to": "21272__1_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_017", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That's the only question I asked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1262.68], "stop_times": [1263.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.68}, "reply_to": "21272__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__1_018", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--It is not our position that if a person quits on Friday, that person isn't counted for the week.\nThat person is counted for each working day in which he or she is employed.\nSo, in calculating the number of people who are employees for each day, that person would be counted Monday through Thursday, but not Friday.\nBut the purpose... if I understood your question, Justice Ginsburg... the purpose is why would Congress have wanted to ascribe that kind of a meaning to the words \"for each working day\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1263.441, 1269.395, 1275.401, 1282.845], "stop_times": [1269.395, 1275.401, 1282.845, 1293.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.441}, "reply_to": "21272__1_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_019", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "What... well, first, tell me what... what meaning you give to those words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1293.801], "stop_times": [1296.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.801}, "reply_to": "21272__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__1_020", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1296.754], "stop_times": [1297.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.754}, "reply_to": "21272__1_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_021", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--because you just gave me an answer that I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1297.104], "stop_times": [1298.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.104}, "reply_to": "21272__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__1_022", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Okay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1298.396], "stop_times": [1298.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.396}, "reply_to": "21272__1_021", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_023", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--is counter to what you say in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1298.994], "stop_times": [1301.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.994}, "reply_to": "21272__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__1_024", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--We, like the Respondents, give the same meaning to that word, which means that, in determining whether there are 15... the issue is 15 what +/?\nin determining whether there are 15, you need to look on a day-by-day basis.\nIf the business has 6 working days a week, you need to look, under our test, at whether for each of those days, the business had an employment relationship with 15 or more people.\nAnd the reason that Congress put that language into the statute, in the Dirksen-Mansfield amendment in the Senate, was stated by Senator Dirksen during the course of the legislative debates.\nAnd what he said is the purpose of adding the words,\n\"for each working day on 20 or more calendar weeks in the present year or the preceding year. \"\nwas to remove from coverage of Title VII seasonal workers.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1301.097, 1308.571, 1314.084, 1325.873, 1336.72, 1341.041, 1347.917, 1352.291], "stop_times": [1308.571, 1314.084, 1325.873, 1336.72, 1341.041, 1347.917, 1352.291, 1352.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.097}, "reply_to": "21272__1_023", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_025", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, \"weeks\" alone would do that.\nYou didn't... you wouldn't have to say \"for each working day\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1352.73, 1353.921], "stop_times": [1353.921, 1356.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.73}, "reply_to": "21272__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_026", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Oh, no.\nBut if you go... if you go on and look at what Senator Dirksen said... and it's cited at page 28 of our brief... Senator Dirksen explained, quote, the definition of employer was amended to provide a specific test of computing the number of employees of an employer.\nIn other words, if you just said you have to have 15 or more employees in 20 weeks, there are a number of different counting methods one might use in order to determine it.\nFor example, you could say just add up the total number of people who did any work that week, however little, and use that.\nOr add up the total number of people that were employees on the beginning of the week.\nWhat Congress said specifically was, We want to tell you how to count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1356.984, 1357.214, 1373.845, 1383.101, 1388.638, 1392.979], "stop_times": [1357.214, 1373.845, 1383.101, 1388.638, 1392.979, 1397.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.984}, "reply_to": "21272__1_025", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_027", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That's fine, but that difference would have nothing to do with seasonality versus nonseasonality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1397.243], "stop_times": [1401.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.243}, "reply_to": "21272__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_028", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Oh, I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1401.965], "stop_times": [1402.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.965}, "reply_to": "21272__1_027", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_029", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "The 20-week provision, by itself, takes care of the seasonal worker problem.\nAnd... and \"for each working day\" just... just decides, both for seasonal workers and nonseasonal workers, you know, how many people you're going to be counting.\nBut I don't see how--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1402.586, 1407.949, 1416.924], "stop_times": [1407.949, 1416.924, 1417.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.586}, "reply_to": "21272__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_030", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1417.565], "stop_times": [1417.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1417.565}, "reply_to": "21272__1_029", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_031", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--\"# each working day\" has anything to do with seasonality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1417.875], "stop_times": [1420.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.875}, "reply_to": "21272__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_032", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I... I have to... I have to respectfully disrespect... disagree with you, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1420.717], "stop_times": [1425.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.717}, "reply_to": "21272__1_031", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_033", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, you do.\n[Laughter]\nBut tell... tell me... tell me why, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1425.872, 1426.703, 1427.913], "stop_times": [1426.703, 1427.913, 1430.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.872}, "reply_to": "21272__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__1_034", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I respect you, and I disagree with you.\n[Laughter]\nThe question is, when Congress was dealing with the problem of seasonal workers, which the legislative history shows it was extremely concerned with, it was going to deal with it with... with general language or with precise language.\nIf it had just said if you have 15 or more work... workers in 20 or more weeks, you're covered.\nBut it went beyond that.\nIt gave specific meaning to the way in which employers must count during those weeks.\nIt is not one of the 20 weeks, unless for each working day of that week you have 15 or more employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1430.615, 1432.477, 1433.538, 1446.869, 1453.942, 1455.564, 1462.259], "stop_times": [1432.477, 1433.538, 1446.869, 1453.942, 1455.564, 1462.259, 1469.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.615}, "reply_to": "21272__1_033", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_035", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, I guess my concern is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1469.495], "stop_times": [1470.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.495}, "reply_to": "21272__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_036", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "It just applies an accounting method.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1470.875], "stop_times": [1471.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1470.875}, "reply_to": "21272__1_035", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_037", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--is how you read into it an employment relationship for each such day, and you find an employment relationship even in situations where somebody isn't there for months, but stays on some convenient, little payroll, in case, sometime in the future, hauled in to be a substitute for something or other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1471.215], "stop_times": [1491.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.215}, "reply_to": "21272__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_038", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, in that instance, Your Honor, the Court would have to address the question of whether, in fact, that was an employee, applying whatever standard that this Court will announce in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1491.277], "stop_times": [1501.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.277}, "reply_to": "21272__1_037", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_039", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But applying your standard, it's an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1501.095], "stop_times": [1503.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.095}, "reply_to": "21272__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_040", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--It may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1503.346], "stop_times": [1503.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.346}, "reply_to": "21272__1_039", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_041", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "He's on that employer's list--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1503.736], "stop_times": [1504.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.736}, "reply_to": "21272__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_042", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--It may very well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1504.878], "stop_times": [1505.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1504.878}, "reply_to": "21272__1_041", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_043", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--and might come back some day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1505.469], "stop_times": [1506.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.469}, "reply_to": "21272__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_044", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--It may very well not be an employee.\nIf it's somebody who works for me the first Tuesday of the summer, has no expectation of coming back on a particular day--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1506.549, 1508.051], "stop_times": [1508.051, 1514.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1506.549}, "reply_to": "21272__1_043", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_045", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "He expects to come back the first Tuesday of every summer, or at least occasionally during the year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1514.125], "stop_times": [1519.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.125}, "reply_to": "21272__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_046", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--And my... my response to you is that if an employer chooses to operate his business that way, that is, by using large numbers of intermittent employees who come regularly but intermittently, that employer should--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1519.059], "stop_times": [1530.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.059}, "reply_to": "21272__1_045", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_047", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Not large numbers.\nWe're talking about an employer where the margin is 14 or 15, and when do we count.\nAnd it seems to me that your application of... of when there's an employment relationship is a very loose one, indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1530.076, 1530.277, 1535.539], "stop_times": [1530.277, 1535.539, 1543.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1530.076}, "reply_to": "21272__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__1_048", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, I do think... with respect to the 14 and 15, there has to be a line anywhere.\nBut... but my point is that the purpose of setting the number at 25 and then 15... and Congress also considered 8... had to do with preserving the intimate mom-and-pop business, and those intimate work environments in which everybody knows each other, and it's... it would be wrong to impose upon them the scrutiny of Title VII.\nIf an employer chooses to conduct his business by using lots and lots of different people, thereby employing lots and lots of different relationships, Congress has decided that yes, that employer may not discriminate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1543.836, 1548.25, 1567.153], "stop_times": [1548.25, 1567.153, 1578.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.836}, "reply_to": "21272__1_047", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_049", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr. Waxman, may I take another example, which I take it might be a more common, seasonal practice?\nAnd that would be of... of hiring, say, retired individuals to work for a month or two during agricultural... picking apples, things like that.\nIf... if... if an individual... let's say a retired individual... is hired for a month every fall by his neighbor to pick apples and so on, and at the end of the month, the... the two people say, okay... one says, I'll be back in 11 month, and the other one says, I'll expect you September 1st, that's a... I suppose that would be a classic example of the seasonal employee.\nAnd yet, on... on your theory, I suppose there would be a continuing employment relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1578.54, 1584.114, 1593.089, 1617.824], "stop_times": [1584.114, 1593.089, 1617.824, 1623.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.54}, "reply_to": "21272__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__1_050", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "There--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1623.768], "stop_times": [1624.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1623.768}, "reply_to": "21272__1_049", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_051", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And... and why wouldn't that run counter to what the Dirksen amendment was intended to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1624.039], "stop_times": [1627.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.039}, "reply_to": "21272__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__1_052", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, this... this employer... there are a lot of plausible explanations.\nThis employer, himself, during the other 11 months, may be employing 15 or more people working on his farm or doing any other thing.\nSo the issue may not come up.\nBut if the issue does come up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1627.681, 1630.345, 1637.018, 1638.38], "stop_times": [1630.345, 1637.018, 1638.38, 1639.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1627.681}, "reply_to": "21272__1_051", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_053", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, let's assume it does come up.\nLet's assume it does come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1639.572, 1639.802], "stop_times": [1639.802, 1640.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.572}, "reply_to": "21272__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__1_054", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1640.994], "stop_times": [1641.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1640.994}, "reply_to": "21272__1_053", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_055", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "It's... it's another marginal case.\nThat's a classic example of the seasonal employee, but, on your theory, he would be a... a continuing employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1641.935, 1642.967], "stop_times": [1642.967, 1648.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.935}, "reply_to": "21272__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__1_056", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--If I were... if... I... I think a very creditable argument could be made in that instance, if I were litigating a case, that because Congress meant to exclude seasonal businesses, there was not an employment relationship during the intervening 11 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1648.783], "stop_times": [1661.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1648.783}, "reply_to": "21272__1_055", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_057", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, then... then what is the distinction you're drawing between Justice O'Connor's once a month... one day a month, and... and the one month a year?\nIs it... is it a concept of... of seasonality as opposed to what, periodicity or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1661.63, 1670.576], "stop_times": [1670.576, 1677.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.63}, "reply_to": "21272__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__1_058", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, I think... I think applying Federal law, construing the definition of employer as this Court will interpret it, this... a... a court... or the EEOC would have to determine whether there was in fact a real, ongoing employment relationship.\nAnd many courts would say no in that instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1677.321, 1691.851], "stop_times": [1691.851, 1693.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1677.321}, "reply_to": "21272__1_057", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_059", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr. Waxman--\n--In that regard, can you tell me, is the term \"payroll\" a fixed, stable, knowable, juridical term in tax law or in some other area of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1693.653, 1694.154], "stop_times": [1694.154, 1704.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.653}, "reply_to": "21272__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21272__1_060", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1704.092], "stop_times": [1704.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1704.092}, "reply_to": "21272__1_059", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_061", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "We refer to the payroll method and the payroll.\nIs... is there some very clear definition of what that is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1704.513, 1706.943], "stop_times": [1706.943, 1710.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.513}, "reply_to": "21272__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21272__1_062", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--There is no... to my knowledge, Justice Kennedy, there is no fixed method.\nAnd the word... the use of the word \"payroll\" to describe our test is in fact really not very accurate.\nOur... we look at the point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1710.044, 1713.978, 1719.093], "stop_times": [1713.978, 1719.093, 1720.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1710.044}, "reply_to": "21272__1_061", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_063", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Mr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1720.765], "stop_times": [1721.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.765}, "reply_to": "21272__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__1_064", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1721.967], "stop_times": [1722.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1721.967}, "reply_to": "21272__1_063", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21272__1_065", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr. Falahee, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1722.425], "stop_times": [1724.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.425}, "reply_to": "21272__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__2_000", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue before this Court is whether Congress, back in 1964, intended to subject certain small businesses to Federal regulation under Title VII.\nCongress had the authority to subject virtually all employers to that regulation, but Congress specifically chose not to do so.\nCongress chose to exclude small businesses by looking to the size of the business's work force.\nIn other words, a small business was defined with respect to the number of employees it has working for each day.\nNothing in the language of the statute, nothing in the legislative history, no canons of construction, nor principles of deference to administrative rulings or agency rulings, supports the Government's... the EEOC's position.\nYour Honors, I believe the accurate test to focus on here, once again, is the size of an employee's business.\nCongress chose to measure... or the yardstick that Congress chose was the number of employees who were working for an employee, not the number--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1724.418, 1738.247, 1750.105, 1759.41, 1767.505, 1775.23, 1791.812, 1801.877], "stop_times": [1738.247, 1750.105, 1759.41, 1767.505, 1775.23, 1791.812, 1801.877, 1813.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.418}, "reply_to": "21272__1_065", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_001", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr. Falahee, was... was there any model for that?\nI mean, the... the EEOC does point us to this Unemployment Compensation Act to support their way of counting.\nWas there any other statute before Title VII that said you're not... you don't count as an employee unless you... you are there every day of the workweek?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1813.617, 1815.939, 1824.854], "stop_times": [1815.939, 1824.854, 1836.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.617}, "reply_to": "21272__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_002", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Your Honor, I'm not aware of any such... of any such prior statute that Congress would have looked to.\nHowever, the phrase that's before this Court, EEOC's argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1836.492, 1844.216], "stop_times": [1844.216, 1860.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.492}, "reply_to": "21272__2_001", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_003", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Is there any similar exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act of small business, 15 or more employers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1860.378], "stop_times": [1867.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.378}, "reply_to": "21272__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__2_004", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I'm aware of no... no exemption that's similar to... to this, Your Honor, no.\nNo.\nWhile it is clear that... that Congress borrowed the 20-week... it is clear that Congress borrowed the 20-week concept from the Unemployment Compensation Act, but the language in the Unemployment Compensation Act is markedly different from the language that ultimately found its way into Title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1867.411, 1871.985, 1873.324], "stop_times": [1871.985, 1873.324, 1891.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1867.411}, "reply_to": "21272__2_003", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_005", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, now, there is identical language now in the Family Leave Act, is there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1891.857], "stop_times": [1897.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.857}, "reply_to": "21272__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_006", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1897.193], "stop_times": [1898.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.193}, "reply_to": "21272__2_005", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_007", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And what is the result there?\nAre there specific regulations and so forth that make that clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1898.852, 1900.795], "stop_times": [1900.795, 1905.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.852}, "reply_to": "21272__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_008", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Congress has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1905.439], "stop_times": [1906.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1905.439}, "reply_to": "21272__2_007", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_009", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "The... the payroll method is used, as it's called?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1906.972], "stop_times": [1909.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.972}, "reply_to": "21272__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_010", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Congress has authorized the EEOC to promulgate regulations for purposes of the Family and Medical Leave Act.\nAnd pursuant to those regulations, Your Honor, the payroll method, as it's been described, is the method that the EEOC had advocated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1909.502, 1916.969], "stop_times": [1916.969, 1924.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.502}, "reply_to": "21272__2_009", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_011", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And that same construction, apparently, is going to apply in ADA and ADEA cases, as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1924.756], "stop_times": [1933.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.756}, "reply_to": "21272__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_012", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Arguably it could.\nI believe the... the distinction, however, between the Family and Medical Leave Act and between... between the Family and Medical Leave Act and between Title VII, the case before this Court, is that, in Title VII, Congress specifically declined to authorize the EEOC to promulgate any regulations other than procedural regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1933.681, 1935.541], "stop_times": [1935.541, 1956.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.681}, "reply_to": "21272__2_011", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_013", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But it is strange, is it not, that at the end of the day, you might end up with the payroll method used under the Family Leave Act, ADA, ADAEA, and a different one under Title VII.\nI... I find that a little troublesome.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1956.275, 1966.423], "stop_times": [1966.423, 1968.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.275}, "reply_to": "21272__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_014", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "The possibility of arriving at inconsistent results does indeed exist.\nHowever, I believe that the focus in this case needs to be on the definition of 1964, not what Congress might have intended decades later, when the Family and Medical Leave Act was... was adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1968.342, 1975.849], "stop_times": [1975.849, 1999.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.342}, "reply_to": "21272__2_013", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_015", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Do the Family Medical Leave Act regulations give a clear definition of what an employment relationship consists of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [1999.024], "stop_times": [2007.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.024}, "reply_to": "21272__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_016", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I don't believe they do, Your Honor.\nI don't believe they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2007.92, 2009.863], "stop_times": [2009.863, 2011.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2007.92}, "reply_to": "21272__2_015", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_017", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "May I--\n--Of course, the... the regulations under the Family and Medical Leave Act, if they are interpreting the very language that exists here, and if we were to interpret that language as meaning it... it is not the payroll plan, but it's the day-by-day system that you advocate, it may well be that the regulations under the Family and Medical Leave Act would exceed the agency's authority.\nIt would just be unreasonable.\nI mean, if... if there is in... that inconsistency, what that inconsistency may... may well prove is the invalidity of the regulations under the other Act, not the invalidity of your position under this Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2011.703, 2011.974, 2033.898, 2034.587], "stop_times": [2011.974, 2033.898, 2034.587, 2045.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.703}, "reply_to": "21272__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_018", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I would... I would agree with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2045.546], "stop_times": [2048.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2045.546}, "reply_to": "21272__2_017", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_019", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I would think you would.\n[Laughter]\nMay I ask you--\n--But, Mr. Falahee, you... you do recognize that there is at least some legislative history that some people might read that seems very heavily to support the... what has been called the payroll method in connection with the Family Leave Act?\nI mean there's a blank for Title VII.\nWe don't why they wrote those words.\nBut for the Family Leave Act, we do have legislative history, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2048.068, 2048.719, 2050.001, 2050.672, 2063.531, 2065.163, 2067.384], "stop_times": [2048.719, 2050.001, 2050.672, 2063.531, 2065.163, 2067.384, 2073.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.068}, "reply_to": "21272__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_020", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2073.038], "stop_times": [2074.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.038}, "reply_to": "21272__2_019", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_021", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "On what those words... at least some legislators... thought they meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2074.467], "stop_times": [2079.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.467}, "reply_to": "21272__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_022", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Yes.\nThe legislative history of... of Title VII is... and in particular, the legislative history that relates to the phrase before this Court, \"for each working day\", is unusually sparse.\nThe phrase, VII.\nHowever, the later Congress... 30 years later... in enacting... in enacting the Family and Medical Leave Act, did conduct what I... I suspect would be a more... could be described as a more comprehensive debate, or a more detailed discussion of what this terminology meant.\nUnlike the Family... unlike the Family and Medical Leave Act, there are no committee reports for Title VII.\nAnd those are the types of... those are the types of sources that this Court has historically looked upon as the most compelling or the most persuasive legislative history.\nAnd the guides... those guides, those precise guides that this Court has relied upon heavily in prior cases are absent in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2079.302, 2081.052, 2094.002, 2106.43, 2126.723, 2135.91, 2145.065], "stop_times": [2081.052, 2094.002, 2106.43, 2126.723, 2135.91, 2145.065, 2151.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.302}, "reply_to": "21272__2_021", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_023", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "May... may I ask you two questions that I'd just like to get your views on?\nAm I correct in understanding your position, that 15 employees don't have to be the same employees on each of the 15... each day of the working week, do they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2151.448, 2154.71], "stop_times": [2154.71, 2163.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.448}, "reply_to": "21272__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_024", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "No, they do not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2163.616], "stop_times": [2164.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.616}, "reply_to": "21272__2_023", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_025", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "You could have two sets of work force that... one works two days and the other works 3 days, but on each of the days, they'll be 15, but they're a different 15 every--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2164.637], "stop_times": [2172.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.637}, "reply_to": "21272__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_026", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Except... except for... where I would differ with... with Your Honor on that is I think there can only be a single work force, not multiple work forces.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2172.625], "stop_times": [2184.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.625}, "reply_to": "21272__2_025", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_027", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--No... but why not?\nWhy not?\nWhy couldn't you have two work forces, one of them work Monday and Tuesday and the other one works Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and each of them has more than 15 people that work full time for the days they work?\nOn each working day, the... the statutory definition would be satisfied, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2184.202, 2186.242, 2186.503, 2197.1], "stop_times": [2186.242, 2186.503, 2197.1, 2200.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.202}, "reply_to": "21272__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_028", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2200.743], "stop_times": [2202.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.743}, "reply_to": "21272__2_027", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_029", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2202.266], "stop_times": [2203.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.266}, "reply_to": "21272__2_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_030", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, it would.\nIt--\n--It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2203.004, 2203.325, 2204.767], "stop_times": [2203.325, 2204.767, 2205.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.004}, "reply_to": "21272__2_029", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_031", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Then my second question is, is it not possible that the words, \"for each working day\", simply fulfill the function of deciding how long the workweek is?\nBecause some workweeks are 5-day, some are 4, some are 6, and you have to know, for each working day in the week, in order to determine how long the week is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2205.588, 2214.426], "stop_times": [2214.426, 2223.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.588}, "reply_to": "21272__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_032", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--That would be a... a permissible interpretation of the phrase, \"for each working day\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2223.051], "stop_times": [2227.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.051}, "reply_to": "21272__2_031", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_033", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And without that phrase in it, you wouldn't know whether the whole week had been covered or not?\nHe can't say every day of the week, because people... nobody works 7 days a week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2227.833, 2231.106], "stop_times": [2231.106, 2235.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.833}, "reply_to": "21272__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_034", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I... I... I don't believe there would be a way to determine that, Your Honor, no.\nTo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2235.059, 2238.289], "stop_times": [2238.289, 2239.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.059}, "reply_to": "21272__2_033", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_035", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, it's been... it's been argued, or suggested, that the payroll method is much easier to work with.\nI'm going to ask you if you agree with that, perhaps with an example.\nIf we were to adopt the payroll method, and an employer had an employee who worked a few weeks in July, and might or might not come back... it was little bit un... unclear... does the employer tell the payroll department, Now push the delete button on the computer, and take this person's name off?\nIs it subject to some manipulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2239.981, 2246.547, 2250.638, 2271.321], "stop_times": [2246.547, 2250.638, 2271.321, 2272.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.981}, "reply_to": "21272__2_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21272__2_036", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well, I... I believe Your... Your Honor's question presents a hypothetical similar to the one suggested by... by Justice O'Connor.\nI suppose, under that hypothetical set of facts, it would really determine... or what would... what would determine the outcome is whether the employer did call up his... his payroll department or his automated payroll service and instruct the powers that be to remove John Smith or Jane Doe because they're no longer here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2272.894, 2281.018], "stop_times": [2281.018, 2300.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.894}, "reply_to": "21272__2_035", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_037", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Is there some clerical reason that people are kept on the payroll, because there's a certain amount of information, W-2 forms, et cetera, that it... it's... so it's just much easier to carry them forward than to keep putting them back on and taking them off every time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2300.422], "stop_times": [2313.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.422}, "reply_to": "21272__2_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21272__2_038", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, while... while an... an employer is required to maintain certain information for tax purposes, particularly to generate W-2 forms at the end of the year, I think the... the answer to... to Your Honor's question would really depend on what type of a payroll service was... was being utilized.\nI think that could probably differ from case to case, depending upon... upon the method of maintaining the payroll.\nAnd even with respect to an automated payroll system, I suggest that, depending on the way that system works, there could be different outcomes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2313.389, 2329.551, 2337.177], "stop_times": [2329.551, 2337.177, 2344.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.389}, "reply_to": "21272__2_037", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_039", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "While... while I have you, in connection with Justice Stevens's question... because I was thinking of the same thing when the Solicitor General was arguing... suppose you had an employer that worked a 10-hour day, 4 days a week.\nThose... and there were 15 employees on each of those days, and they were all the same employees... they... they would be covered under the Act, would they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2344.772, 2358.252], "stop_times": [2358.252, 2366.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.772}, "reply_to": "21272__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21272__2_040", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Under... under our approach, yes.\nYes.\nThose employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2366.306, 2368.189, 2368.807], "stop_times": [2368.189, 2368.807, 2370.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.306}, "reply_to": "21272__2_039", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_041", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Because, 4 working days, and they're there all... for each working day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2370.129], "stop_times": [2375.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.129}, "reply_to": "21272__2_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21272__2_042", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2375.152], "stop_times": [2376.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.152}, "reply_to": "21272__2_041", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_043", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But they wouldn't be covered if... if the... if the business stayed open a fifth day and brought in only one employee, right?\nIn fact, that'd be a very good way of making sure you're not covered; just keep the business open on Saturday and... and have one employee come in, even for 1 hour on Saturday?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2376.524, 2384.82], "stop_times": [2384.82, 2394.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.524}, "reply_to": "21272__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_044", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "While the... while the result is theoretically possible, I think the issue that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2394.377], "stop_times": [2400.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.377}, "reply_to": "21272__2_043", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_045", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "It's very smart.\nI'd advise a client to do it--\n[Laughter]\n--theoretically possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2400.241, 2401.38, 2402.772, 2403.683], "stop_times": [2401.38, 2402.772, 2403.683, 2405.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.241}, "reply_to": "21272__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_046", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I... I... I believe that the... that the hypothetical Your Honor posits raises a somewhat different question.\nAnd that is, what is... what is a working day?\nIs... is it a working day?\nIn other words, is... does a working day happen?\nIs there a working day when an employer does not conduct its full operations?\nAnd I believe there... there have been some lower court cases recognizing that, in... in... in hypotheticals similar to Your Honor's, that fifth day would not be counted as a working day, to avoid precisely that result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2405.466, 2411.23, 2413.931, 2416.303, 2421.138, 2425.27], "stop_times": [2411.23, 2413.931, 2416.303, 2421.138, 2425.27, 2439.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.466}, "reply_to": "21272__2_045", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_047", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But, Mr. Falahee, I'm confused by your answer to Justice Kennedy's question, because I thought that it would be the other way on your method.\nThat is, take someone's 5-day week... regular 5-day week... but this person works 10 hours a day, 4 days a week.\nI thought, under your method, that person would not count as an employee, because that person is... is not employed for each working day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2439.259, 2446.984, 2453.719], "stop_times": [2446.984, 2453.719, 2462.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.259}, "reply_to": "21272__2_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_048", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nUnder... under the... under Justice Kennedy's hypothetical, the count would be 15 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.\nAnd, apart from the... the four... from the working day issue, the issue of whether that fifth day is a working day, as Justice Scalia had... has asked, that one individual who comes in on Friday would be... would be counted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2462.054, 2463.837, 2473.254], "stop_times": [2463.837, 2473.254, 2487.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2462.054}, "reply_to": "21272__2_047", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_049", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Who doesn't come in on Friday.\nBut the... the question that I have is you have 15 every day for... for 4 days.\nMost of them work 8 hours.\nBut there's one person who works 10 hours, and so doesn't come in on the last day.\nSo, on the last... the fifth day, they're only 14 people.\nI thought, under your method, that employee... employee... that employer is not employing 15 or more people for each working day; am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2487.554, 2488.654, 2498.882, 2500.432, 2505.356, 2508.279], "stop_times": [2488.654, 2498.882, 2500.432, 2505.356, 2508.279, 2519.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.554}, "reply_to": "21272__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_050", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "No.\nIn... in that particular week, in a case in which the 15th individual does not report for work on Friday, that individual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2519.736, 2520.147], "stop_times": [2520.147, 2528.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.736}, "reply_to": "21272__2_049", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_051", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "So, in any week, somebody who comes in 4 days a week, 10 hours a day, is not counted as an employee for that week for this purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2528.491], "stop_times": [2537.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.491}, "reply_to": "21272__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_052", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--That... that individual would be counted for the days he or she worked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2537.768], "stop_times": [2541.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2537.768}, "reply_to": "21272__2_051", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_053", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Is... but that individual would never be someone who has worked for each working day.\nSo if you had that person the whole year... just what I described... 15 people, but one of them works 4 days a week, 10 hours a day, that employer would not come within Title VII, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2541.961, 2547.713], "stop_times": [2547.713, 2562.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.961}, "reply_to": "21272__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_054", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That... under that... under that set of facts, carried forward for 52 weeks, that... that person would not be considered an... an employer for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2562.144], "stop_times": [2571.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2562.144}, "reply_to": "21272__2_053", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_055", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "The employer would not be covered by Title VII, because it would not have 15 or more employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2571.969], "stop_times": [2576.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.969}, "reply_to": "21272__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_056", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--That is... that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2576.533], "stop_times": [2577.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.533}, "reply_to": "21272__2_055", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_057", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But that... that's true unless--\n--I think you answered Justice Ginsburg differently from the way you answered me on whether they have to be the same employees.\nThat's right.\nI thought you agreed with me, they don't have to be the same 15... you have a different 15 every day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2577.522, 2579.004, 2582.047, 2582.237], "stop_times": [2579.004, 2582.047, 2582.237, 2586.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.522}, "reply_to": "21272__2_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_058", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "The same... the same individual need not report each day to be considered an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2586.338], "stop_times": [2594.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2586.338}, "reply_to": "21272__2_057", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_059", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "They're an employee on each day that he or she reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2594.546], "stop_times": [2597.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.546}, "reply_to": "21272__2_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_060", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2597.1], "stop_times": [2597.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.1}, "reply_to": "21272__2_059", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_061", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And they can be... you can have 15 on Monday and an entirely different 15 on Tuesday and Wednesday and so forth and still come within the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2597.879], "stop_times": [2605.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.879}, "reply_to": "21272__2_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_062", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2605.614], "stop_times": [2606.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.614}, "reply_to": "21272__2_061", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_063", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yeah, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2606.964], "stop_times": [2607.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.964}, "reply_to": "21272__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_064", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2607.615], "stop_times": [2607.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.615}, "reply_to": "21272__2_063", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_065", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But I think Justice Ginsburg was--\n--But my example was... was--\n--assuming the contrary.\n--if on one day there are only 14, because the person who would be the 15th man works overtime during the week in order to get the fifth day off.\nSo I guess it's not the same as the... the question that Justice Stevens was asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2607.835, 2609.057, 2609.435, 2610.186, 2621.863], "stop_times": [2609.057, 2609.435, 2610.186, 2621.863, 2629.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.835}, "reply_to": "21272__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_066", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2629.54], "stop_times": [2629.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.54}, "reply_to": "21272__2_065", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_067", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "You're telling me that an employer... same number of hours, but somebody who works 4 days a week... is never counted... will never qualify that employer, whereas somebody who worked for that... who... who worked 2 hours a day each day a week, that employer would be under Title VII... if I understand your method correctly... is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2629.68], "stop_times": [2652.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.68}, "reply_to": "21272__2_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_068", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--The focus is on counting the number of individuals, not the particular individuals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2652.706], "stop_times": [2657.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.706}, "reply_to": "21272__2_067", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_069", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Right.\nSo, on... on one day, if you have 14 workers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2657.329, 2658.36], "stop_times": [2658.36, 2663.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.329}, "reply_to": "21272__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_070", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2663.313], "stop_times": [2663.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.313}, "reply_to": "21272__2_069", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_071", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--because you're missing the worker who was there 10 hours a day for 4 days--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2663.864], "stop_times": [2669.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.864}, "reply_to": "21272__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_072", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2669.107], "stop_times": [2669.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.107}, "reply_to": "21272__2_071", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_073", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--that's one employer.\nThat employer is not covered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2669.727, 2670.618], "stop_times": [2670.618, 2671.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.727}, "reply_to": "21272__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_074", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That would be correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2671.75], "stop_times": [2673.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2671.75}, "reply_to": "21272__2_073", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_075", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But, then, you have another employer who has the same 14 who show up for 8 hours a day, and then a 15th who comes in every day for 2 hours, that one is covered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2673.45], "stop_times": [2683.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.45}, "reply_to": "21272__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_076", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That... that... under that scenario, the employer would be subject to Title VII, yes, Your Honor.\nAgain, because the... the focus... the... the... the focus that... that Congress had, in terms of measuring what is a small business, looked to the size of the employer's work force for each working day.\nAnd that work force could vary during... during the course of the week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2683.688, 2688.81, 2702.509], "stop_times": [2688.81, 2702.509, 2707.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.688}, "reply_to": "21272__2_075", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_077", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, I guess--\n--Of course, the--\n--the main difference between you and the other side is what counts as an employment relationship on each day.\nAnd you say what counts is only presence that day.\nAnd they say no, if you have someone who is regularly here 2 hours a day for 4 days, that continues an employment relationship for counting purposes on the days they don't appear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2707.273, 2708.663, 2708.943, 2717.589, 2723.054], "stop_times": [2708.663, 2708.943, 2717.589, 2723.054, 2738.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.273}, "reply_to": "21272__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_078", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2738.723], "stop_times": [2739.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.723}, "reply_to": "21272__2_077", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_079", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I mean, that seems to be the main difference, is what counts as an employment relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2739.725], "stop_times": [2744.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.725}, "reply_to": "21272__2_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_080", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Your Honor, our test does not focus upon the existence of an employment relationship whatsoever.\nThe EEOC's test--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2744.226, 2750.711], "stop_times": [2750.711, 2752.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.226}, "reply_to": "21272__2_079", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_081", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, you agree that's the main point of difference between you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2752.571], "stop_times": [2755.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.571}, "reply_to": "21272__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_082", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--As... as to the focus, yes, Your Honor.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2755.663, 2758.367], "stop_times": [2758.367, 2759.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.663}, "reply_to": "21272__2_081", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_083", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, except you don't really say \"presence\".\nThat's not the... the... you would say \"compensation\", because you count salaried workers who get compensated for that day, whether they show up or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2759.058, 2761.241], "stop_times": [2761.241, 2770.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.058}, "reply_to": "21272__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_084", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2770.097], "stop_times": [2771.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.097}, "reply_to": "21272__2_083", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_085", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And you also... you also count workers who are on paid vacation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2771.215], "stop_times": [2777.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.215}, "reply_to": "21272__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_086", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2777.75], "stop_times": [2779.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.75}, "reply_to": "21272__2_085", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_087", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "So it's really... the... the employer relationship you focus on is compensation for that day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2779.151], "stop_times": [2785.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.151}, "reply_to": "21272__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_088", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2785.475], "stop_times": [2786.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.475}, "reply_to": "21272__2_087", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_089", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I... I wonder if you... if you--\n--May I just add one question?\nSupposing you counted the days for purposes of counting the... calculating a Christmas bonus, but that's the only thing it counts for, employee or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2786.496, 2787.977, 2790.898], "stop_times": [2787.977, 2790.898, 2799.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.496}, "reply_to": "21272__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_090", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I'm not sure I understand the question, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2799.766], "stop_times": [2801.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2799.766}, "reply_to": "21272__2_089", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_091", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, if it's compensation... he doesn't show up at work on any Fridays, but in calculating eligibility for the Christmas bonus at the end of the year, they count all the days he was on the payroll.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2801.637], "stop_times": [2811.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.637}, "reply_to": "21272__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_092", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, if the... if the Christmas bonus test used the same language as Title VII, I believe we would have to apply the same test.\nI think... I think it would really depend on what the... what the language of the Christmas bonus policy was, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2811.454, 2820.728], "stop_times": [2820.728, 2825.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.454}, "reply_to": "21272__2_091", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_093", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, the bonus was you... you get a dollar a day for every day you're on the payroll, even though you didn't work certain days.\nUnder your compensation test, it'd seem to me he'd be an employee.\nThat's different from showing up at work, because you... I think you agreed with Justice Scalia, your test is not presence, because you take people on sick leave and so forth.\nBut if your test is compensation, it seems to me that any element of compensation that would accrue to a person on the payroll at the end of the year or for... for any... any benefit whatsoever, would make that person an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2825.903, 2832.766, 2836.4, 2844.413], "stop_times": [2832.766, 2836.4, 2844.413, 2856.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.903}, "reply_to": "21272__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_094", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nNo.\nThe... the... the... the concept of a... of a Christmas bonus, as... as I understand it, is... is typically an extra check at the end of the year.\nThat if... if... if that check is earned, if you will, I suspect, in one broader sense, it's earned pro rata for... for a period of employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2856.401, 2859.404, 2859.904, 2867.651], "stop_times": [2859.404, 2859.904, 2867.651, 2880.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.401}, "reply_to": "21272__2_093", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_095", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "No; the only you have to do to earn it is be on the payroll.\nThat's the point, see.\nAnd there are... there are arrangements like that, where you accrue so much vacation pay because of days on the payroll.\nI mean, you've... you've agreed, I think, if you're paid for vacation, those days would count?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2880.899, 2881.79, 2883.26, 2888.585], "stop_times": [2881.79, 2883.26, 2888.585, 2891.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.899}, "reply_to": "21272__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_096", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2891.708], "stop_times": [2892.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.708}, "reply_to": "21272__2_095", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_097", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And I don't know why, then days on which you accrue additional vacation pay, only because you're on the payroll, wouldn't also count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2892.727], "stop_times": [2900.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.727}, "reply_to": "21272__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_098", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2900.874], "stop_times": [2901.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.874}, "reply_to": "21272__2_097", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_099", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Maybe there's a good reason, but I don't see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2901.753], "stop_times": [2903.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.753}, "reply_to": "21272__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_100", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Because compensation, I believe, is a... is a better measure of the employer's work force for each working day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2903.175], "stop_times": [2913.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.175}, "reply_to": "21272__2_099", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_101", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But that is... but that is compensation.\nWhy don't you give this one away?\nI mean--\n[Laughter]\n--if, indeed, the Christmas bonus is based on a day-by-day computation, and if you were there X number of days you get a higher bonus, you're being compensated for that day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2913.11, 2914.322, 2915.554, 2916.125, 2917.387], "stop_times": [2914.322, 2915.554, 2916.125, 2917.387, 2927.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.11}, "reply_to": "21272__2_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_102", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "That would be correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2927.741], "stop_times": [2928.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.741}, "reply_to": "21272__2_101", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_103", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And you would count... you would count that, then?\nAnyway, my point is you don't have to be there.\nYou just have to be on the payroll?\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2928.843, 2930.376, 2930.676, 2931.137], "stop_times": [2930.376, 2930.676, 2931.137, 2931.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2928.843}, "reply_to": "21272__2_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_104", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "For purposes of a Christmas bonus, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2931.537], "stop_times": [2934.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.537}, "reply_to": "21272__2_103", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_105", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "If it were done that way, and you were getting compensation for that Friday, even though you didn't come to work, you would have to count it under your system, as I understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2934.199], "stop_times": [2941.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.199}, "reply_to": "21272__2_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_106", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Under... under our method, such an individual would be counted for that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2941.355], "stop_times": [2944.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2941.355}, "reply_to": "21272__2_105", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_107", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I mean, if there is such a crazy Christmas bonus system, then you count it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2944.227], "stop_times": [2946.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.227}, "reply_to": "21272__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_108", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2946.898], "stop_times": [2948.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.898}, "reply_to": "21272__2_107", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_109", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Suppose I can't answer this case by thinking of anomalies, because I can think of anomalies both sides.\nThere's the Blue Light Catering Service, possibly cured by saying they're not employees when they're not there.\nThere is the staggered workweek, possibly cured by saying sometimes it isn't really a workday.\nI get it both ways.\nSuppose that I can't answer it from the language.\nSuppose the legislative history seems fairly both ways or not clear.\nWhy wouldn't I just go with the EEOC on the ground that they're telling me this is administratively easier?\nIt tends to look administratively easier.\nAnd I'd assume, other things being equal, Congress would want to have the Court look at what the agency seems reasonably to say is administratively easier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2948.33, 2953.973, 2960.868, 2965.961, 2967.591, 2970.253, 2975.228, 2980.591, 2982.942], "stop_times": [2953.973, 2960.868, 2965.961, 2967.591, 2970.253, 2975.228, 2980.591, 2982.942, 2990.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.33}, "reply_to": "21272__2_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21272__2_110", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "There... there are several answers to that question, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, there is no indication from either the statutory language or from the legislative history of Title VII that Congress was concerned about writing a test that would necessarily be easy to implement.\nI think it's reasonable to assume, however, that Congress was concerned about writing a test that would be accurate, in terms of measuring the size of a small business.\nAnd as this Court noted in Consumer Product Safety Commission against GTE, the fact that a particular interpretation might produce a result, or might... might... might produce a burdensome result is not sufficient to overcome an otherwise reasonable interpretation of the statute.\nThe central difficulty with the EEOC's interpretation of... of the definition in Section 701(b) is that it reads the phrase, \"for each working day\", completely out of the statute.\nUnder the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [2990.776, 2994.989, 3007.929, 3019.138, 3037.651, 3051.029], "stop_times": [2994.989, 3007.929, 3019.138, 3037.651, 3051.029, 3052.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2990.776}, "reply_to": "21272__2_109", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_111", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "No, that's not right.\nNo--\n--Because you agreed it at least serves the purpose of defining the workweek.\nYou need that language in there to differentiate between 4 and 5-day workweeks, and 6-day workweeks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3052.499, 3052.819, 3053.049, 3055.641], "stop_times": [3052.819, 3053.049, 3055.641, 3062.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.499}, "reply_to": "21272__2_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21272__2_112", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--As... as to that purpose, that would be a permissible purpose, Your Honor.\nBut it would not have any bearing... that phrase would have no bearing upon the issue before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3062.746, 3066.721], "stop_times": [3066.721, 3072.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3062.746}, "reply_to": "21272__2_111", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_113", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, it would.\nI mean, they say they give full effect for each working day.\nWhere the difference comes... in defining who's employed each day.\nThey say, We give full effect for each day.\nBut someone who works part-time is going to be considered working each day.\nThat's where the difference is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3072.424, 3072.924, 3077.996, 3082.889, 3086.132, 3092.096], "stop_times": [3072.924, 3077.996, 3082.889, 3086.132, 3092.096, 3094.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.424}, "reply_to": "21272__2_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21272__2_114", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I believe that the distinction really comes down to how we... in... in Your Honor's hypothetical... comes down to how we define part-time.\nThe phrase, \"part-time\", isn't used anywhere in the definition of employer.\nThe language did come up.\nIt was... it was discussed in the legislative history.\nBut there's no specific definition of the phrase... of... of the... the language, \"part-time\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3094.507, 3103.493, 3108.808, 3112.149, 3114.733], "stop_times": [3103.493, 3108.808, 3112.149, 3114.733, 3120.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3094.507}, "reply_to": "21272__2_113", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_115", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "But you include part-time people, too.\nAnd under your method, you can include a part-time person who works 1 hour a day, 5 days a work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3120.024, 3122.957], "stop_times": [3122.957, 3128.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.024}, "reply_to": "21272__2_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_116", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And that individual, Your Honor, would be counted for each of those 5 days.\nThe question is not whether the individual is a quote, unquote, employee for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3128.74, 3132.053], "stop_times": [3132.053, 3136.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.74}, "reply_to": "21272__2_115", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_117", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yeah, I understand that.\nBut I'm thinking, here's a statute... it can mean one thing, it can mean another thing.\nThere's no legislative history to help.\nAnd there are these various ways.\nReturning to Justice Breyer's question, why don't you say Congress is regulating business; it's reasonable to think that they would pick the easiest and not the hardest way of counting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3136.775, 3137.486, 3142.141, 3144.091, 3146.792], "stop_times": [3137.486, 3142.141, 3144.091, 3146.792, 3157.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.775}, "reply_to": "21272__2_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_118", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--One of the other difficulties, Your Honor, with... with the principle of deference... there... there are several other problems--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3157.811], "stop_times": [3167.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.811}, "reply_to": "21272__2_117", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_119", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Well, wholly apart from deference.\nIf we got these ways... and I'm ask... which one would you pick?\nAll other things being equal, I'd pick the one that's easiest for a business person to administer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3167.386, 3168.588, 3171.95], "stop_times": [3168.588, 3171.95, 3181.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.386}, "reply_to": "21272__2_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_120", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3181.246], "stop_times": [3184.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3181.246}, "reply_to": "21272__2_119", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_121", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And I think there's no contest on that.\nI mean, if you said, Well, it wasn't so much of a problem, but there was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3184.747, 3186.36], "stop_times": [3186.36, 3190.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.747}, "reply_to": "21272__2_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21272__2_122", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3190.621], "stop_times": [3191.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3190.621}, "reply_to": "21272__2_121", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_123", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I think you're... you're... you're in trouble once you assume that \"for each working day\" has a substantial meaning apart from the one that you want to give it.\nAnd I'm surprised that you... you conceded so quickly that... that a... a... a valid purpose of it is to define the workweek.\nWhat difference does it make whether you're using a 3-day workweek or a 7-day workweek, if all you're looking at is the payroll?\nUnless it's the... you know, the negligible consequence of people who happen to come on or off at some point during the week, what... why would the statute make no sense if it... if it said 20 weeks and it meant calendar weeks?\nWouldn't the statute be perfectly implemental... implementable under a payroll system?\nDo you have to define what the workweek is if you're using a payroll system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3191.853, 3198.258, 3206.732, 3212.866, 3226.374, 3230.969], "stop_times": [3198.258, 3206.732, 3212.866, 3226.374, 3230.969, 3235.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.853}, "reply_to": "21272__2_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_124", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Under... well, possibly, Your Honor.\nPossibly.\nBecause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3235.74, 3240.305, 3240.886], "stop_times": [3240.305, 3240.886, 3241.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3235.74}, "reply_to": "21272__2_123", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_125", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3241.296], "stop_times": [3241.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.296}, "reply_to": "21272__2_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_126", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Because there are... there are any number of different payroll arrangements.\nA calendar week... and Congress used the term, \"calendar week\", in this definition.\nI think that's fairly easily understood.\nA calendar week does not vary.\nHowever, pay periods could vary widely.\nNot every employer pays--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3241.517, 3246.381, 3250.872, 3255.316, 3257.037, 3259.088], "stop_times": [3246.381, 3250.872, 3255.316, 3257.037, 3259.088, 3261.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3241.517}, "reply_to": "21272__2_125", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_127", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "I'm not sure you understand my question.\nI just don't see why, if you're using a... a payroll system, it makes any difference whether the workweek is 3... is 3 or 7.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3261.301, 3262.26], "stop_times": [3262.26, 3269.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.301}, "reply_to": "21272__2_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_128", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Under... under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3269.396], "stop_times": [3271.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3269.396}, "reply_to": "21272__2_127", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_129", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "The payroll is going to be there the whole week anyway, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3271.025], "stop_times": [3273.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.025}, "reply_to": "21272__2_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_130", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Under a weekly payroll system, yes, Your Honor.\nYes, Your Honor.\nI... I think... I think what we're focusing, though... what we're focusing on, though, here is a daily payroll, in terms of measuring the size of the employer's work force on a particular day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3273.888, 3276.589, 3277.671], "stop_times": [3276.589, 3277.671, 3287.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3273.888}, "reply_to": "21272__2_129", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_131", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Falahee, going back to Justice Ginsburg's question, let me put it this way.\nWe... we've got this problem, because of an amendment offered by Senator Dirksen.\nDo you think it's plausible to assume, if we're going to look to legislative history, that Senator Dirksen intended employers... and the Government, for that matter, but particularly employers... to have to go through the super-complicated calculation that your method would provide, as opposed to the much simpler method that the EEOC and your opposing counsel propose?\nDoes... is Senator Dirksen the kind of person who wanted... was he the kind of person who wanted to thrust that heavy obligation on employers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3287.868, 3291.98, 3297.002, 3321.279], "stop_times": [3291.98, 3297.002, 3321.279, 3329.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.868}, "reply_to": "21272__2_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__2_132", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "There... there are two points--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3329.435], "stop_times": [3330.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3329.435}, "reply_to": "21272__2_131", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_133", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--Senator Dirksen--\n[Laughter]\nHe liked marigolds.\nBut you... you know his record, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3330.805, 3335.592, 3333.169, 3336.581], "stop_times": [3335.592, 3333.169, 3336.581, 3338.684], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.805}, "reply_to": "21272__2_132", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21272__2_134", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--I... I... I am from Illinois, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]\nHowever, I was only 3--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3338.684, 3341.116, 3341.567], "stop_times": [3341.116, 3341.567, 3343.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3338.684}, "reply_to": "21272__2_133", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_135", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "It's in the legislative history there.\nYou--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3343.019, 3344.418, 3344.649], "stop_times": [3344.418, 3344.649, 3346.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.019}, "reply_to": "21272__2_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21272__2_136", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--There... there... there are two points I'd like to make in... in response to... to Your Honor's question.\nFirst of all, the... while the implementation of the daily method, at first blush, might appear to be burdensome, it's really not.\nFirst of all, we're only talking about, though, that small number of employers who are... who are on the cusp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3346.712, 3350.874, 3360.801], "stop_times": [3350.874, 3360.801, 3367.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3346.712}, "reply_to": "21272__2_135", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_137", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yeah, but we've got an example of what happens to them in this case, don't we?\nI mean, the discovery was gargantuan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3367.585, 3371.587], "stop_times": [3371.587, 3373.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.585}, "reply_to": "21272__2_136", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__2_138", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "The discovery focused not entirely in this case, Your Honor, upon how to count individuals.\nIn fact, much of the discovery in this case, perhaps due to the Circuit split, was calculated to try to find or to identify other individuals out there who could potentially be counted as employees, thereby avoiding the counting problem.\nThat was... that was a... a large part of the... of the discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3373.82, 3380.363, 3395.573], "stop_times": [3380.363, 3395.573, 3399.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3373.82}, "reply_to": "21272__2_137", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_139", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Yeah, but isn't that going to be true in... in any case that's close to the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3399.036], "stop_times": [3402.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3399.036}, "reply_to": "21272__2_138", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__2_140", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "In any case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3402.428], "stop_times": [3403.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3402.428}, "reply_to": "21272__2_139", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_141", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "And in any case that's close to the line is, by definition, going to be the case of the comparatively small employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3403.917], "stop_times": [3408.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.917}, "reply_to": "21272__2_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21272__2_142", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "--In... in any such case, Your Honor, the... the battleground, if you will, could... could shift.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3408.822], "stop_times": [3416.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3408.822}, "reply_to": "21272__2_141", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_143", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Falahee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3416.176], "stop_times": [3417.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3416.176}, "reply_to": "21272__2_142", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21272__2_144", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3417.779], "stop_times": [3418.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3417.779}, "reply_to": "21272__2_143", "speaker": "patrick_j_falahee_jr"}
{"id": "21272__2_145", "conversation_id": "21272", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-259", "start_times": [3418.229], "stop_times": [3419.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3418.229}, "reply_to": "21272__2_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_000", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, we'll hear argument now in Number 95-728, Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc., v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.--\nMr. Taranto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [0.0, 9.147], "stop_times": [9.147, 10.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_001", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe Federal Circuit's ruling should be reversed because it violates two aspects of the fundamental principle that it is up to the patentee through its own drafting and through the available PTO processes to define its patent boundaries before the patent issues, not later, in an infringement action.\nOur narrower point is that once Hilton Davis accepted rather than appealed from, the PTO's demand that it write the specific pH limit into the patent, that limit became binding under this Court's doctrine of prosecution history, or file wrapper estoppel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [10.429, 12.682, 31.293], "stop_times": [12.682, 31.293, 48.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.429}, "reply_to": "21044__0_000", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_002", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Factual inquiry, Mr. Taranto.\nWhat is pH?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [48.065, 50.236], "stop_times": [50.236, 52.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 48.065}, "reply_to": "21044__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_003", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "The pH is a measure of the acidity of a solution, which ordinarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [52.137], "stop_times": [57.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 52.137}, "reply_to": "21044__0_002", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_004", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [57.532], "stop_times": [57.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 57.532}, "reply_to": "21044__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_005", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--stands for the potential of hydrogen, so that wine would be very acidic, water not at all, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [57.782], "stop_times": [62.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.782}, "reply_to": "21044__0_004", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_006", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But the lower the pH, the higher the acidity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [62.497], "stop_times": [65.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 62.497}, "reply_to": "21044__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__0_007", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [65.98], "stop_times": [66.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 65.98}, "reply_to": "21044__0_006", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_008", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "So it's that kind of measure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [66.521], "stop_times": [68.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.521}, "reply_to": "21044__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__0_009", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "It's upside down that way, yes.\nThis Court's doctrine of prosecution history, or file wrapper estoppel has always said, in a way unaffected by Graver Tank, that there should be no second-guessing of the reason for the examiner's demand for a limit once the patentee has accepted that demand and bypassed the appeal.\nThat principle states a critical limit on any otherwise available doctrine of equivalents, and itself requires reversal here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [68.174, 69.213, 88.025], "stop_times": [69.213, 88.025, 95.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.174}, "reply_to": "21044__0_008", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_010", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Does that raise... I'm sorry.\nGo ahead.\nDoes that place you in the following odd position, and I may not understand your position, so let me raise it now.\nYour... sort of your fallback position is that the doctrine not to apply only in a case in which the so-called point of equivalence was within the claim that was actually made, but which for some reason would not have been enforceable, the claim was, for whatever reason, too broad.\nAnd yet, if I understand you correctly, and that's what your position would be, then the person who claims too much, but invalidly, is in a better position than the person who, before the patent examiner, gives up more than he has to, because the Patent Office indicates that without such a concession they won't give their approval, and doesn't that present a sort of a anomalous position that the person who goes the whole hog and more is going to end up in a better position than the individual who concedes too much simply to get the patent through.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [95.07, 98.172, 98.473, 105.198, 128.752], "stop_times": [98.172, 98.473, 105.198, 128.752, 168.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.07}, "reply_to": "21044__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__0_011", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, I think that the fundamental point is that it's in the PTO that the process of negotiating about proper breadth can and does take place.\nIf someone comes in, as applicants have an inherent incentive to do, and seek broader coverage because it gives them greater rights and more opportunity to exclude the world from something, then a process takes place.\nIn most cases the examiner will reject an initial application, and there is a discussion about why.\nHere, there were, I think, two or three rejections of the initial application, basically because of the obviousness of the filtering of these dyes.\nBut then, as I think is indicated at pages 103 and 107 of the Joint Appendix, as Hilton Davis' description of its interview with the examiner shows, Hilton Davis went into the examiner and the examiner said, okay, now I'm persuaded that if your pH is above 9, it won't be obvious anymore.\nBut it also... he also said, make sure the pH is above 6, and he pointed specifically to the specification, the part of the long disclosure that says, here's where we say what we know works.\nSo it is, in fact, apparent in this record why the examiner said 6 as the lower limit, and the Federal circuit just missed that.\nNow, it I think would generally be true that a patentee... I'm not sure I understood exactly the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [168.87, 180.607, 194.727, 201.482, 212.077, 231.86, 244.99, 254.055], "stop_times": [180.607, 194.727, 201.482, 212.077, 231.86, 244.99, 254.055, 261.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.87}, "reply_to": "21044__0_010", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_012", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, I think it's still the case... accepting everything you say, as I understand your position, it's still the case that when the PTO is perhaps asleep at the switch and it let's a claim through which in fact is broader than would ultimately prevail, that is the one case in which in your fallback position the doctrine of substantial equivalents would be recognized, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [261.839], "stop_times": [285.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.839}, "reply_to": "21044__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__0_013", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Well, that's right.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [285.236, 286.397], "stop_times": [286.397, 286.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.236}, "reply_to": "21044__0_012", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_014", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [286.668], "stop_times": [286.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.668}, "reply_to": "21044__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__0_015", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--The narrower ground, the prosecution history estoppel ground, in this case applies only where there's a rejection of a broader claim, or a claim that then introduces a limit, and the patent applicant has bypassed the appeal mechanism for challenging that.\nThere are other situations where there's a potential estoppel without a rejection and amendment where the applicant says something to put the world on notice that he interprets his claim in a particular way.\nThat's not this case.\nIf the PTO is, as you say, asleep at the switch--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [286.988, 307.003, 320.851, 322.531], "stop_times": [307.003, 320.851, 322.531, 325.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.988}, "reply_to": "21044__0_014", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_016", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And that wouldn't be good enough for you, I mean, on your fallback position.\nThat would not be recognized in that case.\nEquivalents would not be recognized in that case on your view, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [325.633, 328.425, 331.58], "stop_times": [328.425, 331.58, 336.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.633}, "reply_to": "21044__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__0_017", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--That equivalents would not be recognized?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [336.603], "stop_times": [337.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.603}, "reply_to": "21044__0_016", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_018", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [337.942], "stop_times": [338.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.942}, "reply_to": "21044__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__0_019", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That would be okay for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [338.162], "stop_times": [339.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.162}, "reply_to": "21044__0_018", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_020", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [339.023], "stop_times": [339.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.023}, "reply_to": "21044__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__0_021", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--For my position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [339.484], "stop_times": [340.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.484}, "reply_to": "21044__0_020", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_022", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [340.693], "stop_times": [340.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.693}, "reply_to": "21044__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__0_023", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Right.\nThis particular case involves an example of a specific demand for a limit written into the patent that the applicant accepted, and there's a good reason for Congress' having insisted that the right way to challenge those limits is through the appeal mechanism.\nOne reason is that it make sense to assume that the PTO examiner in fact had a good reason if the applicant bypasses the appeal, but there are also two important structural advantages.\nOne is that disputes about the proper flexibility or clarity or breadth of the patent are resolved before it's issued, and the second is that in the internal appeal mechanism the examiner participates, and so the PTO can clarify whether... can clarify the reasons for the rejection.\nThe alternative is that in the infringement action, where the PTO is a complete stranger, PTO isn't there.\nThe court and the parties are let to speculate, and this is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [340.934, 341.445, 359.386, 369.864, 387.076, 392.568], "stop_times": [341.445, 359.386, 369.864, 387.076, 392.568, 396.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 340.934}, "reply_to": "21044__0_022", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_024", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Taranto, you've said... maybe I have it wrong... that the PTO made a mistake of fact as to the 6 and above.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [396.051], "stop_times": [404.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.051}, "reply_to": "21044__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__0_025", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--I'm sorry, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [404.586], "stop_times": [406.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.586}, "reply_to": "21044__0_024", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_026", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "So what you're saying about the... when the PTO makes it precise, that's it and you can't have any doctrine of equivalents, but wasn't there a difference between requiring 9 and under and the 6?\nI thought it was the prior art that was the blockage to going above 9.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [406.456, 423.257], "stop_times": [423.257, 427.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.456}, "reply_to": "21044__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__0_027", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Right.\nThere are different reasons for the... for... I don't think the PTO made a mistake of fact at all.\nI think the PTO got it exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [427.761, 428.211, 433.146], "stop_times": [428.211, 433.146, 434.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.761}, "reply_to": "21044__0_026", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_028", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "No.\nNo, you said the Federal circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [434.555, 434.726], "stop_times": [434.726, 435.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.555}, "reply_to": "21044__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__0_029", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Oh, the Federal circuit did, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [435.437], "stop_times": [436.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.437}, "reply_to": "21044__0_028", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_030", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--thinking that 6 had nothing to do with the PTO's concern, but if the PTO did have a concern and insisted on the number 6 being put in, approximately 6, that concern was different than the prior art ruled out a patent or a number higher than 9.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [436.979], "stop_times": [456.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.979}, "reply_to": "21044__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__0_031", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.\nThere are two different reasons.\nThere's one reason for insisting that the patent come down no longer than 9, and another reason for insisting that it come down no lower than 6.\nPrior art--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [456.451, 456.732, 457.823, 467.34], "stop_times": [456.732, 457.823, 467.34, 468.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.451}, "reply_to": "21044__0_030", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_032", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Higher than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [468.201], "stop_times": [468.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.201}, "reply_to": "21044__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__0_033", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Higher than 6.\nPrior art was the reason to say, exclude everything above 9.\nAnother equally important reason why the patent would have been invalid if it had been below 6 is that a claim may not be broader than the specification discloses that the process works.\nYou look at this specification, in which Hilton Davis laid out all the experiments it had done, nowhere does it show how to make its process work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [468.942, 469.823, 473.254, 486.563], "stop_times": [469.823, 473.254, 486.563, 494.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.942}, "reply_to": "21044__0_032", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_034", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "What would happen if... this is a hypothetical case, not this case.\nThe inventor says, below 6 it works but not very well.\nYou get a lot of foaming, and the result isn't quite as good.\nYou really shouldn't be playing around below 6 or you're not going to get a very good result.\nWhat should the patent disclose in that case?\nAnd let's presume further that an infringer still saves money if he uses the process under... an alleged infringer still saves money if he goes under 6 rather than does the salting method.\nIt's much better than salting, but it isn't as good as 6 and 9.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [494.518, 497.69, 503.416, 507.229, 511.393, 516.085, 529.244], "stop_times": [497.69, 503.416, 507.229, 511.393, 516.085, 529.244, 531.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.518}, "reply_to": "21044__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__0_035", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Right.\nI think that, as you say, that would be a hypothetical, since as the inventor here specifies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [531.447, 532.346], "stop_times": [532.346, 537.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.447}, "reply_to": "21044__0_034", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_036", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Let's... this is a hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [537.301], "stop_times": [538.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.301}, "reply_to": "21044__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__0_037", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Right.\nIt partly depends on what the purpose of the process is.\nIf the purpose of the process is not just to filter a little bit of solution but is, as the inventor testified here, the whole purpose is to create an economical way of doing it in industrial quantities, then foaming problems would simply not serve that... would defeat that purpose, and at that point the patent wouldn't be useful for that purpose.\nBut what the examiner and the applicant would be discussing in that situation is whether the utility requirement of the statute is met in those conditions, and that would... I don't know how exactly that discussion would come out, but our point is that that's the proper place for the discussions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [538.163, 538.29, 541.653, 563.178], "stop_times": [538.29, 541.653, 563.178, 581.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.163}, "reply_to": "21044__0_036", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_038", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Is that a proper use of purpose?\nI mean, you mean there are two different purposes?\nIf one purpose is to filter efficiently and another purpose is to filter inefficiently, do you get a separate patent for filtering inefficiently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [581.41, 583.073, 586.095], "stop_times": [583.073, 586.095, 594.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.41}, "reply_to": "21044__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__0_039", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [594.36], "stop_times": [595.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.36}, "reply_to": "21044__0_038", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_040", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Don't both patents have the same purpose, namely, of filtering?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [595.281], "stop_times": [598.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.281}, "reply_to": "21044__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__0_041", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Right.\nI was, I guess, using the term purpose there in the sense of function from the language of function-way-result that has often been used as the touchstone for equivalents analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [598.323, 598.733], "stop_times": [598.733, 613.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.323}, "reply_to": "21044__0_040", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_042", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes, I mean that.\nYou think that for equivalents analysis it would make a difference whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [613.423, 614.632], "stop_times": [614.632, 620.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.423}, "reply_to": "21044__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__0_043", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, I'm in the position of being uncertain exactly what does make a difference.\nI mean, the function-way-result test has often been said, including by Judge Hand, as just another way of stating the problem.\nI think it is right that every one of the judges in the Federal circuit indicated that the function-way-result test was not a terribly satisfactory way to proceed, and the basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [620.186, 624.89, 630.794], "stop_times": [624.89, 630.794, 640.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.186}, "reply_to": "21044__0_042", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_044", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--But if you don't have the equivalents doctrine, then, in the example that you and I have just discussed you have to do one of two things, limit your patent to the most efficient range, or (b)... and suffer infringers, and suffer alleged infringers, or (b) expand the patent to an inefficient zone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [640.271], "stop_times": [663.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.271}, "reply_to": "21044__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__0_045", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Right, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [663.287], "stop_times": [664.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.287}, "reply_to": "21044__0_044", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_046", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And it seems to me the equivalents doctrine protects against that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [664.277], "stop_times": [667.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.277}, "reply_to": "21044__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__0_047", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Well, I... let me try to answer that.\nWhat I meant to say is, there wouldn't be a bar on getting the extra range just because it's inefficient.\nThe question would be whether the requirements for patentability are met, and there are lots of patents that are not even improvements over prior things or particularly efficient, but are novel and nonobvious and useful in the sense of the statute, so efficiency is not a requirement.\nIf Hilton Davis had in fact thought that its process worked, that it actually performed the function for which it was trying to get the patent, it surely would have written its claim to include that.\nBy bypass--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [667.059, 669.89, 676.275, 694.187, 707.326], "stop_times": [669.89, 676.275, 694.187, 707.326, 708.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.059}, "reply_to": "21044__0_046", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_048", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Taranto, on your fallback position where you're talking about the PTO insisting on a limit, how much kind of analogy to legislative history are we letting ourselves in for there?\nIs it always perfectly clear why the PTO does what it does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [708.548, 719.444], "stop_times": [719.444, 723.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.548}, "reply_to": "21044__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_049", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--No, I think not, and I think that's a principal reason why our position is that looking behind the insistence on a limit for the reason for that insistence is not a good idea in an infringement action because it often will not be clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [723.987], "stop_times": [738.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.987}, "reply_to": "21044__0_048", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_050", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, can you always find, in the PTO history, the insistence on a limit?\nSupposing a limit is ultimately accepted by the patent applicant, can you always find that that was as a result of the insistence of the PTO?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [738.059, 742.9], "stop_times": [742.9, 752.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.059}, "reply_to": "21044__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_051", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--I think always would be too strong.\nThere will be many, many cases in which the applicant... you have the original application.\nThe examiner says, I reject it for the following reasons, and writes an explanation, so that the task of interpreting those documents to see, not what the reason for the rejection is, but that there was a demand in order to obtain the patent for a certain limit to be placed in, that is something that, like other kinds of textual interpretation, sometimes will generate disputes but very often will not, as here it did not.\nIt's another thing entirely to look behind... once you've concluded the PTO said there must be this lower limit, there's no dispute about that, to then second-guess whether the PTO should have insisted on that limited by reexamining the reasons, and what happens, I think, is when you don't have the PTO there as a party, which you would in the internal appeal in the infringement action, you have mistakes being made.\nThe Federal circuit here simply ignored--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [752.757, 755.719, 762.044, 786.578, 810.223], "stop_times": [755.719, 762.044, 786.578, 810.223, 813.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.757}, "reply_to": "21044__0_050", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_052", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Taranto, perhaps I should ask your opponent this rather than you, but if it was essential that there be a lower limit on the pH, how can it be that the injunction takes away the lower limit entirely, if I read it correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [813.046], "stop_times": [826.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.046}, "reply_to": "21044__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__0_053", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Right, it does, and we've scratched our heads about that as well.\nOne of the... I think what happened as a factual matter is that independently of Hilton Davis, Warner-Jenkinson, before it even learned of the patent, figured out how to do this process with a different chemistry that made it able to use a lower pH.\nAt the time the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [826.515, 831.027, 850.242], "stop_times": [831.027, 850.242, 851.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.515}, "reply_to": "21044__0_052", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_054", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But see, the puzzling thing about it is, the court of appeals seems to think 5.0 is equivalent to 6.0.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [851.781], "stop_times": [858.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.781}, "reply_to": "21044__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__0_055", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--That it makes no scientific difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [858.367], "stop_times": [860.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 858.367}, "reply_to": "21044__0_054", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_056", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Makes no... but then the district court seemed to think 0.0 would also be equivalent.\nIs that a fair reading of the fact they granted that relief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [860.586, 864.139], "stop_times": [864.139, 867.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.586}, "reply_to": "21044__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__0_057", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I think that is a fair reading of what the district court... what the district court did, yes.\nNow, our broader point is that in fact the erasing of a limit that was imposed in the PTO after internal correction mechanisms are bypassed is really only the most extreme application of the Federal circuit's broad doctrine of equivalents, which suffers from the same basic problem.\nIt broadly undermines the statute's fundamental decision that it is in the PTO that patentees are supposed to define their asserted inventions, with any needed breadth and flexibility of language to be negotiated there, so that the resulting patent has boundaries that have been approved by the PTO and that give reliable notice of the monopolized territory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [867.833, 872.865, 893.819], "stop_times": [872.865, 893.819, 916.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.833}, "reply_to": "21044__0_056", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_058", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "What does that do to Graver and to the cases that it relied on, going way back into the 19th Century?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [916.663], "stop_times": [922.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.663}, "reply_to": "21044__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_059", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, let me talk about Graver in particular.\nI think that the principle of the statute can be summarized as a principle of disclosure through approved claims.\nGraver did not depart from the basic requirement of disclosure, that somebody sitting down, other inventors trying to work in the same field, competitors, by reading the documents, including with the knowledge of skilled people who understand the terms, but by reading the documents can determine where the boundaries are, because in Graver, there was actual disclosure, not in the remaining valid claim, but both in the broader invalid claim and in the specification of what the defendant was doing.\nThere was no problem there either of bypassing the PTO process of approval, or of not disclosing some kind of equivalent later determined in court to be scientifically unimportant in its change.\nThat would... seems to us, is the basic rule that ought to apply in limiting any doctrine of equivalents.\nBefore Graver, I think it is right to say that, with one arguable exception, this Court had not expanded any patent claims for... in this century, and that Graver was well recognized at the time as a... an anomaly in that situation.\nThe court came... entertained the notion only several years before in the Exhibit Supply case of simply repudiating the doctrine as fundamentally incompatible with the notion of a claiming system.\nWhat Graver does say is that, at least on its facts, that there was a kind of... I guess Graver doesn't say this, but on its facts it was a kind of technical impediment to a proper claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [922.947, 926.1, 933.035, 964.004, 978.514, 985.018, 1002.389, 1014.437], "stop_times": [926.1, 933.035, 964.004, 978.514, 985.018, 1002.389, 1014.437, 1029.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.947}, "reply_to": "21044__0_058", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_060", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "When you begin to talk abut a case on its facts, that always suggests that you either want to limit it or overrule it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1029.186], "stop_times": [1036.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.186}, "reply_to": "21044__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_061", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.\nI think that the portion of Graver that needn't be touched at all, and that is that our position doesn't affect at all, is the requirement that if there's going to be an equivalent so as to expand the patent's scope beyond the understandable meaning of the claims, then it can't go beyond what is disclosed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1036.021, 1036.303], "stop_times": [1036.303, 1055.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.021}, "reply_to": "21044__0_060", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_062", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "You're talking about the manganese and the... and disclosure in Graver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1055.958], "stop_times": [1059.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.958}, "reply_to": "21044__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__0_063", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "The manganese, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1059.959], "stop_times": [1061.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.959}, "reply_to": "21044__0_062", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_064", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Which, of course, would have made the patent invalid if it had been exposed, because it was part of the prior art.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1061.181], "stop_times": [1065.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.181}, "reply_to": "21044__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__0_065", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, that wasn't apparently part of what was in issue in this Court at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1065.143], "stop_times": [1071.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1065.143}, "reply_to": "21044__0_064", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_066", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "In other words, they never answered Justice Douglas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1071.518], "stop_times": [1073.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1071.518}, "reply_to": "21044__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__0_067", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Right, and then the case did continue for a dozen years where that question was raised again, but the basic requirement that the patent itself somewhere must disclose the equivalent is entirely consistent with Graver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1073.28], "stop_times": [1088.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1073.28}, "reply_to": "21044__0_066", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_068", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Why is it that Graver should be limited?\nI mean, it's a decision of this Court.\nWhat are the reasons why any departure from it at all should take place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1088.48, 1090.182, 1093.104], "stop_times": [1090.182, 1093.104, 1098.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.48}, "reply_to": "21044__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_069", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, I don't think that a departure from it needs to take place, depending on how broadly one reads it.\nGraver is written, I think, in such a way as to focus on a host of facts that on the equities there seem to make a compelling case for finding infringement.\nThe critical facts, we suggest, and therefore a perfectly familiar way of reading the case, is as limited to the situation where the patent itself disclosed the equivalent.\nNow, as for a broader reading, our basic position is that a broader reading is inappropriate, because it would fundamentally repudiate the long line of authority in which this Court said the claims define the reliable boundaries of the patent monopoly.\nAnd if it's an undisclosed equivalent, an undisclosed extension of the patent, something that a reader couldn't determine, only an experimenter could determine, then it runs smack into the very notion of invention that this Court was very explicit about in the U.S. Industrial Chemicals case, which we discussed in our reply brief and this Court relied on several times in Markman, where the Court said, it doesn't matter if all the scientists agree that a small change would not make a scientific difference.\nIt doesn't even matter if the patentee knew that that small change would not make a scientific difference.\nThe patentee didn't say so, and it's only what the patent asserts as the invention that's the protected--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1098.728, 1105.644, 1118.801, 1130.481, 1147.711, 1178.432, 1183.235], "stop_times": [1105.644, 1118.801, 1130.481, 1147.711, 1178.432, 1183.235, 1189.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.728}, "reply_to": "21044__0_068", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_070", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But that was decided several years before Graver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1189.128], "stop_times": [1192.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.128}, "reply_to": "21044__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__0_071", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Right, but Graver is entirely consistent with that, and what we're suggesting is that Graver is properly read as consistent with that, rather than a broader version which would say that every other inventor, every competitor, when reading the patent, has not only to understand its terms to know where the boundary lines are, but also has to undertake experiments to see whether a change, a ten-factor change of the pH from 6 down to 5 would change the functioning of the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1192.611], "stop_times": [1221.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.611}, "reply_to": "21044__0_070", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_072", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "So if the... counsel cannot foresee every possible circumstance in which this invention could be used, and a new circumstance arises, one that the Patent Office had thought it wouldn't work.\nThey didn't think a cylindrical tank would work on mountaintops, or that this would work at a low... at a high... at a low pH, and they were wrong.\nThe invention works at that low pH, or on the mountaintop.\nThe patentee is just out of luck?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1221.301, 1234.379, 1241.214, 1244.346], "stop_times": [1234.379, 1241.214, 1244.346, 1246.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.301}, "reply_to": "21044__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21044__0_073", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1246.73], "stop_times": [1247.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.73}, "reply_to": "21044__0_072", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_074", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "How can counsel foresee everything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1247.15], "stop_times": [1249.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.15}, "reply_to": "21044__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21044__0_075", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Well, counsel can't foresee everything, but the patentees themselves have a number of protections.\nOne is, they can amend their... or file continuing applications while the original application is pending if they learn more doing the experiments.\nSection 102 of the statute says to patentees, even if you've gotten your patent, you basically have a 1-year risk-free period to do more experimenting, figure out if you would expand it, and during that 1 year your patent won't be used as essentially prior art against you.\nYou can then go back, and if you've done something new, fine, write a new patent.\nAnd of course you have the reissue process, which Congress wrote specifically for the purpose of saying, if you made a mistake when you wrote your original patent, come back and broaden it, but subject to certain conditions, 2 years, and others who are using the same thing have intervening rights protection.\nWhat the doctrine of equivalents does in its broad form is to say that all patents are subject to incourt redefinition through scientific testimony, and that fundamentally defeats the clear notice function of the claiming system.\nIf I may reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1249.091, 1253.852, 1262.808, 1277.128, 1281.752, 1298.432, 1314.153], "stop_times": [1253.852, 1262.808, 1277.128, 1281.752, 1298.432, 1314.153, 1316.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1249.091}, "reply_to": "21044__0_074", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__0_076", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Very well, Mr. Taranto.\nMr. Wallace, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1316.564, 1318.214], "stop_times": [1318.214, 1319.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.564}, "reply_to": "21044__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__1_000", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn last April's decision in Markman v. Westview, this Court recognized that the scope of protection afforded by a patent grant is defined by the claim or claims, yet in the Graver Tank decision in 1950 the Court rightly noted that outright duplication of a patented invention is rare, so the difficulty that the courts have faced over the years is how to protect the substance of the claims against misappropriation through trivial or colorable or insubstantial substitutions, however you want to call them, without depriving the public of the notice to which it's entitled, and without enlarging the claims in the course of litigation, that is the dilemma.\nAnd it... I think it's helpful also to think of it in terms of the statutory policies.\nHow can inventors be given adequate incentive to make the disclosures under the patent system that contribute to the advancement of science and technology by a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1319.636, 1332.014, 1389.461, 1397.257], "stop_times": [1332.014, 1389.461, 1397.257, 1408.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1319.636}, "reply_to": "21044__0_076", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_001", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, if we assume, Mr. Wallace, that there should be a doctrine of equivalents, and that the pH 5 procedure here probably should qualify under it, what should be the division of function between the judge and the jury?\nWhat should have happened here in the trial court, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1408.304, 1427.806], "stop_times": [1427.806, 1431.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.304}, "reply_to": "21044__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__1_002", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Well, we... we spoke in a very qualified way in only one footnote of our brief, footnote 3, to that because the Markman decision was pending before the Court at the time we filed, and we felt that that would shed considerable light on it.\nAnd in light of Markman, which has now held that it is exclusively within the province of the Court to interpret patent claims so as to define, so as to define the patentee's rights against literal infringement, it really would be incongruous to adopt a different rule to define the rights against nonliteral infringement.\nTo the extent that this is, and we think it is to a great extent a matter of interpreting the scope of the claims, it is similarly, in our view, a matter for the judge to do.\nThis may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1431.759, 1450.803, 1481.492, 1499.353], "stop_times": [1450.803, 1481.492, 1499.353, 1499.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1431.759}, "reply_to": "21044__1_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_003", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, what is left, then, for the jury in coming to the ultimate conclusion of infringement?\nI don't see that anything is left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1499.844, 1504.058], "stop_times": [1504.058, 1505.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.844}, "reply_to": "21044__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__1_004", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--In some cases there will not be anything left for the jury, just as was recognized in Markman.\nIf the judge is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1505.77, 1512.053], "stop_times": [1512.053, 1512.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1505.77}, "reply_to": "21044__1_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_005", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, and on the reasoning of Markman, are we in a position to take from the jury the ultimate issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1512.764], "stop_times": [1519.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.764}, "reply_to": "21044__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__1_006", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1519.229], "stop_times": [1519.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1519.229}, "reply_to": "21044__1_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_007", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I should have thought not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1519.64], "stop_times": [1520.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.64}, "reply_to": "21044__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__1_008", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--It depends on what is factually disputed, Mr. Justice.\nIf, for example, to cite a very simple example, the judge decides based on evidence as to the proper scope of protection afforded by this claim that a pH level of 5 would be an insubstantial difference that is within the scope of protection, but a pH level of 4 would require the opposite conclusion, and there were a factual dispute about what the defendant actually did, or the extent to which it did one or the other, that, of course, would be something to be resolved by the jury.\nThe jury would still have to decide whether the conduct engaged in by the defendant infringed upon the scope of protection as defined by the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1520.692, 1525.246, 1569.125], "stop_times": [1525.246, 1569.125, 1581.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1520.692}, "reply_to": "21044__1_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_009", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But in a case in which there was no question, let's say, about the pH level in fact of the alleged infringer's process, then the jury verdict would be a pure formality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1581.854], "stop_times": [1593.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.854}, "reply_to": "21044__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__1_010", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That would be true under Markman with respect to literal infringement, also, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1593.46], "stop_times": [1598.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1593.46}, "reply_to": "21044__1_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_011", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "In this case, then, the court should have... or could have instructed the jury, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I instruct you as a matter of law that the process when used at level 5 is within the scope of the patent under the equivalents doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1598.625], "stop_times": [1612.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.625}, "reply_to": "21044__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__1_012", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--That is in our view a determination for the court to make in defining the scope of protection of that element of the patent claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1612.513], "stop_times": [1624.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1612.513}, "reply_to": "21044__1_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_013", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Wallace, may I just clarify one thing, because what you've said is substantially different from what I gathered from your footnote, and it is different from what Judges Plager and Lourie said.\nThey said the reason this doesn't go to the jury is because it's equitable.\nI understand you to be saying, no, you recognize that the color of the claim depends on the relief, and so... but you're saying it's like defining the claim.\nTherefore, even though the case is entirely legal... say we just want damages, no injunction... the case is entirely legal, but it goes to the judge.\nYou are disavowing what was the suggestion of this note, that it somehow the legal law equity divide that places this in the judge's bailiwick.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1624.411, 1636.309, 1640.553, 1651.89, 1661.176], "stop_times": [1636.309, 1640.553, 1651.89, 1661.176, 1671.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.411}, "reply_to": "21044__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__1_014", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I think that the equitable origins of the doctrine of equivalents in affording a remedy, the equitable nature of it is relevant, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1671.043], "stop_times": [1684.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1671.043}, "reply_to": "21044__1_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_015", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That I don't follow, Mr. Wallace, because as I understand, this was a courtmade doctrine developed for cases, could be applied in a case where injunctive relief was sought, could be applied where legal relief was sought, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1684.751], "stop_times": [1700.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.751}, "reply_to": "21044__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__1_016", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1700.873], "stop_times": [1701.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1700.873}, "reply_to": "21044__1_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_017", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--It wasn't an equitable remedy to relieve the rigors of the harsh common law system.\nIt was the way common law courts operate.\nThey had a doctrine, and they applied it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1701.705, 1708.549, 1710.531], "stop_times": [1708.549, 1710.531, 1714.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.705}, "reply_to": "21044__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__1_018", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, we recognize that the doctrine has been applied in what used to be considered common law causes of action for damages for infringement, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1714.323], "stop_times": [1724.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1714.323}, "reply_to": "21044__1_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_019", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And Story, I take it, is authority for the fact that it always was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1724.081], "stop_times": [1726.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.081}, "reply_to": "21044__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__1_020", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--And these are the reasons why I stated our position the way I did, that this is largely a matter of claim interpretation, which is the first thing we said in that footnote.\nWe also mentioned the equitable nature of the doctrine, but we're not saying that when there is a factual dispute about what the alleged infringer did, that that is not a matter for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1726.802, 1738.669], "stop_times": [1738.669, 1755.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1726.802}, "reply_to": "21044__1_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_021", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "May I ask this question, Mr Wallace: what is the Government's position with regard... I assume the judge is going to make the decision now.\nDoes the equivalence have to have been apparent to a person skilled in the art at the time the patent issued or at the time of trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1755.6, 1761.334], "stop_times": [1761.334, 1768.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.6}, "reply_to": "21044__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__1_022", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--We... our position is at the time of infringement, not at the... not at the time of trial, but not at the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1768.2], "stop_times": [1776.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1768.2}, "reply_to": "21044__1_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_023", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But not at the time the patent issued, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1776.257], "stop_times": [1778.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.257}, "reply_to": "21044__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__1_024", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--the patent issued, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1778.568], "stop_times": [1778.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1778.568}, "reply_to": "21044__1_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_025", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "If it was not apparent at the time the patent issued, it nevertheless could become equivalent by later... because of later learning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1778.838], "stop_times": [1786.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.838}, "reply_to": "21044__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__1_026", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Because... that's right.\nIt could still be just an insubstantial substitution.\nWe give an example in our brief of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1786.001, 1789.304, 1793.457], "stop_times": [1789.304, 1793.457, 1795.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1786.001}, "reply_to": "21044__1_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_027", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "So that if the infringement action... say you have continuing development, it might be that at one time 5 would be equivalent, a few years later, 4 might be equivalent, and then today you could have no lower limit.\nThat could very well develop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1795.73, 1806.617], "stop_times": [1806.617, 1807.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.73}, "reply_to": "21044__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__1_028", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1807.838], "stop_times": [1808.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1807.838}, "reply_to": "21044__1_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_029", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That's the Government's view, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1808.639], "stop_times": [1810.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.639}, "reply_to": "21044__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__1_030", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--the utility of the doctrine is whether somebody at the time of the alleged act that infringes is misappropriating what the patent has granted to the patentee to assure the commercial viability of his invention in return for disclosing it to the public, and that depends on what someone knowledgeable in the state of the art would recognize to be a substitution at the time that the infringement occurs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1810.261], "stop_times": [1843.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1810.261}, "reply_to": "21044__1_029", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_031", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Wallace, do I understand that the United States is attempting to persuade other nations to adopt something equivalent to the doctrine of equivalents, and if that's correct, what is the definition that the United States is recommending to the rest of the world, and how does it differ, if it does, from the Federal circuit's decision here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1843.033], "stop_times": [1863.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.033}, "reply_to": "21044__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__1_032", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, in our negotiations we've pointed to the doctrine as developed in this country, and so far as I'm aware have just said that something comparable as it would fit within your particular system should be recognized in order to afford the protection, and one of the amicus briefs in this case, the brief for Shearon Corporation, cites a very recent decision in Japan, which for the first time recognized and applied a doctrine comparable to our doctrine of equivalents, but it's very hard to equate our system, that involves examination in the Patent Office, with other systems which may not.\nI believe my time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1863.817, 1912.239], "stop_times": [1912.239, 1914.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1863.817}, "reply_to": "21044__1_031", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21044__1_033", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. Schmit, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1914.269, 1916.162], "stop_times": [1916.162, 1917.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.269}, "reply_to": "21044__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__2_000", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to respond first to Mr. Taranto's argument that we cannot invoke the doctrine of equivalents in this case because the inventors intentionally surrendered pH's below 6.\nI think if we look at the record in this case we find one peculiarity, although I don't think this Court has spoken on the question.\nThe Federal circuit has found that this doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, the intentional surrender of claim coverage, is a question of law, normally.\nIn this case, however, the parties agreed to submit that question to the jury, and an instruction was given to the jury on prosecution history estoppel.\nIt appears on page 60 of the Joint Appendix, and it essentially asks the jury to consider the reasons why surrender was made, if surrender were made.\nThe finding of fact to be implied from the jury's verdict of infringement is that there was no such surrender.\nThat fact having been established by the jury, and now having been reviewed by the trial court in the posttrial motions and by the Federal circuit, I suggest creates a very limited scope of review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [1917.755, 1930.594, 1945.983, 1955.839, 1965.256, 1976.152, 1985.96, 1995.276], "stop_times": [1930.594, 1945.983, 1955.839, 1965.256, 1976.152, 1985.96, 1995.276, 2007.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1917.755}, "reply_to": "21044__1_033", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_001", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "What precisely, Mr. Schmit, was the question that the parties agreed to submit to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2007.235], "stop_times": [2011.478], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.235}, "reply_to": "21044__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21044__2_002", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Whether or not the doctrine of equivalents was applicable in this case, because of surrender of patent claim coverage that had been made before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and in the instruction that was given to the jury, the trial court defined what prosecution history estoppel was, that it precludes a patent owner from obtaining a claim construction through the application of the doctrine of equivalents that would resurrect subject matter surrendered during prosecution of a patent application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2011.478], "stop_times": [2047.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.478}, "reply_to": "21044__2_001", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_003", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, I suppose we can still reverse that if there's no substantial evidence to support it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2047.031], "stop_times": [2054.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.031}, "reply_to": "21044__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_004", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But in this case, I think what it was incumbent upon Warner-Jenkinson to show was that, based upon the written record in the Patent Office, there was a clear showing that Hilton Davis had intended to and in fact did surrender coverage below 6.\nThe only evidence we have in the written record of the Patent Office is that Hilton Davis was attempting to distinguish from the prior art that showed a pH above 9.\nThere was no prior art that was before the Patent Office where Hilton Davis had in our view to show a pH below 6.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2054.536, 2071.538, 2081.744], "stop_times": [2071.538, 2081.744, 2090.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.536}, "reply_to": "21044__2_003", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_005", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But the patent examiner demanded that they not go below 6.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2090.319], "stop_times": [2096.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.319}, "reply_to": "21044__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_006", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "There's no evidence, Justice Scalia, that the patent examiner ever demanded that limit be put in.\nIn fact, there's no evidence why that limit was put in the Patent Office record.\nLet me give an example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2096.163, 2102.978, 2108.701], "stop_times": [2102.978, 2108.701, 2110.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.163}, "reply_to": "21044__2_005", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_007", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, wasn't it true that the specifications described experiments within the range of 06--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2110.923], "stop_times": [2115.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.923}, "reply_to": "21044__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_008", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2115.265], "stop_times": [2117.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.265}, "reply_to": "21044__2_007", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_009", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--And none below 6?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2117.346], "stop_times": [2118.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.346}, "reply_to": "21044__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_010", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.\nIt was silent on anything below 6--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2118.197, 2118.467], "stop_times": [2118.467, 2120.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.197}, "reply_to": "21044__2_009", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_011", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2120.149], "stop_times": [2120.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.149}, "reply_to": "21044__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_012", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--that's correct, but there was no indication that the process would not work below 6.\nI think there's a lot of case law that says that there is a presumption that the patentee, the inventors are intending to claim as much as they possibly can.\nThat's why when we have a doctrine of prosecution history estoppel we require clear and convincing evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2120.45, 2124.331, 2133.458], "stop_times": [2124.331, 2133.458, 2139.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.45}, "reply_to": "21044__2_011", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_013", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "If they wanted to claim as much as they possibly can, they simply should have said zero to 9.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2139.052], "stop_times": [2143.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.052}, "reply_to": "21044__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_014", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--They... they should have, and had I written the claim today knowing what I know, it would have been written differently.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2143.676, 2149.23], "stop_times": [2149.23, 2149.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.676}, "reply_to": "21044__2_013", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_015", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And apparently the district judge agrees with you, because that's what the injunction requires, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2149.49], "stop_times": [2154.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.49}, "reply_to": "21044__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_016", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "What we learned during the evidence in the case was, outside the written record of the Patent Office, was that the process would work all the way down to a pH of 2.\nThat evidence was submitted to overcome arguments that were made by Warner-Jenkinson that there is supposed tremendous foaming problems below 6.\nWhat the inventor testified to was, yes, the process would foam, but it would still work to operate to purify the dye all the way down to 2, and so based upon that, the judge entered the injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2154.836, 2163.481, 2172.875], "stop_times": [2163.481, 2172.875, 2183.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.836}, "reply_to": "21044__2_015", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_017", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Does that mean that if some third party used a pH down to 1 or 2, that he would also be an infringer under the doctrine of equivalents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2183.293], "stop_times": [2192.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.293}, "reply_to": "21044__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_018", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "We would have to then examine whether or not we have an insubstantial difference, whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2192.079], "stop_times": [2196.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.079}, "reply_to": "21044__2_017", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_019", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, you don't, according to this record.\nIsn't that clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2196.89, 2199.623], "stop_times": [2199.623, 2200.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.89}, "reply_to": "21044__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_020", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Well, that's what the judge found in entering the injunction, so based upon the facts of this case within the operation of this particular process, a pH of 2 is equivalent to a pH of 6.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2200.554], "stop_times": [2213.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.554}, "reply_to": "21044__2_019", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_021", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, why--\n--Mr.--\n--Why didn't the patentee, Hilton Davis here, use the statutory scheme for a subsequent amendment of the scope of the patent if that's the position it wanted to take.\nThere is a statutory provision that enables a patent applicant who's given a patent to come back in requesting an enlargement of the scope.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2213.274, 2213.695, 2213.925, 2227.125], "stop_times": [2213.695, 2213.925, 2227.125, 2241.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.274}, "reply_to": "21044__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_022", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.\nThat's the reissuing statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2241.784, 2242.785], "stop_times": [2242.785, 2244.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.784}, "reply_to": "21044__2_021", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_023", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2244.237], "stop_times": [2244.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.237}, "reply_to": "21044__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_024", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2244.727], "stop_times": [2244.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.727}, "reply_to": "21044__2_023", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_025", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And so if that isn't done, it seems to me that it makes the use of the doctrine of equivalents to cover something like that questionable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2244.957], "stop_times": [2255.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.957}, "reply_to": "21044__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_026", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "The statutory scheme for a reissuance exists to correct defects in patents where the patent owner recognizes there's something defective in the patent, either because they have misstated something, or they realized they didn't claim as much as they had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2255.806], "stop_times": [2272.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.806}, "reply_to": "21044__2_025", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_027", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, that's this case.\nThey now want to assert something they didn't claim, which is a pH below 6.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2272.445, 2274.448], "stop_times": [2274.448, 2280.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.445}, "reply_to": "21044__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_028", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--But the difference in reissuance is, it permits you to enlarge the scope of the claim within the 2-year statutory period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2280.334], "stop_times": [2287.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.334}, "reply_to": "21044__2_027", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_029", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2287.368], "stop_times": [2287.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.368}, "reply_to": "21044__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_030", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "The doctrine of equivalents operates on a different premise, and that is that you're not enlarging the scope of the claim.\nAll you are doing is substituting equivalents for what you have literally claimed.\nLet me provide an analogy.\nSynonyms.\nWe have a word, the word car.\nWe have synonyms to that word, automobile, motorcar.\nIf we substitute one for the other, we aren't enlarging the scope of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2287.588, 2293.411, 2298.184, 2300.838, 2302.678, 2305.671, 2308.863], "stop_times": [2293.411, 2298.184, 2300.838, 2302.678, 2305.671, 2308.863, 2312.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2287.588}, "reply_to": "21044__2_029", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_031", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes, but it's very different here, where there's been a specified range of the pH, and Hilton Davis wants to claim that something that isn't within that scope is nonetheless protected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2312.505], "stop_times": [2327.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.505}, "reply_to": "21044__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_032", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--And if we are to have the doctrine of equivalents, it says that we have the right to include within our patent not only that which we have expressly, literally claimed, but all those things which are equivalent because of insubstantial differences.\nIn this case, there was the additional issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2327.416, 2343.087], "stop_times": [2343.087, 2345.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.416}, "reply_to": "21044__2_031", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_033", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But it's very hard to conclude that it's insubstantial when it's outside the limits that the patent owner has agreed to have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2345.888], "stop_times": [2357.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.888}, "reply_to": "21044__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_034", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--But I think that's the very reason that the doctrine of equivalents exists, so that the patent owner is not forced to only have as coverage and to be protected against what they have literally claimed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2357.025], "stop_times": [2369.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.025}, "reply_to": "21044__2_033", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_035", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Schmit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2369.874], "stop_times": [2371.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.874}, "reply_to": "21044__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_036", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2371.995], "stop_times": [2372.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.995}, "reply_to": "21044__2_035", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_037", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--before we get by the argument prior to the equivalents argument, namely whether there was a waiver, you say that the record discloses... does not disclose that the examiner demanded that 6 be the level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2372.245], "stop_times": [2386.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.245}, "reply_to": "21044__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_038", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "As a condition of the grant, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2386.695], "stop_times": [2388.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2386.695}, "reply_to": "21044__2_037", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_039", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Why don't you look at page 107 of the Joint Appendix, which is the patentee's record of interview, and it says the examiner stated that on presentation of such arguments, namely the arguments that had been made above showing four major points of difference, coupled with an amendment in claim 1 inserting the pH range from 6 to 9.\nIn accordance with the specification disclosure at page 12, and I gather the specification disclosure was the reason he picked 6, he would reconsider his rejection as based on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2388.397, 2415.553], "stop_times": [2415.553, 2426.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.397}, "reply_to": "21044__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_040", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That's correct, and if we look at the rest of the record we find the reason that the examiner was suggesting that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2426.101], "stop_times": [2432.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2426.101}, "reply_to": "21044__2_039", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_041", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--He wasn't suggesting it.\nHe said he... this is the only basis on which he said he would reconsider it, namely, you insert a range from 6 to 9.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2432.733, 2433.264], "stop_times": [2433.264, 2438.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.733}, "reply_to": "21044__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_042", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--And the only reason that we could learn from the record, the written record for that type of amendment was to avoid pH's above 9 that were in the prior art.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2438.61], "stop_times": [2446.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.61}, "reply_to": "21044__2_041", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_043", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, what about the specification disclosure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2446.334], "stop_times": [2449.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.334}, "reply_to": "21044__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_044", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "The specification did disclose 6, and up to 9, but the question here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2449.406], "stop_times": [2455.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.406}, "reply_to": "21044__2_043", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_045", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "So that's what he was basing it on, and doesn't the patent have to comply with the specification?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2455.441], "stop_times": [2459.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.441}, "reply_to": "21044__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_046", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--What the claim has to do is, it has to enable a person of ordinary skills in the art to practice the invention, that what this... what we have here is, the examiner's suggesting that 6 be put in to be absolutely sure that that enablement requirement was met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2459.374], "stop_times": [2477.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.374}, "reply_to": "21044__2_045", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_047", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, you're saying he suggests it be put in.\nHis only agreement to reconsider has as one of its conditions inserting the pH range from 6 to 9.\nI mean, you can call it a suggestion if you like, so long as you say he suggests that unless you do that he won't reconsider it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2477.823, 2479.646, 2486.672], "stop_times": [2479.646, 2486.672, 2494.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.823}, "reply_to": "21044__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_048", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But if we look at the rest of the written record in the case, we find that the only reason that any pH limitation was being put in was to avoid the prior art.\nThey had to provide this enablement function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2494.008, 2503.262], "stop_times": [2503.262, 2505.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2494.008}, "reply_to": "21044__2_047", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_049", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, the other side said there's another reason, that is, that the specification has to comply with the patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2505.075], "stop_times": [2509.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.075}, "reply_to": "21044__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_050", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2509.397], "stop_times": [2509.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.397}, "reply_to": "21044__2_049", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_051", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And the specification here was only 6 and above.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2509.827], "stop_times": [2512.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.827}, "reply_to": "21044__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_052", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--I disagree with that premise.\nI think it's basic patent law that the claim could be broader than the specifications.\nThe question is, have you taught in your patent enough to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention?\nIf you teach them 6 will work, and if a person of ordinary skill in the art also knows that 5 will work, as they must in order to apply the doctrine of equivalents, then we have enablement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2512.379, 2513.23, 2518.175, 2525.028], "stop_times": [2513.23, 2518.175, 2525.028, 2535.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.379}, "reply_to": "21044__2_051", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_053", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, whatever the reason was, at least he says it has to be from 6 to 9.\nNow, your argument is, well, he had no reason for the 6.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2535.976, 2539.697], "stop_times": [2539.697, 2542.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.976}, "reply_to": "21044__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_054", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2542.04], "stop_times": [2542.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.04}, "reply_to": "21044__2_053", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_055", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "He had a reason for the 9, no reason for the 6, and therefore we can disregard the 6.\nThat requires whoever's conducting this to not only see what he said, but go further back into the history and see the reasons for what he said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2542.849, 2546.392], "stop_times": [2546.392, 2554.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.849}, "reply_to": "21044__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_056", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That's entirely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2554.708], "stop_times": [2556.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2554.708}, "reply_to": "21044__2_055", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_057", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I don't like history.\nI'm not inclined to--\n[Laughter]\n--want to go any further back than I have to.\nBut isn't it true, there is a reason for the 6, and that is, isn't the patent supposed to teach the person who wants to read and figure out how this thing will work?\nIsn't there an implied representation in the patent that the device will work, and if you don't know whether it will work below 6 or 9, you can't make that representation, and you didn't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2556.039, 2557.011, 2558.713, 2559.274, 2561.398, 2568.731], "stop_times": [2557.011, 2558.713, 2559.274, 2561.398, 2568.731, 2578.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.039}, "reply_to": "21044__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_058", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "We know that because the doctrine of equivalents was applied in this case, that the person of ordinary skill in the art--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2578.887], "stop_times": [2584.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.887}, "reply_to": "21044__2_057", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_059", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, but you didn't know it... did you know it at that time, or the time of the infringement?\nWhen does the doctrine of equivalents come into being?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2584.341, 2587.403], "stop_times": [2587.403, 2591.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.341}, "reply_to": "21044__2_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_060", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--I agree with the Government that the doctrine of equivalents should apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2591.427], "stop_times": [2595.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.427}, "reply_to": "21044__2_059", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_061", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "All right, so you wouldn't... you didn't necessarily know it at the time the patent issued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2595.398], "stop_times": [2598.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.398}, "reply_to": "21044__2_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_062", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Not necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2598.681], "stop_times": [2601.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.681}, "reply_to": "21044__2_061", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_063", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "In fact, you... if you had, you would have said you had experimented at these lower levels, presumably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2601.342], "stop_times": [2607.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.342}, "reply_to": "21044__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_064", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "For whatever reason, it wasn't in the patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2607.056], "stop_times": [2609.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.056}, "reply_to": "21044__2_063", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_065", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But you can answer Justice Stevens question yes, that you put in 6 because you knew it would work at that level, and you weren't sure it would work below, and still not surrender your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2609.059], "stop_times": [2619.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2609.059}, "reply_to": "21044__2_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21044__2_066", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2619.354], "stop_times": [2620.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.354}, "reply_to": "21044__2_065", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_067", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Can you go back for a second to Justice O'Connor's question, and you were talking about synonyms.\nI'm trying to understand how the doctrine of equivalents works.\nSuppose that I have invented five chemicals, A, B, C, D, E, and you put them together and it grows hair, for example.\n[Laughter]\nAnd then sometime in the future, 15 years from now, people discover a new chemical, didn't even exist before.\nIt's called X, and it does the same as A, and so they do the same thing, but they use X, and then I guess that's equivalent, and then I'm going to obviously say, then they invent Y, and then Z, and pretty soon instead of A, B, C, D and E, what we have are five totally new chemicals, didn't exist before, but still grows hair in the same way, same function, same... now, is that supposed to be equivalent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2620.225, 2626.289, 2629.491, 2637.228, 2641.529, 2649.126], "stop_times": [2626.289, 2629.491, 2637.228, 2641.529, 2649.126, 2672.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.225}, "reply_to": "21044__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21044__2_068", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I think we apply the same test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2672.29], "stop_times": [2674.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.29}, "reply_to": "21044__2_067", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_069", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "All right.\nIf that's so, you see, I think the lawyers on the other side are arguing, my goodness, we're supposed to advise clients, and we have no idea how to do it, because we read the patent thing and we know with this doctrine people might discover all kinds of new chemicals in the future, and we just don't know how to do it, and so what we're groping for, is there then no limitation on this doctrine of equivalents?\nI mean, how do you prevent it from becoming so uncertain an element that it becomes impossible to advise the client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2674.23, 2674.44, 2695.307], "stop_times": [2674.44, 2695.307, 2702.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.23}, "reply_to": "21044__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21044__2_070", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I think the way to answer that is to say that when the client asks for the advice, you take that point in time and ask, at that point in time, is A, B, C, D, and F equivalent to X.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2702.672], "stop_times": [2716.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.672}, "reply_to": "21044__2_069", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_071", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But you've... oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2716.071], "stop_times": [2717.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.071}, "reply_to": "21044__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21044__2_072", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "At the time the advice is being sought.\nTomorrow, it may change, but at least as of the point in time that we're talking about right now, what does the person of ordinary skill in the art know about these equivalents?\nIs there an insubstantial difference?\nI'd like to also respond to Mr.... to my colleague's arguments about being disclosed in the patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2717.242, 2719.656, 2729.843, 2731.516], "stop_times": [2719.656, 2729.843, 2731.516, 2742.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.242}, "reply_to": "21044__2_071", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_073", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Before you do that, can you just clarify your opening statement?\nIt is your view that ordinarily the question of the prior history and what that precludes, that that is ordinarily a question for the judge, but it was just happenstance that the parties agreed that it would go to the jury, because I thought that that was one question for this Court to decide.\nIf you're not disputing it, then I guess everybody agrees that prosecution history estoppel is for the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2742.452, 2746.355, 2768.53], "stop_times": [2746.355, 2768.53, 2774.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.452}, "reply_to": "21044__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__2_074", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I think my point was that I couldn't find that this Court had spoken on it.\nThe Federal circut has, and has said it's a question of law, and that's the rule that we've always followed, but in this case, because it was submitted to the jury, then we treated it as a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2774.854, 2780.297], "stop_times": [2780.297, 2790.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.854}, "reply_to": "21044__2_073", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_075", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Right, but you don't dispute that the rule is prosecution history estoppel is a question for the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2790.263], "stop_times": [2798.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.263}, "reply_to": "21044__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__2_076", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2798.959], "stop_times": [2799.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.959}, "reply_to": "21044__2_075", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_077", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Okay.\nBut it's not an issue that we have to decide in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2799.42, 2799.94], "stop_times": [2799.94, 2802.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.42}, "reply_to": "21044__2_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__2_078", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I don't believe so, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2802.823], "stop_times": [2803.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.823}, "reply_to": "21044__2_077", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_079", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And would you concede that it was even within the question that we took?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2803.942], "stop_times": [2806.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.942}, "reply_to": "21044__2_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__2_080", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "It does not appear to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2806.994], "stop_times": [2810.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2806.994}, "reply_to": "21044__2_079", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_081", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "No, it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2810.307], "stop_times": [2811.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.307}, "reply_to": "21044__2_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__2_082", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "The question went more to the existence of the doctrine we quoted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2811.108], "stop_times": [2813.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.108}, "reply_to": "21044__2_081", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_083", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "It was a question about the substance of the doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2813.819], "stop_times": [2815.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.819}, "reply_to": "21044__2_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21044__2_084", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "The requirement of being disclosed in the patent, first, the doctrine of equivalents is an objective inquiry.\nTo require disclosure in the patent makes it into a subjective inquiry, what does the patentee know, rather than what the person who has ordinary skill in the art know.\nWe also have a practical problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2815.812, 2825.867, 2834.442], "stop_times": [2825.867, 2834.442, 2837.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.812}, "reply_to": "21044__2_083", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_085", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "So you think we have no room within the doctrine for looking at the culpability of the alleged infringer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2837.474], "stop_times": [2844.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.474}, "reply_to": "21044__2_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_086", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, that is the entire question, the culpability of the alleged infringer.\nWhat I think Mr. Taranto was getting at was, in order to have an equivalent, you must state it in the patent, and that's what I'm disagreeing with at this point.\nThere are hundreds of thousand of issued patents that are still active, many more applications which have been filed, which cannot now be amended to put those types of equivalent in.\nYou would be depriving people of many, many expectations that they would be protected for equivalents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2844.34, 2848.842, 2857.989, 2867.835], "stop_times": [2848.842, 2857.989, 2867.835, 2874.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.34}, "reply_to": "21044__2_085", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_087", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "On the other hand, there ought to be some reasonable limitation to its use, so that it isn't dredged up in every single infringement case, and as appears to be the case today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2874.409], "stop_times": [2888.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2874.409}, "reply_to": "21044__2_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21044__2_088", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "What I think Graver and some of its predecessors tell us, it's available for use in any case where there's no literal infringement, but there are limits.\nOne of the limits we've talked about is prosecution history estoppel.\nThere is another limit that you cannot claim equivalents that would cause you to read on, to run into the prior art, that is, to invalidate your patent.\nThere are limitations inherent in the operation of the doctrine of equivalents itself.\nOnly insubstantial changes qualify.\nI might analogize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2888.959, 2897.675, 2901.268, 2911.623, 2915.537, 2918.568], "stop_times": [2897.675, 2901.268, 2911.623, 2915.537, 2918.568, 2920.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.959}, "reply_to": "21044__2_087", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_089", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Your insubstantial you define as a tenfold reduction in the acidity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2920.969], "stop_times": [2927.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.969}, "reply_to": "21044__2_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_090", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Yes, in the context of this process, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2927.925], "stop_times": [2931.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.925}, "reply_to": "21044__2_089", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_091", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2931.117], "stop_times": [2932.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.117}, "reply_to": "21044__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_092", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "All right, let me give an example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2932.667], "stop_times": [2934.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.667}, "reply_to": "21044__2_091", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_093", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--That sounds substantial.\nThat sounds substantial to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2934.189, 2934.69], "stop_times": [2934.69, 2936.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.189}, "reply_to": "21044__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_094", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Let me clarify with perhaps an example.\nSuppose... a soft drink has a pH of 3.\nWater has a pH of 7.\nThey're both equally applicable to quench thirst, irrespective of their pH.\nGoldfish wouldn't thrive very well at a pH of 3 in a soft drink, but would in water, so in the context of what the application is, in the context of the invention, a pH of 5, or a pH of 6 may make no difference.\nIn fact, here it didn't.\nAnother context, a slight change of pH may make the water--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2936.8, 2938.51, 2941.974, 2943.496, 2949.18, 2961.519, 2962.901], "stop_times": [2938.51, 2941.974, 2943.496, 2949.18, 2961.519, 2962.901, 2965.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2936.8}, "reply_to": "21044__2_093", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_095", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But pH was central enough to the invention that it was specified.\nI mean, you know, when I'm drinking water or Coke I don't specify what the pH is, but it was central enough to the invention here that it was specified in the patent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2965.832, 2970.415], "stop_times": [2970.415, 2979.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.832}, "reply_to": "21044__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__2_096", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Yes, and there were several reasons why the pH had some importance to this invention.\nFirst, it had to lie within the range that it would not destroy the numbering that was doing the filtering, so you could not get too acid or too alkyl.\nSecondly, the process has to operate within a certain range, or else you end up with a product that is so acid, a dye, or so alkaline that it can't be used as a practical matter.\nSo there are limits, and one of the limits is 9.\nThere is also probably a lower limit that, as the inventor testified, you wouldn't want to go below 2 because it would cause the membrane to be eaten up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [2979.57, 2984.315, 2992.991, 3003.958, 3006.93], "stop_times": [2984.315, 2992.991, 3003.958, 3006.93, 3014.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.57}, "reply_to": "21044__2_095", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_097", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I'm still a little worried about the army of experts possibly in a chemical case or biotechnology, on either side arguing that two substances that are made up really of very different chemicals are in fact made up of chemicals that do the equivalent thing, and at some period of time it would have been obvious to some group of people.\nIt's the uncertainty inherent in that kind of procedure that makes me ask if you can consider some limitations on this doctrine that would prevent my concern from becoming real.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3014.677, 3035.119], "stop_times": [3035.119, 3046.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.677}, "reply_to": "21044__2_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21044__2_098", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I think as long as we have questions of fact and law and scientific inquiries like this we're going to have that problem, which brings me to the jury question, the issue really, because I think that was another concern that my colleague had.\nOur position is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3046.667, 3063.456], "stop_times": [3063.456, 3065.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.667}, "reply_to": "21044__2_097", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_099", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, I thought you agreed a moment ago that it needn't be decided in this case and wasn't even included in the question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3065.567], "stop_times": [3072.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.567}, "reply_to": "21044__2_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__2_100", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Well, the word jury was in the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3072.012], "stop_times": [3074.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3072.012}, "reply_to": "21044__2_099", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_101", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes--\n--Do you think that's enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3074.893, 3075.264], "stop_times": [3075.264, 3077.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.893}, "reply_to": "21044__2_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__2_102", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, I don't know.\n[Laughter]\nI would just state, though, I think Markman draws the line between what is for the court and what is for the jury.\nOn one side of the line we have claim construction, clearly for the judge.\nOn the other side of the line we have infringement, clearly for the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3077.615, 3079.117, 3079.458, 3086.03, 3089.974], "stop_times": [3079.117, 3079.458, 3086.03, 3089.974, 3093.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.615}, "reply_to": "21044__2_101", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_103", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Mr. Schmit, isn't it true that in fashioning relief in an infringement case, once the... there's a determination whether by the judge or jury that there's been infringement, normally the judge will have to enter an injunction, and won't he then, he or she then have to face up to the problem of what is the permissible boundary line which the infringer may no longer cross?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3093.747], "stop_times": [3113.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.747}, "reply_to": "21044__2_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_104", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes, and this is a control that the judge could exercise over just how far the doctrine of equivalents can go in fashioning this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3113.008], "stop_times": [3119.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3113.008}, "reply_to": "21044__2_103", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_105", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "So before the case is over, the judge is going to have to perform that task.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3119.483], "stop_times": [3123.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.483}, "reply_to": "21044__2_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_106", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3123.885], "stop_times": [3124.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3123.885}, "reply_to": "21044__2_105", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_107", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, do you think the judge can perform that task simply de novo, when he comes to considering the injunction?\nIf, in fact, say a jury has found... a particular way the judge could say, well, since this is equitable I'm going to kind of disregard that finding of fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3124.335, 3131.341], "stop_times": [3131.341, 3140.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.335}, "reply_to": "21044__2_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__2_108", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I don't think the judge can do that, but I think, like what happened in this particular case, where the jury came back with a finding implied that a pH of 5 was an infringement, and the judge took the limit all the way down to 2, is going beyond what the jury did, but I don't think you can ignore a factual finding by the jury.\nIn Markman, the line that was drawn was between the construction of the instrument and the character of the thing invented, and this Court quoted from the Bischoff case back in 1869.\nOn the one hand we have construction of the instrument.\nThe character of the invention is really the heart of the invention, as you stated in Markman, how it functions, the way in which it does it, the result that it gives.\nThat's the distinction to be made.\nIn Real Typewriter, which was talked about in the Graver case, Judge Learned Hand said that a patent is like any other legal instrument, but it's peculiar in this, that after all aids to interpretation have been exhausted and the scope of the claims has been enlarged as far as the words can be stretched, on proper occasions the court may make them cover more than their meaning will bear.\nThere are times that resort to the doctrine of equivalents.\nThat's what distinguishes, I think, between judge and between jury.\nThe doctrine of equivalents I submit, I think is more vital today than it's ever been.\nThere was a time when an inventor could go out in the barn and cobble up an invention, but today it requires so much expense and so much risk by companies, particularly in the biotechnology area, to come up with inventions that they need the protection the doctrine of equivalents affords, and I urge this Court to affirm the Federal circuit, who sees these cases every day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3140.386, 3158.469, 3176.271, 3178.423, 3188.088, 3190.001, 3213.306, 3215.687, 3220.081, 3225.033], "stop_times": [3158.469, 3176.271, 3178.423, 3188.088, 3190.001, 3213.306, 3215.687, 3220.081, 3225.033, 3250.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.386}, "reply_to": "21044__2_107", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_109", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "May I ask you just one last question?\nWe talked earlier about culpability being relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3250.071, 3251.501], "stop_times": [3251.501, 3254.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.071}, "reply_to": "21044__2_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_110", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3254.914], "stop_times": [3255.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3254.914}, "reply_to": "21044__2_109", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_111", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "What about designing around a patent?\nIs that a plus or a minus?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3255.295, 3257.185], "stop_times": [3257.185, 3258.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.295}, "reply_to": "21044__2_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_112", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "It's a factor to be considered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3258.934], "stop_times": [3261.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.934}, "reply_to": "21044__2_111", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_113", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And which way does it cut, is what I'm asking?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3261.768, 3264.4], "stop_times": [3264.4, 3265.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.768}, "reply_to": "21044__2_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_114", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "What the Federal circuit teaches us, as implied from Graver, that if a patentee... if an accused infringer makes an attempt to design around the patent there is an inference to be drawn by the trier of fact that they have attempted to incorporate substantial changes.\nIt's merely an inference, so it's merely one factor that can be considered in the whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3265.749, 3284.683], "stop_times": [3284.683, 3289.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3265.749}, "reply_to": "21044__2_113", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_115", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I'm still not quite clear whether you're saying it's a plus or a minus.\nIs it a factor that favors the infringer, or favors the patentee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3289.776, 3292.548], "stop_times": [3292.548, 3296.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3289.776}, "reply_to": "21044__2_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_116", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--It favors the infringer if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3296.541], "stop_times": [3298.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3296.541}, "reply_to": "21044__2_115", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_117", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3298.531], "stop_times": [3298.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.531}, "reply_to": "21044__2_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_118", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--they make the attempt to design around it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3298.772], "stop_times": [3301.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3298.772}, "reply_to": "21044__2_117", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_119", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "And that's clear from the Fifth Circuit model instructions.\nThe Fifth Circuit has approved the model instructions on infringement, and it does say that designing around is a factor in favor of the alleged infringer, just as copying is a factor in favor of the patentee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3301.163, 3303.874], "stop_times": [3303.874, 3319.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.163}, "reply_to": "21044__2_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21044__2_120", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "That's true.\nI didn't mean to imply from culpability that the subjective intent of the infringer should be a factor.\nThis is an objective test, and whether or not the infringer intended to infringe or did not intend to infringe is irrelevant, as I think Colonial Oil teaches.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3319.177, 3319.968, 3325.662], "stop_times": [3319.968, 3325.662, 3336.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3319.177}, "reply_to": "21044__2_119", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_121", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But the irony is, he tries to get something that's commercially useful and as close to the patent as is lawful, and that's designing around in a way.\nIn another way, it's copying.\nI mean, the line between the two is kind of fuzzy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3336.438, 3343.483, 3344.712], "stop_times": [3343.483, 3344.712, 3346.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.438}, "reply_to": "21044__2_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21044__2_122", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "What the infringer must do then is to make substantial changes, which I think benefits everybody, because now, instead of little, incremental changes, you have big changes in technology, and I think that benefits everyone.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3346.835, 3357.863], "stop_times": [3357.863, 3359.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3346.835}, "reply_to": "21044__2_121", "speaker": "david_e_schmit"}
{"id": "21044__2_123", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schmit.\nMr. Taranto, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3359.145, 3360.824], "stop_times": [3360.824, 3363.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.145}, "reply_to": "21044__2_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__3_000", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "If I could make a couple of quick points, the estoppel point I think, set out at page 28 and 29 of our petition, is, I think, widely recognized as the single most important limit in defining the scope of the doctrine of equivalents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3363.125], "stop_times": [3378.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3363.125}, "reply_to": "21044__2_123", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__3_001", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But it really wasn't in the questions presented.\nI mean, that's the major problem I have with that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3378.445, 3380.125], "stop_times": [3380.125, 3383.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.445}, "reply_to": "21044__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__3_002", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Well, I guess I... we intended it to be in the question presented.\nThe question presented said whether infringement should always be available based on a mere finding of substantial difference.\nWe said no, and the first primary limit we suggested was prosecution history estoppel as part of 28 and 29.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3383.097, 3387.131, 3393.645], "stop_times": [3387.131, 3393.645, 3400.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3383.097}, "reply_to": "21044__3_001", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__3_003", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "This is in your petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3400.39], "stop_times": [3402.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.39}, "reply_to": "21044__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__3_004", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Yes.\nIt is 28--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3402.213, 3403.052], "stop_times": [3403.052, 3403.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3402.213}, "reply_to": "21044__3_003", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__3_005", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Even though the accused product or process is outside the literal scope of the claim.\nI don't see where it refers to prosecution history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3403.863, 3407.877], "stop_times": [3407.877, 3410.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.863}, "reply_to": "21044__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21044__3_006", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--Right, it did not use that label.\nProsecution history estoppel comes up only when you have a defendant's product that is outside the literal terms of the patent, otherwise there's nothing to estop, otherwise you have literal infringement, so it is in every text the essential limit in defining the scope of the doctrine of equivalents.\nThe important thing that has happened now to the doctrine of equivalents is that it has become the rule, rather than the exception.\nWhat that means is that under a substantial differences standard other inventors, who often do make important incremental changes working in the same field, don't know where the boundaries are that they can work, and here a boundary was set at 6.\nThe examiner explicitly, at page 107, referring to 10... to page 22 of the Joint Appendix, said, the reason is that's all that's enabled in the specification, exactly as in the... in all of this Court's prior cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3410.818, 3413.069, 3428.149, 3433.532, 3448.653], "stop_times": [3413.069, 3428.149, 3433.532, 3448.653, 3464.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3410.818}, "reply_to": "21044__3_005", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__3_007", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "But there's no disagreement on the estoppel history question, as in the abstract.\nThe way you assert... it's presented here, both sides agree there's such a thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3464.962, 3470.856], "stop_times": [3470.856, 3474.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3464.962}, "reply_to": "21044__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__3_008", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "I know, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3474.929], "stop_times": [3475.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3474.929}, "reply_to": "21044__3_007", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__3_009", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--as estoppel history.\nThey just disagree as to whether such estoppel occurred here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3475.18, 3475.67], "stop_times": [3475.67, 3479.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3475.18}, "reply_to": "21044__3_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21044__3_010", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "--I don't think so.\nI think there are two fundamental legal disagreements.\nThe Federal circuit said, we've reexamined the reason, and then it said, we discount all reasons except prior art.\nThose are legally incorrect, and if we change those and say the reason doesn't matter, there was a demand, and second, that even if you do look at the reason, invalidity for overbreadth is no worse than prior art.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3479.962, 3480.583, 3482.413, 3487.759], "stop_times": [3480.583, 3482.413, 3487.759, 3499.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3479.962}, "reply_to": "21044__3_009", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "21044__3_011", "conversation_id": "21044", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Taranto.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-728", "start_times": [3499.397, 3500.659], "stop_times": [3500.659, 3502.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3499.397}, "reply_to": "21044__3_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__0_000", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 96-110, Washington versus Harold Glucksberg.\nMr. Williams--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [0.0, 4.184], "stop_times": [4.184, 5.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__0_001", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please The Court.\nWe are here today representing the people of the State of Washington to defend their legislative policy judgment to prohibit assisted suicide.\nThe Constitutional concept of ordered liberty requires the drawing of clear lines to delineate that conduct which is permissible from that conduct which is not.\nThe Washington statute prohibiting assisted suicide was forged at the common law, tempered by centuries of legal traditions and ratified by recent legislative action and by a direct vote of the people of Washington.\nThe same prohibition has been enacted by the legislatures of virtually every state and the line that it draws in the end-of-life context is supported by the organizations of the health care professionals who care for the sick and dying on a daily basis.\nThe issue here today is whether the Constitution requires that the social policy developed by Washington voters must be supplanted by a far different social policy, a Constitutionally recognized right to physician-assisted suicide that is contrary to our traditions and overrides the important state interests that are served by the Washington statute.\nIn contrast to the clear line that is drawn by Washington law, Respondents offer a line that is unstable and inconsistent with the concept of ordered liberty.\nIt is inconsistent with liberty in three respects.\nFirst, it is limited to a very few of our citizens.\nSecondly, those few must justify their exercise of this so-called Constitutional right.\nThirdly, if... even the Respondents and their amici agree that this right, if it is to be exercised at all, if it is to be recognized at all, must be closely regulated.\nAnd their equal protection argument demonstrates just how unstable the line is, because they suggest that flowing from this Court's assumed recognition of a right to refuse treatment in the Cruzan case, there is a seamless web of Constitutional... excuse me, a seamless... stream of Constitutional rights that flows from that decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [5.165, 8.318, 17.334, 28.59, 42.889, 59.399, 84.216, 95.543, 98.976, 103.748, 110.903, 123.042], "stop_times": [8.318, 17.334, 28.59, 42.889, 59.399, 84.216, 95.543, 98.976, 103.748, 110.903, 123.042, 145.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5.165}, "reply_to": "20201__0_000", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_002", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Mr. Williams, in the Cruzan case, The Court recognized a liberty interest and yet it upheld restrictive legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [145.956], "stop_times": [158.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.956}, "reply_to": "20201__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__0_003", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes, ma'am, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [158.765], "stop_times": [161.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.765}, "reply_to": "20201__0_002", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_004", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "So couldn't one take the same approach here, there is a liberty interest, but because of the risks and dangers involved, considerable state regulation is permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [161.237], "stop_times": [176.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 161.237}, "reply_to": "20201__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__0_005", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, one could take that approach.\nThe problem that that would create by recognizing a liberty interest is that many states are considering whether to move the line by legislation... in fact, our sister state of Oregon has done just that... in the beginning of a recognition of a liberty interest may limit their flexibility to deal with this complicated area.\nWe agree that, even if you find the existence of a liberty interest, that the same important state interests that were present in Cruzan are present in this case and would justify the statute nonetheless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [176.177, 180.258, 199.742], "stop_times": [180.258, 199.742, 210.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.177}, "reply_to": "20201__0_004", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_006", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And the bottom line of Cruzan was to uphold precisely what the state did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [210.819], "stop_times": [215.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.819}, "reply_to": "20201__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__0_007", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's exactly right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [215.013], "stop_times": [216.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.013}, "reply_to": "20201__0_006", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_008", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "What are the state interests you would argue support the law here in the event that a liberty interest is recognized?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [216.752], "stop_times": [227.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.752}, "reply_to": "20201__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20201__0_009", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Your Honor, there are three important state interests that are involved.\nThe first one is life, which includes the state's interest in prevent... is a subset the interest of preventing suicide.\nAnd, in the hierarchy of Constitutional value, certainly the protection of life is the highest.\nIn fact, one could argue that that's why people organize into communities, into civilized societies, is to protect life.\nThe second one is to prevent abuse and undue influence, and certainly the risk is higher in the physician-assisted suicide context than it is in the refusal of treatment context.\nAnd thirdly, there is a strong interest in regulating the medical profession.\nPrecisely because physicians have the capacity to injure or perhaps cause the death of their patients, the state has an important interest in maintaining a clear line between physicians as healers and curers and physicians as instruments of death of their patients.\nAnd we believe all three of those interests together or frankly any one of them separately would support the state legislation in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [227.378, 231.472, 238.367, 243.9, 250.466, 262.074, 265.216, 284.36], "stop_times": [231.472, 238.367, 243.9, 250.466, 262.074, 265.216, 284.36, 291.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.378}, "reply_to": "20201__0_008", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_010", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Mr. Williams, taking the second one separately, the fear of abuse, the argument runs in various forms that, if what the... what the two Courts of Appeals so far have recognized prevails, the risk is that, in fact, the practice of assistance, so-called, is going to sort of gravitate down to those who are not terminally ill, to those, in fact, who have not made a truly voluntary or knowing choice.\nAnd ultimately it's going to gravitate out of physician-assisted suicide into euthanasia.\nOne of the difficulties that I have with this case and with the one that follows it is I'm not sure how I should weight or value that risk or those risks.\nWhat the argument raises is plausible.\nI mean, it's easy to see.\nBut I don't know how realistic it is.\nAnd I don't know how much weight to put on it.\nWhat should I do, where should I look, or what methodology should I pursue to try to solve my difficulty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [291.983, 327.947, 335.794, 349.433, 353.046, 355.126, 357.708, 360.139], "stop_times": [327.947, 335.794, 349.433, 353.046, 355.126, 357.708, 360.139, 367.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.983}, "reply_to": "20201__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__0_011", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I would make at least two suggestions, Justice Souter.\nFirst, look at the Respondents' equal protection argument and contrast that with the doctrinal support that they offer for a liberty interest in this case.\nThe doctrinal support that they offer does not provide the limitations that they suggest should be in play with respect to this liberty interest.\nYet their equal protection argument that equates the withdrawal of medical treatment, in effect, which is a time-honored right under our common-law, with the physician-assisted suicide, when assisted suicide itself was contrary to the common law, it was a common-law crime, and yet they equate those two, while these Respondents may say that what they are trying to do is limit this to a narrow class, the next case will argue much the same as they have, that it should be extended perhaps to the chronically ill, perhaps to those who... to euthanasia for those who can't administer that.\nAnd in fact, some of their amici have acknowledged that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [367.494, 370.627, 379.252, 386.818, 422.432], "stop_times": [370.627, 379.252, 386.818, 422.432, 424.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.494}, "reply_to": "20201__0_010", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_012", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Let me direct you into a narrower channel.\nI understand the, let's say, the problem of doctrinal slippage which is what you're talking about here.\nBut there's also a, just, kind of an empirical component.\nThere's is a prediction about what, in fact, would happen even if the doctrine is maintained pure, even if we draw a line and that line is never going to be crossed.\nWhat basis do I have for evaluating the claim that, in fact, apart from doctrine, this slippage is going to occur and that, in effect, the innocent are going to die as a result of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [424.603, 427.665, 434.791, 437.843, 449.269], "stop_times": [427.665, 434.791, 437.843, 449.269, 463.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.603}, "reply_to": "20201__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__0_013", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Again, the second suggestion I was going to make would be to look at the district court decision in the case involving the Oregon statute, where the district court noted that the proponents of the Oregon law which is limited in the same way that these Respondents suggest it should be, to the terminally ill.\nBut the proponents of that law acknowledged in that district court proceeding that they intend... that this was a first step and it would be extended by statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [463.768, 480.058], "stop_times": [480.058, 489.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.768}, "reply_to": "20201__0_012", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_014", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But that's a variant... I think that's a variant of the... sort of the problem of doctrinal slippage.\nThis is step one and they have step two or three or whatever in mind.\nMy question is, let's assume that there isn't going to be doctrinal slippage, let's assume that we're simply evaluating the argument that if you recognize what is being requested now, in fact, what will happen is that people who don't consent, who are not terminally ill, who do not even self-administer, are going to end up dying as a result of this.\nWhat empirical basis do I have for evaluating that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [489.154, 493.949, 498.511, 523.717], "stop_times": [493.949, 498.511, 523.717, 529.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.154}, "reply_to": "20201__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__0_015", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, there's no empirical basis in our country, of course, because we do not have a history of recognizing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [529.292], "stop_times": [534.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.292}, "reply_to": "20201__0_014", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_016", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Is there anything beyond the references to the Dutch experience?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [534.335], "stop_times": [538.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.335}, "reply_to": "20201__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__0_017", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, there's the references to the Dutch experience which are I think important and telling in terms of modern history.\nAnd, of course, there is the German experience in the early 1930s.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [538.857, 545.502], "stop_times": [545.502, 549.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.857}, "reply_to": "20201__0_016", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_018", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "What about the Australian, wasn't there something about Australian law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [549.715], "stop_times": [553.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.715}, "reply_to": "20201__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__0_019", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "The northern territory of Australia, Justice Ginsburg, has authorized by statutory action a form of physician-assisted suicide.\nAnd I think a state may legitimately create an exception to its homicide laws for physician-assisted suicide.\nAnd if it is subject only to rational basis rule... review, then I think that the line could be maintained at the terminally ill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [553.716, 562.271, 568.645], "stop_times": [562.271, 568.645, 576.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.716}, "reply_to": "20201__0_018", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_020", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "The Australian proposal was not as the result of a judicial decision I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [576.522], "stop_times": [581.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 576.522}, "reply_to": "20201__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__0_021", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's my understanding, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [581.876], "stop_times": [583.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.876}, "reply_to": "20201__0_020", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_022", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Indeed it was... whatever the legal status of the Netherlands, but courts elsewhere don't have the kind of Constitutional review that we do either.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [583.976, 595.965], "stop_times": [595.965, 596.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.976}, "reply_to": "20201__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__0_023", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I believe that's correct, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [596.365], "stop_times": [599.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.365}, "reply_to": "20201__0_022", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_024", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--But has there been a lot in the briefs about the Netherlands experience, there is this limited legislation in Australia.\nHas there been any evidence about what's going on under that legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [599.419, 609.896], "stop_times": [609.896, 615.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.419}, "reply_to": "20201__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__0_025", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I think that legislation is so new, my understanding it just became effective in this past year in 1996, that we don't... I'm not aware of any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [615.73], "stop_times": [623.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.73}, "reply_to": "20201__0_024", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_026", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "May I ask you a question.\nYou referred to the... your sister state Oregon's experience.\nAnd one of the most powerful arguments in support of your position in this case is legislatures might adopt the remedy rather than the courts.\nIs it your view that a legislature does have the Constitutional authority to authorize assisted suicide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [623.403, 625.376, 629.007, 636.884], "stop_times": [625.376, 629.007, 636.884, 642.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 623.403}, "reply_to": "20201__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__0_027", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens, it is.\nLegislature under its police powers can define the crime of homicide, and a subcomponent of that is the current physician... excuse me, the current assisted suicide statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [642.717, 644.627], "stop_times": [644.627, 653.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.717}, "reply_to": "20201__0_026", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_028", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "The district court in that case disagreed with that, I think, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [653.243], "stop_times": [656.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.243}, "reply_to": "20201__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__0_029", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "My... Your Honor, the district court said that the statute that they adopted did not have adequate safeguards and, therefore, did not qual... did not meet rational basis review for equal protection purposes.\nIt did not say that, as a Constitutional concept, they couldn't strengthen those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [656.435, 667.832], "stop_times": [667.832, 672.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.435}, "reply_to": "20201__0_028", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_030", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Didn't the Ninth Circuit in this case kind of express its disapproval of the district court ruling in Oregon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [672.406], "stop_times": [678.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.406}, "reply_to": "20201__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__0_031", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice, Judge Rhinehart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [678.681], "stop_times": [680.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.681}, "reply_to": "20201__0_030", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_032", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Of course, you're not endorsing the Ninth Circuit's position, though?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [680.782, 683.363], "stop_times": [683.363, 683.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.782}, "reply_to": "20201__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__0_033", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Let me be perfectly clear on that.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [683.724, 689.157], "stop_times": [689.157, 689.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.724}, "reply_to": "20201__0_032", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_034", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "You indicated in your response to Justice Ginsburg that, if we assumed a liberty interest but nevertheless found that the very substantial arguments you have made outweighed it, so that the Washington laws would remain in effect, that this would somehow be confining to legislators and regulators?\nI wasn't quite sure that I followed that.\nI understand the doctrinal significance of this suggestion that was made.\nI wasn't sure of its practical implications that so concerned you.\nWould you expand on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [689.507, 713.734, 717.605, 722.298, 727.922], "stop_times": [713.734, 717.605, 722.298, 727.922, 729.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.507}, "reply_to": "20201__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__0_035", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "What I was trying to suggest, that... maybe if I could explain it differently.\nIf you accept our position, which is rational basis review would be the appropriate level of review, then states would have the maximum flexibility to look at this complicated and complex issue and decide on a state-by-state basis.\nI don't know for certain that assuming a liberty interest in sustaining the statute would complicate it.\nI am concerned, depending on how that's expressed, that it may complicate it, that's all I was trying to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [729.252, 733.696, 746.635, 753.217], "stop_times": [733.696, 746.635, 753.217, 758.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.252}, "reply_to": "20201__0_034", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_036", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, it would be very difficult to assume a liberty interest and rule in your favor in this case, would it not?\nBecause if we assume a liberty interest but nonetheless say that, even assuming a liberty interest, a state can prohibit it entirely, that would be rather a conundrum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [758.393, 765.186], "stop_times": [765.186, 776.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.393}, "reply_to": "20201__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__0_037", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I disagree to this extent: I believe the state... the same important state interests that were implicated in the Cruzan case are implicated here but more strongly, because in the context of withdrawing life support and in the physician assisted suicide there are some different factual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [776.586], "stop_times": [797.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.586}, "reply_to": "20201__0_036", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_038", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But in Cruzan what we were dealing with was a state rule that said you had to prove a certain thing by clear and convincing evidence.\nHere we're not dealing with any sort of an evidentiary rule, we're dealing with an outright prohibition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [797.817, 805.804], "stop_times": [805.804, 810.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.817}, "reply_to": "20201__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__0_039", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [810.215], "stop_times": [812.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.215}, "reply_to": "20201__0_038", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_040", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I suppose that proclaiming a liberty interest is cost-free so long as you can proclaim them and then say, however they can be outweighed by various social policies adopted by the states.\nWe can say there's a liberty interest in murdering people, however it's outweighed by the state's interest in preserving the lives of its' citizens.\nI guess we could do that, couldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [812.296, 825.585, 833.05], "stop_times": [825.585, 833.05, 834.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.296}, "reply_to": "20201__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__0_041", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's true, Justice Scalia.\nWe... the other point I was going to make to Mr. Chief Justice, in response to your question, there is the Oregon Employment Security Division versus Smith case, the peyote case, where the court there, involving a much stronger interest, the First Amendment free exercise of religion, nonetheless upheld an absolute ban on the use of drugs because of the state's important interest in its drug enforcement policies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [834.191, 835.701], "stop_times": [835.701, 859.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.191}, "reply_to": "20201__0_040", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_042", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "The analysis usually is to ask and to determine whether there's a liberty interest at the outset rather than say that your... that that inquiry is going to be affected by the standard of review that you use.\nYou don't say, oh, well, I'll find liberty interest because it's going to be a rational basis and everything is going to come out all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [859.25, 875.639], "stop_times": [875.639, 882.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.25}, "reply_to": "20201__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__0_043", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [882.374, 885.306], "stop_times": [885.306, 888.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.374}, "reply_to": "20201__0_042", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__0_044", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Very well, Mr. Williams.\nGeneral Dellinger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [888.817, 889.898], "stop_times": [889.898, 891.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.817}, "reply_to": "20201__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__1_000", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [891.929], "stop_times": [903.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 891.929}, "reply_to": "20201__0_044", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_001", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "General Dellinger, these last questions, of course, really should be addressed by you because it's your brief that takes the position that there is a liberty interest, but nonetheless, the law should be upheld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [903.805], "stop_times": [917.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.805}, "reply_to": "20201__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20201__1_002", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--That is correct, Justice O'Connor.\nThe liberty interest we would recognize, however, unlike the argument made by Respondents is not a liberty interest in dying.\nWe recognize the existence of a liberty interest because, on a careful reading of the complaints in this case, the Plaintiffs allege that they were undergoing severe pain and suffering.\nAnd the state had a rule which prevented them from the means of relieving that pain and suffering.\nNarrowly conceived, we believe that that state's... the kind of liberty interest that, while not fundamental, while not even as strong as the liberty interest in Cruzan, nonetheless is not the ordinary liberty interest of shifting commercial arrangements, where a state merely need have a plausible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [917.286, 918.828, 927.444, 939.801, 945.365], "stop_times": [918.828, 927.444, 939.801, 945.365, 967.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 917.286}, "reply_to": "20201__1_001", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_003", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And what... what precisely is the liberty interest that you urge us to recognize?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [967.729], "stop_times": [970.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.729}, "reply_to": "20201__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__1_004", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--We urge you to acknowledge, Mr. Chief Justice, that we think it's not critical to the case, but we urge you to acknowledge that a person states a cognizable liberty interest when he or she alleges that the state is imposing severe pain and suffering or has adopted a rule which prevents someone from the only means of relieving that pain and suffering.\nThis is a narrow liberty interest, but it's... and it's... and it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [970.912, 997.259], "stop_times": [997.259, 1000.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 970.912}, "reply_to": "20201__1_003", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_005", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "It certainly wasn't the basis on which the Ninth Circuit decided that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1000.081], "stop_times": [1003.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.081}, "reply_to": "20201__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__1_006", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--That is correct, that is correct.\nAnd we do not agree with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that there is a general liberty interest in dying.\nBut we... and indeed this does not... this isn't an acknowledgment on our part that does not advance our conclusion that these state laws are constitutional.\nBut we felt it important to indicate that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1003.022, 1004.444, 1009.477, 1018.894], "stop_times": [1004.444, 1009.477, 1018.894, 1024.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1003.022}, "reply_to": "20201__1_005", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_007", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And how does it differ from the liberty interest recognized or assumed, let's say, by the plurality in Cruzan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1024.286], "stop_times": [1031.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.286}, "reply_to": "20201__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20201__1_008", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--That is a liberty interest that is sort of a... deeply a part of the antitotalitarian principle, the state may not compel a person to undergo unwanted medical treatment, recognized very substantially in history.\nHere I think we're... we merely look at cases like Ingraham against Wright involving corporal punishment or the prisoner medical cases about not denying prisoners access to pain relief to indicate that there is a liberty interest.\nBut the critical part here, I think, is that here, as in Cruzan, the critical issue is the state's overwhelming interest.\nStates have long had laws that affirm the value of life by prohibiting anyone from promoting or assisting a suicide and I believe that no one disputes the constitutionality of those laws as a general matter.\nThe actual question before The Court is whether the Constitution compels an exception to those laws here.\nIn our view it does not.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1031.781, 1050.123, 1060.911, 1068.405, 1082.857, 1089.058, 1091.041], "stop_times": [1050.123, 1060.911, 1068.405, 1082.857, 1089.058, 1091.041, 1091.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1031.781}, "reply_to": "20201__1_007", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_009", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Mr. Dellinger, we've always had such laws and you go back as far as Blackstone and find Blackstone saying that suicide is not excused even when committed, quote, to avoid those ills which persons had not the fortitude to endure.\nWhen is it that you suppose this liberty interest that didn't used to exist sprang into existence?\nWhen?\n1963?\nWhat year do you think it... it came to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1091.711, 1110.823, 1118.968, 1119.259, 1121.68], "stop_times": [1110.823, 1118.968, 1119.259, 1121.68, 1127.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.711}, "reply_to": "20201__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__1_010", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--1790.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1127.025], "stop_times": [1128.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1127.025}, "reply_to": "20201__1_009", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_011", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "1790?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1128.496], "stop_times": [1129.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.496}, "reply_to": "20201__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__1_012", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I'm saying... the answer is not... not in jest.\nThe liberty interest that we suggest unlike the generalized liberty interest in defining the time and manner of one's death, and... and we would have made our oral argument easier if we had just gone along with the states on this.\nBut... but... but, in fact, we believe that, that if one alleges the kind of severe pain and agony that is being suffered here and that the state is the cause of standing between you and the only method of relieving that, you have stated a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest to which a merely plausible response is not true.\nIf the state, for example, Justice Scalia, barred all pain medication for the terminally ill on a theory that we felt was merely plausible, we think that you would need something more substantial, not perhaps a compelling governmental interest but... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1129.878, 1131.908, 1142.884, 1163.488], "stop_times": [1131.908, 1142.884, 1163.488, 1179.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1129.878}, "reply_to": "20201__1_011", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_013", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But that has nothing to do with... that has nothing to do with suicide, it has nothing to do with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1179.249], "stop_times": [1183.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.249}, "reply_to": "20201__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__1_014", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1183.009], "stop_times": [1183.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1183.009}, "reply_to": "20201__1_013", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_015", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--with a continuous tradition in our society, if not, indeed, in all western society against... against suicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1183.329], "stop_times": [1190.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.329}, "reply_to": "20201__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__1_016", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That is correct.\nI think our difference is that... is... is... is perhaps only one of where the greater analytical clarity comes in.\nWe put this on the side of... of the state's compelling interest, because here I think what is critical is that, if this... while the individual stories are heartrending and make the case for an exception one that strikes a resonant chord for many people, it's important for this Court to recognize that, if you were to affirm the judgments below, lethal medication could be proposed as a treatment, not just to those in severe pain, but to every competent terminally ill person in the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1190.445, 1190.695, 1197.23], "stop_times": [1190.695, 1197.23, 1228.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1190.445}, "reply_to": "20201__1_015", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_017", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "General, it could.\nThe problem that I'm having is as my earlier question indicated is I... I don't know how to weight this probability and this risk.\nHelp me out on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1228.79, 1229.852, 1238.046], "stop_times": [1229.852, 1238.046, 1239.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.79}, "reply_to": "20201__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__1_018", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Justice Souter, it is said that the risks that... that are suggested I think by all of the parties are best weighed by you with the understanding that no American jurisdiction has ever recognized physician-assisted suicide as a lawful practice.\nSo that there's no experiential basis for the conclusion that there could be adequate safeguards to protect those who are suffering from depression and who may request lethal medication because of untreated depression which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1239.598, 1262.052], "stop_times": [1262.052, 1279.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1239.598}, "reply_to": "20201__1_017", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_019", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Of course, that... that might be a... a perfectly legitimate argument for saying that, on the... on the subject of recognizing the... the... the... the ultimate cognizability of... of new substantive due process rights, timing is a legitimate factor in what The Court does and maybe, in fact, you might argue The Court should wait until it can know more--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1279.324], "stop_times": [1306.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1279.324}, "reply_to": "20201__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__1_020", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--It would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1306.221], "stop_times": [1307.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1306.221}, "reply_to": "20201__1_019", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_021", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--before it passes ultimate judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1307.433], "stop_times": [1309.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.433}, "reply_to": "20201__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__1_022", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, in light of the multiple uncertainties we refer to in our brief, it would be I think a grave mistake for The Court to impose on 50 states such a marked transformation that had never been tried by even a single state.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1309.274, 1309.524], "stop_times": [1309.524, 1321.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1309.274}, "reply_to": "20201__1_021", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_023", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "General Dellinger, now or ever, because this case raises that very basic question of who decides.\nAnd is it simply a question of waiting for more experience abroad or in Oregon or is it... but, what is your position?\nIs this ever a proper question for courts as opposed to legislatures to decide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1321.862, 1331.319, 1341.704], "stop_times": [1331.319, 1341.704, 1347.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.862}, "reply_to": "20201__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__1_024", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, we believe that the states have interests that are enduring that would sustain a decision by the state simply not to introduce lethal medication.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1347.337, 1357.035], "stop_times": [1357.035, 1357.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1347.337}, "reply_to": "20201__1_023", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_025", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But you say... you say only if we agree with the states, you say there is a liberty interest which... which... which tosses the whole matter into this Court so that it's up to us to decide whether indeed the states are right or wrong that this is a dangerous practice.\nAnd, if we think they're wrong, then... then the liberty interest must prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1357.656, 1372.365], "stop_times": [1372.365, 1376.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.656}, "reply_to": "20201__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__1_026", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1376.546], "stop_times": [1377.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1376.546}, "reply_to": "20201__1_025", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_027", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's the consequence of recognizing the literate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1377.047], "stop_times": [1379.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.047}, "reply_to": "20201__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__1_028", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes, that is... that is correct.\nAnd I would... but I would... I would refer you... I know one seldom reads but just two sentences of the New York State task force address Justice Souter's question on life and... and, well, as I say in our briefs and both parties' briefs and many amicus briefs.\nBut after... after study since 1982 they said that for purposes of public debate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1379.05, 1380.92, 1394.669], "stop_times": [1380.92, 1394.669, 1399.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1379.05}, "reply_to": "20201__1_027", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_029", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "What page?\nWhat page are you reading from.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1399.484, 1400.553], "stop_times": [1400.553, 1401.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1399.484}, "reply_to": "20201__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__1_030", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Page 120, Justice Kennedy, the third paragraph below the middle of the page.\nThey... they note that one can deposit ideal cases in which all recommended safeguards would be satisfied: Patients would be screened for depression and offered treatment, effective pain medication would be available, and all patients would have a supportive, committed family and doctor.\nYet the reality of existing medical practice in doctors' offices and hospitals cannot generally meet these expectations, however any guidelines or safeguards might be framed.\nThe systemic dangers are dramatic.\nThe least costly treatment for any illness is lethal medication.\nAnd the medical profession tells you in briefs from the A.M.A., The National Hospice Organization, the American Geriatric Association, the nurses association, that we have a system in which we are struggling to try to provide proper treatment for pain and for depression.\nSomeone who is not treated for pain is not in a position to make the kind of decisions they need to be forced to make here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1401.174, 1406.597, 1420.326, 1429.521, 1432.853, 1438.559, 1452.779], "stop_times": [1406.597, 1420.326, 1429.521, 1432.853, 1438.559, 1452.779, 1458.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1401.174}, "reply_to": "20201__1_029", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_031", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "So... so what... what should I make I thought in these very helpful briefs and there were so many helpful briefs, the statistics, and I'm quite serious here, they were very helpful, on that worried me the most that says that only between 1 percent or 2 percent of possibly all people need die in pain.\nBut 25 percent or more do die in pain.\nAnd I suppose that the first fact isn't of much help to the people in the second category.\nI'd like to get a... I'd like to get a reaction from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1458.041, 1477.313, 1482.488, 1489.332], "stop_times": [1477.313, 1482.488, 1489.332, 1495.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.041}, "reply_to": "20201__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20201__1_032", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "The fact that 25 percent unnecessarily die in pain shows the task awaiting the medical profession, but it's not a task that calls for the cheap and easy expedient of lethal medication rather than the more expensive pain palliative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1495.123], "stop_times": [1512.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1495.123}, "reply_to": "20201__1_031", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "20201__1_033", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Thank you, General Dellinger.\nMs. Tucker, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1512.846, 1514.178], "stop_times": [1514.178, 1516.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.846}, "reply_to": "20201__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_000", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents the question whether dying citizens in full possession of their mental faculties at the threshold of death due to terminal illness have the liberty to choose to cross that threshold in a humane and dignified manner.\nDoes our constitution endow government with the power to intrude into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1516.338, 1518.92, 1521.424, 1535.221], "stop_times": [1518.92, 1521.424, 1535.221, 1539.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1516.338}, "reply_to": "20201__1_033", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_001", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "You say... you say they have the... have the liberty to choose.\nBut no... as I understand it there is not an issue here.\nAny patients choosing to die or to commit suicide, it's that they want assistance from a physician to do it, that's what we're arguing about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1539.743, 1542.095, 1546.118], "stop_times": [1542.095, 1546.118, 1556.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.743}, "reply_to": "20201__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_002", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nAnd the reason why we are focused on that is because these dying patients want a peaceful death, they want a humane death and they want a dignified death.\nAnd, in order to access that kind of death they need the assistance of their physician.\nThe physician is the gatekeeper for the medications that can bring that peaceful end to the suffering that for these patients is intolerable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1556.685, 1557.546, 1566.091, 1570.315], "stop_times": [1557.546, 1566.091, 1570.315, 1578.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1556.685}, "reply_to": "20201__2_001", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_003", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Ms. Tucker, why... why is it limited to those on the threshold of death?\nI mean suppose I have, you know, terrible pain and the doctor says you're going to be in terrible pain for ten years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1578.07, 1581.172], "stop_times": [1581.172, 1587.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.07}, "reply_to": "20201__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_004", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1587.515], "stop_times": [1588.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.515}, "reply_to": "20201__2_003", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_005", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Why shouldn't I have the right to suicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1588.277], "stop_times": [1590.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.277}, "reply_to": "20201__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_006", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Justice Scalia, we do draw the line at a patient who is confronting death.\nThat individual has a very different choice than the one you posit.\nThis individual does not have a choice between living and dying.\nThis dying patient whose dying process has begun and is underway, this individual has only the choice of how to die.\nWill that death be brutal, will that death be peaceful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1590.287, 1595.252, 1599.463, 1603.556, 1611.832], "stop_times": [1595.252, 1599.463, 1603.556, 1611.832, 1614.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1590.287}, "reply_to": "20201__2_005", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_007", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I hate to tell you, but the dying process of all of us has begun and is underway.\nIt's just a matter of time.\nAnd it seems to me that the patient who has ten years of agony to look forward to has a more appealing case than the patient who is at the threshold of death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1614.794, 1618.787, 1621.259], "stop_times": [1618.787, 1621.259, 1631.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.794}, "reply_to": "20201__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_008", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, I think not, Justice Scalia, because the patient who is facing this question of how to die... this is the final decision for this individual.\nThis is a patient who physicians do not have the difficulty that the state would suggest in determining that, in fact, the dying process really is imminent at this point.\nNow, keep in mind in the record in this case it was never disputed that these patients who came forward to bring this case were, in fact, quite close to death and then subsequently all did die.\nThere's no dispute in the record about that.\nThe physicians each testified in both of these cases that it is their regular medical practice to make that diagnosis and of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1631.173, 1638.97, 1649.656, 1659.494, 1661.515], "stop_times": [1638.97, 1649.656, 1659.494, 1661.515, 1667.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.173}, "reply_to": "20201__2_007", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_009", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Ms. Tucker, you... you... you said on one end of it that it's got to be the terminal point of life, however one defines soon to die.\nAnd that's not as clear.\nBut what about the person who is in such agony that that person is not able to assist in her own suicide so she needs the doctor or the nurse to administer the lethal dose.\nIsn't that person in a more sympathetic situation than the one you're describing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1667.928, 1679.286, 1681.677, 1697.838], "stop_times": [1679.286, 1681.677, 1697.838, 1704.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.928}, "reply_to": "20201__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_010", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Your Honor, we don't believe that that class of persons in reality would exist.\nWe believe that any patient who could fully express their wishes with regard to this end of life choice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1704.043, 1708.253], "stop_times": [1708.253, 1715.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.043}, "reply_to": "20201__2_009", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_011", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Let's take this person.\nI'm in agony, but I just can't do it myself, please do it for me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1715.399, 1716.639], "stop_times": [1716.639, 1724.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.399}, "reply_to": "20201__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_012", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I see your point.\nI think you are describing someone who just can't bring themself to do it, as opposed to having the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1724.255, 1725.575], "stop_times": [1725.575, 1730.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.255}, "reply_to": "20201__2_011", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_013", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But wants it and six psychiatrists will swear that that's the mental state of that person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1730.86], "stop_times": [1737.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.86}, "reply_to": "20201__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_014", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Your Honor, we would posit that that is not permissible, that self-administration does address an important state concern here, and that's the concern of voluntariness.\nWe agree that this decision should always rest with the individual and that it should be authentic and voluntary.\nAnd to require the individual to not only make this choice but then to take the final act, we believe assures voluntariness in an important way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1737.303, 1745.38, 1752.545], "stop_times": [1745.38, 1752.545, 1762.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.303}, "reply_to": "20201__2_013", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_015", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Now, we believe everything that you said, it seems to me, could go on in a legislative chamber.\nWhere should we draw the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1762.401, 1768.725], "stop_times": [1768.725, 1770.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.401}, "reply_to": "20201__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_016", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1770.966], "stop_times": [1771.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.966}, "reply_to": "20201__2_015", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_017", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "To say that as a matter of Constitutional due process you include the person who is able to take the pill herself but exclude the one whose mental state is the same?\nI don't understand how you get that line out of a grand due process clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1771.477, 1784.954], "stop_times": [1784.954, 1791.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.477}, "reply_to": "20201__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_018", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I think again in the constitutional analysis, Your Honor, we are considering the state interests as balanced against the patient's interests.\nAnd because voluntariness is so essential here, an additional guarantee of voluntariness tips that balance differently.\nAnd I would posit that, when the patient is fully mentally competent, is making a reasoned and deliberative decision and is able then to take final action on that decision, that the balance clearly tips in favor of individual having the right to exercise this choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1791.638, 1799.343, 1807.841], "stop_times": [1799.343, 1807.841, 1822.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1791.638}, "reply_to": "20201__2_017", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_019", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Why should that decision, if it's competent, reasoned, and deliberated, why should it be limited to physical pain?\nWhat... what about the patient who has terrible emotional suffering in life and just says life is not worth it anymore?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1822.701, 1829.915], "stop_times": [1829.915, 1838.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.701}, "reply_to": "20201__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_020", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1838.379], "stop_times": [1838.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.379}, "reply_to": "20201__2_019", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_021", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "You would not allow assisted suicide in that case, I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1838.8], "stop_times": [1842.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.8}, "reply_to": "20201__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_022", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1842.032], "stop_times": [1842.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.032}, "reply_to": "20201__2_021", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_023", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Why is that?\nBecause we make some... the government makes the judgment that physical pain is worse than emotional suffering?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1842.693, 1843.134], "stop_times": [1843.134, 1850.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.693}, "reply_to": "20201__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_024", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Your Honor, mental competency and freedom from a mental disability or instability including such as a condition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1850.077], "stop_times": [1858.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.077}, "reply_to": "20201__2_023", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_025", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "You don't have to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1858.943], "stop_times": [1859.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.943}, "reply_to": "20201__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_026", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--like depression.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1859.554], "stop_times": [1859.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.554}, "reply_to": "20201__2_025", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_027", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--You don't have to be unstable to think that your life is not worth living, do you?\nOr is the government going to make that judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1859.985, 1862.686], "stop_times": [1862.686, 1864.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.985}, "reply_to": "20201__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_028", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I think that mental competency here is a bright line and that the... that decision as to whether the patient is mentally competent, of course, is a clinician's judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1864.476], "stop_times": [1872.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.476}, "reply_to": "20201__2_027", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_029", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Assume mental competence and assume a patient who is thoroughly mentally competent, is not at the threshold of death, is not in physical pain, but does not want to live anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1872.873], "stop_times": [1881.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.873}, "reply_to": "20201__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_030", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, and again that patient is not confronted with the choice that we address in this lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1881.947], "stop_times": [1886.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.947}, "reply_to": "20201__2_029", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_031", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "What I'm asking, why you... how can you limit the choice you're presenting to us to the physical pain situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1886.852], "stop_times": [1891.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.852}, "reply_to": "20201__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_032", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That individual, if intervention occurs and is not allowed to make this choice, may one day rejoice in that.\nIt is an individual who has an expectation of life that could then be a fruitful and fulfilling life which is not the case with a patient whose life is ending due to the progress of terminal illness.\nThat patient has an entirely different character of interest.\nAnd I do want to address--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1891.784, 1899.231, 1911.686, 1915.159], "stop_times": [1899.231, 1911.686, 1915.159, 1916.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.784}, "reply_to": "20201__2_031", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_033", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And you're willing to have the government impose that judgement, even though the patient says these emotional scars will never heal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1916.01], "stop_times": [1921.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.01}, "reply_to": "20201__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_034", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I believe that the constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1921.274], "stop_times": [1922.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.274}, "reply_to": "20201__2_033", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_035", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And I've tried it for ten years, I want out; you're willing to let the government make that judgment for the person, but not willing to make the judgment that your... your physical pain is... is not as harmful as a few more years of life would be.\nYou're not willing to let the state make that judgment, but you will let the state make the judgment, your emotional pain is not important enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1922.776, 1938.375], "stop_times": [1938.375, 1944.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.776}, "reply_to": "20201__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_036", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I believe that's an entirely different case, Your Honor.\nAnd I did want to respond to what the Solicitor General is suggesting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1944.629, 1946.522], "stop_times": [1946.522, 1950.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.629}, "reply_to": "20201__2_035", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_037", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, but it is... it is different.\nBut it means that there is a limit to this autonomy that you are supposing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1950.142, 1952.095], "stop_times": [1952.095, 1957.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.142}, "reply_to": "20201__2_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_038", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1957.687], "stop_times": [1959.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.687}, "reply_to": "20201__2_037", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_039", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And you are saying that the state can tell individuals that they may not take their own life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1959.269], "stop_times": [1964.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.269}, "reply_to": "20201__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_040", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1964.602], "stop_times": [1966.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1964.602}, "reply_to": "20201__2_039", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_041", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But I... I still... I... I confess I don't understand what the limit is.\nYou, for example, a moment ago said the... the person with a longer life span may indeed someday rejoice that... that... that he was prevented from making the kind of decision effectively which you would allow here.\nI mean, you can argue that of the... of the terminally ill patient.\nI mean, we... if we want to be anecdotal, we've heard anecdotes about those who suffer and at the moment of death say I have fought the good fight.\nI mean, you can make exactly the same argument, it seems to me, in each case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [1966.295, 1970.857, 1984.076, 1987.977, 1996.222], "stop_times": [1970.857, 1984.076, 1987.977, 1996.222, 2000.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.295}, "reply_to": "20201__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__2_042", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, the... the terminally ill patient does not have the expectation of a continued life beyond this very short interim before death.\nCertainly the patient that you described that would choose to endure that period of suffering before death and find it ennobling and find it fulfilling should be permitted to make that choice, and many will make that choice, Justice Souter.\nBut for some patients, based on their values and beliefs formed over a lifetime, that additional quantum of suffering is intolerable to their personhood.\nThe notion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2000.406, 2007.221, 2022.261, 2031.087], "stop_times": [2007.221, 2022.261, 2031.087, 2031.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.406}, "reply_to": "20201__2_041", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_043", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Your... your argument basically is an autonomy argument, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2031.516], "stop_times": [2034.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.516}, "reply_to": "20201__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__2_044", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Well, this... this I think will enable me to respond to the Solicitor General's comment that what we're dealing with here is simply a liberty interest in avoiding pain and suffering.\nThat absolutely trivializes the claim.\nWe have a constellation of interest, each of great Constitutional dimension.\nYes, there is the interest in avoiding pain and suffering.\nAnd that, of course, was recognized as recently as in Casey as being an important feature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2034.828, 2043.593, 2046.077, 2050.849, 2053.681], "stop_times": [2043.593, 2046.077, 2050.849, 2053.681, 2058.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.828}, "reply_to": "20201__2_043", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_045", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, it is... it is not only important, but it's essential--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2058.853], "stop_times": [2061.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.853}, "reply_to": "20201__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_046", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2061.244], "stop_times": [2061.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.244}, "reply_to": "20201__2_045", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_047", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--to your... to your definition of the liberty interest.\nAnd we don't understand how that squares, A, with the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit which ruled in your favor and, B, with this definition of autonomy which you are asserting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2061.525, 2064.246], "stop_times": [2064.246, 2074.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.525}, "reply_to": "20201__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_048", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--The... the second in the constellation of interest is decisional autonomy, and the third in the constellation that has bearing here is the interest in bodily integrity.\nEach of those separate interests is of constitutional dimension and each has bearing here.\nGoing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2074.715, 2083.491, 2089.164], "stop_times": [2083.491, 2089.164, 2090.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.715}, "reply_to": "20201__2_047", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_049", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Ms. Tucker, may I ask you just to qualify one thing.\nYou said formed over a lifetime.\nThat's surely not part of your calculus, it could be someone who never thought a moment about this but is in terrible agony and would fit your terminal illness category.\nAnd I thought that the question Justice Souter was asking you was isn't it possible that such a person could at one time, even for a period of days, say I want to die, I want to die, and didn't get the assistance, lives on, and says I'm glad that I didn't do that, just like mistakes are made about people who commit crimes, isn't there the possibility of a person saying, gee, I really thought I wanted it yesterday, but today I don't?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2090.476, 2092.396, 2094.337, 2105.794], "stop_times": [2092.396, 2094.337, 2105.794, 2141.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.476}, "reply_to": "20201__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_050", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I think that's possible, Justice Ginsburg.\nI do think that it would be permissible for the state in an abundance of concern in that regard to impose a waiting period.\nIt would be appropriate to ensure that this decision is reflective and that it is enduring.\nAnd that is a kind of regulation that certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2141.146, 2143.66, 2151.114, 2156.888], "stop_times": [2143.66, 2151.114, 2156.888, 2158.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.146}, "reply_to": "20201__2_049", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_051", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's another thing too, you're talking about all these regulations, very tight regulations for most liberty interests, we think of them as being free, not... and then, if you're asking a court to declare the interests, who is then to make all these regulations?\nThe waiting period and what else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2158.839, 2178.243], "stop_times": [2178.243, 2181.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.839}, "reply_to": "20201__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_052", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, we are asking simply that this Court recognize the vital liberty interest at stake and that it is a protected choice but not asking this Court to engage in legislation, we are not asking this Court to promulgate a code for regulation of the practice.\nWe do think it should be left to the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2181.095, 2198.336], "stop_times": [2198.336, 2199.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.095}, "reply_to": "20201__2_051", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_053", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "You're not asking that now.\nBut surely that's what the next couple of generations are going to have to deal with, what regulations are permissible and whatnot if we uphold your position here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2199.896, 2201.889], "stop_times": [2201.889, 2211.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.896}, "reply_to": "20201__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_054", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I think not, Chief Justice Rehnquist, for this reason, we do think it's appropriate for that experimentation to occur in the states.\nThere is substantial consensus as to what form of regulation would be appropriate.\nAnd what I can direct you to in that regard is the amicus briefing by the state legislators--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2211.563, 2220.459, 2225.353], "stop_times": [2220.459, 2225.353, 2230.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2211.563}, "reply_to": "20201__2_053", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_055", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But you're going to find the same thing I suspect that perhaps has happened with the abortion cases, there are people who are just totally opposed and people who are totally in favor of them.\nSo you're going to have those factions fighting it out in every session of the legislature, how far can we go in regulating this.\nAnd that will be a Constitutional decision in every case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2230.736, 2241.653, 2248.538], "stop_times": [2241.653, 2248.538, 2252.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.736}, "reply_to": "20201__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_056", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Well, I think that what we see when we look at the quite extensive proposed models that are both in the medical and legal literature and have been presented to The Court and discussed in some of the amicus briefs is that there is substantial agreement from all factions that have joined--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2252.422], "stop_times": [2267.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.422}, "reply_to": "20201__2_055", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_057", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, I think that there is no doubt that it would result if we upheld your position, it would result in a flow of cases through The Court system for heaven knows how long.\nI wanted to ask you whether it should enter the balance of state interests versus the interests of the patient here, that this is an issue that every one of us faces, young or old, male or female, whatever it might be.\nAnd all of us who are citizens and authorized to vote can certainly participate through that process in the development of state laws in this area.\nDoes that cause the balance in any way to shift do you think?\nWe are not dealing perhaps with an unrepresented group, a group of children or a group of women who have no other means to protect themselves, some specific confined group.\nThis is something that affects all of us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2267.071, 2277.447, 2299.031, 2311.079, 2317.403, 2331.683], "stop_times": [2277.447, 2299.031, 2311.079, 2317.403, 2331.683, 2333.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.071}, "reply_to": "20201__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20201__2_058", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I take your point, Justice O'Connor, but I do think that we are dealing with an issue, the literature is extensive on this, that ours is a culture of denial of death.\nAnd that people in our society do not deal with their own mortality until confronted with their death and because of that I think we do have some concerns that the political process would not be expected to work in a usual fashion.\nWe also have the reality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2333.964, 2343.371, 2356.29], "stop_times": [2343.371, 2356.29, 2357.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.964}, "reply_to": "20201__2_057", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_059", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Presumably the majority disagrees with you about that?\nI mean, if you're right about that scientific analysis, it's contrary to what the majority feels.\nAnd why shouldn't we follow the majority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2357.939, 2359.35, 2365.704], "stop_times": [2359.35, 2365.704, 2368.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.939}, "reply_to": "20201__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_060", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "We also have the problem, Your Honor, of the quite well-established and understood underground practice of physician aid in dying and that that is available primarily to the educated and the affluent who can access a physician to provide in that assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2368.746], "stop_times": [2385.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.746}, "reply_to": "20201__2_059", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_061", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "May I go back to the reference in your answer to Justice O'Connor to the political process not working.\nIt seems to me that in the prior cases in which we have spoken of the political process being imperfect, it has been imperfect for exactly the reasons suggested by her question.\nAnd that is, there were certain groups who simply did not get a representative fair shake for whatever reason.\nThat's not what we've got here.\nThe premise of her question I thought was, in any case I'll make it the premise of mine, is that everybody is in the same boat.\nAnd, if, in fact, you are right about the pervasiveness of the denial of death, that denial simply reflects the way we are.\nAnd it seems to me that it's a perfectly legitimate reflection when it finds its way into the legislative process.\nIs there a flaw in that reasoning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2385.876, 2391.73, 2402.639, 2410.243, 2412.677, 2421.052, 2431.187, 2438.563], "stop_times": [2391.73, 2402.639, 2410.243, 2412.677, 2421.052, 2431.187, 2438.563, 2440.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.876}, "reply_to": "20201__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__2_062", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, I think what I was getting at, Justice Souter, is that because there's the denial and people do not confront mortality until faced up against it, you do not have an activist component that is able to address that in the legislative process.\nWhen a patient is on their death bed, they don't have the ability to become politically active.\nAnd that is part of the problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2440.886, 2455.867, 2460.799], "stop_times": [2455.867, 2460.799, 2462.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.886}, "reply_to": "20201__2_061", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_063", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I think your argument there is somewhat inconsistent with the filings in this case.\nThere are also sorts of active filings of amicus briefs that indicate there is very strong political support for the contrary view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2462.02, 2465.541], "stop_times": [2465.541, 2472.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.02}, "reply_to": "20201__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__2_064", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And, Ms. Tucker, isn't it true that maybe the individual hasn't thought about it, but most of us have parents or other loved ones and we've lived through a dying experience that forces us to think about these things.\nAnd so the large question of... why isn't age considered the same kind of suspect classification as race.\nWell, because we were all once young, we hope we will be old, it's universal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2472.567, 2493.05, 2501.995], "stop_times": [2493.05, 2501.995, 2507.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.567}, "reply_to": "20201__2_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_065", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I think the final point that I will address to the court on why we should not simply leave this to the legislative process is perhaps the most important point, and that is that this Court has never left to the legislative process the protection of vital liberties, and the liberty at issue in this case is certainly of a vital and substantial nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2507.829], "stop_times": [2528.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.829}, "reply_to": "20201__2_064", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_066", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, but it's a matter of defining the liberty.\nAnd this is a question of ethics and of morals and of allocation of resources and of our commitment to treat the elderly and the infirm.\nAnd surely legislators have much more flexibility and a much greater capacity to absorb those kind of arguments and make those decisions than we do.\nYou're asking us in effect to declare unconstitutional the law of fifty states.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2528.743, 2531.725, 2541.181, 2555.211], "stop_times": [2531.725, 2541.181, 2555.211, 2559.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.743}, "reply_to": "20201__2_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_067", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "We're asking this Court to simply recognize the vital nature of this liberty and to leave to state experimentation the regulatory process and the state--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2559.773], "stop_times": [2570.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.773}, "reply_to": "20201__2_066", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_068", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Ms. Tucker, may I challenge your premise.\nYour premise is all we are being asked to do is to recognize the vital nature of the liberty interest.\nBut the issue that comes before us in a substantive due process case like this is an issue of the sort that has described in the question compared to what.\nAnd it's the... compared among other things, the... compared to what, which is very, very difficult for us to assess.\nAnd it may be impossible for a court to assess that sensibly for a long time until there is more experience out in the world with what you claim ought to be the case than there is now.\nWhy isn't that a reason for saying we are not in a position either to weight the liberty interest, although we may recognize that there is one, or to weight the countervailing claim of the state.\nAnd, therefore, for substantive due process purposes, as an institution, we are not in a position to make the judgment now that you want us to make.\nIt would just be guesswork.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2570.14, 2572.812, 2579.517, 2591.564, 2600.541, 2613.178, 2627.589, 2637.574], "stop_times": [2572.812, 2579.517, 2591.564, 2600.541, 2613.178, 2627.589, 2637.574, 2638.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.14}, "reply_to": "20201__2_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__2_069", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I think, Justice Souter, there is a tremendous amount of guidance on how to weight this liberty interest in this Court's precedence.\nI think, if one looks to the Cruzan case, where the patient there had lost permanently all cognition and the question was whether her feeding tube could be withdrawn so that she might die as a result, The Court there found that to be a very significant liberty interest, because the idea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2638.885, 2646.79], "stop_times": [2646.79, 2663.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2638.885}, "reply_to": "20201__2_068", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_070", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I disagree with that characterization.\nI think The Court was very, very careful to assume a liberty interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2663.893, 2665.413], "stop_times": [2665.413, 2671.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.893}, "reply_to": "20201__2_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_071", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes.\nThank you, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2671.177, 2671.767], "stop_times": [2671.767, 2673.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2671.177}, "reply_to": "20201__2_070", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_072", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's a rather critical point, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2673.307], "stop_times": [2675.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.307}, "reply_to": "20201__2_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_073", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes, it is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2675.601], "stop_times": [2677.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.601}, "reply_to": "20201__2_072", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_074", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And you're talking about all of these precedents, so this first precedent you site Cruzan and that was just an assumption contrary to your description?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2677.063], "stop_times": [2684.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.063}, "reply_to": "20201__2_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_075", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I went straight to Cruzan because it's most factually similar and I appreciate the correction that, of course, it was just an assumption by The Court.\nAnd that assumption was that that individual had a liberty interest in being--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2684.259, 2689.712], "stop_times": [2689.712, 2695.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.259}, "reply_to": "20201__2_074", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_076", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "On the way to upholding the choice that the state made about how it wished to regulate this particular matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2695.747], "stop_times": [2702.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.747}, "reply_to": "20201__2_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_077", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2702.499], "stop_times": [2703.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.499}, "reply_to": "20201__2_076", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_078", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--and that's what makes this case worlds different from Cruzan.\nThe Court was explaining what the legislature had done and why it was reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2703.04, 2707.864], "stop_times": [2707.864, 2712.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.04}, "reply_to": "20201__2_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_079", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "In Cruzan that is correct, absolutely, Your Honor, however, the focus was very much on preserving to the individual the choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2712.507], "stop_times": [2724.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2712.507}, "reply_to": "20201__2_078", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_080", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That was the focus of the legislature.\nAnd this Court said, yes, the legislature did right, they recognized a liberty interest or whatever you want to call it, but they put conditions on it.\nAnd we say that what the legislature did was all right.\nI don't see how that is at all helpful when you are asking The Court not to approve what the legislature did and explain what the legislature did to the public, maybe better than the public might have known without The Court's decision.\nInstead you are asking to overturn the laws of, now, all states but one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2724.424, 2726.036, 2734.89, 2737.871, 2751.452], "stop_times": [2726.036, 2734.89, 2737.871, 2751.452, 2756.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.424}, "reply_to": "20201__2_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_081", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "The point that... of Cruzan that I wish to suggest has important bearing here is the point that in reviewing the state legislation that did impose that very high evidentiary standard, the point was that that was permissible to do so because it did then safeguard the personal element of the individual's choice that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2756.547], "stop_times": [2779.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.547}, "reply_to": "20201__2_080", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_082", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I don't think Cruzan was primarily about choice in the sense you're... it was... the liberty interest it recognized was the right to be refused medical treatment, which was based on the common-law idea that... imposition of a medical treatment was a battery of common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2779.681], "stop_times": [2798.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.681}, "reply_to": "20201__2_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_083", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--It also, Your Honor, was based on broader concepts than just being free of unwanted bodily invasion.\nIt includes within it the ability to make decisions, and the right decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2798.505, 2804.767], "stop_times": [2804.767, 2809.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.505}, "reply_to": "20201__2_082", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_084", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Are you now drawing language... I don't think there was language like that in the Cruzan opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2809.652], "stop_times": [2814.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.652}, "reply_to": "20201__2_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_085", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I understand the Cruzan assumption of a liberty interest to be something in addition to a recognition that the common law had protected against bodily invasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2814.083], "stop_times": [2825.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.083}, "reply_to": "20201__2_084", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_086", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But your remark just now, that was not a quotation from anything in Cruzan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2825.751], "stop_times": [2830.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.751}, "reply_to": "20201__2_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_087", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Correct.\nAnd I think that moving into this subject of withdrawal of treatment and what bearing it has here, I'd like to direct some comments there.\nIn Washington an individual can direct the withdrawal of treatment and have the medical assistance in doing so.\nAnd Washington's legislature has described that as a fundamental right and to protect the dignity and autonomy of the patient.\nAnd here, where a patient does not happen to be on a removable form of life support but has, of course, had extensive medical treatment, that has very much changed their way of dying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2830.465, 2830.916, 2838.69, 2846.985, 2853.68], "stop_times": [2830.916, 2838.69, 2846.985, 2853.68, 2864.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.465}, "reply_to": "20201__2_086", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_088", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Declining medical treatment is something quite different from suicide.\nIn saying you have a right not to have your body invaded, if you choose not to receive it, you're following a common-law tradition that goes all the way back.\nYou're opposing a common-law tradition when you say there is a right to kill yourself.\nWhy can't a society simply determine as a matter of public morality that it is wrong to kill yourself just as it is wrong to kill someone else.\nWhat in the Constitution prevents that moral judgment from being made in this society's laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2864.897, 2868.95, 2880.168, 2884.9, 2894.496], "stop_times": [2868.95, 2880.168, 2884.9, 2894.496, 2900.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.897}, "reply_to": "20201__2_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_089", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Because I think, Your Honor, that this decision is so profoundly personal, so intimate to the individual, so much based on their own values and beliefs and perhaps religious beliefs included among those that the for the state to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2900.5], "stop_times": [2913.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.5}, "reply_to": "20201__2_088", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_090", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Every religious decision which tells you to do all sorts of unlawful acts by reason of your religious conviction, those are intensely personal as well.\nWe don't change the law on that ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2913.46, 2922.937], "stop_times": [2922.937, 2926.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.46}, "reply_to": "20201__2_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_091", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--This, however, Your Honor, has to do with one's own body, one's own medical care, and suffering in the face of death.\nAnd that brings it within... if any decision falls within the private realm of decision-making, which this Court has indicated the government may not enter, it would be this decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2926.117, 2932.611], "stop_times": [2932.611, 2942.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.117}, "reply_to": "20201__2_090", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_092", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "May I ask you before you finish to tell us as best you can how you would define the liberty interest on which you rely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2942.519], "stop_times": [2948.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.519}, "reply_to": "20201__2_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__2_093", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That this is a liberty, Your Honor, that involves bodily integrity, decisional autonomy, and the right to be free of unwanted pain and suffering, and that that constellation of interests gives rise to a vital liberty, at least of the level of Cruzan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2948.692], "stop_times": [2967.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2948.692}, "reply_to": "20201__2_092", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_094", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But only for this narrow class.\nBecause if you describe those as a lot of people would fit the category, but you say there are these interests but we are going to draw the line at which we recognize these interests for this terminally ill group.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2967.513, 2969.856], "stop_times": [2969.856, 2984.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.513}, "reply_to": "20201__2_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_095", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2984.156], "stop_times": [2984.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.156}, "reply_to": "20201__2_094", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_096", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "So how do you get... leave out the rest of the world who would fit the same standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2984.827], "stop_times": [2989.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.827}, "reply_to": "20201__2_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_097", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and again that gets back to the fact that these individuals that are in the process of dying are confronted only with the choice of how to die, they are not confronted with the choice of should I live or should I die.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [2989.479], "stop_times": [3002.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.479}, "reply_to": "20201__2_096", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_098", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But that describes something, but I don't understand why that is a disposit... I don't understand what that justifies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3002.459], "stop_times": [3007.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.459}, "reply_to": "20201__2_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__2_099", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "It is as if, Your Honor, the right that we claim here only ripens or matures when that patient is at that stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3007.852], "stop_times": [3017.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.852}, "reply_to": "20201__2_098", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_100", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "By why?\nThat's what you're saying, but why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3017.879, 3017.926], "stop_times": [3017.926, 3019.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.879}, "reply_to": "20201__2_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20201__2_101", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I don't think that the interest is as weighty at that point, I think that the state's interests are greater perhaps at a prior point where that individual may go on to lead a fulfilling life and contribute to society.\nThis is not the case for someone who is right about to die.\nAnd I would also like to say that the State of Washington has recognized that the State's interest should ordinarily give way when a patient is in that phase, because the state does permit the individual to make the choice to direct the withdrawal of treatment and thereby bring about death as a result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3019.348, 3032.289, 3035.3], "stop_times": [3032.289, 3035.3, 3053.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3019.348}, "reply_to": "20201__2_100", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_102", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "At any time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3053.89], "stop_times": [3054.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.89}, "reply_to": "20201__2_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_103", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3054.731], "stop_times": [3055.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.731}, "reply_to": "20201__2_102", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_104", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Someone can withdraw treatment or refuse treatment at age 16 as well as at age 96, isn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3055.022], "stop_times": [3065.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.022}, "reply_to": "20201__2_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_105", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Actually, Justice Ginsburg, in the State of Washington, both by statute and by case law, the right to direct the withdrawal of treatment is specifically limited to two situations.\nAnd that is terminal illness or permanent unconsciousness.\nAnd so we have the statutory and judicial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3065.16, 3075.306, 3078.899], "stop_times": [3075.306, 3078.899, 3081.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3065.16}, "reply_to": "20201__2_104", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_106", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Do you mean I can't refuse treatment in the State of Washington?\nI don't want a blood transfusion.\nI have to get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3081.86, 3083.871, 3085.323], "stop_times": [3083.871, 3085.323, 3086.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.86}, "reply_to": "20201__2_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__2_107", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I think that on those kinds of situations you may implicate different rights to refuse the treatment, First Amendment rights perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3086.533], "stop_times": [3093.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3086.533}, "reply_to": "20201__2_106", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_108", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "No, but what is the law in the State of Washington?\nI have a toothache, I have to go get it fixed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3093.887, 3095.477], "stop_times": [3095.477, 3097.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.887}, "reply_to": "20201__2_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_109", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I don't think so much that you are compelled to pursue medical treatment.\nBut I think that if you are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3097.529, 3102.313], "stop_times": [3102.313, 3103.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3097.529}, "reply_to": "20201__2_108", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_110", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "But you're telling us what the law of the State of Washington is.\nAnd I thought you told Justice Ginsburg and us that in Washington there is no right to refuse medical treatment except under some very narrow conditions.\nThis may be true with comatose people or people in temporary shock.\nBut I assume that Justice Ginsburg meant... and we're interested here, our whole discussion... is about those who are competent and have a voluntary choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3103.523, 3106.915, 3116.051, 3120.455], "stop_times": [3106.915, 3116.051, 3120.455, 3129.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.523}, "reply_to": "20201__2_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__2_111", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I was pointing out that in the State of Washington the right to direct the withdrawal of treatment is limited, tightly, to those who are terminally ill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3129.471], "stop_times": [3138.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.471}, "reply_to": "20201__2_110", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_112", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "You mean as a result of death, you mean withdrawal that will result in death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3138.437], "stop_times": [3142.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.437}, "reply_to": "20201__2_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__2_113", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Yes.\nThe withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is limited to terminally ill patients and those that are permanently unconscious.\nAnd because the state has recognized--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3142.839, 3143.279, 3147.972], "stop_times": [3143.279, 3147.972, 3149.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3142.839}, "reply_to": "20201__2_112", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_114", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "You mean someone who is permanently... aren't you talking about substituted judgment?\nSomeone who is permanently unconscious obviously cannot direct the withdrawal of anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3149.894, 3154.757], "stop_times": [3154.757, 3159.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.894}, "reply_to": "20201__2_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_115", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Well, we do that in the State of Washington, as many states do, through the advanced directive, so that... this is the law that I'm referring to is that advanced directive law.\nBut for patients who are competent, presently competent, it is limited to patients who are terminally ill.\nAnd it's the state's recognition that when the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3159.9, 3167.296, 3172.869], "stop_times": [3167.296, 3172.869, 3175.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.9}, "reply_to": "20201__2_114", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_116", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Well, I think you would have a pretty good case if you had some kind of kidney disease and said, I'm not going to take dialysis: Or somebody offers surgery to remedy something that's going to be a serious life threatening problem and you say, thanks but no thanks.\nNow somebody has that treatment forced on them, maybe they ought to bring a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3175.541, 3190.14], "stop_times": [3190.14, 3196.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.541}, "reply_to": "20201__2_115", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20201__2_117", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I think in that context, Your Honor, the doctrine of informed consent would arise and the question could the... would the patient consent to the treatment.\nAnd if the patient refused to consent, I do think it's possible that if that patient was appearing to refuse for suicidal reasons, that the state has the power to intervene in what would seem to be a suicidal act.\nAnd that's what I'm trying to suggest, is that it's not a completely unlimited and unfettered right to reject treatment.\nA patient who has a temporary condition that can be resolved through a short period of life-sustaining treatment and then go on to a healthy life is not a patient in the State of Washington.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3196.515, 3204.56, 3215.915, 3221.479], "stop_times": [3204.56, 3215.915, 3221.479, 3229.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.515}, "reply_to": "20201__2_116", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_118", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "That's not an intensely personal decision?\nI don't know how it becomes an intensely personal decision, you know, within a short time of death and it's not an intensely personal decision elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3229.696, 3231.678], "stop_times": [3231.678, 3241.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.696}, "reply_to": "20201__2_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_119", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I don't think that it becomes less intensely personal, but I do think, as I have indicated in earlier responses, that it's a different choice for that patient.\nIt is the choice of how to die when confronted by death that distinguishes it and does, in fact, place it in a separate category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3241.575, 3249.539], "stop_times": [3249.539, 3257.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3241.575}, "reply_to": "20201__2_118", "speaker": "kathryn_l_tucker"}
{"id": "20201__2_120", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I don't see... I don't see how you can separate out the two situations and say the state is entitled to impose its will despite the preferences of the individual at one stage and with respect to some pain and suffering, namely physical, but is not entitled to do it then, but is entitled to do it in other situations, when the person has emotional trauma or when the person is further away from death.\nIt seems to me in both cases it is an intensely personal decision and if you want to leave it to the individual, your argument should be much broader than what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3257.774, 3283.3], "stop_times": [3283.3, 3292.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.774}, "reply_to": "20201__2_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__2_121", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "You may consider that a question, if you wish, and answer.\n[Laughter]\nYes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3292.416, 3302.773, 3296.959], "stop_times": [3302.773, 3296.959, 3305.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.416}, "reply_to": "20201__2_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__2_122", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Tucker.\nMr. Williams, you have five minutes remaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3305.275, 3309.078], "stop_times": [3309.078, 3311.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.275}, "reply_to": "20201__2_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20201__3_000", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThere's no question that death and dying are difficult issues around which to formulate public policy.\nAnd there's also no question that the line that currently exists, although bright and understandable by all, may be exceedingly fine in its application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3311.83, 3313.63, 3322.786], "stop_times": [3313.63, 3322.786, 3334.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3311.83}, "reply_to": "20201__2_122", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__3_001", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "The legal line is bright and understandable.\nIs the real practice as clear a line as you define?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3334.834, 3337.315], "stop_times": [3337.315, 3339.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.834}, "reply_to": "20201__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__3_002", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Your Honor, we have to go only by the data that we have.\nAnd there is only one study in Washington state, and for that matter it's the only study I know of nationally, in which doctors were asked whether they had been requested to provide assistance in suicide to terminally ill patients and, if so, to what extent they had complied with those requests and whether they had then been carried out.\nAnd in that study there were about 200 requests, 30--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3339.907, 3344.361, 3362.123], "stop_times": [3344.361, 3362.123, 3369.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3339.907}, "reply_to": "20201__3_001", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__3_003", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I'm not thinking so much of studies of data that's not in the public domain generally, but the one historical thing that I can't get totally out of mind is I'm not aware of any doctor ever being convicted of committing this particular offense; is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3369.169], "stop_times": [3384.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3369.169}, "reply_to": "20201__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__3_004", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--I'm not aware of any either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3384.846], "stop_times": [3386.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3384.846}, "reply_to": "20201__3_003", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__3_005", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "And it's hard to believe it has never been committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3386.178], "stop_times": [3388.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3386.178}, "reply_to": "20201__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20201__3_006", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I don't disagree with that, Justice Stevens.\nBut I would remind The Court that there are other regulations as well, the licensing regulations, the heavy regulation of these very dangerous drugs, the regulation of the health care facilities, there are other constraints.\nAnd I guess the other thing I would observe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3388.75, 3392.252, 3403.4], "stop_times": [3392.252, 3403.4, 3407.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3388.75}, "reply_to": "20201__3_005", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__3_007", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Are you aware of anybody ever having been prosecuted for attempted suicide, which is unlawful in some states?\nI mean, assuming suicide, you know, early in life, not later.\nI know it's unlawful, I don't know anybody who has ever been prosecuted for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3407.611, 3413.365, 3415.909], "stop_times": [3413.365, 3415.909, 3419.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3407.611}, "reply_to": "20201__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20201__3_008", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "--Most of the... I believe all of the statutes making that a crime have been repealed because of the recognition or the heavy influence that mental disease, most likely depression, plays in the request for suicide.\nAnd that... by the way, there are studies showing that that's true with respect to people suffering a serious illness as well.\nSo it's the... the suggestion that somehow the terminally ill and dying are different in that regard is again not substantiated by the studies.\nBut the other observation I was going to make is that if one assumes that there is some covert practice in the current law with the line as clear as it is, if the line becomes unstable or gets muddied and the very private nature of the physician-assisted suicide transaction, if you will, between the physical and the patient, one must conclude that the abuses, if they exist at all, will be much worse.\nAt least the potential for abuse will be much worse in that setting as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3419.909, 3431.577, 3436.99, 3444.226, 3467.471], "stop_times": [3431.577, 3436.99, 3444.226, 3467.471, 3471.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3419.909}, "reply_to": "20201__3_007", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__3_009", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Does the literature tell us that there have been significant advances in palliative care to reduce pain for the terminally ill over the last five years, or the last ten years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3471.414], "stop_times": [3482.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3471.414}, "reply_to": "20201__3_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20201__3_010", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Kennedy.\nIf you read the brief of the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association and the other health care groups who filed a consolidated brief, that that information is in there, as well as the American Geriatric Society brief.\nAnd one of policy arguments against allowing physician-assisted suicide is that it might be... become the alternative to improvements in palliative care.\nWhether that's not... known or not, who knows, but that's one of considerations that anyone making this policy decision should take into account.\nJustice Souter, I have had an opportunity to think a little bit more about your question about what... experience.\nAnd I would point out that, in the Netherlands, one of the problems is that, because it's now permitted, it's become institutionalized.\nAnd there is... although there is some disagreement about how the data is interpreted, that it appears to be pretty clear that a significant number of the deaths occur involuntarily without any consultation with the patient.\nThe physicians over time believe they know what the patients will want and go ahead at what they think is the appropriate time and administer that.\nAnd I would also point out that the Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the notion that there is a Constitutional right under their Article of Freedoms, which is very similar to our Due Process Clause.\nAnd that the British Government, with the assistance of the British Medical Society, considered this, they rejected the notion on policy grounds.\nAnd of course, the New York State Task Force, which is the most comprehensive report on this subject.\nSo while we can't foretell the future for sure, that's one of the things that a legislature should take into account and we're asking the Court to give the legislature that opportunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3482.08, 3483.662, 3493.898, 3504.235, 3510.801, 3515.853, 3523.758, 3534.136, 3541.048, 3551.656, 3557.97, 3562.243], "stop_times": [3483.662, 3493.898, 3504.235, 3510.801, 3515.853, 3523.758, 3534.136, 3541.048, 3551.656, 3557.97, 3562.243, 3571.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3482.08}, "reply_to": "20201__3_009", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__3_011", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Do you know of the... any of the international human rights documents or regional human rights documents, there is recognition of what has been called the right to die or, as described today, for the terminally ill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3571.29], "stop_times": [3586.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3571.29}, "reply_to": "20201__3_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20201__3_012", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "I'm sorry, Justice Ginsburg.\nI don't know of any such thing, but I don't want to represent that I have a comprehensive knowledge on that.\nThe other point I would make is in the withdrawal and refusal of treatment, the advocates for the handicapped would suggest that that's become institutionalized, and that... there was an article in The Post on Sunday suggesting that handicapped persons who are admitted to hospitals are routinely... not routinely, but upon occasion at least, sort of coerced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3586.76, 3589.502, 3593.473], "stop_times": [3589.502, 3593.473, 3613.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3586.76}, "reply_to": "20201__3_011", "speaker": "william_l_williams"}
{"id": "20201__3_013", "conversation_id": "20201", "text": "Mr. Williams, your time has expired.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_96-110", "start_times": [3613.388, 3615.551], "stop_times": [3615.551, 3635.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3613.388}, "reply_to": "20201__3_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__0_000", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-2031, Thomas Young v. Kirk Fordice.\nMs. Wright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [0.0, 8.548], "stop_times": [8.548, 9.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__0_001", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case arises because the State of Mississippi, since early 1995, has been conducting voter registration under procedures that have not been submitted for preclearance to the United States Attorney General or to the D.C. District Court, as required by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.\nBecause the section 5 preclearance requirement is so critical in protecting the right to vote in States such as Mississippi, Congress expressly provided in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the NVRA, that States must comply with the Voting Rights Act in implementing the NVRA.\nNow, the procedures that Mississippi ultimately decided upon in implementing the NVRA established a twotier or dual system under which citizens who register under the provisions of the NVRA must also register separately to be able to vote in State elections, and a plan that implements the NVRA through that type of dual system reflects a change from the voter registration system that Mississippi had in effect prior to 19--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [9.687, 12.89, 29.031, 50.664], "stop_times": [12.89, 29.031, 50.664, 81.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.687}, "reply_to": "20040__0_000", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_002", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, may I ask you a question right here about that?\nSuppose from the outset Mississippi had said we're not going to change our State and local registration system from what it's been.\nWe're going to keep it, but here are the changes we're offering to implement for Federal election purposes the NVRA.\nCould the Department of Justice refuse to preclear such a scheme if Mississippi kept in place its State local registration scheme and had a proposal that met the statutory requirements for the NVRA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [81.374, 84.927, 95.065, 105.252], "stop_times": [84.927, 95.065, 105.252, 125.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.374}, "reply_to": "20040__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_003", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Yes, it could Your Honor.\nIf the procedures that the State adopted were found by the Attorney General or the D.C. District Court to be discriminatory in purpose or effect, that objection could be made, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [125.685, 126.874], "stop_times": [126.874, 137.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.685}, "reply_to": "20040__0_002", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_004", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, even in the face of the fact that the NVRA requirements expressly state that they govern only Federal elections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [137.222], "stop_times": [151.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.222}, "reply_to": "20040__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_005", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [151.62], "stop_times": [153.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.62}, "reply_to": "20040__0_004", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_006", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "There seems to be some indication in the statute itself that it never... Congress never purported to require a change in requirements for State and local elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [153.603], "stop_times": [163.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.603}, "reply_to": "20040__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_007", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--It doesn't require that, that is true.\nIt leaves that decision up to the States, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [163.879, 165.379], "stop_times": [165.379, 167.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 163.879}, "reply_to": "20040__0_006", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_008", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But you think that the Attorney General can make that a condition of any approval?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [167.452], "stop_times": [172.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.452}, "reply_to": "20040__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_009", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, it depends in part upon the State's specific history and the practices it had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [172.545], "stop_times": [177.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.545}, "reply_to": "20040__0_008", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_010", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "In any section 5 State you think the Attorney General can insist on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [177.247], "stop_times": [181.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.247}, "reply_to": "20040__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_011", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Mississippi had a unitary system by statute at the time the NVRA came into effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [181.331], "stop_times": [188.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.331}, "reply_to": "20040__0_010", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_012", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [188.446], "stop_times": [188.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.446}, "reply_to": "20040__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_013", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And we contend that the implementation of a dual system reflects a change from that unitary system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [188.857], "stop_times": [193.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 188.857}, "reply_to": "20040__0_012", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_014", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "It still does have the same unitary system in place.\nYou can still register for both Federal and State elections the same way you could before the NVRA provisions went in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [193.709, 196.301], "stop_times": [196.301, 203.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.709}, "reply_to": "20040__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_015", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But you have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [203.676], "stop_times": [204.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 203.676}, "reply_to": "20040__0_014", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_016", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Now you have an additional option.\nIf you want to use the easier method you can register for Federal elections, but as far as what a citizen of Mississippi can do by way of registering for both State and Federal, it is exactly the same as it was before, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [204.177, 206.227], "stop_times": [206.227, 219.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.177}, "reply_to": "20040__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_017", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, our contention is this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [219.896], "stop_times": [221.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.896}, "reply_to": "20040__0_016", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_018", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Except for the false start.\nLet's leave the false start out of the mix for the moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [221.388, 221.979], "stop_times": [221.979, 224.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.388}, "reply_to": "20040__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_019", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Leaving the false start out of it, you now have a system under which there is a class of citizens that once registered is not permitted to vote in State and local elections, and that is not a unitary system under any meaningful sense of the term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [224.4], "stop_times": [237.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.4}, "reply_to": "20040__0_018", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_020", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "By reason of the special grace provided by the Federal statute, but the same system that existed for multiple registration prior to the NVRA is still in place in Mississippi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [237.319], "stop_times": [249.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.319}, "reply_to": "20040__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_021", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "There was no system of multiple registration, though, because one registration made you eligible for all purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [249.645], "stop_times": [255.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.645}, "reply_to": "20040__0_020", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_022", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Eligible... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [255.339], "stop_times": [255.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.339}, "reply_to": "20040__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__0_023", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And the real purpose of our lawsuit here is to say that whatever choices Mississippi made in implementing the NVRA, whatever plan it decided to adopt ultimately had to be submitted for preclearance so that the Attorney General could review exactly how that procedure was going to be implemented, and there are many, many discretionary choices that a State makes in deciding to set up a system either on a dual basis or, even if it's on a dual basis, there are different ways and different choices that a State makes that will have a major impact on whether the voters--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [255.9], "stop_times": [288.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.9}, "reply_to": "20040__0_022", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_024", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Could you give me a few illustrations of that?\nOne is which State offices will be used for registration.\nI take it that's one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [288.271, 289.512, 292.815], "stop_times": [289.512, 292.815, 293.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.271}, "reply_to": "20040__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__0_025", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's right, and also, for example, the registration forms themselves.\nIn the, the NVRA forms that are currently in effect and are being handed out at the State agencies do not say anything about limited registration.\nYou have forms, for example, that are being handed out at the public assistance agencies that are entitled, Mississippi Voter Registration Application, and nothing on the form tells you that when you fill that out you're only going to be eligible to vote in State and local elections, so it was vital for the Attorney General--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [293.975, 297.898, 306.714], "stop_times": [297.898, 306.714, 324.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.975}, "reply_to": "20040__0_024", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_026", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "In Federal?\nYou mean only vote in Federal elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [324.385, 325.056], "stop_times": [325.056, 326.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.385}, "reply_to": "20040__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__0_027", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--In Federal... that you would only be able to vote in Federal elections, that's correct, and so it was vital, because of the risk of confusion, and the risk of people believing that they may already be registered for all purposes when in fact they are not that the Attorney General reviewed these procedures, each and every one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [326.847], "stop_times": [343.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 326.847}, "reply_to": "20040__0_026", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_028", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, I can understand that, but to ask the further question whether the Attorney General, assuming the forms make it clear that it's only for registration for Federal elections as the law indeed says is necessary, whether it can go beyond that and say, moreover, State, you have to make this a unitary system now and follow the Federal plan for all, even State and local.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [343.797], "stop_times": [369.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.797}, "reply_to": "20040__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_029", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But if there were evidence before the D.C. District Court or the Attorney General that a dual system had been reinstated for the very purpose of discriminating against minority citizens, certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [369.515], "stop_times": [380.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.515}, "reply_to": "20040__0_028", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_030", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Not reinstated, kept, unchanged from the past, but following the new law for Federal elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [380.702], "stop_times": [391.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 380.702}, "reply_to": "20040__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_031", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--But Your Honor, the cases such as City of Lockhart v. United States recognize that even when a State maintains certain procedures but changes other aspects of its registration system, the procedures that are unchanged themselves may be subject to section 5 review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [391.889], "stop_times": [410.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 391.889}, "reply_to": "20040__0_030", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_032", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "It just seems so counterintuitive in the face of language in the statute whereby Congress expresses the intent not to require a change for State and local registration purposes.\nThat's the troublesome part of this case for me, anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [410.291, 423.121], "stop_times": [423.121, 426.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.291}, "reply_to": "20040__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_033", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But cases such as City of Lockhart recognize... in that case the numbered post requirement had not been changed at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [426.721], "stop_times": [432.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.721}, "reply_to": "20040__0_032", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_034", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That wasn't in connection with the Federal Voter Registration Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [432.324], "stop_times": [436.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 432.324}, "reply_to": "20040__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__0_035", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No, it was not, but it was a situation where one provision that called for numbered post remained unchanged, and the Court held that it nevertheless was a change when the city applied that numbered post requirement to an election system where additional seats had been added, because the Court held that you have to examine a change in the context of the entire election system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [436.848], "stop_times": [459.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.848}, "reply_to": "20040__0_034", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_036", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Ms. Wright, why--\n--That's fair enough when it's voluntary on the part of the State.\nWhere one change is made voluntarily on the part of the State you can say well, the whole thing gets sucked in, but this is a unique situation in which a certain change is imposed upon the State by the Federal Government.\nNow, it's one thing to say that the way in which you implement that mandatory change must be cleared with the Attorney General.\nThat's one thing.\nBut it's quite something else to say that because the Federal Government has mandated this change all of your current system which you have not changed at all has to be resubmitted for clearance to the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [459.954, 460.565, 464.738, 475.165, 481.49, 482.599], "stop_times": [460.565, 464.738, 475.165, 481.49, 482.599, 494.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.954}, "reply_to": "20040__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_037", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But Your Honor, the Attorney General is entitled to examine the effect that this particular method of implementation will have on voting and registration in State and local elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [494.677], "stop_times": [505.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 494.677}, "reply_to": "20040__0_036", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_038", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Whatever its effect is is the fault of the Federal Government, so long as the procedures for implementing the Federal scheme themselves are fair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [505.876], "stop_times": [513.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.876}, "reply_to": "20040__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_039", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [513.561], "stop_times": [514.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.561}, "reply_to": "20040__0_038", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_040", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Now, it may discourage people from voting in State elections who find it easier to register for Federal only, but that's the Congress' fault for applying this new system only to Federal elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [514.212], "stop_times": [525.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 514.212}, "reply_to": "20040__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_041", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--We argue, Your Honor, that because of the decision in Allen v. State Board of Elections it's clear that even if a change, a particular change is mandated by the Voting Rights Act itself, it is subject to preclearance requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [525.168], "stop_times": [537.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.168}, "reply_to": "20040__0_040", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_042", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Your argument goes considerably further than Allen, which itself went to me to the extreme of construing this statute.\nMay I ask, Ms. Wright, I just want to be sure, I didn't think the questions that Justice O'Connor put to you is presented by this case.\nWe aren't concerned with whether or not the Attorney General would have had a duty to preclear if there had been a submission, are we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [537.497, 544.373, 552.007], "stop_times": [544.373, 552.007, 557.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.497}, "reply_to": "20040__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__0_043", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No.\nThat question will arise when and if the procedures--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [557.298, 557.889], "stop_times": [557.889, 560.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 557.298}, "reply_to": "20040__0_042", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_044", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes.\nWe don't... for all we know the Attorney General would just routinely preclear it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [560.331, 560.722], "stop_times": [560.722, 565.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.331}, "reply_to": "20040__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__0_045", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [565.055], "stop_times": [566.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.055}, "reply_to": "20040__0_044", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_046", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Or perhaps she'd act wrongfully if she refused to, but that's not before us, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [566.816], "stop_times": [569.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.816}, "reply_to": "20040__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__0_047", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--The question of actual discriminatory intent or effect is not before this Court and it was not before the court below, and that is why we contend that the Court exceeded its jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [569.928], "stop_times": [579.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.928}, "reply_to": "20040__0_046", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_048", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Is it not true that even if it's perfectly clear that the Attorney General would have had a duty to preclear the existing system, you would nevertheless prevail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [579.885], "stop_times": [588.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.885}, "reply_to": "20040__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__0_049", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Oh, yes, Your Honor.\nYes.\nI'm simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [588.263, 589.342, 590.083], "stop_times": [589.342, 590.083, 590.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.263}, "reply_to": "20040__0_048", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_050", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Then are you actually asking as well to submit all the changes that weren't made?\nI thought what you were asking for is that what has to be submitted, the manner in which they carried out the changes required by the voter registration, the motor voter act, and that would be judged against a background in which they didn't change the State officials.\nBut I don't understand... I agree, I don't understand why they'd have to submit the things they didn't change.\nI suppose they'd have to submit the things they did change, and then you would argue that those changes are unlawful because of what they didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [590.864, 596.087, 617.311, 622.616], "stop_times": [596.087, 617.311, 622.616, 629.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 590.864}, "reply_to": "20040__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20040__0_051", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's right.\nWe contend that the procedures establishing a dual system, all of them, need to be submitted for preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [629.399, 629.91], "stop_times": [629.91, 635.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.399}, "reply_to": "20040__0_050", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_052", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--But isn't all of that premature?\nI thought the simple point is, there's been a change.\nEvery change has to be precleared, period.\nNow, the Attorney General may agree with your point of view or disagree.\nWe don't know that at this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [635.683, 637.556, 641.166, 643.907, 647.832], "stop_times": [637.556, 641.166, 643.907, 647.832, 649.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.683}, "reply_to": "20040__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__0_053", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [649.274], "stop_times": [650.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 649.274}, "reply_to": "20040__0_052", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_054", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "All we know is that we have a change prompted by the Federal law.\nEverybody concedes that it is a change that needs to be precleared.\nWhy should we look at anything more than that in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [650.095, 654.169, 658.801], "stop_times": [654.169, 658.801, 662.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 650.095}, "reply_to": "20040__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__0_055", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, we certainly agree that there is no necessity of determining what the ultimate outcome of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [662.344], "stop_times": [669.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.344}, "reply_to": "20040__0_054", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_056", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Or even what constitutes a satisfactory submission.\nThat's for the Attorney General to decide in the first instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [669.34, 672.36], "stop_times": [672.36, 675.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.34}, "reply_to": "20040__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__0_057", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [675.423], "stop_times": [676.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.423}, "reply_to": "20040__0_056", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_058", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But it might be important to other members of this Court to know just how far the Attorney General's position goes.\nIt certainly is important to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [676.312, 682.396], "stop_times": [682.396, 684.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.312}, "reply_to": "20040__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__0_059", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [684.078], "stop_times": [685.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.078}, "reply_to": "20040__0_058", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_060", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And in that respect, may I rephrase Justice O'Connor's question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [685.63], "stop_times": [690.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.63}, "reply_to": "20040__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__0_061", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [690.012], "stop_times": [691.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 690.012}, "reply_to": "20040__0_060", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_062", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "It isn't your position that as a practical matter... as a practical matter, the State must ask for preclearance of its former voting procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [691.263], "stop_times": [705.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.263}, "reply_to": "20040__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__0_063", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "It need not Gubmit those procedures, but we do believe that if the State is going to change from its current statutory policy of a unitary system it does need to obtain preclearance for that alteration of its important policy, and that would be part of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [705.842], "stop_times": [719.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.842}, "reply_to": "20040__0_062", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_064", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "So you're saying that as a practical matter the State cannot leave in place its previous precleared procedures without further amendment and alteration of those procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [719.902], "stop_times": [730.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.902}, "reply_to": "20040__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__0_065", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Because it's current... but that's only because its current system contemplates a unitary system of registration, and I do want to emphasize the very narrow character of the inquiry that we have here.\nThe only inquiry is whether there has been a change and whether, if there has been a change, that change has been submitted to the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [730.48, 742.789], "stop_times": [742.789, 749.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.48}, "reply_to": "20040__0_064", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_066", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Even though the change was brought about by the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [749.941], "stop_times": [751.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.941}, "reply_to": "20040__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__0_067", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [751.333], "stop_times": [752.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.333}, "reply_to": "20040__0_066", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_068", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And not by the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [752.262], "stop_times": [753.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.262}, "reply_to": "20040__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__0_069", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [753.063], "stop_times": [753.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.063}, "reply_to": "20040__0_068", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_070", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "None of our cases support that, do they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [753.995], "stop_times": [755.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.995}, "reply_to": "20040__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__0_071", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I believe Allen v. State Board of Elections and McDaniel v.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [755.335], "stop_times": [759.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.335}, "reply_to": "20040__0_070", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_072", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Was that change brought about by the Federal Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [759.128], "stop_times": [761.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.128}, "reply_to": "20040__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__0_073", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Yes.\nIt was an implementation of the Voting Rights Act.\nVirginia was implementing the Voting Rights Act by providing assistance to illiterate voters, and the Allen case held that the changes providing that there was... that that assistance had to be given was subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5, and the reason for that is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [761.058, 761.509, 763.632], "stop_times": [761.509, 763.632, 779.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.058}, "reply_to": "20040__0_072", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_074", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But that's not what we're--\n--No.\n--we're arguing about here.\nIt's not whether the procedures for implementing the Federal act have to be cleared, but whether there gets sucked along with that the procedures that the State has had in place for many years for registering under the State laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [779.281, 780.553, 781.024, 781.912], "stop_times": [780.553, 781.024, 781.912, 795.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.281}, "reply_to": "20040__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_075", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, we contend that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [795.702], "stop_times": [797.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.702}, "reply_to": "20040__0_074", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_076", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And that was not involved in any earlier case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [797.723], "stop_times": [799.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.723}, "reply_to": "20040__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_077", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That comes into play, though, because of Mississippi's clear statutory policy of having a unitary registration system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [799.796], "stop_times": [806.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.796}, "reply_to": "20040__0_076", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_078", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, you pick on that and you say that that has been changed.\nWell, I mean, yes you can say that that's been changed.\nYou could also say, however, if they had changed it to a unitary, or had continued a unitary, you could also say there has been a change because it used to be that you had to, in order to register for the State, do things beyond what the motor vehicle registration act requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [806.919, 809.551, 811.801], "stop_times": [809.551, 811.801, 831.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.919}, "reply_to": "20040__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_079", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, we do argue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [831.275], "stop_times": [832.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.275}, "reply_to": "20040__0_078", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_080", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I mean, that's a loaded question.\nYou say they... you focus on this unitary as though that's the center of the universe.\nI don't know why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [832.184, 833.546, 838.478], "stop_times": [833.546, 838.478, 839.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.184}, "reply_to": "20040__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_081", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--What we argue, Your Honor, is that the State has been highly selective in deciding which provisions of existing Mississippi law it must continue to comply with and which it cannot change.\nWe believe that the important State policy of a unitary registration system is clearly far greater in importance to the State than the provision of an attesting witness requirement in a mail-in form, which is really the only provision here that Mississippi has identified as a bar to implementing the registration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [839.3, 850.827], "stop_times": [850.827, 868.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.3}, "reply_to": "20040__0_080", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_082", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--I don't agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [868.548], "stop_times": [869.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.548}, "reply_to": "20040__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_083", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--on a unitary basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [869.6], "stop_times": [870.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.6}, "reply_to": "20040__0_082", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_084", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--If you ask me what would constitute the least change that Mississippi could make in order to comply with the Federal law, I would say it is precisely what Mississippi did here, leave its current registration procedures entirely in place.\nIf you want to register for State and Federal localities at the same time, you just follow what Mississippi has had in place for years, and add to that what the Federal Government has required to be added: motor vehicle registration for Federal elections.\nThat seems to me the minimal change possible from the State system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [870.89, 886.12, 899.611], "stop_times": [886.12, 899.611, 903.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.89}, "reply_to": "20040__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_085", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "We would argue from the perspective of the voters it certainly is not the least change possible, because if you think about election day the registrars are now required to keep two sets of poll books, one for NVRA registrants only allowed to vote in Federal elections, and one for other registrants.\nPresumably if you go into the voting booth you have to get a separate ballot, because if there are both Federal and State elections on the ballot you can't be permitted to vote that ballot, and so these types of changes, these types of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [903.251, 918.121], "stop_times": [918.121, 930.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.251}, "reply_to": "20040__0_084", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_086", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No problem.\nJust register under the State procedures and you don't have to worry about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [930.91, 931.571], "stop_times": [931.571, 934.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.91}, "reply_to": "20040__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_087", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--But Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [934.523], "stop_times": [935.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.523}, "reply_to": "20040__0_086", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_088", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Just the way it was before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [935.463], "stop_times": [937.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 935.463}, "reply_to": "20040__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_089", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--But because the NVRA does require that the States administer these procedures, the State, we contend, has an obligation to identify exactly how it wants to go about implementing the NVRA and obtain preclearance for all of those decisions specifically spelled out in a proceeding either before the Attorney General of the United States or the D.C. District Court, and that is what has not happened here.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [937.025, 962.56], "stop_times": [962.56, 964.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.025}, "reply_to": "20040__0_088", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_090", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, may I ask you a fact question?\nI thought it had happened in the sense that the procedures that were outlined in the original submission for the application of the new Federal act are, in fact, the ones that are being followed.\nI thought the contention was that the changes in the old State procedures which were outlined in that submission were not followed.\nAm I wrong as a matter of fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [964.473, 967.975, 983.985, 995.932], "stop_times": [967.975, 983.985, 995.932, 997.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.473}, "reply_to": "20040__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__0_091", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, the... yes.\nWe are arguing that the system that was submitted to the Attorney General by the Secretary of State in December of 1994 was a system that contemplated a unitary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [997.943, 999.685], "stop_times": [999.685, 1010.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 997.943}, "reply_to": "20040__0_090", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_092", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Oh, I realize that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1010.542], "stop_times": [1011.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.542}, "reply_to": "20040__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__0_093", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--set of procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1011.454], "stop_times": [1012.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.454}, "reply_to": "20040__0_092", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_094", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That if you take the totality of the submission, that totality in fact has not been followed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1012.272], "stop_times": [1019.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.272}, "reply_to": "20040__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__0_095", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1019.057], "stop_times": [1019.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1019.057}, "reply_to": "20040__0_094", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_096", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "The provisions of that totality have not been followed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1019.738], "stop_times": [1021.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.738}, "reply_to": "20040__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__0_097", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1021.499], "stop_times": [1022.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.499}, "reply_to": "20040__0_096", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_098", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But with respect to the provisions for the implementation of the Federal act, have they been followed or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1022.11], "stop_times": [1030.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.11}, "reply_to": "20040__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__0_099", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "We believe that Mississippi is following the provisions as they respect Federal elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1030.816], "stop_times": [1035.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.816}, "reply_to": "20040__0_098", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_100", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Okay, so the only fact difference, then, is it didn't make changes to conform its old State system to the new procedures which it, which everybody agrees it's following for the limited Federal registration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1035.868], "stop_times": [1051.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1035.868}, "reply_to": "20040__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__0_101", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But there are further differences because of... by necessity, when you implement a dual system you have to make changes in your practices to take into account the fact that you now have two separate sets of registration requirements that may result in confusion for voters.\nSo we say that as a package the decision to implement these procedures on a Federal-election-only basis really need to be submitted and reviewed on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1051.589, 1067.991], "stop_times": [1067.991, 1077.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.589}, "reply_to": "20040__0_100", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_102", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "When... well, I just wanted to ask about your benchmark view.\nIf the interim January to February 10th, if that was not the system that Mississippi ever lawfully adopted, then why shouldn't our only benchmark be what was before the Federal act became effective?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1077.154, 1083.329], "stop_times": [1083.329, 1105.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.154}, "reply_to": "20040__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__0_103", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, we contend that it's not necessary to determine the status of those early 1995 procedures in order to dispose of this case, but we do contend that Mississippi was actually implementing a unitary NVRA plan, and that it could not make a change from that system that was in effect in the early part of 1995.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1105.986], "stop_times": [1127.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.986}, "reply_to": "20040__0_102", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_104", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "From an unlawful system, they just couldn't treat that as a nullity and say, we had a pre-January 1 system and a lawful post-January 1 system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1127.26], "stop_times": [1136.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.26}, "reply_to": "20040__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__0_105", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "We contend no, because you simply cannot treat as a nullity the registration of thousands of voters who registered under the assumption that they were eligible for all elections.\nThat would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1136.905, 1146.081], "stop_times": [1146.081, 1146.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.905}, "reply_to": "20040__0_104", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_106", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Why not just give them notice?\nJust give them notice that their, what they registered for counts only for the Federal elections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1146.602, 1148.024], "stop_times": [1148.024, 1154.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.602}, "reply_to": "20040__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__0_107", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Preclearance would have to be obtained for a change that makes such a dramatic difference in the registration status of so many voters.\nThat's part of our contention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1154.455, 1160.87], "stop_times": [1160.87, 1162.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1154.455}, "reply_to": "20040__0_106", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_108", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Ms. Wright, as I understood your submission, it is not that the whole State was acting de facto this way, although unlawfully.\nIt's that only a certain number of counties were.\nI don't know how you can possibly leap to the position that the entire State of Mississippi, which is what is at issue here, that the entire State of Mississippi was de facto operating under a unitary system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1162.392, 1168.396, 1171.3], "stop_times": [1168.396, 1171.3, 1185.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.392}, "reply_to": "20040__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__0_109", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, we contend that even though only some of the circuit clerks put voters actually on the rolls for all purposes, the unitary NVRA plan was actually being implemented on a State-wide basis, because in each of these counties when you went into the agencies the forms that you were being given and the procedures that were being followed were to the knowledge of the voters procedures registering you for all elections, and that was going on in every county regardless of whether the circuit clerks immediately put you on the rolls for all purposes, and that's how we say there was in fact State-wide implementation here.\nI'd like to reserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1185.73, 1216.348], "stop_times": [1216.348, 1217.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.73}, "reply_to": "20040__0_108", "speaker": "brenda_wright"}
{"id": "20040__0_110", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Very well, Ms. Wright.\nMr. Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1217.089, 1218.561], "stop_times": [1218.561, 1220.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1217.089}, "reply_to": "20040__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__1_000", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe point I would like to stress from the outset is that the potential discriminatory effects of Mississippi's current system with which the Department of Justice is most concerned are not in any sense the product of Federal compulsion.\nThat is, the NVRA does require the States to take certain steps, but it leaves the States with substantial discretion in other respects not only as to the initial decision as to whether NVRA registrants will be entitled to vote in State and local elections, but also with respect to subsidiary decisions regarding the forms that will be used, the procedures by which people will be registered.\nAnd I want to emphasize as well that we think we are not being fanciful or alarmist in suggesting there may be a substantial problem with telling thousands of people in Mississippi that they are registered to vote in Mississippi when in fact they are not eligible to cast ballots for any Mississippi official.\nThe question of what forms are being used, what process of notification is given to NVRA registrants, is not simply a technicality.\nIt really goes... potentially at least goes to the heart of whether Mississippi's current system is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1220.111, 1231.979, 1243.828, 1264.234, 1282.237, 1291.593], "stop_times": [1231.979, 1243.828, 1264.234, 1282.237, 1291.593, 1297.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1220.111}, "reply_to": "20040__0_110", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_001", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, even if we agree that the State's proposals to administratively and by State law implement the requirements of the new Federal act have to be submitted to the Attorney General for preclearance, do you also take the position espoused by Ms. Wright that the Attorney General may require the State to go to a... the same system for its State and local voter requirements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1297.049], "stop_times": [1331.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.049}, "reply_to": "20040__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_002", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--If the State had made clear from the outset that it intended to implement the NVRA on a Federal election-only basis, it would then have submitted the procedures--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1331.342], "stop_times": [1341.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1331.342}, "reply_to": "20040__1_001", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_003", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, the procedures it did submit to the Attorney General contained within them a proposal for changing State law to go to a system that would be the same for Federal as well as State, but I thought the Attorney General's own requirements and that of Federal law in this area did not permit the Attorney General to act on something on the basis of laws that had not been passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1341.718], "stop_times": [1371.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.718}, "reply_to": "20040__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_004", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's correct.\nThe Attorney General did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1371.247, 1371.888], "stop_times": [1371.888, 1372.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1371.247}, "reply_to": "20040__1_003", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_005", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "So the Attorney General, instead of acting on this, should have just said we can't act on it at this stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1372.9], "stop_times": [1378.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.9}, "reply_to": "20040__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_006", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, the submission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1378.723], "stop_times": [1379.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1378.723}, "reply_to": "20040__1_005", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_007", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Shouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1379.714], "stop_times": [1380.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.714}, "reply_to": "20040__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_008", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--No, I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1380.504], "stop_times": [1381.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1380.504}, "reply_to": "20040__1_007", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_009", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1381.385], "stop_times": [1381.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.385}, "reply_to": "20040__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_010", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1381.716], "stop_times": [1382.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1381.716}, "reply_to": "20040__1_009", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_011", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's what the Federal law requires.\nThey don't have to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1382.106, 1383.238], "stop_times": [1383.238, 1383.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.106}, "reply_to": "20040__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_012", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--The Attorney General certainly could not appropriately have purported to preclear legislation that had not been passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1383.906], "stop_times": [1390.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1383.906}, "reply_to": "20040__1_011", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_013", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But that's what it purported to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1390.562], "stop_times": [1391.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.562}, "reply_to": "20040__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_014", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "With respect, Your Honor, I don't believe that's the case.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1391.453, 1394.144], "stop_times": [1394.144, 1395.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1391.453}, "reply_to": "20040__1_013", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_015", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I was surprised it dealt with it at all.\nI would think that the normal thing would be to send it back to the State and say, this law hasn't passed.\nWe're not in a position to act on it until it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1395.053, 1397.196, 1402.61], "stop_times": [1397.196, 1402.61, 1405.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.053}, "reply_to": "20040__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_016", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--But the submission did include the draft legislation, but it also included procedures for implementing the NVRA beginning on January 1, 1995, and in our view the unmistakable tenor of the whole submission was that those procedures presupposed a regime in which NVRA registrants would be eligible for State and local elections as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1405.181], "stop_times": [1425.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1405.181}, "reply_to": "20040__1_015", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_017", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, of course it did, but it also quite clearly and on its very face presupposed a new statute that hadn't been passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1425.143], "stop_times": [1431.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.143}, "reply_to": "20040__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__1_018", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Again, with respect, the statute was included, but the submissions did not make clear that passage of a statute was essential to treatment of NVRA registrations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1431.908], "stop_times": [1443.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1431.908}, "reply_to": "20040__1_017", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_019", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, you're not contending that the Attorney General wouldn't have known from the submission that the statute had not, in fact, been passed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1443.215], "stop_times": [1449.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.215}, "reply_to": "20040__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__1_020", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "We knew from the submission that the statute had not been passed.\nWe didn't know from the submission that passage of the statute was a prerequisite to treatment of NVRA registrants as eligible to vote in State and local elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1449.66, 1452.16], "stop_times": [1452.16, 1460.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1449.66}, "reply_to": "20040__1_019", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_021", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "How could that not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1460.846], "stop_times": [1461.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.846}, "reply_to": "20040__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__1_022", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1461.768], "stop_times": [1462.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1461.768}, "reply_to": "20040__1_021", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_023", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--when you had State law that said this is how you register for State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1462.178], "stop_times": [1466.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.178}, "reply_to": "20040__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__1_024", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, one of the respects in which this record is fairly hazy is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1466.082], "stop_times": [1471.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1466.082}, "reply_to": "20040__1_023", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_025", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--You don't have to be a very good lawyer to figure that out.\nYou have State law that says, this is how you register for State elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1471.014, 1472.715], "stop_times": [1472.715, 1476.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.014}, "reply_to": "20040__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__1_026", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--In fact, Mississippi has never identified with any clarity the precise State statute which is supposed to bar the treatment of NVRA registrants as eligible to vote in State and local elections.\nThere is no State statute which says, voter registration applications--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1476.057, 1486.783], "stop_times": [1486.783, 1491.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1476.057}, "reply_to": "20040__1_025", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_027", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "You don't need one that bars it.\nYou need one that authorizes it.\nPeople don't get the ability to vote unless there's a law that says they don't have it.\nThey need a law that says they do have it, and the only law in effect is one that said this is how you get to vote in Mississippi, and then you get this submission from Mississippi which says, we are now going to let people vote in State elections on the basis of this new Federal law, and you see that in the Mississippi statutes... you get this from the Secretary of State, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1491.236, 1492.048, 1493.678, 1498.292], "stop_times": [1492.048, 1493.678, 1498.292, 1516.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.236}, "reply_to": "20040__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__1_028", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1516.483], "stop_times": [1517.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1516.483}, "reply_to": "20040__1_027", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_029", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And you see the Mississippi statute doesn't permit this.\nI cannot imagine that you people at the Justice Department did not know... did not know that this thing required legislation which had not yet been passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1517.134, 1519.275], "stop_times": [1519.275, 1530.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.134}, "reply_to": "20040__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__1_030", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No, what we knew was that the State had begun to adopt the plan outlined in the submission as of January 1, 1995, and again, this is not a situation in which the State could decide at a later date what elections these people were registered for.\nIt's essential that a person who comes in to register be told what elections he is eligible to vote in, so it wouldn't have been appropriate at all for the State to tell people you're eligible to vote in all elections and then decide at a later date, after the fate of the legislation was determined, whether in fact that would be the case.\nTo return for a second to Justice O'Connor's question, I think if Mississippi had told us from the outset we plan to do this for Federal elections only, the Attorney General in deciding whether to issue preclearance would have had to decide first whether there was discriminatory purpose.\nBut leaving that aside, the Attorney General would have had to determine whether the overall system contemplated would leave minority voters in a worse position than they were before the passage of the NVRA, and in making that determination, the Attorney General could properly consider the likely ancillary effects on voting in State and local elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1530.574, 1546.845, 1563.165, 1577.726], "stop_times": [1546.845, 1563.165, 1577.726, 1597.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1530.574}, "reply_to": "20040__1_029", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_031", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, that certainly isn't clear from the language of the act that Congress passed, which seemed to leave in place, if States chose, their existing system for State and local elections.\nI thought that was pretty clear from the face of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1597.86, 1610.108], "stop_times": [1610.108, 1613.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.86}, "reply_to": "20040__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_032", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Again, we're not... we acknowledge that the NVRA itself does not require these procedures to be used in State and local elections, and we're not arguing that the Attorney General has some blanket authority to require that as a matter of her own discretion.\nWhat we're saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1613.507, 1627.899], "stop_times": [1627.899, 1628.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1613.507}, "reply_to": "20040__1_031", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_033", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, I thought that was what Ms. Wright argued, and I thought you were arguing in support of her.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1628.568], "stop_times": [1633.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1628.568}, "reply_to": "20040__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__1_034", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--I don't understand that to be Ms. Wright's position, and it certainly isn't ours.\nI think our position is that in determining whether minorities will be worse off after Mississippi implements the NVRA, the Attorney General could consider not only the likely advantages to minority voters of expedited registration procedures in Federal elections, she could also consider whether the methods by which Mississippi was registering NVRA voters would be likely to confuse them and thereby dissuade them from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1633.203, 1637.734], "stop_times": [1637.734, 1664.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1633.203}, "reply_to": "20040__1_033", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_035", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "So there is a significant possibility that Mississippi cannot implement the motor voter... MRV statute without also changing precleared, preexisting procedures for elections, for State election registration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1664.762], "stop_times": [1681.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.762}, "reply_to": "20040__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__1_036", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--I would say a theoretical possibility, but I think Mississippi--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1681.894], "stop_times": [1684.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1681.894}, "reply_to": "20040__1_035", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_037", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I think it's a significant possibility based upon the comment that you've... and the explanation you've just given us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1684.705], "stop_times": [1690.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.705}, "reply_to": "20040__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__1_038", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, at least our primary concern at this point is that the method by which Mississippi is implementing the NVRA creates a particular risk that NVRA registrants will be dissuaded from registering separately for State and local elections, because the forms on their face give the message that the registrant is eligible to vote in all elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1690.061], "stop_times": [1711.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1690.061}, "reply_to": "20040__1_037", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_039", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, the way to cure that is simply to deny the preclearance with respect to the simple implementation of the Federal act.\nThat doesn't require you to go any further than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1711.692, 1719.71], "stop_times": [1719.71, 1722.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.692}, "reply_to": "20040__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__1_040", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Again, all we want at this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1722.101], "stop_times": [1724.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1722.101}, "reply_to": "20040__1_039", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_041", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Isn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1724.462], "stop_times": [1725.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.462}, "reply_to": "20040__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__1_042", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Yes, I think that is so.\nAll we want at this point is the opportunity to view the submission and to determine whether there are any likely discriminatory consequences, and with respect to the consequence that I have just outlined, the possibility for confusion based upon the forms and procedures, it certainly would be a sufficient response for Mississippi to reformulate those forms and procedures so that the likelihood of confusion is diminished or eliminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1725.163, 1726.214], "stop_times": [1726.214, 1751.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1725.163}, "reply_to": "20040__1_041", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_043", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "What would be the position of the State of Mississippi if you failed to preclear its implementation of the new Federal statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1751.93], "stop_times": [1764.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.93}, "reply_to": "20040__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__1_044", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, part of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1764.599], "stop_times": [1767.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1764.599}, "reply_to": "20040__1_043", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_045", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Could it go, could elections at the State and local level proceed but not at the Federal level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1767.641], "stop_times": [1771.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.641}, "reply_to": "20040__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__1_046", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, I think part of this depends upon the benchmark that would be used.\nIf, as we've contended, the State initially implemented a unitary system of NVRA registration and then sought to change that system, the appropriate remedy pending submission of a new package of materials would be that NVRA registrants would be eligible to vote in all elections until a change had been submitted and precleared.\nThis Court has recognized often that the question of whether unlawful elections should be set aside is distinct from the question of whether there has been a violation of section 5, so we certainly don't think that the consequence of requiring a new preclearance submission would necessarily or even probably be that any elections would be set aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1771.926, 1777.829, 1796.221], "stop_times": [1777.829, 1796.221, 1816.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1771.926}, "reply_to": "20040__1_045", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_047", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Is it your position that in a picture like this the State would be required to preclear twice?\nSuppose Mississippi took the position, we haven't yet gotten this legislation.\nWe don't know if we will.\nCould they have let January 1 come and go without filing anything on an interim basis and then waited till they found out what happened with the legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1816.406, 1823.37, 1829.314, 1830.595], "stop_times": [1823.37, 1829.314, 1830.595, 1842.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.406}, "reply_to": "20040__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__1_048", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "They could have as far as section 5 is concerned but not as far as the... well, as far as the NVRA is concerned, they would have been required to implement the statute for Federal elections because of the effective date of the NVRA itself--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1842.374], "stop_times": [1853.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1842.374}, "reply_to": "20040__1_047", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_049", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1853.301], "stop_times": [1853.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.301}, "reply_to": "20040__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__1_050", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--and section 5 would have precluded their doing so without preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1853.741], "stop_times": [1856.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1853.741}, "reply_to": "20040__1_049", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20040__1_051", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Sanders, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1856.223, 1857.893], "stop_times": [1857.893, 1861.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.223}, "reply_to": "20040__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__2_000", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI would like to begin by responding to Justice O'Connor's first question, that being whether base implementation by a State of the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act are subject to section 5 preclearance, and I think the answer to that question clearly is no.\nWhen the Congress mandates that a State implement the matters set forth in the National Voter Registration Act, the State has no discretion about whether to do that.\nIf the Attorney General is asserting a right of review, that means necessarily that the Attorney General is asserting a right to object to Mississippi's implementation of the congressional mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1861.546, 1863.427, 1865.32, 1881.358, 1893.407], "stop_times": [1863.427, 1865.32, 1881.358, 1893.407, 1905.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.546}, "reply_to": "20040__1_051", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_001", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Does that mean that there were no discretionary matters that the State could decide in implementing the motor vehicle registration act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1905.325], "stop_times": [1911.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.325}, "reply_to": "20040__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_002", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere are a couple of areas where the State has a very small amount of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1911.139, 1911.579], "stop_times": [1911.579, 1916.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1911.139}, "reply_to": "20040__2_001", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_003", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, with respect to those, was there a duty to preclear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1916.693], "stop_times": [1919.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.693}, "reply_to": "20040__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_004", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Possibly.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1919.535, 1921.376], "stop_times": [1921.376, 1922.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.535}, "reply_to": "20040__2_003", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_005", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1922.027], "stop_times": [1922.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.027}, "reply_to": "20040__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_006", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well... all right, I'll say yes if the amount of discretion is considered to be significant.\nThe NVRA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1922.748, 1929.47], "stop_times": [1929.47, 1931.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.748}, "reply_to": "20040__2_005", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_007", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, isn't the standard just whether there's a change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1931.212], "stop_times": [1933.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.212}, "reply_to": "20040__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_008", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, to the extent that the State of Mississippi has discretion in implementing the mandates of the NVRA, arguably those discretionary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1933.384], "stop_times": [1943.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.384}, "reply_to": "20040__2_007", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_009", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Should have been precleared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1943.699], "stop_times": [1944.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.699}, "reply_to": "20040__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_010", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Are subject to preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1944.611], "stop_times": [1945.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.611}, "reply_to": "20040__2_009", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_011", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And they were not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1945.302], "stop_times": [1946.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.302}, "reply_to": "20040__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_012", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Oh, yes they were, Your Honor, I'm sorry.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1946.851, 1948.634], "stop_times": [1948.634, 1949.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.851}, "reply_to": "20040__2_011", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_013", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, let me ask you, is it your position that there was no duty to preclear, or that you did get preclearance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1949.015], "stop_times": [1955.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.015}, "reply_to": "20040__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_014", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, on parts of it there was no duty.\nOn those parts that are strictly mandatory... for instance, putting NVRA forms at driver's license stations... there's no discretion about that.\nThe Congress says, thou shalt do that, and we can't, we can't... we have no discretion there, and the Attorney General may not veto that part or object under the section 5 device.\nThere are... the Congress also said that you shall put certain of these NVRA forms at certain agencies that provide public assistance.\nIt left it up to the States to determine which agencies fit that description.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1955.239, 1957.229, 1963.464, 1975.432, 1983.516], "stop_times": [1957.229, 1963.464, 1975.432, 1983.516, 1986.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1955.239}, "reply_to": "20040__2_013", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_015", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1986.659], "stop_times": [1986.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.659}, "reply_to": "20040__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_016", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "We made a designation of five or six agencies, and arguably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1986.909], "stop_times": [1990.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.909}, "reply_to": "20040__2_015", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_017", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Was not that designation something you had to preclear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1990.732], "stop_times": [1994.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.732}, "reply_to": "20040__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_018", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Yes, sir, and it was precleared.\nThat was part of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1994.466, 1995.297], "stop_times": [1995.297, 1996.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.466}, "reply_to": "20040__2_017", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_019", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But it wasn't under your view.\nIf I understood your brief, you said that a certain State official did a rogue act, that the December 20 submission was without any authority, that Ms. Slaughter-Harvey acted on her own without authority, without anybody in Mississippi approving that, so if one takes you... takes that characterization of it, it is as though the December 20 submission never happened.\nIt was totally unauthorized.\nIt was not Mississippi's submission, and if that's the case, then mustn't there be a legitimate preclearance application?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [1996.018, 1997.779, 2029.351, 2031.371], "stop_times": [1997.779, 2029.351, 2031.371, 2042.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.018}, "reply_to": "20040__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_020", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, we characterize her actions as both erroneous and partly as a rogue official.\nThe reference to a rogue official was more to... for illustration.\nHer action was erroneous primarily to the extent that she purported to submit material that required legislative change--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2042.808, 2048.282, 2052.405], "stop_times": [2048.282, 2052.405, 2058.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.808}, "reply_to": "20040__2_019", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_021", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But I thought you said nobody knew of her December 20 letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2058.929], "stop_times": [2062.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.929}, "reply_to": "20040__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_022", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--No one did.\nUnder section 5 of the Voting Rights Act any responsible State official may make a submission.\nTo the extent that she submitted things that were administratively changed, as Justice Stevens asked about, those were legitimate submissions.\nAnything beyond that, anything that she purported to submit that required legislative preclear... or legislative change, simply were not.\nThey were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2062.42, 2063.101, 2068.264, 2076.661, 2083.855], "stop_times": [2063.101, 2068.264, 2076.661, 2083.855, 2084.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2062.42}, "reply_to": "20040__2_021", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_023", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, I thought they indicated on their face that these are legislative proposals that will be submitted but they haven't been adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2084.346], "stop_times": [2093.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.346}, "reply_to": "20040__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_024", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2093.402], "stop_times": [2094.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.402}, "reply_to": "20040__2_023", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_025", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I mean, that was clear on the face.\nBut do you take the position that they... the Attorney General can't preclear the contents of the materials that are handed to people to register for Federal elections--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2094.023, 2095.141], "stop_times": [2095.141, 2108.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.023}, "reply_to": "20040__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_026", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2108.802], "stop_times": [2109.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.802}, "reply_to": "20040__2_025", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_027", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--so that it is clear to those people that they will be registered only for Federal purposes and not State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2109.222], "stop_times": [2115.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.222}, "reply_to": "20040__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_028", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--All right, let me make clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2115.637], "stop_times": [2116.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.637}, "reply_to": "20040__2_027", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_029", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I mean, I would think that would be a natural part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2116.647], "stop_times": [2118.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.647}, "reply_to": "20040__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_030", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Let me make clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2118.898], "stop_times": [2119.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.898}, "reply_to": "20040__2_029", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_031", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--of the preclearance part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2119.699], "stop_times": [2121.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.699}, "reply_to": "20040__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_032", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Those purported changes that required legislative action, we submit, were not properly precleared.\nThey could not submitted for preclearance.\nThose actions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2121.111, 2125.933, 2127.295], "stop_times": [2125.933, 2127.295, 2127.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.111}, "reply_to": "20040__2_031", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_033", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I'm talking about the materials submitted to the people who come in to get a driver's license, and the language used to explain to the voters in Mississippi the Mississippi position, that you will be registered for Federal elections only.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2127.976], "stop_times": [2142.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.976}, "reply_to": "20040__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_034", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2142.986], "stop_times": [2143.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.986}, "reply_to": "20040__2_033", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_035", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And to register for the State you have to do A, B, C, and D.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2143.765], "stop_times": [2146.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.765}, "reply_to": "20040__2_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_036", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes, such as the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2146.297], "stop_times": [2146.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.297}, "reply_to": "20040__2_035", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_037", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Now, presumably the Attorney General could take objection to Mississippi's apparent failure to advise voters of the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2146.968], "stop_times": [2156.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.968}, "reply_to": "20040__2_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_038", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--All right.\nThe NVRA form itself, the State has some discretion, arguably, about what to include in that.\nThe Federal Election Commission has the responsibility of setting forth which elements must be contained in the NVRA form.\nThe State of Mississippi may incorporate into that form its own voter disqualifications, such as conviction of certain crimes and so forth.\nThe State of Mississippi did that.\nThat form was submitted to the Attorney General and the Attorney General precleared that form on February 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2156.644, 2157.215, 2162.298, 2169.344, 2176.548, 2177.769], "stop_times": [2157.215, 2162.298, 2169.344, 2176.548, 2177.769, 2184.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.644}, "reply_to": "20040__2_037", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_039", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "He precleared it, or purported to preclear it... she... as part of a package which included... which included... in a way, you two sides deserve each other.\n[Laughter]\nThe Attorney General purports to preclear something that was never submitted, and you purport to have gotten precleared something that was never submitted.\nIt was submitted as a whole package.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2184.683, 2196.469, 2197.2, 2208.539], "stop_times": [2196.469, 2197.2, 2208.539, 2210.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.683}, "reply_to": "20040__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__2_040", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat's what the plaintiffs refer to as the context argument, that the context of the submission was different than the context of the implementation of that which was submitted.\nThere is a very important thing to keep in mind.\nSection 5 has... prescribes a 60-day period for reviewing submissions.\nSection 5 also, by the express language, says that if the Attorney General within that 60-day period decides not to object within that 60-day period, but that the Attorney General receives additional information within that 60-day period, the Attorney General may lodge a conditional objection pending an opportunity to review that additional material.\nNow, the 60-day period began here on December 20, 1994 and it ended on February 18, 1995.\nThe Attorney... or, the Department of Justice on February 16, 1995, 2 days before that 60-day period ended, wrote a letter setting forth that they believed that what we were doing was instituting a dual registration system, but the Attorney General never did anything to diminish the preclearance that she had granted on February 1, 1995.\nIt cannot be said that on February 16 or February 18, also the day that the 60-day period ended, it cannot be said that the Attorney General at that point did not understand fully the context of what she precleared on February 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2210.521, 2210.971, 2220.966, 2223.04, 2228.441, 2249.246, 2256.68, 2281.696], "stop_times": [2210.971, 2220.966, 2223.04, 2228.441, 2249.246, 2256.68, 2281.696, 2294.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.521}, "reply_to": "20040__2_039", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_041", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But it can be said, can't it, that what the Attorney General precleared was what you submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2294.925], "stop_times": [2301.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.925}, "reply_to": "20040__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_042", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2301.138], "stop_times": [2301.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2301.138}, "reply_to": "20040__2_041", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_043", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And what you submitted does not conform to the law or practice of Mississippi today.\nThat's true, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2301.9, 2307.513], "stop_times": [2307.513, 2308.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.9}, "reply_to": "20040__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_044", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes.\nTo the extent that the submission included purported changes, or proposed changes of statutory law, you're correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2308.895, 2310.304], "stop_times": [2310.304, 2317.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.895}, "reply_to": "20040__2_043", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_045", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "All right.\nNow--\n--And is it further true that you concede... I interpret your remarks this way.\nCorrect me if I'm wrong.\nIs it further true that you do concede that Mississippi's discretionary acts in implementing NVRA must be precleared?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2317.961, 2318.342, 2318.559, 2324.243, 2325.195], "stop_times": [2318.342, 2318.559, 2324.243, 2325.195, 2334.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.961}, "reply_to": "20040__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__2_046", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And were precleared, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2334.441], "stop_times": [2336.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.441}, "reply_to": "20040__2_045", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_047", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Just that they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2336.251], "stop_times": [2337.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.251}, "reply_to": "20040__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__2_048", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2337.633], "stop_times": [2337.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.633}, "reply_to": "20040__2_047", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_049", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That they must be precleared, must be subject to preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2337.944], "stop_times": [2340.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.944}, "reply_to": "20040__2_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__2_050", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "To the extent that they represent significant discretion, they must be precleared.\nIt's like McDaniel v. Sanchez, when the Court said that court imposed election remedies need not be precleared unless there is significant voter jurisdiction input into that plan.\nIt makes that distinction, and I would say the same thing applies here.\nTo the extent that there is significant discretion in Mississippi's input, then it does require preclearance.\nI'm not certain, however, that the very limited things that we do when we designate which agencies fit the description of public assistance agencies, I'm not sure that that is enough Mississippi input to require those things to be submitted for preclearance, but to the extent that that is enough, they were submitted and they were precleared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2340.034, 2344.409, 2360.488, 2364.681, 2371.364], "stop_times": [2344.409, 2360.488, 2364.681, 2371.364, 2389.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.034}, "reply_to": "20040__2_049", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_051", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Mr. Sanders, wouldn't the most important thing to preclear, perhaps the only thing once Mississippi decides it's going to do a different Federal-only registration, is to tell people who come into the motor vehicle bureau in big letters, this will register you for Federal elections only, and such a thing was never precleared because the first submission didn't suppose there was going to be that system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2389.506], "stop_times": [2420.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.506}, "reply_to": "20040__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_052", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, of course, the National Voter Registration Act doesn't require that we set forth any such disclaimer or warning.\nIt simply requires that we put certain forms at certain locations, and that's what we did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2420.137, 2425.971], "stop_times": [2425.971, 2430.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.137}, "reply_to": "20040__2_051", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_053", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "It also says at each voter registration agency the following services shall be made available: assistance to applicants in completing voter registration forms.\nNow, perhaps assistance to applicants would include an explanation of what's going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2430.512, 2440.289], "stop_times": [2440.289, 2444.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.512}, "reply_to": "20040__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20040__2_054", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "All right.\nYes, Your Honor, I don't quarrel with that.\nThe fact is, we are informing people when they come in to register of the status that they will obtain by virtue of that registration, and I don't think the fact that we now inform people, I don't think the conveyance of information is a change within section 5 that requires preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2444.554, 2445.362, 2447.546], "stop_times": [2445.362, 2447.546, 2464.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.554}, "reply_to": "20040__2_053", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_055", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes, but the means by which you do that, however you are informing them, has never been submitted to the Attorney General and has never been precleared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2464.907], "stop_times": [2472.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.907}, "reply_to": "20040__2_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_056", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2472.831], "stop_times": [2473.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2472.831}, "reply_to": "20040__2_055", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_057", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Because the premise of your first submission was that you wouldn't be telling them that, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2473.282], "stop_times": [2478.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.282}, "reply_to": "20040__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_058", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, it just... the first submission did not contemplate that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2478.654], "stop_times": [2482.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2478.654}, "reply_to": "20040__2_057", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_059", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's right, so that the Attorney General neither had before her, nor precleared, whatever means you are using to get this information to the voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2482.578], "stop_times": [2492.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.578}, "reply_to": "20040__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_060", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2492.543], "stop_times": [2492.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.543}, "reply_to": "20040__2_059", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_061", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's true, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2492.864], "stop_times": [2493.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.864}, "reply_to": "20040__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_062", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's true, yes, sir, but I would just contend that the transmission of information, helping someone understand his or her voting status, is not a change in any event, especially within the meaning of section 5.\nI don't think that if a circuit clerk or the Secretary of State wanted to inform someone of what their voting status was, the names of the persons on the ballot or anything else, I don't think that that would require--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2493.835, 2503.742], "stop_times": [2503.742, 2514.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.835}, "reply_to": "20040__2_061", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_063", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Oh, but counsel, the adoption of the form that you use for the voter to fill out and so forth, that certainly was a change, wasn't it?\nIt's a new form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2514.65, 2521.143], "stop_times": [2521.143, 2521.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.65}, "reply_to": "20040__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_064", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, it's a new form mandated by the Congress, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2521.694], "stop_times": [2524.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.694}, "reply_to": "20040__2_063", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_065", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Right, but was the language... all the language in the form mandated by Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2524.405], "stop_times": [2529.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.405}, "reply_to": "20040__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_066", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Virtually all of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2529.648], "stop_times": [2530.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2529.648}, "reply_to": "20040__2_065", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_067", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Virtually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2530.229], "stop_times": [2531.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.229}, "reply_to": "20040__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_068", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "The FEC requires, or allows us to incorporate into the form those... as I said, those things that would disqualify--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2531.171], "stop_times": [2537.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.171}, "reply_to": "20040__2_067", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_069", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But isn't it fairly clear that if at the time of your submission you had realized what the ultimate outcome would have been, you would have put on that form, this is good only for Federal elections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2537.065], "stop_times": [2547.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.065}, "reply_to": "20040__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_070", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, of course, if the Attorney... if the Mississippi Attorney General's Office had known at the time that a submission was about to have been made, a lot of things would have been done differently.\nThe fact is here that the Department of Justice interjected itself into the Mississippi matters.\nIt pressured--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2547.15, 2554.786, 2560.75], "stop_times": [2554.786, 2560.75, 2561.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.15}, "reply_to": "20040__2_069", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_071", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, they didn't interject themselves.\nCongress passed a statute that requires preclearance when you make changes, and you made some changes.\nYou had a duty to get preclearance, so you triggered the preclearance process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2561.98, 2563.201, 2568.474], "stop_times": [2563.201, 2568.474, 2572.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2561.98}, "reply_to": "20040__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_072", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, I beg to differ, Your Honor.\nI believe the Department of Justice triggered this hasty submission.\nThey called and wrote to a person who is employed with the Secretary of State's office on several occasions, prompting them to go ahead and submit a preclearance, and frankly I think it was their behavior that caused this false start, as Justice Scalia referred to it as.\nIt's not the fact that Mississippi has tried to deceive the Department of Justice by any stretch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2572.939, 2574.288, 2579.513, 2595.896], "stop_times": [2574.288, 2579.513, 2595.896, 2603.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.939}, "reply_to": "20040__2_071", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_073", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No, it isn't that, but it seems to me that we're off on sort of a tangent about whether they should or should not preclear a unitary system or not, but it seems to me it's a very simple case.\nEven the most modest changes under the motor vehicle... motor voter registration act needed preclearance.\nThey weren't precleared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2603.13, 2614.277, 2622.302], "stop_times": [2614.277, 2622.302, 2623.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.13}, "reply_to": "20040__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_074", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2623.814], "stop_times": [2624.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.814}, "reply_to": "20040__2_073", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_075", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Now, whether they should be precleared is... maybe you're dead right on that.\nThey probably should be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2624.222, 2628.256], "stop_times": [2628.256, 2629.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.222}, "reply_to": "20040__2_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_076", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, but I contend they were precleared.\nThe February 1 letter says that they are precleared.\nThe only thing different is the context, and by February 16, well within the 60-day period to lodge a conditional objection, they ratified the original preclearance.\nThere... I don't think there's any... there can be any meaningful dispute that they understood on February 16--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2629.187, 2631.589, 2633.65, 2643.155], "stop_times": [2631.589, 2633.65, 2643.155, 2647.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.187}, "reply_to": "20040__2_075", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_077", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Mr. Sanders, if there had been no--\n--You mean the--\n--December 20, then do you agree that there would have had to have been a preclearance of what was agreed upon on February 10 to keep the Mississippi system?\nForget about... there had never been any December 20 submission.\nOn February 10 the State of Mississippi knows what it's going to do.\nDoes that have to be precleared?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2647.918, 2649.3, 2650.709, 2659.846, 2663.449, 2668.712], "stop_times": [2649.3, 2650.709, 2659.846, 2663.449, 2668.712, 2671.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.918}, "reply_to": "20040__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_078", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--No, ma'am, I don't think it does.\nI think the fact... the 60-day period just makes the case stronger, but I think it's beyond dispute that the Department of Justice knew that those statutory changes, or that the law surrounding voter... Mississippi registration qualification was embodied in State statutes, and that law could not be changed unless those statutes were changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2671.323, 2672.625], "stop_times": [2672.625, 2691.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2671.323}, "reply_to": "20040__2_077", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_079", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I'm not talking about the State registration, just the Federal registration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2691.137], "stop_times": [2695.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.137}, "reply_to": "20040__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_080", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2695.52], "stop_times": [2695.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.52}, "reply_to": "20040__2_079", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_081", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "It's a change.\nIt's something new, forced by Federal law, but still it's a change in the voting practice.\nDoesn't that have to be precleared?\nI thought that any change had to be precleared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2695.86, 2696.491, 2701.904, 2704.766], "stop_times": [2696.491, 2701.904, 2704.766, 2708.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.86}, "reply_to": "20040__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_082", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, I think any State-initiated change has to be precleared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2708.58], "stop_times": [2711.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.58}, "reply_to": "20040__2_081", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_083", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But the State is initiating a form that isn't dictated in every particular by Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2711.601], "stop_times": [2720.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.601}, "reply_to": "20040__2_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_084", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, it is largely dictated, and is almost exclusively dictated by the Federal Election Commission.\nThat's what the NVRA requires the Federal... the FEC to do.\nThe State of Mississippi has very little input into the construction of that form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2720.428, 2726.02, 2728.792], "stop_times": [2726.02, 2728.792, 2733.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2720.428}, "reply_to": "20040__2_083", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_085", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Then you... what your answer to me now seems to me inconsistent with the position that you repeated twice in your brief when you said that the statute requires preclearance of any change, and that arguably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2733.173], "stop_times": [2746.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.173}, "reply_to": "20040__2_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_086", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Arguably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2746.513], "stop_times": [2747.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.513}, "reply_to": "20040__2_085", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_087", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Yes, but now you're changing your arguably to no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2747.475], "stop_times": [2751.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.475}, "reply_to": "20040__2_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_088", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No, I'm just saying... what I'm saying is, arguably it did.\nIf it did, we got the preclearance.\nNow, if we want to really examine the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2751.086, 2755.27, 2756.899], "stop_times": [2755.27, 2756.899, 2760.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.086}, "reply_to": "20040__2_087", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_089", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "You're not conceding, are you, that the publication of a form is a change in practice or procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2760.232], "stop_times": [2768.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.232}, "reply_to": "20040__2_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__2_090", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--No, not one that's initiated by the State and subject to section 5 preclearance.\nNo, I'm not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2768.436, 2771.598], "stop_times": [2771.598, 2772.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2768.436}, "reply_to": "20040__2_089", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_091", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "So you're now taking the position the forms did not have to be precleared?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2772.239], "stop_times": [2775.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2772.239}, "reply_to": "20040__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_092", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No.\nMy position hasn't changed.\nI just... I didn't want... I... the fact that they were precleared seemed to me to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2775.692, 2776.083, 2777.024], "stop_times": [2776.083, 2777.024, 2782.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.692}, "reply_to": "20040__2_091", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_093", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Yes, but your argument that they were precleared, if I understood you before Justice Ginsburg asked you some other questions, was that the February 16 letter in effect ratified the prior preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2782.167], "stop_times": [2791.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2782.167}, "reply_to": "20040__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_094", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2791.764], "stop_times": [2792.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.764}, "reply_to": "20040__2_093", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_095", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "That's surely not a fair reading of that letter, which is asking... which is telling you in so many words there's been no preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2792.262], "stop_times": [2797.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.262}, "reply_to": "20040__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_096", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "All right.\nWell, Your Honor, the Attorney General has promulgated a regulation that carries out this part of the language of section 5... it's at 28 C.F.R. section 51.23... that expressly gives the Attorney General the authority to lodge a conditional objection.\nThere's no way you can read the February 16 letter to lodge a conditional objection--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2797.638, 2798.196, 2812.387], "stop_times": [2798.196, 2812.387, 2818.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.638}, "reply_to": "20040__2_095", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_097", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "It says, a review of this matter indicates that the implementation of this dual voter registration system and purge system has not been submitted for review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2818.07], "stop_times": [2825.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.07}, "reply_to": "20040__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_098", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's correct, and they suggest that we submit a... make another submission, but they never do anything to diminish the fact that they precleared those agency selections, they precleared the form, their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2825.657], "stop_times": [2836.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2825.657}, "reply_to": "20040__2_097", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_099", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But as part of a general submission that you say was improper, and which was clearly not--\n--They were willing to take the bitter with the sweet.\nThey would approve those provisions as part of a unitary system but might not be willing to approve them as part of a divided system that you want to retain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2836.033, 2840.877, 2842.627], "stop_times": [2840.877, 2842.627, 2853.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.033}, "reply_to": "20040__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_100", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, my position is in the February 16 letter all they had to do was say, well, if this is not part of a unitary system, then we hereby lodge a conditional objection and we will resolve it later on.\nThat's what their own regulation says they have the authority to do, and they do not do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2853.563, 2863.15], "stop_times": [2863.15, 2866.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.563}, "reply_to": "20040__2_099", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_101", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, let me ask you a what-if question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2866.863], "stop_times": [2868.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.863}, "reply_to": "20040__2_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_102", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2868.954], "stop_times": [2869.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.954}, "reply_to": "20040__2_101", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_103", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "What if we don't agree with you and think this whole preclearance bubble... mess... doesn't amount to anything.\nIt's a nullity.\nYou're out and they're out.\nNothing's precleared.\nNow what do you have to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2869.334, 2877.619, 2878.431, 2880.261, 2881.312], "stop_times": [2877.619, 2878.431, 2880.261, 2881.312, 2882.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.334}, "reply_to": "20040__2_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_104", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2882.304], "stop_times": [2884.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2882.304}, "reply_to": "20040__2_103", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_105", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Let's just suppose that's what we think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2884.085], "stop_times": [2886.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.085}, "reply_to": "20040__2_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_106", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--All right.\nI certainly would not have to submit any notion that there has been a change of State law.\nClearly there has not been.\nI would not have to submit any of the things that amount to base compliance... or I mean, that amount to implementation of the base requirements of the NVRA.\nAgain, at most I would have to submit those matters... the designation of agencies, the construction of the form, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2886.955, 2887.807, 2894.752, 2895.871, 2904.577], "stop_times": [2887.807, 2894.752, 2895.871, 2904.577, 2913.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.955}, "reply_to": "20040__2_105", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_107", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And probably forms that make clear to people who register at driver's license time that they are not registered thereby for State and local elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2913.854], "stop_times": [2924.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.854}, "reply_to": "20040__2_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_108", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Oh, certainly I think if this Court were to remand we might make that change, but frankly I do not think that that would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2924.39], "stop_times": [2931.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.39}, "reply_to": "20040__2_107", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_109", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Might.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2931.965], "stop_times": [2932.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.965}, "reply_to": "20040__2_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20040__2_110", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, I do not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2932.356], "stop_times": [2934.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.356}, "reply_to": "20040__2_109", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_111", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "You said a moment ago you didn't think that was a practice or procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2934.228], "stop_times": [2937.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.228}, "reply_to": "20040__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__2_112", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--No, I don't.\nI don't think that it amounts to enough, but certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2937.561, 2938.052], "stop_times": [2938.052, 2940.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2937.561}, "reply_to": "20040__2_111", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_113", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But in your brief you said twice the choice of NVRA forms those agencies would use were administrative changes affecting voting that arguably required section 5 preclearance, and now as I understand your answer to the Chief Justice you're saying you were wrong to say arguably require preclearance because they weren't changes that needed preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2940.973], "stop_times": [2965.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.973}, "reply_to": "20040__2_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_114", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2965.518], "stop_times": [2966.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2965.518}, "reply_to": "20040__2_113", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_115", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But you said it twice so you must have thought about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2966.72], "stop_times": [2968.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.72}, "reply_to": "20040__2_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20040__2_116", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, frankly, I mean, I didn't put as much--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2968.981], "stop_times": [2970.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.981}, "reply_to": "20040__2_115", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_117", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "You think it's an argument, but it's a bad argument is what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2970.741], "stop_times": [2972.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.741}, "reply_to": "20040__2_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__2_118", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--That's correct.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2972.814, 2973.244], "stop_times": [2973.244, 2974.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2972.814}, "reply_to": "20040__2_117", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_119", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But didn't you also... didn't you also in this argument just a moment ago in responding to Justice O'Connor refer to the need to submit something about the forms?\nYou used the word form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2974.153, 2985.892], "stop_times": [2985.892, 2987.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.153}, "reply_to": "20040__2_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_120", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Right.\nThe construction of the form the State had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2987.604, 2988.005], "stop_times": [2988.005, 2990.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.604}, "reply_to": "20040__2_119", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_121", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "The construction of the form, by which you mean the format and its content?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2990.015], "stop_times": [2993.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.015}, "reply_to": "20040__2_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_122", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, really what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2993.699], "stop_times": [2995.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2993.699}, "reply_to": "20040__2_121", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_123", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "What do you mean by construction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2995.939], "stop_times": [2996.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2995.939}, "reply_to": "20040__2_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_124", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--As I indicated earlier the NVRA says that persons may register--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [2996.6], "stop_times": [3002.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.6}, "reply_to": "20040__2_123", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_125", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "May I interrupt you just for a second?\nBefore you tell me that, what... I just want to know what you meant by the words you used.\nYou spoke of the construction of the forms.\nWhat do you mean by construction of the forms?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3002.213, 3003.242, 3007.165, 3009.717], "stop_times": [3003.242, 3007.165, 3009.717, 3011.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.213}, "reply_to": "20040__2_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_126", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--If the State of Mississippi had decided to put a lot of additional material on the form, then we would have been constructing in a material sense.\nIf we had... I can't think of an example, but if we had put a great deal more material on there.\nAll we actually put on there were those things that would disqualify someone.\nThe NVRA form has a voter declaration section and all the person needs to do is sign his name below this declaration which says, I have not been convicted of these certain crimes, I am over 18... in other words it incorporates Mississippi's qualifications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3011.85, 3019.804, 3025.76, 3029.632], "stop_times": [3019.804, 3025.76, 3029.632, 3046.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.85}, "reply_to": "20040__2_125", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_127", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3046.173], "stop_times": [3046.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.173}, "reply_to": "20040__2_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_128", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Now... so Mississippi put Mississippi's qualifications in there.\nI suppose Alabama put Alabama's qualifications in there.\nSo to that extent it is somewhat different than the base form, from the FEC--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3046.774, 3049.656, 3052.428], "stop_times": [3049.656, 3052.428, 3058.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.774}, "reply_to": "20040__2_127", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_129", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "So you agree that insofar as you include those, in effect State law conditions and limitations you must submit the form for preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3058.642], "stop_times": [3067.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.642}, "reply_to": "20040__2_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_130", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--I'm just... no.\nI say that arguably if... I don't know whether just filling out that part and putting our State qualifications is enough.\nFrankly, I don't think it is.\nI'm just saying arguably it could be, but I think clearly if we went further than that, if we put other material in there, the more we put into it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3067.749, 3068.317, 3077.243, 3079.046], "stop_times": [3068.317, 3077.243, 3079.046, 3088.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.749}, "reply_to": "20040__2_129", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_131", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Or if you omitted material.\nFor example, if you omitted a statement calling attention to the fact that under Mississippi law this registration would be good for Federal elections only, that omission, as I understand it, would not be something that would require submission for preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3088.751, 3090.513], "stop_times": [3090.513, 3105.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.751}, "reply_to": "20040__2_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_132", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, I'm not sure that not putting something in there amounts to a section 5 change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3105.883], "stop_times": [3110.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.883}, "reply_to": "20040__2_131", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_133", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, you say you're not sure.\nI thought your position was going to be that you were sure and it was not a section 5 change and you didn't have to submit it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3110.466, 3112.847], "stop_times": [3112.847, 3118.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.466}, "reply_to": "20040__2_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20040__2_134", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, all right.\nI'll state it in the affirmative.\nI don't think that not putting that is a section 5 change, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3118.679, 3119.811, 3120.933], "stop_times": [3119.811, 3120.933, 3124.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.679}, "reply_to": "20040__2_133", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_135", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Okay.\nWhat should we do if we think, well, you haven't submitted the... I see about 20 pages here in this statute.\nIt has a lot of different procedural requirements, and maybe some are absolutely mandatory, maybe some give you discretion.\nIf we send it back and say you have to preclear those, would there be a lot of argument about what you have to preclear or not?\nI mean, what would you suggest we do?\nI imagine what would happen is you'd have to preclear those, and they'd come in and argue that in light of the dual system you have to do something that's virtually impossible.\nI don't know what they're going to argue, but they're going to argue that that dual system is highly relevant, and you'll argue it isn't.\nAll right, and... so what in your opinion, if we... just what Justice O'Connor asked, I think.\nWhat is your opinion if we disagree with you that it has been cleared, and we think it hasn't been cleared yet, what should we do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3124.143, 3124.744, 3133.33, 3140.546, 3147.321, 3148.873, 3157.909, 3163.014, 3169.886], "stop_times": [3124.744, 3133.33, 3140.546, 3147.321, 3148.873, 3157.909, 3163.014, 3169.886, 3178.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.143}, "reply_to": "20040__2_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20040__2_136", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, I think at most of course you should just simply remand it.\nI do not think that this Court should in any way render a decision on... without going back to the district court, but I think still, to the extent that anyone considers that a change has been made, I think that it's still something that section 5, the district court should have an opportunity to look at.\nIf the Court feels that more proof should be developed and so forth through discovery, I mean, that can be done, but the very most that this Court should do is remand to the district court, if that's what your question is.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3178.153, 3182.866, 3201.639, 3216.348], "stop_times": [3182.866, 3201.639, 3216.348, 3216.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3178.153}, "reply_to": "20040__2_135", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_137", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Mr. Sanders--\n--Yes.\nA look at the assistance part seems... I mean, there seems to be some words here about their having to provide appropriate assistance, your having to, to people.\nThat was the part that seemed the most discretionary when I just glanced at it, but that hasn't been argued fully here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3216.789, 3217.157, 3217.498, 3224.224], "stop_times": [3217.157, 3217.498, 3224.224, 3230.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.789}, "reply_to": "20040__2_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20040__2_138", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--No, that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3230.12], "stop_times": [3231.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3230.12}, "reply_to": "20040__2_137", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_139", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Mr. Sanders, I'm reluctant, as some others seem to be to say that you have to submit forms for preclearance, because if we adopt that principle we'll have to use it not just in this case but in all cases in the future, and the notion that all forms are submittable whenever you make any change is a rather expansive one.\nOn the other hand, I'm also concerned that the Justice Department ought to be able to protect Mississippi voters from being misled when they register under what is a Federal-only system into believing that they're registered under State law.\nThen they appear at the State voting place and they find that they can't vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3231.62, 3253.114, 3268.626], "stop_times": [3253.114, 3268.626, 3272.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.62}, "reply_to": "20040__2_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__2_140", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "And Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3272.106], "stop_times": [3273.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3272.106}, "reply_to": "20040__2_139", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_141", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "If we can't be sure by requiring the forms to be submitted, how can the Attorney General prevent the State of Mississippi from misleading citizens that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3273.928], "stop_times": [3287.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.928}, "reply_to": "20040__2_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20040__2_142", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Well, obviously through a section 2 challenge or any Fifteenth Amendment-based challenge, but our position is that the Attorney General should not be able to do that through the device of section 5 preclearance.\nAgain, we do not think that the Attorney General should be able to review, object, or veto any mandate to the State of Mississippi from the Congress, but they have plenty of other options available to it.\nTo the extent, as my good friend Mr. Stewart said, that base implementation of the NVRA might amount to a discriminatory purpose, if it does, then the United States may challenge that in a variety of other ways but not through the device of preclearance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3287.416, 3298.085, 3309.87], "stop_times": [3298.085, 3309.87, 3327.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3287.416}, "reply_to": "20040__2_141", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_143", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Is there any significance to the fact that the motor vehicle statute has a specific section in it saying that this doesn't limit the application of the Voting Rights Act and doesn't modify it in any way, and doesn't it follow that if you adopt a new form to be used to register voters, that that's a change or practice, blah, blah, blah, within the meaning of section 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3327.971], "stop_times": [3349.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3327.971}, "reply_to": "20040__2_142", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_144", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "I read that language in the NVRA simply to mean the same... or I read it the same way I read footnote 29 in Allen, where this Court says that State-initiated changes, even when made to comply with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, must be submitted for preclearance.\nI read that language in the NVRA the same way.\nWhen the State makes changes itself, they must be submitted for preclearance even though they are part of an NVRA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3349.937, 3365.318, 3368.16], "stop_times": [3365.318, 3368.16, 3374.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3349.937}, "reply_to": "20040__2_143", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_145", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "But the fact that the Federal Government, the Federal statute required them to do some things, made them print a new form with respect to elections, is it not still true that the distribution of a new form to people who are being registered, a form you never used before, is a change in a voting practice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3374.972], "stop_times": [3391.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3374.972}, "reply_to": "20040__2_144", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_146", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Not within the meaning of section 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3391.685], "stop_times": [3392.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3391.685}, "reply_to": "20040__2_145", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_147", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "You don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3392.944], "stop_times": [3393.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.944}, "reply_to": "20040__2_146", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20040__2_148", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No.\nI don't think that language in the NVRA was designed to give the Attorney General the right of veto over an act of Congress, over a mandate from the Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3393.325, 3393.916], "stop_times": [3393.916, 3403.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3393.325}, "reply_to": "20040__2_147", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_149", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Well, if the... without reference to the NVRA, the State of Mississippi decided to have a new form advising voters of the effect of their registration, where they could register and so forth, would that have to be precleared?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3403.944], "stop_times": [3417.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.944}, "reply_to": "20040__2_148", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__2_150", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "If it was just a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3417.832], "stop_times": [3419.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3417.832}, "reply_to": "20040__2_149", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_151", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "It's an instruction mailed to all voters with respect to an explanation of registration procedures.\nYou do not have to preclear that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3419.421, 3426.888], "stop_times": [3426.888, 3428.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.421}, "reply_to": "20040__2_150", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__2_152", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--Absolutely not.\nI mean, there's nothing new about circuit clerks or Secretary of States or any elected official--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3428.308, 3428.758], "stop_times": [3428.758, 3435.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3428.308}, "reply_to": "20040__2_151", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_153", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Suppose it's a new form, new wording, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3435.494], "stop_times": [3437.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.494}, "reply_to": "20040__2_152", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__2_154", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "--It doesn't matter, Your Honor.\nIf it's just designed to convey information to the electorate, no, that's not a change in any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3437.414, 3438.215], "stop_times": [3438.215, 3444.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3437.414}, "reply_to": "20040__2_153", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_155", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "This is not a voting practice or procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3444.59], "stop_times": [3446.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.59}, "reply_to": "20040__2_154", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20040__2_156", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "No, of course not.\nIt has nothing to do with a person's ability to vote.\nIt simply is... if we're trying to inform them of their status, that does not represent a change for section 5 purposes or for any other purposes so far as I can see.\nThat is simply... I mean, all elected officials have always done what they can to help people... to help their constituents.\nThat's just currying favor with voters, and that does not represent a section 5 change.\nIf there are no more questions, thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3446.49, 3447.191, 3450.032, 3459.499, 3470.025, 3474.55], "stop_times": [3447.191, 3450.032, 3459.499, 3470.025, 3474.55, 3478.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3446.49}, "reply_to": "20040__2_155", "speaker": "robert_e_sanders"}
{"id": "20040__2_157", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sanders.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3478.7, 3483.075], "stop_times": [3483.075, 3484.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3478.7}, "reply_to": "20040__2_156", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20040__2_158", "conversation_id": "20040", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-2031", "start_times": [3484.017], "stop_times": [3490.544], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3484.017}, "reply_to": "20040__2_157", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19981__0_000", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 95-1598, Leroy Young v. Ernest Eugene Harper.\nMs. Howard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [0.0, 8.477], "stop_times": [8.477, 9.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_001", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nDuring the past decade, Oklahoma, like many other States, has experienced a serious prison overcrowding problem.\nIn an attempt to deal with this crisis, and at the same time to meet the goals of incarceration, the Oklahoma legislature has had to come up with some innovative programs.\nOne such program is the program at issue here today, the pre-parole conditional supervision program.\nErnest Harper was placed on this program after serving 14 years of a life sentence for first degree murder.\nHe was reclassified to a higher security level when the Governor of Oklahoma denied his parole.\nThe Tenth Circuit found that because Mr. Harper had been serving his sentence outside the physical boundaries of a prison, that his program was like parole, and that he was entitled to the full protections of a Morrissey v. Brewer hearing before reclassification.\nWe believe the Tenth Circuit erred in one major reason.\nThe Tenth Circuit failed to consider the true nature of the program.\nThe Tenth Circuit's approach to the program was really very simple.\nThe Tenth Circuit found that because this was a program in which a prisoner was serving his sentence outside the four walls of the prison, that it was like parole.\nIt is really very different from parole in several respects.\nFirst, I think what we need to do is look at the nature of the program.\nYou told us that in Sandin, and you had told us that previously in Meachum v. Fano and other cases, and when we look at the nature of the program, we have to consider several things.\nFirst, we have to consider the purpose for which the program was instituted.\nWe have to consider the function of the program, how it operates within the State, and this program, unlike parole, does not function as a program to reintegrate people into society.\nIt functions as a program to alleviate prison overcrowding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [9.667, 13.701, 19.745, 27.919, 33.172, 38.906, 44.71, 59.85, 63.643, 67.085, 71.327, 79.183, 82.734, 86.498, 95.483, 98.826, 110.623], "stop_times": [13.701, 19.745, 27.919, 33.172, 38.906, 44.71, 59.85, 63.643, 67.085, 71.327, 79.183, 82.734, 86.498, 95.483, 98.826, 110.623, 114.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.667}, "reply_to": "19981__0_000", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_002", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Ms. Howard, did the State have any procedures in effect at the time this case arose for a situation like this where one group permitted the preparole but then the Governor subsequently denied parole?\nWere there any written procedures in place for that situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [114.567, 131.64], "stop_times": [131.64, 135.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.567}, "reply_to": "19981__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_003", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "There--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [135.562], "stop_times": [136.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.562}, "reply_to": "19981__0_002", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_004", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--when this case occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [136.443], "stop_times": [137.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 136.443}, "reply_to": "19981__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_005", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--There were some written procedures at that time.\nThey did not deal specifically for reclassifying somebody in the particular situation that Mr. Harper was in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [137.625, 139.725], "stop_times": [139.725, 145.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.625}, "reply_to": "19981__0_004", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_006", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So the answer is there wasn't anything that covered this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [145.809], "stop_times": [149.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.809}, "reply_to": "19981__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_007", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Nothing specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [149.412], "stop_times": [150.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.412}, "reply_to": "19981__0_006", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_008", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And subsequently the State has adopted some procedures?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [150.193], "stop_times": [153.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.193}, "reply_to": "19981__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_009", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Several procedures have been adopted by our Pardon and Parole Board since that time, and in 1991, after the time Mr. Harper was already brought back onto the program, our Pardon and Parole Board adopted a policy where they now leave people out for 90 days before reexamining them and determining whether to bring--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [153.943], "stop_times": [171.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.943}, "reply_to": "19981__0_008", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_010", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And then it's discretionary with the board whether to terminate it, the pre-parole, simply because the Governor had denied parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [171.094], "stop_times": [180.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.094}, "reply_to": "19981__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_011", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Actually, it's a determination made by our Department of Corrections, which is somewhat confusing in this case.\nThe Pardon and Parole Board recommends people for pre-parole to our Department of Corrections, and the Department of Corrections makes the ultimate decision about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [180.601, 185.587], "stop_times": [185.587, 192.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.601}, "reply_to": "19981__0_010", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_012", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And on what basis do they now make that decision?\nIs it just totally discretionary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [192.87, 195.992], "stop_times": [195.992, 199.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.87}, "reply_to": "19981__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_013", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Yes, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [199.093], "stop_times": [200.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.093}, "reply_to": "19981__0_012", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_014", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--with the Department, or do they consider how the prisoner has behaved on pre-parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [200.253], "stop_times": [204.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.253}, "reply_to": "19981__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_015", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--It is totally discretionary with the Department, and they derive their authority from this Court's opinion in Meachum v. Fano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [204.057], "stop_times": [209.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.057}, "reply_to": "19981__0_014", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_016", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, can they flip a coin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [209.88], "stop_times": [210.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.88}, "reply_to": "19981__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__0_017", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes, they can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [210.831], "stop_times": [211.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.831}, "reply_to": "19981__0_016", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_018", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Under Oklahoma law you would advise the board that they can flip a coin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [211.722], "stop_times": [216.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.722}, "reply_to": "19981__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__0_019", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I would advise that that would be permissible in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [216.435], "stop_times": [219.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 216.435}, "reply_to": "19981__0_018", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_020", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So there... you then take it that the claim before us today doesn't carry a substantive component to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [219.827], "stop_times": [227.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.827}, "reply_to": "19981__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_021", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [227.821], "stop_times": [228.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.821}, "reply_to": "19981__0_020", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_022", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That you go through the motions of a hearing, but then they can flip a coin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [228.623], "stop_times": [231.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.623}, "reply_to": "19981__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_023", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [231.645], "stop_times": [232.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.645}, "reply_to": "19981__0_022", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_024", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And that gives them due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [232.717], "stop_times": [234.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.717}, "reply_to": "19981__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_025", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Right.\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [234.486, 235.137], "stop_times": [235.137, 235.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.486}, "reply_to": "19981__0_024", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_026", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [235.816], "stop_times": [236.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.816}, "reply_to": "19981__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_027", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Well, I'm not discounting any type of claim, a First Amendment violation or an Eighth Amendment violation, if there were an independent constitutional violation.\nWe're not saying that they can revoke on the basis of exercising their First Amendment or, you know, on the basis of race, but other than that, other than some independent constitutional violation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [236.457, 243.894], "stop_times": [243.894, 253.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.457}, "reply_to": "19981__0_026", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_028", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, flipping a--\n--But what was it in the regulations or the statute at the time that this took place that said that pre-parole can be revoked upon the Governor's refusing a pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [253.408, 254.059], "stop_times": [254.059, 265.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.408}, "reply_to": "19981__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_029", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Again, there's nothing specific in the statute.\nWhat we do have, we have a statute which implements the program, and it indicates that people on that program are inmates within the Department of Corrections.\nIt indicates that they are subject to escape charges if they don't report back from the program.\nIt indicates also that they're subject to the disciplinary proceedings of the Department of Corrections.\nFrom that we assume, or we know, that this is a type of classification within the Department of Corrections under Meachum v. Fano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [265.188, 267.529, 275.723, 282.198, 286.6], "stop_times": [267.529, 275.723, 282.198, 286.6, 295.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.188}, "reply_to": "19981__0_028", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_030", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But Mr. Harper was asked at the time he was put in this program, he was asked to sign a form, and I'm lcoking at page 5 of the joint appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [295.015], "stop_times": [306.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.015}, "reply_to": "19981__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_031", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [306.045], "stop_times": [307.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.045}, "reply_to": "19981__0_030", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_032", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And that form says, reviewed options available in the event of parole denial, and he signs it, and I guess somebody from the Department of Corrections signs it.\nWell, what were those options that were reviewed with him that would be available in the event of parole denial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [307.344, 319.812], "stop_times": [319.812, 327.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.344}, "reply_to": "19981__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_033", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "At the end, we don't have anything specific in our regulations saying what those options were.\nI'm told by the Department of Corrections that at that time it was automatic, that if the Governor denied parole they automatically reclassified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [327.997, 333.152], "stop_times": [333.152, 339.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.997}, "reply_to": "19981__0_032", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_034", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So this was a misrepresentation on the form that they asked him to sign?\nIt said options?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [339.925, 344.4], "stop_times": [344.4, 345.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.925}, "reply_to": "19981__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_035", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Well, we don't know for sure if those options are only limited to... to two options of either being brought back in or being stayed out.\nIt could be other options that are not directly related to the specific decision about whether to reclassify or not, you know, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [345.759, 352.834], "stop_times": [352.834, 359.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.759}, "reply_to": "19981__0_034", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_036", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, was staying out, as you put it, one of the options?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [359.449], "stop_times": [361.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.449}, "reply_to": "19981__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_037", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--At that time it was not.\nIt is now.\nAt that time it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [361.7, 363.31, 364.312], "stop_times": [363.31, 364.312, 365.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.7}, "reply_to": "19981__0_036", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_038", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "In fact, as I understand it, some of these individuals who were denied parole were brought back like this particular prisoner, and some were not, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [365.413], "stop_times": [377.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.413}, "reply_to": "19981__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_039", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "At the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [377.95], "stop_times": [379.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.95}, "reply_to": "19981__0_038", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_040", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Not all of them have been brought back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [379.772], "stop_times": [380.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 379.772}, "reply_to": "19981__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_041", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--At the time that Mr. Harper was brought back, everyone in his similar situation was brought back in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [380.752], "stop_times": [386.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 380.752}, "reply_to": "19981__0_040", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_042", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But that's not the case now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [386.247], "stop_times": [387.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.247}, "reply_to": "19981__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_043", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That is not the case now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [387.457], "stop_times": [388.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.457}, "reply_to": "19981__0_042", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_044", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well--\n--You mean there were no options, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [388.288, 388.869], "stop_times": [388.869, 390.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 388.288}, "reply_to": "19981__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_045", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, there were no options as far as, if you consider the options stay out or come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [390.158], "stop_times": [395.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.158}, "reply_to": "19981__0_044", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_046", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "What other options would there be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [395.771], "stop_times": [397.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.771}, "reply_to": "19981__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_047", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, like you, I'm somewhat troubled by that language, that I think perhaps it could refer to other types of options once he's back within the prison.\nYou know, whether... which institution he's going to be placed at, whether he's going to be at a minimum security in the southern part of the State or in the northern part of the State.\nYou know, other types of restrictions that may be placed on him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [397.373, 405.618, 412.842], "stop_times": [405.618, 412.842, 414.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.373}, "reply_to": "19981__0_046", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_048", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Your--\n--What is the change in the law between the time he was brought back and the present that explains why some of the prisoners are not being brought back today, whereas he was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [414.915, 415.335], "stop_times": [415.335, 428.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.915}, "reply_to": "19981__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_049", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Do you mean, what is the rationale behind the change, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [428.834], "stop_times": [431.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.834}, "reply_to": "19981__0_048", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_050", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, has there been any change in the State statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [431.865], "stop_times": [433.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.865}, "reply_to": "19981__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_051", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--There has been no change in the State statute with regard to that.\nThere's been one slight change in the statute which deals with educational programs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [433.916, 437.219], "stop_times": [437.219, 440.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 433.916}, "reply_to": "19981__0_050", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_052", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But that doesn't cover this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [440.611], "stop_times": [441.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.611}, "reply_to": "19981__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_053", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Right.\nThere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [441.372, 441.772], "stop_times": [441.772, 442.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.372}, "reply_to": "19981__0_052", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_054", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "What does explain as a matter of law, if anything, the difference in treatment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [442.572], "stop_times": [447.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.572}, "reply_to": "19981__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_055", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I don't know that there's anything as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [447.296], "stop_times": [450.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.296}, "reply_to": "19981__0_054", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_056", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So it's a matter of administrative practice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [450.488], "stop_times": [452.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.488}, "reply_to": "19981__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_057", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It's a matter of administrative policy, which is really my point here, the point we're trying to make in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [452.008], "stop_times": [456.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.008}, "reply_to": "19981__0_056", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_058", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, before you go on to that, how is the decision being made today as to whether he... a given prisoner will be brought back or not?\nI mean, I assume they're not flipping coins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [456.473, 465.79], "stop_times": [465.79, 467.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.473}, "reply_to": "19981__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_059", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [467.609], "stop_times": [468.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.609}, "reply_to": "19981__0_058", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_060", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But how are they making this decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [468.641], "stop_times": [470.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.641}, "reply_to": "19981__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_061", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "A review board in the Department of Corrections is making the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [470.761], "stop_times": [473.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.761}, "reply_to": "19981__0_060", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_062", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And what is it grounding its decision on?\nWhat does it consider?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [473.863, 476.415], "stop_times": [476.415, 477.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.863}, "reply_to": "19981__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_063", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Again, there are no specific statutory or regulatory guidelines, but they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [477.787], "stop_times": [483.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.787}, "reply_to": "19981__0_062", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_064", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [483.019], "stop_times": [483.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.019}, "reply_to": "19981__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_065", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--One--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [483.61], "stop_times": [483.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 483.61}, "reply_to": "19981__0_064", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_066", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--If it's not flipping a coin, wouldn't a hearing with an opportunity to appear and give reasons why one should be brought back or not brought back function as a normal due process hearing would function?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [483.979], "stop_times": [498.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.979}, "reply_to": "19981__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_067", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--It might would function as that, but I think the question here is whether there's a liberty interest in this program such that he's required to have a hearing, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [498.08], "stop_times": [506.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.08}, "reply_to": "19981__0_066", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_068", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But in any case, leaving the liberty interest issue aside, there would be the same function for this hearing that there would be, I presume, for a parole revocation hearing.\nThere would be an opportunity to argue that one should not be brought back, for whatever equitable reasons one could raise.\nThat's fair to say, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [506.966, 517.921, 524.307], "stop_times": [517.921, 524.307, 525.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 506.966}, "reply_to": "19981__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_069", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--There would be an argument... there would be... under Meachum v. Fano I keep coming back to, but that case discussed the fact that when you're dealing with classification systems like this one is, that there's no... that there's no right to participate in the decision of whether or not to reclassify.\nIt's purely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [525.746, 544.069], "stop_times": [544.069, 544.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.746}, "reply_to": "19981__0_068", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_070", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, but this is a question which involves not only a reclassification, but a revocation of liberty, and Morrissey and Brewer says expressly, whatever you call it, by whatever name, the liberty in fact is an interest which deserves a hearing before it is revoked, so I don't see why you don't fall within the terms of Morrissey, because you have a) liberty in fact, and b) a discretionary decision about whether to revoke it or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [544.9], "stop_times": [577.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.9}, "reply_to": "19981__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_071", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I think we have to look at the Morrissey v. Brewer opinion closely to determine whether we do really fall under Morrissey, and there are several--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [577.352], "stop_times": [583.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.352}, "reply_to": "19981__0_070", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_072", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, you fall within the language that I just referred to.\nYou would agree with that, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [583.576, 585.377], "stop_times": [585.377, 586.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.576}, "reply_to": "19981__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__0_073", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I would agree with that, but I think we also... and the Court talks about this in Morrissey, is you have to look at the function of the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [586.829], "stop_times": [592.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.829}, "reply_to": "19981__0_072", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_074", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, yes.\nI suppose also Morrissey v. Brewer may have decided this... described kind of a generic parole.\nIt didn't purport to account for all the different variations in the different States, and I gather what your State is saying is that the Oklahoma system, at least now and perhaps as it was when this respondent was dealt with by it, was different from the ordinary system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [592.501, 593.43, 600.365], "stop_times": [593.43, 600.365, 615.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.501}, "reply_to": "19981__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_075", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That's exactly the point I wanted to make, Your Honor, that when Morrissey talked about parole, Morrissey talked about the fact that parole had been around for 60 years, it was a well-established part of the penal system, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [615.716], "stop_times": [626.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.716}, "reply_to": "19981__0_074", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_076", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, suppose we decided here, at least a majority were to conclude that it is most closely analogous to parole, and therefore Morrissey is some... it's applicable in some respect, do you think the system the State now has in place would suffice if the ultimate decision is arbitrarily decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [626.613], "stop_times": [652.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.613}, "reply_to": "19981__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_077", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--The system they now... the State now has in place still does not entitle the inmate to a hearing; so, you know, if this Court were to find that a Morrissey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [652.649], "stop_times": [661.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.649}, "reply_to": "19981__0_076", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_078", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The new system does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [661.195], "stop_times": [662.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.195}, "reply_to": "19981__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_079", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [662.427], "stop_times": [663.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.427}, "reply_to": "19981__0_078", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_080", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--give the inmate a hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [663.068], "stop_times": [664.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.068}, "reply_to": "19981__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_081", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No, it does not.\nIt allows the inmate to stay out for a certain time before the Department of Corrections makes a decision to bring him back in, but the new system does not entitle him to a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [664.317, 666.069], "stop_times": [666.069, 672.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 664.317}, "reply_to": "19981__0_080", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_082", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And if this Court thought that Morrissey were applicable, do you defend that system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [672.511], "stop_times": [678.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.511}, "reply_to": "19981__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_083", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "If this Court thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [678.177], "stop_times": [681.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.177}, "reply_to": "19981__0_082", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_084", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "If we thought that it was analogous to parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [681.139], "stop_times": [683.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.139}, "reply_to": "19981__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_085", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--If you thought that it was like parole such that Morrissey applied, then I think we would have a hard time defending that system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [683.25], "stop_times": [689.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.25}, "reply_to": "19981__0_084", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_086", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, you can't under our due proces cases say that we have a particular scheme here, and it doesn't call for a hearing, and therefore that's the end of it.\nI mean, if the scheme calls for a determination of facts before a particular action can be taken, then due process may be implicated even though there's no provision for a hearing in the State system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [689.844, 699.949], "stop_times": [699.949, 710.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.844}, "reply_to": "19981__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_087", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I would agree with that, that first you have to find a liberty interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [710.996], "stop_times": [714.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.996}, "reply_to": "19981__0_086", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_088", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "May I ask you, you said this is different from parole, and you never quite explained why.\nWould you tell me, from the standpoint of the person out of jail, what's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [714.339, 718.823], "stop_times": [718.823, 723.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.339}, "reply_to": "19981__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_089", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I will answer that question and then I'd like to also make a couple of other comments.\nFrom the standpoint of someone out of jail, like Mr. Harper--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [723.505, 727.789], "stop_times": [727.789, 731.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.505}, "reply_to": "19981__0_088", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_090", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [731.162], "stop_times": [731.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.162}, "reply_to": "19981__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_091", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--there are several differences.\nOne, Mr. Harper is still bound by the prison disciplinary proceedings, so if he commits some sort of disciplinary violation while he's out on pre-parole, just something that would be a disciplinary misconduct in the prison, like a disrespect to his supervising parole officers, then he can be charged with a disciplinary violation and earned credits can be taken away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [731.492, 732.484], "stop_times": [732.484, 753.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.492}, "reply_to": "19981__0_090", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_092", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And you don't think that Morrissey, if he was disrespectful to his parole officer, could have been disciplined?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [753.307], "stop_times": [757.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.307}, "reply_to": "19981__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_093", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "There's no provision for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [757.629], "stop_times": [758.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 757.629}, "reply_to": "19981__0_092", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_094", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [758.831], "stop_times": [759.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.831}, "reply_to": "19981__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_095", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Under parole, you're either revoked or you're... there are no provisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [759.271], "stop_times": [763.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 759.271}, "reply_to": "19981__0_094", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_096", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I see.\nIn other words, there's discipline short of revocation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [763.692, 764.023], "stop_times": [764.023, 766.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.692}, "reply_to": "19981__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_097", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [766.664], "stop_times": [767.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.664}, "reply_to": "19981__0_096", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_098", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [767.245], "stop_times": [767.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.245}, "reply_to": "19981__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_099", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Another important... I think a real important point to make is that prisoners on this pre-parole conditional supervision program are earning earned credits within our Department of Corrections.\nSome States call them good time credits.\nWe have a system where you're placed on a certain level, and you may earn an additional 44 days or 33 days or 22 days based on things like the management of your living space and hygiene, participation in an education program, or a job--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [767.656, 776.142, 778.235], "stop_times": [776.142, 778.235, 791.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.656}, "reply_to": "19981__0_098", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_100", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "These are good time credits shortening the release date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [791.241], "stop_times": [794.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.241}, "reply_to": "19981__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_101", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [794.143], "stop_times": [794.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.143}, "reply_to": "19981__0_100", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_102", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, can't a person on parole earn those, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [794.473], "stop_times": [795.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.473}, "reply_to": "19981__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_103", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No.\nPeople on parole do not earn those.\nAgain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [795.984, 796.454, 797.736], "stop_times": [796.454, 797.736, 798.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.984}, "reply_to": "19981__0_102", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_104", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I would take it... correct me if I'm wrong... that a parolee is subject to a certain amount of increased restrictions if he seems to be not quite adjusting to the instructions of the parole.\nHe'd say, you have to report to me three times a week, instead of once a week.\nYou must be home at night.\nYou can't go out at night.\nSo there are, it seems to me, all sorts of options that the parole officer has, short of revocation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [798.795, 811.184, 816.34, 817.769, 818.96], "stop_times": [811.184, 816.34, 817.769, 818.96, 824.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.795}, "reply_to": "19981__0_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__0_105", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--There may be additional options, depending upon--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [824.204], "stop_times": [826.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 824.204}, "reply_to": "19981__0_104", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_106", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So then that distinction between your pre-parolee respondent here and the parolee in the standard parole case doesn't seem to hold up in your answer to Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [826.645], "stop_times": [838.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.645}, "reply_to": "19981__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__0_107", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Well, the distinction, I believe, is the fact that these... the things that I were mentioning to Justice Stevens show that this inmate, people on pre-parole are continuing to serve their sentence under the Department of Corrections.\nWith a parole program, yes, the parole officer could put additional burdens on a parolee if it was in... if it was within the rules and conditions which were originally imposed upon him.\nThey couldn't go outside those rules and conditions, but if they were within those rules and conditions they could put additional burdens on him, but not the type of burdens that would be given to an inmate in a prison, which is what people on pre-parole have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [838.552, 850.22, 860.247], "stop_times": [850.22, 860.247, 873.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.552}, "reply_to": "19981__0_106", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_108", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Ms. Howard, who administers the pre-parole program.\nIs it administered by the prison warden?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [873.485, 876.106], "stop_times": [876.106, 878.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.485}, "reply_to": "19981__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_109", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It's administered by our Department of Corrections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [878.467], "stop_times": [880.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.467}, "reply_to": "19981__0_108", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_110", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Or... and who administers parole?\nIs it a separate organization?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [880.691, 883.943], "stop_times": [883.943, 886.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.691}, "reply_to": "19981__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_111", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It's... the Pardon and Parole Board recommends people for parole, and they ultimately do administer that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [886.834], "stop_times": [891.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.834}, "reply_to": "19981__0_110", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_112", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No, but once they go out on parole, I mean, who takes care of seeing that everybody's abiding by his parole restrictions and so forth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [891.868], "stop_times": [899.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.868}, "reply_to": "19981__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_113", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Parole officers would report that to the Pardon and Parole Board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [899.302], "stop_times": [901.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.302}, "reply_to": "19981__0_112", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_114", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Okay, so the Pardon and Parole Board, which is independent of the Bureau of Corrections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [901.835], "stop_times": [905.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.835}, "reply_to": "19981__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_115", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.\nThere are some overlaps, and like in this situation, people on pre-parole, they're supervised by parole officers, and they're employees of the Department of Corrections, so there's some overlap between the two departments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [905.335, 906.216], "stop_times": [906.216, 918.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.335}, "reply_to": "19981__0_114", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_116", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So the supervisor while he's at liberty would be the same whether he's on parole or pre-parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [918.345], "stop_times": [923.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.345}, "reply_to": "19981__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_117", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The specific employee might be the same.\nThey're both parole officers.\nBut that's just an ease of function with our Department of Corrections, is that they use these parole officers for performing these functions, but they still report to the Department of Corrections as opposed to the Pardon and Parole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [923.938, 928.57, 930.022], "stop_times": [928.57, 930.022, 940.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.938}, "reply_to": "19981__0_116", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_118", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But the judgment whether to bring him back, for example, or whether to impose some kind of a sanction, whether it's more frequent consultation with a parole officer or denial of good time credits or whatever else, that judgment is made by the warden or by the Department of Corrections?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [940.879], "stop_times": [955.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.879}, "reply_to": "19981__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_119", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--The Department of Corrections, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [955.908], "stop_times": [957.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.908}, "reply_to": "19981__0_118", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_120", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Not by the parole board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [957.421], "stop_times": [958.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.421}, "reply_to": "19981__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_121", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No.\nAll they do is recommend people for placement on the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [958.219, 958.8], "stop_times": [958.8, 961.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 958.219}, "reply_to": "19981__0_120", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_122", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I still am not quite clear on the reasons that this respondent could have been brought back at the... under the regulations then in force.\nAt page 18 and 19 of your brief, 19... the bottom of page 18, you said, an inmate on the program is aware that he may be reclassified to a higher security level... I assume that means being brought back into the facility... for any reason, including that the Governor denied the inmate for parole, that he no longer meets eligibility requirements, whether he violated a rule.\nIt seems to me that that means that there must be some reason given.\nIf you said for any reason at all, including flipping a coin, you wouldn't need those three... those three classifications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [961.892, 970.027, 991.201, 998.236], "stop_times": [970.027, 991.201, 998.236, 1005.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.892}, "reply_to": "19981__0_121", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__0_123", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That gets us to the point that this Court recently made in Sandin, which is that you don't look at language like that and pick it apart in a mechanical manner.\nYou look to the nature of the program, and here, yes, there is some language saying you will be removed or you may be removed if you don't abide with the educational rules--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1005.43, 1015.638], "stop_times": [1015.638, 1024.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.43}, "reply_to": "19981__0_122", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_124", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It says two things, you may be removed, which indicates there's some discretion, for a reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1024.134], "stop_times": [1028.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.134}, "reply_to": "19981__0_123", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__0_125", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--But that doesn't leave an implication that you may not be removed for any other reason, and that's exactly what this Court was talking about most recently in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1028.017], "stop_times": [1037.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.017}, "reply_to": "19981__0_124", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_126", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well then, I don't know why you described the program in that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1037.132], "stop_times": [1039.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.132}, "reply_to": "19981__0_125", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__0_127", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--In... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1039.173], "stop_times": [1042.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.173}, "reply_to": "19981__0_126", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_128", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It seems to me your description is completely unnecessary if no reason at all is necessary to be given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1042.025], "stop_times": [1048.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.025}, "reply_to": "19981__0_127", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__0_129", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "We're describing the program as a reclassification system.\nWhen the inmate goes on the program, he signs the forms, the orientation that he signed... joint appendix page 4, specifically on page 6.\nThe inmate knew that he was being classified at a community level.\nThat is a type of classification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1048.128, 1052.674, 1061.019, 1064.76], "stop_times": [1052.674, 1061.019, 1064.76, 1067.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1048.128}, "reply_to": "19981__0_128", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_130", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I don't have the joint appendix before me, Ms. Howard, but what exactly... you say the inmate was aware he can be reclassified to be in fact brought back for several... including the Governor has denied the inmate parole.\nNow, what exactly does that section you're referring to say about being brought back if the Government... if the Governor denies parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1067.993, 1085.453], "stop_times": [1085.453, 1093.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.993}, "reply_to": "19981__0_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_131", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Again, I would admit to you there's no specific language I can point to that says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1093.059], "stop_times": [1097.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.059}, "reply_to": "19981__0_130", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_132", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, is there general language you can point to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1097.353], "stop_times": [1100.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.353}, "reply_to": "19981__0_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_133", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--General language that he's on a community level.\nGeneral language that this case fits within Meachum v. Fano, which deals with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1100.105, 1101.857], "stop_times": [1101.857, 1106.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.105}, "reply_to": "19981__0_132", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_134", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes, but now, that's drawing a legal conclusion, but I'm curious to know just what's there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1106.119], "stop_times": [1111.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.119}, "reply_to": "19981__0_133", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_135", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--We also have a statute, title 57, section 512, which says that the prison officials may transfer between institutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1111.963], "stop_times": [1121.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.963}, "reply_to": "19981__0_134", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_136", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So the prison officials in effect regarded this as just another form of confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1121.349], "stop_times": [1125.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.349}, "reply_to": "19981__0_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_137", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1125.932], "stop_times": [1126.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.932}, "reply_to": "19981__0_136", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_138", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Except it wasn't in the prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1126.422], "stop_times": [1129.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.422}, "reply_to": "19981__0_137", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_139", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, it... the restrictions that were placed on the inmate were such that it is a type of confinement.\nWith parole, as I was saying earlier, parole is an established part of the penal system.\nThe purpose of it, everyone knew in Morrissey v. Brewer that the purpose of parole was to reintegrate people into society.\nHere, this program is implemented for overcrowding.\nIt was implemented not because it was a integral part of any penalogical system, but implemented for a specific purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1129.163, 1135.628, 1141.521, 1146.865, 1150.668], "stop_times": [1135.628, 1141.521, 1146.865, 1150.668, 1158.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1129.163}, "reply_to": "19981__0_138", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_140", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, what restrictions were placed on him that were different from restrictions placed on parolees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1158.653], "stop_times": [1163.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.653}, "reply_to": "19981__0_139", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_141", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "As I was mentioning earlier, if he escapes, then he's subject to escape charges, criminal charges for escape.\nThat's different than a parolee.\nHe's subject to the disciplinary proceedings of the Department of Corrections... different from a parolee.\nIf he needs medical treatment and wishes to have it paid for, he may... he can go back into an institution and have that medical treatment.\nThat's different from a parolee.\nAlso, earning the credits and getting not only the time that he's out serving his sentence but also additional time for credits.\nWith parole, in Oklahoma a parolee gets credit for time that he's out on parole credited towards his sentence, his flat time.\nThat, if a parolee's sentence is revoked and he's brought back in, he may or may not get credit for that time that he's been out serving, so if a parolee, say, has a 10-year sentence and after 8 he's out, and he has a 2-year suspended sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1163.177, 1170.57, 1171.932, 1176.264, 1184.92, 1186.842, 1195.168, 1202.451], "stop_times": [1170.57, 1171.932, 1176.264, 1184.92, 1186.842, 1195.168, 1202.451, 1216.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.177}, "reply_to": "19981__0_140", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_142", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "May I ask a pretty... maybe it's the same question the Chief Justice asked in another way.\nThere are a lot of reasons for it, and a lot of... if he does something wrong, different things can happen to him from the parolee.\nBut supposing he just works and earns his money and pays his rent and does everything else, and reports to whoever it is he has to report to, is... does he, in his normal daily life, if he behaves himself completely, is there any difference in his life and that of a parolee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1216.011, 1219.463, 1224.747], "stop_times": [1219.463, 1224.747, 1237.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.011}, "reply_to": "19981__0_141", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_143", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--If you're talking about day-to-day functions like, you know, visiting with his family and, you know, going on about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1237.914], "stop_times": [1248.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.914}, "reply_to": "19981__0_142", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_144", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And going to work, and going to the movies, or whatever it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1248.172], "stop_times": [1250.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.172}, "reply_to": "19981__0_143", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_145", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Then I can't think of anything specific in a day-to-day--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1250.182], "stop_times": [1253.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1250.182}, "reply_to": "19981__0_144", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_146", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I thought he couldn't leave the State.\nIsn't he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1253.505, 1254.817], "stop_times": [1254.817, 1255.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.505}, "reply_to": "19981__0_145", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_147", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--He... the medical... I wanted to make a point about if he needs medical treatment he has to go back in for it.\nHe can't leave the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1255.187, 1259.759], "stop_times": [1259.759, 1261.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1255.187}, "reply_to": "19981__0_146", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_148", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--What about... what if the parolee... couldn't parolee go back in for medical treatment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1261.331], "stop_times": [1264.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.331}, "reply_to": "19981__0_147", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_149", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Not unless his parole were revoked.\nI mean, the Department--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1264.432, 1266.174], "stop_times": [1266.174, 1266.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1264.432}, "reply_to": "19981__0_148", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_150", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "He could not... oh, not unless his parole is revoked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1266.875], "stop_times": [1268.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.875}, "reply_to": "19981__0_149", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_151", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Yes.\nIf he wants to be willing to have his parole revoked I suppose he could, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1268.134, 1268.485], "stop_times": [1268.485, 1272.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.134}, "reply_to": "19981__0_150", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_152", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Can he leave the State, the parolee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1272.478], "stop_times": [1273.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.478}, "reply_to": "19981__0_151", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_153", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--He cannot leave the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1273.578], "stop_times": [1274.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1273.578}, "reply_to": "19981__0_152", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_154", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So he's better off than the parolee.\nA parolee cannot leave--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1274.269, 1275.871], "stop_times": [1275.871, 1276.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.269}, "reply_to": "19981__0_153", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_155", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "A parolee can leave the State with permission.\nSomeone on the pre-parole program cannot even leave the State with permission.\nThey can only leave the county with permission.\nSo there are several ways--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1276.242, 1278.734, 1282.917, 1285.449], "stop_times": [1278.734, 1282.917, 1285.449, 1287.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.242}, "reply_to": "19981__0_154", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_156", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--But on the medical point you made, I think you're saying that the person on pre-parole is better off than the parolee, right, because he has an option the parolee doesn't have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1287.849], "stop_times": [1295.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.849}, "reply_to": "19981__0_155", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_157", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--There are certain things about the program, if you just look at one isolated portion like that, that make it appear to be better, but overall, when you look at the true nature of the program--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1295.663], "stop_times": [1303.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.663}, "reply_to": "19981__0_156", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_158", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Because he wouldn't... if he could pay for the doctor himself, he could go to his own doctor, just like the parolee could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1303.868], "stop_times": [1307.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.868}, "reply_to": "19981__0_157", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_159", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1307.731], "stop_times": [1308.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.731}, "reply_to": "19981__0_158", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_160", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, of course, in that sense all of the people still in prison are better off than the parolee.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1308.452, 1312.596], "stop_times": [1312.596, 1313.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.452}, "reply_to": "19981__0_159", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_161", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Exactly.\nBetter off than many of us on some occasions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1313.465, 1313.785], "stop_times": [1313.785, 1315.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.465}, "reply_to": "19981__0_160", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_162", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, he is confined to the county, and the parolee is confined to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1315.646], "stop_times": [1318.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.646}, "reply_to": "19981__0_161", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_163", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "A parolee is technically released from his sentence of imprisonment.\nHis sentence is suspended while he's on parole, and a person on the pre-parole program is continuing to serve his sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1318.918, 1324.274], "stop_times": [1324.274, 1330.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.918}, "reply_to": "19981__0_162", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_164", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.\nYou want to answer my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1330.457, 1330.797], "stop_times": [1330.797, 1331.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.457}, "reply_to": "19981__0_163", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_165", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1331.939], "stop_times": [1332.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.939}, "reply_to": "19981__0_164", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_166", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The parolee is confined to the State, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1332.64], "stop_times": [1336.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1332.64}, "reply_to": "19981__0_165", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_167", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I don't know that he's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1336.259], "stop_times": [1338.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.259}, "reply_to": "19981__0_166", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_168", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Unless he gets permission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1338.632], "stop_times": [1339.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.632}, "reply_to": "19981__0_167", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_169", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--that he's... oh, physically confined to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1339.372], "stop_times": [1341.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.372}, "reply_to": "19981__0_168", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_170", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1341.775], "stop_times": [1342.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.775}, "reply_to": "19981__0_169", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_171", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1342.474], "stop_times": [1343.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.474}, "reply_to": "19981__0_170", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_172", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1343.886], "stop_times": [1344.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.886}, "reply_to": "19981__0_171", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_173", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes, he is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1344.196], "stop_times": [1345.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1344.196}, "reply_to": "19981__0_172", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_174", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And the pre-parolee is confined to the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1345.137], "stop_times": [1348.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.137}, "reply_to": "19981__0_173", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_175", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1348.497], "stop_times": [1349.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.497}, "reply_to": "19981__0_174", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_176", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That's a pretty big difference, I suppose.\nHow many people in your estimation... no, how long in your estimation do people spend on pre-parole release?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1349.989, 1351.47], "stop_times": [1351.47, 1360.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.989}, "reply_to": "19981__0_175", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_177", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, because of the nature of the program, I'd say about a year generally, if they continue on the program, because pre-parole is considered a year earlier than parole is considered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1360.747], "stop_times": [1372.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.747}, "reply_to": "19981__0_176", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_178", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Are there people who were released for a year before their consideration of parole, and then parole was denied, who have remained out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1372.735], "stop_times": [1382.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.735}, "reply_to": "19981__0_177", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__0_179", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "There may be people like that now.\nThere were no people at the time Mr. Harper was brought back in, but now there may be such people, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1382.571, 1384.982], "stop_times": [1384.982, 1389.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.571}, "reply_to": "19981__0_178", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_180", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And how many people would you say approximately are on this program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1389.905], "stop_times": [1392.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.905}, "reply_to": "19981__0_179", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__0_181", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "About... at this time I would say about 1,200 or so are probably on the program.\nAgain, there's nothing specific in the record dealing with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1392.887, 1398.601], "stop_times": [1398.601, 1401.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1392.887}, "reply_to": "19981__0_180", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_182", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Does the parole board consider different factors in determining whether a particular prisoner should get pre-parole, such as whether he will be a threat if put on pre-parole to society, and his chances of meeting the requirements and so forth?\nDo they consider that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1401.553, 1420.265], "stop_times": [1420.265, 1421.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.553}, "reply_to": "19981__0_181", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_183", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Again, I hate to keep saying this, but there's nothing in our statute which sets forth what considerations the parole board should make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1421.637], "stop_times": [1428.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1421.637}, "reply_to": "19981__0_182", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_184", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Is there anything in the statute about what they consider for parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1428.2], "stop_times": [1431.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.2}, "reply_to": "19981__0_183", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_185", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Certain people are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1431.733], "stop_times": [1432.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.733}, "reply_to": "19981__0_184", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_186", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Anything in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1432.614], "stop_times": [1435.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.614}, "reply_to": "19981__0_185", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_187", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Not specifically, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1435.205], "stop_times": [1436.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1435.205}, "reply_to": "19981__0_186", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_188", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And do we have any reason to know whether they consider the same or different factors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1436.817], "stop_times": [1442.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.817}, "reply_to": "19981__0_187", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_189", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I think one reason that we would know that is that with pre-parole we look at the purpose of the program, which is to alleviate overcrowding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1442.849], "stop_times": [1451.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.849}, "reply_to": "19981__0_188", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_190", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So even if it's a triple ax murderer, you'd automatically give them pre-parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1451.405], "stop_times": [1455.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.405}, "reply_to": "19981__0_189", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_191", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Not automatically, but they may be given pre-parole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1455.899], "stop_times": [1459.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.899}, "reply_to": "19981__0_190", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_192", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "They wouldn't consider, you think, whether they're going to be a threat on release?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1459.17], "stop_times": [1464.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.17}, "reply_to": "19981__0_191", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__0_193", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--They certainly may consider that, and... but I... but they are not required to consider that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1464.063], "stop_times": [1469.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.063}, "reply_to": "19981__0_192", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_194", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "May I ask another question along Justice O'Connor's line?\nSupposing the prison is extremely crowded.\nIs it permissible for the parole board to take that fact into consideration in deciding whether to grant someone parole that might not... could be right on the margin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1469.666, 1472.158, 1474.231], "stop_times": [1472.158, 1474.231, 1483.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.666}, "reply_to": "19981__0_193", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_195", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It might be permissible, but there are no specific guidelines for when--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1483.956], "stop_times": [1487.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1483.956}, "reply_to": "19981__0_194", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_196", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So overcrowding could play a role in either decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1487.759], "stop_times": [1491.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1487.759}, "reply_to": "19981__0_195", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_197", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--It possibly could, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1491.423], "stop_times": [1493.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.423}, "reply_to": "19981__0_196", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_198", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1493.015], "stop_times": [1493.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.015}, "reply_to": "19981__0_197", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_199", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--with this program--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1493.246], "stop_times": [1494.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.246}, "reply_to": "19981__0_198", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_200", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It specifically is a response to overcrowding.\nI understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1494.367, 1496.318], "stop_times": [1496.318, 1496.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.367}, "reply_to": "19981__0_199", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_201", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--it was the focus of the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1496.538], "stop_times": [1497.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1496.538}, "reply_to": "19981__0_200", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_202", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1497.587], "stop_times": [1497.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.587}, "reply_to": "19981__0_201", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__0_203", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And in doing that, they might have to consider who best to let out.\nIf they know they're going to let out a certain number of people, then they might let out the people who are less of a danger to society, but that doesn't mean that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1497.887, 1500.49], "stop_times": [1500.49, 1508.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1497.887}, "reply_to": "19981__0_202", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_204", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "If everybody else is a quadruple ax muroerer, they would presumably let out the triple ax murderer, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1508.075], "stop_times": [1512.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.075}, "reply_to": "19981__0_203", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__0_205", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1512.847], "stop_times": [1513.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.847}, "reply_to": "19981__0_204", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_206", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But would they do the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1513.598], "stop_times": [1515.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.598}, "reply_to": "19981__0_205", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__0_207", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Or the double murderer such as Mr. Harper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1515.108], "stop_times": [1516.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.108}, "reply_to": "19981__0_206", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_208", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--But would they do the same thing in bringing people back?\nThat is, suppose they now get some extra cells free, do they now bring people back because they say, we don't need all these people out there any more.\nWe have some extra cells, and there are a few people who have done worse things than others, and we're going to bring them back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1516.56, 1518.44, 1526.658], "stop_times": [1518.44, 1526.658, 1531.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.56}, "reply_to": "19981__0_207", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__0_209", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I'm not aware of any situations where they've done that, because to this point we've never had any extra cells, but I think pursuant to our program we could, if the Department of Corrections chose to do that.\nWhen it got to the point to where the prison was no longer crowded, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1531.991, 1542.848], "stop_times": [1542.848, 1545.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1531.991}, "reply_to": "19981__0_208", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_210", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But I thought that under the program currently someone is kept in the program even if they're denied parole until there's a 90-day period when they decide what will be done with the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1545.429], "stop_times": [1558.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.429}, "reply_to": "19981__0_209", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_211", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--They may be left out for 90 days and then still a determination is made whether to bring them back or not, but they're still not entitled to a hearing at that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1558.377], "stop_times": [1564.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.377}, "reply_to": "19981__0_210", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_212", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "In terms of what is told to a person who is entering such a program, we've already established that we don't know what options there were, but he was also asked, Harper was asked to sign another thing, and this is on page 9 of the joint appendix.\nHe signed saying, I understand that waiving parole, waiving parole while on pre-parole status will result in reclassification to a higher security status.\nWhat does that mean, waiving parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1564.572, 1579.332, 1591.839], "stop_times": [1579.332, 1591.839, 1593.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.572}, "reply_to": "19981__0_211", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_213", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Refusing to be considered, or deciding not to be considered for parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1593.761], "stop_times": [1597.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.761}, "reply_to": "19981__0_212", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_214", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "He would... why a... would someone decide that they don't want to be considered for parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1597.253], "stop_times": [1604.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.253}, "reply_to": "19981__0_213", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_215", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It gets back to the point that Justice Stevens was making earlier, that there are some situations where pre-parole is more advantageous, and because a defendant is earning credits while he's out on pre-parole, in addition to flat time served, he may get out earlier on pre-parole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1604.727], "stop_times": [1619.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1604.727}, "reply_to": "19981__0_214", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_216", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But this says that if he does that... if he waives parole, this says, while he's on pre-parole status, back he goes.\nIt will result in reclassification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1619.318, 1626.243], "stop_times": [1626.243, 1628.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.318}, "reply_to": "19981__0_215", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_217", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--That's to prevent the situation, as an inmate, trying to manipulate the system that way, staying out on pre-parole rather than being placed on parole, where society would have their interests filled by having him in a program where he's being rehabilitated into society.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1628.194], "stop_times": [1642.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1628.194}, "reply_to": "19981__0_216", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_218", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So this is telling him, you must be considered for parole when your time comes up, otherwise you go right back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1642.582], "stop_times": [1651.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.582}, "reply_to": "19981__0_217", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__0_219", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Exactly.\nOne point I want to make, too, is that the inmate's understanding of what he will and won't get from the program is not the critical factor here.\nThis Court discussed that in Sandin.\nThis Court discussed it in Connecticut v. Dumschat.\nThe Court also discussed that in Jago, JAGO, v. Van Kirrin.\nIn Jago, they had told an inmate that he would get out on parole, and then later the Department of Corrections determined that no, they wouldn't let him out, and the Court said that even though there was a mutually explicit understanding that he would get out, that that did not give him a liberty interest in the program.\nThe same thing with the Connecticut v. Dumschat case.\nAlso, as my time runs down I want to make the point that the purpose of this program is a prison administrative program.\nIt's to deal with problems that are inherent in the prison, and this Court was very specific in Sandin that Federal courts should stay out of the day-to-day management of prisons.\nWe need to be able to have as much opportunity as we can with this programs in order to experiment and try different things.\nYou know, we used to... we brought people back in automatically if parole was denied.\nNow we leave them out 90 days, or maybe even a longer period of time.\nThat is a function of the program, and the prison administrators are the proper ones to make that determination on what do we need to do with these type of programs.\nI'd like to reserve my remaining time... which I don't have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1651.037, 1652.129, 1660.675, 1662.645, 1666.528, 1671.583, 1686.691, 1689.423, 1697.149, 1706.994, 1713.479, 1717.081, 1720.384, 1727.649], "stop_times": [1652.129, 1660.675, 1662.645, 1666.528, 1671.583, 1686.691, 1689.423, 1697.149, 1706.994, 1713.479, 1717.081, 1720.384, 1727.649, 1730.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1651.037}, "reply_to": "19981__0_218", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_220", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Which you don't have.\n[Laughter]\nThank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1730.609, 1731.4, 1731.901], "stop_times": [1731.4, 1731.901, 1732.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.609}, "reply_to": "19981__0_219", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__0_221", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1732.202], "stop_times": [1732.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1732.202}, "reply_to": "19981__0_220", "speaker": "sandra_d_howard"}
{"id": "19981__0_222", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Ms. Howard.\nMs. Winter, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1732.562, 1733.571], "stop_times": [1733.571, 1735.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.562}, "reply_to": "19981__0_221", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_000", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn Morrissey v. Brewer the Court examined the nature of a parolee's interest in his continued liberty.\nThe Court defined parole as follows: the essence of parole is release from prison before completion of sentence on condition that the prisoner abide by certain rules during the balance of the sentence.\nThe Court decided that even though the parolee's liberty is only partial and conditional, nevertheless it includes many of the core values of unconditional liberty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1735.334, 1741.178, 1748.241, 1763.391], "stop_times": [1741.178, 1748.241, 1763.391, 1774.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1735.334}, "reply_to": "19981__0_222", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_001", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Do you think the Morrissey opinion was entitled... was intended to apply to every single program that a State might set up under the name of parole, no matter what the conditions of it were?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1774.78], "stop_times": [1785.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.78}, "reply_to": "19981__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_002", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1785.867], "stop_times": [1786.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.867}, "reply_to": "19981__1_001", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_003", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Then you really have to examine the Oklahoma program, don't you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1786.637], "stop_times": [1792.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.637}, "reply_to": "19981__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_004", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1792.653], "stop_times": [1792.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1792.653}, "reply_to": "19981__1_003", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_005", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--to see what would be Morrissey's impact on it in terms of a duty process hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1792.82], "stop_times": [1798.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.82}, "reply_to": "19981__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_006", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes, I agree, and what we are really saying is, is that in the State of Oklahoma they have created two programs, two parole programs, both of which fall well within the parameters discussed in Morrissey.\nOne of these programs they all parole, and the newer program they call the pre-parole conditional supervision program.\nThe eligibility requirements are identical for the two programs, with the exception that a prisoner can qualify a little bit earlier for pre-parole than for parole, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1798.276, 1813.844, 1821.0], "stop_times": [1813.844, 1821.0, 1832.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.276}, "reply_to": "19981__1_005", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_007", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Do you agree with counsel for the State that pre-parole can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all... that pre-parole can be revoked, that the respondent can be told to report to Correction for any reason or no reason at all?\nDo you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1832.668, 1848.927], "stop_times": [1848.927, 1850.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.668}, "reply_to": "19981__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__1_008", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--No.\nI'm not sure I'm understanding the question.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1850.479, 1851.2, 1853.721], "stop_times": [1851.2, 1853.721, 1854.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.479}, "reply_to": "19981__1_007", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_009", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I tried to find out from opposing counsel, the counsel for the State of Oklahoma, the grounds upon which pre-parole could be revoked, and I thought the answer was any reason at all.\nYou can flip a coin.\nThe corrections board can say, I'm bored.\nWe're not going to... we'll just revoke all these people.\nWe don't want to read all these papers.\nDo you agree that that is the proper description of the duties of the corrections board under this program, that they can revoke for no reason at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1854.011, 1867.94, 1868.971, 1871.984, 1873.794, 1875.166], "stop_times": [1867.94, 1868.971, 1871.984, 1873.794, 1875.166, 1885.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.011}, "reply_to": "19981__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__1_010", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--That statute doesn't say.\nThat's the way the State is interpreting it, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1885.592, 1891.155], "stop_times": [1891.155, 1893.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.592}, "reply_to": "19981__1_009", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_011", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Do you agree with that interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1893.956], "stop_times": [1895.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.956}, "reply_to": "19981__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__1_012", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I don't know exactly what Your Honor is asking.\nIt seems to me that under the regulations they say that they are making a decision.\nIf they're making a decision, that has certain due process implications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1895.338, 1901.242, 1908.116], "stop_times": [1901.242, 1908.116, 1912.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.338}, "reply_to": "19981__1_011", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_013", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well... well, apart from due process, under State law, are there any principles that guide the Board of Corrections in determining to revoke pre-parole status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1912.309], "stop_times": [1925.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.309}, "reply_to": "19981__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__1_014", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "In... this case was heard in State court.\nThere was never any... that issue never came up, because this is a very new claim of the State, that they can revoke for any reason or no reason in State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1925.787, 1930.932], "stop_times": [1930.932, 1940.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.787}, "reply_to": "19981__1_013", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_015", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, would you agree... would you agree that the Board of Corrections can give no reason at all, say, well, we're... I'm bored today.\nI don't want to read these papers.\nI'm just going to revoke all the parole.\nI'm not going to go through this paperwork.\nCould he do that, the corrections officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1940.897, 1946.741, 1947.653, 1948.884, 1950.214], "stop_times": [1946.741, 1947.653, 1948.884, 1950.214, 1952.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.897}, "reply_to": "19981__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__1_016", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Well, we're here to see that he can't do that.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1952.344, 1954.886], "stop_times": [1954.886, 1955.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.344}, "reply_to": "19981__1_015", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_017", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I'm talking about under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1955.237], "stop_times": [1958.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.237}, "reply_to": "19981__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__1_018", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--There is... the statute doesn't speak to this.\nThe regulations don't say, it can be revoked for any reason or no reason.\nThe regulations... the only existing regulations that have ever been promulgated in the State, either by the Department of Corrections or by the Pardon and Parole Board, would suggest the opposite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1958.088, 1961.002, 1964.653], "stop_times": [1961.002, 1964.653, 1975.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.088}, "reply_to": "19981__1_017", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_019", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I think they would suggest the opposite, and I think the form that is set forth at pages 4, 5, and 6 of the joint appendix indicates that he has a certain expectation... that's the word the form used... that he is expected to be in compliance with all of these rules, which would indicate to me that under the State's procedure, discretion has certain boundaries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [1975.729], "stop_times": [2000.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.729}, "reply_to": "19981__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__1_020", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Under the form that Mr. Harper signed, the time... the form that was used at the time he was let out, the last thing he's expected to sign off on after having been given all the rules and procedures is a statement, I understand that my being released into the community is dependent upon my compliance with all of these expectations, and so it seems to me clear that at the time that he was released, at least the Department of Corrections and the parole board understood that they couldn't do it for any reason or no reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2000.005], "stop_times": [2036.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.005}, "reply_to": "19981__1_019", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_021", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Oh, I... it doesn't mean that.\nIt just means if you don't live up to the expectations you will be pulled back.\nIt doesn't mean you can't be for other reasons, necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2036.781, 2037.53, 2041.663], "stop_times": [2037.53, 2041.663, 2045.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.781}, "reply_to": "19981__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__1_022", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, you see--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2045.566], "stop_times": [2046.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2045.566}, "reply_to": "19981__1_021", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_023", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But you're sort of compelled to argue, aren't you... don't you really have to answer yes to the question Justice Kennedy was asking?\nIf... if this could be revoked for any reason whatever, what good would a hearing be?\nI mean, you usually don't have a... you usually have a hearing to find out whether a particular legal requirement was complied with or not.\nIf there's no legal requirement, what possible good is the hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2046.508, 2053.181, 2058.793, 2067.021], "stop_times": [2053.181, 2058.793, 2067.021, 2071.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.508}, "reply_to": "19981__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__1_024", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--It seems to me that what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2071.743], "stop_times": [2074.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.743}, "reply_to": "19981__1_023", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_025", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I mean, your client comes in and says, you know, you pulled me back, and... yes, we did.\nWhy?\nHe says, oh, because we felt like it.\nA hearing would be utterly useless, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2074.235, 2077.527, 2078.288, 2079.377], "stop_times": [2077.527, 2078.288, 2079.377, 2082.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.235}, "reply_to": "19981__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__1_026", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--It certainly would be useless.\nThere would be no point at all if they could bring them back, if under the Constitution they could bring them back for any reason or no reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2082.59, 2084.83], "stop_times": [2084.83, 2091.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2082.59}, "reply_to": "19981__1_025", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_027", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "All right, so why on that very point... I... there's a State court finding here that the reason that your client was removed from the program was because he was not granted parole by the Governor of Oklahoma, and they found that, I guess, in Judge Lumpkin's opinion, dispositive of the issue is the fact he was not granted parole by the Governor of Oklahoma, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2091.735], "stop_times": [2117.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.735}, "reply_to": "19981__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_028", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2117.873], "stop_times": [2118.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.873}, "reply_to": "19981__1_027", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_029", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That's what it says.\nI'm reading it on page 40a of the record.\nIt says, dispositive... maybe it's a different case or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2118.925, 2119.726, 2121.276], "stop_times": [2119.726, 2121.276, 2124.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.925}, "reply_to": "19981__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_030", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2124.808], "stop_times": [2125.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.808}, "reply_to": "19981__1_029", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_031", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "40a of your... of their petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2125.8], "stop_times": [2127.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.8}, "reply_to": "19981__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_032", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--The Court may be looking at the district, the U.S. district court opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2127.581], "stop_times": [2130.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.581}, "reply_to": "19981__1_031", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_033", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I'm looking at page 40a of the appendix, where it says, Gary Lumpkin, the presiding... maybe it's a different case, or--\n--The white brief?\nYes, the white brief.\nMaybe... is this the district court?\nWell, my question is this.\nI read that, and I thought that the reason they... we have a finding here, what I thought was... it says Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, order denying application for writ of habeas corpus.\nIt's in the petition for certiorari, and what it says when I read it... maybe I'm asking this because you can clarify it for me... is it says, dispositive of the issue in petitioner's case is the fact he was not granted parole by the Governor of Oklahoma.\nIt is for this, not a disciplinary reason, that he was removed from the program.\nSo I thought everybody agrees to that, that... that's... am I right?\nIs that right, or am I mixing it up, or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2130.863, 2136.666, 2138.339, 2139.497, 2141.869, 2144.462, 2156.16, 2171.669, 2179.145, 2184.237], "stop_times": [2136.666, 2138.339, 2139.497, 2141.869, 2144.462, 2156.16, 2171.669, 2179.145, 2184.237, 2186.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.863}, "reply_to": "19981__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_034", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I... looking at everything that the court of appeals says, they say that we believe that the procedure, that is, the procedure that says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2186.868], "stop_times": [2199.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.868}, "reply_to": "19981__1_033", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_035", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I'm not asking about procedure.\nThis is... are you talking... when you say court of appeals, are you talking about the Tenth Circuit or the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2199.808, 2201.408], "stop_times": [2201.408, 2206.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.808}, "reply_to": "19981__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_036", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--No, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2206.672], "stop_times": [2207.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.672}, "reply_to": "19981__1_035", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_037", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Court of Criminal Appeals that Justice Breyer is talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2207.052], "stop_times": [2208.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.052}, "reply_to": "19981__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_038", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Court of Criminal Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2208.534], "stop_times": [2209.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.534}, "reply_to": "19981__1_037", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_039", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.\nI'm saying... what I'm trying to find out is... is, isn't it... what seems to be true is that he's saying, this judge, that the reason that your client was removed from the program was because he was not granted parole by the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2209.155, 2209.714], "stop_times": [2209.714, 2223.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.155}, "reply_to": "19981__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_040", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes, but it seems to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2223.603], "stop_times": [2227.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.603}, "reply_to": "19981__1_039", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_041", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "All right.\nNow... all right.\nIf that's so, I don't think your client disputes that he was not granted parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2227.016, 2227.324, 2227.895], "stop_times": [2227.324, 2227.895, 2233.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.016}, "reply_to": "19981__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_042", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2233.458], "stop_times": [2236.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2233.458}, "reply_to": "19981__1_041", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_043", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Am I right about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2236.102], "stop_times": [2236.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.102}, "reply_to": "19981__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_044", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2236.341], "stop_times": [2236.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.341}, "reply_to": "19981__1_043", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_045", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "All right.\nSo what is... the basic rule, I thought, of the due process law, it's so basic that nobody ever says it, that you don't have to have a hearing under the Constitution or any other rule if there's nothing to have a hearing about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2236.801, 2237.222], "stop_times": [2237.222, 2247.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.801}, "reply_to": "19981__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_046", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2247.459], "stop_times": [2248.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.459}, "reply_to": "19981__1_045", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_047", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--and if, in fact, he was removed because he wasn't given parole, and if that isn't in dispute, what would there possibly be in this case to have a hearing about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2248.109], "stop_times": [2259.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2248.109}, "reply_to": "19981__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_048", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I don't think that that is what the Court of Criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2259.468], "stop_times": [2262.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.468}, "reply_to": "19981__1_047", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_049", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I know it isn't what they said.\nAll I want to know is, is if the underlying facts are correct, that it is that he was removed, that there was a finding in this court, a State court, that the reason his PP, whatever it is, was revoked is because he wasn't given a parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2262.897, 2264.44], "stop_times": [2264.44, 2280.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.897}, "reply_to": "19981__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_050", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2280.359], "stop_times": [2280.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.359}, "reply_to": "19981__1_049", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_051", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2280.81], "stop_times": [2281.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.81}, "reply_to": "19981__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_052", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2281.3], "stop_times": [2281.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2281.3}, "reply_to": "19981__1_051", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_053", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "All right.\nIf that's correct, and he doesn't dispute that, then what is there to have a hearing about, and if there is nothing to have a hearing about, where in the Constitution does it require a court or an agency or anyone to have a hearing when there is nothing to have a hearing about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2281.621, 2282.032], "stop_times": [2282.032, 2297.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.621}, "reply_to": "19981__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_054", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "There's a... the purpose of having a hearing here is exactly the same as it is in Morrissey.\nThat is, here, the triggering event for a hearing, they say now, can be the Governor refuses to grant parole.\nThat becomes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2297.652, 2303.406, 2310.729], "stop_times": [2303.406, 2310.729, 2311.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2297.652}, "reply_to": "19981__1_053", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_055", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, it's not just they say, it's the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma that says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2311.801], "stop_times": [2314.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.801}, "reply_to": "19981__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_056", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--That's fine.\nWe won't quarrel with that.\nWhen the Governor denies parole under this framework, that becomes a triggering event for a hearing, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2314.893, 2316.143, 2317.715], "stop_times": [2316.143, 2317.715, 2324.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.893}, "reply_to": "19981__1_055", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_057", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, but you say it becomes a triggering event.\nThat suggests that there are other issues to be inquired into.\nBut what if the rule in Oklahoma is simply, when the Governor denies parole, you're recalled, period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2324.53, 2327.142, 2330.462], "stop_times": [2327.142, 2330.462, 2336.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.53}, "reply_to": "19981__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_058", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--That would be a different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2336.717], "stop_times": [2338.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.717}, "reply_to": "19981__1_057", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_059", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, how... but there isn't any intimation in the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals that more factors somehow are involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2338.379], "stop_times": [2346.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.379}, "reply_to": "19981__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_060", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But I think there is.\nThe Court of Criminal Appeals said, and the Attorney General relies on it, they said that what this framework provides is that he may be brought back in, which means that a determination is being made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2346.653, 2348.424], "stop_times": [2348.424, 2361.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.653}, "reply_to": "19981__1_059", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_061", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Nobody says that parole revocation is a necess... there might be other reasons why you might revoke a person's pre-parole.\nWhat I take it is the case here is that this would be a sufficient reason under Oklahoma law.\nYou have a judge of Oklahoma suggesting in the paragraph that it is a sufficient reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2361.703, 2370.67, 2379.616], "stop_times": [2370.67, 2379.616, 2384.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.703}, "reply_to": "19981__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_062", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2384.368], "stop_times": [2384.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.368}, "reply_to": "19981__1_061", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_063", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--under Oklahoma law.\nIt's not true under Oklahoma law at that time that it was a sufficient reason to revoke his PPCS?\nWhat would we look to as a matter of Oklahoma law to establish that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2384.678, 2385.66, 2392.852], "stop_times": [2385.66, 2392.852, 2396.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.678}, "reply_to": "19981__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_064", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Why don't we assume that it is a sufficient reason, just as a parole violation is a sufficient reason, but the court doesn't stop... the court says you can't stop with a sufficient reason.\nOnce you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2396.406, 2406.824], "stop_times": [2406.824, 2407.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.406}, "reply_to": "19981__1_063", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_065", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, wait a minute.\nWhat if the statute itself expressly said, denial of parole subsequent to having been granted pre-parole status is sufficient, in and of itself, to be grounds for removal from that status?\nSuppose the statute said it just that way.\nWould you be here?\nWould you have a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2407.603, 2408.103, 2425.054, 2427.076, 2428.316], "stop_times": [2408.103, 2425.054, 2427.076, 2428.316, 2429.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.603}, "reply_to": "19981__1_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__1_066", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I think that that would be a different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2429.808], "stop_times": [2432.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2429.808}, "reply_to": "19981__1_065", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_067", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, the suggestion being made to you is it is the same case as when an Oklahoma court says that is what State law is.\nHow do you have a case if you wouldn't have under a statute that said it expressly when you have an Oklahoma court decision that that's the Oklahoma law?\nI think that's the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2432.439, 2440.985, 2450.512], "stop_times": [2440.985, 2450.512, 2453.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.439}, "reply_to": "19981__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__1_068", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Would you mind posing the question to me again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2453.694], "stop_times": [2455.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.694}, "reply_to": "19981__1_067", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_069", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, it's the same... I mean, to add to that is, of course you might be entitled to a hearing if it were in dispute as to whether the Governor had in fact or not revoked the parole, but there is no dispute--\n--But isn't there another factor everybody's overlooking?\nThe Oklahoma procedure spelled out in 41a of the appendix is that 1) the inmate is denied by parole by the Governor, but their cases shall be reviewed by the parole board 90 days from denial to determine whether that statute will be continued, indicating that the denial is not... it may be a sufficient reason, but it's not always a sufficient reason.\nAnd that's true now, but that wasn't true then.\nThat's the new rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2455.575, 2469.983, 2472.216, 2496.551, 2499.072], "stop_times": [2469.983, 2472.216, 2496.551, 2499.072, 2499.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.575}, "reply_to": "19981__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_070", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The assertion that it wasn't true then is nothing but an assertion.\nThere's absolutely nothing in the record, it seems to me... I don't see it in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion or anywhere else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2499.853, 2504.118], "stop_times": [2504.118, 2511.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.853}, "reply_to": "19981__1_069", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_071", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, they document when the new rules came in.\nWell, let's see if we can get agreement on a basic proposition.\nThat is, suppose Oklahoma law was, you're denied parole.\nThe denial of parole by the Governor means you go back, no ifs, ands, or buts, there wouldn't be any due process, right, would there, if that were the situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2511.46, 2513.952, 2521.469, 2526.15], "stop_times": [2513.952, 2521.469, 2526.15, 2537.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.46}, "reply_to": "19981__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_072", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I would agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2537.818], "stop_times": [2538.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2537.818}, "reply_to": "19981__1_071", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_073", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So the question is, is that what we have in this case?\nYou would agree that there's no need for a hearing if it follows like the night the day the Governor denies parole, you're required to go back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2538.549, 2542.292], "stop_times": [2542.292, 2551.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.549}, "reply_to": "19981__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_074", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I do have one caveat.\nIt seems to me that there are circumstances in which you could have a problem, a substantive due process problem, in having automatic revocation for a reason that is utterly irrational when you're talking about a precious--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2551.007, 2552.898], "stop_times": [2552.898, 2565.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2551.007}, "reply_to": "19981__1_073", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_075", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The reason is, the Governor denies parole.\nThe Governor has the discretion to grant or deny parole.\nThe Governor denies parole.\nThe rules are, denial of parole, you go back to prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2565.457, 2568.719, 2571.732, 2573.742], "stop_times": [2568.719, 2571.732, 2573.742, 2577.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.457}, "reply_to": "19981__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_076", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--In a situation like this, where it happens quickly, I think that makes it like a furlough problem and that there's no problem with that.\nThe statue says that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2577.385, 2584.559], "stop_times": [2584.559, 2586.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.385}, "reply_to": "19981__1_075", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_077", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, the question is, is that what this statute says, because a 90-day period didn't come in until later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2586.03], "stop_times": [2594.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.03}, "reply_to": "19981__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_078", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The record has so much evidence, including a dozen statements by the Attorney General in its briefs.\nIt's a very... it's a late argument that the statute means anything other than that it is discretionary.\nThere are literally a dozen times that the Attorney General has said it in its briefs to this Court and the lower court.\nThere are the documents that Mr. Harper himself signed saying that there were options in the event of parole, and saying that his continuing out remained on his compliance with conditions, and finally, the only evidence in the record as to what the statute means, whether or not there's discretion, are regulations... a number of sets of regulations by the Pardon and Parole Board, and a set of regulations by the Department of Corrections which appears in the appendix to their cert petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2594.225, 2602.56, 2610.486, 2616.989], "stop_times": [2602.56, 2610.486, 2616.989, 2646.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2594.225}, "reply_to": "19981__1_077", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_079", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That is an essential part of your case, though.\nYou... in order to get to the due process procedural point you have to establish that there was not an automatic revocation of pre-parole status if parole was denied, that that was not the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2646.739, 2648.792], "stop_times": [2648.792, 2664.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.739}, "reply_to": "19981__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__1_080", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes, that that was not the policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2664.481], "stop_times": [2667.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.481}, "reply_to": "19981__1_079", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_081", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Does the record tell us whether there were... I think your opponent said there were something like 1,200 people in the program, and does the record tell us whether or not when other people had their parole denied they were automatically taken off the program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2667.081], "stop_times": [2678.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.081}, "reply_to": "19981__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__1_082", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No, the record doesn't tell us that.\nAt the time that he was in the prison, when he was let out of the prison the record is completely silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2678.211, 2679.92], "stop_times": [2679.92, 2685.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.211}, "reply_to": "19981__1_081", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_083", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I suppose then the question is, who has the burden of establishing what the rule of law was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2685.674], "stop_times": [2690.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.674}, "reply_to": "19981__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__1_084", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, it seems to me that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2690.279], "stop_times": [2693.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.279}, "reply_to": "19981__1_083", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_085", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Your client was the plaintiff in the Federal court.\nI would think he would have the burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2693.141, 2696.564], "stop_times": [2696.564, 2697.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.141}, "reply_to": "19981__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_086", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Our client was pro se.\nHe asked for an evidentiary hearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2697.672, 2699.834], "stop_times": [2699.834, 2701.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.672}, "reply_to": "19981__1_085", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_087", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, does that change the burden because he was pro se?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2701.597], "stop_times": [2704.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.597}, "reply_to": "19981__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_088", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I think it changes the burden that he asked for an evidentiary hearing in the Court of Criminal Appeals and in the Federal courts.\nThis is an issue that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2704.518, 2711.332], "stop_times": [2711.332, 2712.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2704.518}, "reply_to": "19981__1_087", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_089", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well now, wait a minute.\nWe're kind of sliding around several things here.\nIt's... I take it it's up to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma to decide whether or not someone is pro se would change the burden of proof there.\nAre you saying that as a matter of Federal law, a Federal court must shift the burden of proof because a plaintiff is pro se?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2712.722, 2714.513, 2717.206, 2726.07], "stop_times": [2714.513, 2717.206, 2726.07, 2733.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.722}, "reply_to": "19981__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_090", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I'm not sure that it's... I think that the pro se habeas plaintiff is entitled at some stage to a full and fair hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2733.396], "stop_times": [2742.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2733.396}, "reply_to": "19981__1_089", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_091", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, he's got a right to a full and fair hearing on disputed facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2742.313], "stop_times": [2745.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.313}, "reply_to": "19981__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_092", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "This is a fact that at the time was not disputed.\nIf the State had come in and said to our client, which they did not, the reason we brought you back in is because it's mandatory, everybody is being brought back in, he could have tried to controvert that.\nHe could have answered that.\nInstead, they argued two things that were clearly not true.\nOne, that he was in confinement, and that's what everyone's fire was directed at.\nIs he in confinement?\nIs he in prison?\nAnd two, they made an argument that was so palpably untrue that no one could accept it, namely that he became ineligible.\nThat became a mantra that we sometimes heard, but we know from the statute that he does not become ineligible for pre-parole once parole is denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2745.695, 2749.478, 2760.844, 2762.114, 2766.939, 2770.69, 2771.832, 2772.853, 2783.009], "stop_times": [2749.478, 2760.844, 2762.114, 2766.939, 2770.69, 2771.832, 2772.853, 2783.009, 2794.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.695}, "reply_to": "19981__1_091", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_093", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, isn't that argument the same as the argument that he had to go back?\nOnce parole was denied, he had to go off of pre-parole?\nNow, you say it's so inherently incredible.\nI mean, maybe.\nWhy is it incredible that that would be the policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2794.215, 2798.949, 2803.171, 2806.784, 2808.627], "stop_times": [2798.949, 2803.171, 2806.784, 2808.627, 2811.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.215}, "reply_to": "19981__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__1_094", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No, I don't think it's at all incredible.\nI'm only saying that the Attorney General of Oklahoma has contradicted that position many, many times in its briefs to this Court and to the lower courts, and that it never asserted its automatic--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2811.388, 2813.029], "stop_times": [2813.029, 2829.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.388}, "reply_to": "19981__1_093", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_095", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Indeed, if that were the law, they couldn't have adopted the 90-day procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2829.798], "stop_times": [2833.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.798}, "reply_to": "19981__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__1_096", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--No.\nIt became put in a bind in the court of appeals.\nIn the court of appeals they first asserted a person becomes ineligible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2833.521, 2834.482, 2836.554], "stop_times": [2834.482, 2836.554, 2840.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.521}, "reply_to": "19981__1_095", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_097", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "You're talking about now the Tenth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2840.517], "stop_times": [2841.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.517}, "reply_to": "19981__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_098", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "No, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2841.546], "stop_times": [2842.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.546}, "reply_to": "19981__1_097", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_099", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The Court of Criminal Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2842.267], "stop_times": [2843.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.267}, "reply_to": "19981__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_100", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Criminal Appeals, and the Court of Criminal Appeals said in an interim order, which is in the record, please show me the... I want to see the law.\nWhere are the regulations that say they become ineligible?\nAt which point the Attorney General produced 004-11, which says you get a review in 90 days, making it clear that it wasn't mandatory.\nThat's what the Court of Criminal Appeals, the very issue it was interested in, and that is the document the Attorney General gave it, and I don't think that the Court of Criminal Appeals found either that there was an unvarying practice at the time, because that factual question never, never arose in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2843.228, 2851.163, 2854.386, 2864.614], "stop_times": [2851.163, 2854.386, 2864.614, 2885.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.228}, "reply_to": "19981__1_099", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_101", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "What... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2885.136], "stop_times": [2885.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.136}, "reply_to": "19981__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_102", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It simply didn't arise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2885.817], "stop_times": [2886.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.817}, "reply_to": "19981__1_101", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_103", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I've another question.\nAssuming... for this I'm assuming you're right that really the standard was vague, and there are all kinds of reasons for... any nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory, nonprotected reason they could revoke this.\nAll right, on that theory... on that theory, why is your client entitled to a hearing?\nTo be quite specific, there are lots of things called intermediate punishments involving half-way houses, involving nights and weekends in prison, involving a whole host of experimental things, and what you've heard the State say is, you know, we're not going to experiment if to experiment means that every time we change our mind about any person we have to go through some tremendous procedural process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2886.145, 2887.217, 2899.596, 2904.868], "stop_times": [2887.217, 2899.596, 2904.868, 2927.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.145}, "reply_to": "19981__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_104", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "A half--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2927.432], "stop_times": [2928.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.432}, "reply_to": "19981__1_103", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_105", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "So what is your response?\nWhat is the... which of those half-way intermediate punishments, in your view, trigger the procedural protection, which don't?\nHow do you distinguish the one from the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2928.093, 2928.874, 2937.17], "stop_times": [2928.874, 2937.17, 2938.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2928.093}, "reply_to": "19981__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_106", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I think it's not too... I'm sure there could be grey areas, but at this point I've seen nothing that's a seriously grey area.\nA half-way house, you're still in prison.\nYou're in a State facility.\nYou're not in your own home or in your own bed, and you're constantly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2938.992, 2945.985, 2948.646, 2950.439], "stop_times": [2945.985, 2948.646, 2950.439, 2953.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.992}, "reply_to": "19981__1_105", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_107", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Home under house arrest would be different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2953.39], "stop_times": [2955.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.39}, "reply_to": "19981__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_108", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--That could be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2955.632], "stop_times": [2957.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.632}, "reply_to": "19981__1_107", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_109", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The line they want to draw is a line which says, look to whether authorities have retained virtually total discretion to revoke it.\nUnder those circumstances, the prisoner doesn't have an expectation of remaining free, unlike parole, where you're releasing the prisoner, giving the prisoner an expectation of remaining free but for certain specified circumstances.\nNow, that's their line, and so I'm asking you what's your line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2957.432, 2967.019, 2981.759], "stop_times": [2967.019, 2981.759, 2985.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.432}, "reply_to": "19981__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_110", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That it's not just about expectations, it's being out of prison, and that once you've crossed the threshold of the prison door and you are told get a life, get a job, go to work, pay your bills, have relations with other human beings, have friends and family and come and go and go to the movies and to the grocery store, you know that you're not in prison, and when you know that you're not in prison, something very precious has happened, and it shouldn't be taken away without a hearing.\nThat's what I would say, and I know when I'm in a half-way house that I'm still in prison, and it may be that when I have a... and be electronically surveilled all day, I know I'm not in... I know that I am in prison, because something of the essence of freedom is having a choice to obey the rules or not, instead of because every minute you're being electronically surveilled or surveilled by a guard.\nThis is a man who knew that he wasn't in prison, and that's why he's entitled to a hearing, for that reason and because the State retained the discretion to pick and choose, to send some people back to prison when the Governor denied parole and to let others stay out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [2985.192, 3017.222, 3040.356], "stop_times": [3017.222, 3040.356, 3055.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.192}, "reply_to": "19981__1_109", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_111", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But I thought you said the record simply didn't show on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3055.898], "stop_times": [3058.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.898}, "reply_to": "19981__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_112", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I think that the reason it doesn't show is because it's a newly developed theory of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3058.008], "stop_times": [3064.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3058.008}, "reply_to": "19981__1_111", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_113", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, but then you really don't have the factual basis to say the Governor... that... or the board retained discretion, if the record simply doesn't show what happened to other people whose parole was denied by the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3064.964], "stop_times": [3078.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.964}, "reply_to": "19981__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19981__1_114", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Well, Chief Justice, it seems to me that even if, in 1990, when Ernest Harper was let out of prison, there was an unvarying practice of bringing people back to jail when parole was denied by the Governor, that wouldn't necessarily show that there was a policy.\nThe evidence that their... the evidence that they think that they have discretion to do it is in the later enacted regulations, and it may be that they felt like bringing everybody back in last week and this week they feel like leaving everybody out, but they've already said it's the toss of a coin, and it seems to me that that kind of reasoning shouldn't be determining the very precious right that's at stake here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3078.411, 3094.403], "stop_times": [3094.403, 3116.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.411}, "reply_to": "19981__1_113", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_115", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "They didn't say it is.\nThey said it could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3116.766, 3117.297], "stop_times": [3117.297, 3118.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3116.766}, "reply_to": "19981__1_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_116", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "It could be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3118.568], "stop_times": [3119.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.568}, "reply_to": "19981__1_115", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_117", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--as far as the Constitution is concerned, because there's nothing to which due process right could attach, a due proces procedural right.\nDo we know whether anyone else was exposed to this telephone call, or whatever it was, shall return to the prison within 5 hours?\nWas that... how long did the situation persist before the 90-day procedure came into play?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3119.678, 3128.105, 3137.76], "stop_times": [3128.105, 3137.76, 3147.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.678}, "reply_to": "19981__1_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_118", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That was... that regulation came into being 5 months after he was returned to prison in August, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3147.147], "stop_times": [3155.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3147.147}, "reply_to": "19981__1_117", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_119", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "May I ask if there was a statutory change during that 5-month period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3155.031], "stop_times": [3158.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.031}, "reply_to": "19981__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__1_120", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "There was a statutory change as follows.\nThere is one... And there was... there's been a couple of misstatements of the record that I would like to clear up here, and I'm not sure of the significance of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3158.403, 3162.627], "stop_times": [3162.627, 3171.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3158.403}, "reply_to": "19981__1_119", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_121", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Before you do, will you tell me what the statutory change was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3171.453], "stop_times": [3173.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.453}, "reply_to": "19981__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__1_122", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--It's one that says... there's an identical provision for both parolees and pre-parolees, and I believe they were enacted at the same time, and that provision says, if you don't keep up with the educational and job requirements that we put on you as a condition, you will become ineligible for parole, and that's the only thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3173.735], "stop_times": [3191.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.735}, "reply_to": "19981__1_121", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_123", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And does either the statute before or after that amendment make any reference to the Governor's denial of parole as a reason for terminating pre-parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3191.836], "stop_times": [3200.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.836}, "reply_to": "19981__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19981__1_124", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--No, neither before nor after.\nOne other thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3200.191, 3201.833], "stop_times": [3201.833, 3204.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3200.191}, "reply_to": "19981__1_123", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_125", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But we do have this opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3204.165], "stop_times": [3211.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.165}, "reply_to": "19981__1_124", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__1_126", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3211.338], "stop_times": [3211.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3211.338}, "reply_to": "19981__1_125", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_127", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Which denied the respondent's writ of habeas at the State level saying, dispositive of the issue in petitioner's case is the fact that he was not granted parole by the Governor.\nIt is for this, not a disciplinary reason, he was removed from the pre-parole program.\nSo do we interpret that as meaning that the criminal appeals court thought that not being granted parole was a valid and sufficient reason for revocation of pre-parole status, and that in this very case that was the reason?\nI mean, it seems to me what the Oklahoma court is saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3211.899, 3228.601, 3234.825, 3252.445], "stop_times": [3228.601, 3234.825, 3252.445, 3258.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.899}, "reply_to": "19981__1_126", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__1_128", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "I believe that what they're saying is that it is... they are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3258.02], "stop_times": [3264.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.02}, "reply_to": "19981__1_127", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_129", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "What if we read it that way anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3264.592], "stop_times": [3266.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.592}, "reply_to": "19981__1_128", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__1_130", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--May I... I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the question.\nI do not believe that what they're saying is, you must be brought in, that they did not understand it to mean that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3266.765, 3269.718], "stop_times": [3269.718, 3275.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3266.765}, "reply_to": "19981__1_129", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_131", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "That's not the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3275.451], "stop_times": [3276.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.451}, "reply_to": "19981__1_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19981__1_132", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "They... they understood it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3276.351], "stop_times": [3279.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3276.351}, "reply_to": "19981__1_131", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_133", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "The court understood that dispositive of the habeas petition in this very case is the fact that he was not granted, eventually, parole by the Governor, and it was for that reason that his status was revoked, not for some disciplinary reason or some other reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3279.983], "stop_times": [3303.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3279.983}, "reply_to": "19981__1_132", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__1_134", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--I believe that I misspoke before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3303.218], "stop_times": [3305.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3303.218}, "reply_to": "19981__1_133", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_135", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Now, what if we interpret that... not you.\nWhat if we, this Court thinks that that constitutes a valid explanation of what the State law was at the time of this revocation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3305.659, 3309.583], "stop_times": [3309.583, 3320.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.659}, "reply_to": "19981__1_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19981__1_136", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Then it seems to me that you should find... you should say that the State law denies due process, and that people must have a hearing, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3320.94], "stop_times": [3332.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3320.94}, "reply_to": "19981__1_135", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_137", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "A hearing to do what, because I think as... first, there's no dispute on the fact that it wasn't any disciplinary reason, right?\nYou concede--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3332.668, 3339.132], "stop_times": [3339.132, 3339.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.668}, "reply_to": "19981__1_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_138", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3339.622], "stop_times": [3340.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3339.622}, "reply_to": "19981__1_137", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_139", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--that the only reason given--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3340.163], "stop_times": [3341.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.163}, "reply_to": "19981__1_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_140", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3341.372], "stop_times": [3342.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3341.372}, "reply_to": "19981__1_139", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_141", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--was that the Governor denied parole, so there'd be no hearing to decide what was the reason.\nEverybody agrees that he didn't commit any disciplinary offense.\nHe was a model--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3342.033, 3347.467, 3351.61], "stop_times": [3347.467, 3351.61, 3352.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.033}, "reply_to": "19981__1_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_142", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3352.89], "stop_times": [3353.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3352.89}, "reply_to": "19981__1_141", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_143", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--pre-parolee, and he was called back for one reason only, that parole was denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3353.501], "stop_times": [3357.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.501}, "reply_to": "19981__1_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_144", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "In parole... a person can admit that they have violated a condition of their release and they're still entitled to a hearing because there's a second decision.\nThe parole board is exercising discretion.\nAnd Morrissey says, and Gagnon says, and Black v. Romano... it's dictum, but it goes on at considerable length... says, once you're exercising... that's just the first step, did he violate parole, because if they can say he violated but we'll leave him out, then you want to have a chance to argue that you should be one of those people who--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3357.625, 3368.451, 3370.932], "stop_times": [3368.451, 3370.932, 3390.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3357.625}, "reply_to": "19981__1_143", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_145", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Are you saying that as a result of this pre-release, pre-parole scheme that the discretion the Governor previously had, which I assume was unreviewable, is now in some sense subject to a due process requirement simply because he was on release before the Governor made his discretionary decision?\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3390.677, 3412.89], "stop_times": [3412.89, 3413.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.677}, "reply_to": "19981__1_144", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19981__1_146", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--No, not at all, Justice Souter, because there's a huge difference between parole... refusal to grant someone parole and bringing them back into prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3413.701], "stop_times": [3422.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3413.701}, "reply_to": "19981__1_145", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_147", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "But all the examples--\n--I think the argument you're making is that this excerpt from the Court of Criminal Appeals only establishes that denial of parole is a permissible reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3422.797, 3424.447], "stop_times": [3424.447, 3435.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3422.797}, "reply_to": "19981__1_146", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19981__1_148", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3435.494], "stop_times": [3435.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3435.494}, "reply_to": "19981__1_147", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_149", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "--for revoking pre-parole, not that it is an automatic and mandatory reason.\nThat isn't established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3435.904, 3439.497], "stop_times": [3439.497, 3440.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.904}, "reply_to": "19981__1_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__1_150", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3440.478], "stop_times": [3441.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3440.478}, "reply_to": "19981__1_149", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_151", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "And your point is that if it is only a permissible reason, he should have the opportunity to argue that in this case it shouldn't be permitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3441.249], "stop_times": [3447.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3441.249}, "reply_to": "19981__1_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19981__1_152", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3447.414], "stop_times": [3449.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3447.414}, "reply_to": "19981__1_151", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_153", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Which is the purpose of the 90-day----\n--And in support of that you quote from page 11... 41a of the opinion, the last paragraph, where it says the Governor's... where it says, we believe such a procedure gives an inmate sufficient notice when he is placed on the program that he may be removed from it when the Governor exercises his discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3449.304, 3451.255], "stop_times": [3451.255, 3468.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3449.304}, "reply_to": "19981__1_152", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19981__1_154", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Yes, exactly.\nI believe that the Criminal Court of Appeals understood it to be discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3468.478, 3470.648], "stop_times": [3470.648, 3475.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3468.478}, "reply_to": "19981__1_153", "speaker": "margaret_winter"}
{"id": "19981__1_155", "conversation_id": "19981", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Winter.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1996_95-1598", "start_times": [3475.922, 3477.338], "stop_times": [3477.338, 3478.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3475.922}, "reply_to": "19981__1_154", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
